Skip to main content

Former Nixon aide, now nice and thoughtful guy (yes, true story), John Taylor has a new blog post about Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland (2008).  (H/t Maarja Krusten for the link.)  In his post, Taylor takes issue with Perlstein's portrayal of Nixon.  Taylor writes:

In Nixonland, historian Rick Perlstein argued that Richard Nixon's class resentments inspired him to bait the privileged elites he hated (plus win a whole bunch of elections) using wedge issues such as anti-communism, race, and law and order, igniting the hyper-partisanship that roil our politics today.

That was and remains hard for Nixonites to swallow, since today's mainstream conservatives are far to Nixon's right.

I haven't presented much of Taylor's argument here, because my disagreement isn't with his argument, but with his portrayal of Nixonland.  I think a lot of readers of the book have missed its point, and constructed a strawman Nixonland to agree with or to attack.

I feel bad about picking on Taylor here, since his description of Nixonland is more nuanced than most, and because, as a Nixon guy, he has a valid reason to focus on the book's portrayal of Richard Nixon to the exclusion of everything else (and admittedly, the book's portrayal of Nixon is not flattering).  Here's a far worse example by George Will:

In Perlstein’s mental universe, Nixon is a bit like God — not, Lord knows, because of Nixon’s perfect goodness and infinite mercy, but because Nixon is the explanation for everything. Or at least for the rise of the right and the decline of almost everything else.

And here's another one, by Ross Douthat:

Perlstein sometimes seems to suggest that Nixon was the abyss, and that by choosing him we vanished into it. But this misunderstands contemporary America, and it misunderstands Dick Nixon.

The strawman here is Perlstein's imagined claim that Nixon was responsible for the political polarization of the late 1960s and after, down to our own time.  If this were actually Perlstein's argument, his book would be pure partisan hackery, not to mention boring and unoriginal.  Plenty of people have blamed plenty of things on Nixon; nothing new in that.

Where Perlstein scores, and scores big, is in accepting that many of Nixon's basic assumptions about politics (at least those not rooted in paranoia) were accurate.  There really was a silent majority; there really was a widespread belief among middle-class whites and white ethnics that elite liberalism and civil rights were succeeding on the backs of their own suffering.  This sentiment led to class and racial warfare and left white middle-class Americans ready to drop liberal causes in exchange for security and the maintenance of the status quo.  It also made them racist, in the way that petit-bourgeois people often become racist in times of economic strain: in a desperate desire to maintain their status above the people and races in the class below them.  (See Philip Nord, The Politics of Resentment: Shopkeeper Protest in Nineteenth-Century Paris, as a comparison.)

Certainly Perlstein's Nixon was a canny operator in this world, all the more because his own life experiences led him to feel like an outsider kicked and beaten by upper-class liberals and lower-class minorities alike.  But Nixon is more important as a symbol of this sentiment than as an instigator of it.  Remember that the book is called Nixonland, not Nixon.  As Perlstein acknowledges, the most iconic display of silent-majority sentiment was the 1970 Hard Hat Riot, which had nothing to do with Nixon.  Nixon was Johnny-on-the-spot for this white middle-class resentment, but a judicious reading of Nixonland cannot lead to the conclusion that he was anything more.

Part of what Perlstein is arguing against, and I wish he'd done it even more explicitly than he does, is what I'll call the "Nixon myth": the notion that Nixon is responsible for the entire cultural formation that was, and is, the silent majority.  Nixon's his enthusiastic participation in that cultural formation, plus his Watergate crimes, make him a convenient scapegoat, one that absolves us from everything we Americans did to bring about the dissatisfying world we live in today.  The redlining of neighborhoods to preserve racial segregation, the forcible failure of school busing, the systematic dismantling of the welfare state over the past thirty years -- none of these is our fault, because Nixon lied and obstructed justice.  The Nixon myth allows us to externalize all our own prejudices onto Nixon, while naively imagining that we, unlike Tricky Dick, are pure as the driven snow when it comes to racial and class prejudices.  Ironically, Perlstein's critics misread his book as committing the very fallacy he is criticizing; they have him say that "Nixon is the explanation for everything" rather than that Nixon was merely the reflection of white middle-class America, with a little added paranoia thrown in.  And yes, I can see how that seems to Taylor as if Nixon's class resentments are being blamed for everything liberals don't like about modern America, but that's not Perlstein's fault, because it's not his position.

Perlstein's greatest insight is that in Nixonland, we are all Nixon, and when we condemn him, we condemn ourselves.  The strawman only perpetuates the Nixon myth; as Perlstein recognizes, Nixon didn't create Nixonland; we did.  Similarly, saying that Perlstein's Nixon "is no more than a caricature," as Dominic Sandbrook does, misses the mark.  Of course Perlstein's Nixon is a caricature -- that's the whole point of the book.  Nixon, a complicated man, has been reduced in our collective imagination to the part of our national character he reflected in the 1960s and 1970s; we then try to exorcise our own demons by claiming it was all Nixon's fault, because he broke the law.  Perlstein knows better, and after reading his book, so should we.

(Cross-posted at The Crolian Progressive.)

[Update] Here's John Taylor's response, from the comment thread at The Crolian Progressive:

Thanks for your post and for linking to mine. It’s been a couple of years since I read Nixonland. I read it on Kindle, and I believe the author actually got the news from me that it had been Kindled. I mention this only because all my underlining is somewhere on Amazon’s server and therefore a little too difficult to get at. So my comments are impressionistic rather than specific, and I apologize in advance if I’ve forgotten something from Rick’s massive and entertaining narrative.

All that being said, I readily concede your basic point. I get that it wasn’t a Nixon biography and that Rick was saying that Nixon was superbly prepared by his upbringing and temperament to understand and exploit the fears and resentments of those you refer to as petit-bourgeois people. I’ll even go so far as to say that a better title would’ve been “Americaland,” seeing as — according to your own analysis — Rick was arguing that Nixon was the incarnation of our country at its worst. Making Nixon seem like the target was the smarter move, since otherwise it would’ve been obvious that Rick was actually excoriating the tens of millions of fear-motivated, sometimes racist petit-bourgeois people who voted for him.

Of course one person’s petit-bourgeois is another person’s indispensable GOP primary voter. That being said, As I recall, Rick showed that Nixon was exceedingly careful about what he said about so-called wedge issues during 1966-68. He eschewed the cheerful demagoguery of Gov. Reagan, for instance.

And then there’s the matter of what he did in office. The southern strategy is one thing, but telling George Shultz to get schools in the deep south desegregated is another. The law and order issue is one thing, but setting up methadone clinics in the big cities is another. I don’t recall that Rick seemed very interested in Nixon’s policy agenda. But his breathtaking foreign policy, and what Nixon library director Tim Naftali recently called his progressive domestic initiatives (from the EPA to national health insurance), would seem to have deserved at least equal mention alongside his political tactics.

If Nixon the politician was a reflection of America at its worst, what might we say about Nixon’s substance? Given that the petit-bourgeois masses gave the author of that relatively progressive agenda an historic landslide re-election victory, don’t both Nixon and all those angry, fearful Americans, thanks to his leadership, look like something far greater than the sum of their resentments?

I don’t say this to minimize Watergate. But as I assume Rick would be among the first to concede, Watergate’s biggest winner was the Goldwater-Reagan right. Did Nixon’s failure make RINOs an endangered species? It appears so, and I think that’s a devastating loss. You write that we need drastic action to solve our problems, whereas I, a committed incrementalist, get the willies just typing the words. I’m with Stephen Ambrose: When we lost Nixon, we lost more than we gained.

My principal beef with Rick’s book, having to do with the Ellsberg break-in, is here:

http://episconixonian.blogspot.com/...

Thanks again. I tried to leave this at Daily Kos, but it wouldn’t let me sign up!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  insightful review (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan, tegrat, figbash

    i'm often amazed at how easily distinctions like the one you work so hard to illuminate get glossed over by professional critics who, one hopes, would read better and more carefully than they do.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 02:48:18 PM PDT

  •  Nixon, Shakespearian tragic villain (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan, tegrat, bsmechanic

    Nixon himself is an extremely complex character, partly because he really had superhuman drive and will-to-power, yet he was so human in his insecurities and resentments. I think thats why his portrayals in film and fiction have been somewhat sympathetic, even from raving lefties like Oliver Stone.

    I loved Nixonland and Pearlstein pointed out quite painstakingly that Nixon coopted post-Goldwater sentiments for his own purpose. He certainly didn't create them.

    The cave, the Matrix, America.

    by Grassee on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 02:54:19 PM PDT

  •  It was suggested reading for me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan, Simplify

    by an instructor I had who met the author at a bar.  Another good book on the period:

    From the New Deal to the New Right; Race and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism

    That author was a prof at my school and I got to talk with him about it.  Very good, easy, short read.

    "Intolerance is something which belongs to the religions we have rejected." - J.J. Rousseau -6.38, -4.15

    by James Allen on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 03:03:50 PM PDT

  •  Wild gift horses strain the reins. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan

    "Campaigner"

    I am a lonely visitor.
    I came too late to cause a stir,
    Though I campaigned all my life
    towards that goal.
    I hardly slept the night you wept
    Our secret's safe and still well kept
    Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
    Even Richard Nixon has got
    Soul.

    Traffic cops are all color blind.
    People steal from their own kind.
    Evening comes to early for a stroll.
    Down neon streets the streaker streaks.
    The speaker speaks,
    but the truth still leaks,
    Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
    Even Richard Nixon has got it,
    Soul.

    The podium rocks in the crowded waves.
    The speaker talks of the beautiful saves
    That went down long before
    he played this role
    For the hotel queens and the magazines,
    Test tube genes and slot machines
    Where even Richard Nixon got soul.
    Even Richard Nixon has got it,
    Soul.

    Hospitals have made him cry,
    But there's always a freeway in his eye,
    Though his beach just got
    too crowded for his stroll.
    Roads stretch out like healthy veins,
    And wild gift horses strain the reins,
    Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
    Even Richard Nixon has got
    Soul.

    I am a lonely visitor.
    I came to late to cause a stir,
    Though I campaigned all my life
    towards that goal.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 07:35:47 PM PDT

  •  My take (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan, figbash

    What created the "silent majority" and, later, the "Reagan Democrats" was the sense that the middle-class was being taxed to support social welfare programs that didn't benefit them. If you read the book The Emerging Republican Majority, although it is around 40 years old, author Kevin Phillips crystallized the sentiment of what drove the middle class to the GOP (I am paraphrasing): "While the focus on the New Deal was as taxation of the few (rich) for the benefit of the many (middle class and poor), the Great society shifted to taxing the many (rich and middle class) for the benefit of a few (the poor). He also stated that, while New Deal programs weren't pure giveaways (i.e. the CCC required participants to work), Great Society programs were more of giveaways. .

    •  what created the silent majority (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nonpartisan

      was an endless stream of dishonest propaganda via the mass media that cynically misrepresented the reality of america's socioeconomic circumstances and portrayed as criminals and traitors those who criticized america's domestic injustices and imperialist atrocities.

      and kevin phillips was one of the propagandists. he wasn't explaining the situation, he was creating it.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 08:52:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perlstein's first book (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan

    Before The Storm:  Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus should be on everyone's reading list.  An incredibly good read, as is Nixonland, and a book that answered lots of questions for me.  Mainly, how the hell did the Repukes end up running this guy for President?  The beginnings of our current hell are explained quite well in Before The Storm.

    Also, Rick Perlstein is a fascinating guy.  I worked with him on Tom Geoghegan's campaign to take Rahm's old IL-5 congressional seat.  I was sitting in our scheduled meeting place, a Starbucks (what else?) notarizing petitions and reading Nixonland when Rick and his wife walked in the door.  He saw me with his book and had to call his wife over to prove that someone had actually bought the hardbound book.  We had a great time on that campaign even though the people in the district didn't recognize the excellent candidate Tom was.

    Oh sure. Whenever I face a budget crisis the first thing I do is ask my employer to cut my salary.

    by figbash on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 08:04:32 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the thoughtful review.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonpartisan

    I've been meaning to read the book,  but it's gotta stand in line behind a huge nonfiction backlog !

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site