Nixonland, or an Empty Parenthesis?: Author One-on-One: John Dean
I like the sampling of bookshelves this site has collected. For a fleeting moment I thought about taking a picture of my bookshelf (actually three shelves in our den which my wife lets me use for my current reading crop for she too is a voracious reader and she correctly points out that I have more than monopolized the walls of our house and my office). But when I looked at my shelves and spotted several works by authors whose sagacity (nay, sanity) I truly doubt but whose books I read to understand their warped and weird political thinking, I feared the picture might suggest to others to consider these works. So no shelf picture and on with more important business.
The New York Times Book Review published George Will's cover review of Rick Perlstein's Nixonland, which I'll address shortly. But first I am wondering if others spotted the note in the "Up Front" section of the Times review, where "The Editors" discussed their exchange with George Will? It seems they asked him how "Nixon fit into the larger story of modern conservatism?" Will answered: "He doesn't. His tenure was an empty parenthesis."
If Nixon has no part in modern conservatism, why have conservatives embraced so many Nixonian governing techniques? Starting with the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and accelerating their efforts with the Bush II/Cheney administration, conservatives have revived and expanded everything from Nixon's imperial presidency (in the name of national security just like Nixon) to blatant abuses of constitutional limitations--not to mention countless statutes--that make Nixon look now like a piker. Nixon famously believed, of course, that if a president did it, that made it legal. Bush and Cheney, and their conservative cohorts, have proved Nixon's point yet gone way beyond it, for in his darkest moment I do not believe Nixon would ever have tortured enemies.
Actually, when I read Will's review, I understood why he likes to think of Nixon's contribution to conservatism as an empty parenthesis. Nixon has about him a Pandora of evils that I suspect Will (and many conservatives) would rather that astute young historians like Perlstein keep boxed. This may explain why Will thinks that Perlstein has not lived up to his prior work in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. But I must differ with Will. For me, Nixonland is even better. Both Will and I, no doubt, are too close to Nixonland's years--albeit viewing them from very different vantage points--to fully appreciate how the fresh eyes of a young historian might see it. But suffice it to say I found the portrait Perlstein has painted both fascinating and revealing, and to my knowledge very accurate.
I was disappointed in Will's review not because he does not much like what emerged from Perlstein's efforts, rather because he seeks to discredit the author's works by selecting examples of purported errors. For example, Will takes issue with Perlstein quoting a Military Policeman who thought B-52 co-pilots were carrying side arms to deal with a co-pilot "too chicken to follow orders and drop the big one." Will found the language adolescent, and said that "an Air Force historian laughed" at the notion. (In fact the language makes the point, and this historian's laugh is a non-denial denial, not to mention the fact that B-52 pilots were often armed.) Perlstein, however, did not quote the MP for his facts, rather his state of mind.
Will next says Perlstein was wrong to state that "before the Kent State violence, 'citizens were thrilled to see tanks and jeeps rumbling through town'" because there were no tanks. Yet a simple and quick Google search shows no less than four eyewitnesses reported tanks at the scene. Similarly, Will says Perlstein is wrong in writing (and citing) the story that "Hells Angels beat hippies to death with pool cues" at the 1969 Rolling Stones concert at Altamont, California, yet countless stories produced by a Google search corroborate Perlstein. This snarky nit picking goes on until Will reaches his claim that the "cumulative effect of carelessness, solecism and rhetorical fireworks is to make Perlstein seem eager to portray the years and people about whom he is writing as even wilder and nastier than they were." [Emphasis added.]
In fact, Perlstein has not made them wilder or nastier than they were. (Based on his review, I am not sure George Will believes this either.) To the contrary. Perlstein has painted a careful, realistic, and vivid picture of the times and characters.
His assertion that Perlstein's work is "careless" is simply not true, as any careful reader (or inquiring mind) will discover, for there are almost 100 pages of documentation supporting the material in great detail. In fact, when I agreed to do this blog--after earlier reading the book in bound galleys and being impressed by the care and detail (and analysis) in undertaking what had to be a massive research job--I sent word I would like to talk about the author's research techniques in getting his head around, and into, this massive body of information. (A subject I will address with a subsequent blog for I am interested as both an author and reader.)
As for Will's charge of "solecism," I can find none in Perlstein's work although I cannot say the same for George Will's review in making false charges about Perlstein's facts. He should try Google occasionally.
Finally, as for Will's trouble with the "rhetorical fireworks," early in his review he found the work "rollicking," noting that "Perlstein's high-energy--sometimes too energetic--romp of a book also serves, inadvertently, a serious need: it corrects the cultural hypochondria to which many Americans, including Perlstein, are prone"--whatever "cultural hypochondria" involves. And Will closed his review by calling Perlstein's chronicle of the Nixon years "compulsively readable"--and on this I agree. Rick's occasional "rhetorical fireworks" are merely part of the show. --John Dean
CJ on May 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM
In addition to Nixonland, what other books of its kind would you recommend for someone looking to get in-depth analysis of the highest levels of government and those in power to make decisions?
FredTownWard on May 13, 2008 at 04:41 AM
A good way to test the credibility of a Nixon commentator is to make note of the comparisons he draws. Anyone who points to alleged negative similarities in the Reagan, Bush I, and (of course) Bush II administrations but NEVER with the Clinton administration can safely be dismissed as dishonest or delusional...
or both.
Likewise in the current presidential campaign. If someone's answer to the question of who is the most Nixonian presidential candidate is John McCain, he probably gets a lot of other important things completely bass ackwards as well. If he answers Hillary Clinton, give him credit,...
but only partial credit if he didn't figure this out until Hillary started doing unto Democrats what said commentator used to cheer when done unto Republicans.
Greg M. on May 15, 2008 at 01:07 AM
" FredTownWard on May 13, 2008 at 04:41 AM
"A good way to test the credibility of a Nixon commentator is to make note of the comparisons he draws. Anyone who points to alleged negative similarities in the Reagan, Bush I, and (of course) Bush II administrations but NEVER with the Clinton administration can safely be dismissed as dishonest or delusional..."
You're aware, of course, that John Dean isn't just some "Nixon commentator." You do know who he is, right? And that he has a certain, uh, *authority* when it comes to Richard Nixon? Go google him, then get back to us. But anyone who argues that John DEAN should be dismissed when talking about NIXON is, well, beyond delusional.
And come on. Clinton had an imperial Presidency? Clinton's administration members got subpoenaed a lot--they always responded. Unlike Bush's. Clinton didn't spy on Americans, and Clinton's chief of staff didn't expose an undercover CIA agent. Plus there's that whole perpetuating an unpopular war, and the recent military propaganda program exposed by the NYTimes.
Michael Sprague on May 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Mr. Dean,
I find it interesting that you cite Google as a reference for historical "facts" such as the mutlitude of beating deaths at Altamont. I can understand why you might not remember the actual facts of the event; you were busy advising Nixon, iirc. Still, you might want to try to remember this: Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true, OR authoritative.
I was not so busy that I couldn't pay attention. I can assure you that, while the Hell's Angells may have beaten many, many people at the concert they did not beat anyone to death. They beat people during the Stones performance. They beat up people during the lead up acts before the Stones got on stage. They also beat on one, possibly more members of the Jefferson Airplane prior to the Rolling Stones taking the stage, while the band was performing.
There was one death at Altamont. A man pulled a gun, and he was stabbed to death by the Hell's Angels. As they defended it, in the film by the Maysle's brothers "Gimme Shelter" (quoted with somewhat rough accuracy- it's been 30 years :/ ) "when you pull a gun, it's like opening a door. You got to accept what comes through that door."
This death was actually captured on film, and you could add it to your Netflix qeue if you are interested in having a better idea of how wildly out of control the "security guards" were that day. The shorthand is, Quite! but I would hope that a "conservative" would be a bit more so in describing facts that are easily knowable.
Not that I am a fan of Mr. Will, although I admit he rocks that bow tie.
FredTownWard on May 16, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Greg M., you're aware of course that John Dean's, uh, "credibilty" as a "Nixon commentator" or anything else is somewhat in question, right? Go Google him, then get back to us.
And, yes, Clinton certainly had an "imperial presidency" if you are going to define that as one that spied upon Americans. True, the Americans he spied upon: Republicans, former girlfriends, former business partners, former friends, people who merely got in his way, were nobody YOU would ever give a damn about, but since as 9-11 showed us, there WERE some people we'd have been better off if spied upon instead, Clinton's actions/inactions are worthy of criticism.
And I say again someone who can only find fault with Republican abuses of office isn't going to be of any use protecting us from Democrat abuses of office...
especially as long as he dishonestly or delusionally denies their existence.