Why does the left claim Richard Nixon?

[DevotedDemocrat]

I've noticed in the last few years a growing easing of the hatred for Nixon, especially on the left. My fellow leftwingers have increasingly claimed Nixon as one of us, and in recent years, as the memory of Watergate fades, he's becoming seen (among my generation--20 somethings) as a 'great' President.

My question is, why does the left claim Richard Nixon nowadays as one of us?

[H. Ross Peron]

I guess the perception is derived from Nixon's willingness to support a form of universal health care along with pursuing Keynesian economic policies and establishing EPA and OSHA (although TNF has pointed that was only due to the Democratic Congress passing it). My personal (probably illogical) fondness for Nixon also derives from him being a "local son".

[badgate]

He may have been partisan for his time, but 20-somethings don't really subscribe to New Deal politics. My theory is that compared to politics as we know it, he doesn't seem partisan. Plus, people do cherry pick certain things he did- China, and creating the EPA -to draw a contrast between the real GOP and what masquerades as Republican today. This serves to perpetuate the "easing of the hatred."


But there are also things coming out of the Nixon tapes to this day, like something offensive he said about gay people, that provide a fuller picture of the man.

[Adam Griffin]

Gross. We do?

The only Nixon banter I've heard from the left as of late is more of a comparison - and perhaps in some cases, a slight - to how centrist and reasonable Obama has been ("Obama's basically Nixon").

[Lief 🗽]

Only dumbs on the left do.

[Eraserhead]

I'm not claiming him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not so much that the left claims him as that they don't reject him as much as they do the Republican presidents who came after him.

[TNF]

Because they're pathetic losers. What better way to sell your ideology than to try to make your opponents look bad by selectively grabbing quotes from past Presidents of the other party who signed (watered-down) progressive legislation (to co-opt those issues for personal gain) to make those current members of the opposition look bad because their ideological ancestors were just *so* reasonable.

Any liberal or left-leaning person who claims Richard Nixon as one of their own needs to be drummed out of the progressive movement in this country. This is a man who built a career on reactionary conservatism (he red-baited his opponents in 1946 and 1950 while climbing the ladder to political power, then used racial code words to win in 1968 and questioned the patriotism of his opponent in 1972), massive corruption (Nixon received kickbacks and bribes as early as the late 1940s going into the 1970s, plus Watergate speaks for itself), and actual war crimes (bombing of Cambodia). Richard Nixon is the worst person to have ever become President of the United States. A left-leaning person 'claiming Nixon' is the equivalent of a left-leaning person claiming Bismarck because he instituted universal health care.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Claiming Nixon good without watergate is like saying Hitler was good without the Holocaust. Liberals don't have their minds straight.

[ag]

I would wonder why anyone would claim Richard Nixon as their own. But that friend of Mao and Brezhnev, weak on defense, strong on price controls, hardly was an archetypal American right-winger, that is for sure.

[Link]

But there are also things coming out of the Nixon tapes to this day, like something offensive he said about gay people, that provide a fuller picture of the man.

The gay rights thing has officially jumped the shark.  I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the 1960s if asked had some unkind things to say about gay people.  That has nothing to do with what political party you were a member of or if you were a bad person.  It's called culture.  It's like people going to Africa and lecturing societies that don't have gay people that they should embrace gayness... while their own society doesn't embrace black people.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that many sub Saharan languages traditionally don't even have a word for homosexual.

Goldwater loved him some gays but do you think he would have been a marked improvement over Nixon?  See my comments about George Bush Sr. attending a gay wedding.  Liking or disliking gays is not the sole measure of a man.  Particularly when you are examining the negative behavior in the 1960s and the positive behavior in 2013.

Plus, people do cherry pick certain things he did- China, and creating the EPA -to draw a contrast between the real GOP and what masquerades as Republican today. This serves to perpetuate the "easing of the hatred."

Why hatred?  Obviously the racial stuff was unforgivable but Reagan was no better.  Détente with China and creating the EPA are huge.  That is hardly "cherrypicking."  Yes he did some absolutely awful stuff in Vietnam.  But given the GW Bush presidency where he started multiple decade+ long wars while simultaneously wreaking the economy and the national balance sheet you really have to take a step back and put things in perspective.

No one is "claiming" Nixon.  So I disagree with the premise of the first post.  But at the same time to simply say "Watergate" and ignore everything else is a bit much.

[memphis]

The gay rights thing has officially jumped the shark.  I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the 1960s if asked had some unkind things to say about gay people.  That has nothing to do with what political party you were a member of or if you were a bad person.  It's called culture.  It's like people going to Africa and lecturing societies that don't have gay people that they should embrace gayness... while their own society doesn't embrace black people.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that many sub Saharan languages traditionally don't even have a word for homosexual.

lolwut? Anyhow, Nixon is obviously far preferable to Reagan and the Bushes. That doesn't make him part of the left. It doesn't even make him a "good" president. Just not absolutely catastrophic. Also, as scandals go, Watergate has nothing on Iran-Contra, which was the only real act of treason by a sitting administration in American History.

[Link]

The gay rights thing has officially jumped the shark.  I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the 1960s if asked had some unkind things to say about gay people.  That has nothing to do with what political party you were a member of or if you were a bad person.  It's called culture.  It's like people going to Africa and lecturing societies that don't have gay people that they should embrace gayness... while their own society doesn't embrace black people.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that many sub Saharan languages traditionally don't even have a word for homosexual.

lolwut?

Have you spent much time in Africa?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I don't want anything to do with that asshole.

[Maxwell]

Because they're pathetic losers. What better way to sell your ideology than to try to make your opponents look bad by selectively grabbing quotes from past Presidents of the other party who signed (watered-down) progressive legislation (to co-opt those issues for personal gain) to make those current members of the opposition look bad because their ideological ancestors were just *so* reasonable.

Any liberal or left-leaning person who claims Richard Nixon as one of their own needs to be drummed out of the progressive movement in this country. This is a man who built a career on reactionary conservatism (he red-baited his opponents in 1946 and 1950 while climbing the ladder to political power, then used racial code words to win in 1968 and questioned the patriotism of his opponent in 1972), massive corruption (Nixon received kickbacks and bribes as early as the late 1940s going into the 1970s, plus Watergate speaks for itself), and actual war crimes (bombing of Cambodia). Richard Nixon is the worst person to have ever become President of the United States. A left-leaning person 'claiming Nixon' is the equivalent of a left-leaning person claiming Bismarck because he instituted universal health care.

This.

[Lief 🗽]

I want to add that crediting Nixon for the EPA is a gross over-simplification and really ignores how progressive policy change actually works. Nixon was not responsible for the EPA; the environmental movement, through organizing and outreach over many years was. Nixon just happened to be the guy in office when they finally won that victory.

Admittedly detente and reaching out to China were both good things, and I think he can be credited for those. But the rest of his administration was horrible, and not anything a left-winger should like.

[anvi]

The "left" doesn't "claim" Nixon.  They only compare him to modern conservatives and say that some of his policy commitments or allowances were more reasonable than theirs are now.

[Link]

The "left" doesn't "claim" Nixon.  They only compare him to modern conservatives and say that some of his policy commitments or allowances were more reasonable than theirs are now.

^This.  A massive strawman was set up in the OP.  I think after decades of people saying "Watergate, Nixon bad" some people are taking a more nuanced look at the man.  That doesn't mean they are "claiming" him.  They are just saying there was a time in this country when a guy who protracted a bloody war for his own political benefit and authorized the burglary of the offices of his political opponents was still sane enough to realize rivers spontaneously catching on fire was in no one's best interest.

[memphis]

The gay rights thing has officially jumped the shark.  I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the 1960s if asked had some unkind things to say about gay people.  That has nothing to do with what political party you were a member of or if you were a bad person.  It's called culture.  It's like people going to Africa and lecturing societies that don't have gay people that they should embrace gayness... while their own society doesn't embrace black people.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that many sub Saharan languages traditionally don't even have a word for homosexual.

lolwut?

Have you spent much time in Africa?

As much as you have most likely. That most African nations have severe laws against homosexuality implies that gays exist. There would be no need otherwise. Why would gay people exist in some nations, but not in others? The suggestion is ludicrous and reminescent of Ahmadinijad.

[Link]

The gay rights thing has officially jumped the shark.  I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the 1960s if asked had some unkind things to say about gay people.  That has nothing to do with what political party you were a member of or if you were a bad person.  It's called culture.  It's like people going to Africa and lecturing societies that don't have gay people that they should embrace gayness... while their own society doesn't embrace black people.  I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that many sub Saharan languages traditionally don't even have a word for homosexual.

lolwut?

Have you spent much time in Africa?

As much as you have most likely.

Really?  How many YEARS?

That most African nations have severe laws against homosexuality implies that gays exist.

Really?  And how many Africans that you have a close relationship with have you discussed this with?

[Blue3]

The "left" doesn't "claim" Nixon.  They only compare him to modern conservatives and say that some of his policy commitments or allowances were more reasonable than theirs are now.

.

[All Along The Watchtower]

lol @ "gays don't exist in Africa."

Anyway, Nixon was obviously a Horrible Person in so many ways, as TNF demonstrated in his post. The historical revisionism of Nixon being "to the left of Clinton and Obama" is pretty disgusting too.

[Link]

lol @ "gays don't exist in Africa."

No one said that.  The word was societies in Africa.  Unless people have done a lot of deep immersions in sub Saharan societies I would suggest they reserve comment.  The dynamic is not the one westerners think.  Every country on every continent I've lived in has surprised me and challenged a lot of my preconceived US citizen views.  And I can say with no reservations the activities of evangelical missionaries and gay rights activists have wreaked all kinds of havoc in places in Africa where none need exist.  Every society should be allowed to evolve or devolve at their own pace... for the most part.  After watching westerners interject their pro/antigay views into various places in Africa things like Iraq and Afghanistan don't surprise me.

[Link]

Hey guys I didn't mean to cause controversy with my remark.  I didn't want to debate the whole nature vs nurture gay thing.  All I was saying is in certain sub Saharan African societies regardless of what the laws were on the books the gay thing was not an issue.  In fact even as a child I saw a map in a Western book showing the countries with antigay laws.  I was actually pretty surprised by one African country that I had lived in being on the map.  I had lived in the US and Africa and even as a child it was obvious to me one of these places was gay crazy (both pro and con) and the other didn't seem to even discuss it.  I brought this up with an African who I was very close to.  They explained that it had to do with child prostitution and European tourists.  It was not about fighting gay marriage and shutting down underground gay bars.  Or the police bursting into consenting adults' bedrooms and hauling them away for having consensual anal sex.

Also you have to realize African countries are often western constructs.  They just sort of took a myriad of different cultures and languages and tossed them together with no regard for what the actual people affected thought or what issues may arise.  So you will often find national laws that really have no relevance to millions of people in the country because their culture and way of doing things doesn't even need that particular regulation.  For example you could ban female circumcision or even male circumcision in a country but that doesn't mean every society in that country is practicing male or female circumcision.

memphis, anyone who as spent as much immersed time in sub Saharan Africa knows this.  That is why I know there is simply no way you have spent as much time there as I have.  Maybe you've been there for a photo safari a couple of times.  You can't learn the culture that way.  Which is why we are doomed to repeat Iraq and Afghanistan.  Maybe not soon... but eventually.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Because they are historically illiterate?