Nixon was not a "moderate"...

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not in the context of his time, at least (which, of course, is really the only way the term "moderate" would theoretically make any sense).

Keep in mind, the entire political "spectrum" was different back then (1960s/early 1970s). Different issues, different people, different historical context. There was a huge organized labor movement/presence in the United States, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam and anti-Cold War movements were big too, as was the New Left. The feminist movement (at least, of the time) was still in its early stages, though, and this was even more the case for the gay rights movement, so issues like abortion and gay marriage weren't really on the majority of American's radar screens.

As for Nixon...while he was a big part of the 50s/60s/70s Republican establishment (obviously), he wasn't known for being a "moderate", and certainly not a "liberal." This is the man, let's be clear, that was often compared by actual liberals and leftists (not the same thing, but that's another discussion...) to Joe McCarthy; who brought down Alger Hiss and smeared the reputation of Helen Douglas with Red (or pink, whichever) accusations; who escalated the war in Vietnam even more than Lyndon Johnson and expanded it to Cambodia; who initiated the draconian "War on Drugs" that continues to this day; and was infamous for his taped White House rants that revealed anti-Semitism, anti-intellectualism, and other forms of bigotry. "Moderate" this man certainly was not.

So in conclusion, please stop calling Nixon a "moderate" or "liberal Republican."

Thanks.

[Blue3]

He is compared to today's GOP, which is what people always mean when they call Nixon, Eisenhower, Bush I, and even Bush II and Reagan "moderates."

[All Along The Watchtower]

He is compared to today's GOP, which is what people always mean when they call Nixon, Eisenhower, Bush I, and even Bush II and Reagan "moderates."

I suppose just about anyone looks "moderate" compared to today's GOP.

[RogueBeaver]

Intraparty yes- between the Rockefellers and Goldwaters- but interparty the consensus ruled both parties, especially on economic matters. Not to say there weren`t dissenters but they were flamed or mocked: see JFK's response to Harry Byrd's call for a balanced budget.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?
Where do I begin?

*Johnson started the war in Vietnam, and while he was not as bad as Nixon, he still holds much of the blame. Johnson was a leftwing President on the modern scale of looking at things, and was certainly at least center-left at the time. You cannot deny that.

*Nixon started the war on drugs, which has been continued by every one of the post Nixon Presidents, liberal and conservative. To be fair, we never really had a very liberal President since Nixon. Obama at best is center-left.

*The nation was generally more leftwing at the time than people remember. Civil Rights, and Labor, as you mentioned, were huge. So Nixon is, as you stated, much more rightwing than the average Democrat or liberal Republican of the time. Compared to the generally mainstream Goldwater-Reagan wing, and the even more extreme Schmitz-Ashbrook-John Bircher wing, he was very moderate. Only barely to the right of Rockefeller.

*Nixon was Lee Atwater before Lee Atwater. He was brutal. No denying it. But do you seriously not believe Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedy clan, and other prominent opponents are just as guilty. It's politics. Of course he smeared his rivals. Everyone does. How does smearing your rivals in a election make you less of a liberal/moderate Republican.

*Just because Nixon was a very bigoted person (ever hear the tape of him speaking about All in the Family with Haldeman?) does not make him any more rightwing. Ever hear of Jesse Jackson? Or is he conservative too?

Nixon was, at the time, and certainly by modern standards, a moderate Republican who would be considered “center right” using simplistic, President Forever 2008 standards. Being a moderate Republican does not automatically make you a great person, as made obvious by Nixon, and as many believe today.

[Mechaman]

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?
Where do I begin?

*Johnson started the war in Vietnam, and while he was not as bad as Nixon, he still holds much of the blame. Johnson was a leftwing President on the modern scale of looking at things, and was certainly at least center-left at the time. You cannot deny that.

*Nixon started the war on drugs, which has been continued by every one of the post Nixon Presidents, liberal and conservative. To be fair, we never really had a very liberal President since Nixon. Obama at best is center-left.

*The nation was generally more leftwing at the time than people remember. Civil Rights, and Labor, as you mentioned, were huge. So Nixon is, as you stated, much more rightwing than the average Democrat or liberal Republican of the time. Compared to the generally mainstream Goldwater-Reagan wing, and the even more extreme Schmitz-Ashbrook-John Bircher wing, he was very moderate. Only barely to the right of Rockefeller.

*Nixon was Lee Atwater before Lee Atwater. He was brutal. No denying it. But do you seriously not believe Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedy clan, and other prominent opponents are just as guilty. It's politics. Of course he smeared his rivals. Everyone does. How does smearing your rivals in a election make you less of a liberal/moderate Republican.

*Just because Nixon was a very bigoted person (ever hear the tape of him speaking about All in the Family with Haldeman?) does not make him any more rightwing. Ever hear of Jesse Jackson? Or is he conservative too?

Nixon was, at the time, and certainly by modern standards, a moderate Republican who would be considered “center right” using simplistic, President Forever 2008 standards. Being a moderate Republican does not automatically make you a great person, as made obvious by Nixon, and as many believe today.

Well, while I do think the original post was great in showing how much of a true demon of a human being Richard Milhous Nixon really was, I must also say that this quote is pure win.  Nothing is really more annoying on here than the automatic assumption that all "moderate" and "liberal" Republicans are autoFFs.  Actually, and this is pretty shocking to me given the presumption of the word, I tend to find so-called "moderates" to be amongst the worst human beings to enter the realm of US politics, if not human history.

So yes, this is also very good and I nominate it to the Good Post Gallery on pure substance and logic alone.

[Lief 🗽]

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?

Yes.

[© tweed]

Hedges says something like 'Nixon was the last liberal president because he was the last president to be scared of (domestic) popular movements'.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?

Yes.

Ever hear of a guy named Pol Pot? He was a leftist who killed Cambodians. Obama is center-left, and has continued the war on drugs. Mao was anti-intellectual. And the Soviet Union persecuted Jews as well, though not nearly as bad as the Fascists did.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In the 50s Nixon was considered on the conservative side of the party. By 1968, he was considered someone who could unite the party across it's ideological divisions.

but does Rockefeller's hawkishness on both foreign policy and drugs mean he is not a liberal or moderate Republican either?

[Peter the Lefty]

He was middle of the road within the GOP.

[DC Al Fine]

So, killing Cambodians, being anti Semitic, anti-drug, and anti-intellectual is a solely rightwing thing?

Yes.

Ever hear of a guy named Pol Pot? He was a leftist who killed Cambodians. Obama is center-left, and has continued the war on drugs. Mao was anti-intellectual. And the Soviet Union persecuted Jews as well, though not nearly as bad as the Fascists did.

Don't ruin their illusions.

[DemPGH]

The OP is true on a basic level, and it's important to include LBJ as well. First, as prelude, we had Korea, and we should have learned from that, but then we took over Vietnam when the French had enough (like we took over Afghanistan once the Soviets had had enough - stupid). Troop presence in Vietnam surged from a few thousand in 1963 to half a million by the time LBJ was done wrecking both the country and the situation, and then Nixon expanded it all outward, jumpstarting the monster that has become the "military budget," our military presence around the world, and our interventionist stance, along with the many, many enemies we have created. The fact that rudimentary notions of domestic civil rights were supported by Nixon and LBJ do not offset this madness.

But I suspect the OP as well as Sanchez's post are going to shatter at least some of the myths that people here subscribe to.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Troop presence in Vietnam surged from a few thousand in 1963 to half a million by the time LBJ was done wrecking both the country and the situation, and then Nixon expanded it all outward, jumpstarting the monster that has become the "military budget," our military presence around the world, and our interventionist stance, along with the many, many enemies we have created.

Much of that dates back to WW2 and its immediate aftermath, actually. In terms of all the over seas bases and stuff as part of the long-term Cold War military aparatus. Interventionism became firmly established in World War II and we were meddling in foreign countries, trying to leverage favorable gov't structures, as far back as Iran and Morocco in the early 1950's.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Troop presence in Vietnam surged from a few thousand in 1963 to half a million by the time LBJ was done wrecking both the country and the situation, and then Nixon expanded it all outward, jumpstarting the monster that has become the "military budget," our military presence around the world, and our interventionist stance, along with the many, many enemies we have created.

Much of that dates back to WW2 and its immediate aftermath, actually. In terms of all the over seas bases and stuff as part of the long-term Cold War military aparatus. Interventionism became firmly established in World War II and we were meddling in foreign countries, trying to leverage favorable gov't structures, as far back as Iran and Morocco in the early 1950's.

The Italian general election of 1948 was before the 1950s, I think.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nixon's entire economic policy was made to woo Democrats, specifically union members in Eastern and Rust Belt states over to the Republicans. He consistently ignored the advice of economic conservatives when it came to things such as the money supply, which he made loose for the specific reason that it would provide a temporary Keynesian boost to the economy. After the hardhat riots in 1970, the Nixon administration began specifically pushing to never interfere with things that would be perceived as harming the worker. As well, while he could have pushed for the dis-mantling of the Great Society like a number of conservatives would have liked, he was advised by fellow "Orthogonian" Daniel Patrick Moynihan that doing so would be a greater danger to the country than the massive bureaucracy Johnson had set up. As well, a number of very public policy moves were meant to spite the liberals in the fact that he could get away with them, ie. China (though of course that is far from the only reason he made the historic visit). Now, in all respects, he is hardly the dream liberal president we would all like. However, you think any average conservative is going to take a look at his policy, foreign and domestic alike, and give it the nod of approval either? I had intended to not dignify this thread with a response, but I decided to join the pile-on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We are two days away from the Nixon centennial, for whatever its worth.

[bedstuy]

Nixon may not have been a moderate in his heart.  But, he was a practical political operator in a center-left country.  Nixon could be persuaded by public opinion and he frequently adopted liberal positions to triangulate and outflank his political opponents.  

Back in those days, the public could pressure the government to do what they wanted it to do.  Politicians actually worried about backlash if they failed to deliver on the public's concerns.  Take the environment as an example.  The Democratic frontrunner for the 72 election was a huge advocate of environmental regulation.  Nixon decided to become a bigger environmental regulation advocate than the Democrats and we ended up with revolutionary legislation on air and water pollution.  I don't know if that changes the ideological label you put on Nixon but it ought to be a positive in his legacy.  

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nixon may not have been a moderate in his heart.  But, he was a practical political operator in a center-left country.  Nixon could be persuaded by public opinion and he frequently adopted liberal positions to triangulate and outflank his political opponents.  

Back in those days, the public could pressure the government to do what they wanted it to do.  Politicians actually worried about backlash if they failed to deliver on the public's concerns.  Take the environment as an example.  The Democratic frontrunner for the 72 election was a huge advocate of environmental regulation.  Nixon decided to become a bigger environmental regulation advocate than the Democrats and we ended up with revolutionary legislation on air and water pollution.  I don't know if that changes the ideological label you put on Nixon but it ought to be a positive in his legacy.  

This is actually probably the best way to sum it up. Nixon, immediately following his signing of some environmental act, muttered to an aide "I expect this fad will soon fade", so based on that idea, this makes sense.