Et tu, Brute…

21 Responses to “Et tu, Brute…”

1. DAVID PHILLIPS on June 18th, 2009 5:30 am

   BOB – THANKS for being forthright in this forum. Perhaps at a later time, “The G- Man” — Gordon Liddy — could offer “the other side” of those tenuous days, where political discourse masqueraded as mortal combat inside the DC Beltway. NO ONE – but NO ONE(!) – knew the inner workings and deceipts of official Washington any better than The Honorable Richard Milhaus Nixon, who kept his political and professional sensibilities through-out – most precisely because he knew where he stood and for which honorable reasons! And even if John Dean hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to say so – in biblical terms: “… even the rocks would cry out”! TRULY and honestly!

2. The Subtle Knife on June 18th, 2009 5:40 am

   You speak of objectivity, but your prejudices are obvious in your attacks against Dr. Timothy Naftali as well as John Dean.

   Most historians agree that Richard Nixon was setting up John Dean to be the fall guy for Watergate. Even though he couldn’t confirm the existence of RN’s taping system, Dean guessed by RN’s leading questions in the Oval Office before sending him to Camp David, that the report Dean was to bring back was going to be used to exonerate the president and place the blame for Watergate solely on underlings – just as Nixon tried to do. Therefore accusing Dean of using “his position in the Nixon administration to destroy the Nixon administration” is disingenuous in the light of historically accepted truth.

   While there are many fascinating elements of the Nixon presidency, it must be admitted that it is Watergate that is remembered above all others, and therefore it would be remiss of the RN Library to not do the subject justice. So why shouldn’t the Library’s information about Watergate be objective? Why should be a whitewash, just because Nixon was trying to rehabilitate his image? The facts of Watergate are too well known for any spin to survive in the real of academia, and that, after all, is what a presidential library should be, rather than a shrine.

   And while your claim that Dean has “been living off of Watergate for nearly 40 years” is debatable, I have found his writings, particularly his ‘Conservatives without Conscience’ very refreshing in the light of the GOPs downward spiral into facism and irrelevance. Nixon thought Fred Thompson was “Dumb as hell” and he was right, goodness knows what he would make of the current crop of low-altitude-fliers like George W Bush, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin….

   Perhaps you could suggest Dr. Timothy Naftali invite G Gordan Liddy to speak at the Library, perhaps that would address some of the balance you claim is missing from the Library’s handling of Watergate.

3. Just an American citizen on June 18th, 2009 8:34 am

   Mr. Bostock, in hypothesizing about Dr. Naftali’s motives, aren’t you doing what people often wish critics would *not* do to government officials whom they *support*? Name- calling particularly is a vulnerability for Nixon’s advocates. It is the one thing that should be avoided now when discussing the National Archives-administered Library. Some of what Nixon’s advocates said 20 years ago about archivists at the National Archives – such as referring to them as biased or as “junior prosecutors” — turned out to be baseless and undeserved. Unfortunately, your post about Dr. Naftali dredges up that unfortunate and overly adversarial time period, which many of us thought both sides (the foundation and NARA) had started to put behind them.

   Doesn’t Dr. Naftali deserve as fair an assessment from you and others associated with this site as Richard Nixon or George Bush or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton does from historians? Except for what he says on the record, outsiders know nothing about his motivation, do we? I see no difference in a critic yelling “I believe George Bush and Dick Cheney invaded Iraq for reasons related to the gas and oil industry” than you charging that “Tim Naftali is hiding behind the mantle of scholarship and balance to mask what appears to be his true intention: to use the Nixon Library to diminish Richard Nixon and thus raise his own standing in the academic community.” By all means, one can debate the wisdom of the actions of executive branch officials. But ascribing motives to people based on guesses or emotions such as anger or disappointment seems unseemly, although it is something that occurs all too often in the political world. If the readers of this site don’t like it when others do it to Presidents, including Nixon, why would anyone writing here do it to other executive branch officials, such as Dr. Naftali?

   Did Dr. Naftali take the right action in inviting Dean to speak? I believe he did. But given the contentious nature of Watergate, it would have been better to have multiple speakers, not just Dean speaking. And prior consultation with the foundation might have eased tensions. I don’t know how much you know about the often rocky relationship between NARA and the Presidential Library foundations. But if you don’t take the challenges faced by both organizations into account, make an attempt to assess them candidly and try to confront them fully, you can’t begin to judge properly decisions such as that made by Dr. Naftali. Guessing at his motivation and calling him names only dredges up actions many observers had hoped those associated with the Foundation had left behind.

4. Frederick Graboske on June 18th, 2009 11:01 am

   Dr. Naftali, like John Dean and all of us, must live with the consequences of his actions. There is evidence posted on watergate.com indicating that Dean disclaims portions of “Blind Ambition”, ascribing them to inventions by his ghost, Taylor Branch. His editor at Simon & Schuster disputes this claim. So, perhaps his invitation to Dean was a mistake.

   For Dean himself the attendant publicity recalls questions about his own role in Watergate. These questions were raised by Getlin and Colodny in “Silent Coup” and more recently by James Rosen in his under-appreciated biography of John Mitchell. Perhaps Dr. Naftali could invite them to speak.

5. Just an American citizen on June 18th, 2009 11:30 am

   Mr. Graboske,

   James Rosen already has spoken at the Nixon Presidential Library — last summer. Click on James Rosen’s name on the left among contributors. You’ll see the posting from July 3, 2008 which covers his visit. There are extensive comments under that essay in which Mr. Rosen said some nice things about you and your colleagues, by the way.

   I agree that Dr. Naftali is responsible for how he handled this, that ever is the way with executive branch officials. As someone who once was one yourself, you know how that can go. When one signs on to work for the federal government, one assumes responsibility for one’s decisions.

   Unfortunately, Mr. Bostock’s piece plays right into the hands of people outside the National Archives who believe the foundations act as bullies in their relations with the agency. A local newspaper (The OC Register) reported this morning that the foundation did not so much object to Dean’s appearance but to the fact that he was the sole speaker. That sounds more reasonable than what is offered here. The timing for all this is bad, however. A researcher named Anthony Clark who presently is studying presidential libraries recently has slammed the Nixon Foundation for the speakers it has invited to speak at the Library. The foundation must live with its choices, as the Archives must live with its decisions. Perhaps both could have acted somewhat differently.

6. Raymond Schultz on June 18th, 2009 1:14 pm

   The Watergate Era, combined with the end of the Vietnam Era, confused the people of The United States of America more than any dual event in it’s history.

   There should be a sound proof room in the Nixon Library where one can contemplate in silence for eighteen and a half minutes. Talking heads muddle clear reflection of events that changed the interior of our Nation forever….

7. David Emig on June 18th, 2009 2:16 pm

   While reading your article, the first thing that struck me was “wow…that’s harsh!” To make the allegation that Dr. Naftali is “using the Nixon Library to diminish Richard Nixon, and thus raise his own standing in the academic community” is to make assumptions that aren’t in evidence. What would Naftali gain in running down the subject of the library in which he is a steward of? Besides — he would have to go through many serious historians to do it.

   Mr. Bostock, I did appreciate your Watergate exhibit the many times I visited the library. I also sense your frustration that it was eliminated without thought or acknowledgment.

   I’ve never agreed with the National Archives’s desire and action to change the Watergate exhibit. I thought it was important to preserve RNs perspective and viewpoint about Watergate. RNs perspective about his career and the world in the Presidential Forum was also important in seeing RNs career through his eyes. And that is important for any historian or student of Richard Nixon and his times.

   The exhibits of the Nixon Library should tell the story from RNs perspective and viewpoint. After all, the National Archives gives other presidents the opportunity to advocate their position in their presidential library. Does for example, the Reagan Library tell both sides in the Iran-Contra affair, or the Clinton Library tell both sides of his impeachment? They advocate the subject’s position, as is their right. Richard Nixon must be afforded that same right. It is up to the historians and student of the times and man to determine whether the interpretation is right.

   There is plenty of other opportunities in the library to be more historically objective. This is where the appearance of John Dean and other Watergate contemporaries come in. I agree with the library’s decision to have John Dean speak, as well as others like Woodward. A vigorous Q&A session after the speech, no holds barred save for respect would be an effective counterbalance. Demand that the Deans and Woodwards defend their position and career in front of the public forum.

   The contemporaries of Richard Nixon and the times, as well as the historians who interpret those times (like James Rosen and Sir Alistair Horne) are far more valuable to hear from than modern partisans such as Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. Though I wonder what RN would think of the O’Reillys, Hannitys, and Coulters of his party…

   “The challenge to present a controversial, traumatic and important story in a fair and historically accurate way” must have many elements in the Nixon library. Not only the exhibits in the museum, but the Archives (in which all the papers should be opened as soon as possible) and even the bookstore as well (where all books, regardless of bias should be available). Because in closing, that challenge is for all of us.

8. Just a U.S. citizen on June 19th, 2009 3:00 am

   When the Nixon Presidential Library changed over from private to public-sector management in 2007, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an editorial on the changeover. It noted that “Some historians still fear interference from the partisan Nixon Foundation, which will continue to raise money for capital costs.” Most still seem to have that fear, at least residually, although one historian has (gone out on a limb?) written in recent times that scholars’ concers about the foundation seems to be overblown and actually may be unwarranted.

   In this instance, the members of foundation had every right to question the invitation to Dean. From outside, I, too, did a double take, when I read that Dean would be the sole speaker on June 17th. But linking the legitimate and understandable expression of concerns by the foundation to withholding of money seems punitive and heavy handed in terms of the message sent. It only plays into the hands of those out there who are all too eager to depict all the library foundations as partisan, negative forces in the public-partnership with the National Archives. Couldn’t that have been avoided here?

   Dr. Naftali may have viewed the invitation to Dean as a symbolic gesture. The OC Register reported on June 17 that “”We want to show the foundation that we will have freedom of speech,” Naftali said. “We feel this is right.” Within a few days, the National Archives will release segments of Nixon’s tapes for January and February 1973. Still undisclosed, except for Watergate segments opened by the government in 1996, are segments for March-July 1973. This is a key period, a time of great focus on Watergate by Nixon. How can the public have confidence that the National Archives will be able to release historical information down the road, if it was slapped with a symbolic withdrawal of funding simply for inviting a contentious Watergate figure to speak?

   As for the old Watergate exhibit, I suppose I can understand why the creator would feel upset at it being pulled down. And some of the criticism of it seemed unfair. It did not seem to take into account that a private library has every right to depict events through the eyes of a principal player, in ways not appropriate for a public sector library. (That Mr. Bostock worked so closely with the former President is important and significant. Didn’t I read somewhere in 2007 that Dr. Naftali took numerous photos of the old exhibit so the content and method of display would be preserved in documentation?)

   No one likes to feel his work has been denigrated (although other accounts, such as an article by Seymour Hersh in 1992, suggest that Mr. Bostock is not the only person involved with Watergate related archival material to have gone through that.) Is hurling charges at others the best way to handle that? How to react is an individual choice, I suppose. Perhaps it will help put the matter in perspective to consider that outside experts, such as Prof. Benjamin Hufbauer, author of Presidential Temples, have demonstrated that none of the Presidential Library exhibits are static. There is a pattern at the libraries of having fuller coverage of events in the exhibits over time. Some archivists discuss this pattern at the libraries in the comments posted under former Nixon foundation employee Susan Naulty’s commentary on the Dean invitation in the June 15, 2009 edition of the Washington Times. Ms. Naulty is one of the people who joined the conversation.

9. Frederick Graboske on June 19th, 2009 7:08 am

   I admit that I never saw Mr. Bostock’s exhibit, so I will not comment on its intrinsic qualities. But I must ask, how long does any museum exhibit last? Even permanent installations eventually are taken down and re-done. Bob Haldeman once told me that Watergate was only a tiny part of what happened during the Nixon administration. He was correct. Watergate is the most famous–and likely lasting–feature of the administration, there was much more to it. To elucidate the various other aspects (foreign policy, the Philadelphia plan, the “southern strategy”) new exhibits must be planned and installed. This is not “Nixon without Watergate” but simply presenting all aspects of the administration.

   Further thoughts on John Dean: there is an accepted truth about Watergate and the Nixon administration. The news media and academic historians generally accept the Woodward/Bernstein version of events, in which John Dean plays a major role. Dr. Naftali’s invitation to Dean recognizes that role. Bob Woodward and Stanley Kutler also should be invited, as should those who read the evidence differently, such as Jim Hougan and Len Colodny. I spent many hours listening to the Nixon tapes, and I know that President Nixon enjoyed intellectual disputes. Kissinger’s mentor, Fritz Kraemer, had a very different philosophy of foreign policy than the President. Kissinger forwarded many of Kramer’s memos to Nixon and Nixon asked to meet with Kraemer. I have heard Nixon express admiration for people who were strong in their beliefs, even if he disagreed with them. He would enjoy intellectual discussion of his administration’s role in history.

10. Just a U.S. citizen on June 20th, 2009 7:47 am

    Mr. Graboske, I agree that depending on the circumstances, Nixon might express admiration for people who held strong beliefs even if they did not match his. But what you cite refers to private interactions. How often do you see politicians react the same way in public? Very rarely. They aren’t necessarily to blame for that, at least not solely. There’s no one to help them distinguish historical scrutiny from political attack and debate and honest disagreement from unwarranted criticism. I suspect it all tends to merge together for them.

    Instead of working towards eventual acceptance of public scrutiny, many of the forces that surround Presidents and their associates seek to shield them as long as possible from examination and discussion of their actions. That may have long term crippling consequences for them that may explain why the National Archives faces so many challenges in its mission. I’ve seen an archival studies professor argue that no President really accepts the underlying premise of the Presidential Records Act.

    A recent discussion in an archivists’ forum included a link to an article in Friday’s Washington Post about litigation over access to statements made by former Vice President Cheney in the Valerie Plame case. To the amazement of the judge, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice argued along the same lines that the Bush administration had. DOJ argued last week that “if Cheney’s remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern ‘that it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’ or somehow be used as a political weapon.”

    As noted in the archivists’ forum, executive branch officials in cabinet departments and agencies know from the time that they create records that the public can request them under the Freedom of Information Act. The Presidential Records Act kicks the ball down the road, since FOIA does not kick in until five years after a President leaves office. And Nixon was even more protected from working his way through to acceptance of eventual disclosure of his archival records than more recent Presidents. He created his records under the assumption that his records would be transferred to the Archives under a deed of gift with donor restrictions rather than statutory controls. (You know about the Bill of Attainder argument made by his lawyers and rejected by the Supreme Court in 1977 in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services)

    Arguing that a client needs protection from Jon Stewart (!!) does little to prepare political figures for eventual examination of their recorded actions by scholars. Laughable and even unmanning as such an argument may seem to members of the general public who read it, that DOJ offered such an argument should not surprise anyone who has studied access issues.

    The “we’re afraid of Jon Stewart” defense may or may not result in short term gains for the client. (We don’t know how the judge will rule). But it does little to help political figures accept eventual scrutiny by historians of archival records involving them. I don’t know who is willing to step up and fill the role of helping former Presidents and their associates better accept the notion of the public’s eventual right to know. Perhaps it is too challenging a task for anyone to want to attempt.

    Nixon particularly found himself in a difficult situation, because of the circumstances under which he left office and the way he was demonized by some of his opponents. Not only did the government seize his records, but he and his associates litigated with the National Archives and with scholars rather than getting to know and understand the archives and its mission. That went against what had happened with his predecessors, who faced less crippling circumstances and became accustomed to working with archivists. Perhaps we’re seeing the lingering effects of that “everybody’s done us wrong, hunker down and fight” approach in the decision to withhold funding for exhibits at the Presidential library.

11. Tom Borcher on June 21st, 2009 12:24 pm

    Mr. Bostock,
    I must take issue with your perspective of the John Dean visit to the Nixon Library.
    First, I think it is imperative that any facility that holds itself out as a “museum” or place to study the history of a certain period, allow for a vigorous exchange of ideas, questions and critiques. Many may have valid claims to assert against Mr. Dean as to his veracity and/or candidness about his role in President Nixon’s administration, but no one can doubt that he is a “person of interest” from a very historical period in our nation’s history. I cannot think of a better forum for his presentation and for posing questions to him than the Nixon Library.
    You obviously have had significant contacts with the Library even before it opened its doors in 1990. Therefore, I would assume you are well aware that over the many years, it is a very rare event, indeed, for authors or speakers to have a “countebalancing” person on the same program. Although I am sure there were some, I cannot recall, in my six years serving as a docent at the Library, any major conservative, right-wing author or speaker who was presented along side a counterbalancing, left leaning author or speaker on the same program. It is somewhat hypocritical of you to criticize Mr. Naftali for presenting Mr. Dean without a “challenger.”

12. Nixon Library Supporter on June 21st, 2009 1:39 pm

    I’m glad I finally know who created the Watergate Exhibit. Mr. Bostock I declined becoming a Nixon Docent because of it. In good conscience there was NO WAY I could repeat the words we were trained to say that President Nixon didn’t know anything about the break in. Are you kidding? I am THRILLED its down as it was another misrepresentation of the Nixon illegal and disgraceful acts.

13. Jonathan Movroydis on June 21st, 2009 6:45 pm

    Tom:

    What you said was factually untrue.

    MSNBC’ s Chris Mathews and Newsweek’s John Meacham were recent guests of the Foundation. The Foundation also worked closely before the official turnover with Dr. Naftali to host panels with Dr. Joyce Appleby and Dr. Douglas Brinkley, and lectures by former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and NBC historian Michael Beschloss.

    Besides being a disbarred lawyer and a convicted felon, I demonstrated above that Mr. Dean — by his own admission — isn’t reliable for historians. So speaking from experience, I don’t see Mr. Bostock’s article as hypocritical at all.

14. Tom Borcher on June 21st, 2009 8:12 pm

    Mr. Movroydis,
    I trust you will note that I did not say (in my earlier post) that there was never a program with opposite perspectives presented. But I can assure you that the vast majority of speakers over the past six years (since I have been proud to be a docent at the library) have not had — as Mr. Bostock seems to say the Dean program should have had — any opposing views presented at the same time. Go back over the list of authors and presenters in the past six years and see if I am not correct. (Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc.)
    Tom

15. Jonathan Movroydis on June 21st, 2009 8:40 pm

    Tom,

    Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter were guests of the Foundation, so were as I said earlier Chris Matthews, John Meacham and others all of which were treated very well and received some pretty decent crowds. You can do a body count all you want, but that premise is flawed. Ideology is most certainly not a litmus test.

    What I do see in Dean’s appearance at the government run Nixon Library is a matter of intellectual dishonesty. By not offering balance, the library is — in effect — promoting a person and a book widely discredited, and therefore a dishonest version of history.

    –Jonathan

16. MK on June 22nd, 2009 4:25 am

    Newsweek notes that “Naftali said foundation officials have essentially compiled ‘an enemies list,’ noting that they also complained about his decision to invite ex-Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste to speak this summer.” Another article said he described the decision to invite Dean to speak as a symbol of “freedom of speech.” An enemies list – loaded phrase, that. And yet, as current events elsewhere remind us, freedom of speech is something to be cherished. With that in mind, some thoughts.

    Several factors make this more complicated than it might appear to casual observers. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) staffs and runs the archives and museum sides of the federal Presidential Libraries. Nixon’s has been part of the federal system since 2007. Nixon’s presidential records could have remained at NARA, as the 1974 records statute required, and the Nixon library could have remained a private sector institution.

    News reports suggested that it was the foundation that wanted the library to become part of the federal system. It seemingly had more to gain – primarily in the area of funding — than did NARA (my former employer), which had been making archival materials from the Nixon White House available to the public in the Washington area since the late 1980s. A move to a federal library in Yorba Linda had consequences, however. One was that speakers would be appearing on federal rather than private property. As such, they were more likely to become subjects of scrutiny. The other was that NARA and the foundation would be working in a “public-private partnership” which is reflected in (but not limited to) the content of and funding for museum exhibits.

    A researcher looking at Presidential Libraries noted in his blog that “In my opinion, the Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (I) libraries are political in their invitations, and project a particular political point of view. The rest, while certainly promoting the idea that their president was great, do not regularly offer similar political programming. The political libraries rarely offer non-partisan speakers (or even partisan ‘balance’) and the non-political libraries rarely present controversial figures. The reason we’re even hearing about this – the reason anyone is making a fuss – is because it happened at a political library, but the speaker’s politics aren’t quite what the foundation ordered.”

    I happen to believe the issues with Dean being invited are not so much political, but derive from his role in Watergate. That he testified as he did about Watergate naturally makes him controversial in the eyes of Nixon loyalists. But the matter is complicated by the fact that even some scholars fall into camps when it comes to Nixon. Some of this was on display when the New York Times published an article in February about a professor who had submitted an article about Watergate to the American Historical Review. A few scholars who don’t specialize in Nixon reacted with snarky comments about who was well-known among the players and who was not. Dean, too, responded.

    While Dean had every right to respond, unfortunately he used a reductionist approach in his essay at The Daily Beast. He lumped everyone mentioned in the NYT into the overly broad category of Nixon “apologists” and “revisionists.” Had I been Dean, I would have differentiated among the figures (a former archivist – someone with whom I once worked; a Nixon scholar, with whom I also once worked; the author of a controversial book about Watergate; and the professor who had submitted an article to AHR). The former archivist’s quoted comments centered on the question of accuracy in transcripts. That Dean nevertheless labeled the entire group “Nixon apologists” is what gave me pause when I heard he had been invited to speak on June 17. Calling all the players “apologists” seemed, dare I say, overly Nixonian. Had Dean not overreached that way in his piece in the Daily Beast, I might simply have said, “OK, I think I can see why Tim Naftali invited Dean, tough as that might be for the foundation to stomach.”

    As it is, I had a different reaction than I might have before February. In Dr. Naftali’s place, I would have taken the NYT and The Daily Beast articles and other complicating factors into account. (I’m awaiting an email from Dr. Naftali on a research inquiry at the moment. While I don’t know him personally, I’m guessing he won’t mind if I offer alternatives to the path he chose.) I would have tried to put together a panel, one which had Dean on it but also included others. Such as “Bud” Krogh, head of the “Plumbers” unit and author of an interesting book called Integrity. And a couple of authors of books about Nixon (James Rosen would have been one good choice; one of the authors of the more conventional view of Watergate would have been another.)

    The private-public partnership at the libraries isn’t easy and requires thought and careful handling on both sides. Larry Hackman, former director of the Truman Presidential Library, observed in an article in the Public Historian in 2006 that

    “Though relations between the partners are positive and productive in most instances; in some others they are not. For some libraries, the media and the public often perceive that it is the president of the support group, or its executive director, not the library director, who is the key spokesperson on programs and decisions at the library. Some library directors have felt a high level of frustration and resentment where this has been the case. In several instances the professional preferred by the Archivist of the United States for appointment to direct a library has been rejected by a former president or, after he is no longer alive, by the leadership of the nonprofit organization, and someone else has been appointed who is informally approved by representatives of that partner organization. . . .

    The key underlying issue, if these organizations are to be key partners in the future of presidential libraries, especially on their museums and public programs, is what might be done to make these partnerships both highly successful and more transparent — to make certain that they operate effectively in the public’s interest. What should the National Archives and the Office of Presidential Libraries do to influence the evolution of these organizations toward these ends? Over time, almost every presidential library partnership will change considerably — and this can be the case even for those organizations which presently find it difficult to envision a different way of doing business together. It will be in the interest of the National Archives and the individual libraries — and the public — for these partnerships to evolve in certain preferred directions.”

    Well said, and worth considering, in light of what happened last week.

17. MK on June 22nd, 2009 5:15 am

    A couple more observations. Unfortunately, this flap over Dean and Mr. Bostock’s article may make it more difficult for people such as I to discuss relations between NARA and the Presidential foundations because it plays into stereotypes so strongly. I, for one, had hoped some of the stereotypes were receding, as far as the Nixon-NARA relationship was concerned. Over the last year, I had come to be more hopeful that NARA and the Nixon Foundation could work together than I had been initially. I even said so publicly in several forums. Mr. Bostock’s article severely undercuts that, heartfelt and even understandable as his views may be.

    That some people can change is apparent in the article last year about John Taylor, a force behind the creation of this blog and the former executive director of the foundaiton. See
    http://www.alumni.ucsd.edu/magazine/vol5no3/features/anixonman.htm

    I took it as a good sign that the article last year noted of Taylor, “He has considered himself a Nixon man for 27 years, but it has not all been good—for the first half of those Taylor says that he was almost rancorous in support of Nixon’s tarnished presidency. ‘I think what had happened was that I had become personally wrapped up in it and I was perceiving attacks on him as one would attacks on their dad in the school yard.’ He later realized that it wasn’t helping Nixon’s image, changing any minds or healthy for himself.”

    It was a moment of self-reflction that I wish more people could share, regardless of which side they are on. As it is, Mr. Bostock’s implication that Tim Naftali’s career should be short is a set back for outside observers such as I. It echoes something from the other side, curiously. The blogger who is researching Presidential Libraries called two months ago for the removal of a senior NARA official from her post. He believes that she “improperly favors former presidents, their heirs, and the private foundations.”

    I’m more interested in why conditions are what they are and what can be done to improvethem than in calling for anyone to be removed from his or her position. That reflects my reaction to what once happend to the archivists Mr. Graboske once supervised. Some of the charges about them from the Nixon side turned out to be unwarranted.

    I think the Dean flap could have been avoided if both sides would have done some things a little differently. Too late now. The blogger who writes about Presidential Libraries wrote last week of Dean that “He doesn’t fit in to the otherwise strictly-controlled game plan: from the foundation’s point of view, you may only speak at the Nixon Library under two circumstances: you have nothing but great things to say about Nixon or you have nothing but bad things to say about Democrats.” That seems overly broad brush to me, given the fact that Carl Bernstein spoke at the library after NARA took charge of it, but it’s up to the foundation to change that perception, not up to anyone outside it. Unfortuantely, the hill is steeper now than it seemed last year.

18. David Emig on June 22nd, 2009 11:17 am

    MK–
    Thank you for bringing up that article about Father John. His voice has been missed recently.

    Welcome back

19. MK on June 22nd, 2009 5:14 pm

    Didn’t “someone” muse about enemies lists here on this site at the beginning of May? And what might be the possible ramifications, in worst case scenarios, for independent-thinking people who posted here under their full names?

    Soooo, no one has posted here under the name “MK” — whoever MK might be, ahem — before, right? “MK” might or might not post here again. LOL. But thank you, David, very kind of you . . . and, as you know from the past, I do agree with you about John Taylor. Glad you spoke up here. It was interesting to read Jonathan’s comments, as well.

20. Jonathan Movroydis on June 22nd, 2009 5:19 pm

    Thanks MK, I enjoyed reading yours as well.

1. “Perhaps the relationship can improve” | NixoNARA

Got something to say?