Featured Articles — November 24, 2009

November 24, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

America’s new crisis of confidence By David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy
Hope is the life’s blood of American politics. This is a country built on the premise of boundless promise. The president certainly understood this when he entitled his autobiography The Audacity of Hope and his handlers understood it as they openly sought to emulate Ronald Reagan, the modern American political figure who understood this truth best.

Yes, she can: Palin has a shot at the presidency By Matthew Dowd, The Washington Post
President Sarah Palin. To many pundits and late-night comedians, this sounds like a punch line, and to many die-hard Democrats it sounds like a reason to leave the country.

The Values Question By David Brooks, The New York Times
It’s easy to get lost in the weeds when talking about health care reform. But, like all great public issues, the health care debate is fundamentally a debate about values. It’s a debate about what kind of country we want America to be.

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Shakedown 1979 By Christopher Badeaux, The New Ledger
With President Obama having concluded his trip through one of the fastest-dying regions of the planet, complete with literal prostrations to a symbolic Emperor and metaphorical prostrations to an Emperor in all but name, this is as good a time as any to ask whether his Administration has developed a coherent foreign policy grand strategy yet. The evidence, to date, suggests that Obama foreign policy is like Obama campaign promises: destined to be realized in some shadowy future likely – but not certain – to come, yet already awarded rich accolades merely for promise.

The Carter Ricochet Effect By Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal
Jimmy Carter’s presidency offers a lesson in how the purest intentions can lead to the most disastrous results.

RN, A Man Before His Time On Healthcare

November 23, 2009 by Alex Tallarida | Filed Under Healthcare, Richard Nixon | 5 Comments 

During his second term, RN made expanding health coverage to all Americans a centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

“If the Government pays all the medical bills, then only the Government has a stake in holding down medical costs. This means that Government officials would have to approve hospital budgets and set fee schedules and take other steps that would eventually lead to the complete Federal domination of American medicine. I think this is the wrong road for America. It is the road that has been taken by so many countries abroad to their regret.” (Richard Nixon Radio Address November 3, 1972)

The Obama administration has taken on the issue of health care reform today in the United States, but this type of reform is not new. Richard Nixon had a significant role in healthcare during his presidency and if unimpeded could have helped prevent the current health care crisis in the United States. Specifically, in 1973, Nixon passed two important pieces of legislation that changed health care in the country. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 required employers with traditional health plans to also provide the option of choosing an HMO for its employees. The act also made it mandatory for employers to contribute as much to the HMO as they did to their regular plans. The Veterans Health Care Expansion Act of 1973 substantially expanded the health benefits available to our nation’s veterans and their families.

These two bills were only a piece of Nixon influence on health care during his presidency. Nixon’s most controversial and far reaching policy proposal was the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. This plan had seven key principles. First, it offered every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits. Second, it would cost no American more than he can afford to pay. Third, it built on the strength and diversity of the existing public and private systems of health care financing and harmonized them into an overall system. Fourth, it used public funds only where needed and required no new federal taxes. Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the federal government. Sixth, it encouraged more effective use of our health care resources. Seventh, it was organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work: consumer, provider, insurer, state governments and the federal government.

The most crucial part of Nixon’s plan was the employer mandate. Under this plan, every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

In a unique moment of bi-partisan cooperation, in early 1974 Nixon’s political opponent in the Senate, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromised deal of the Comprehensive Health Insurance Program and together they prepared to get the health care legislation passed through Congress. Unfortunately, the brewing Watergate scandal which soon took over the headlines, coupled with the subsequent lack of cooperation from Kennedy, prevented the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of labor unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

If this bill were to have passed, would there be a health care crisis today? President Obama is currently facing criticism from some on the right of setting the stage for a socialist dictatorship under the appearance of health care reform. However, President Obama seems to be steering clear of a proposal for a mandate calling for all employers to provide health insurance, as was ventured by Nixon and Kennedy in 1974. Every employer, under Nixon’s plan, would have been required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. The rumor of Obama’s health insurance program is that it is a plan that would be modeled after the Medicare program that Americans are familiar with today. It would be available to those Americans who didn’t have good coverage from their employer. It would also be available to workers who worked in the smallest firms. And it would be made available through some kind of new insurance-purchasing exchange, through which people could get access to both private health insurance plans and this new public plan.

For his part, Nixon emphasized that his Comprehensive Health Insurance would not lead to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington. Nixon wanted to continue to have doctors to work for their patients, not for the federal government. He believed that one of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life. Nixon saw his Comprehensive Health Insurance as an idea whose time had come in America. He saw a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care.

“Let us build upon the strengths of the medical system we have now, not destroy it.” — RN, 1974

Featured Articles — November 23, 2009

November 23, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Major Hasan and Holy War By Ruel Marc Gerecht, The Wall Street Journal
A domestic Islamic threat is real, and the FBI is unprepared to fight it.

Iran’s Green Movement Reaches Out to U.S. By Robin Wright, Time
After more than five months of going it alone, Iran’s opposition Green Movement is reaching out to the United States for help. Via public and private channels, the Obama Administration has received several appeals in recent weeks to take a stronger stand against human-rights abuses in Iran, avoid military action and impose more aggressive and rapid-fire sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards and its vast business interests.

The End of Bolivian Democracy By Mary Anastasia O’Grady, The Wall Street Journal
Elections scheduled for December 6 will mark the official end of the Bolivian democracy.

Thanks for Paying Attention Big Journalism By Andrew Breitbart, Big Government
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review’s accusing me of “blackmailing” the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.

The Pink Lady Revisited

November 22, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, History, U.S. History | 3 Comments 

The Beauty in the Beast: The Daily Beast’s choice of illustrations hints at the hatchet job that follows in the excerpt from Sally Denton’s new book about the 1950 California Senate Race between Richard Nixon and Helen Gahagan Douglas.

The Daily Beast is offering an exclusive excerpt from The Pink Lady: The Many Lives of Helen Gahagan Douglas — a new book by Sally Denton about the 1950 California Senate race.

Richard Nixon —the just-post-Hiss-case young 12th District congressman— ran against Helen Gahagan Douglas — the Broadway-and-movie-star-turned 14th District congresswoman.   The result was a shellacking —59.23% to 40.76%— that has ever since been the source of many misunderstandings —  many of them fueled by still-lingering animosities.

And, at least on the basis of this Beastly excerpt, few of these misunderstandings will be illuminated, much less put to rest, by this new book.

That said, excerpts are purposely chosen to pique interest and create controversy, so I will withhold judgment until I’m able to check out  the book itself.  But, because many readers won’t get beyond the excerpts,  at least a few words may be in order at this early point.

Ms. Denton’s tone is tendentious and perfervid — perhaps reflecting her time as an investigative reporter for Jack Anderson.  She writes that “In a carefully orchestrated whispering campaign of smear, fear, and innuendo that would go down in American history as the dirtiest ever—while also becoming the model for the next half-century and beyond—Nixon exploited America’s xenophobic suspicions and reflexive chauvinism with devastating consequences.”  Douglas, on the other hand, was “the Democratic Party’s bright and shining hope—rich, smart, and charismatic—who, as one of the first women in the U.S. Senate, would be a powerful voice for an enlightened social policy.”

I can’t help thinking that 256 pages of this is going to be very hard going.  It appears to be history of the Brodie-Morris-Perlstein school — over written and under researched.   And, indeed, it turns out that Roger Morris was Ms. Denton’s collaborator on her  earlier history of Las Vegas.

The Beast excerpt condemns the Nixon campaign’s “Pink Sheet” (“implying that she was a communist, ‘hinting darkly at secret ties,’ as one historian put it”) without noting that it had been taken verbatim from an ad run by one of Douglas’ Democratic opponents in the primary campaign.  No doubt the book will deal with this inconvenient truth at some length.

In the mid-1970s, while researching President Nixon’s memoirs, I had the opportunity to interview Paul Ziffren, the legendary Los Angeles lawyer and power broker who had managed the 1950 Douglas campaign.  He told me that, while there had been rough moments, they occurred on both sides. Her dismissal of Nixon as a “pipsqueak,” and her talk about “the backwash of Republican young men in dark shirts” were no less provocative than some flyers printed on pink paper stock — only less credible and, therefore, less effective.   And even Fawn Brodie admitted that Douglas got caught misrepresenting Nixon’s record.

In 1977 Jimmy Roosevelt —FDR’s eldest son, who stood in for Douglas when she decided to stay in Washington rather than face Nixon in the first of their three scheduled public debates— told me that her crushing defeat was the result of her high handed manner and badly run campaign.

7 November 1950: Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas emerges from the voting booth after casting her ballot in the California Senate race.

Ms. Denton charges that during the campaign Nixon called Mrs. Douglas —who was married to movie star Melvyn Douglas, whose given name was Melvyn Hesselberg— “Mrs Hesselberg.”

This ugly charge has become uncritically accepted as part of the ‘50 campaign lore.  But the first time it appeared was forty-two years after the event, in a singly-sourced statement attributed to a Douglas supporter in Greg Mitchell’s 1992 book Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady. On page 139 he wrote:

Occasionally, in public appearances, Nixon himself would “slip” and refer to his opponent as Helen Hesselberg, before correcting himself.

Mr. Mitchell provides four footnotes for page 139 — but none of them pins down this serious new claim.   He revisits the story on page 239 and this time the footnote attributes it to an individual identified in the text as “Douglas backer Jean Sieroty.”

No contemporary press accounts or analyses mention any such a statement(s).  Nor did Mrs. Douglas include it in her discussion of campaign excesses in her memoirs. Neither Professor Brodie nor Mr. Morris, whose books preceded Mr. Mitchell’s, claim that Nixon ever said those words; and Mr. Morris writes at length about some of the ugly ambient anti-semitism that unquestionably surrounded the campaign.  Presumably Mr. Ziffren and Mr. Roosevelt would have remembered any Nixon references to “Mrs. Hesselberg.”   It will be interesting to see Ms. Denton’s sourcing for this story.

I suspect that this “Mrs. Hesselberg” charge is in the same category as the even more widely accepted claim that Nixon said that his opponent was “pink right down to her underwear.”

Although many accounts make it sound as if this was a recurring punchline of Nixon’s campaign rhetoric, there is no record of his ever having made what would have been a highly salacious (and therefore highly notable) remark at that time.  The actual claim was that he had used it at a closed-door meeting with fat cats.  But that was only based on a single second hand report only quoted several years later in an article in The New Republic.  (That was the source Mrs. Douglas cited for the claim in her memoirs.)

The considerably post-facto and uncorroborated second-hand reports of a “Douglas backer” and a New Republic reporter are mighty thin reeds on which to hang such serious charges in any work of history that wants to be taken seriously.

Mrs. Douglas was an attractive candidate but a difficult colleague and a bad campaigner.  To put it mildly, her own party was less than enthusiastically behind her.  The incumbent Democratic Senator (against whom she had run in the primary before his health required him to vacate the seat) made radio ads endorsing Nixon.   Congressman John F. Kennedy famously personally delivered  a $1000 check from his father for the Nixon campaign.  (In her book, Ms. Denton apparently inflates the amount to $150,000 — which is either an example of gross negligence or a really embarrassing typo.)  And President Truman, whose cordial dislike for Douglas was ill-concealed, refused to campaign for her; his lukewarm endorsement, only issued on the eve of the election, was far too little far too late.

Last year —on the occasion of the opening in Los Angeles of a new play called Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Helen Gahagan Douglas— I wrote here at some length about some of these and other Nixon-Douglas disputes.

The 1950 California Senate race needs and deserves a serious, well-researched, and objective study.  Alas, it appears that Ms. Denton’s book isn’t going to change that situation.  In the meantime, anyone who wants to understand what really happened should consult the relevant chapters in Irwin F. Gellman’s rigorously researched and scrupulously reported 1999 book The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946-1952.

7 November 1950: Richard and Pat Nixon are joined by two-year-old daughter Julie at the polling place in Los Angeles.

Featured Articles — November 22, 2009

November 22, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Sweeteners for the South By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post
Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.

The Adventures of Low Impact Man By Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard
One week that will turn you from a conspicuously consumptive carbon monster into a person fully able to lecture the less virtuous about how they’re destroying the planet.

Leveraging the Obama Brand By Matt Bai, New York Times Magazine
The president may not have coattails. But when it comes to persuading Congress, he has something more important.

Understanding China By Martin Jacques, The Daily Beast
The West has gotten it wrong on China for decades — even as it embraces a market economy, it has shunned Western-style freedoms. And its power is only growing.

Partisan divide widens as Obama considers Afghanistan policy By Dan Balz, The Washington Post
As President Obama nears a decision on Afghanistan, he faces a partisan divide in public opinion that is pulling him in opposite directions. His recent statements about the decision suggest that he is trying to accommodate the views with a war strategy that can be successful and contained.

The Prize is India By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek
A relationship Obama should nurture.

Who Was America’s First “Pacific” President?

November 21, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Asia, Barack Obama, China, Presidents, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

George Will’s latest column in Newsweek discusses President Obama’s much-disputed claim, during his just-concluded trip to Asia, that he is America’s “first Pacific President” because he was born in Hawaii and raised there and in Indonesia. Other pundits in recent days have discussed twentieth-century Chief Executives in this regard – Richard Nixon’s status as a California native, William Howard Taft’s years a century ago as governor of the Philippines, Herbert Hoover’s years as a mining engineer in Australia and China. But Will looks into the relationship of nineteenth-century Presidents to Asia.

Now, it is true that, from the very earliest days of the Republic, the nation’s leaders have had Asia in mind, long before any American territory had a Pacific coastline. George Washington was often in communication with businessmen like Robert Morris about trade with China. Thomas Jefferson took the step of acquiring the Louisiana Purchase territory from Napoleon so that the United States could one day develop ports from which ships could cross the Pacific without bothering, in those pre-Panama Canal days, with Cape Horn.

But, as Will indicates, the resident of the White House who really undertook the first sizable effort to establish America as a significant power in the Pacific was Millard Fillmore. The thirteenth President has, of course, long been a figure of fun, perhaps best known to some Americans for lending his name (with the Millard changed to Mallard) to the web-footed right-wing journalist in Bruce Tinsley’s comic strip.

But Fillmore was a man of several considerable achievements. Born, like Lincoln, in a log cabin in upstate New York, he pursued his education in country schools and law offices, and worked his way up the ladder of the legal profession in Buffalo. A few years before being elected Vice-President on the ticket headed by Gen. Zachary Taylor, he founded a college which ultimately became the State University of New York at Buffalo, now the biggest school in the biggest higher-education establishment in the nation.

(It was for this achievement, as well as his deeds as President, that Oxford University wanted to award Fillmore with an honorary doctorate of laws degree when he visited England after leaving office in 1855. But Fillmore declined the honor on the grounds that his achievements and educational attainments did not merit it. He also said that he had never learned Latin and felt that a man should not accept a degree that he could not read himself. As we all know, President Obama was quick to say his achievements to date did not merit a Nobel Peace Prize, but that’s not stopping him from receiving it next month.)

Just after Fillmore took office, California joined the Union, followed soon after by Oregon. With trade to China increasing, Fillmore decided, in 1852, that the time had come for the nation of Japan to emerge from nearly two centuries of isolation in which it had traded only with China and the Netherlands. Therefore, he directed Commodore Matthew Perry to go to that land. Perry led his group of what the Japanese called “black ships” to the city then known as Edo (now Tokyo) and there told the Japanese emperor’s representatives that the United States wished to open relations with the nation, and would not take no for an answer.

Perry then went home, and, the next year (with Franklin Pierce now in the White House), came back to Edo to hear the Japanese government’s response. The emperor agreed to open his nation to the outside world, and thus began the process that ultimately made both nations among the world’s most important commercial powers – and which ultimately led to Hawaii, our current President’s home, becoming part of the United States.

So let’s give old Millard a little credit.

Herbert J. Miller Jr., 1924-2009

November 21, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under In Memoriam, National Archives, Nixon in the News, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Watergate | 3 Comments 

Last Saturday, Herbert J. Miller Jr., known as “Jack” to his friends and colleagues, died at age 85 in Rockville, Maryland. Miller, a native of Minnesota, came to Washington after service in WWII, graduated from George Washington University’s law school in 1949, and went to work at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the city’s best firms. Thus began one of the most varied and impressive legal careers in a city that hardly lacks great lawyers.

In 1961, Miller was persuaded by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to leave private practice and join the Justice Department as head of its criminal division. For the next four years, he was the leading figure in the successful prosecutions of Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa; political fixer Bobby Baker; and many of the biggest names in organized crime. On several occasions his opponent in the courtroom was that legendary advocate, the late Edward Bennett Williams.

In 1965, Miller went into private practice and founded Miller, Cassidy, Larocca & Lewin, which, until its dissolution in 2001, was among the handful of Washington’s most high-powered firms. In his years with the firm, Miller represented organizations as diverse as National Public Radio and NASCAR. He kept in touch with Robert Kennedy and was a pallbearer at the latter’s funeral in 1968; the following year he was retained by Sen. Edward Kennedy for a time after the Chappaquiddick accident. (However, Miller’s own views were those of a liberal Republican; he ran for lieutenant governor of Maryland on the GOP ticket in 1970, his only venture into the political fray, but was defeated.)

But as famed as some of Miller’s clients were, all of them pale in prominence compared to the man whom the attorney represented for nearly two decades: Richard Nixon. Miller was first engaged by the former President just after his resignation in 1974, and from then until RN’s death (and for a number of years afterwards, representing his estate) Miller diligently labored on behalf of his client’s legal interests.

In the first weeks of this work, his task was to deal with Gerald Ford’s White House regarding the pardon which the thirty-eighth President gave his predecessor in September 1974. Then, through the years, Miller carefully worked on the litigation over the ownership and accessibility of the White House tapes, which culminated in the agreement which made them accessible to the public. Among the other Nixon-related cases in which he was involved was the one which led to the 1982 decision by the Supreme Court that the former President could not be sued in civil court for his actions during his time in office – a decision whose ramifications are felt every time a Chief Executive returns to private life.

But to say all this still does not indicate how versatile Miller was. He could argue the profoundest constitutional issues before the Supreme Court and then – as he did once – defend his mother-in-law on a speeding charge in traffic court. His bulldog tenacity in a courtroom was offset by amiability and good humor outside it. Truly, he was an exemplary figure in his profession.

Life At Age 72

November 21, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Cuba, Intelligence, National Security | Leave a Comment 

Some weeks ago I wrote here about W. Kendall Myers, the State Department employee who, for nearly thirty years, spied for Cuban intelligence in this country, all the while appearing to his friends and neighbors (the latter including some retired “spooks”) to be no more than just another amiable, slightly scatterbrained scion of an old Washington family – in his case, the Grosvenors, some of whom played major roles in founding the National Geographical Society.

Yesterday, Myers, the great-grandson of Alexander Graham Bell, appeared in Federal court and pleaded guilty to plotting to commit espionage and to wire fraud. At the same tim his wife Gwendolyn pleaded guilty to plotting to gather and transmit national defense information. Under the agreement reached between her attorneys and the prosecution, she will serve six to seven and a half years in prison.

The couple also agreed to be fully debriefed by investigators about the specifics of their spying, and Myers agreed to forfeit all of the $1.74 million he earned as a State Department employee. In lieu of that sum, the couple agreed to turn over all their financial assets to the government, including the 37-foot yacht, docked in Annapolis, in which they once hoped, one day, to sail off to Havana to spend their sunset years.

But W. Kendall Myers will not be enjoying the blissful sunshine of Cuban beaches, nor the occasional phone call from Fidel Castro (who was so appreciative of the Myers’s work that he cleared a few hours in his schedule to meet them when they made their way to Havana in the 1990s). Instead, for what he did, he will receive the mandatory sentence – life imprisonment. And since he is 72, it really is life – the penalty imposed for betraying the trust of a nation’s secrets.

Welcome To The Club

November 21, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Nixon Library, Pat Nixon, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

Groundbreaking for the George W. Bush Presidential Center —the latest addition to  the National Archives’ system of Presidential Libraries— will begin a year from now.  The designs of architect Robert A. M. Stern were unveiled in Dallas on Wednesday.  Several drawings were released, and the general impression was described in today’s Washington Post by architectural writer and critic Philip Kennicott:

Architect Robert A.M. Stern’s plans for the George W. Bush Presidential Center call for a low-slung building of brick and limestone, following traditional lines and hugging the Texas landscape with a calm reserve. It’s almost as if Bush has chosen to retreat into the patrician reticence of his blue-blooded, Connecticut forebears.

The library, with groundbreaking scheduled for November 2010 and an estimated cost of $250 million, will be built on the campus of Southern Methodist University and will house public exhibition space, a mock-up of the Oval Office, a conference center with 364-seat auditorium, and separate entry and offices for scholars. Visitors will enter through Freedom Hall, emblazoned with an American flag on its ceiling and capped by a square glass box that allows natural light to flow in.

The George W. Bush Presidential Center entrance. WaPo critic Kennicott, combining admiration and snark, writes that “It is all self-consciously attuned to and consonant with the SMU campus, a hyper-dignified collection of buildings with porticos and white columns that look as if they were designed by Thomas Jefferson unconstrained by a budget.”

Freedom Hall: The Bush Presidential Center’s entrance lobby.

Kennicott is harsh on the Clinton Library in Little Rock:

Compare this with the  William J. Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, the shape of which recalls the 42nd president’s tediously repeated “bridge to the 21st century” metaphor. Created by Polshek Partnership, the Clinton library is a flashy, contemporary confection of aluminum and glass, with dramatic cantilevers and a high-tech gloss. Although Polshek’s work in Washington has tended to the empty and meretricious (e.g., the Newseum and desperately flawed plans for a visitor center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial), the library for Clinton achieved the brass ring of all too many architectural endeavors: instant iconic status.

Purely as a consumer in the competitive market of Presidential Libraries, I find that judgment  misleading.  One man’s tired metaphor may provide another man’s moment of quiet inspiration, and the Clinton Library  —strikingly situated on the bridge-crossed Little Rock River, and unconstrained by the style of any surrounding campus — provides the visitor an intriguingly site-specific experience, particularly when approached by foot on President Clinton Avenue.  The interiors and exhibition spaces are open and friendly and sleekly modern.  And walking through the replicas of the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room remind visitors of the tangible reality of the Office and the office.

The William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

I have recently had two occasions to visit and tour the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia — the first time out of curiosity and the second out of interest based on the first.   Wilson was one of RN’s favorite predecessors; he chose portraits of Wilson and Eisenhower for the Cabinet Room.  The Wilson Library complex is bounded on one side by the mansion acquired to house the presidential papers and on the other by The Manse — the house in which Wilson was born in December 1856.  Although he only spent his first year in Staunton, he always considered it as home and chose it as the site for his Library.

The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia.

Each of the twelve —and soon to be thirteen— presidential libraries reflects the character and the times of its namesake.  So comparing them is a business of apples and oranges.  That said, and acknowledging that I’m myopic, I find the Nixon Library —designed by Langdon Wilson— especially architecturally suitable and institutionally successful —as both an accurate rendition of its namesake’s story and as an experience for the average visitor.  Its setting, its design, and its general ambiance convey a real sense of the President and Mrs. Nixon.  The remarkable arc of the Nixon story is all there — from the house where he was born to the simple polished granite headstones of  his and Mrs. Nixon’s  final resting places.  And in the spacious and graciously proportioned building is the history of the deep valleys and high mountains they experienced between.

The original architect’s drawing of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library campus in Yorba Linda.

The Reflecting Pool and Colonnade at the Nixon Library.

Twenty years ago next July: The 38, 40, 37, 41, and their First Ladies at the opening of the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda on 19 July 1990.

“I was born in a house my father built.”  RN’s Birthplace at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda.

RN, BHO, and KSM, continued

November 21, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Election 2008, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

When RN mistakenly declared Charles Manson guilty during his trial, problems ensued.  From a contemporaneous report in Time:

In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon’s remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon’s remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon’s verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial. His efforts were to no avail. Next day Manson himself displayed a copy of the Times to the jury for some ten seconds before a bailiff grabbed the newspaper from his hands. Judge Older called a recess, then questioned the jurors one by one to satisfy himself that their judgment would not be affected. An alternate juror convulsed the courtroom when he announced his disclaimer: “I didn’t vote for Nixon in the first place.”

Featured Articles — November 21, 2009

November 21, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Obama, the Un-decider By Lee Siegel, The New Republic
The president’s approach to the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed New York trial offers something for everyone—and decisions on nothing. Obama may be the anti-Bush, Lee Siegel argues—but he’s failing to govern.

Malign Neglect By Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
Political correctness and institutional stupidity in the case of Nidal Malik Hasan.

Preparation Will Avoid ‘94 Repeat By Chris Van Hollen, National Journal
DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen has made preparations to avoid a repeat of the GOP sweep of ‘94, arguing that political observers who say Dems are in for big losses are premature.

Eric Holder’s Baffling KSM Decision By David Beamer, The Wall Street Journal
The attorney general’s Senate testimony this week did nothing to reassure the families of 9/11’s victims.

A Tough Act To Follow

November 20, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

At Foreign Policy, William Moss argues that RN raised the bar so high in terms of Sino-American relations, that its been a tough act to follow, especially for President Obama:

State visits are all about harnessing symbolism. When Henry Kissinger went to China in 1971 to negotiate for Richard Nixon’s historic visit, the Chinese agreed to time the announcement of the invitation so that the American press could hit their then-weekly news cycle. Nixon’s visit the following year symbolized the end of more than 20 years of antagonism.

All subsequent U.S. presidents visiting China have struggled with Nixon’s legacy. Some things have changed since 1972, not least the antediluvian idea of a weekly news cycle, but presidential visits to China remain more symbolic than substantive. Years of diplomatic spade work drive actual policy changes, leaving government communication offices, pundits, and journalists to construct a narrative from stage-managed vignettes, choreographed meetings, and turgid communiqués, or to pull odds and ends from the margins. Different agendas produce different narratives, and sometimes the real picture emerges from the totality of coverage, like a poster emerging from a mosaic of small photographs.

That was the case with President Barack Obama’s widely heralded visit to China. Expectations were high. China’s significance in global affairs has blossomed in the past decade. A charismatic and more multilaterally inclined U.S. president, a resurgent and confident China, and a host of headline-dominating issues including climate change, trade, and the aftermath of the financial crisis suggested a visit that, while not approaching the magnitude of 1972, could at least be substantive.

A Joke Too Far

November 20, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, Faith, History, Obama family, Politics, Presidents, Religion | 3 Comments 

A tasteless joke – one that saw earlier popularity during the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – has resurfaced across America. It is being told in whispers, emails, and even bumper stickers. During Mr. Clinton’s administration it even found its way into some Sunday church bulletins. And it is really beneath contempt in its lack of respect for the president, the presidency, not to mention the Bible itself.

It goes something like this: “Pray for President Obama. Psalm 109:8.”

At first glance it appears innocuous, even pious. But when time is taken to look up the reference, well, then it’s chortle, chortle time for buffoons:

“Let his days be few, and let another take his office.” – Psalm 109:8 (NKJV)

And the verse following continues the thought:

“Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.” – Psalm 109:9 (NJKV)

Of course, the point of the joke is to show disaffection with President Obama. But the real result is to use scripture in a twisted way and to find somehow funny the idea that our president should, well, come to an ignominious end leaving his family to grieve.

Funny stuff. Real Jackie Gleason belly laugh stuff: Har har hardy har har.

It should be clear to decent, reasonable, reflective, and compassionate people that some things simply aren’t funny. One just has to look back at what happened 46 years ago this weekend to see that. I have no clue if that same joke was around in the days of the Kennedy administration, but I know that the feelings of too-casual contempt it reveals were very much around.

I am a conservative when it comes to politics – a conservative with strong libertarian leanings. I am no fan of much of the political agenda of President Obama and his administration. Sometimes I get annoyed. Occasionally (okay, more than occasionally) I talk back to the T.V. when I hear or see something that, to me, does not pass the test of constitutionality or common sense.

I would probably only vote for Mr. Obama’s reelection if the choice was between him and, say, Harry Reid – or Boss Tweed. I very much believe that the president and his advisors have a socialist bent and that what they are trying to accomplish through Health-Care Reform and Cap-and-Trade machinations amounts to the kind of change Americans really didn’t envision when he was elected last year.

But it needs to be said that a president can be opposed and criticized – even in an animated way – without resorting to the kind of meanness that crosses the line of civility.

I have no problem with partisanship – even a little fiery rhetoric here and there. America is better when our politics are feisty. But, come on – using the Bible to make a joke about the man dying before his term is up?

Seriously?

Think back. Remember John “John-John” Kennedy Jr. saluting his daddy’s casket on that cold November Monday in 1963? Is there anything funny about that? Nope, it was all just very sad. And it bears noting that Mr. Kennedy evoked opinions and opposition from conservative Americans in much the same way Mr. Obama does now.

On the last morning of his life, JFK woke up in the Presidential Suite of the Hotel Texas in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. As he made his way down to the facility’s Crystal Ballroom to speak to a Chamber of Commerce breakfast gathering of about 2,000 people, he encountered a maid by the name of Jan White, who asked him to sign her newspaper. He did – probably the last autograph of his life – writing his name near his picture on the front page of that day’s Dallas Morning News. The headline on November 22, 1963 was: “Storm of Political Controversy Swirls Around Kennedy On Visit.”

The next morning that same paper bore the message: “Kennedy Slain On Dallas Street.”

People mourned. Americans who had not voted for Mr. Kennedy – and never would have – were deeply impacted by the violent tragedy. And, in fact, his days were made few, and another was allowed to take his office. His wife also became a widow and his children were suddenly fatherless.

I’m sorry, but there is nothing funny about that. Nor is there anything funny about using a passage of scripture as a punch line, one that finds sadistic humor in such depraved darkness as to be at all amused at the potential demise of a national leader.

Of course, I recognize that when George W. Bush was in office, the same things were circulated about him by a few on the other side of the political spectrum. But some things are simply not funny. It was wrong when liberals did it – and it is wrong for conservatives to do it.

Shortly before November 22, 1963 – when I was about seven years old – I came home from school one day armed with a joke about President Kennedy. I cannot for the life of me remember the punch line – or the straight line for that matter. But I do remember the moment I decided to let ‘er rip at the dinner table that night. I was sure that I was on safe ground, after all, my parents were Nixon people in 1960 (later Goldwater people in 1964, then back to RN again in ’68) and not big fans of Mr. Kennedy. I know I had heard my dad criticize the president for this or that, though never in a mean way. So I thought he would just love my hilarious joke.

I told it with all the skills of a 2nd grade class clown. Then I waited for the howls of laughter from my parents. And I waited. Then after a moment or two – and I can still see and hear this in my mind – came a powerful rebuke from the head of the table, ending with the unambiguous: “Son, don’t ever talk about the President of the United States like that!”

Tough room.

I learned something about respect that day. It’s something I think about now and again when things heat up politically and I find myself invariably frustrated with politics du jour. And though I sometimes fly admittedly close to the flame of the kind of disrespect that crosses the line between honest disagreement and just plain malice, I am never comfortable with that kind of indignation – righteous or otherwise.

Anger is toxic, often subtly so. Certainly there are times when animosity can give way to constructive change. But while such antipathy can occasionally be the catalyst for ultimate good, it must never be the default fuel. It is ferociously destructive.

By the way, the use of Psalm 109:8 as a joke applied to President Obama is not only a beneath-contempt expression of ugliness, it is also a profoundly ignorant use of the Bible. For when you read further in the good book, all the way through the gospels and into The Acts of the Apostles, you find Simon Peter, the recently redeemed Jesus-denier, quoting that very passage in reference to another Apostle who did something abhorrent – Judas Iscariot.

Peter applied it as an epitaph for Christ’s infamous betrayer, though he must have done so with the humility to think, “there but for the grace of God go I.”

All praying people should fervently pray for President Obama and all those in authority – and not tongue-in-cheek petitions. As yet another Apostle, this one named Paul wrote:

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone, for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” – I Timothy 2:1-2 (NIV)

Featured Articles — November 20, 2009

November 20, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | 1 Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

Travesty in New York By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the “propaganda of the deed.” And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 — not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

A Tilt Away From Social Issues By Adam Nagourney, The New York Times
Republican governors gathered to assess their political future and saw their road back to power and unity through pocketbook issues.

Cancer Screenings – Rational Advice or Rationed Care? By Sarah Palin, Facebook
It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.

The Big Squander By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
By not extracting concessions from bankers during the rescue of A.I.G., policy makers undermined their own credibility — and put the broader economy at risk.

Positive Petraeus lessons By Mary Claire Kendall, The Washington Times
Build confidence among the population

The China President Obama Didn’t See By Leslie Hook, The Wall Street Journal
Dissident intellectuals have been attracted to Christianity.

11.19.69

November 19, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Asia, Cold War, History, International Affairs, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Forty years ago, on 19 November 1969, RN welcomed Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato to the White House at the beginning of what would be a significant few days in the history of US-Japanese relations. Typically, the meeting was the result of long planning and negotiations; and, while there was room for spontaneity in the dealings between the two leaders and the two delegations, the general outline of the trip’s results were known before the Prime Minister’s limousine pulled up to the South Portico.

POTUS and Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato review an honor guard during the arrival ceremony at the White House on 19 November 1969.

The twenty-seven year occupation of the island of Okinawa, and the presence of American nuclear weapons on it,  had been an issue bedeviling relations between the two nations for some time.  As the Japanese economy began to revive and flourish, the desire to shake off American what was increasingly seen as an American yoke became focused on the island.  Such sentiment was easily provoked by left-wing parties and politicians, and Sato’s Liberal Democratic Party increasingly felt that its survival could depend on some kind of Okinawa settlement.

But the LBJ White House, State Department, and Defense Department, while turning over the Bonin Islands as a token of bona fides, were unable to do more than promise to study the reversion of the Ruyuku Islands of which Okinawa was a part.

“Moving from one’s position now is filled with difficulties”: A Christian Science Monitor cartoon depicted the US-Okinawa negotiations during the Johnson Administration.

In his seminal “Asia After Vietnam,” article in the Fall ‘67 edition of Foreign Affairs, RN mentioned Okinawa as a problem that would have to be addressed.  From his first days in the White House, in order to clear the diplomatic decks in order to prepare for an approach to China, he moved the resolution of the Okinawa issue to a front burner.  By the end of April, he had decided that Okinawa would be returned if the Japanese government guaranteed approval for US forces to remain based there and would undertake to carry out regional defense.

19 November 1969: RN in the Oval Office with Prime Minister Sato.  RN said that these three days of White House meetings “will probably be the most successful talks that have been held between our two governments.”

In one of the most egregious leaks of national security documents that plagued the administration’s first year, on 5 June, Hedrick Smith of The New York Times reported on a leaked Top Secret NSC document — NSDM-13: Policy Toward Japan — that gave away the ultimate US negotiating positions for the upcoming talks with Japan:

With respect to Okinawa, the President has directed that a strategy paper be prepared by the East Asia Interdepartmental Group under the supervision of the Under Secretaries Committee for negotiations with the Japanese Government over the next few months on the basis of the following elements:

1. Our willingness to agree to reversion in 1972 provided there is agreement in 1969 on essential elements governing U.S. military use and provided detailed negotiations are completed at that time.

2. Our desire for maximum free conventional use of the mlitary bases, particularly with respect to Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam.

3. Our desire to retain nuclear weapons on Okinawa but indicating that the President is prepared to consider, at the final stages of negotiation, the withdrawal of the weapons while retaining emergency storage and transit rights, if other elements of the Okinawan agreement are satisfactory.

Two career diplomats —U. Alexis Johnson at  the State Department and Ambassador Armin Meyer in Tokyo— played important parts in working out the details of the agreement that would be signed at the White House in November.

Foreign Minister Kiichi Aichi had sworn off smoking as long as Okinawa wasn’t under Japanese control.  As Secretary of State Bill Rogers and Prime Minister Sato watched, RN gave the Foreign Minister a pack of Japanese cigarettes to celebrate the agreement.

A fifteen-point joint communique covering the matters of mutual interest discussed during Prime Minister Sato’s visit was issued on 21 November at the conclusion of the visit (Points 6-15 dealt with Okinawa).

In the Rose Garden: On Prime Minister Sato’s last day in Washington —21 November 1969— RN announced plans for the return of the Ryukyu Islands —including Okinawa— to Japan.  The reversion took place on 15 May 1972.

In an extensive and fascinating 1996 oral history interview, US Ambassador to Japan Armin Meyer described a conversation with RN shortly after the above photo was taken:

While I’m thinking of it, one thing that always affected me, was on that very first November day, when we, when Nixon and Sato, concluded that treaty, that statement that was issued, communiqué, which we had spent three months drafting, because that was the heart of the whole Okinawa negotiations, Nixon and I walked Sato back to his car and on the way back Nixon told me… I mean he never saw ambassadors the way earlier presidents had, he just didn’t have time for them, but there was one brief period there when he and I were chatting and he said… “You know our job is to keep the LDP in power, that’s your job, to keep the LDP in power.” And that was really what was moving him on going ahead with Okinawa, on going ahead… because he realized that the election was coming up, that the treaty arrangement was up in another year, and so on. Well, as I mentioned, I went down to Okinawa three days after I presented my credentials, looked around, came back, and wrote a telegram that said, “as Okinawa goes, so goes Japan.” It was preaching to the converted, obviously, because Nixon was way ahead of me on it, but it helped a lot. In that connection, I might say, that among the non-converted, usually, were the military. One time when I came back, one early time, I remember Henry saying, “now Armin, don’t you dare talk to the military, they’re my people, I don’t want you talking to them.” Because he was keeping them in line on this whole Japan policy.

At the Rose Garden farewell ceremony on the last day of the Prime Minister’s visit —21 November— the President said:

There have been many meetings between the heads of government of Japan and the United States over the past 25 years. I am confident that history will record that this is the most significant meeting that has occurred since the end of World War II.

It is customary on such occasions to say that a new era begins in the relations between the two countries involved. I believe today, however, that there is no question that this is a statement of the fact that a new era begins between the United States and Japan, in our relations not only bilaterally in the Pacific but in the world.

As the joint communiquй which will be issued at 11:30 indicates, we have resolved the last major issue which came out of World War II, the Okinawa problem. And further, we have made significant progress in the resolution of other bilateral issues in the economic field, as well as in the field of investment and trade, not only between our two countries, but in the Asian area.

RN & Manson, Obama & Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

November 19, 2009 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Barack Obama, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Terrorism | 1 Comment 

From AP:

President Barack Obama appeared to be taking a page from Richard Nixon’s playbook Wednesday when he seemed to declare the suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty and deserving of the death penalty.  In Nixon’s case, he pronounced cult leader Charles Manson guilty of several murders while Manson was being tried in a California state court for killing actress Sharon Tate and others.

Here’s what happened.  In an interview, the president had this exchange with Chuck Todd of NBC:

TODD: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

OBAMA: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

TODD: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction – I mean one of the purposes of doing – going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

OBAMA: Well –

TODD: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

OBAMA: Look – what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging; I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury.

The RN remark came on August 3, 1970.  He was criticizing the media for glamorizing criminals, and used Manson as an example:

I noted, for example, the coverage of the Charles Manson case when I was in Los Angeles, front page every day in the papers. It usually got a couple of minutes in the evening news. Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason.

Ron Ziegler immediately retracted the remark, noting that RN had intended to say “alleged.”  But the comment caused big problems for the prosecution — as Obama’s remark probably will.

There are a couple of differences.  Nixon admitted error. At a press conference several months later, a reporter asked him about the Manson trial and other cases in which he suggested that criminal defendants were guilty. ”I think sometimes we lawyers, even like doctors who try to prescribe for themselves, may make mistakes. And I think that kind of comment probably is unjustified. “  Obama, by contrast, insisted that “when” really means “if.”

Also, the text of Nixon’s original comment was (and is) available on the public record.  But the Obama White House, unlike its immediate predecessors, does not routinely post interview transcripts.  To find them, one must search online in other places.  And as any Googler knows, things often disappear from the web.

Featured Articles — November 19, 2009

November 19, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting takes from home and abroad:

The Permanent Campaign Continues By Karl Rove, The Wall Street Journal
The KSM trial announcement was too important for a Friday news dump.

How Iran’s Revolution Was Hijacked By Mark Bowden, The Wall Street Journal
When the Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile, his first government was a secular one.

Circling Sharks Smell American Blood By Victor Davis Hanson, RealClearPolitics
On his recent trip to Asia, President Obama found China, Japan and South Korea – like many nations these days – in no mood to hear more American lectures.

What the generals won’t tell the prez By Ralph Peters, The New York Post
As our powerless secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, dutifully covers her head to attend the inauguration of an Afghan president so unpopular his ceremony has to be held behind closed doors, our AfPak (Afghanistan/Pakistan) policy isn’t merely adrift. It’s sinking.

How to Build a Palestinian State By David Ignatius, The Washington Post
Looking at this city, you can imagine what a Palestinian state could someday be like if folks got serious: The streets are clean, there’s construction in every direction and Palestinian soldiers line the roads. A visitor sees new apartment buildings, banks, brokerage firms, luxury car dealerships and even health clubs.

Harry Reid’s plan ups pressure on moderates By Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled his $848 billion health reform bill Wednesday to broad support from fellow Democrats — and the move quickly turned up the pressure on the last few wavering moderates to support the plan, which includes a sizable chunk of deficit cutting.

Obama’s Beijing balancing act points to the new challenge for the west By Timothy Garton Ash, The Guardian UK
There needs to be a real conversation about competing values. But the firewalls mean it cannot properly begin.

Future Perfect By Geneive Abdo, Newsweek
The clerical establishment has become so sick of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that they will not replace him when he dies.

Meet James Humes

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Historian James Humes will be at the Nixon Library on December 7^th at 7 pm to discuss his new book “’Only Nixon:” His Trip To China Revisited And Restudied.

Only Nixon is his riveting behind-the-scenes account of the circumstances that led to President Nixon’s opening to China in 1972.

In Only Nixon, Humes takes readers through the development and isolation of Communist China, RN’s reemergence on the world stage, and the diplomatic preparations for the first ever visit by an American president.

Humes notes that French President Charles de Gaulle had this advice for RN when he returned to high office: “If you are not ready to make war, make peace, but make it on a very strong basis, from strength rather than weakness.”

It was from this conversation where RN learned the word “détente,” French for “the lessening of tensions,” a diplomatic triumph that RN would not only later achieve with China and the Soviet Union but one that changed the course of history.

Humes will be introduced by the President’s younger brother Ed Nixon. His lecture will be followed by book signing.

Tickets are $8 ($6 for members). Buy them here or call (714) 993-5075

The Path That RN Blazed

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Nixon Center Starr fellow and TNN contributor Drew Thompson is also in Beijing this week. Today he did an interview form AMNY Magazine in which he discusses the impact of RN’s historic trip:

Obama’s trip will be one of relationship “maintenance” that “puts the bow” on negotiations done by both countries in recent years, said Drew Thompson, director of China Studies and Starr Senior Fellow at The Nixon Center in Washington, D.C. Nixonian breakthroughs so groundbreaking they inspire operas (as Nixon’s did in 1987) won’t be on the agenda.

Televised images of Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong meeting inside the People’s Republic of China were almost incomprehensible. Such a mission coming from another president would have been considered suspect, but everyone knew Nixon was not soft on communism. Observers say that reputation gave Nixon needed cover to famously open the door to China, exploiting divides between China and the Soviets and recalibrating the global balance of power at the height of the Cold War.

Obama will be performing to expectations; the real shock would come if he aggressively took on taboo subjects such as human rights and Tibet.

Read the whole story here.

Thinking Back On History

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

Today at The Daily Telegraph:

In 1972, Richard Nixon broke through the barriers of the Cold War and visited China on an equally cold and clear day.

“My hope is that in the future, perhaps as a result of the beginning that we have made on this journey, that many, many Americans… will have an opportunity to come here,” Nixon said in 1972, at the same steep, curving Badaling section of the wall.

Nixon hoped “that they will think back as I think back to the history of this great people, and that they will have an opportunity, as we have had an opportunity, to know the Chinese people, and know them better”.

« Previous Page — Next Page »