Bruce Herschensohn’s New Book

March 31, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under International Affairs, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Library events, Nixon in the News, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 9 Comments 

On April 19, political commentator, former assistant to President Nixon, and 1992 Republican senatorial candidate Bruce Herschensohn comes to the Nixon Library to discuss his new book American Amnesia, which presents his thesis that had Congress been prepared to support Presidents Nixon and Ford when they asked for military aid to South Vietnam after North Vietnamese violations of the 1973 peace accords, then Hanoi’s forces would not have been able to defeat that nation in 1975. The theme of his book has particular relevance as American forces prepare to depart from Iraq, a nation whose future may be determined by the whims of its eastern neighbor Iran unless the United States is ready to ensure otherwise. In today’s Victorville (California) Daily Press, Herschensohn discusses his book:

On January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed by the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. North Vietnam agreed to an immediate cease fire, and South Vietnam was promised the same sort of freedoms guaranteed Americans under the First Amendment.

Officially, the war was over.

But, Herschensohn says, the U.S. wasn’t so naive as to believe there would be no more hostilities by North Vietnam after American troops went home. So, the accords promised piece-for-piece replacement of any military assets South Vietnam used to defend itself after the Americans left.

“We didn’t do it,” Herschensohn said flatly. “Congress saw a way that we could lose (the war) by not appropriating funds in the piece-for-piece provision.”

Editors note: Bruce Herschensohn will be at the Nixon Library on Monday, April 19, to discuss and sign copies of American Amnesia. For more information click here.

A Canadian View Of David Frum

March 30, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Canada, Healthcare, News media, Republican Party | Leave a Comment 

Part of the political fallout resulting from the recently passed health-care legislation has been the alienation of David Frum from the conservative movement. Frum is a 49-year-old native of Toronto who, in the twenty-odd years since settling in New York after attending Yale and Harvard Law, has developed a reputation as an able writer and provocative, and sometimes contrarian thinker.

After publishing a book about 1970s America, How We Got Here (notable for many pages analyzing the impact of Richard Nixon’s presidency on the culture of the era), Frum became a speechwriter for George W. Bush, and, in that President’s first term, gained fame for coining the phrase “axis of evil.” (Although his original wording was “axis of hatred,” with the last word changed by Bush.)

In 2005, Frum left the Bush Administration to become a fellow at the America Enterprise Institute and a regular contributor to National Review. But in 2008, differences started to become apparent between Frum’s views and those of many conservatives when he published one blogpost and column after another criticizing Gov. Sarah Palin’s selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Although Frum declared his support for Sen. John McCain that fall, with the inauguration of President Obama (preceded by the journalist’s departure from National Review) it became evident that Frum’s thinking was closer to the accomodationism exemplified by Sam Tanenhaus’s The Death Of Conservatism that to that of the Republican establishment.

The debate over the health-care bill made it clear just how far Frum had moved from the GOP consensus. The bill’s passage by a handful of votes was taken by most Republicans as an encouraging sign. Frum wrote that he viewed the result as a Waterloo for the minority party. Soon thereafter, he parted ways with AEI.

However, he does have his defenders – notably in the land of his birth. In the Canadian magazine The Tyee, Crawford Kilian, an American who’s lived in British Columbia for almost a half-century, argues:

Rather than viewing the victory of Obama as the inevitable arrival of the Antichrist, Frum has respected Obama’s political skills and tried to draw lessons from his success — just as Nixon drew lessons from Jack Kennedy’s use of television. ([Rick] Perlstein [in Nixonland] tells us Nixon got his first training in this field from a young TV producer named Roger Ailes, now the head of Fox News.)

In effect, Frum was treating Obama intellectually, not morally. Hence his “Waterloo” rant, and the resulting uproar.

His onetime allies, however, are aggressively anti-intellectual, and enjoy moralizing about their enemies. Their world is clearly divided into good and evil, and only they are good. Apostates and heretics are doubly evil, deserving nothing but very loud contempt.

This may be as much fun as screaming at Emmanuel Goldstein during the Two-Minute Hate, as Winston Smith does in Nineteen Eighty-Four. But it is no way to build and maintain a coherent framework for a revived conservatism.

RN: The Unlikely Champion of Advancing Equality for Women

March 30, 2010 by Barbara Hackman Franklin | Filed Under Domestic issues | 4 Comments 

When I first came to Washington, D.C. to work in the White House of President Richard Nixon almost 40 years ago, you could count the number of women in the House and Senate on your two hands plus one toe. And, you wouldn’t have needed any additional digits for the women sitting on the Supreme Court or in the President’s Cabinet – because there weren’t any.

Then, in the early 1970s, thanks to the pioneering efforts of “A Few Good Women…” and the leadership of the President, it all began to change.

In January 1969, Richard Nixon took the oath of office as President. At one of President Nixon’s early press conferences, Ms. Vera Glaser stood amid a forest of male colleagues, raised her strong, clear voice, and asked:

“Mr. President, since you’ve been inaugurated, you have made approximately 200 presidential appointments, and only three of them have gone to women. Can we expect some more equitable recognition of women’s abilities, or are we going to remain the lost sex?”

The President seemed surprised, but he agreed: “We’ll have to do something about that.” It was a promise he kept.

President Nixon’s pledge to Ms. Glaser triggered a chain of events that led to the appointment of a White House Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities. Virginia Allan, a well-known Republican businesswoman, chaired it, and Vera Glaser was among its members.

By the end of the year, the Task Force delivered a report entitled, “A Matter of Simple Justice.” It contained five forward-thinking recommendations. One key recommendation was this: “The President should appoint more women to positions of top responsibility in all branches of the Federal Government, to achieve a more equitable ratio of men and women. Cabinet and agency heads should be directed to issue firm instructions that qualified women receive equal consideration in hiring and promotion.” It also recommended creation of a White House office dedicated to advancing women in appointive positions.

And, it didn’t happen overnight. It was more than a year before that first promise to Ms. Glaser moved into the implementation phase.

President Nixon Acts

In December 1970, the President approved an action memo that ordered the implementation of many of the Task Force’s key recommendations.

In April of 1971, the President publicly announced a three-pronged initiative:

o First, he asked each Cabinet Secretary and agency head to submit an action plan for hiring, promoting, and advancing women in each department. He told them he wanted the plan by the middle of the following month.

o Second, I was hired away from Citibank in New York City to join the White House staff and recruit women for high-level jobs in government. I was also directed to build a talent bank of women and monitor progress by the departments and agencies on their action plans.

o Third, Jayne Baker Spain, who had been the CEO of a company in Ohio, was appointed Vice Chairman of the Civil Service Commission with responsibility for watching over the advancement of women in the career civil service.

And, President Nixon asked two Counselors to the President – Bob Finch and Don Rumsfeld – to oversee progress. Bob Finch, had previously served in President Nixon’s Cabinet and was an early convert to our cause. Rumsfeld, later served as Secretary of Defense.

We set out to double the number of women in top jobs – GS-16 and above – during the first year. We did better. Within nine months, we had met our full first-year goal. In April 1972, a year after we began, the number of women in policy-making jobs had tripled from 36 to 105.

Even more importantly perhaps was the nature of the jobs themselves. There were many “breakthroughs” – jobs women had never held before. In other words, we were blasting through glass ceilings. Every “first” makes it easier to fill that job with a woman the second time around. Eventually gender would not even be a consideration.

Thanks to the President’s support, more than 1,000 women were hired or promoted into the middle management ranks of the career civil service, at a time when the Federal Government was reducing employment by 5%. For the first time, women were serving as generals, admirals, forest rangers, FBI agents, and even tugboat captains.

By March 1973, just two years after the effort began, the number of women in top jobs had quadrupled, and Anne Armstrong had become Counselor to the President with Cabinet rank.

President Nixon’s efforts to lift up women in the Federal Government spilled over into the rest of American society as he challenged the private sector, as well as, state and local governments “to follow our lead and guarantee women equal opportunity for employment and advancement…” Business leaders, state officials and sometimes governors themselves – came to my office to find out more about how we had achieved success.

The Nixon Administration effort is a powerful example of Presidential leadership that shows what can be accomplished with genuine commitment. It also shows how the stories that grab the headlines are not the only places where lasting change may be taking place.

Looking back now, we know that President Nixon’s actions brought gender equality into the mainstream of American life. He made equality “legitimate.” This legitimacy rippled through our society and helped create new opportunities for women in business, education, the professions, the arts and athletics.

But President Nixon threw himself unmistakably behind the cause of change, telling the nation in his 1972 State of the Union address, “While every woman may not want a career outside the home, every woman should have the freedom to choose whatever career she wishes, and an equal chance to pursue it.” That was a bold statement by a man of that time and that generation.


Ed Koch: RN A Friend To Israel

March 29, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Israel and Palestinians | 1 Comment 

Contrasting what he calls President Obama’s ‘abysmal’ treatment of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch praises RN’s support for the Jewish state during the Yom Kippur War:

it was Richard Nixon during the 1973 war, who resupplied Israel with arms, making it possible for it to snatch victory from a potentially devastating defeat at the hands of a coalition of Arab countries including Egypt and Syria.

3.29.1974

March 29, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Vietnam | 2 Comments 

Thirty-Six years ago today, RN commemorated the first anniversary of the last troop’s return home from Vietnam, now known as Vietnam Veterans Day. Below are the Thirty-Seventh President’s remarks:

Just one year ago, the last American combat serviceman returned to the United States from Vietnam, and America’s longest war came to an end. It is very appropriate on this day, then, that we honor those 2 1/2 million men who served in Vietnam, that we pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives, and that we renew our commitment to obtain a full accounting for all of those who are still missing in action.

To those who have served, I can imagine that sometimes they are discouraged as they read and hear the postmortems on this very long and very difficult war. But the verdict of history, I am sure, will be quite different from the instant analysis that we presently see and sometimes hear.

Those who served may be discouraged because it seems sometimes that more attention is directed to those who deserted America than those who chose to serve America. They may be discouraged because they read and hear that America becoming involved in Vietnam was wrong, that America’s conduct in Vietnam was wrong, that the way we ended the war was wrong.

I would say to all of those who served and to all of my fellow Americans that not only was it not wrong but I think it is well for us to put in perspective on this day why we went there, what we accomplished, and what would have happened had these men not served their country as bravely and as courageously as they did in these difficult times.

We see one result in the fact that 17 million people in South Vietnam, the Republic of Vietnam, are now governing themselves and able to defend themselves. We went to Vietnam not to destroy freedom, but to defend it. We went to Vietnam not as an aggressor, but to stop aggression. And history will record that the American effort in Vietnam was a good cause, honorably undertaken and honorably ended.

We can see what that means if we evaluate what would have happened had we followed the advice of those who said, “Bug out, regardless of what happens to the people of Vietnam and what happens to America’s standing in the world.” Because if we failed in our commitment, our allies would have lost confidence in us throughout the world, not just in Asia, the neutrals would have lost respect for America, and those who might be tempted to engage in aggression would have been encouraged to embark on that aggression not only in Asia but in other parts of the world.

But because we saw this long and difficult conflict through to an honorable conclusion, respect for America was maintained, and the possibility that America can meet its great destiny, the destiny that is seldom given to a people, to build a peace not only for itself but for the whole world that possibility has been strengthened. On this occasion then, the highest tribute we can pay to those who served, and particularly to those who died, is to go forward in building a world of peace for ourselves and for all people. And in order for that to be accomplished, it is essential that America be strong. That means, first, strong militarily.

The cost is high. But as President Eisenhower once said in thinking of that cost, “While the cost of peace may be high, the cost of war is far higher and it is paid in a different coin, the lives of our young men and the destruction of our cities.”

And so, we need to maintain a militarily strong America, an economically strong America, but most important, we need to maintain an America that is strong in its character and in its spirit and its sense of destiny and its sense of purpose in this great period in our history and in the world’s history.

And that is the most significant contribution that has been made by those who served in Vietnam, because when it was not easy, when there seemed to be so little support at home, they saw it through. And because they saw it through, because they did not quit, we were able to negotiate an honorable end to the war at the conference table, which would not have been possible had they not served with distinction and courage to the end on the battlefield.

The Economist On The Surcharge Proposal

March 27, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, China, Congress, Economic issues, Presidents, Richard Nixon, economy | 9 Comments 

The recent health-care bill that President Obama signed may have its similarities to the proposals President Nixon unsuccessfully presented to Congress in the early Seventies, but those are far from the only pages from the 37th Chief Executive’s playbook that are being re-examined now. In recent weeks, 130 members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner urging that a surcharge – in other words, a tariff – be placed on Chinese imports. They are supported by liberal economist (and New York Times columnist) Paul Krugman. The Representatives and Krugman point to Nixon’s 10 percent surcharge imposed on imports in 1971 as a precedent.

The venerable British journal The Economist has a new article assessing the reasons for the Nixon surcharge (which was to a great degree the brainchild of then-Treasury Secretary John Connally) and showing why its purpose, and the effects it had on the world economy at the time, do not necessary show that a tariff on Chinese goods would benefit the American economy now:

China’s foreign-exchange reserves now total $2.4 trillion, of which about 70% are thought to be in dollars. In 1971 the central banks of America’s trading partners had amassed a rather smaller hoard, of about $40 billion. But that was enough to buy the gold in Fort Knox three times over, if America upheld its commitment to sell the metal at $35 an ounce. Britain’s request to exchange dollars for gold on August 13th 1971 was the last straw. “Although the US government attached no great importance to the gold as such, a run on this gold would have been a sorry spectacle,” wrote George Shultz and Kenneth Dam, two prominent economic officials in the Nixon administration, in their book “Economic Policy Beyond the Headlines”. On August 15th Nixon, in effect, announced that America was now unwilling to do what it would soon be incapable of doing—converting dollars into gold at the agreed exchange rate.

Messrs Shultz and Dam argue that the import surcharge was intended as “an attention-getter and a bargaining chip”. It allowed John Connally, Nixon’s treasury secretary and a Texan, to stride down the corridors of international finance “with both guns blazing”. In the face of this bravado America’s trading partners duly backed down. By December they agreed to let the dollar fall (by a trade-weighted average of 6.5%) and the surcharge was removed. Nixon was able to present the humbling of the dollar as a political victory. But were Barack Obama to emulate him, would he really enjoy the same result?

The obvious difference is that in 1971 America was locked into a system of fixed parities. By pegging to the dollar, a currency was automatically fixed to everything else. Since July 2008 China has pegged the yuan to the greenback. But over that period its currency has swung up and down against those of its trading partners and competitors. On a trade-weighted basis the yuan is back to where it was when the financial crisis started. Indeed, compared with China’s emerging-market competitors in its big export markets, the yuan is about 12% more expensive today than it was before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, according to a measure (the “third-country” effective exchange rate) calculated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. By this indicator China’s currency is about 25% above its level in 2005.

The second difference is related to the first. Because everybody was pegged to the dollar in 1971, everybody had to pay the surcharge. Nixon dismayed everyone but discriminated against no one. China’s critics today, on the other hand, urge Mr Obama to slap a tariff on Chinese goods alone. This will reduce the demand for Chinese imports, which constitute about 15% of America’s total. But there is no guarantee that customers will switch from Chinese goods to American ones instead. They are more likely to buy from China’s rivals in Asia. The surcharge may change the composition of America’s trade deficit, without necessarily changing its size.

George Washington vs. Barack Obama

March 26, 2010 by Dimitri Simes | Filed Under American Politics | 13 Comments 

Overwhelmingly supportive of President Barack Obama’s health-care reform effort, the mainstream media has portrayed Republican Senators’ predictions that they and their House colleagues will be reluctant to support other administration proposals as a combination of sour grapes and partisan zeal. Surely, both elements have contributed to Republican indignation toward the substance and particularly the process that turned the health-care bill into law. Yet far more important is the fact that principled opposition to the Obama administration is not only inevitable but appropriate for congressional Republicans. It is inevitable because the Republican base would expect nothing less from its representatives in Congress, and because raw emotions among practically all Republicans are so strong that business as usual is not an option. More importantly, however, it is appropriate because what Obama and his congressional Democratic allies have done represents a genuine danger to the Republic.

In his farewell address, President George Washington warned of a “real despotism” when one branch of the government encroaches on the prerogatives of another, bringing “change by usurpation.” How else can one describe the White House essentially using Democratic congressional leaders to impose what is perhaps the most far-reaching social reform since the New Deal through reconciliation, a process designed to address differences in budgets approved by the Senate and the House? In a democracy, process is no less important than result, and the Democrats’ cynical and manipulative approach after it became clear (following Senator Brown’s remarkable win in Massachusetts) that normal Senate procedures would not succeed reveals a profound disregard for the principles and spirit of good democratic governance. Many independents sense this and are increasingly uncomfortable with one-party rule.

Obama’s obsession with health-care reform clearly transcends cost-cutting and improved services. For the president, health-care reform is an integral part of a moral crusade for profound income redistribution that includes a relentless assault on the upper-middle class—those whom the president defines as individual Americans making more than $200,000 a year or families earning over $250,000 a year.

Statistically, most people in this category have incomes that are a little over $250,000 per year—not a lot over—and are not “wealthy,” especially if they are in families living in cities on the East or West Coasts. President Obama’s two daughters are enrolled at Sidwell Friends School, where annual tuition is about $31,000. It is unlikely that he would be able to send them there on an average yearly income of $250,000—out of which he would probably see only $150,000 after taxes—particularly if he would like to have a decent house in Washington (at his expense, not the taxpayers’), to go on family vacations and to enjoy other attributes of an upper-middle class lifestyle.

Still, at times there may be no alternatives to belt-tightening and sacrifice. Faced with a skyrocketing budget deficit and out-of-control growth in entitlement spending, fiscal responsibility may dictate tax increases for those better off and entitlement cuts. But that is not what President Obama is talking about: he is increasing taxes and spending. Thus Obama is not asking the upper-middle class to make an essential sacrifice; rather, he is trying to force those whom he calls wealthy to give up some of their earnings not because he considers it necessary, but because he believes it is self-evidently just. “I think when you spread the wealth around,” he said as a candidate, “it’s good for everybody.”

Revealingly, instead of focusing on the need for new taxes while showing empathy for those affected, President Obama and his associates have instead argued that tax increases will affect only a small group of Americans. First, the group may not be quite so small. According to analysis by a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, some 25 percent of those earning less than $200,000 will see a tax increase. Second, according to the Census Bureau, 4.2 percent of American households have an income upwards of $200,000 per year. Even if only 4–5 percent of Americans would pay additional taxes, as the president and his supporters argue, these families represent millions of Americans who deserve equal consideration. Would the president treat any other minority group in this fashion if the distinction were ethnic, religious or social rather than class-based? Such an attitude toward successful, but overwhelmingly honest, hardworking and productive citizens is basically un-American and deserves condemnation on moral grounds. For an African American former community organizer, this cavalier stance toward minority rights is particularly remarkable.

Last but not least, by spending so much political capital on health care reform, Obama has sharply limited his ability to take necessary but domestically controversial steps required by U.S. national security. Look at his pathetic attempt to force Israel to freeze its settlements. The tough rebuff from Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu’s government that Obama had to accept—angry rhetoric notwithstanding—was demeaning to America’s reputation in the Middle East, in the Muslim world, and beyond. The United States is involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is far from concluding a global fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. For the Commander in Chief to put all his chips into domestic social engineering at such a time is nothing short of an abrogation of responsibility.

And President Obama has made it abundantly clear that health-care reform is the beginning rather than the end of his effort to reshape America. In the absence of strong resistance, the president could impose further “change by usurpation” on the United States. Republicans should not attempt to shut down the government as Newt Gingrich and his cohorts did in the 1990s. Nor should they refuse to cooperate with administration initiatives that are important for the security and prosperity of the nation. But Republicans cannot and should not acquiesce in Obama’s usurpation of power and allow him to appear victorious while taking the country on the wrong course. With ingenuity, common sense, and good political instincts, the Republicans should be able to develop the right formula for continuing the nation’s business while resolutely opposing the president’s definition of “change.”

TNN Exclusive: RN’s Health Care Plan More Comprehensive Than Obama’s

March 25, 2010 by Ben Stein | Filed Under Domestic issues | 11 Comments 

All eyes have been on Washington in the past year as the parties debated President Barack Obama’s shifting versions of national health care. On Tuesday, after a highly questionable series of parliamentary maneuvers, President Obama signed into “law” his health care plan.

With some considerable reason, he noted that health care for all is an idea whose time has come. (His plan still leaves more than 20 million not insured, but let that be.) And, with some justification, most of the media rejoiced that national health care had arrived for people with low incomes, with pre-existing conditions, without jobs, with impoverished employers.

To call Barack Obama’s response to the passage (however questionably executed ) of this bill “triumphalist” is like calling Mount Everest “tall.”

But among the glorying, there was little or no mention of my former boss, Richard M. Nixon, and this was a monstrous wrong, one of an innumerable number of wrongs directed at Mr. Nixon.

The flat truth is that in February 1974, with the hounds of hell baying at him about Watergate, with a national trial by shortage under way after the Arab Oil Embargo, with the economy in extremely rocky shape, and with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican Richard M. Nixon submitted to Congress a national health care bill in many ways more comprehensive than what Mr. Obama achieved.

Mr. Nixon’s health care plan would have covered all employed people by giving combined state and federal subsidies to employers. It would have covered the poor and the unemployed by much larger subsidies. It would have encouraged health maintenance organizations. It would have banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions and not allowed limits on spending for each insured.

I know a bit about this because I, your humble servant, as a 29-year-old speech writer, wrote the message to Congress sending up the bill.

In many ways, the bill was far more “socialist” than what Mr. Obama has proposed. It certainly involved a far larger swath of state and federal government power over health care. Please remember that this was 36 years ago, when middle-class Americans still had some slight faith that government was on their side.

My point is not whether or not Mr. Nixon’s plan was better than Mr. Obama’s. In fact, they have many points in common.

My only point is that if you want to call someone a visionary, if you want to call someone compassionate, if you want to note that someone was a foe of inequality and a friend to mercy, think of Richard Nixon, with a host of problems of his own the likes of which Mr. Obama cannot imagine, reaching out to the poor and the uninsured to help.

The plan, of course, was killed dead by the Democrats, led by Edward Kennedy, who later regretted what he had done. Still, attention must be paid to a prophet without honor in his own land.

Got A Condo Made O’Stone-a

March 24, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Art, Comedy, Entertainment, Middle East, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 2 Comments 

Last night I read Born Standing Up, actor Steve Martin’s account of the seventeen years he spent making his way up the ladder of standup comedy. It’s a rather worthwhile book. In well-written prose, replete with many funny passages, Martin describes the process by which he rose from playing open-mike nights at obscure folk clubs around Los Angeles to filling stadiums across the country.

As many TNN readers know, Martin acquired his earliest showbiz experience in Disneyland and Knott’s Berry Farm near Garden Grove, the town in which he spent his teenage years, toward the end of Richard Nixon’s Vice Presidency. And RN figured in Martin’s struggling years as a standup; he mentions than when he played college campuses as an unknown in the early 1970s, he had only to mention the President’s name to be guaranteed a laugh. (In fact, the predictability of this response was one thing that led him to remove all political material from his act. Coincidentally or not, his career took off soon after.)

But I didn’t know that one of President Nixon’s decisions, toward the end of his Administration, led to one of the most celebrated episodes of Steve Martin’s comic career. It’s especially timely now, as the exhibition of the relics of Egypt’s King Tutankhamun finishes its run at San Francisco’s DeYoung Museum and gets ready to go to Discovery Channel’s Times Square showplace in New York.

It was in 1974 that President Nixon decided that the United States should respond to the successful display of Egyptian art in the Soviet Union with a truly memorable exhibit to tour the United States. After bringing up the idea during his visit to Egypt’s President Anwar al-Sadat a few weeks before his resignation, he urged Secretary of State Kissinger to work on bringing such an exhibit to these shores. Dr. Kissinger got in touch with the late Thomas Hoving, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the process was begun which, a couple of years later, resulted in the spectacularly successful first visit of King Tut and his relics to the United States – a visit which inspired Steve Martin to write that immortal tune which was introduced to the world on Saturday Night Live.

More than thirty years after he last came for a visit, the boy king is generating some more memories to last a lifetime for countless Americans, continuing a process that started with President Nixon’s proposal for a tour to generate income to help Egyptian museums on that summer day so long ago.

3.24.70

March 24, 2010 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Civil rights, Domestic issues, Nixon Administration, Richard Nixon, Supreme Court, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

Forty years ago today, RN issued a Statement About Desegregation of Elementary and Secondary Schools.

The almost 17,000-word document surveyed the the issue beginning with the first Brown decision in 1954.  Clearly, and in very plain language, the President surveyed the history and set out his Administration’s position:

This issue is not partisan. It is not sectional. It is an American issue, of direct and immediate concern to every citizen.

I hope that this statement will reduce the prevailing confusion and will help place public discussion of the issue on a more rational and realistic level in all parts of the Nation. It is time to strip away the hypocrisy, the prejudice, and the ignorance that too long have characterized discussion of this issue.’

He described his underlying approach:

We are dealing fundamentally with inalienable human rights, some of them constitutionally protected. The final arbiter of constitutional questions is the United States Supreme Court.

And he set out his specific objectives:

–To reaffirm my personal belief that the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education was right in both constitutional and human terms.

–To assess our progress in the 16 years since Brown and to point the way to
continuing progress.

–To clarify the present state of the law, as developed by the courts and the Congress, and the administration policies guided by it.

–To discuss some of the difficulties encountered by courts and communities as desegregation has accelerated in recent years, and to suggest approaches that can mitigate such problems as we complete the process of compliance with Brown.

–To place the question of school desegregation in its larger context, as part of America’s historic commitment to the achievement of a free and open society.

RN was obviously aware of the widespread criticism regarding what conventional wisdom had decided was his “Southern strategy” regarding race relations.  He addressed this with some home truths:

We should bear very carefully in mind, therefore, the distinction between educational difficulty as a result of race, and educational difficulty as a result of social or economic levels, of family background, of cultural patterns, or simply of bad schools. Providing better education for the disadvantaged requires a more sophisticated approach than mere racial mathematics.

In this same connection, we should recognize that a smug paternalism has characterized the attitudes of many white Americans toward school questions. There has been an implicit assumption that blacks or others of minority races would be improved by association with whites. The notion that an all-black or predominantly-black school is automatically inferior to one which is all- or predominantly-white—even though not a product of a dual system inescapably carries racist overtones. And, of course, we know of hypocrisy: not a few of those in the North most stridently demanding racial integration of public schools in the South at the same time send their children to private schools to avoid the assumed inferiority of mixed public schools.

It is unquestionably true that most black schools–though by no means all–are in fact inferior to most white schools. This is due in part to past neglect or shortchanging of the black schools; and in part to long-term patterns of racial discrimination which caused a greater proportion of Negroes to be left behind educationally, left out culturally, and trapped in low paying jobs. It is not really because they serve black children that most of these schools are inferior, but rather because they serve poor children who often lack the home environment that encourages learning.

This comprehensive, thoughtful, and vital document deserves attention.  It can be read in full here.  The Nixon administration’s pivotal role in the desegregation of America’s schools will be the subject of the Nixon Legacy Forum in September.

The Missing Moon Rocks

March 20, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Apollo XI XLth, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

The fortieth anniversary last year of the first moon landing by Apollo 11 stirred interest in the mineral artifacts brought back by that mission and the five others that reached the lunar surface. President Nixon, in the months after Apollo 11’s return, sent a number of moon rocks to governments abroad and gave a rock to each of the fifty states. After Apollo 17, the last mission, returned to Earth in December 1972, he arranged for moon rocks to be sent to the heads of state of 135 countries. At the time, no one knew that the rocks brought back would be the last ones to date.

Nearly 40 years later, it turns out that of the 135 rocks sent abroad, the whereabouts of only 25 can now be confirmed. Some of the others were stolen; others were lost by their recipients or by their descendants; and some simply vanished in political turmoil. (In other words, some may turn up on Ebay.)

To cite two such examples, General Francisco Franco of Spain received a moon rock; nowadays his granddaughter reports that her mother somehow misplaced it. And the moon rock sent to Afghanistan was stolen from the country’s national museum when it was looted in 1996, in the chaos between the withdrawal of Soviet forces and the savage rise of the Taliban.

In this country, the moon rocks have been more securely kept. But, as a graduate student tells us in this column from the Nashville Tennessean, while Georgia proudly displays its rock in a museum, the one in Tennessee has been the object of many theft attempts and so is hidden away under lock and key.

But Where’s The Silent E?

March 20, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Humor, Watergate | 1 Comment 

“Behind every Watergate there’s a Milhous.”

- Words on a button, manufactured sixteen years before The Simpsons premiered, seen at the Watergate exhibit at the Newseum in Washington, DC.

C-SPAN’s Video Library

March 20, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under News media, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 1 Comment 

For a number of weeks C-SPAN, the venerable public-affairs cable channel founded by Brian Lamb, has had up a beta version of its video library, featuring many hours of its programming over the last 30-odd years. This week the site put up the full-scale version of the library, and now it’s possible for websurfers to select from over 160,000 hours of the channel’s programming.

And President Nixon is featured in several dozen different programs on the site, including excerpts from White House tapes; an interview conducted by Frank Gannon; a lengthy conversation with Lamb from 1992; footage of RN’s 1972 trip to China; and much else. Just put his name in the search box.

Nickels, Noses, And The Nation

March 19, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Domestic issues, Economic issues, History, Politics, U.S. History | 3 Comments 

After several anxious days of waiting—watching out my office window for the faithful U. S. Postal truck—I finally received mine. Have you gotten yours? I sure hope so, because there isn’t much time—We The People—134 million households of us—have a deadline.

In fact, there is a very special day coming up. It’s called Census Day 2010. And, are you ready for this—it’s scheduled for April 1ST. That’s right, the moment we honor fools and play tricks on everybody is the official day to recognize, if not return, our Census forms. Census Day started out in 1790 as the first Monday in August. It was moved to June in 1830, then to April 15 in 1910, and by 1940 to the first day of April.

Obviously, most Americans are well aware of this decennial process of counting everyone. After all, we’ve been seeing all those very cool commercials. I saw one the other day, having made the mistake of watching a show that hadn’t been dvr’d, that mentioned how important it was to fill out the form and send it back. The spokesperson warned: “You won’t get your fair share, if you don’t send it back.”

Fair share? Fair share of what?

If I read my history correctly—and I do—the whole idea of a census from the beginning had to do with having our fair say. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified and became the ever-since law of the land, it specified in Article 1, Section 2, that a census, or “enumeration” should be scheduled within three years of the first meeting of the Congress, and then every ten years, thereafter. The first such census was conducted in 1790 and it has been repeated every decade since.

Even in its early days the idea of a national head count was not without controversy. There was something at least a little disconcerting about individuals ceding personal information to government, no matter how small or general that data might have been. The purpose of all of this had purely to do with the apportionment of representation in Congress, the various districts being determined by population.

That remains one purpose of the every-decade-nose-count in America, and it is a vitally important one. If an area has lost population, districts are redrawn and Congressional representation adjusted accordingly—and vice versa for growing areas. So the political stakes are real—and high.

But as government has grown over the course of our nation’s history, both in its size and scope, the Census has morphed into the basis for many other things having to do with government programs and federal dollars. And this is where that mention of “fair share” comes in. There are these days various federal initiatives funding programs in states and communities for education, infrastructure, and even health care. Of course, all the money comes from us in the first place. Around the time our nation was in the middle of its fourth census, Alexis De Tocqueville suggested, “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” Indeed.

Beyond this, Census data is used by the government in a variety of ways for “policy purposes”—economic and otherwise. This brings to mind another Census 2010 campaign mantra—in fact, it’s the official slogan this time around: “We can’t move forward until you mail it back?”

Forward to where? Forward to what?

I will fill mine out and send it in. I will answer every question truthfully and I won’t waste my time being clever or creative in my responses. But this doesn’t mean that I don’t wonder what all the fuss is about this year. After all, we get a package from the federal government around the first of January each year reminding us of incoming taxes. I never saw a funny commercial about that, largely because most Americans can figure out that this means we have to send something back or be in trouble.

Why then the song and dance about the Census?

Is it because those in charge these days have cool ideas (cool to them) about what they can make of America with new demographic tea leaves to examine? I don’t think one has to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder. Last year, a few eyebrows were raised when the administration announced that it wanted to, in effect, take the Census away from the to-do-list of the Commerce Department, signaling that they wanted command-central for the big count to be in the West Wing. Then there was the issue with ACORN being contracted to work on the big detail-dig. We all know how good they are with numbers, muscle, and the truth.

Questions were raised last year—reasonable ones, in my opinion—about the fact that nowhere on the Census form does it ask about the citizenship of residents. This suggests the possibility that some areas—with large blocs of non-U.S. citizens (legal or otherwise) would have their population and therefore congressional representation impacted by some who have do not have the full rights of American citizenship.

Personally, I am not concerned about getting my fair share based on the Census this year. I am solely concerned with continuing to have my fair say and that the voices heard in our country are those described by “We the People”—in other words, actual citizens.

Furthermore, I’d just as soon keep more of my fair share in the first place, thank you. And “move forward” by myself.

Pelosi-land

March 19, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Annals of the Obama Administration, Richard Nixon | 3 Comments 

The Economist returns to a point that Frank Gannon made a couple of years ago:

WHEN Nancy Pelosi moved to San Francisco, she struggled to find somewhere to live. For months, and with four small children, she lodged with her mother-in-law. So she was relieved when she found a perfect home to rent: big, childproof and with swings in the garden. She was about to seal the deal when she discovered that the owner’s husband was heading east to join the Nixon administration. “We won’t be able to live here,” she said. “I could never live anyplace that was made available because of the election of Richard Nixon.”

If this story were told by a Republican, Lexington would dismiss it as apocryphal. It confirms too neatly the caricature of Mrs Pelosi as a petty and tribal partisan. But the source is Mrs Pelosi’s autobiography, “Know Your Power: a Message to America’s Daughters”. And in case you think it out of character, she adds that her daughter Alexandra “often says to me that she knows everything she needs to know about me by hearing that story.”

RN: The Law And Order Candidate

March 18, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Domestic issues | Leave a Comment 

Daniel Henninger in today’s Wall Street Journal:

After the Supreme Court’s restrictive police-search decisions in the 1960s, Richard Nixon rode “law and order” into the White House in 1968. Liberals got into trouble during the law and order years because their views on crime seemed an abstraction, elegantly argued but oblivious to the lives of innocent people on the street.

How Could Biden Fix The Senate? Think VP Nixon

March 18, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under American Politics, Congress, Domestic issues | Leave a Comment 

As the Democrats in Congress struggle to path health care reform, the American Prospect’s Bruce Ackerman writes that Vice President Biden should heed wisdom from Vice President Nixon, who used his constitutional power to make the U.S. Senate a more active governing body:

If Biden is willing to exercise the power granted him in the constitution, he could do more than pass health care. He could establish a precedent that would later help him limit the filibuster rules that threaten to deadlock our system of government. He would not be the first vice president to use his power for good in this way.

Consider the history: It now takes 60 Senators (three-fifths) to end a filibuster, but for most of the 20th century, a full two-thirds majority was necessary. Worse yet, unanimous consent was required by Senate rules to change this. The two-thirds provision seemed cemented into the system beyond repair.

Until Richard Nixon came along. When the Senate opened for business in 1957, he took the chair as vice president and urged the chamber to rethink the very foundations of its rules. The Senate traditionally considered itself a continuing body, which automatically inherited its old rules without any formal action.

This was a mistake, Nixon said. Since one-third of its membership is renewed every two years, the Senate should explicitly vote on its rules when it organized itself at the beginning the session. If a simple majority wanted to reduce the two-thirds rule, it was free to do so.

Nixon’s ruling was a bombshell. If his view were accepted by the Senate, 51 Senators could impose a strong civil-rights bill on the South.

This put Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson in a tough spot. He was willing to join a broad effort for a weak civil-rights measure, but he was unprepared to sacrifice his Southern colleagues by campaigning against the filibuster. He refused to support Nixon’s pronouncement. Instead, he asked the Senate to table any vote on its rules and follow its traditional practice of simply inheriting the existing rule book in a passive fashion. When Johnson’s motion won the day, he frustrated Nixon’s effort to use the Senate presidency as an engine for filibuster reform.

St. Patrick’s Day 1969

March 17, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Holidays | 1 Comment 

Gift exchange: Irish Ambassador to the United States William Fay pins a shamrock on RN’s lapel, while RN presents to Fay a Waterford Crystal Vase with an etching of the White House.

On St. Patrick’s Day 1969,  in a ceremony with Irish Ambassador to the United States William Fay, RN took a  look back at his Irish heritage:

“I should point out that in our family, Mrs. Nixon’s father was Irish, and on my side my mother was Irish,” he said in a ceremony in the Roosevelt Room with William P. Fay, then-Ireland’s Ambassador to the U.S.

Year after year, St. Patrick’s Day gives American and Irish leaders a chance to hail the longstanding friendship between their two countries and peoples.

Fox News: What Would Nixon Do On Health Care?

March 17, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Domestic issues | 3 Comments 

Fox News contributor Ellen Ratner at the Fox Forum:

No one thought that President Nixon was a liberal in fact I spent much of my youthful years demonizing him and remember exactly where I was the day he resigned. I was cheering.

However, like most of us humans, Nixon was a mixed bag. A crook perhaps but a brilliant one who had some very good legislation and visions for America.

One of these visions was his health care plan and if he were alive today he would be run out of the Republican party for being too liberal. Spoken like a liberal, President Richard Nixon said in February 1974, “Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.”

His Comprehensive Health Insurance plan was designed around several basic tenants:

1. Balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits for every American.

2. The cost would be no more than an American could afford to pay.

3. Catastrophic Illness Would Be Addressed. He proposed a card with information available at the time such as blood type.

Even Ronald Reagan — not a fan of social programs — suggested in February 1987 that Medicare be expanded to offer catastrophic health insurance to people over 65 in hospitals. His administration also looked into requiring employers to offer catastrophic insurance with health insurance policies. He was roundly criticized by Congressman Claude Pepper for not offering catastrophic coverage more broadly and to cover those in nursing homes.

The numbers do not lie and anyone occupying the Oval Office understands that tackling health care is important to the well being of citizens and the overall health of the economy. It is amazing that the Republicans are fighting President Obama’s plan tooth and nail when so many of their party’s icons tried to get health coverage on the national agenda.

Given this history of Republicans wanting true reform of health care, this week when the heath care vote comes up in the House, I would recommend that the GOP, the party of NO, take a look at some of their previous Yes men — Nixon, and even Reagan, and vote YES.

3.17.1969

March 17, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Holidays | Leave a Comment 

RN’s St. Patrick’s Day message:

IT HAS been said that on Saint Patrick’s Day everyone is an Irishman. As one whose ancestors came to America from Ireland, I wish all the Irish–including those who are Irish for only today–a happy and memorable Saint Patrick’s Day.

The life of this national hero and great saint is filled with the power of love. Having been a slave for 6 years, he knew what it was to love liberty. He loved his country and its people. And he devoted his life to bringing God’s word to the Irish.

These three loves–of liberty, of country, and of God have been the heritage of the Irish people wherever they have been. This heritage has enriched the world, but it has particularly enriched the United States of America. In labor, in politics, in industry, in religion, in law, in military service, the Irish who have made this country their home have contributed greatly to the building of a strong and free nation.

Not to be forgotten is the great cleansing gift of Irish laughter, a gift needed today more than ever before. Recently Father Theodore Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame University, suggested that we in the United States should not be afraid to laugh at ourselves and at our troubles. The Irish have shown through the centuries that a people can be strengthened and sustained by the gift of laughter. They have shown the world that men can be serious without always being solemn.

Saint Patrick has long been recognized as representing the spirit of the Irish people. It is in this spirit, in the spirit of liberty and laughter and love of country and of God, I say to all Irishmen today, whatever their country, Eireann Go Bragh.

Next Page »