The late Dr. Ambrose {1936-2002} was the author of some 25 books during his 40 year career.  He was one of the most popular World War II historians, the writer of Band of Brothers (2001), and the technical adviser to “Saving Private Ryan” Steven Spielberg’s D-Day blockbuster.  Ambrose’s three volume biography of Richard Nixon: {The Education of the Politician [1913-1962](pub.1983), “The Triumph of the Politician [1962-1974](pub.1987)”, “Ruin and Recovery [1974-1990](pub.1991)”} stand out as almost required reading for Nixon scholars.

Towards the end of his prolific career, Ambrose was accused of by his critics, and excused for being a virtual “history factory.”  A Stephen Ambrose Inc. who employed his children as research assistants.  {See: Plotz, David, “The Plagiarist: Why Stephen Ambrose is a Vampire”, Slate Magazine, January 11, 2002.}

The current controversy centers on the beginnings of Ambrose’s association with Ike in 1964.  Ambrose’s account, last stated in To America (2002), was that Eisenhower sought out Ambrose after reading his first book, Halleck: Chief of Staff (1962).  The recently retired Eisenhower was especially interested in Lincoln’s Chief of Staff’s story because Eisenhower was interested in writing a book about George Marshall, the Chief of Staff during the Second World War.  Eisenhower wanted Ambrose to work with him on his papers and finally his biography because he figured that Ambrose would be fair.  {See To America pp. 153-154}

Seven years later a different version of events emerged.  Last year, the deputy director of the Eisenhower Library, Tim Rives was looking for documents and the like for his exhibit on Ambrose’s writing on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Eisenhower’s biography.  Rives discovered letters in the archives of Stephen Ambrose soliciting contact with Eisenhower.  It was Ambrose who sent the Halleck book along to give Ike “the opportunity to see some of my writing.”  Another letter was more forward.  “It therefore seems to me that the time has come to begin the scholarly biographies of the leaders of World War II, I would like to begin a full scale, scholarly account of your military career.”  The New Yorker article strongly states that Eisenhower never approached Ambrose, but the editor of the Eisenhower papers, Alfred Chandler, took Ambrose to see Eisenhower at Gettysburg.

This isn’t the most serious charge in the article. Although having boasted about hundreds of hours of interviews with Eisenhower, a recent search of the historical record might suggest otherwise.  Rives states that records of Eisenhower’s schedule for the years of 1964-1967 show that Ambrose met with Eisenhower three times, for a total of five hours.  These records show that Eisenhower was somewhere else or in other meetings, during some of the times Ambrose has listed as having an interview with him.

However, to read Ambrose’s writing through his biographies and in his account of his relationship with Eisenhower in Ambrose’s last book, it is difficult to discount Ambrose’s familiarity with his subject.  Eisenhower did write the foreword to Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point, (1966).  “To America” also describes discussions about more mundane things, such as Ike’s recommendations of restaurants in the area.  {p. 161.}   The New Yorker also brings up the point of just how much of Eisenhower’s career in the military and as President could be discussed in five hours.  Perhaps the author relied more on his knowledge of Eisenhower’s papers, and interviews with other principals than his five hours with Eisenhower.  The record only shows a difference in accounts, without displaying the motivation behind it.  Ambrose, like most biographers, never detailed what historical documentation he valued over others.

It is interesting to note that while Dr. Ambrose has dates for the interviews in the book in question Supreme Commander (1970); in subsequent books on Eisenhower such as the two volume biography and the consolidated Eisenhower: Soldier and President (1991), Ambrose only mentions “Interview with DDE” and doesn’t specify a date.  Maybe it is merely a mistake of a young historian who quietly learned his lesson.  We truly cannot know for sure, since the professor isn’t here to tell us.

Stephen Ambrose was no stranger to controversy about his scholarship.  In the recent piece in the History News Network, entitled “How the Ambrose Story Developed,” the articles cites seven Ambrose books that are in possible question for plagiarism.  According to an article in Forbes Magazine, this habit dates back to his Ph.D dissertation, Upton and the Army (1964). {See: Lewis, Mark, “Ambrose Problems Date Back To Ph.D. Thesis,” Forbes Magazine, May 10, 2002.}  Must we factor in these tendencies in our assessment of his historical analysis?

A few famous historians have been called on insufficient citation.  Most notably Doris Kearns Goodman, who had the remaining copies of The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys (1987) destroyed, made corrections to future editions, and owned up to the mistakes.  (See: Goodman, Doris Kearns, “How I Caused That Story,” Time Magazine, January 27, 2002.)

What is plagiarism?  According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, (as quoted in Wikipedia) it is the “use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”  My definition is simple.  It is the lifting of another person’s words, then representing them as your own.  When you describe a event in someone’s life that has been described by different authors…then one reaches a grey area of interpretation. How can there not be similarities?  This is illustrated when comparing Ambrose’s account of RNs hospital experience in 1975 in “Ruin and Recovery,” with a similar account 16 years earlier in Robert Sam Anson’s book, “Exile.”  {See Lewis, Mark, “More Controversy For Stephen Ambrose,” Forbes Magazine, January 9, 2002.}  While the examples in the article might be a case of insufficient citation, they do not reach the level of plagiarism.

However, making up dates for interviews is a different plateau of error.  While corrected quietly in future works; the sin of creating interviews in “The Supreme Commander” give the reader a false impression that he was writing with Eisenhower’s perspective. As mentioned earlier, for this latest controversy, Dr. Ambrose isn’t here to offer a defense, reason or excuse.

This whole Ambrose controversy should serve as a cautionary tale for all of us.  It is a reminder to tighten one’s craft.  Plagiarism, insufficient citation, and other errors can be taken care of in the cases of established historians like Goodwin, and Ambrose.  After all, the great publishing houses can repair the damage by correction.  While the established historians would be assessed by the totality of their work; these errors would be fatal to the career of the beginning historian and his or her first book.

Great care and attention must be put towards citation.  In my other vocation in the legal profession, proper citation is a given.  There are legal consequences for failure.  During the plagiarism charges regarding The Wild Blue (2001), Dr. Ambrose wrote on his website, “I tell stories.  I don’t discuss my documents.  I discuss the story.  It almost gets to the point where, how much is the reader going to take?  I am not writing a Ph.D dissertation.”  (Quoted from Kirkpatrick, David, “As Historian’s Fame Grows, So Does Attention to Sources,” New York Times, January 11, 2002.)

Fair enough.  While histories and biographies shouldn’t turn into dissertations; we as biographers and historians do write for two audiences.  One is the casual reader of history – who is looking for a good, interesting read without the distraction of footnotes within the text.  Current biographers such as Edmund Morris, Richard Reeves, and David McCullough use source notes at the back of the book rather than footnotes.

The other audience is fellow historians and students of history.  Accurately quoted and cited source materials; whether it is from a secondary source, or an interview, or letter is essential.  Doris Kearns Goodwin put it best when she said: “The writing of history is a rich process of building on the work of the past with the hope that others will build on what you have done. Through footnotes you point the way to future historians.”  (See: “How I Caused That Story.”)  After all, no writer of history or biography wants to jump in the abyss…

For the modern historian without Professor Ambrose’s reputation; the making up of interviews of their main subject would be an unpardonable offence.  With modern technology, there is no excuse for not accurately accounting for all interviews with your subject.  They must be treated and cited like any other document or secondary source material, with the date and place of interview listed.  This includes the extra step of transcribing of all interviews, a process that is invaluable for documentation.

The historical jury is still out on how Professor Ambrose’s scholarship will finally be judged.  In the end, after the author is long gone….the work must defend him.  As our work as historians and biographers must defend us.

Whenever I visit the Nixon Library, I always stop by President and Mrs. Nixon’s gravesite to pay my respects.  Once there, I sense an overwhelming responsibility.  The voice that tells me…  “Get It Right.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” 

Amendment One, United States Constitution.  The quoted passage is the Establishment Clause.  The intent of the Framers is to provide the American people the right to practice their own religious beliefs – but also the right of citizens to be free from religion if they so choose.  This is the foundation of one of the cornerstone of our democracy.  It was explained in a letter to the Danbery Baptist Association in 1802.  President Thomas Jefferson writes: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”  In 1812, John Adams wrote, “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”  Over a half a century later, Ulysses S. Grant stated, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”

The recent federal district decision in Freedom from Religion, et al. vs. Obama, et al. is an important one.  It is the reminder that the government should represent all Americans regardless of religious belief or non-belief, and that the Constitution protects everyone’s rights.  Clearly, the National Day of Prayer promotes the Judeo-Christian practices and beliefs.  It is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, and runs counter to the concept of the separation of church and state supported by Thomas Jefferson.  Over the last half century, the American legal system has endeavored to be neutral regarding endorsement of religion.  Decisions such as Freedom from Religion, are in keeping with these legal precedents established by the Court.

The National Day of Prayer was established in 1952.  Billy Graham, the most respected and popular evangelicals of his era inspired the legislation.  During a six-week evangelical crusade in Washington DC, Rev. Graham spoke about how America had “dropped our pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, and are sailing blindly on without divine chart or compass, hoping somehow to find our desired haven.  We have certain leaders who are rank materialists, they do not recognize God nor care for Him; they spend their time in one round of parties after another.  The Capital City of our Nation can have a great spiritual awakening, thousands coming to Jesus Christ, but certain leaders have not lifted on eyebrow, nor raised a finger, nor show the slightest bit of concern….  Ladies and gentlemen, I warn you, if this state of affairs continues, the end of course is national shipwreck and ruin.”

In response to this dire religious threat, both houses of Congress introduced legislation to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.  Representative Percy Priest in introducing the legislation said that the country “had been challenged yesterday by the suggestion made on the east steps of the Capitol by Billy Graham that the Congress call the President for the proclamation of a prayer.”  The Senator introducing the bill in the Senate, Absalom Robertson (who was the father to Rev. Pat Robertson) stated that the measure was “against the corrosive forces of communism which seek simultaneously to destroy our democratic way of life and the faith in an Almighty God on which it is based.”

In 1988, Congress revisited the National Day of Prayer proclamation to specify a specific day.  This is so the faithful could better organize events.  This also placed the National Day of Prayer on another plateau, along such days as Mother’s Day, or Thomas Jefferson’s Birthday.  Senator Strom Thurmond thought having a day set for the National Day of Prayer would help because, “a date that changes each year, it is difficult for religious groups to give advance notice to the many citizens who would like to make plans for their church and community. Maximum participation in the public knowledge of this event could be achieved, if, in addition to its being proclaimed annually, it were established as a specific, annual, calendar day.”  {See Freedom of Religion v. Obama, p. 9.}  Codification of a day in federal law would then assist the legislative intent by the government sponsored opportunity of better organization and a larger turn out.

The legislative intent of the National Day of Prayer was underscored by Sen. Jesse Helms who said, “America must return to the spiritual source of her greatness and reclaim her religious heritage. Our prayer should be that—like the Old Testament nation of Israel—Americans would once again ‘humble themselves, and pray, and seek God’s face, and turn from [our] wicked ways’ so that God in heaven will hear and forgive our sins and heal our land.” {See Freedom of Religion v. Obama, p. 9.}  Obviously, the legislative effect that the Congress was seeking was the promotion of the Judeo-Christian faith exclusively. 

There were no calls to include other faiths in the legislation, or the actual implementation.  Indeed the ruling in Freedom of Religion documents several incidents of those Christians to wish to claim the National Day of Prayer as their own.   Examples like a coordinator in Bakersfield stating that “”[t]he National Day of Prayer is actually all about the Lord.  So we’re representing the Christian community.” See “The Bakersfield Californian” May 1, 2008.  Or local groups complaining in Tennessee that the National Day of Prayer “mak[es] members of minority religions feel that unless they adhere to Christianity they are unpatriotic.” See “Memphis Commercial Appeal”, May 1, 2008.  Or in Illinois, organizers of a event being criticized after saying that the event is “only about Jesus and Jesus the Savior alone”; although they had “no problems having [members of other religions] participate, though not in speaking roles.” See “Springfield State-Journal Register,” April 30, 2006. Or finally an example in Utah, where a Mormon reader “didn’t think [she] was allowed to participate” because she “pray[s} to the wrong God.” See “Deseret Morning News,” October 20, 2009. {See Freedom of Religion v. Obama, pp. 57-59 for entire list.} 

Justice Blackmum (RN appointee) might have shed some additional light on this when he wrote in a concurring opinion: “The mixing of government and religion can be a threat to free government, even if no one is forced to participate. When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs.”  Lee vs. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, at 606, (1992).  Justice O’Connor in County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989) writes, “government cannot endorse the religious practices and beliefs of some citizens without sending a clear message to nonadherents that they are outsiders or less than full members of the political community.”  492 U.S. 573, at 627.  {Quoted from Freedom of Religion, p. 20.}.

For those who believe that the National Day of Prayer is merely a proclaimation without force need to heed the words of Justice Kennedy.  “[T]he lesson that in the hands of government what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce.”  {Lee vs. Weisman at 591-592.}  This of course begs the question…what would a less tolerate government do with a National Day of Prayer?

This ruling by Judge Crabb is only the beginning of the process, that will ultimately take the case to the halls of the United States Supreme Court. The ruling in Freedom from Religion v. Obama he should not be seen as Judeo-Christian religion being relegated to “stepchild” status — (though atheists seem to be orphans in this society.)  It shouldn’t be misinterpreted as “the arrogant absurdity of a court.”  It isn’t code to ban religion.  The ruling is enforcement of the governmental ban against favoring one religion and faith over another.  It is against government sanction or encouragement that must be the responsibility of private churches and your private point of view.  This ruling is evidence that the United States Constitution protects all of our rights, believers and non-believers alike; from the potential theocratic tyranny of a government.  As the front of the Supreme Court building states…

“Equal Justice Under Law.”

1972 Bumper Sticker

Since “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt” came out during my senior year of high school at Los Alamitos High in Southern California; Edmund Morris has always been an idol of mine.  His clear, three dimensional writing on the twenty-sixth president brought TR to life for me.  Someday, I told myself, I wanted to write a biography of Richard Nixon just like that.  Make RN jump off the paper, much like TR does in the Prologue in “Rise.”  And I’ve been trying to make RN jump off the page ever since.

Still I was a bit disappointed with Morris’s biography of Ronald Reagan.  I was the most troubled by was that Morris admitted in several articles that his subject was still a mystery to him.  After fifteen years of access, research and writing about the man; Reagan was a mystery to his authorized biographer?  For the longest time, I viewed that as a historical cop-out.

Although, I must admit to a “Morris Moment” of my own.  It centers on the immediate aftermath of RNs reelection in 1972.  It should have been a moment of great personal triumph for Richard Nixon.  Thirty-seven years ago today, he was reelected President of the United States by the second largest popular percentage in American history.  It was an opportunity for Nixon to shape the post-Vietnam era, and truly “Bring Us Together.”

Instead it was, according to Henry Kissinger termed it “[t]he strangest period in Nixon’s Presidency.”  {See Kissinger, White House Years, (1978), p. 1406.}  On the night of his victory, RN felt melancholy.  In his Memoirs, RN recalled that “it was one of the most frustrating and in many ways the least satisfying of all.” {pp. 717, 665) He was combative, issuing orders to freeze out major players in the news media from access. {See: Haldeman, Haldeman Diaries (1994), p. 532.}  The next morning, instead of celebrating a mandate, he spoke of “exhausted volcanoes,” and requested the resignation of the entire White House staff and non-career administration.  Towards his political enemies, the siege mentality that marked the first term, became “[t}hey are asking for it, and they are going to get it,” of the second term. {See Ambrose, The Triumph of a Politician (1989), p. 662}

At first blush, one cannot help to be amazed by the dichotomy between Nixon’s victory and his baffling bitterness.  Long time aides like Herbert Klein were shocked, stating that “I found this post-election act the most disheartening, most surprising and most cruel of all…  It was ungrateful and it was bitterly cold.”  Kissinger noted that Nixon “in his hour of triumph an impression of such total vindictiveness and insensitivity.” {See Ambrose, Ruin and Recovery (1991), p. 15.}

However, the answers are out there.  While RN later admitted in his memoirs that the mass resignations were a mistake, and were only supposed to be symbolic.  {See Memoirs, pp. 768-769.} There was ample historical precedent of disappointing second terms and Nixon’s own experience with Eisenhower’s second term.

By putting yourself in Richard Nixon’s shoes, the emotions of vindictiveness and confrontation are also understandable.  According to Conrad Black, “he cheered up in crises, was let down by victory…”  {See Black, “Man in Full” (2007), p. 845.}  Through all of the painful political battles of his career, from the Hiss Case, to the Fund Crisis, to the painful defeats in 1960 and 1962; RN always saw the political world as one of confrontation, a constant, eternal “us against them” battle for supremacy.  In Kissinger’s words, “it was as if victory was not an occasion for reconciliation but an opportunity to settle the scores of a lifetime.”  {See White House Years, p. 1406}

Additionally, RN always thought that his presidency was always under siege from old political enemies like the media and liberals, and new ones like anti-war protesters.  The reelected president anticipated a major battle with a Democratic control Congress, as John Connally told him that the mood on Capitol Hill “was the most vicious thing I have ever seen.  They are mean and testy.”   {See Memoirs, p. 770}  Especially taken against the backdrop of the times, all politics was warfare: the only code ‘do onto your enemies before they do onto you.’  The mentality that history would tell us at a later time, was tragically counterproductive and in the end, self fulfilling.

Of course hindsight and perspective displays another path.  A path towards the “New American Revolution”, the ambition to fix what Nixon saw as a crisis of spirit in the country.  An unprecedented reform and reorganization of the Cabinet and the rest of the executive branch.. A path to comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and another round of arms control with the Soviet Union.  The potential for a truly great legacy as a transformational president.

Instead Nixon’s experience in political life didn’t allow this path of reconciliation, but demanded the path of confrontation.

Just as Nixon was considered the only president who could open diplomatic relations with China, Clinton was the only one who could bestow upon Nixon the kind of public credibility he so desired.

—Monica Crowley

“Nixon in Winter” (1998)

In my library, I try to keep one or two good biographies of each president since FDR.  This timeline of course, corresponds with Richard Nixon’s political career.  The recently released book, “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President” will not disappoint those who are interested in Richard Nixon and his interactions with Bill Clinton during Nixon’s final years.

Much has been written about President Clinton’s eulogy of President Nixon where Clinton states “may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”  In the Clinton Tapes, Clinton told Taylor Branch that he received a lot of grief for the tone of the eulogy.  However, Clinton “wanted to frame Nixon as the last liberal in a larger historical cycle, by highlighting his innovative proposals for the environment, income maintenance, and comprehensive health insurance.”  {See Branch, “The Clinton Tapes,” (2009) p. 153.}

I was struck by how Clinton viewed RN much more sympathically, even though Clinton was from the opposite party and had a different political philosophy.  It is his wife that holds the partisan grudges of the past.  This is illustrated in a story about where Presidential portraits are to be hung in the White House.  Hillary was adamant that the Nixon official portrait be taken upstairs and hidden from view.  {See “Clinton Tapes, p. 284.}

In spite of his wife’s partisanship, President Clinton saw RNs foreign policy experience, especially as it related to Russia in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War; to be the biggest asset to Clinton.  There were other reasons as well, as President Clinton hoped that RN could provide political cover with Republicans in Congress regarding aid to Russia. {p. 124.} RNs trip to Russia in 1993 turned out to be a valuable resource to President Clinton.  The report of the meeting in Russia was in the words of President Clinton: “the most brilliant communication on foreign policy to reach him as president.”  {p. 135.} The former president had a glowing review as well. The following telephone call between the two was “the best conversation with a president I’ve had since I was president”, according to RN. {See Crowley, “Nixon in Winter,” p. 129.}

It was most interesting to compare what the 42^nd thought of the 37^th and vice-versa.  The best source material to accomplish this is Monica Crowley’s second book on her professional time with Nixon, the previously cited “Nixon in Winter.”

According to Crowley, RN wasn’t enamored with Clinton at first.  RN saw that Clinton’s election showed that the country “had adopted a more permissive view of personal morality,” a precedent for lower moral expectations.  {See Crowley, p. 321,322} Still RN courted Clinton from the beginning, writing him a note congratulating Clinton on running an excellent campaign for president in 1992. {p. 103-104.} Crowley notes the irony that it was Senator Bob Dole, the future nominee who would run against Clinton in the next election; as the very person who brought the two together. {p. 127-128}

It would be fair to say that Nixon would still have his doubts about Clinton.  He would cite Clinton’s indecisiveness and failure to lead “were robbing America of the extraordinary power, leverage, and creditability it had done so much to achieve.”  {p. 139} Nevertheless, through renewed access (as RN thought the previous president didn’t consider his advice) Nixon warmed up to Clinton.  He was an attentive pupil in the area of foreign affairs.

Crowley sees the relationship between Clinton and Nixon well:

Nixon was a realist and knew that Clinton sought his advice for his own benefit, not for Nixon’s.  But Nixon, aware that his position close to Clinton’s ear guaranteed him access and influence, flattered Clinton as Clinton flattered him.  It was a mutually beneficial relationship: Clinton got much needed foreign policy advice for the nation’s elder statesman, and Nixon got a measure of public credibility and access to the president. (p. 135}

In several ways, it can be argued that the teacher-student relationship that the new president had with the recognized elder statesman was RNs last attempt of both redemption and service to his country.

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and — and integrity has been questioned.

—Richard Nixon

September 23, 1952

We all know that Richard Nixon is one of the most complex and important figures of 20^th Century American history.  To understand his time; you must first consider the events of the Fund Crisis and the resulting speech that RN made to a national audience fifty seven years ago tonight.  It was the real, somewhat impromptu introduction of Richard Nixon to a national audience of 60 million, the largest audience up to that time.  Those days in 1952 created the public’s prejudice towards RN, and even Nixon’s prejudice towards politics itself.

The fund crisis would also have long term consequences for Nixon’s career.  One can see the seeds of it later appearing in the 1962 final press conference and the siege mentality that dominated his presidency.

On September 18, 1952, “Secret Nixon Fund!” was the front page headline in the New York Post.  It was recognized as a partisan paper of the time.  The revelation of Nixon’s fund was probably made by a supporter of Earl Warren.  (See Newton, Jim, “Justice for All: Earl Warren and The Nation He Made,” (2006) p. 257.) {Warren was governor of California, the Vice Presidential nominee in 1948, and a rival for the VP nomination in 1952.  In fact, many advisers wanted Warren to be the VP nominee — after of course Nixon stepped aside.} It was one that almost ended his career before it started.

It was about a fund that took care of some of Nixon’s expenses that were political in nature, and ones that couldn’t be covered by a senator’s salary.  Originally it was created in anticipation of a 1956 re-election run for the Senate.  (See Morris, Roger, “Richard Nixon: The Rise of the American Politician”, (1990) p. 634.) Opponents would call it a ‘slush’ fund.  However in the aftermath of the Fund Crisis, it was discovered that the Democratic nominee for President, Adlai Stevenson had a ‘slush’ fund ten times the size of Nixon’s.

But Nixon’s was the first fund that was revealed.  Many top party leaders and Eisenhower advisers wanted the junior senator from California to withdraw from the Vice Presidential nomination.  Even the reporters on the ‘Nixon Special’ train almost unanimously (40-2) thought Nixon should leave the ticket.  (See Wicker, Tom, “One of Us,” (1991) p. 88.) However, RN decided on a unique approach.  He would take his case directly to the American people in a televised address to the nation.

The speech took place at the El Capitan in Los Angeles.  It was a complete explanation of his finances, that left nothing to hide.  After Nixon pleaded with his audience “to wire or write the Republican party” — he thought that he failed.  Yet, the positive response to the speech was overwhelming for Nixon.  For the first in many times, Nixon survived after being counted out.

The Fund Crisis and the speech would transform his career; and how Nixon was thought of in the country.  While the Hiss case five years earlier might have started it, the fund crisis and speech polarized and cemented opinions about Nixon.  It would garner lifelong friends and enemies as well.

The Checkers speech did this the most.  Supporters of Nixon’s began to see him as an everyman, a common person with the same financial problems as everyone else, with a populist philosophy.  According to Herbert Parmet, to these supporters Nixon “was a figure from a Frank Capra movie, a “Mr. Smith” who had gone to Washington and found himself contending with all the problems that the Mr. Smiths of America could recognize.”  (See Parmet, Herbert, “Richard Nixon and his America,” (1990) p. 246.)

On the other hand, the critics of Nixon would point to the speech as the first example of Nixon’s manipulative politics, and questionable character. Walter Lippmann described the speech “a disturbing experience…with all the magnification of modern electronics, simply mob law.”  (See Morris, p. 854.) To these observers, Nixon would always have a political target on his back, and questions about character.

The positive reaction to the speech suggested to RN that he could go over the heads of the print and other media.  He could use the new medium of television to talk directly to the American electorate.  In the future, RN would have no use of the press, in spite of the favorable coverage given to Nixon in his campaigns for Congress in 1946-1950.  RN would be one of the first national leaders to use television in its infancy.  Years later, in the debates of 1960, Nixon would see the negative impact of television as well, since most people though Nixon won the first debate on the radio.

It also forever altered his relationship with President Eisenhower.  RN would always resent Ike for allowing him to twist in the wind.  Relations with the Eisenhower staff started on the wrong foot and stayed there, since many, including close advisers Sherman Adams and Thomas Dewey preferred Nixon’s withdrawal from the ticket.

For his part, Eisenhower didn’t appreciate his young running mate’s call for full financial disclosure during the speech.  The subtle schism only affected the administration behind the scenes.  It would set the stage for Eisenhower’s attempt at nudging RN off the ticket in 1956, and his lukewarm support of RNs presidential bid in 1960.

The events of this night 57 years ago would be a bitter learning curve for the young nominee.  RN was surprised and embittered with the number of friends who would abandon him.  In the words of Jonathan Aitken: “What really hurt them was the public questions of the financial integrity that had been the cornerstone of their lives.”  (See Aitken, Jonathan, “Nixon: A Life”, (1992) p. 221.) In his Memoirs, Nixon said that he learned that “In politics most people are your friends only as long as you can do something for them or something to them.” (See, Nixon, “RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, (1978) p. 110) Nixon would recount the lessons of the Fund Crisis for the rest of his career, and make the Fund speech required reading for his speech writers and staff. (See Safire, William, Safire’s Political Dictionary, (2008), pp. 113–15.)

For his wife, the reaction to the Fund Crisis would be starker.  While Mrs. Nixon was very critical of revealing private details of their lives, her encouragement of Nixon minutes before the speech would be decisive.  Still the experience scarred her for the rest of her life.  It was one matter that Pat Nixon wouldn’t talk about, the one person that RN didn’t remind about the anniversary of the speech.  (See Eisenhower, Julie Nixon, “Pat Nixon: The Untold Story,” (1986), p. 126.) Nixon would write in his memoirs that those difficult days would make his wife “dream of the day I would leave it behind.”  (See Nixon, p. 108.)

You know, I always laugh at those conservative politicians that decry socialized medicine — while enjoying the benefits of government run health care themselves.  Let them put their health where their mouth is.  Cancel their socialized medicine, and go into the “free” market like everyone else.

As usual, those who oppose reform are using the tried and true fear card.  They tell us that government run health care will lead to socialized medicine, rationing care, and the infamous “death panels”, among other things.

The truth of the matter is: the system that the critics fear is already in place.  It is called corporate health care.  Large insurance companies already ration care by denying claims and coverage.  In California, PacificCare has denied 40% of their claims, while HealthNet has denied 30% of theirs.  Lose necessary tests in a mountain of red tape.  Cancel your policy when you reach a monetary limit.  Never offer insurance at all to those with pre-existing conditions.  Allow the ‘free market’ to raise premiums until a business or individual cannot pay them anymore — and the policy lapses.

For those who have no health insurance, and have a catastrophic illness or injury…aren’t all of these inactions by the corporate insurance companies infamous “death panels?”  Is it easier for the critics to have these death panels consisting of corporate health clerks, rather than government bureaucrats?

Currently, the momentum seems to be away from true reform, and towards reinforcing the corporate health care system.  Proposals such as mandatory health insurance for individuals would only really benefit the corporate insurance market.  It gives them 40 million new customers that must buy their product.  It gives people that are already struggling, another bill.

Any proposed health care system without a public option, a type of Medicare for all, isn’t reform at all.  It is the codification of the status quo, and creation of a windfall comparable to the windfall enjoyed by the oil companies.  This kind of reform doesn’t benefit the majority of American people.  Consider that mother in the news who was trying to feed her family and keep a roof over her head.  She needs real reform, not a Republican congresswoman telling her to “grow up” and get health insurance.

True health care reform doesn’t mean a total government takeover.  Tonight the President needs to return to his original proposal for health care.  If you have health insurance you like, you can keep it.  A strong public option in place for people who cannot afford health care, and foster competition (one of the facets of capitalism I thought).  Outlining pre-existing conditions.  Making the best health care system a right for all American, and not just a privilege for those who can afford it.  While we in America have the greatest health care system in the world – really it’s of limited benefit for people that can’t afford it.

It should be noted that RN in 1971 proposed a similar system of employer mandated health insurance.  The recent book, “The Heart of Power” credits RN with forming the parameters of the future debates of 1994 and 2009 about health care.  The failure of RNs proposal didn’t affect his legacy as president.  There were bigger issues that did.  Watergate.  Vietnam.  China.

In sharp contrast, health care will affect this president’s legacy.  There is also a good chance that it will affect President Obama’s future success and failure as well.  Also the country’s as well…

As we all know, difficult times provide the greatest test of one’s character.  During the first days of August 1974, Richard Nixon’s character was tested unlike any other American president in history.

Becoming President of the United States was the great ambition of Richard Nixon.  It is the ultimate journey for any American politician.  Since his entry on to the national stage some twenty years before, it was a mighty struggle throughout his career.  Thru the valleys of two defeats that would have shattered anyone else; and the constant rigors of intense political battles.  Finally in 1969, thru all of his struggles; Richard Nixon became President of the United States.

Imagine for a moment how hard that would be to give up…  Something you worked you whole career for.  Something that possibly you valued more than anything else.

During the days of August, RNs political critics and adversaries feared the worse.  His harshest opponents saw him as power mad, frightfully capable of anything.  Would the President try to hold on to power by any means?  Nixon’s personal strain of the times might cause a calamity unprecedented in American history.  A member of RNs cabinet, James Schlesinger feared that the Armed Forces would be called to keep the President in power and sought to prevent it.

Of course, they did not know Richard Nixon.  They could have seen how Richard Nixon would have handled these last days of his Presidency.  After all, there was historical precedent for it in Nixon’s own career.  In 1960 in the immediate aftermath of the closest election in American history, many Nixon supporters thought that the election was stolen.  Many, including President Eisenhower favored contesting the election result.  However, Richard Nixon could not contest the election.  He felt that it would send the wrong message to young democracies that even American elections could not be legitimate.  A contested election, without a President would harm America and its prestige around the world.

He loved his country, and respected the presidency too much to put it thru the political apocalypse that Nixon’s opponents feared.  There would be no armed forces circling the White House.  RN didn’t even insist that the process of impeachment continue.  He thought that the country would be crippled by a part-time, politically damaged President.  So, Richard Nixon sacrificed the very thing he valued most…  The Presidency.

While there is much to criticize about Nixon’s handling of Watergate and related areas, future generations of Americans owe Richard Nixon a debt of gratitude.  In other nations, other leaders in Richard Nixon’s position would have held tightly to power until a tragic end.  History is filled with events like that.  But Richard Nixon didn’t do that.  He established a precedent for an orderly transfer of power, and in the final analysis the fact that no person is above the law.

Author’s Note:  Nineteen years ago tonight marks the anniversary of the dinner honoring the Library’s dedication.  The following article appeared in the Checkers newsletter in the August 1990 issue.

As a bit of background, Checkers was a newsletter started by Chris Crain, a prolific collector of Richard Nixon political memorabilia.  Checkers was published four times a year between 1975 to 1994.

I was Assistant Editor of the newsletter from 1986 to 1991.  In those days, we complied the newsletter should I say, manually.  There was a deadline to submit articles.  The illustrations were photocopied and placed on the page.  Chris would then type around the illustrations.  What we could have done with modern technology of desktop publishing…

I will always be grateful to Chris Crain for giving me my first opportunity to write about Richard Nixon.

So here are my thoughts after the dinner at the Century Plaza Hotel.  I would be most interested to hear from anyone else who was there that night.

There are no second tables here; only first tables   You are all our friends—RN

The evening festivities took place in Los Angeles with a ‘celebration gala’ at the Century Plaza Hotel.  The black tie dinner honoring President and Mrs. Nixon and their family followed the morning’s dedication of the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace in Yorba Linda.

When our party arrived at the hotel, our cab was greeted by protesters.  We weren’t sure exactly what they were protesting, but the following day’s newspaper said it appeared to be about 30 different causes.

The formal reception began at 7:00pm in California Lounge.  Inside was a virtual treasure trove for autograph seekers.  Several former Nixon administration officials and other celebrities were making the rounds outside the banquet room.  Notables such as Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, George Romney, H.R. Haldeman, William Simon, Richard Allen, Pat Buchanan, Ken Khachigian and Herb Klein.  Celebrities included Foster Brooks, George Allen, Tom Landry and Cesar Romero.  There were some people that fit both categories, like Benjamin Stein.  Stein, a former speechwriter for the Nixon administration, presently appears on “The Wonder Years,” a top-rated television series.

About 8:00pm, people began entering the Los Angeles Ballroom for dinner.  A program greeted each place at the table.  Featured in each program was a 5” x 7” color photograph of the entire Nixon family.  The photograph had been taken on the occasion of the Nixons’ 50^th Wedding Anniversary at their home in Saddle River, New Jersey.  This photograph made the program a very special one indeed.

Seated at our table were the Crains, Eldon Almquist, Bob Fuhr, Harry Jeffery, Jim Carskadon, Jack and Darlene Cook and myself.  Seated at the other NPIC table, on the other side of the ballroom, were Les and Susan Spreen, Phil and Jean Baldwin, Lu Paletta, Lloyd and Mabel Johnson and Donna and Bill Hickman.

After a welcome by Bruce Herschenson, the Master of Ceremonies, and the invocation by Billy Graham, the appetizer, salad and entrée were served.  According to the wishes of Mrs. Nixon, the dinner featured a low sodium meal.  While dinner was being served, the All-American Boys Chorus sang to the guests.  It was at this point that the most personally event almost occurred.

The area where the Boys Chorus was singing was directly across from the head table.  Between dinner and dessert, former President Nixon appeared on the stage, briefly leading the chorus in song.  It quickly became apparent that RN might attempt to greet each table.  Maybe I would get to meet him.

Many thoughts crossed my mind.  What would I say?  Perhaps tell him what his legacy meant to younger Americans like myself.  Maybe just a “how about those Mets?”  There probably wouldn’t be enough time.  I would have a few moments at the very most.

My inner excitement grew as the former President approached.  A crowd of people, with RN in the middle, moved toward our table.  It was a different feeling seeing the former President in this setting.  Slightly larger than life, but also one of us.  A bodyguard walked ahead, clearing the way.  People were getting up and greeting RN.  This, unfortunately, made passage a little difficult.  I had no desire to push my way into the crowd.  RN looked taller than I thought he would be.  As he passed by our table he shook Chris’ hand.  He then reached over and shook Candy Crain’s hand.  By the time I extended my hand the group had moved on.  I guess that’s what one would call a near brush with history.

After dessert the program continued.  Norman Vincent Peale recounted his visit to Vietnam, as well as personal memories of the Nixon family.  Bob Hope provided some comic entertainment.  Hope quipped that the library dedication was an opportunity to see Mount Rushmore live.  He also noticed that Yorba Linda was the only place in which Nixon T-shirts were outselling the Simpsons.  Hope’s remarks were followed by two toasts to the Nixons.  Maurice Stans gave a toast to Pat Nixon and Ambassador Walter Annenberg gave a toast to President Nixon.  President Nixon was then introduced by William Simon.

At the beginning of his remarks, President Nixon recognized all of the people who had spoken on his behalf.  He remembered that he probably knew Les Brown the longest.  Brown and his band had played at Duke Law School while RN attended there in the 1930s.  RN recalled Mrs. Billy Graham’s show of support during the time of his brush with death in a Long Beach hospital in 1975.  He thanked Norman Vincent Peale for the support given his family over the years.  He recognized Bob Hope’s contribution to the USO and his frequent visits to American servicemen overseas.  In total, RN expressed his deep appreciation for friends who stuck by in the darkest of times.  While RNs evening remarks carried the theme of his dedication speech, the tone was much more personal.  In a highlight to the evening, Mrs. Nixon said a few words after the program.

Finally, it was over.  It had been a most memorable day.  All of the planning and anticipation were reality.  It truly was the event of a lifetime!

When reading the sample documents, one cannot help to be struck by the conflict mentality of the Nixon White House.  It was leadership by political warfare; the art of beating the opposition party on the political battlefield of public opinion.  Many documents authored by Charles Colson, and especially a memorandum to the President by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (with RN marginalia) {See Memo from Moynihan to the President: November 13, 1971} ; suggest that the Nixon administration thought they weren’t only fighting a political war, but a cultural war against liberals.  This is several years before Bill O’Reilly made the ‘culture war’ into media rhetoric.

While RN was moderate politically, these documents underscore that perhaps that RN might have been more conservative privately.  RN might have been less of a ‘fellow traveler’ of the right, as Pat Buchanan has accused RN of being; and more of a ‘fellow traveler’ of the center.

More of the re-assessment of history might come in the area of RNs role in the Vietnam War.  It seems that RNs public rhetoric of confidence, didn’t match what was said in the private halls of the White House.  Like Lyndon Johnson; RN understood the war was a no-win situation.  RNs main objective was to preserve American prestige and respect around the world intact, while withdrawing from Vietnam.  This would be achieved by using different tactics; by bombing the enemy to the peace tables.

Much of this we already know.  But what the latest release of the tapes show, is the length in which RN and Kissinger would go to achieve their main objective.  Protecting American prestige, and getting out of the conflict.  More and more, it is coming out – that the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973 benefited the North Vietnamese most of all.  This is proven by the clear fact that North Vietnamese troops were still allowed in South Vietnam (as both forces froze where they were), after the ceasefire.  Prime Minister Thieu understood it – and became the main obstacle in signing the agreement in Paris.  This became the main subject of RN and Kissinger’s frustration.  It seems that all of this places “peace with honor” into question.

As more and more documents are released, the historical balance will produce a Richard Nixon who was – not the one who the critics or his fanatics want him to be.

–Richard Nixon

to H.R. Haldeman

June 23, 1972

By that order, on this day thirty seven years ago, Richard Nixon destroyed his Presidency, and set into motion the events that would lead to his resignation less than twenty-two months later.  Still, it is way past the time for supporters and critics of Richard Nixon to put the “Smoking Gun” and indeed all of Watergate into proper perspective.  While the events and implications of June 23, 1972 are important, they cannot overshadow everything else.

Under federal law, obstruction of justice is defined as: “[t]he criminal offense, under common law and according to the statutes of many jurisdictions, of obstructing the administration and due process of law.  It is “[a] criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.”  (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.)  Specifically in Watergate, President Nixon could have been held accountable for violating the Omnibus Clause {18 U.S.C.A. § 1503}.  The relevant portion of this statute covers “endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”   (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale.) Unlike many of the other charges that others in Watergate were tried and some convicted for: obstruction of justice is uniquely President Nixon’s.  The June 23^rd tape ties Nixon to Watergate, directly and forever.  It is only within the power of the executive to order to use one executive agency to stop a criminal investigation by another.

Many believe that the President wanted to stop the investigation out of a legitimate national security concern.  After all, some of the burglars were involved in the Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba.  However, this reason is a red-herring.  An invasion eleven years ago has no relevance to a political break-in.  Bringing up the Bay of Pigs fiasco was just a way to remind Democrats and the current CIA apparatus of the potential reopening of a politically embarrassing event of a Democratic administration.

When one consults the Haldeman Diaries, things don’t seem clear cut.  On the editor’s note on page 475, CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters was to call the FBI Director Gray to tell him to stop his investigation.  However, on July 6^th, the editor’s note on page 481 states that Walters told Gray that CIA had no interest in Watergate.  RN then told him to continue the investigation.  (See Haldeman, H.R. “The Haldeman Diaries”, 1994.)

Of course the original intent wasn’t to find out if the CIA had interest; it was to stop the investigation entirely.  In addition, the Omnibus Clause covers “endeavors” as well as successful attempts to obstruct justice.

Much later, Richard Nixon discussed the “Smoking Gun” tape in both the Memoirs and in a later book, “In the Arena”. In the Memoirs, he said that Haldeman informed him that the CIA and FBI had a long-standing agreement not to interfere in each other’s secret operations.”  (See Nixon, Richard; Memoirs, 1978, p. 640.)   In his book, “In the Arena”, RN stated that one of the myths of Watergate was that he committed obstruction of justice.  He received bad advice from aides (Dean) who themselves had something to hide.  And besides, the officials at the CIA, Director Helms and Deputy Director Walters ignored the White House request and the investigation continued.  (See Nixon, Richard; In the Arena, 1990, pp. 34-35.)

There is still no evidence that the break in was a secret operation.  The Plumbers who participated worked for the White House or the Committee to Reelect.  Even if there was no actual obstruction, the Omnibus Clause clearly concerns endeavors to obstruct.  And while advisors advise, it is the President of the United States who is responsible for the decisions made. And this decision cost Richard Nixon the presidency.

After the disclosure of the tape in the first days of August, it was felt to be an impeachable offense by both sides of the aisle.  After the June 23^rd tape was disclosed by order of the Supreme Court; the President’s support among Republicans evaporated.  Years later, Barry Goldwater recalled the last meeting…

I said, I took a nose count in the Senate today.  You have fourteen votes.  The others are really undecided.  I’m one of them.

(See Goldwater, Barry, “With No Apologies”, 1979, p 279.)

It was clear that he would be the second President to be impeached in the House, and the first President in history to be convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

The action on the tape was quintessence Nixon.  Richard Nixon always thought in political terms — in political right and wrong.  His instinct was to limit the political damage for his reelection — in which he reasoned wasn’t a sure thing.  The action also showed his character.  The President wanted to protect the people who worked hard for him and the country.  Richard Nixon’s loyalty to his friends and allies has always been without question.

Of course, one must factor the era of Watergate to be taken seriously in historical circles.  It is the elephant in the room.  However, it must not cancel all of the achievements of the Nixon years.  Remember it was President Bill Clinton who said, “may the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close.”  (See Remarks by President Bill Clinton, Funeral for President Richard Nixon, April 22, 1994.)

After all, Richard Nixon was an “American Pioneer” in many ways.  As Vice-President, he traveled the world more than any previous Vice President.  He was the first Vice President of consequence in the modern era, rather than being a figurehead waiting for tragedy to step in.  As President, his vision and actions unlocked the doors to mainland China.  His different strategy of Vietnamization ended American involvement in the Vietnam War; and serve as instruction for modern conflicts like Iraq.  President Nixon was the first president to make an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union.

Domestically, Richard Nixon was a pioneer too.  Revenue sharing through programs like the Philadelphia plan was without precedent.  His administration spearheaded clear air legislation, creating the Environmental Protection Agency.  The Nixon Administration also federally funded cancer research, and proposed the first comprehensive health care system.

And finally, Richard Nixon will also be appreciated for how he handled the end of his Presidency.  His resignation set the precedent for transition of power.  Unlike many other countries, no military coups, or violence and revolution in America’s streets.  Just an orderly, if not emotional transfer of power.  It showed that Richard Nixon valued the institution of the Presidency, and indeed the country above all else.

So, even if Richard Nixon’s presidency was ruined thirty-seven years ago today; his example as a statesman and his achievements as president are with all of us even today.  Take it all as Richard Nixon’s to his country and the world.

(I welcome your comments.)

A standing room only crowd was at Barnes & Noble in Prescott Arizona for a book signing by Ed Nixon, the youngest brother of RN. In Friday’s addition of the local paper, the Daily Courier; Ed Nixon said that he decided to include Prescott in his book tour as a tribute to his older brother Harold Nixon. Harold Nixon passed away from TB in Prescott in 1933. An event that Edward Nixon says changed Richard Nixon’s life.

The book signing opened with a brief presentation by Mr. Nixon about his memories of Prescott, and reflections on RNs influence in his life. He stressed the importance of family in the influence that his parents had on all of his brothers and him. He also mentioned that the impetus for the book was his brother, Donald. In 1986, Donald who was on his deathbed, admonished his younger brother Edward to take over writing a book about their family. As Ed noted, his other brother was busy writing his own books… All of these things are explained in great detail in the book.

“The Nixons” is an important book for Nixon’s scholarship. Apart from Julie Nixon Eisenhower’s book, “Pat Nixon: The Untold Story”, and the oral history collection entitled “Young Nixon”; there is precious little writing concerning that important period in the life and times of Richard Nixon. By writing “The Nixons”, history and those who are interested in RN owe his youngest brother a debt of gratitude.

In reading Morris’s stuff, I’ve always wondered two things.  Will Morris ever continue his Nixon biographies with additional volumes; especially about the times (1969-1970) in which he was a part.  And I’ve also wondered if his writing still fights the battles of the Cambodian past; since Morris resigned over the invasion of Cambodia.

What was most interesting to me was the slightly different view that Morris has about the Pentagon spying on the White House.  I’ll let Morris tell it.

Both the Republican Poker Party “Grand Ol’ Gang” and Democratic Poker Party “True Blues” are reproductions from paintings by Andy Thomas.  Mr. Thomas does Civil War, Oil Well and Western Prints.  There is a local art gallery in town, “The Galloping Goose” that has both framed for $895 each.

 The reproductions of both are available with a simple Google search for various prices.  The original of “True Blues” is still available, though the original “Grand Ol’ Gang” has been sold. 

Personally, I would like the set.

Walked away from the theater wondering how accurate the movie really is. There seems to be a lot of dramatic license at work in the movie. We’ve already discussed at great length the drunken phone call that never happened. Did the stuff with the shoes happen? I guess we can ask the one person around here that would know. The historical context, especially in the “guilt scene” seems to be switched around for dramatic effect. Clearly, this is David Frost’s story, not Richard Nixon’s. In fact, RN seems only portrayed as that big fish that is caught at the end of the movie.

One thing that I will write is that Langella is great as RN. He seems to have his mannerisms down—except for the climactic scene to which I believe he overplayed. I will be pulling for him to win the Oscar.

Without looking at other source material, like the book on the Nixon Frost interviews written at about the same time  as the interviews; one doesn’t know where the license ends, and history begins. Was Oliver Stone the secret executive producer on this movie?

If this movie with all of its critical acclaim produces an increase of interest about Richard Nixon—then it is to our benefit as Nixon historians.

As history goes, I believe the actual Nixon Frost interviews are less important in understanding Richard Nixon. The movie only highlighted my opinion that these interviews were the beginning of the modern “gotcha” era. Much more meaningful to me, and other biographers, were the interviews conducted by our colleague Frank Gannon in the middle 80s. In those interviews, RN is much more relaxed, and seems more open for retrospection. Those series of interviews of RN shows us much more than the Nixon on the dock that David Frost tried to interrogate.