A Historian’s Responsibility

May 4, 2010 by David Emig | Filed Under History, News media, Politics, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 4 Comments 

Recently the New Yorker came out with allegations that Stephen Ambrose (famed WWII and Nixon Biographer) exaggerated his contact with Dwight Eisenhower, General of the Army and 34^th President of the United States.  {See: Raymer, Richard, “Channeling Ike,” The New Yorker, April 26, 2010.}

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.”

Managing The Nixon Oval Office

February 19, 2010 by admin | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Nixon family, Nixon in the News, Pat Nixon, Presidential libraries, Richard Nixon, Yorba Linda | 6 Comments 

On Presidents’ Day 2010, more than five thousand packed the Nixon Library and were welcomed with cherry pie and appearances by Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. Then at 1:30 pm, RN’s Oval Office Team presented the second Nixon Legacy Forum, The Effective Use Of the President’s Time, a look at RN Chief of Staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, how the Office of the President operated and why it became the model for successive administrations.

Twenty-two members of the Haldeman family were in the audience including widow Jo Haldeman, their son Hank, daughters Anne and Susan, and their grandchildren. Dwight Chapin, former Deputy Assistant to President Nixon, moderated the panel of key staff including Larry Higby (Special Assistant to the President and Assistant White House Chief of Staff), Steve Bull (Special Assistant to the President) and Ron Walker (Special Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Presidential Advance). Chapin’s service to RN started as a young field man in the 1962 California gubernatorial race. After the former Vice President’s defeat, he went to work for Haldeman at the J. Walter Thompson advertising company. It was during this time that Haldeman – who served as Campaign Manager in 1962 and Director of Advance in the 1960 Presidential campaign – spearheaded the organization of RN’s comeback.

“These weren’t the wilderness years.” Chapin explained. “These were the strategic planning years.”

As an example, Chapin pointed to a memo that illustrated a new and innovative strategy for winning in 1968. Outlining the need for more effective time management, Haldeman told RN that he could reach more voters through the use of television in one or two key events with substantive messages, buying much needed time for him to rest, reflect and write.

This was a radical concept that totally changed the way campaigns went thereafter.” Larry Higby added. “It became the style for how we started to communicate as a White House.”

Higby, the youngest of the staff, also began his career working for Haldeman on the 1968 campaign while in graduate school at UCLA. At twenty-three years old, he became Assistant White House Chief of Staff.

“My first job was to find a book on how the presidency worked.” We had just ninety days to build a corporation from scratch.”

The Nixon organizational model would be groundbreaking. Previous White Houses implemented the cabinet form of government where decision-making was delegated to cabinet officials. John F. Kennedy, Higby explained, worked freestyle, forming coalitions and committees for the most important policy issues. While President Johnson managed like a legislator and focused heavily on his domestic agenda, a reflection on his over 20 years on Capitol Hill.

By contrast, RN managed like an executive.   “H.R. Haldeman was his Chief Operating Officer,” explained Steve Bull. “While Dr. Kissinger was the Vice President of International Affairs and John Erlichman was the President of Domestic Affairs.” It was the Cabinet officers’ job to ultimately execute the positions from the White House.

A retired Marine, Bull’s path to White House was trailed after returning from Vietnam in 1966. He hardly recognized his country as rising crime, social upheaval, and protests against the war were dividing the country. He saw RN as the leader who could bring the country together.

After working on the successful 1968 campaign, Bull joined the White House team as the President’s Special Assistant, managing his day-to-day schedule and moving officials in and out of meetings.

“I was not a confidant.” Bull said.  “It was a senior to subordinate position. My job was to run the Oval Office. I was kept around because I was trustworthy. Trust was important.”

Managing RN’s work environment was also important. Bull explained that RN was a private person. He didn’t like meeting with large groups or numerous advisers. He was a contemplative man whose best course was to rely on his own instincts. He needed time to shape his agenda and map out the long term.

He essentially “shaved two days into one,” Chapin said.  RN started his day early by reading the daily news summary and meeting with Kissinger, Haldeman, and other White House senior advisers and cabinet officials.  During the afternoon, RN would take a short 40 minute “power” nap, change and retreat to his private study in the Executive Office Building, where he would “write out long thoughts, shape his agenda, and constantly be looking ahead,” Higby explained.

As Director of the first Office of Presidential Advance, it was Ron Walker’s job to constantly look ahead. Now the President of the Richard Nixon Foundation, Walker prepared hundreds of foreign and domestic trips for RN including the historic trips to China and Russia in 1972.

After working as a volunteer advanceman during the 1968 Campaign, Walker worked on the transition and the first inaugural. Following inauguration, Chapin invited him to construct the first Office of Presidential Advance.

Not only did Walker create the office, but he also perfected the art first pioneered by Haldeman.

“We wanted to be the mantel of the Presidency,” Walker explained. “When I went into the White House to work for Dwight and Bob, the first thing I thought was important was that I write an advance manual.”

The manual took six months and amounted to 397 pages, constituting what Haldeman initially developed for political campaigns and refining it to advance the President of the United States.

The Nixon White House had “all of those elements necessary to move the President of the United States outside the White House,” Walker said. “We had advance men who knew how to run airport arrivals, how to put motorcades together, how to do press conferences, how to handle the press,” and who were able to effectively “work with Secret Service,” and “the White House Communications Agency.”

On the last day of the 1972 campaign, Walker advanced President Nixon to Greensboro and Spartanburg, South Carolina at midday, flew to a sunset rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico and landed in Ontario, California for a torch light parade of fifty thousand with appearances by John Wayne and the Carpenters.

The next morning at the White House, the President thanked the advance team for their hard work and told them if it not for what they had accomplished he wouldn’t have earned a second term.

To give a sense of their efficiency, RN later told Walker that his team could have took the beaches at Normandy.

Nearly forty years later at the President’s Library in Yorba Linda, the Oval Office Team also performed with masterful efficiency, finishing two minutes ahead of schedule. “The program was to run from 1:30 to 3:30, this program ended at 3:28,” Walker concluded, “that’s called a good advance.”

The Effective Use Of The President’s Time

February 16, 2010 by admin | Filed Under Presidential libraries, Richard Nixon, White House | 1 Comment 

In a Special Presidents’ Day Panel, RN’s Oval Office Team discussed how they created the model for White House management. The Oval Office Team (left to right): Dwight Chapin, Steve Bull, Larry Higby and Ron Walker.

Buck Or Hot Potato?

January 8, 2010 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, Barack Obama, History, Intelligence, International Affairs, Islam, National Security, Nixon Administration, Obama administration, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Terrorism, U.S. History, War on Terror, economy | 3 Comments 

In the old West, when the boys played poker at the saloon, or wherever, along with the cards, chips, money, and various beverages, the table was also adorned with a knife–one with a buckhorn handle. The knife was moved from place to place, depending on the person dealing. If a player didn’t feel like dealing the cards, he could pass the responsibility to the next guy, along with the knife.

It was called “passing the buck.”

The phrase is, of course, most commonly associated with President Harry Truman–in fact, his desk on display at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, has a famous sign bearing the words: “The Buck Stops Here.” One of his aides, Fred Canfil, had seen the phrase on a desk in El Reno, Oklahoma, and had the sign made for his boss. Interestingly, and largely lost to the legend according to biographer David McCullough, the 33rd President only kept the sign on his Oval Office desk for a short time while in the White House.

But the metaphor stuck.

It has been used by leaders–particularly presidents–ever since as the ultimate way of saying: “I’m in charge, it’s my responsibility.” Most recently, the phrase was brought out of White House mothballs and used by President Barack Obama in remarks about the Christmas Day 2009 foiled Islamist terrorist attack.

It remains to be seen whether or not the latest pronouncement about the proverbial buck will be remembered as Truman-esque, or more like the nervous stammer of Alexander Haig the day President Reagan was shot. I believe the President said the right things the other day–but will he and his administration really follow through, taking steps, making the tough calls, and keeping the issue of Islamist terror on their political radar screen?

A good indicator would be the willingness to call it what it is. We are not just fighting Al Qaeda as some kind of generic syndicate of bad guys, as with The Man From Uncle and “THRUSH” or Maxwell Smart’s “KAOS.” There is no way for us to win over an ideology, while being afraid or hesitant to call it what it is: Islamism.

To my mind, Mr. Obama is still not comfortable in his role as Commander-in-Chief, with its implied responsibilities of protecting the nation from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He is now saying many of the right things, but I wonder if his vocabulary and America’s dictionary are in sync? He forms phrases now like “we are at war” – but I can’t help but get the feeling that this is based more on manufactured energy than real passion. Does the President view what happened on Christmas and the whole megilla of security, intelligence, and such as important as, say, the economy, healthcare, and jobs?

In fairness, most presidents bring dreams to the job. Lyndon Johnson wanted to build a Great Society and Richard Nixon wanted to focus on foreign affairs, but both had to contend more than they would have liked with their less-favored part of the domestic-international presidential paradigm. Bill Clinton wanted it all to be about “the economy, stupid.” But the first priority of any president is to keep us safe so we can actually have an economy.

A strong sense of national security is, in itself, a potent economic stimulus.

Only time will tell if the new-found-but-pretty-darn-late war-speak (better: war-whisper) will really be about the buck stopping with the President, or mere words.

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy faced the press and talked about victory having many “fathers,” but defeat being an “orphan.” He also acknowledged that he was “the responsible officer” in the government. It was, as was Mr. Obama’s recent admission, a statement of the obvious.

But accepting responsibility as a leader does not abrogate systemic culpability.

The old 1970s sitcom, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, had a character named Lou Grant (played by Ed Asner)–an irascible man who ran a newsroom. Mary’s boss once said: “Leadership is the art of delegating blame.” Actually, good leadership is somewhere between taking full blame and delegating it all away. Where there are mistakes there is blame to be found. To miss this is to ignore a vital piece of the puzzle preventing something else bad from happening.

Frankly, what needs to happen throughout the government is for various leaders in key areas to think about letting the buck stay with them for a while. When a president has to say “The Buck Stops Here,” it is at least a tacit acknowledgement that the buck has been aggressively mobile.

I think the buck stops every bit as much with Attorney General Eric Holder, as it does with the President. After all, haven’t we been given the impression that the whole send-the-Gitmo-gangsters-to-New York idea is really his and the President is above it all? Or does that buck make its way to Mr. Obama’s desk, too?

And how about Dennis Blair, our Director of National Security (DNI–one of the dumbest ideas to come out of the Bush administration)? Following Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday, he issued a statement saying, in part:

The Intelligence Community has made considerable progress in developing collection and analysis capabilities and improving collaboration, but we need to strengthen our ability to stop new tactics such as the efforts of individual suicide terrorists. The threat has evolved, and we need to anticipate new kinds of attacks and improve our ability to stay ahead of them and protect America.

We can and we must outthink, outwork and defeat the enemy’s new ideas. The Intelligence Community will do that as directed by the President, working closely with our nation’s entire national security team.

Really? What has the guy been working on up to now–health care reform?

One of two things has been happening, as clearly indicated by the foiled Christmas Day Islamist terror attack: either subordinates are keeping bad or inconvenient details from the President of the United States, or the information has not, until now, been marked or received with requisite urgency. Whatever the case, heads should roll. Blair’s words are akin to those uttered by an erudition-challenged player after a football game, “Well, we needed to score more points to win.” Duh.

There really is no buck to pass in the Obama administration when it comes to National Security, there is only a hot potato few want to deal with or even acknowledge. Attorney General Holder, Janet Napolitano, and so many others in key roles these days have regularly dismissed or minimized the danger of our times, while forging ahead with the even-more-now absurd sending of Gitmo detainees back to Yemen (6 on December 20th), and making sure that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (pronounced: Abdulmutallab) is told he has the right to remain silent and to the full protection of the American justice system, as opposed to being treated as he should be: as an enemy combatant.

Sure, the President of the United States made a speech and said many of the right things, but what we need to figure out is if what we are really bearing witness to is a dynamic described to reporters by Former Attorney John Mitchell, back in 1969: “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

12.2.69

December 2, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History | 2 Comments 

Forty years ago today, on 2 December 1969, RN signed House and Senate bills dealing with the preservation of presidential homes and birthplaces.

60 Auburn Avenue, Cincinnati, OH: 27 was born here on 15 September 1857.

250 Eisenhower Farm Drive, Gettysburg, PA: 34 lived here from 1951 until his death in 1969.

Johnson City, TX: 36 was born here on 27 August 1908

Statement on Signing Bills for the Preservation of Presidential Birthplaces and Homes. December 2, 1969

WE HAVE DEVELOPED a tradition of preserving the birthplaces and homes of our Presidents to commemorate their dedication and service to the Nation and to serve as a tangible symbol and inspiration for present and future generations of Americans. Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to do honor simultaneously to three American Presidents–William Howard Taft, Dwight David Eisenhower, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The legislation I am approving carries this tradition forward in three steps. H.R. 7066 and S. 2000 will preserve and establish as national historic sites the birthplaces and boyhood homes of President Taft in Cincinnati, Ohio, and President Johnson in Johnson City, Texas. S.J. Res. 26 will authorize the necessary funds to preserve and develop President Eisenhower’s home and farm at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, already established as a national historic site.

The approval of these three measures will now make these American homes as much a part of the Nation’s history as are the achievements of the men who occupied them. I am sure everyone will understand my very special personal feeling at being able to pay such a tribute to President Eisenhower, with whom I was privileged to work closely for many years and for whom I will always have the deepest affection and admiration.

Some other presidential birthplaces that are historical sites and/or part of presidential libraries:

The Manse in Staunton, VA: 22 was born here on 28 December 1856.

Lamar, MO: 33 was born here on 8 May 1884.

Brookline, MA: 35 was born here on 29 May 1917.

Hope, AR: 42 was born here on 19 August 1946.

Yorba Linda, CA: 37 was born here on 9 January 1913.

Welcome To The Club

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kennicott is harsh on the Clinton Library in Little Rock:

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

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

The William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

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

The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia.

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

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

The Reflecting Pool and Colonnade at the Nixon Library.

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

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

George McGovern Speaks At The Nixon Library

August 28, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Democratic Party, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Yorba Linda | 5 Comments 

On Wednesday night, a crowd of over 700 gathered in Yorba Linda to see former Senator George McGovern talk about his new book, a short biography of Abraham Lincoln. The event, co-sponsored by the Richard Nixon Library and Museum and the Richard Nixon Foundation (and held in the Library’s replica of the White House’s East Room) would have been remarkable enough for the appearance of President Nixon’s Democratic opponent in the 1972 election – but, in a surprise appearance, the Senator was introduced by none other than 83-year-old Gore Vidal, almost the last major American writer of the “Greatest Generation” still living, who has written about RN on many occasions (including the 1972 play An Evening With Richard Nixon). Both men received standing ovations.

Though Vidal has sometimes expressed a degree of admiration for the thirty-seventh President’s resilience and achievements in the field of foreign affairs, in recent years his remarks about Nixon have been much more negative, and he seems to blame RN for instigating the careers of former Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom worked in the Nixon Administration and have been the targets of Vidal’s angriest barbs in articles and interviews since 2000. The late Senator Edward Kennedy has also been the object of Vidal’s bile from time to time, unsurprisingly given the writer’s mercurial relationship with the Kennedy clan, and his preference for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s brand of populist radicalism. But in his introduction in Yorba Linda, Vidal spoke instead of Lincoln, the subject of one of his best-known and most acclaimed novels.

Sen. McGovern then took the podium and discussed his biography. He stressed that Lincoln’s greatest achievement was preserving the Union, and spoke at length about the difficulties the sixteenth President had to overcome – his limited formal education, and his struggle with depression (which McGovern knows from experience, as he movingly describes in Terry, his book about his late daughter’s tragic battle with alcoholism and bipolar illness).

Though Ted Kennedy went unmentioned in the main part of McGovern’s talk, one of the questions asked after it referred to him, and the reply was:

“Ted was a great senator,” McGovern said. “He hardly missed a day [of work] . . . I admired him and, on a personal basis, if any senator suffered a loss like a child or a spouse, he was the first person who called. When our daughter Terry died, he came to see Eleanor and me. He was there at 9 a.m. the next morning with his wife. He was a person who respected tragedy because of his family. He was very thoughtful. I thought a lot of him.”

McGovern also spoke at Chapman University earlier in the day.

America’s New Archivist

July 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under History, Obama administration, Presidential libraries | 3 Comments 

David S. Ferriero has been nominated by President Obama to be the 10th Archivist of the United States.  He is seen above in the Main Reading Room at the 5th Avenue and 42nd Street branch of the New York Public Library.  (Photo by Joyce Dopkeen for The New York Times.)

The President has nominated David S. Ferriero to be the Archivist of the United States.  The position was created in 1934 when Congress established the National Archives as an independent federal agency.    The thirteen presidential libraries will be part of his portfolio.  Mr. Ferriero will replace Allen Weinstein, who held the position from 2005 and resigned for reasons of health in December. During the interim, Deputy Archivist Adrienne Thomas served as Acting Archivist.

Mr. Ferriero comes to NARA from the New York Public Library where, since 2004, he has been Andrew W. Mellon Director and Chief Executive of the Research Libraries.  Previously he was the University Librarian and Vice Provost for Library Affairs at Duke University.  Thirty-one years earlier he began as a shelver in the Humanities Library at MIT; when he left there for Duke, he was the Associate Director for Public Services and Acting Co-Director of MIT’s Libraries.

Mr. Ferriero is a 1972 graduate of Northeastern University. When he was appointed to the NYPL position in ‘04, he sat down with Northeastern’s Alumni magazine:

Last September, David Ferriero was named the Andrew W. Mellon Director and Chief Executive of the Research Libraries at the New York Public Library. David is responsible for the operations and overall management of the Research Libraries, including public service, cataloging, conservation, automation, and collection development. The Research Libraries annually serve 1.7 million people onsite and comprise four centers with combined collections containing 43 million items. David came to the NYPL from Duke University, where he is credited with bringing its libraries into the electronic age. Prior to joining Duke, David had a 31-year career with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Libraries, which began as an NU co-op position.

Favorite memory:
A big easy chair beside one of the windows in Dodge Library. That was my favorite place to study.

Favorite courses:
I particularly enjoyed Shakespeare with Joe Westland and English Literature with Jane Nelson. I learned a lot from both of these courses, including the fundamentals of research. The professors were phenomenal.

Major influence:
If it hadn’t been for Nancy Caruso, an advisor in NU’s Co-op Department, my life would have been very different. During my sophomore year, Nancy sent me to an interview at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries. That was the start of my 31-year career at MIT. It was Nancy who first made the connection between my education major and working in libraries.

How NU prepared him for the future:
Northeastern provided an outstanding liberal arts education, which has served as the foundation for my career. It was through the co-op program that I was first introduced to libraries. Co-op is important in that it gives you the opportunity to develop competencies that you simply can’t get in the classroom.

The most interesting aspect of his job:
Research libraries today are focusing on how technology can transform the way we acquire, disseminate and create information. The New York Public Library is currently working with Google to determine if we can digitize our library. I am excited to be involved in that experiment.

The most challenging aspect of his job:
The New York Public Library is a huge organization with 89 libraries, 53 million items in the collection, and 3,000 people on staff. Working on such an enormous scale can be a challenge at times.

What motivates him and why:
The feeling that I can make a difference in organizations that are ready for a change, such as Duke University and the New York Public Library. I enjoy leading that change.

Greatest accomplishment:
The expansion and renovation of the libraries at Duke University.

On Documents & Reassessment

July 7, 2009 by David Emig | Filed Under Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Library, Nixon in the News, Presidential libraries, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

Whenever new documents (or in the case of RN – tapes and documents are released), it is an opportunity to reassess a subject.  Or at the very least, provide some nuance into the subject.  Probably the best opportunity we have for this continuing process of discovering something new is in the area of presidential history – as these new documents are released on specific timetables.  For many Nixon historians like myself, the release of these documents is much like Christmas morning.

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.

When Seventies Phenomena Collide

June 17, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, John Dean At The Nixon Library, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Nixon in the News, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Watergate, Yorba Linda | 1 Comment 

Tonight, former Nixon White House counsel Luke W. – I mean, John W. Dean III appeared at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda. Speaking before an audience of close to 300, according to Melody Chiu of the Orange County Register, he contended that the Richard Nixon Foundation, by criticizing his appearance, “is reviving the dark side of Richard Nixon,” and asserted that the controversy surrounding his remarks was “petty.”

Nixon Library director Timothy Naftali called the appearance “an important milestone,” adding: “All we care about is that [our speakers]are serious and that our community will learn from them. We want to create a forum for serious discussion, debate and education.”

Earlier in the day, Naftali told Rebecca Cathcart of the New York Times’s “The Caucus” blog that Dean’s appearance formed part of an “initiative” to “provide a nonpartisan presentation of the facts of Watergate,” adding that another element of this would be the renovated Watergate exhibit, to be unveiled at the museum in August.

John Dean At Yorba Linda, or Who’s Deep Throat Now?

June 16, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, John Dean At The Nixon Library, National Archives, News media, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Nixon in the News, Orange County, Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Watergate, Yorba Linda | 1 Comment 

Tomorrow, June 17, is the thirty-seventh anniversary of the Watergate break-in. At the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, it will be marked by a lecture and book-signing by John W. Dean III, counsel to the President from 1970 until 1973, convicted felon (for obstruction of justice, to which he pled guilty on November 30 of the latter year), and one of the central figures in the Watergate scandal.

Several months ago, when discussing a post Dean made on the site The Daily Beast in which he defended historian Stanley I. Kutler from criticism of the latter’s transcriptions of the Nixon tapes, I noted that in it he said he planned to reissue his first book Blind Ambition, his own account of Watergate, with new material. That book will be republished tomorrow, with a new afterword which, according to a press release promoting the reissue, “truly closes the case on Watergate.”

It would seem a sure bet that one or another of our major conglomerate publishing imprints would be keen to acquire Blind Ambition, given such a promise, but the book is not being reprinted by any of them – not even Simon & Schuster, which originally published it. Instead, the book, according to Al Kamen in the Washington Post, is being “privately published” by Polimedia, the author’s PR firm. The event at the Nixon Library is described as the reissue’s “launch” at the firm’s site.

Dean’s appearance in Yorba Linda is not being greeted with universal hosannas, as Michael Isikoff of Newsweek makes clear in this article. Robert Odle, who worked in the communications office of the Nixon White House (and was later administration director of the Committee to Re-Elect The President) says in it that inviting Dean to the Library is “like having Monica Lewinsky speak at the Clinton library on the anniversary of President Clinton’s impeachment.” (As it happens, Isikoff is the journalist who broke the Lewinsky story.)

And at the Washington Times, Susan Naulty, who was the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace’s archivist from the institution’s dedication in 1990 until 2003, explains why she believes Dean’s appearance is not appropriate. She says, in part:

[T]hanks to Mr. Nixon’s voluminous archives, scholars with a better understanding of the man and his career-long struggle to advance freedom over tyranny on the one hand, and with considerably more data regarding the congressional investigations directed against him on the other, may well begin to wonder who was the real Machiavelli in Watergate – the president or his accusers. If the latter, the lessons of that crisis have enormous relevance for us today – and for freedom-loving people everywhere and at all times.

One drawback of Ms. Naulty’s article is that it does not precisely explain how Dean will come to be in Yorba Linda tomorrow. He was invited to speak by the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, which is part of the federal National Archives and Records Administration, and which now operates the museum facility in Yorba Linda and will be transferring the Nixon presidential documents to the library facility next year from Maryland. The Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation (sponsor of TNN), which was in charge of the Library when it was a private institution, not part of the NARA presidential libraries system, from 1990 until 2007, was not consulted about Dean’s appearance and, as Isikoff points out, has expressed its disapproval of the invitation.

Ms. Naulty’s article has attracted several comments at the Times’s site. A rather interesting one, from “anonymous222,” refers to Dean’s involvement in the quest for the true identity of “Deep Throat,” the Watergate informant.

In 1975, Dean suggested DT was Earl Silbert, who was the prosecutor of the Watergate defendants in the early stages of the scandal. Then, in his 1982 book Lost Honor, Dean devoted a number of pages to arguing, rather unconvincingly, that Gen. Alexander Haig was DT.

Twenty years later, Dean wrote an e-book published by Salon.com, Unmasking Deep Throat. Several articles, before the book was published, claimed that Dean would identify Washington lawyer Jonathan Rose as DT, which reportedly prompted Rose to inform Salon that he would sue for defamation in such an event. But when the book finally came off the cyberpress (or whatever one would call it), Dean instead suggested DT was a composite of more than one of Bob Woodward’s sources. (After Mark Felt “confessed” to being DT in 2005, Dean told Keith Olbermann of MSNBC he still held to the composite theory.)

And then there are the still-murky events of 2003. In that year, a group of student journalists at the University of Illinois came to the much-publicized conclusion that Fred Fielding, White House counsel for two presidents (and Dean’s deputy in the Nixon years), was DT. At the time it was reported that Dean had gone to the trouble of personally contacting some of the students to explain to them why Fielding could not be DT.

But some questions remain. As Olbermann observed in 2005, according to All The President’s Men, DT talked to Woodward about the famous 18 1/2 minute gap in the tapes before it became public knowledge. Felt, who had left the FBI, would have been unlikely to know about the gap. Fielding, who was still White House deputy counsel at the time, would have known. (Rather intriguingly, Fielding’s Wikipedia entry incorrectly states that his work in the Nixon Administration ended in 1972.)

So, were I in Yorba Linda tomorrow, one question I’d like to pose to Dean would be: Why did you try to steer the Illini journalists-to-be from the conclusion Fielding was Deep Throat? There are some other questions that come to mind, and tomorrow I hope to discuss them here.

Saving Presidential Paper In A Post-Print World

February 22, 2009 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Barack Obama, National Archives, Presidential libraries | Leave a Comment 

Mark Feeney says we don’t need Presidential libraries anymore. Then how about we put the stuff in the Feeney family garage? Read more here.

All Wrapped Up With Tape

December 4, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Presidential libraries, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

Earlier in the week, the Nixon tapes on Vietnam, among other things. Now, LBJ’s view.

“The Strong Man” Visits Yorba Linda

July 3, 2008 by James Rosen | Filed Under Foundation News, National Archives, News media, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Nixon family, Presidential libraries, Richard Nixon, Watergate | 7 Comments 

Greetings once again, supporters and students of Richard Nixon! Just a note to report on my visit to the Nixon Library and Birthplace in Yorba Linda this past June 17, and to thank all the folks there who made it a special and unforgettable experience for me.

John H. Taylor and Sandy Quinn of the Nixon Foundation, and Tim Naftali and Paul Musgrave of the National Archives, and their respective associates, were unfailingly gracious as they led me through the museum and archival areas, and various meals, explaining the storied past and bright future of the institution.

Exceptionally powerful and moving was the personal tour I received from Olivia Anastasiadis, the Library Curator, of the small frame house where President Nixon was born. The smell of history literally overcomes you as you step inside and see firsthand the modest but proud home where the young Nixon grew up, buffeted by illness, financial anxiety, and family tragedy. You commune, trance-like, with the era just before the Great War, represented in the period antiques, piano and sheet music, and other artifacts furnishing the home, many the original possessions of the Nixon family. It was a real challenge to contain my emotions as I stepped foot into the small bedroom where Richard Nixon was born; there I pondered the incongruous enormity of the life he led — the global stakes of his atomic-age presidency, with its virtuoso masterstrokes and sad ending — and the humbleness of its origins. That the house is just a few steps away from the simple, spare headstones and burial places of the former president and Mrs. Nixon inevitably adds to the emotional impact. I can’t imagine anyone, Nixon supporter or detractor, or the previously disinterested citizen, coming away from the experience unmoved, and I strongly recommend it to all Americans.

As a former college intern, in the summers of 1987 and ‘88, at the Nixon Presidential Materials Project, the branch of the National Archives that (for now) controls the presidential papers and tapes, it was a pleasure to meet the many students donating their time to the archives this summer. “See what you can become?” Tim Naftali said jokingly to the interns, as we posed for a photograph together. Whether I make a fitting model toward which any young person should aspire I am reluctant to say, but I am unhesitating in stating here my admiration for these students’ passion for history and their earnest dedication to government service.

The discipline of “Nixon Studies” is, of course, in its infancy, and the plans for the institution’s expansion, including the construction of a 15,000-square foot facility to accomodate the presidential materials and the researchers who will examine them, are exciting, indeed. No regime in human history has ever been, or likely ever will be, as well and richly documented as the Nixon administration; as a result, students and scholars will have a grand time of it over the next century and beyond, poring over all the papers and tapes and enjoying the window they offer, uniquely, into policymaking at the highest levels of the postwar American government. The decisions taken now by those helming the Foundation and Library will shape this emerging discipline for decades to come, and one hopes the Nixon family will also remain actively engaged in these decisions.

That evening, in the Library’s auditorium — soon to be demolished and remodeled — John Taylor introduced Tim Naftali, who then introduced me for a brief lecture before a generous audience. Tim then served as moderator during a robust question-and-answer session. First, however, the audience was treated to a long-lost clip from NBC News’ coverage of the federal indictments, issued on May 10, 1973, of John Mitchell and Maurice Stans, in connection with the so-called Vesco case — charges on which both men were eventually tried and fully acquitted. The clip, led off by anchor John Chancellor, neatly conveyed the immediacy of broadcast news in the saturation-coverage era of Watergate, and, too, the camera-crew frenzy that surrounded those, like Mitchell and Stans, caught in the middle of the maelstrom.

After my impromptu remarks, the audience poured forth with questions submitted to the moderator on index cards which I saved after the event, and whose contents I reproduce below. We didn’t get to all of the questions reproduced below, but we covered a lot of them; I reprint them as evidence of what was on the audience’s mind.

Lastly, there was a book-signing in the well-stocked gift shop. There I happily purchased two shot glasses adorned with the embossed seal of the Library, and was pleased to make the acquaintance of the volunteer staff, an irrepressible gang of the kindest, loveliest ladies you’ll ever meet, each and all attractively attired in red, white, and blue uniforms that bespoke their patriotism and unmistakable inner goodness.

Thanks again to all those in Yorba Linda who made my trip such an informative and enlightening visit, with especial thanks to Jonathan Movroydis, my Sherpa, chauffeur, hard-nosed interrogator, and master of this blog.

Yours gratefully,

James Rosen

Author, “The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate” (Doubleday)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AT MY LECTURE:

1. How has [sic] the media changed since Watergate?

2. Why is it that all inquiries about John Dean’s Watergate role seem to end up in the hands of judges rather than historians?

3. What did the break-in at Watergate actually give to the people who ordered it?

4. Please comment on MacGruder’s [sic; Jeb Magruder's] statement [IN 2003] that he heard President Nixon approve [the] Watergate break-in.

5. Should John Mitchell have turned down the Atty. Genl. job?

6. On Joint Chiefs [spying against Nixon and Kissinger] — elaborate please.

7. What do you consider to be John Mitchell’s greatest accomplishment?

8. You received an award in 2003 for being the funniest journalist [sic; celebrity!] in D.C. What earned you this honor, and, can you tell us a joke?

9. How do you view Mitchell’s 1987 recorded opinion that the CIA was behind the whole [Watergate] thing? [brackets in original]

10. You developed an early interest in Richard Nixon. In what ways did you “reach out”?

11. So what are we to believe out of Congress?

12. What sparked your interest in writing this book? And what will your next book be about?

13. How involved was H. [Hillary] Clinton in changing the testimony of witnesses between the executive sessions and the public sessions[?] Who was involved in the changing of the testimonies[sic]? [sic; the questioner confused my discussion about the variations in testimony between the executive vs. public sessions of the Senate Watergate committee with the hearings of the House Judiciary Committee during its impeachment deliberations, on which Senator Clinton worked as a young attorney, and which I did not discuss at all]

14. You seem to dismiss Martha Mitchell as a ridiculous + inconsequential figure. Was her role totally w/o importance in the history of the Nixon administration?

“The Strong Man”: Mitchell and Secrets of Watergate

June 15, 2008 by James Rosen | Filed Under History, National Archives, News media, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Foundation, Nixon Library, Nixon Library events, Presidential libraries, Richard Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate | 3 Comments 

Greetings, supporters and students of Richard Nixon! Just a note to thank you in advance for welcoming me to the Nixon Presidential Library and Birthplace in Yorba Linda this coming Tuesday, June 17, at 7 pm, when I’ll be reading from, taking questions about, and signing copies of my new book, The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate (Doubleday).

June 17, of course, marks the thirty-sixth anniversary of the fateful arrests inside Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex, the catalyst for the amazing and improbable sets of events that climaxed, more than two years later, in President Nixon’s resignation from office. What was the true purpose of the Watergate break-in and surveillance operation? Who ordered it? And what was the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the operation? These were always, and remain today, the central mysteries of the Nixon era, far more important and consequential than, say, the identity (or identities) of Deep Throat; yet no court of law ever addressed these questions, and none of the major investigative bodies, trials, or books that followed ever produced satisfactory answers, either. Drawing on more than 250 original interviews and an exhaustive review of all the preceding literature and literally hundreds of thousands of previously unpublished documents and tapes, many newly declassified pursuant to my own Freedom of Information Act requests, my book, The Strong Man, uses the extraordinary life of John Mitchell to reexamine these and related questions, and I look forward to addressing them with you on Tuesday. But be prepared for surprises: The scandal presented in The Strong Man is not your father’s Watergate.

Until now, no book has ever been written by, or about, John Mitchell — yet here was the man who ran Richard Nixon’s two winning campaigns for the presidency; who served as attorney general of the United States, the nation’s top law enforcement offcer, during a uniquely turbulent and scary time in American history, one that saw the killings at Kent State, the rise of subversive radical groups like the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers, and unprecedented controversies and crises like the publication of the Pentagon Papers and the discovery that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were spying on the commander-in-chief in wartime; and who, by virtue of his involvement in the Watergate cover-up, became the highest-ranking government official in American history ever to be convicted on criminal charges and to serve a prison sentence. Even prior to all that, before his association with Richard Nixon, Mitchell had led a fascinating life as a child of the Depression; a Navy officer in the South Pacific during World War II; a “master of the universe” on Wall Street, where he pioneered the use of “moral obligation” municipal bonds; an intimate of Nelson Rockefeller and scores of other politicians and officials across the country; and, of course, the husband of the inimitable and tragic Martha Mitchell. What explained John Mitchell’s unparalelled fall from power and prestige? How, in the space of ten years, did so brilliant and accomplished a man go from the very pinnacle of the legal profession to nationwide vilification and incarceration in federal prison? Is not John Mitchell’s — in a country that considers itself a “nation of laws” — the ultimate cautionary tale? These questions, too, I look forward to addressing with you at the Nixon Library and Birthplace.

I may even be amenable to taking a question or two about Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, or Megyn Kelly, my colleagues at Fox News, where I have served as a Washington correspondent for the past decade, covering the White House, the State Department, and the current presidential campaign! So please come on Tuesday, bring two books for me to sign — one for yourself and one for a lucky friend or relative — and come prepared to learn about some amazing characters and times in our country’s recent history. A splendid time is guaranteed for all!

The Appeasement Chronicles

May 23, 2008 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Bush Administration, Election 2008, History, International Affairs, Israel and Palestinians, Presidential libraries, Presidents, U.S. History | Leave a Comment 

As President Bush continues to receive criticism about his recent remarks in a speech to the Knesset in Jerusalem, many are taking a fresh look at the personalities and politics of previous generations.

Mr. Bush, speaking on a visit to mark the 60th anniversary of the creation of the modern state of Israel, told the Israeli parliament that, “some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.” Then he evoked images of Nazi tanks cascading into Poland in 1939 decrying “the false comfort of appeasement has been increasingly discredited by history.”

Would-be Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has continually reiterated his views on meeting with the bad guys. He insists that what he wants to do is very much in the spirit of his hero and the man he wants to be when he grows up – John F. Kennedy. In his January 20, 1961 inaugural address JFK said: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

But as Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins pointed out in their recent op-ed piece appearing in the New York Times, when Kennedy tried to put this into practice very early in his administration, it only served to convince his Soviet counterpart, Chairman Nikita Krushchev, that the youthful and “charismatic” U.S. president was a diplomatic light-weight.

There is a great argument to be made that the 1960s would not have been as tense as they were if the June 1961 summit meeting had never taken place. The Berlin Wall challenge a couple of months later and Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962 seemed to flow from how Nikita sized-up Jack in Vienna.

Barack Obama apparently has little understanding of history – particularly the issues that confronted JFK’s generation (“tempered by war”). Or maybe it’s just that he’s not interested in letting the past, with its clear patterns, inform the present – or future.

Eleven minutes after David Ben Gurion announced the birth of the modern State of Israel, President Harry S. Truman signed a document officially recognizing the new nation. The single typewritten page, on display these days at the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri, shows the President’s cursive corrections – including a wording change from “new Jewish state” to “State of Israel” – and the directive “Approved May 14, 1948.”

This was a bold step for the American president, one opposed by powerful members of his own administration. His Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, was so strongly opposed to this that he told his boss that he might not vote for him that November.

But Harry Truman was a savvy politician with an autodidactic appreciation for history – ancient and recent. As a boy, when his chronic near-sightedness kept him from some strenuous activities, he would lose himself in books. According to historian Michael Beschloss, among his favorites was a “gold-trimmed, four-volume history called Great Men and Famous Women.” One of the men chronicled was Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, who “enabled the Jewish people to leave their exile and go back to Palestine.” It’s possible that this ancient story may have been on Truman’s mind as he dealt with the Jewish-Palestine issue. More recent history, particularly the events of the late 1930s, may have also influenced his presidential decisions.

Appeasement was never really a “bad” word until it became forever identified with the foreign policy failures in Great Britain under the premiership of Neville Chamberlain. The word itself simply means to pacify or soothe. Most of us understand that there is a measure of this required for peaceful and civilized living and discourse.

But when appeasement met Adolf Hitler, it was manipulated, twisted, scorned, and ultimately dismissed. To put it in the words of Sean Connery playing a character in the 1987 movie The Untouchables, Mr. Chamberlain had brought a knife to a gunfight in Munich.

To make matters worse, his knife was crafted out of a very thin sheet of paper.

Harry Truman was a senator from Missouri when all this was going on and he watched in horror as Great Britain seemed to be officially determined to feed Europe to the Nazi alligator one bite at a time. He also knew and noted that the policy of appeasement was not just in play over the fate of Czechoslovakia, but it also had another deadly and dreadful application – one that would impact the Jewish people.

The British government released a White Paper on the issue of Palestine in May of 1939. Since the 1917 Balfour Declaration and during the period British Mandate they had been largely supportive of Jewish migration to Palestine and the idea of a Jewish state there. In essence, the new policy statement changed all of that. It advocated severe limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine; this at a time when European anti-Semitism was reaching critical mass.

By the way, this new policy was a big hit in Berlin.

Winston Churchill saw it differently. He spoke to the House of Commons on May 22, 1939 “as one intimately and responsibly concerned in the earlier states of our Palestine policy,” and insisted that he would not “stand by and see the solemn engagements into which Britain has entered before the world set aside.”

Senator Truman also issued a forthright condemnation that was inserted into the Congressional Record:

“Mr. President, the British Government has used its diplomatic umbrella again,” (this being an unmistakable dig at Chamberlain) “…this time on Palestine. It has made a scrap of paper out of Lord Balfour’s promise to the Jews. It has just added another to the long list of surrenders to the Axis powers.”

When George W. Bush spoke to the Knesset about appeasement, he was speaking to the children and grandchildren of a generation that had gone through unspeakable horror. And the road to holocaust had been paved with appeasement. Yet some supposedly bright people apparently think that a U.S. president sitting down with someone who calls Israel a “stinking corpse” could have some constructive result.

When Harry Truman, in a singular act of political courage, and against the advice of men he admired, recognized the new State of Israel, there is no doubt that he had a sense of the past. The internal world of thought, nurtured as a child through the reading of history, was very present in the man. Shortly after leaving office in 1953, while visiting a Jewish school in New York City, he was introduced as “the man who helped to create the State of Israel” – Truman interrupted and said: “What do you mean ‘helped create?’ I am Cyrus! I am Cyrus!”

Sadly, some in Great Britain were slow to learn. It would take eight months before the Labor government could muster the courage to acknowledge the fledgling nation. Though out of power, Churchill returned to wilderness form as he decried this failure again and again. Speaking to the House of Commons in December of 1948 he mocked the idea that his country had not yet officially recognized Israel:

“The Jews have driven the Arabs out of a larger area that was contemplated in our partition schemes…They have established a government which functions effectively. They have a victorious army at their disposal and they have the support both of Soviet Russia and of the United States. These may be unpleasant facts, but can they be in any way disputed? Not as I have stated them. It seems to me that the government of Israel which has been set up in Tel Aviv cannot be ignored and treated as if it did not exist.”

As in the days of Truman and Churchill, so it is today – some will see appeasement as a panacea. But wiser people know better.

The key is to keep the wiser people in charge. – DRS

Library Ruminations

May 8, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Presidential libraries | Leave a Comment 

George Will’s column earlier this week was apropos his visit to the Truman Presidential Library in Independence.