I recall Ben Bradlee saying that, if there were one person on earth he could talk with after mutual administration of truth serum, it would be Richard Nixon. I think Nixon's answers would largely fall in line with Bill Rusher's take on Nixon : "But Richard Nixon was at heart a Machiavellian, which is to say that he believed that the fundamental truths of politics were not about principles, but about power. His “quest for a New Majority” was simply an attempt to assemble a coalition of interests muscular enough to take over the country. When a concept like freedom crossed his mind, it was only as an ideal that he realized some people prized enough to die for. Of politics as he understood it, he was a master. But he never comprehended the richness of its potential as a vehicle for the principles that can alone conduce to the happiness of mankind." (Claremont Review of Books. V. 5. #3 Summer, 2005).
I'm better positioned to talk about economics than foreign policy, so I'll remark there, in line with Mr. Kachigian's comments. Nixon wasn't interested in magic of the free market; how it channels different hopes, desires, aptitudes, and ambitions into the most equitable distribution of resources. So in 1971 he was happy to outsource the economy to the Fed.
Nixon's ending the convertibility of dollars into gold is perhaps the most consequential political act of the last 75 years. Not consequential act, but political act. Nixon set the stage for what we now take for granted, the existence of the Fed's "Monetary Policy." By, in effect, outsourcing much economic policy to the Fed, he erased a critical distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties. The parties became largely the same on economics. Economic policy became a bidding war for this or that.
But as if it were a physics experiment, the energy in the system didn't leave the system. It channeled to where the differences were: primarily the cultural issues that spawn from differences in opinion about the permanence of human nature (in general, the Republicans, the party of Locke, vs. the Democrats, the party of Rousseau). Richard Nixon spawned the Culture Wars.
As Jim Strock often points out, the two parties are now largely the same, except captive to cultural extremes. I'm submitting that this is the natural outcome of taking most of economics off the table. All that political energy must blow off somewhere; it doesn't dissipate.
Mr. Kachigian then points out that "Coach Nixon," advised Reagan to focus on the economy. Of course he coached that. But not because he cared about economic principles and whether or not there were any fundamental truths couched in them. Nixon knew that people would vote their pocketbooks.
Life seemed so normal then. Thanks for sharing, Jim.
I recall Ben Bradlee saying that, if there were one person on earth he could talk with after mutual administration of truth serum, it would be Richard Nixon. I think Nixon's answers would largely fall in line with Bill Rusher's take on Nixon : "But Richard Nixon was at heart a Machiavellian, which is to say that he believed that the fundamental truths of politics were not about principles, but about power. His “quest for a New Majority” was simply an attempt to assemble a coalition of interests muscular enough to take over the country. When a concept like freedom crossed his mind, it was only as an ideal that he realized some people prized enough to die for. Of politics as he understood it, he was a master. But he never comprehended the richness of its potential as a vehicle for the principles that can alone conduce to the happiness of mankind." (Claremont Review of Books. V. 5. #3 Summer, 2005).
I'm better positioned to talk about economics than foreign policy, so I'll remark there, in line with Mr. Kachigian's comments. Nixon wasn't interested in magic of the free market; how it channels different hopes, desires, aptitudes, and ambitions into the most equitable distribution of resources. So in 1971 he was happy to outsource the economy to the Fed.
Nixon's ending the convertibility of dollars into gold is perhaps the most consequential political act of the last 75 years. Not consequential act, but political act. Nixon set the stage for what we now take for granted, the existence of the Fed's "Monetary Policy." By, in effect, outsourcing much economic policy to the Fed, he erased a critical distinction between the Democrat and Republican parties. The parties became largely the same on economics. Economic policy became a bidding war for this or that.
But as if it were a physics experiment, the energy in the system didn't leave the system. It channeled to where the differences were: primarily the cultural issues that spawn from differences in opinion about the permanence of human nature (in general, the Republicans, the party of Locke, vs. the Democrats, the party of Rousseau). Richard Nixon spawned the Culture Wars.
As Jim Strock often points out, the two parties are now largely the same, except captive to cultural extremes. I'm submitting that this is the natural outcome of taking most of economics off the table. All that political energy must blow off somewhere; it doesn't dissipate.
Mr. Kachigian then points out that "Coach Nixon," advised Reagan to focus on the economy. Of course he coached that. But not because he cared about economic principles and whether or not there were any fundamental truths couched in them. Nixon knew that people would vote their pocketbooks.
KM
Fascinating points, thanks for sharing Ken, much appreciated!
Most interesting, thank you.