4 ms·

Likely the reason this stuff is still classified at all is because it casts doubt on the legitimacy or appropriate conduct of the US Government. This seems to

Likely the reason this stuff is still classified at all is because it casts doubt on the legitimacy or appropriate conduct of the US Government. This seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate reason for something to remain classified decades after it occurred.

stephengillie 11y ago
This is a form of corruption. It's power being used solely for the benefit of the one who held power, and it (minimally) damages the rest of us.
happyscrappy 11y ago
Nixon was one of the worst US presidents of the modern era but is a pipsqueak compared to some of the gnarly, currently still in power, world leaders. America has to live up to a higher standard but the level of corruption ongoing in many countries make his offenses look quaint.
- grandalf 11y ago
  > make his offenses look quaint. How do we know his offenses if the information is still mostly classified? Perhaps they do not make others seem quaint in comparison.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Well, Nixon doesn't appear to have been running a multi-decade pedophile sex ring, for example. Admittedly, that's a pretty low bar.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      It is absurd to take extreme practices done by others and use them as evidence of our own character.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Maybe he poisoned people with Polonium and stole billions but it seems unlikely.
    - jonknee 11y ago
      That's actually pretty tame compared to a lot of world leaders...
      - grandalf 11y ago
        It is absurd to take extreme practices done by others and use them as evidence of our own character. Much of the pro-US propaganda points out bad things about other nations or their leaders (note the recent "Why are China's cities flooding?" headline in the Economist) as a way of making Americans not question their own way of life.
        jonknee 11y ago
        Obviously, but the OP was doing exactly this with: > "Perhaps they do not make others seem quaint in comparison." All I was saying is that there's a pretty high bar for awful behavior by world leaders.
- lsc 11y ago
  >Nixon was one of the worst US presidents of the modern era see, I disagree. I mean, I don't want to diminish his crimes, but he did a lot of good things. Nixon was responsible for Détente, I think, in ways that Reagan wasn't. Really, to the extent that Reagan deserves credit for the wall falling, he deserves credit for not screwing it up. Nixon had a lot more to do with actively turning China from being our enemy to being our workshop. Compare that, say, to JFK, who almost started world war three. It's astonishing to me that JFK gets credit for not screwing up the Cuban missile crisis, when the Cuban missile crisis was the inevitable result of the bay of pigs, an operation he approved. JFK was kind of insane, and if he had gone up against a soviet ruler with his level of crazy, rather than a comparatively sane Khrushchev, the east coast of the US would have been irradiated. (I mean, the CCCP would have been fucked up even more, sure; and I'm sure that's why Khrushchev backed down; we would have "lost less" as it were, but that's still losing.) The thing to remember is that we know far more about Nixon's presidency than about any other presidency since. Now, again, this doesn't excuse Nixon's crimes, but he did voluntarily record a lot of what he did. If he acted as all modern presidents have acted, which is to say, in secret, we wouldn't have known about most of this. I mean, I really think it is important to punish crimes when you see them happen, which is why I keep going on about how none of this excuses his crimes... but I really think he looks a lot worse than most presidents because he recorded all this stuff for posterity. For all we know, everyone since has done worse; they've just been more careful to cover their tracks.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    now this is the comment I like, not sliding on the nixon-hate wave like most others (I am no expert on neither of US presidents). to me it seems both had balls when it was needed, unlike current guy. and like it or not, assholes like Putin sometimes need a gentle reminding slap in their face to show who really runs the show (sorta...) I would say though we shouldn't attribute all political wins/loses during one's era only to one guy. I don't think how the show is run, not now and neither back then. Kissinger might have helped out with Chinese for example. You need these huge personas to neogtiate with all-powerful dictators (something my EU lacks so badly it's not fun anymore)
jokoon 11y ago
Well what you call appropriate conduct is just a mean to make the government look more legitimate, the net result being the government will find much more discrete ways to be corrupted. It's a good thing to make corruption more difficult, in the end it's some sort of quality control. At the very least it reduces corruption or makes it more adequate, a little like Machiavelli would describe it. In my sense if corruption can be detected, it is not worth it, and is bad corruption. The best situation is when the due process and power separation are tight, but in no sense it will prevent corruption entirely.

stephengillie 11y ago

This is a form of corruption. It's power being used solely for the benefit of the one who held power, and it (minimally) damages the rest of us.

happyscrappy 11y ago

Nixon was one of the worst US presidents of the modern era but is a pipsqueak compared to some of the gnarly, currently still in power, world leaders. America has to live up to a higher standard but the level of corruption ongoing in many countries make his offenses look quaint.

grandalf 11y ago
> make his offenses look quaint. How do we know his offenses if the information is still mostly classified? Perhaps they do not make others seem quaint in comparison.
- bsder 11y ago
  Well, Nixon doesn't appear to have been running a multi-decade pedophile sex ring, for example. Admittedly, that's a pretty low bar.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    It is absurd to take extreme practices done by others and use them as evidence of our own character.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Maybe he poisoned people with Polonium and stole billions but it seems unlikely.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    That's actually pretty tame compared to a lot of world leaders...
    - grandalf 11y ago
      It is absurd to take extreme practices done by others and use them as evidence of our own character. Much of the pro-US propaganda points out bad things about other nations or their leaders (note the recent "Why are China's cities flooding?" headline in the Economist) as a way of making Americans not question their own way of life.
      - jonknee 11y ago
        Obviously, but the OP was doing exactly this with: > "Perhaps they do not make others seem quaint in comparison." All I was saying is that there's a pretty high bar for awful behavior by world leaders.
lsc 11y ago
>Nixon was one of the worst US presidents of the modern era see, I disagree. I mean, I don't want to diminish his crimes, but he did a lot of good things. Nixon was responsible for Détente, I think, in ways that Reagan wasn't. Really, to the extent that Reagan deserves credit for the wall falling, he deserves credit for not screwing it up. Nixon had a lot more to do with actively turning China from being our enemy to being our workshop. Compare that, say, to JFK, who almost started world war three. It's astonishing to me that JFK gets credit for not screwing up the Cuban missile crisis, when the Cuban missile crisis was the inevitable result of the bay of pigs, an operation he approved. JFK was kind of insane, and if he had gone up against a soviet ruler with his level of crazy, rather than a comparatively sane Khrushchev, the east coast of the US would have been irradiated. (I mean, the CCCP would have been fucked up even more, sure; and I'm sure that's why Khrushchev backed down; we would have "lost less" as it were, but that's still losing.) The thing to remember is that we know far more about Nixon's presidency than about any other presidency since. Now, again, this doesn't excuse Nixon's crimes, but he did voluntarily record a lot of what he did. If he acted as all modern presidents have acted, which is to say, in secret, we wouldn't have known about most of this. I mean, I really think it is important to punish crimes when you see them happen, which is why I keep going on about how none of this excuses his crimes... but I really think he looks a lot worse than most presidents because he recorded all this stuff for posterity. For all we know, everyone since has done worse; they've just been more careful to cover their tracks.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  now this is the comment I like, not sliding on the nixon-hate wave like most others (I am no expert on neither of US presidents). to me it seems both had balls when it was needed, unlike current guy. and like it or not, assholes like Putin sometimes need a gentle reminding slap in their face to show who really runs the show (sorta...) I would say though we shouldn't attribute all political wins/loses during one's era only to one guy. I don't think how the show is run, not now and neither back then. Kissinger might have helped out with Chinese for example. You need these huge personas to neogtiate with all-powerful dictators (something my EU lacks so badly it's not fun anymore)

jokoon 11y ago

Well what you call appropriate conduct is just a mean to make the government look more legitimate, the net result being the government will find much more discrete ways to be corrupted. It's a good thing to make corruption more difficult, in the end it's some sort of quality control. At the very least it reduces corruption or makes it more adequate, a little like Machiavelli would describe it. In my sense if corruption can be detected, it is not worth it, and is bad corruption. The best situation is when the due process and power separation are tight, but in no sense it will prevent corruption entirely.