6 ms·

He was a crook (1994)

43 points by antman 12y ago

nyolfen 12y ago
lest we forget
kbutler 12y ago
Pieces like this say a lot more about the author than about the subject. Nixon did some very good things, and some very bad things, but this article didn't actually talk about any of them.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  The things Nixon did are widely known, good and bad. You don't really have to rehash them every time you speak of the man. Not to mention, as an obit., it was an appropriate time to focus on the man himself (despite the dramatic break from typical rose-tinted obit. style)
  - barsonme 12y ago
    Perhaps I'm a bit more "soft" than you, but I'd rather obituaries or stories about the deceased be polite rather than an eloquent version of "Ding-dong! The Witch is Dead!" lest we forget there are actual evil people in the world whose bad actions vastly overshadow those of corrupt politicians.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - elpachuco 12y ago
      Says you. Exhibit A: Mexico. A country with vast potential being held back by their corrupt politicians.
    - yzzxy 12y ago
      No need to be eloquent! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#Death_of_Margaret_Thatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#De...
    - Qwertious 12y ago
      There are more brutally "evil" people out there, who are morehands-on in the things they do, but they don't overshadow the corrupt people at the top of the US government, who are responsible for enabling, if not causing, millions of deaths yearly, and being a roadblock to progress. I agree that we should be "polite" in the sense that they shouldn't fling insults around like a monkey flings shit, but I don't think we should stick to euphemisms and lies by omission, just for the sake of not "sullying his/her memory". Speak softly, cleanly, and frankly, but don't be "polite".
  - Qwertious 12y ago
    The things Nixon did are widely RECORDED, good and bad. This is not the same thing, and younger people won't know. Hell, he was president from 1969 to 1974, right? That's literally over 40 years ago. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you that much about politics in general, nor the specifics of what Nixon did. Most people don't go out of their way to research political history, unfortunately. And if we never speak of the thing's he's done, they'll fade from public consciousness and any lessons from it will be lost.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      I'm not advocating "hiding" the things he's done as if they cannot be spoken of. But if you can never assume a modicum of background in your readers, you waste all your time on review.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      TFA was published in 1994 - 20 years ago. We can't expect the author to update it for today's audience, especially given that he's been dead for almost 10 years.
erikig 12y ago
Leave it to Hunter S Thompson to remind us. In listening to the recent analysis of our US news pundits it is possible to think that the polarization in today's audiences is a recent happening until you come across articles like this.
- kiba 12y ago
  I think it is a natural tendency for humans to self-segregate into opposing groups based on minor difference. Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.
  - krapp 12y ago
    >Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it. Well... disagreeing with and attempting to destroy the agenda of Democrats in power is apparently their job. Not that the Democrats are any better, but the people who vote and write the big checks are the people who want their blood and circuses.
    - tsotha 12y ago
      No, conservatives simply don't like their agenda. Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in a direction we don't like, and therefore we oppose them. Is it that hard to understand?
      - krapp 12y ago
        Not at all, I disagree with his agenda as well (probably for the opposite reasons - I don't think he's nearly left wing enough) but it also seems to be the case that the Republican party has been stirring up their base over a bit more than Obama's agenda, for the sake of opportunistic pandering. The entire "birther" controversy wouldn't even have happened if his name had been John Smith.
        tsotha 12y ago
lmg643 12y ago
I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before. I could see how this appeals to younger people - very edgy and casts everything in a nice black-and-white frame with good vs evil. Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama. By this nice polemic - you would think we've never had another president do anything close to Nixon. No politician or party has ever used FBI for political reasons, abused CIA/NSA intelligence, or used the IRS for political purposes (audits, leaked returns, etc.) And I don't think Nixon really "innovated" in this, he was just the first where it became publicly known. LBJ was arguably far worse as a power-mad president, but he gets a pass because of his Great Society initiatives. This piece did refresh dots for me with J Edgar Hoover dying in office. This wasn't known when Thompson wrote this, but Mark Felt (also of the FBI) was deep throat, an FBI lifer who reported to Patrick Gray. Gray was a Nixon appointee from outside the agency - not an FBI lifer - a Navy guy, an attorney, and arguably seen as an interloper by many at the agency. I'm also fascinated by Bob Woodward, a brilliant Yale grad who spend several years in the Office of Naval Intelligence, before deciding to become a reporter. Watergate was one of his first stories, an absolutely incredible coincidence - a guy with US intelligence connections breaks a story that takes down a president. At the risk of a thousand downvotes - I expect Nixon will be up for a re-assessment at some point. The Watergate story is much more complicated and fascinating than conventionally understood.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  In a late 90s Atlantic interview with HST, at one point he calls Clinton more depraved than Nixon.
- aetherson 12y ago
  I think that you're underestimating Thompson, who may regard certain people as unrelentingly evil, but doesn't seem to think of basically anyone as unrelentingly good -- and to have a black-and-white frame, doesn't the white part need to be there to? At any rate, I don't think that his characterization of Nixon is as one-dimensional as you're implying. Things like this: > Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, > "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about > you." complicate it. At any rate, understand Thompson's style as existing within the milieu of conventional journalism. Someone who will say bluntly horrible things about not just Nixon, but the most powerful politicians of the day may not tell the whole story, but they serve as a bracing corrective to mainstream journalism which is incredibly deferential to people who are the traditional leaders of American society.

43 points by antman 12y ago

lest we forget

Pieces like this say a lot more about the author than about the subject. Nixon did some very good things, and some very bad things, but this article didn't actually talk about any of them.

sliverstorm 12y ago
The things Nixon did are widely known, good and bad. You don't really have to rehash them every time you speak of the man. Not to mention, as an obit., it was an appropriate time to focus on the man himself (despite the dramatic break from typical rose-tinted obit. style)
- barsonme 12y ago
  Perhaps I'm a bit more "soft" than you, but I'd rather obituaries or stories about the deceased be polite rather than an eloquent version of "Ding-dong! The Witch is Dead!" lest we forget there are actual evil people in the world whose bad actions vastly overshadow those of corrupt politicians.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - elpachuco 12y ago
    Says you. Exhibit A: Mexico. A country with vast potential being held back by their corrupt politicians.
  - yzzxy 12y ago
    No need to be eloquent! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#Death_of_Margaret_Thatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding-Dong!_The_Witch_Is_Dead#De...
  - Qwertious 12y ago
    There are more brutally "evil" people out there, who are morehands-on in the things they do, but they don't overshadow the corrupt people at the top of the US government, who are responsible for enabling, if not causing, millions of deaths yearly, and being a roadblock to progress. I agree that we should be "polite" in the sense that they shouldn't fling insults around like a monkey flings shit, but I don't think we should stick to euphemisms and lies by omission, just for the sake of not "sullying his/her memory". Speak softly, cleanly, and frankly, but don't be "polite".
- Qwertious 12y ago
  The things Nixon did are widely RECORDED, good and bad. This is not the same thing, and younger people won't know. Hell, he was president from 1969 to 1974, right? That's literally over 40 years ago. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you that much about politics in general, nor the specifics of what Nixon did. Most people don't go out of their way to research political history, unfortunately. And if we never speak of the thing's he's done, they'll fade from public consciousness and any lessons from it will be lost.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I'm not advocating "hiding" the things he's done as if they cannot be spoken of. But if you can never assume a modicum of background in your readers, you waste all your time on review.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    TFA was published in 1994 - 20 years ago. We can't expect the author to update it for today's audience, especially given that he's been dead for almost 10 years.

erikig 12y ago

Leave it to Hunter S Thompson to remind us. In listening to the recent analysis of our US news pundits it is possible to think that the polarization in today's audiences is a recent happening until you come across articles like this.

kiba 12y ago
I think it is a natural tendency for humans to self-segregate into opposing groups based on minor difference. Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.
- krapp 12y ago
  >Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it. Well... disagreeing with and attempting to destroy the agenda of Democrats in power is apparently their job. Not that the Democrats are any better, but the people who vote and write the big checks are the people who want their blood and circuses.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    No, conservatives simply don't like their agenda. Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in a direction we don't like, and therefore we oppose them. Is it that hard to understand?
    - krapp 12y ago
      Not at all, I disagree with his agenda as well (probably for the opposite reasons - I don't think he's nearly left wing enough) but it also seems to be the case that the Republican party has been stirring up their base over a bit more than Obama's agenda, for the sake of opportunistic pandering. The entire "birther" controversy wouldn't even have happened if his name had been John Smith.
      - tsotha 12y ago

lmg643 12y ago

I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before. I could see how this appeals to younger people - very edgy and casts everything in a nice black-and-white frame with good vs evil. Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama. By this nice polemic - you would think we've never had another president do anything close to Nixon. No politician or party has ever used FBI for political reasons, abused CIA/NSA intelligence, or used the IRS for political purposes (audits, leaked returns, etc.) And I don't think Nixon really "innovated" in this, he was just the first where it became publicly known. LBJ was arguably far worse as a power-mad president, but he gets a pass because of his Great Society initiatives. This piece did refresh dots for me with J Edgar Hoover dying in office. This wasn't known when Thompson wrote this, but Mark Felt (also of the FBI) was deep throat, an FBI lifer who reported to Patrick Gray. Gray was a Nixon appointee from outside the agency - not an FBI lifer - a Navy guy, an attorney, and arguably seen as an interloper by many at the agency. I'm also fascinated by Bob Woodward, a brilliant Yale grad who spend several years in the Office of Naval Intelligence, before deciding to become a reporter. Watergate was one of his first stories, an absolutely incredible coincidence - a guy with US intelligence connections breaks a story that takes down a president. At the risk of a thousand downvotes - I expect Nixon will be up for a re-assessment at some point. The Watergate story is much more complicated and fascinating than conventionally understood.

aidenn0 12y ago
In a late 90s Atlantic interview with HST, at one point he calls Clinton more depraved than Nixon.
aetherson 12y ago
I think that you're underestimating Thompson, who may regard certain people as unrelentingly evil, but doesn't seem to think of basically anyone as unrelentingly good -- and to have a black-and-white frame, doesn't the white part need to be there to? At any rate, I don't think that his characterization of Nixon is as one-dimensional as you're implying. Things like this: > Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, > "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about > you." complicate it. At any rate, understand Thompson's style as existing within the milieu of conventional journalism. Someone who will say bluntly horrible things about not just Nixon, but the most powerful politicians of the day may not tell the whole story, but they serve as a bracing corrective to mainstream journalism which is incredibly deferential to people who are the traditional leaders of American society.