3 ms·

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

by 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.
quanticle 12y ago
Nixon may be up for a re-assessment... but not because of Watergate. If anything, what (partially) redeems Nixon is his foreign policy accomplishments. He wound down the Vietnam War and he successfully pursued a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. Both were important things that needed to be done, and arguably, Nixon was one of the few American politicians who could do those things without instantly being accused of being a communist sympathizer. But in terms of domestic policy, Nixon was a disaster. He served over the worst of the economic "malaise" that would be later characterized as "stagflation". He started the "war on drugs", and for that reason he is in no small part responsible for the deaths and incarceration of millions of poor, minority men. His attitudes on civil liberties and legitimate dissent continue to infect the military and intelligence agencies, who, to this day, see their job as protecting the American state from the American people. It was under Nixon that the Executive branch began to see itself as superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is what people were referring to when they said that Nixon began the tradition of the "imperial" presidency. While blame can be laid at the feet of Nixon's successors for not reversing the harms that Nixon did, the blame for setting a bad precedent rests squarely on Nixon's shoulders. No amount of historical revision can or should erase that.
- yzzxy 12y ago
  Common consensus today appears to paint Kissinger as the driving force and genius behind the Nixon administration's foreign policy success. I think Thompson expresses this quite well: > Kissinger is a slippery little devil, a world-class hustler with a thick German accent and a very keen eye for weak spots at the top of the power structure. Nixon was one of those, and Super K exploited him mercilessly, all the way to the end. Whether this is an accurate depiction I have no idea. But if it is, then Nixon seems to deserve credit mainly for getting out of the way.
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  >He wound down the Vietnam War After getting Kissinger to prolong it by getting the South Vietnamese to torpedo the peace talks, causing the deaths of tens of thousands, simply in order to get elected.[1] >a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. The relationship was broken long before rapprochement. Nixon/Kissinger took advantage of the split; they didn't cause it. As an aside, I'm currently reading Kissinger's World Order. It's a fascinating read by a man who was undeniably a giant of a statesman, despite his many flaws. [1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vie...
username223 12y ago
> I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before. He's very hit-and-miss, but try "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" for Thompson at his most coherent. It's not black-and-white, but mostly a colorful character study of the 1968 Presidential candidates.
danieltillett 12y ago
The reason Nixon will up for a re-assessment is because of the record of the more recent office holders. I don't think Nixon would have thought it was ok to authorize torture.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
flipped_bit 12y ago
>> 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. You might enjoy Len Colodny's research http://www.watergate.com/ http://www.watergate.com/ History is not always what it pretends it to be. I still don't like Nixon but I can understand how guys like him end up in commanding positions. The article is actually objective - tell it like it is rather than the uppity pretensions of 'presidency' and undue deference given to so-called politicians, leaders etc... (not just in the public sphere, but also in private). This is another reason I like 'Daily Show' for news - the mockery strips away all the usual fig-leaf of BS 'respectability'.
asveikau 12y ago
> Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama. I wrote a reply last night that I ended up deleting because I didn't think it was worth it, but now after some time let me re-formulate. I actually think, though you didn't intend it to, your sarcastic statement rings true: There hasn't been anyone as personally corrupt as Nixon. Remember, Nixon was literally caught laundering money, running a personal secret police force, and extorting people for campaign funds. While others may lie about sex, lie about weapons, lie about war, lie about civil liberties, and generally do things we disapprove of, I would say: * Have they been caught laundering money? * Have they been caught running a personal secret police for personal gain? (I think the "personal gain" angle is the key difference between post-9/11 presidents and Nixon - NSA has done questionable things but they weren't doing it for Bush/Obama's personal money laundering coverup) * Are they guilty of extortion? I would say that yes, Nixon was more personally corrupt that those who came after. (Though I'll admit, 10 years ago I read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and was pretty moved by it.)

by lmg643 12y ago

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.

quanticle 12y ago

Nixon may be up for a re-assessment... but not because of Watergate. If anything, what (partially) redeems Nixon is his foreign policy accomplishments. He wound down the Vietnam War and he successfully pursued a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. Both were important things that needed to be done, and arguably, Nixon was one of the few American politicians who could do those things without instantly being accused of being a communist sympathizer. But in terms of domestic policy, Nixon was a disaster. He served over the worst of the economic "malaise" that would be later characterized as "stagflation". He started the "war on drugs", and for that reason he is in no small part responsible for the deaths and incarceration of millions of poor, minority men. His attitudes on civil liberties and legitimate dissent continue to infect the military and intelligence agencies, who, to this day, see their job as protecting the American state from the American people. It was under Nixon that the Executive branch began to see itself as superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is what people were referring to when they said that Nixon began the tradition of the "imperial" presidency. While blame can be laid at the feet of Nixon's successors for not reversing the harms that Nixon did, the blame for setting a bad precedent rests squarely on Nixon's shoulders. No amount of historical revision can or should erase that.

yzzxy 12y ago
Common consensus today appears to paint Kissinger as the driving force and genius behind the Nixon administration's foreign policy success. I think Thompson expresses this quite well: > Kissinger is a slippery little devil, a world-class hustler with a thick German accent and a very keen eye for weak spots at the top of the power structure. Nixon was one of those, and Super K exploited him mercilessly, all the way to the end. Whether this is an accurate depiction I have no idea. But if it is, then Nixon seems to deserve credit mainly for getting out of the way.
redthrowaway 12y ago
>He wound down the Vietnam War After getting Kissinger to prolong it by getting the South Vietnamese to torpedo the peace talks, causing the deaths of tens of thousands, simply in order to get elected.[1] >a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. The relationship was broken long before rapprochement. Nixon/Kissinger took advantage of the split; they didn't cause it. As an aside, I'm currently reading Kissinger's World Order. It's a fascinating read by a man who was undeniably a giant of a statesman, despite his many flaws. [1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vie...

username223 12y ago

> I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before. He's very hit-and-miss, but try "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" for Thompson at his most coherent. It's not black-and-white, but mostly a colorful character study of the 1968 Presidential candidates.

danieltillett 12y ago

The reason Nixon will up for a re-assessment is because of the record of the more recent office holders. I don't think Nixon would have thought it was ok to authorize torture.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

flipped_bit 12y ago

>> 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. You might enjoy Len Colodny's research http://www.watergate.com/ http://www.watergate.com/ History is not always what it pretends it to be. I still don't like Nixon but I can understand how guys like him end up in commanding positions. The article is actually objective - tell it like it is rather than the uppity pretensions of 'presidency' and undue deference given to so-called politicians, leaders etc... (not just in the public sphere, but also in private). This is another reason I like 'Daily Show' for news - the mockery strips away all the usual fig-leaf of BS 'respectability'.

asveikau 12y ago

> Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama. I wrote a reply last night that I ended up deleting because I didn't think it was worth it, but now after some time let me re-formulate. I actually think, though you didn't intend it to, your sarcastic statement rings true: There hasn't been anyone as personally corrupt as Nixon. Remember, Nixon was literally caught laundering money, running a personal secret police force, and extorting people for campaign funds. While others may lie about sex, lie about weapons, lie about war, lie about civil liberties, and generally do things we disapprove of, I would say: * Have they been caught laundering money? * Have they been caught running a personal secret police for personal gain? (I think the "personal gain" angle is the key difference between post-9/11 presidents and Nixon - NSA has done questionable things but they weren't doing it for Bush/Obama's personal money laundering coverup) * Are they guilty of extortion? I would say that yes, Nixon was more personally corrupt that those who came after. (Though I'll admit, 10 years ago I read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and was pretty moved by it.)