Lies That Are Disputed (How the left gets history wrong from Vietnam to Watergate)

Most thoughtful commentators bemoan the decline of bipartisanship and the coarsening of political discourse in the United States. The president promised to reach out to the opposition and hoped for 80 Senate votes for his stimulus bill. But he disregarded all Republican suggestions for the bill and acquiesced in its Pelosification into a groaning, creaking, Democratic gravy train.

I remember, as a very young person, the august comparative tranquillity of the Eisenhower era, when the president requested national air time only for matters of indisputable national interest. He never abused this privilege, and there was no call for equal time. The morning after his addresses, two giant, finned Cadillac limousines would convey the Democratic leaders of Congress, Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to assure the president and the media of the rock-solid support of Congress.

At the heart of the degeneration from that level of trust is an embittering partisan difference over the national interest, built on competing versions of recent U.S. history. Those Democrats who think about these things believe that the Kennedy administration’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was a masterpiece of crisis management, an almost scientific path to a bloodless triumph. They believe the Kennedys would never have plunged into Vietnam, that Lyndon Johnson, despite his inestimable services to civil rights and the growth of the compassionate welfare state, blundered into a hopeless war (urged by the same people who had advised Kennedy during the Missile Crisis), and that he misled the public and provided a cautionary tale showing why the U.S. should commit forces to foreign combat only in precisely limited multinational operations of unquestionable virtue.

They believe that President Nixon took over the Vietnam War as his own, also misled the nation, and squandered 30,000 American lives in a shameful pursuit of a “decent interval” between the U.S. withdrawal and the collapse of the Saigon regime. According to this account, the Democrats forced a brave termination of the war with a shutdown of all aid to South Vietnam, and then redeemed the integrity of the U.S. government by forcing the departure of Nixon, a uniquely sleazy and villainous president. This version was frozen and fed to the public by the national media, who touted themselves as the heroic exposers of “imperial” government misfeasance, in Vietnam and Watergate.

Kay Graham’s version of what her late husband called the “rough first draft of history” became liberal holy writ. It was genuflected to like the Infant of Prague, and defended with the tenacity of the garrison of the Alamo. The conservative talk-show personalities who have grown like dandelions in opposition to this orchestrated groupthink, and the media controlled by Rupert Murdoch (Fox and the Wall Street Journal), are reviled as rabble-rousing muckrakers. (Murdoch is a more astute political maneuverer than has been seen in Washington for decades.)

The same liberals tend to believe that Ronald Reagan was “an amiable dunce,” though a “great communicator” and “Teflon man” (as opposed to a great orator and clever statesman). They claim Gorbachev ended the Cold War and Reagan seduced the country with a fools’ paradise of vulgar and easy self-gratification. It need hardly be added that George W. Bush has passed into these canons as a belligerent, pig-headed, semi-literate oaf.

Taken as a whole, this is a vulnerable catechism. We now know that there were 40,000 Soviet soldiers in Cuba in October 1962, and that the nuclear warheads were already in the country and could have been installed and fired in 24 hours. A disaster was avoided not by the portentous calibrations of Kennedy’s entourage, but by the president’s own, inspired, intuition. And it was no great strategic victory; in exchange for Soviet non-deployment in Cuba, the U.S. began the destabilization of the Turkish alliance by removing its long-deployed missiles in Greece and Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had basically thrown in the towel in Vietnam in October 1966, when he offered Hanoi reciprocal withdrawal of forces from the South. If Ho Chi Minh had not thought that he could militarily defeat the United States, he would have accepted that offer, and crushed the South six months after the U.S. withdrawal. Johnson would not have tried to reintroduce ground forces, but Ho wouldn’t give the U.S. any cover for its disengagement; he was determined to humiliate it completely.

In April 1972, between Nixon’s historic visits to China and the USSR, the South Vietnamese defeated the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong invasion and offensive, with no U.S. ground support but with heavy air support. This formula might have kept South Vietnam afloat for 15 years, until international Communism collapsed. In his Silent Majority speech of November 1969, Nixon said that North Vietnam could not “defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.” This is what happened, and the Democrats and the national media have been in steadily more implausible denial for over 30 years.

Watergate was nonsense. The House Judiciary Committee was a shameful riff-raff of grandstanding poseurs. Counsel John Doar’s charges against Nixon were a Stalin-worthy fantasy of what Kafka called “nameless crimes.” The “smoking gun” was tawdry but innocuous, and the only legal vulnerability was the payment of Watergate defendants’ expenses in possible consideration for altered testimony. This may have happened, but in a serious proceeding, it would have been very difficult to prove Nixon knew anything about it. He had a direct connection only to the supplementary payment to Howard Hunt, and it isn’t exactly clear what the consideration was. These were, and were not necessarily more than, what Nixon called “horrendous" mistakes “not worthy of a great president.”

Nixon’s only full term was, except for Lincoln’s one and FDR’s first and third, the most successful in history (founding the Environmental Protection Agency, ending the riots and assassinations and hijackings, ending the draft, reducing the crime rate, stopping inflation, the opening to China, SALT I, the Middle East peace process, and the withdrawal from Vietnam). His ethics were no more unprecedentedly deficient than his presidency aspired in any way to being imperial. Nixon was impeccably honest financially and an unwavering patriot. He had some infelicitous foibles that were worrisome, but they were grotesquely exaggerated by the media.

Thus did the Democrats discover the joys of criminalizing policy differences, which corresponded with the relentless rise of the powers of prosecutors in the country generally. They tried it again in the Iran-Contra foolishness, and the exemplary Caspar Weinberger briefly faced criminal prosecution. The Republicans returned the favor by deposing Speaker Jim Wright, sending Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski to prison, and taking President Clinton’s demeaning but hardly unprecedented peccadilloes to the only Senate impeachment trial of a president since Andrew Johnson.

Along with Truman, Nixon and Reagan did more than anyone else to win the Cold War, the greatest and most bloodless strategic victory in the history of the nation-state. Nixon was a master chess player, from propagator of the Red Scare in the Forties to architect of détente in the Seventies, to friend of Yeltsin in the Nineties. And Reagan was a great poker player; he raised the ante with his Strategic Defense Initiative, which the Democrats mocked, until the USSR was bankrupt. The U.S. now faces the consequences of the Democrats’ crucifixion of the one and over-mockery of the other.

The truth in all these controversies is between the poles, but the indigestible fact is that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are closer to it than the New York Times and the traditional networks. In this vortex, the gerrymandering of congressional districts and entrenchment of special interests in campaign financing has gridlocked legislation as an earmark contest and an endless war of attrition waged through soundbites, sniping, posturing, and poll-taking. The political class has taken an almost vertical dive in respectability since Stevenson and Eisenhower, or Kennedy and Nixon, contested the presidency.

This is not a culture war. The prevailing ethos rests on the vibrating pillars of the demonization of Nixon and the myths of Vietnam. Napoleon famously described history as “lies agreed upon.” What we have now are lies that are disputed. The liberals must relinquish their claimed monopoly on virtue. The conservatives must cease implying that the liberals are traitors. And the national media must re-earn public confidence or be swept into a cul-de-sac by Murdoch, Limbaugh, and the rest.

— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom and Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. He can be reached at cbletters@gmail.com.

The present state of politics in America goes way beyond ideologies. There IS a “culture war” and it is the result of far more than simply differing opinions - - it actually comes down to entirely different thought processes. Conservatives tend to think linearly: “If this, then this”; “Here is what was attempted, here are the results”; “Based on experience, this works and this does not work”.

Liberals do not think that way. Liberals are easily conned, easily manipulated, and utterly unwilling to admit when they are wrong. (Their obsession with attempting to elicit “apologies” from Republicans all the time is an offshoot of these strained thought processes, but that’s another topic for another day.) Liberals, when confronted with bare-bones truth that contradicts their irrational world view, will scrunch their eyes shut, shake their heads, and chant “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah” until whatever truth it is they find offensive “goes away”, rather than revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to that truth. They simply do not have the capacity to revise their thoughts and beliefs to conform to the truth before their very eyes if that truth contradicts the foundation of beliefs they hold onto as a weapon in their constant struggle against their own irrational insecurity.

Certainly, there are notable exceptions such as David Horowitz, PJ O’Rourke, Bernie Goldberg, and others who were smart enough to lift themselves out of the mire of self-loathing liberalism, but these folks are, unfortunately, rare exceptions.

Being an unabashed liberal is a matter of character (or more accurately, lack of character). Liberals are generally humorless and bitter becasue, see, everybody else is (richer, happier, luckier, fill-in-the-blank) than they deserve to be, and something about that is just not “fair”. Liberals are always “victims”, or malcontents, or simply that guilt-ridden subset of white liberals who feel that their own good fortune (and by extension the good fortune of others) is somehow undeserved.

Interestingly, true liberals are often physically slow and unathletic. They have no interest in competetive sports, especially team sports. “Competetive sports” is, in fact, very much an alien concept to them. To be blunt, true liberals (genuine socialists) are almost always clumsy oafs.

Additionally, true liberals are humorless. Seething anger causes an entrenched bitterness that defines them. The evidence of this abounds and can be seen on certain TV stations every day. They have no Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter or Mark Steyn or Howie Carr. They have Keith Olbemann and Michael Moore and Helen Thomas.... True liberals really don’t “get” jokes, even if they chuckle as though they do. (Test this for yourself - - try to tell a true liberal a joke. For additonal laughs, ask the liberal if he/she/it has a good joke.)

Liberals can appear to be normal people and are often able to handle their jobs and academic endeavors competently. They can usually fake normal socialization with other people, even if their self-centeredness prevents them from ever establishing true friendships.

But it is sociopathic selfishness that is the most troubling thing about liberals. They see absolutely no problem in walking into the polling place on election day and voting for big government to confiscate more money - - from their NEIGHBORS. Normal people would view this behavior as boorish and rude, but liberals convince themselves that they are somehow accomplishing something; perhaps the exercise soothes their irrational guilt under the tragic misbelief that they are “helping” others (using other people’s money, of course), notably, “the poor”.

Apparently, voting for big thuggish government to take more money FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS and make that money available to Democrat politicians who then use it to buy the votes of society’s losers, bums, and parasites makes liberals feel good about themselves. (Don’t ask me about this mindset - - figuring out liberals would best be left to a team of very good psychiatrists.)

Anyway, I believe that the percentage of true liberals in this country is actually pretty low - - far less than the Democrat turnout would indicate. The rats run a good con and there is no shortage of fools and ignoramuses who buy it. Think about this - - how gullible do you have to be to fall for a campaign that could have been formulated by a boardwalk psychic; a campaign based primarily on two essentially meaningless words, “hope” and “change”, that sound so... positive!... and allow the smiling, sky-gazing listener’s imagination to turn them into whatever he or she wants? Unfortunately, in today’s soundbite world such a campaign can be successful, particularly in a nation where most people are fat and happy.

And so we end up with “community organizer” Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

But fat and happy people don’t really want “change” - - they actually prefer the status quo. And so, when fat and happy people finally catch on to the idea that somebody who wasn’t supposed to upset their applecarts is indeed attempting to do just that, they wake up and speak up. Lately, they have been shouting.

Ubama and the rats ignore those shouts at their own (elective) peril.

Do we have to wait 35 years to find out Bush was right about WMDs and al Qaeda in Iraq?

No, but we may have to wait fully that long before the partisan-infested media and academia will cease to have so much of a personal commitment to false history that somebody in them will dare to speak the truth.

The insanely vitriolic campaign against Richard Nixon was amplified in the case of Bush largely because the elements (in minority at the time) within both media and academia who were using the former occasion to leapfrog to political power have solidified into a stifling, unquestioning liberal orthodoxy. It is this orthodoxy that is somewhat loosely termed "history" here by Mr. Black.

I differ from his case in the insistence that this is a cultural war; that the distribution of this orthodoxy into the mainstream of societal imagery is a deliberate means of exercising seized political power. Fantasy over fact, if the former serves. Historical fact isn't all that difficult to determine in this age where everything is recorded; it is, however, far more difficult to promulgate than it used to be in the face of a hostile and repressive myth machine. And the single motivation behind the repressive nature of this machine is that its inhabitants are stubbornly determined never to have to admit that they were wrong in any respect.

That is a natural enough consequence of their trend from neutral observer to that of impassioned participant, and it isn't all that new. It is, by the old standards of both media and academia, sordid and dishonest. Those standards have changed, and both virtue and honesty have been displaced by a disgracefully hollow lip service to their ghosts.

[Article] The conservatives must cease implying that the liberals are traitors.

Pretty damned hard to do when elected Democrats from the current POTUS on down blatantly undermine the efforts of our armed forced to defeat our evil enemies, and give them aid and comfort.

Black is speaking directly to Ann Coulter, who contrary Black, did deliver the goods on the liberals in her Treason, which I just finished. She shows, and the Venona Papers show, that the liberal Democrats did in fact suborn treason and support Communists like Alger Hiss against anti-Communist patriots like Richard Nixon and Sen. Joe McCarthy.

Coulter also shows that this palsiness with enemies of the People of the United States is not a tic: Liberals do this consistently, out of their own animosity toward the People. Her last chapter is, "Why They Hate Us". Her conclusion: Liberals want to be their own gods. They are dyed-in-the-wool Luciferian egotists, and they despise the humble godliness of (especially) theist, churched conservative Americans. And that is why they are the friend of anyone who is an enemy of "those people" -- us conservatives.

Thus Coulter. I think Black has some more thinking to do on the subject of "treason" and bad faith generally among the liberal intelligentsia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.