You persist in using the WP article as gospel and accept their characterization as being correct. Why? In the article, I quoted you something rather important, i.e., Informed of the general contents of this article, "The White House referred all comment to The Committee for the Re-election of the President. A spokesman there said, "The Post story is not only fiction but a collection of absurdities."
The WP was pushing a political agenda. They hated Nixon for a host of reasons. The article you cited was written by Woodward and Bernstein for God's sake. Do you consider them objective observers? It was written about a month before the 1972 election. Could it be possible they were trying to pull a Dan Rather? Your citing of the loaded words proves my point. This was a hit piece against the GOP and Nixon.
I chose 1964 and 1972 first because they were the closest to 1968, and thus would be most relevant to discussing trends. But also, 1964 showed great erosion in the "Solid South" for the Democrats, ...although Mr. Carter's first term was so disastrous that he oculdn't do even that.
My point is that three election cycles is not sufficient to see a trend. Clinton and Carter may or may not be blips in the long run. There are a number of variables that affect an election including the candidates, issues, events, and demographics. Things change.
1964 was a critical year for the Dems and the South. As I mentioned, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a watershed event for the South. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson is said to have told aide Bill Moyers, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." In 1968 Richard Nixon pursued the famous "Southern strategy," and the region split its votes between him and segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running on the populist American Independent ticket. Hubert Humphrey carried only one Southern state, LBJ's Texas.
The narrative breaks down, however, in 1976. That year Jimmy Carter, a pro-civil rights former governor of Georgia, carried every Southern state but Virginia. Mr. Carter would have lost without the South; the rest of the country gave Gerald Ford 228 electoral votes, to just 170 for Mr. Carter.
By 1976 there was a strong national consensus in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Not only was there never a serious movement to repeal it, but President Nixon had signed an executive order in 1971 expanding the use of racial preferences to provide opportunities for minorities in federal contracting.
Regarding some of the election results, by state, that you cite, I'll generally say just a few things. First, it's quite possible that without the influence of Mr. Wallace, states may have tipped differently. However, in some of the states that you cite, Mr. Wallace's voters would have had to have come at a very high cost to Mr. Humphrey.
I haven't gone through a detailed state by state analysis of the vote and how Wallace influenced it. Obviously, those states, which were won by Nixon in a close race would be the ones worthy of review along with those states won by Wallace or where he came in second in the voting. Wallace was a Democrat, so I have to assume that he received a higher proportion of Dem and Independent voters rather than GOP voters.
Actually, I think he won by over 800,000 votes. Mr. Wallace received around 9.5 million votes, or a little under 13%:
My reference shows about 500,000
Well, my view is that it was certainly part witch-hunt, but it was also an adamant refusal by national Republicans to retain a felon as president.
Should Ford have given him a pardon? He was not a felon until a court proves it.
The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
Does that hold true for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (the second time)? Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. It depends on what you call dominance and what constitutes the South. I find your exceptions meaningless.
I don't know that I agree with that. Mr. Clinton took a lesson from the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, and significantly trimmed his sails thereafter. By abdication, in many ways, he governed almost as a centrist Republican, especially on economic issues.
Clinton's few accomplishments: welfare reform (he vetoed it three times), and deficit reduction were really the product of a GOP controlled Congress. While Clinton was preoccupied with satisfying his sexual urges in the Oval Office, al-Qaeda was attacking US targets repeatedly without any real response from us (including the East Africa embassy bombings, which killed or wounded 5,000 people), the North Koreans were developing nuclear weapons, and our military and intelligence capabilities were going to hell in a handbasket. Clinton was a disaster as far as foreign policy was concerned and we are still reaping the results. His pardons at the end of his administration were a disgrace.
Mr. Nixon, however, was a vigorous president, and in retrospect, I take issue with any number of the things he did, including wage and price controls, controls on oil pricing in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the EPA, affirmative action (started in the federal govt under Mr. Nixon), his handling of the Vietnam War, detente with the Soviet Union, the suggestion to provide every family with a guaranteed income (which some have pointed out eventually morphed into the Earned Income Tax Credit), and his cavalier treatment of the Fourth Amendment (which ultimately what all this bugging & stuff gets down to).
I don't think these were particularly conservative, or particularly good for the United States.
I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance. I think I understand where you are coming from. FWIW, I think Nixon was a far better President than Clinton, especially in foreign policy.
Dear kabar,
I don't take the Washington Post as discredited a source as the Nixon White House commenting on its illegal activities. I could go and dig up other sources, but I've already spent more time on our conversation than I should. Ultimately, though, a large number of White House officials, even at the highest levels, were convicted of felonies, and many went to prison, including, but not limited to, HR Haldeman, John Mitchell, John Dean, G Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson, and a bunch of others.
To deny the illegalities that emanated from the Nixon White House, at the very highest levels (Remembering that Mr. Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator - spared the ignominy of indictment because Mr. Cox didn't think you could indict a sitting president.) is tendentious.
Remember that Mr. Nixon likely needed Mr. Ford's pardon to escape indictment.
Thus, the White House denials, in retrospect, ring hollow.
"My point is that three election cycles is not sufficient to see a trend."
Perhaps not. However, I think that subsequent election cycles have demonstrated that the South has mostly trended Republican from 1964. The exceptions occur when Southern Democrats lead the ticket (Although, as I pointed out, even that didn't avail Mr. Carter in 1980, and as you pointed out, it didn't help Mr. Gore in 2000. Maybe the larger point is that the South is becoming so Republican that even Southern Democrats can't win there? I don't know, although I'm not sure I'm willing to call Washington-raised Mr. Gore a "true son of the South.").
But I agree that we're on shaky ground in trying to read the tea leaves of "what if?"
Which was my point. There are folks who ably defend the argument that without Mr. Wallace, Mr. Nixon would have won by even more. As I've said in nearly every post to you, I'm not sure I buy that, but I think the folks who think it have a good argument.
However, even you give evidence of the argument when you say, "In 1968 Richard Nixon pursued the famous 'Southern strategy,' and the region split its votes between him and segregationist Democrat George Wallace, running on the populist American Independent ticket."
Without Mr. Wallace, he would not have split those votes, he'd have gotten them all (or a lot closer to all than he actually got). If he was, indeed, "split[ting] votes" with Mr. Wallace, then without Mr. Wallace's presence, it isn't likely that Mr. Humphrey would have gotten the majority (and large majority in some states) of Mr. Wallace's erstwhile votes.
"My reference shows about 500,000."
Hmmm, yours does. But mine doesn't. That's interesting. If I have time later, I may see if I can come up with something more definitive.
"Should Ford have given him a pardon?"
I don't know. I thought so at the time.
"He was not a felon until a court proves it."
If you see someone commit a crime, even if a court never adjudicates it, you know their guilt. We could all see Mr. Nixon's crimes in public. He is as innocent of his crimes as Mr. Clinton is of those felonies of which he was never convicted (Remember, he was never even indicted, no less convicted for any felony whatsoever.). But I don't hold Mr. Clinton as being innocent of felonies, no matter how well he weaseled out of indictment, and neither do I hold Mr. Nixon innocent, either.
"'The dominance by the Republican Party in the South (except when Southerners lead the Democrat ticket) is in part a legacy of the reaction against the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.'
"Does that hold true for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (the second time)? Virginia hasn't voted Democrat since 1964. It depends on what you call dominance and what constitutes the South. I find your exceptions meaningless."
Well, certainly since 1964, the only times the Dems have won is with Southerners. Thus, it appears at this time to be a necessary condition. However, I didn't assert it as a sufficient condition. If you interpreted it that way, my apologies for not being clearer, although I thought that by pointing out that Mr. Carter lost in 1980 in spite of still being a Georgian, you would understand that.
"I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance."
Yes, certainly, since I was arguing against "how good a president Mr. Nixon was in comparison to Mr. Clinton." If you'd have come to Mr. Clinton's defense, I'd have told you more of why I believe such a defense to be incorrect.
As well, because I said that after 1994, he largely abdicated his office, and became passive, as you affirm in what you, yourself post:
"Clinton's few accomplishments: welfare reform (he vetoed it three times), and deficit reduction were really the product of a GOP controlled Congress."
Thank you for affirming what I said. To expand, I'd say that because Mr. Clinton was off being monicaed, and not really paying much attention to things, he did much less harm than if he'd have been a more activist liberal president.
There are fewer negative things to say about Mr. Clinton because he did less.
However, in some critical ways, he may have done more harm than Mr. Nixon, although it will be history to judge, and that determination still awaits. My own opinion is that Mr. Clinton's greatest harm as president came in that he persuaded the American people to buy off on a significant lowering of moral standards in the United States. Most teens now don't view oral sex as sex. But I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word is is.
Although as a child and a teenager I was an avid Republican supporter, and was quite enthusiastic about Mr. Nixon's elections in both 1968 and 1972 (It was in 1968 that I really became a political junkie), as I got older, I came to slowly conclude that he wasn't as good a president as I'd thought. I think others have mentioned (or maybe I read it elsewhere) that Mr. Nixon was quite adept at tactics, but not always so good at strategy, at the big picture.
When I compare Mr. Nixon's approach to foreign policy with Mr. Reagan's, Mr. Nixon's faults become clear. Whereas Mr. Reagan could imagine a world where totalitarian communism might run its course, and could think of strategies to hasten the day, Mr. Nixon (and Mr. Kissinger) could only envision "peaceful coexistence" and perhaps a slow and perhaps imperceptible convergence between the two systems. In 1972, detente seemed pretty cool, peaceful coexistence the best we could do, and perhaps convergence might not be so bad (hey, I was 12, whaddaya want??).
But in hindsight, where Mr. Nixon was a masterful player of the scenario given him, Mr. Reagan was masterful at forcing a new scenario.
As for domestic policy, I view Mr. Nixon as perhaps a little better than a disaster. He certainly wasn't as bad as Mr. Carter, although much of what happened on Mr. Ford's watch traces to decisions made during Mr. Nixon's term.
"I find it interesting that you can run down a litany of things you don't like about Nixon and say very little negatively about Clinton's performance. I think I understand where you are coming from."
I'm not sure you do. I am only grateful that Mr. Clinton was such a self-pleasuring narcissistic hedonist, and such a cowardly, frightened little turd, that he never really seriously pursued a full-throated liberal agenda after 1994. Although I don't rate Mr. Nixon highly as president, Mr. Clinton was not half the man, half the patriot, or half as decent a human being as Mr. Nixon was.
sitetest