The author, Rick Perlstein, uses the term “Nixonland” to describe a situation in which American politics are dominated by conflict between two irreconcilable groups and contends that Nixon advanced his political career by exploiting such conflicts. However, if this is the case, we have been living in "Nixonland" since our country was founded--and "Nixonland" can probably describe most democratic societies.
In any case, it seems to me that commentator Victor Lasky was more accurate when in a 1977 interview, he credited President Nixon with "the cooling of America," noting that by the time Nixon left office, the unrest and vilence that began in the mid-1969's had largely ceased.
Perlstein also tends to be selective when picking and choosing facts to support his arguments. For example, when dicussing the 1960 presidential election, Perlstein devotes several pages to the first televised Nixon-Kennedy debate, in which he portrays Nixon as performing poorly. However, he doesn't mention that those who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon had outperformed Kennedy, and he makes no mention whatsoever of the three subsequent debates in which Nixon did much better than he did in the first debate.
Perlstein ridicules Nixon's attempt to have Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas impeached, in 1970, implying that he did so because Douglas wrote an article in a racy counter-culture journal. However, he neglects to mention the real cause of the impeachment move--a book written by Douglas entitled Points of Rebellion (Random House, 1970), in which he praised the student revolutionaries of the day and generated charges that he was advocating the overthrow of the US government.
Perlstein's account also contains a number of factual errors. For example, Nixon's birthplace was built in 1912, not 1910, as he says, and the SALT agreement of 1972 was not the "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty."
Interestingly, in an appearance at the Nixon Presidential Library the other day, Perlstein answered a questioner from the audience who asked if we are still in "Nixonland" by saying that, indeed, we were, as manifested by Sarah Palin, an "Agnew-like" choice for vice president who seeks to exploit "middle class rages."
Nixon was the first president I remember as I was born in 1962, but I was too young to experience his first term first-hand as I wasn't mature enough to read newspapers or follow the news. So by the time I started paying attention to things, Nixon was already consumed by the Watergate scandal so that was my impression of him - a scandal-ridden president who never did very much.
So after reading the book, it appears that he had quite a successful first term, in that civil and campus unrest quieted down, troops started getting withdrawn from Vietnam in large quantities (though the bombing increased) and he made large strides with improving the relationships with China and Soviet Union. About the only thing for a conservative to bitch about that first term seemed to be the wage-and-price controls he put in place and taking us off the gold standard.
Seems to me that he would have run re-election handily without using the dirty tricksters he had working for CREEP. Though I must tell you, I got a kick out of some of the stunts they pulled, reminded me of my high school days. And just imagine, if only they had taped the Watergate doors vertically instead of horizontally, they might never have been caught at all.
Next, I plan to start tackling the Haldeman diaries as that looks like fascinating reading as well. I skimmed over them a few years back but now the entries should make a lot more sense to me after having read "Nixonland."