Regards, Ivan
Posted on 08/09/2004 1:04:35 PM PDT by MadIvan
2004, among other things, is the 30th anniversary of the resignation of President Nixon. This event has been marked in both America and abroad; BBC News referred to it on its website as an “ignominious departure” which changed American perceptions of government, and may have temporarily weakened the Presidency in relation to Congress and the press.
To discuss Nixon’s departure in the context of the power of executive versus legislative branches is useful, but it misses a more subtle point. The fact that he resigned for the good of the country, rather than putting the nation through any more trauma, indicated that he had honour. It is seldom remarked upon, but there was an alternative to resignation: he could have rallied his partisans, defied the Congress and fought impeachment to the bitter end. But instead, he thought of something far greater than himself and the achievement of his Presidential ambitions: he thought of the good of the nation as a whole. He saw that his departure would ease the healing process and stepped aside as gracefully as possible. What should make us pause is that since that time, this quality has become much shorter in supply. In fact, it is fair to say that honour is dying.
Examples of the death of honour abound. For example, when the first modern Olympics was held in Athens in 1896, it was the triumph of high idealism. The Olympic Charter to this day contains elements of this idealism in its statement of principles:
(Excerpt) Read more at rightgoths.com ...
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
For many reasons, I despise Nixon, but he had more honor in his little finger than Clinton has in his whole body.
I disagreed with some of his initiatives but despise doesn't even come near to my feelings about the man.
Nixon was driven from office by the left not for a 'third rate burglary', or the coverup. He was driven from the White House because he exposed Alger Hiss as a communist spy for the Soviet Union. The left never forgave him, and like Joe McCarthy, they were bent on destroying him. The right despises the Clintons because of their corruption and greed, but our hatred of them has never approached the rage of the left against Nixon, McCarthy, or Bush the Younger.
Sandy Berger stole more from the American people than Nixon's plumbers stole from the Democrats.
Ditto. I do not believe any of us would defend Nixon for his actions and cover-up efforts in the Watergate disaster. I must add, however, that if the man had not put his country above himself, he would not have resigned his presidency.
Nixon made a horrible mistake. He knew it, and knew that to pretend otherwise, and allow the impeachment process to continue would hurt the US. While I abhor his actions during the cover-up, I salute the man for doing the right thing for his country in the end.
The Clintons - honour among thieves?
Nice article, Ivan.
"Examples of the death of honour abound. For example, when the first modern Olympics was held in Athens in 1896, it was the triumph of high idealism."
In terms of corruption, the modern Olympics are right up there with the UN.
For many reasons, I don't despise Nixon, and he had more honor in his little finger than Clinton (and Kerry) have in their whole bodies.
horrible mistake?
Could not agree with you more. They hated Nixon and would go to any length to get him one way or the other.
Nixon was a paranoid crook who tried to subvert the US Constitution. Besides, he wasn't even much of a conservative. Attempts to defend him are wasted on me.
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.