Replies

Thanks, guys. Brilliant piece of writing. My understanding is that Nixon, unlike all other 20th century presidents, did his own writing. And the Nixon voice certainly comes through loud and clear.

But it is the no-longer-presidential voice. The emphasis on America's vital interests is consistent with the old Nixon, but the admonitions against tough talk with the Chinese, is not. Nixon always talked tough with America's enemies, because he understood that they would respect (or, at least, fear) him the more for it.

Nixon's call for reducing middle-class entitlements is likewise the product of a post-presidential epiphany. He did nothing to curtail them during his presidency.

He was our most brilliant, sober student of foreign relations. But as another FReeper noted, he underestimated the Moslem threat. And he overestimated the possibility of our playing "honest broker," a line that Pat Buchanan surely got from him. We are not Switzerland. The sort of aggressive foreign policy Nixon pursued, and the aggressive one he advocates here, both require our entering into many alliances. That means that we would have a dog in most fights. So much for the "honest broker."

I think in his basic conceit, "beyond peace," Nixon got a little soft. The old realpolitiker would have been the first to note that in foreign relations, there is no "beyond" beyond. Power will not tolerate a vacuum, which means that before long, some player will try and slit the Big Dog's throat.

The one issue on which Nixon is surely wrong, is the role the Founding Fathers foresaw for the president. Nixon is projecting his own penchant for an imperial presidency onto men, most of whom sought to prevent such an accretion of executive power from undermining their legislative-driven republic.