Print
Email
The new movie Frost/Nixon, about the famous interview between the British talk show host and the disgraced former president, is providing a new occasion to consider the depths of the Bush presidency. James Reston, Jr., who has written a book about the Frost/Nixon interview, has said that the movie is driven by the fact that Nixon is a "metaphor" for George W. Bush. He's wondered aloud "Who will be the David Frost who exposes him?”
There have certainly been those who have tried, like fly-on-the-wall reporter Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, whose books on Bush have left Woodward seeming less like a star investigative reporter and more like a guy who barely laid a glove on his subject, and a velvet glove at that. The question of who will "expose" Bush presumes that no one has yet got at what makes him tick. He does often appear to have the shallow, flat effect of a dry drunk, a man whose there is so thin as to not be there. A man without Freud or Shakespeare in him, let alone on his book shelf.
He wouldn't be the first president to elude. Try reading biographies of Calvin Coolidge or Franklin Pierce. Or remember Ronald Reagan biographer Edmund Morris who threw up his hands at trying to find his subject's innards ("He's still a mystery!") and who thus decided to fictionalize the president's inner life because when he scratched Reagan's Hollywood tinsel all he found was more tinsel underneath? An empty man makes an unworthy villain, and a tedious biography.
Nixon was not empty. A few months ago, for some reason completely unconnected with the Frost/Nixon movie (which I have not yet seen) I watched several long segments of the original Frost/Nixon broadcast on YouTube and I was struck by how intelligent, reflective, creepy, and self-absorbed Richard Nixon was. No one would ever suggest there wasn't a there there, even if it was a very scary place. Bad guys with the depth and pathology of Nixon become great characters, villains you can both loathe and sympathize with. Bad guys make the best protagonists.
Standing up in defense of Nixon's villainy was Fox News' Chis Wallace, who took issue with the claim that Bush is worse than Nixon. A bristling Wallace said, “To compare George W. Bush to Richard Nixon is to trivialize Nixon’s crimes and is a disservice to Bush....Richard Nixon’s crimes were committed solely for his own political gain, whereas George W. Bush was trying to protect the American people.” In other words, selfish Nixon was way worse than bungling Bush.
Some of Bush's defenders are quick to point out that history has not yet spoken. Bush's "brain," Karl Rove, argues that Bush is certainly not the worst president of the last 50 years. People have thought worse of others. As a political operative who lives by the numbers, Rove goes to the polls: "There have been four presidents who have had lower approval ratings: Carter, Nixon, Johnson and Truman....history has judged each man differently after their departure."
It's not exactly a stirring defense of the boss, and Rove leaves out some important data. Bush's approval numbers have been below Nixon's a number of times, even Nixon's impeachment period ratings, but while Nixon may have scored slightly lower in approval, no modern president has scored a higher disapproval rating than Bush, according to Gallup. In other words, his negative numbers were in a zone of his own.
Nixon's badness is constantly refreshed by new revelations from newly released White House tapes and memos in which he plots revenge against enemies and hippies, rails against Ivy Leaguers, Jews, and blacks, and generally proves himself to be a crude, posturing bore in love with his own voice (so much so that he taped his criminality and boorishness for posterity to hear). Some argue that evil Nixon beats Bush in at least one area: shame. As New York Times op/ed columnist Roger Cohen wrote earlier this fall, for all his faults, Nixon resigned his office when he'd brought it to disgrace. "Shame," he wrote, "has become a quaint chivalric notion, like honor, a thing of another American time."
Nixon's willingness to fall on his sword made him both noble and ignoble, a larger-than-life tragic figure, a bad-guy worth remembering. Bush, on the other hand, shows all the signs of being a more destructive president, but also more forgettable as a man. Nixon's villainy is his saving grace, Bush's his ticket to oblivion.
PS: This just in: A John McCain lawyer says it's Obama who's as bad as Nixon.
PPS: Another update: Could Obama be the new Nixon when it comes to bowling?
And yet more: John Deans tells Obama how not to be Nixon.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 7:50 a.m. Inappropriate
I think anyone whose name has become synonymous with Bankruptcy, let's call it Bushruptcy from now on, is not just possibly the worst U.S. President, but must take the cake among that legion of South American, Carribean and Italian prime ministers for being one of the worst ever. Tricky Dick, after all, had some smarts, he was stupidly paranoid [a necessary quality up to a point among the stiletto pols in Washington], he was a venal demagogue; but he had supported some perfectly fine legislation and he was kind and thoughtful of his immediate surround. Bush has gone from one Bushcropsy to another since the beginning, and only the first, in the oil patch, is excusable, because oil at that time fetched only $ 7.50 a barrel! But who knows, the next Bush is already on the way! Jeb is running for Senator in Florida. What a bunch of sons George Herbert Walker Bush bequeathed the nation, anyone remember Neil Bush? Tricky Dick was at least a half-way smart gangster. What a shame that Georgy Porgy didn't get to have his hands on Social Security and send that up the Wall Street smoke stacks too! If he had, people might be out in the street! Instead folks have their hopes pinned on Obama, another pied piper!
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 8:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Geeez...while I detested Nixon and generallly credit him with spawning this ultra-toxic Republican Party, Tricky Dick was actually into "Governance" and did do some good for the Country.
Bush on the other hand was a miserable failure on Sept. 10th, 2001 looking like a forgettable one-term-wonder and capitalized on the opportunity to go "epic" with the failure after the tragic event.
Bush....hands down.
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 8:29 a.m. Inappropriate
"New York Times op/ed columnist Roger Cohen wrote... "Shame," ... "has become a quaint chivalric notion, like honor, a thing of another American time." Cohen is correct. We seldom hear the old term of opprobrium "shameless" any more. That is too bad. It is commonly used in Spanish to good effect. Not only is Bush the worst president ever, there are few individuals in American history who have been more shameless.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate
You get what you vote for. Both were re-elected, weren't they?
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 9:38 a.m. Inappropriate
Of course, dear Mossback, the sweet irony (for folks passionate about preserving the historic fabric of our city) is that Nixon in one neat sweep of his executive hand (Executive Order 11593 of May 6, 1971), did more to move the cause of historic preservation forward than any other president in American history. Without him, we would have lost, to mention a few, the Naval Reserve Building, the Immigration Building, and all those wonderful buildings in Sand Point and Discovery Parks that neighbors long to demolish.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 10:56 a.m. Inappropriate
It is curious that President Carter routinely escapes mention on lists of terrible presidents. His poor handling of the economic crisis, naively idealistic actions in the arena of foreign policy (in the face of very real crises such as the Iranian hostage-taking) are not balanced by his symbolic achievement in the Camp David accords. He was ethical, but his job performance as compared to Presidents Nixon or Bush, should place him at the bottom of many of these lists.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 11:01 a.m. Inappropriate
I think Watergate pulls Nixon to the bottom. Nothing was as bad as that.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Endless debates on whether Bush is evil or stupid or both. No question that Nixon was evil and smart. Stupid blunders into evil so easily.
Worst ever? or most harmful? Most evil? Tough call. But Bush is most stupid.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 12:50 p.m. Inappropriate
Definitely Carter. What a wretched, pathetic excuse for a president. A perfect person to preside over the dismal 1970s. Sitting in his MisteRogers sweater whining to the citizens of this country how we'd all let HIM down. Every time I hear a Bush hater spewing his bile at Dub'ya, and wonder how someone can have such an intense visceral hatred of a man they've never met, I think back to the Jimmuh years... and, yes, I can see how such an all consuming loathing of a public figure is possible.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 12:54 p.m. Inappropriate
i just wonder what, if anything, those who voted for bush even once were thinking? ray charles could have seen through the cheney/rove/bush window. as gore vidal said, this is the United States of Amnesia.
Posted Tue, Dec 9, 10:43 p.m. Inappropriate
No contest, it's gotta be Bush. As others point out, Nixon did do some good things, some very good things, NEPA for one....Has Bush done anything good at all? I certainly can't think of an example.
Nixon may have committed crimes, but nothing remotely on the scale of the colossal criminal blunder of Iraq. As someone (Talleyrand?) once said: "It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake."
Posted Wed, Dec 10, 7:40 a.m. Inappropriate
I notice that Jimmy Carter appears on some lists. Well, Carter/ Brzezinski and Casey/Reagan brought us the destabilization of a country of 25 million and the creation of the Mujahadeem! That certainly qualifies a world historical crime of which Brzezinski contnues to be proud, because he avers that it helped bring down the Soviet Union. Well, those consequences are very much with us and the world! Each man to his own means I suppose, and to hell with the consequences. Carter's attempt to rescue the Iran hostages by sending three big choppers into a sandstorm, instead of para-trooping in with a division - if that was the way to go. But wouldn't an apology for having overthrown Mossadegh and interfering in Iranian affair and having wanted to be the successor to the European empires, wouldn't that have done the trick? However, whereas Carter was both unlucky and not terribly competent, not economic matters, Bush was a vessel controlled by a power hungry control freak like Cheney. In each and every respect this inextricably entwined two-some harmed the nation, the political process, the economy, and the very substance of justice and peoples lives. And Carter has become a great ex-President at least! Can you imagine what Bush will do who is moving out of bushwhack country now that he no longer needs that stage set?
Posted Wed, Dec 10, 8:31 a.m. Inappropriate
Knute,
I understand that the Nixon comparison comes to mind because of the release of the new film, and because he is the most recent "worst" president. However, I think that better comparisons may be presidents Buchanan or Harding. Especially Harding.
The hard thing about Nixon is that, for all of his overwhelming failings, he did have significant accomplishments. Environmental protection, historic preservation, diplomacy with China can be weighed against illegal war in Cambodia and illegal acts to influence the election. GW, on the other hand, seems to be the president who can't get anything right.
Harding was the corrupt head of an astonishingly corrupt administration, and a president who accomplished exactly nothing except scandal. He filled the government with hacks and corrupt cronies. He is the epitome of a person who is not up to the task before him, and therefore represents one of GW's failings. On the other hand, Harding didn't start any wars or preside over an economic collapse. So perhaps GW is worse than Harding.
Buchanan is my own personal candidate for the worst president of all time. He was the president who preceded Lincoln. When the nation was falling apart, he did nothing to stop it. In fact, it seemed that he actually may have sympathized with the slaveholding oligarchs of the South who were plotting to tear the nation in half. I guess to be fair I would have to say that Bush is not quite so bad.
Posted Thu, Dec 11, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate
I would take a different approach to the question. Until the last eight years there was a constant debate about who was at the top/bottom of lists of bad qualities in presidents. Depending on the list (venality, stupidity, evil, incompetence, etc.) we had a number of good candidates (Buchanon, Grant, Harding, Carter, Nixon, Pierce, etc.) The amazing thing about the current administration is that they swept the board. There is one answer now on all the high school history tests for presidential badness. You know who that is, and it ain't Nixon. I do think the current occupent has some good traits, but they are personal, not presidential.
Posted Thu, Dec 11, 12:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Forget Woodward's wooden insights, the bio you want is Jacob Weisberg's The Bush Tragedy. Not empty at all, and anything but tedious. At least as interesting a psyche as Nixon's, though not as fine a mind. Not that Bush is dumb, as Molly Ivins reminds us. Simply not willing to give a inch to his daddy's weakness of introspection. As for who's worse: both had save-the-nation motives and a fuck-the-laws-and-the liberals attitude; Nixon damaged the Presidency, Bush destroyed the world for years to come.
Posted Fri, Dec 19, noon Inappropriate
Lessee here:
Economic catastrophe
Redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy
Thousands of dead from a decision to go to war based on either incompetence or deceit
Systematic dismantling of environmental protection whenever possible
Illegal wiretapping
Massive reductions in education system support
vs.
Signing the EPA into law
Signing OSHA into law
Opening relations with Communist China
Wage and price controls to protect common folks from inflation
School desegration (laws were on the books but not enforced until this President's term in office)
Attempting to cover up a bungled burglary
Illegal bombing of Cambodia (maybe a little bigger deal than the item above but largely forgotten)
I guess it kinda depends on what folks think is important. Maybe that's why the framers of the Consitution never, ever intended for the general public to vote for the chief exec. They seemed to have a concern about elections fueled by fear, ignorance, intolerance and greed. Imagine that.