He was a crook (1994)

In a late 90s Atlantic interview with HST, at one point he calls Clinton more depraved than Nixon.

I think that you're underestimating Thompson, who may regard certain people as unrelentingly evil, but doesn't seem to think of basically anyone as unrelentingly good -- and to have a black-and-white frame, doesn't the white part need to be there to?

At any rate, I don't think that his characterization of Nixon is as one-dimensional as you're implying. Things like this:

> Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said,

> "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about

> you."

complicate it.

At any rate, understand Thompson's style as existing within the milieu of conventional journalism. Someone who will say bluntly horrible things about not just Nixon, but the most powerful politicians of the day may not tell the whole story, but they serve as a bracing corrective to mainstream journalism which is incredibly deferential to people who are the traditional leaders of American society.

Nixon may be up for a re-assessment... but not because of Watergate. If anything, what (partially) redeems Nixon is his foreign policy accomplishments. He wound down the Vietnam War and he successfully pursued a rapprochement with China that served to split the PRC/Soviet Union alliance. Both were important things that needed to be done, and arguably, Nixon was one of the few American politicians who could do those things without instantly being accused of being a communist sympathizer.

But in terms of domestic policy, Nixon was a disaster. He served over the worst of the economic "malaise" that would be later characterized as "stagflation". He started the "war on drugs", and for that reason he is in no small part responsible for the deaths and incarceration of millions of poor, minority men. His attitudes on civil liberties and legitimate dissent continue to infect the military and intelligence agencies, who, to this day, see their job as protecting the American state from the American people. It was under Nixon that the Executive branch began to see itself as superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is what people were referring to when they said that Nixon began the tradition of the "imperial" presidency. While blame can be laid at the feet of Nixon's successors for not reversing the harms that Nixon did, the blame for setting a bad precedent rests squarely on Nixon's shoulders. No amount of historical revision can or should erase that.

> I will confess - I've never read a complete Hunter S Thompson piece before.

He's very hit-and-miss, but try "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" for Thompson at his most coherent. It's not black-and-white, but mostly a colorful character study of the 1968 Presidential candidates.

The reason Nixon will up for a re-assessment is because of the record of the more recent office holders. I don't think Nixon would have thought it was ok to authorize torture.

>> I'm also fascinated by Bob Woodward, a brilliant Yale grad who spend several years in the Office of Naval Intelligence, before deciding to become a reporter. Watergate was one of his first stories, an absolutely incredible coincidence - a guy with US intelligence connections breaks a story that takes down a president.

You might enjoy Len Colodny's research

http://www.watergate.com/

History is not always what it pretends it to be.

I still don't like Nixon but I can understand how guys like him end up in commanding positions.

The article is actually objective - tell it like it is rather than the uppity pretensions of 'presidency' and undue deference given to so-called politicians, leaders etc... (not just in the public sphere, but also in private).

This is another reason I like 'Daily Show' for news - the mockery strips away all the usual fig-leaf of BS 'respectability'.

> Admittedly this was written in 1994 - still under a relative veil of ignorance - and we hadn't seen Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.

I wrote a reply last night that I ended up deleting because I didn't think it was worth it, but now after some time let me re-formulate.

I actually think, though you didn't intend it to, your sarcastic statement rings true: There hasn't been anyone as personally corrupt as Nixon. Remember, Nixon was literally caught laundering money, running a personal secret police force, and extorting people for campaign funds.

While others may lie about sex, lie about weapons, lie about war, lie about civil liberties, and generally do things we disapprove of, I would say:

* Have they been caught laundering money?

* Have they been caught running a personal secret police for personal gain? (I think the "personal gain" angle is the key difference between post-9/11 presidents and Nixon - NSA has done questionable things but they weren't doing it for Bush/Obama's personal money laundering coverup)

* Are they guilty of extortion?

I would say that yes, Nixon was more personally corrupt that those who came after. (Though I'll admit, 10 years ago I read John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and was pretty moved by it.)

I think it is a natural tendency for humans to self-segregate into opposing groups based on minor difference.

Sometime, I even feel that the Republican party disagree with Obama just for the sake of it.

Nixon invented the freaking Southern Strategy. I think noting "polarization" in HST's polemic is missing the forest for the trees a bit.

The things Nixon did are widely known, good and bad. You don't really have to rehash them every time you speak of the man.

Not to mention, as an obit., it was an appropriate time to focus on the man himself (despite the dramatic break from typical rose-tinted obit. style)