THIRTY-FOUR years ago, on a day of brassy heat, Richard Milhous Nixon
lost his early attempt to gain the presidency of America because of a
dark, unstoppable stubble on his chin. Against the polished jawline of
John F. Kennedy, his Democratic foe, Nixon appeared shifty, almost
sinister. ''Would you buy a second-hand car from this man?'' jeered his
enemies, driving home the notion that mendacity hung about those
glowering jowls.
Remembering that airless summer campaign, the Washington savant,
Theodore White, concluded that no picture in American politics better
illustrated a story of crisis than the famous shot of the camera
lingering on Vice-President Nixon ''as he half slouched, his Lazy Shave
powder faintly streaked with sweat . . . his face drooping with
strain''. Later, Watergate, with its betrayal of public trust, became
the sin which will forever exclude Nixon from the cavalcade of the
great, yet as blemished Presidents go he was hardly on his own.
Gore Vidal once remarked that the man who wins the presidency of the
United States is nearly always unfit to hold the office because by the
time he reaches the White House he has traded all understanding of
honesty to serve ambition. And certainly it is accepted now that Lyndon
Johnson's contempt for the truth and his rough Texan finagling far
surpassed that of Tricky Dicky.
But everything about Nixon seemed to conspire to make him appear
uniquely sleazy: his morose features, his small-town suits, his bleak
absence of humour, the foul-mouthed temper and his raw, unforgiving
memory for real or imagined slights. Just as television was turning
image into a political credential here was a man so lacking in star
quality that the Big Loser ticket seemed the only convincing one to
play. ''Thank you gentlemen,'' he barked at the press after his
California governorship defeat in 1962. ''You won't have Richard Nixon
to kick around any more.''
But if any man could be spurred by humiliation and disgrace it was
this one, and maybe Nixon's Big Loser persona was his only absolute
triumph because he managed to lose the presidency in a manner more
spectacular and original than anyone had ever lost it before. In the two
decades since the Watergate offences -- the bungled break-ins at the
Democratic HQ, the phone-tapping and smears, the bribery and eccentric
list of recommended slayings -- Nixon embarked on a brave, redemptive
odyssey to claw back some measure of America's respect. Yet during these
past two decades of roving the world as the West's elder political
visionary, he remained an enigma.
Intellectually gifted, a significant orator who in his eighties could
speak cogently for half an hour without the aid of notes, he remained so
rigidly self-controlled that when the standing ovations came Nixon still
appeared not entirely satisfied, still hardened by grievance, and
remote.
An angry man but never congenially emotional, his public shows of
sentiment were either mawkish stunts of affection for family pets or
bitter outbursts against those who ''hounded'' him from office and
dismissed his heroic climb from humble origins. Of his mother, he said:
''She never indulged in the present-day custom, which I find nauseating,
of hugging and kissing her children.'' But last year at Yorba Linda,
California -- where Nixon will be buried today -- the lower lip trembled
in honest grief at the funeral of his wife of 53 years.
Orphaned in her early teens, Pat Ryan Nixon was left to raise two
brothers, hacking a living out of the rural southern poverty Steinbeck
portrayed in Grapes of Wrath. As with many Americans her only legacy
from immigrant parents was that quality she shared with her husband, the
stubborn drive to beat ill fortune, and somehow from countless two-bit
jobs she scraped together funds to put the little battered family of
Ryans through college education.
When she finally qualified as a high-school teacher, Pat Nixon must
have believed life would never be as punishing again. Or did she? Right
through the political defeats and comebacks of the sixties, the wreckage
of a ruined presidency in 1974, there she was with that patient, masking
smile, listening to the same flawed words of Nixon's self-belief, the
endless rhetoric of shifted blame. In some ways she was her husband's
most acceptable qualification for the White House, and in company he
acknowledged as much. ''I'm controversial,'' he would say in
introduction. ''But here's Pat.'' Yet what a story she might have told,
although she said repeatedly that her only desire was to go down in
history as the wife of the President. But Watergate ruined all that.
Dean, Ehrlichman, Magruder, Liddy . . . Twenty years ago these names
became the daily litany of Watergate villains. Most involved were jailed
and then emerged to grow conspicuously pious and rich with lecture tours
and memoirs. But of all the offenders the impeached President was
mentally the most punished. A solemn child, his first teacher called
him. A child who rarely smiled or laughed. In old age he strove to find
that path from shame to stature, but right from the start Richard Nixon
seemed to know that making his way in life would never be a pleasure
excursion.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article