In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, ...Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”Here is the letter I sent to the Times about his column.
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein. ... As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. [yada, yada, yada]..,. . Both [Hillary and Obama] have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there? {From whom?}
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here:{He's giving himself away here.} most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.{Who said that?} I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again. {Where was the cult, outside of the west wing of The White House? }
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” {Who said that?}— the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption. {I can tell he hasn't read Sally Bedell Smith's book.}
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King. {Not by Obama.}
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, {again, the media} after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network. {Ah, another vast conspiracy!}...
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship {A gratuitous insult!}, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable. ...
I’d like to see more moments like [when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim.], perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. {Is he talking "Loyalty Oaths" here? Sounds pretty "Nixonlandish" to me.}
Paul Krugman's mastery of logic has apparently deserted him. Adlai Stevenson was talking about Nixon the candidate and politician, not about how the media reacted to various candidates.and elected officials. The political operatives and politicians who remind me the most of Nixon these days are Karl Rove, Dick Morris and, in many ways, Dick Cheney.Let's face it. Krugman likes Hillary, he doesn't seem to care much for Obama, nor for his supporters. Obama's campaign is based on hope, not hate. Krugman should reclaim the high ground and avoid the "slippery slope". We don't want to be greeted one day by a cartoon showing him emerging from a sewer, as Herblock once did for Nixon.The Times published a number of letters today about Krugman's column, not including mine. I guess that the mighty Times didn't deem my letter serious enough. I should like to make a few additional points.
1) Does Krugman include among the "hero worshippers" all the veteran politicians and policy wonks - many of whom were past supporters of Bill Clinton or worked in the Clinton Administration - who have endorsed Obama or are actively working for his campaign?
2) If "hero worship" entails being blinded by your candidate's aura, then Krugman qualifies if he fails to see all the venom being directed toward Obama, maybe not from the mainstream media, but from Clinton campaign officials and their surrogates.
3) Just as "Tricky Dick" earned his nickname, surely "Slick Willie" has earned his.
4) Opposing Hillary does not necessarily make one a mysogynist. Maureen Dowd has an excellent column in today's Times related to this.
5) If Hillary gets the nomination, I intend to vote for her. Better a "two-headed" president than a "wrong-headed" one, which would be the case if McCain were to be elected.
