Why do people think Nixon was a bad president?

[Ansem]

He spied on the democrats and lied about it, I guess that was bad and he probably could have told the truth and perhaps saved face like Kennedy did with Bay of Pigs. But he did initiate talks with the Communist East, and that was a big fucking deal at the time.

[Original Alear]

It seems like invading Cambodia was a bad move, to say the least. Inflation got bad under Nixon, though it was worse under Carter (Carter also appointed the fed chairman who is often credited with curbing inflation). I don't know if high unemployment also began under Nixon, or was only symptomatic of the Carter admin. Dunno much more than that.

America conquered Moonland whoo.

[blah the Prussian]

He was a bad President. He was also an underrated President. On the one hand, he embodies the corruption of politicians which is why I'm a monarchist, but on the other hand, normalizing relations with China was a big fucking deal. He was a complex man who doesn't deserve all the hate he gets.

[Radiant head]

He helped delay the end of the Vietnam War as a candidate just so he could run against it.

I guess I give him credit for the EPA, but everything else about him sounds pretty horrible.

[Alertcircuit]

He started the war on drugs and also shattered people's trust in government. His foreign policy was occasionally pretty clever though.

[blah the Prussian]

He started the war on drugs and also shattered people's trust in government. His foreign policy was occasionally pretty clever though.

Not clear to me what's wrong with the war on drugs.

[Alertcircuit]

The war on drugs in the U.S. was mostly a failure. It targeted supply of drugs but did little about the high demand for them, which led to mass incarceration, the rise of Mexican drug cartels, increased strength of drugs (smaller, stronger drugs are easier to smuggle and profit off of), and an increase of gang violence. Many like to compare it to the 1920s alcohol prohibition. Instead of just taking the drugs away, we should have first worked to make drugs undesirable, like with tobacco.

[sirmola]

The war on drugs in the U.S. was mostly a failure. It targeted supply of drugs but did little about the high demand for them, which led to mass incarceration, the rise of Mexican drug cartels, increased strength of drugs (smaller, stronger drugs are easier to smuggle and profit off of), and an increase of gang violence. Many like to compare it to the 1920s alcohol prohibition. Instead of just taking the drugs away, we should have first worked to make drugs undesirable, like with tobacco.

It actualy failed so hard that there is currently a spike in heroin addiction due to the fact that the government is successfuly cracking down on rampient perscription painkiller abuse (they are succesfully clamping down on suplly by revoking the lisences of the very few doctors that were wrighting most the perscriptions). Heroin is chemicay similar enough to count tward the same addiction and is incredably commonly avalible.

I remember reading that the inflation adjusted street prices of drugs have actualy decreased since the "war on drugs" started.

There are a very few solitary good effects, such as the peace deal between columbia and the FARC (a rebel group that supported itself by growing cocaine) that is currently in final negotiation.

Edited March 20, 2016 by sirmola

[blah the Prussian]

The war on drugs in the U.S. was mostly a failure. It targeted supply of drugs but did little about the high demand for them, which led to mass incarceration, the rise of Mexican drug cartels, increased strength of drugs (smaller, stronger drugs are easier to smuggle and profit off of), and an increase of gang violence. Many like to compare it to the 1920s alcohol prohibition. Instead of just taking the drugs away, we should have first worked to make drugs undesirable, like with tobacco.

To what extent was that Nixon's fault?

[Alertcircuit]

To what extent was that Nixon's fault?

Not a ton but enough for it to be worth mentioning, it was Reagan who escalated it, but Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs" and set the tone for what would happen later.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Alertcircuit

[Phoenix Wright]

what i want to know is why the hell reagan is so popular.

[Moblin Major General]

^Reagan ended the Cold War. He in 8 years did what past presidents failed to do in 40. He effectively fucked our economy though with HARP. He also escalated the War on Drugs and War on Crime. I live in a place where he's worshipped as a God, and that's sickening.

[Ansem]

Afganistan ended the cold war, he was president at the right time is all he did.

[amiabletemplar]

He was a bad President. He was also an underrated President. On the one hand, he embodies the corruption of politicians which is why I'm a monarchist, but on the other hand, normalizing relations with China was a big fucking deal. He was a complex man who doesn't deserve all the hate he gets.

While our reactions to the corruption of politicians may be different, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Nixon. He accomplished a lot of good while in office, stuff that had lasting benefits for many nations, not just the US (though, admittedly, some problems for the common man--better relations with China paved the way for manufacturing jobs to get shifted there). But he also permanently soured the relationship between the President and the People; pretty much everyone I know who was able to vote at the time has explicitly told me, at one time or another, that Nixon is THE reason people don't trust the government anymore. So, in a sense, he carries some small portion of the blame for *all* distrust of the US government by its own people. That's a stain that I don't think any president could recover from.

A big, big part of it is simply that Nixon is the only president to have resigned the office in disgrace. That leaves a lasting mark. If he hadn't bowed to the political and social pressure, he would have been impeached and *very* likely been the only president ever to be ejected from office. Being the pioneer of a Distinctly Bad Thing--especially when it's the final political legacy you leave--tends to sour history's perception of you. There are monarchs in history who have had a similarly bad reputation due to bad or nefarious personal conduct despite more or less competent, even laudable, political accomplishments. King John of England is probably the poster child. He seriously and positively reformed the British judicial system, was a competent diplomat and pursued creative (if unpopular) economic reforms, and was a fairly able general when he had sufficient resources to work with. Yet as a person, he was considered cruel, avaricious, lustful, unpious (or even blasphemous), violent, petty....basically a Very Unpleasant Guy. So, despite being a halfway decent monarch, he is mostly remembered as Bad King John, the king for whom no other has taken the name because he was SO bad, in contrast to his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, who is usually well-liked despite being not much better of a person (and probably much worse as a statesman).

I'm also reminded of how people tend to view the more prominent Consuls and principes ("Emperors," as we call them today) of Rome. Like the Romans, we have an almost hero-worshipping attitude toward those few, rare leaders who held great power but used it sparingly and carefully. Cincinnatus is almost a mythic figure in that regard, as is Marcus Aurelius to a lesser extent. The two best-loved of all presidents--George Washington and Abraham Lincoln--are almost without fail compared, favorably, to that standard. Washington declined kingship and established the precedent of serving only two terms.Lincoln's anti-retributive response to the rebellious southern states is often held up as an example of peerless statesmanship. (Same goes for Gen. Grant's profoundly generous terms of surrender negotiated with Gen. Lee at Appomattox Court House.)

But if Lincoln had died in the middle of a vicious political scandal? His great deeds prior would have been tarnished. Such is the way of political failure: your final acts almost invariably become the luster or patina that coats all the things you had done before. Should they be greatly disgraceful, they can weaken or overcome even the greatest achievements.

Edited March 21, 2016 by amiabletemplar

[Crysta]

Watergate and the fact he was generally an asshole.

Like LBJ isn't very popular because of Vietnam and because he was generally an asshole. He did some pretty neat things, too; some solely because of political opportunism, but they still count!

[Excellen Browning]

^Reagan ended the Cold War. He in 8 years did what past presidents failed to do in 40. He effectively fucked our economy though with HARP. He also escalated the War on Drugs and War on Crime. I live in a place where he's worshipped as a God, and that's sickening.

Reagan had nothing to do with the end of the cold war. The cold war ended when the USSR fell apart due to the popular revolutions in eastern Europe and Gorbachev and the democratic revolution in Russia itself. All Reagan (and Thatcher) had to do at the end of it was shake some hands and smile at the camera.

[blah the Prussian]

Afganistan ended the cold war, he was president at the right time is all he did.

It was actually more the Soviet people giving up that ended it. Basically Gorbachev made political reforms without making economic reforms. The Ukrainians, the Baltics, and the Central Asians had already wanted out of the USSR, and Gorbachev was the one who took away the ability of the Central government to stop them. After that, the USSR fell like a house of cards, because what Gorbachev did was basically take away the key to the prison.

While our reactions to the corruption of politicians may be different, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Nixon. He accomplished a lot of good while in office, stuff that had lasting benefits for many nations, not just the US (though, admittedly, some problems for the common man--better relations with China paved the way for manufacturing jobs to get shifted there).

A big, big part of it is simply that Nixon is the only president to have resigned the office in disgrace. That leaves a lasting mark. If he hadn't bowed to the political and social pressure, he would have been impeached and *very* likely been the only president ever to be ejected from office. Being the pioneer of a Distinctly Bad Thing--especially when it's the final political legacy you leave--tends to sour history's perception of you. There are monarchs in history who have had a similarly bad reputation due to bad or nefarious personal conduct despite more or less competent, even laudable, political accomplishments. King John of England is probably the poster child. He seriously and positively reformed the British judicial system, was a competent diplomat and pursued creative (if unpopular) economic reforms, and was a fairly able general when he had sufficient resources to work with. Yet as a person, he was considered cruel, avaricious, lustful, unpious (or even blasphemous), violent, petty....basically a Very Unpleasant Guy. So, despite being a halfway decent monarch, he is mostly remembered as Bad King John, the king for whom no other has taken the name because he was SO bad, in contrast to his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, who is usually well-liked despite being not much better of a person (and probably much worse as a statesman).

Another example of that is Emperor Domitian. Domitian reformed the bureaucracy to be far more meritocratic, and centralized power, thereby taking it away from the corrupt windbags in the Senate. Since the Senators wrote history, he is made out to be the second coming of Caligula.

[Magical CC]

His reaction and handling of Ken State shooting was disgusting.

[Radiant head]

Watergate and the fact he was generally an asshole.

Like LBJ isn't very popular because of Vietnam and because he was generally an asshole. He did some pretty neat things, too; some solely because of political opportunism, but they still count!

Yeah I mean however cynical the motive might be, I'm glad we have Medicare and Medicaid

Edit since we can't double post:

Perfect timing for this article http://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon

Edited March 22, 2016 by Radiant head