|
I believe that this is a significant advantage because he had distance from domestic politics that other authors do not have. Although I know Democrats hate him, he did establish the EPA and OSHA, and he did end the war in SE Asia that was already started when he came into office (people can claim it was not quick enough, but it was a difficult situation that none of us can understand or know how we would react especially if we did not know how events would unfold). Conrad Black does a much better job of presenting both sides of the story. I will say that this book does slant towards Nixon however, with all of the anti-Nixon books it does bring some balance. Nixon was a strange and misunderstood man. It was apparent to me within the first 10 pages that he really did not like either and tried to reduce both men's reputation and accomplishments. The book does discuss his family, childhood, education, core beliefs, and everything else you need to know to understand him. Black does give Nixon substantial credit for China and a relaxation of tensions with Moscow.
Black also gives Nixon credit for reestablishing relations with China even though some of his conservative supporters were against him. I have read numerous books on Nixon. Sometimes it is best to read an outsider's political biography because he or she does not have the memory, or built in opinions that Americans have. Dallek instead seemed to point out that neither were Nixon's doing and that he was more or less lucky. If you are looking for a book that is anti-Nixon, look elsewhere. Although Black did swing several maybes to Nixon, he also points out failures during the WH years. I would much rather read a foreigner's research on a recent President such as Clinton or Bush instead of an American's, mainly because the foreigner is removed. Most have been written by people that obviously did not like him.
However, he did have a major impact in American history. It is important to read several sides to understand the full picture. Dallek also continued to berate Nixon for not caring about domestic issues such as desegregation and the poor. Dallek also painted Nixon as an uneducated man and a fool and incompetent. I also like how Black, unlike Dallek, did not discount everything that Nixon did during his WH years.
However, I do feel that Nixon and Kissinger is very biased and does not give either man credit. I do recommend the Dallek book too. Black did promote Nixon more but he unlike Dallek is a foreigner and did not have the same experiences that swayed his opinions. I highly recommend this book. The beginning of the book is a bit boring, the Watergate portion a bit annoying, but overall the book is very well written and worth the read.
However, Nixon was actually on the forefront of these issues since childhood, and Black gives him (and especially LBJ) credit for improvements on civil rights. Yes, he made mistakes like all Presidents do because the future cannot be known. The author is British. I just finished reading Nixon and Kissinger by Dallek and found his book to be overly bias against both men and continued to give his opinions of what should have been done.
My first involvement in political affairs was, at the age of 5, urging my mother to vote for Nixon, as I made my way off to school. Thus, it was with great enjoyment that I read the first 500 pages, which spoke about a California, which I knew little about: the immediate post-War era. We all knew he lived in San Clemente, but he was a specter: he made few appearances and was overshadowed by Reagan's influence. Nixon represented the scrappy, lower-middle class strivers, seeking recognition on a public stage.
I am unable to judge this. And, it is surprising that a Lord from the English parliament, like Conrad Black, would be so passionate about re-creating this era in Nixon's life. While Black does comment on a few mistakes, which Nixon made, in foreign policy and domestic issues, he does not admit to Nixon having any ethical lapses, at least until Watergate. It goes against so much of what I've been taught. In fact, if one is to believe Black, Nixon is nearly the cleanest politician of the era, especially in comparison to Kennedy and Johnson. Since then, Nixon has loomed large in the landscape of Orange County.
In short, what would seem the least compelling about Nixon's life, his move from local congressman, to Senator, to 8 years in the VP role, is the most compelling part of the Nixon story, and gives a greater appreciation of his intellect and humanity.It has been commented upon that this is a "rehabilitative biography," and that Conrad Black tries very hard to "clean up" Nixon's sinister image. But, I am willing to give Nixon the benefit of the doubt after reading Black's thorough defense of the man. Reagan, of course, defines California Republicanism, but Nixon shaped the California Republican party before Reagan appeared on the scene. Nixon was their spokesman, the underdog who could pound his finger on Kruschev's chest, while they busily built their businesses in Whittier and Downey, while others worked for the aerospace companies in El Segundo and Long Beach.
To me, the beginning of this book gets very lost in trying to detail every little piece of information and data, without really telling a story. He had nothing to do with Watergate and had no idea of what it was; he was just trying to support his people. He even goes so far to say that aside from Thomas Jefferson, no other president was as popular or as effective as Nixon was following his departure from office. I had just read the Harry S. The author never seems to grasp the fact that Nixon was forced to resign the office or face impeachment. According to the author, Nixon had a hand in helping each president following him take office. I am surprised that a package of Conrad Black Kool Aid was not included with the book.
I keep getting lost in the minute detail the Nixon book brings to minor details. There was absolutely no objectivity; it was a complete sales job on why Nixon should be revered as one of the great politicians of all time. I had a very tough time with this book as I did not find it plausible or realistic. There is a great deal of information here; it is just not presented in an interesting or enlightening manner, and I labored through the first half of this lengthy book.What became more disturbing to me was the biased slant the book takes in the second half. According to the author, the US was the only country who did not like Nixon and Nixon was a chief player in every political event following his resignation from office.
Truman biography by David McCullough, a fascinating read, and I grabbed this for an inside look at Nixon. It literally becomes a farce as he paints Nixon as one of the greatest politicians of all time and never once agreeing that he did anything wrong except try and support the people on his staff.He goes on to suggest that every foreign leader and nation loved Nixon and that they could not understand why Watergate was a big deal. Black paints a picture of Nixon being one of the greatest presidents that the US has ever had. The Truman biography was extremely interesting and kept me captivated throughout. Mr.
There is an unseemly amount of armchair-quartering backing (which I have never seen before, and never want to see again in a biography) as the author imagines himself as amongst major historical figures, advising what they "should" have done. The author, as with a delusional Nixon, doesn't seem to see what all the fuss is about as the Watergate unfolds and creates a rightful uproar. This was my first biography of Nixon, and I picked it up in hopes of educating myself as to an impactful presidency. Considering that his advice extends even to wishing that Nixon had succeeded in the Watergate coverup, we're lucky he wasn't there to advise, as he so obviously, desperately wishes. To portray a complex person as simply a villain is of course too simple, but the author has some bashing of his own to do, and this felt an ugly, biased, angry book that I would recommend against very strongly. I think as a reader I was as open-minded as they come, and when the author set about to "right" the wrongs of "Nixon-bashers," I considered that perhaps I entered into a more rounded approach to a complex man. As the book progressed, I read with mounting distaste as the author attacked with bizarre vitriol the "rabid journalists," the "sniveling liberals," and the like.
I have read a considerable amount of presidential biographies and this one was excruciatingly laborious to get through.
|
