Said Richard Nixon at a press conference just before the GOP convention nominated him for President in 1968, quoted in "Miami and the Siege of Chicago: An Informal History of the Republican and Democratic Conventions of 1968," by Norman Mailer, whose commentary appears in the parentheticals.
Reporters had challenged Nixon to explain why he was running for President again, and he said "this is the time I think when the man and the moment in history come together," and here's what Mailer said about that:
An extraordinary admission for a Republican, with their Protestant detestation of philosophical deeps or any personification of history. With one remark, Nixon had walked into the oceans of Marx, Spengler, Heidegger, and Tolstoy; and Dostoevski and Kierkegaard were in the wings. Yes, Richard Nixon’s mind had entered the torture chambers of the modern consciousness!)By the way, mystical as the choice of a woman’s womb is not a reference to the right to choose an abortion.
AND: I've added boldface to the quote. That was the line that jumped out at me as I was listening to the audiobook yesterday. I had to pause and think about this year's presidential election. I assume Nixon was bullshitting when he claimed to believe that the Presidency requires what he may have to offer, but I thought about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Imagine the 2 of them in a debate, presented with the Nixon quote and asked to say why the presidency requires what you may have to offer. It's easy to think of what Trump would say. Terrible deals have been made, and he had to come forward and offer his master dealmaking services. But what would Hillary say? What can she do that we need right now?
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
Hillary can offer the she represents a constituency never formally represented in the White House: an openly recognized criminal and traitor. Other than that she has nothing other than a record of failing upwards and leaving wreckage behind her. A real Peter Principle in the flesh.
Hillary would fight for the women and the children. She has a dozen of those replies.
You've Got Mailer.
Hillary can demonstrate we're condemmed to repeat it.
"An extraordinary admission for a Republican, with their Protestant detestation of philosophical deeps or any personification of history. With one remark, Nixon had walked into the oceans of Marx, Spengler, Heidegger, and Tolstoy; and Dostoevski and Kierkegaard were in the wings. Yes, Richard Nixon’s mind had entered the torture chambers of the modern consciousness!)" This crap inspires you? Stick to your strength, fisk away.
Of course, RMN didn't really "personify history" or walk into the "oceans of Marx," whatever they are, and any "torture chambers" were of his own devising, but the imagined matching of time and man is a Protestant staple from Luther onward, very much including George Fox. And what is this "Protestant detestation of philosophical deeps," what with Jonathan Edwards and Georg Hegel?
Mysterious as a woman's womb refers to woman's relationship with truth, which is not simple.
If Mailer gets you interested in that campaign, you might be interested in Patrick Buchanan's The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority. Buchanan left his job as an editorial writer at the St. Louis Globe-Democrat to write speeches and memos and give advice to candidate Nixon. He sees Nixon as a conservative and his victory as a victory for conservative principles. But reading the book and knowing what happened in the next six years, I don't see it. Buchanan provides some nice evidence to the contrary in his story about a leaked farm policy speech, and the ironic repetition of what Nixon had told him earlier, "One must have principles, but one also must be pragmatic."
Perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of "conservative" is. Buchanan has said that he wants to write a follow-up book on the Nixon presidency. Perhaps he will tell us there what this new majority is and why (if?) it is conservative.
Hillary offers tremendous deal making services too. Obama said Hillary is the most experienced deal maker that he has ever seen run for President. The Wall Street Bankers second that with cash tributes to assure they are included when Hillary picks the deals that favor the highest bidder. Putin may need more uranium since he is building up Russia's forces. Hillary can help. Her motto is "The customer is always right."
Crazy Trump favors working Americans, but they are broke and can no longer pay. Foreign Money talks and Americans walk.
"Mysterious as a woman's womb refers to woman's relationship with truth, which is not simple."
The line reads: "mystical as the choice of a woman’s womb." What is said to be mystical isn't the womb but the choice. The chooser was not the woman. The choice was made by God.
Now what were you saying about truth? Something about your own simplicity?
With one remark, Nixon had walked into the oceans of Marx, Spengler, Heidegger, and Tolstoy; and Dostoevski and Kierkegaard were in the wings.
Naaaaah. Conservatives of every stripe have always found the "great man" model of history congenial. There's no need to go all High Teutonic on anybody.
Nixon was ready at the right time in 1968. He had figured out by then how to make his squareness endearing, and appealing to those who were appalled by the "hip and edgy" which by that point exemplified the violent and lawless, tearing down everything hardworking people worked for. And in some ways having Wallace in that race helped Nixon--it provided a contrast so Nixon supporters could say "our guy is normal, we're not with that extremist" and it made Nixon seem the stable, moderate in the election (also helped by his association with Ike).
Also didn't help Humphrey that LBJ treated him like a beta male, not letting him veer off on Vietnam policy despite the split in the party, and generally treating him like a valet. Humphrey would have been better served never taking the VP slot for such a jerk, who would repay him only by demanding unending loyalty and humiliations.
There's no mystical about choosing unless womb gets into it. The resonance with womb is classical and it uses that.
Supposing truth is a woman, then what? I'll find it
Supposing truth to be a woman - what? is the suspicion not well-founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women, that the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity with which they have been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper means for winning a woman?
Certainly she has not let herself be won -- and today every kind of dogmatism stands sad and discouraged, if it continues to stand at all.
That's the non-simple relationship with truth.
The "right to choose an abortion" doesn't sound nearly as depraved as a rite to abort your child for wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence. And, of course, the government's compelling interest to sustain revenue, class diversity, and Democrat leverage.
"mystical as the choice of a woman’s womb" may refer to the modern belief in spontaneous conception, the traditional suspense if it will be a boy or a girl, or if Mother Nature will abort the child for Her own choice. Probably a mixture of the latter two. This is before the wholesale normalization/promotion of elective abortion of children by the State-established Pro-Choice Church. America still had a life-affirming culture established by the mysticism of individual -- not class -- diversity, and a firm grasp of the science and self-evident fact that a human life evolves (i.e. chaotic process) from conception.
Ms AA: Woman's relationship to God (the Chooser, the Truth) is beyond ken. Man's relationship to God pales in comparison.
Hillary's answer is pretty predictable: after more than 200 years of American democracy it's time to break the glass ceiling. In other words, she's running on affirmative action -- for herself, but in the name of all women everywhere. Now, if she just chooses Cory Booker as her running mate, she can stop Trump from poaching too much of the African American vote, to which the Democratic Party is rightly entitled. (She plays the race card, too.) Identity politics is all she's got. Her actual record sucks -- or, as Donald said last night, the only area in which she has demonstrated competency is in getting out of trouble.
Mailer did tend to bloviate. That's no virtue, but then bloviating while making a valid point is no vice.
While reading: "Who the hell put in all these annoying parentheticals?"
And this: "An extraordinary admission for a Republican, with their Protestant detestation of philosophical deeps or any personification of history."
Times must have been different then. Or the writer was writing nonsense.
Now what were you saying about truth? Something about your own simplicity - Althouse
That's rhetoric, not logic.
Can anyone imagine how different history would be if Nixon had won in 1960 ?
He should have but for Kennedy Sr's and Daley's cheating.
Nixon would not have stumbled into Vietnam. Ike would not follow the French. Nixon probably would not, either.
No assassination and no Johnson.
Obviously, the Presidency requires a vagina.
Vagina, though it is one even Bill Clinton rejects.
For many, Hillary needs only be the person opposed to Trump.
I originally read Mailer's womb comment as vaguely sexist, which wouldn't have been unusual in the late 1960's (watch some old TV from that era like the original Star Trek series or Mary Tyler Moore), meaning the man doesn't select any random womb to create a child but rather a specific woman. If Mailer's words were written today, Althouse's biblical explanation would make more sense in that it's less overtly sexist. On the other hand, biblical reference are far less common these days, too. The possible sexist interpretation and the decline in respect for Christianity mean Mailer's words would be unlikely to survive the editing process in 2016.
The vagina has no place in political office. Neither does the penis. It's an individual human by the People's choice. It's strictly female or male by Mother Nature's choice.
But what would Hillary say? What can she do that we need right now?
All Hillary can really say is that she should be elected because she has a vagina. She has a terrible record if you only look. She failed the DC Bar Exam. She was thrown off the Watergate committee for unethical behavior. She has engaged in a lot of unethical and illegal behavior with the only saving virtue of never being indited. She was a shady land dealer in Arkansas and a shady lawyer there. She was the long-time wife of the governor of Arkansas, then the wife of the president. She was a one term carbetbagger senator with no accomplishments, then a failed presidential candidate. As secretary of state, she left a legacy of disaster, mayhem, death, and corruption. Other than that, I guess she's qualified to be president because, you know, vagina!
"Can anyone imagine how different history would be if Nixon had won in 1960 ?"
I think we never would have gotten so deep in Vietnam, no Watergate scandal, and no inflationary Great Society spending. We probably would have still had the Civil Rights Act, as Nixon had a strong civil rights record before then.
On the whole, I think the nation would have been better off.
Hillary could start the next revolution. Do we need that?
"sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? But sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there."
But Hillary, she's more like Maude, the artist flying in on her Rube Goldberg contraption. Her politics are deeply vaginal. Does that term disturb you?
Based on what each had to say, Nixon comes off as more interesting than Mailer.
It's not about vagina. It's about the children.
Hillary is a model of feminine lucidity. Children need a mother.
It's just it doesn't work on a national level. It works at a neighborhood level.
And it does that because neighbors can opt out. Everybody does what they want. Some like it and go along and some don't. It's complex, but plans are offered. Take it or leave it.
Lesbians organizing a softball league is great, at the neighborhood level. Let it go Title IX and it screws everybody.
Complexity plus force is a disaster.
Ann Althouse said... But what would Hillary say? What can she do that we need right now?
Are you joking? Her gender! Well, her self-identified gender, I guess. Or, I mean, her biological parts which happen to match up to the way she identifies (I guess).
She's a woman! The country needs a woman as President, apparently. Come on, you think so too, Professor, don't be so coy. You'll tear up when joyful little girls talk about how inspiring it is to see a woman win that office. You'll eat it up, and that's apparently something we need. So that's what she brings.
I bet by the time we get to the debates she won't be shy about just admitting that, too. (I mean, what the hell else does she offer?)
Brando said...
"Can anyone imagine how different history would be if Nixon had won in 1960 ?"
I think we never would have gotten so deep in Vietnam, no Watergate scandal, and no inflationary Great Society spending. We probably would have still had the Civil Rights Act, as Nixon had a strong civil rights record before then.
On the whole, I think the nation would have been better off.
7/7/16, 10:00 AM"
But for Senate Majority Leader Johnson there would have been a civil rights act in 1957. Considering the Soviets would most probably have taken Nixon (as Ike's protege) seriously unlike JFK initially and a lot of the Cold War unpleasantness may be have never occurred. So the positive aspects would have in all likelihood occurred such as the civil rights act along with space exploration the negatives such as Vietnam would have most likely been greatly reduced along with the expansion of the federal government.
Nixon for all of his failings was a serious man, a competent man which is more than can be said for Obama and if Hillary could only rise to Nixon's level of competence, seriousness, ethics and honesty....she would be qualified to climb Mt. Everest.
"But for Senate Majority Leader Johnson there would have been a civil rights act in 1957."
Right, and LBJ might have remained Majority Leader under a President Nixon. I figure it still would have passed, particularly as in the early '60s the black vote was still a swing vote, and Nixon would have wanted to shore up the big northern states.
I think Nixon had his flaws, but a lot of them were exacerbated by the time period during which he was president--having to deal with riots, Vietnam and rising crime, inflation and recession--much of which might have been avoided if he had been elected eight years earlier. It doesn't excuse Watergate, but rather suggests it might not have happened without the opportunity of events.
But in many ways he was a visionary leader, and for his faults he was far more decent than recent leaders. I could easily see a Bill Clinton refusing to resign and doing whatever dirty tricks were necessary to prevent the Senate from getting the votes to remove him.
"It doesn't excuse Watergate,"
Watergate was a successful coup d'etat by Mark Felt, to get revenge for being passed over for FBI Director.
Felt saw Gray’s selection as an unwelcome politicization of the FBI (by placing it under direct presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover and an insult to his memory, and a massive personal disappointment. Felt was thus a disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official in an organization that traditionally had protected its interests in predictable ways. (By then formally the No. 2 figure in FBI, Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray’s inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies’ wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim — who was usually guilty as sin — crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon’s crimes as by Nixon’s decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover’s playbook in motion.
Of course, if he had been elected in 1960, the reasons for Watergate would never have occurred.
"What can she do that we need right now?"
Rep senators deep hatred for Hillary notwithstanding, nothing without a filibuster proof senate. Just like Obama, go figure!
It will be interesting, if she's elected, watching the Rep senate handle her SC nominations. After all, the people would have spoken by electing her.
Oh I'm sorry, the people also elected Obama and Reps have ignored his recent SC nomination.
Carry on ...
"What can she do that we need right now?" (Well, maybe enough of "us", anyway.)
Whatever the Progressives want.
Who would stop her?
What would stop her?
"An extraordinary admission for a Republican, with their Protestant detestation of philosophical deeps or any personification of history."
What, what? This could only be said by someone entirely unfamiliar with Protestant Christianity, and in particular Nixon's Quakers.
"Watergate was a successful coup d'etat by Mark Felt, to get revenge for being passed over for FBI Director."
That may be, but Nixon and his men were involved in enough to sink him--enough to make him resign. It's true that a lot of those activities were nothing new (LBJ and JFK by that standard should have been impeached) but Nixon had a lot of it on tape and worse, Congress knew about the tapes. There were a lot of unforced errors there.
But I agree, had he been elected in 1960 there never would have been a Watergate. He might have proven pretty popular--the economy that decade was strong, he would have gotten credit on civil rights, probably earlier détente, and no Vietnam War. A lot changed with JFK's campaign shenanigans, none for the better. Yet the conventional wisdom sees it the other way around.
Electing Hillary will force the Democrats to take responsibility for the corruption in politics. Trust me!
Brando considering what we have just witnessed Watergate was entirely excusable especially when it turned out that there were communists directed by Moscow in the anti-war movement.
Nixon quit, to be sure with pressure from the Republicans but all the same he quit. Clinton sold US secrets to China, was convicted of civil perjury and was disbarred and hung on but to the Democrats he's a hero. That is all you need to know about both parties.
Shiloh all decent law abiding and patriotic Americans hate Hillary and Obama. What is your excuse?
>>What can she do that we need right now?
>Are you joking? Her gender!
So.... Trump should start identifying as a woman.
It would be fun to watch Our Betters explain why he's not really a woman, but Bradley Manning is.
"Shiloh all decent law abiding and patriotic Americans hate Hillary and Obama."
No, most Althouse conservative whiners/sore losers, like yourself, hate Hillary and Obama.
I had always heard that Hillary got fired at her first post-law school job for unethical behavior and lying, but had never read the details till now (all of it pertains to her wanting to screw Nixon, so I think its topical. The details really are bad. She was 27 years old when she tried to get away with this crap. It makes me believe that from the very start she must have been corrupt to the core, utterly convinced of her righteousness, incapable of humility or reform. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/01/hillary-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior-from-senate-job-former-boss/
"Nixon quit, to be sure with pressure from the Republicans but all the same he quit. Clinton sold US secrets to China, was convicted of civil perjury and was disbarred and hung on but to the Democrats he's a hero. That is all you need to know about both parties."
It certainly does. I don't know whether today's GOP (or 1974's Democrats) would have put country above party when their president was in Nixon's position, but I highly doubt todays' Democrats would do so, considering they are still ready to nominate Hillary. They would be well justified in throwing open their convention over this, but I don't expect them to.
Check out the return letter from Nixon to Lazlo Toth in the first Lazlo Letters.
Nixon and Nguyen Cao Ky were the only two who responded without condescension.
"Oh I'm sorry, the people also elected Obama and Reps have ignored his recent SC nomination.
Carry on ..."
Just following Slow Joe's advice, you fool.
I remember starting to read this paperback years ago. Mailer starts off with what sounds like a poet free styling. Like many others I never finished it.
I, for one, look forward under a Hillary administration to repeatedly, and with utter condescension, using the phrase "That is Hillary-ous!" about her foreign and domestic debacles.
If you want to see history come alive in the present, check out the video of Hillary taking the oath the second time.... https://youtu.be/rVxLzs4YQPY .... some kind of nervous conviviality at the start there.
I think 1968 needs its own tag. Will come in handy over the next four months.
Hillary is a sociopath. I have no idea why anyone would need her for anything.
This is followed by some interesting, um, discussion of race. Mailer was clearly a raaacist.
What Hillary has to offer is the USA - for sale to foreign governments.
I don't think a Republican Senate would be shy about giving Hillary the finger. The MSM is a screeching, worn-out recording, welfare voters are going to vote for welfare candidates, and there's simply no downside to being as bloody-minded as the Republicans please. Force a crisis.
Once when I was giving a Libertarian the "lesser of two evils" argument he said, "The system must fail for change to be possible". I thought it was a bit apocalyptic at the time but, increasingly, I'm seeing his point. It's just that that failure is going to be damn unpleasant for everybody
Yes, Nixon was bullshitting with tbat stuff about history and the presidency personafied. But what about Mailer? Bullshit times bullshit squared? I say what a load.
@Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
Hillary is a sociopath. I have no idea why anyone would need her for anything.
Sadly, the same comment is true for The Donald as well.
Blogger shiloh said...
"Shiloh all decent law abiding and patriotic Americans hate Hillary and Obama."
No, most Althouse conservative whiners/sore losers, like yourself, hate Hillary and Obama.
7/7/16, 11:42 AM"
Nope. Decent law abiding patriotic Americans hate Obama the aider and abetter of the traitor and criminal Hillary Clinton. But then again what can one expect from progressives who run the gamut from parasite to scum, you know, losers like you.
Blogger gadfly said...
@Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
Hillary is a sociopath. I have no idea why anyone would need her for anything.
Sadly, the same comment is true for The Donald as well.
7/7/16, 8:29 PM"
Yeah but one of them is a know grifter, criminal and traitor and the other one isn't. So which sociopath are you not going to vote for?
"With one remark, Nixon had walked into the oceans of Marx, Spengler, Heidegger, and Tolstoy; and Dostoevski and Kierkegaard were in the wings. Yes, Richard Nixon’s mind had entered the torture chambers of the modern..."
I walked into oceans from "the" wings once.
Once.
Then I considered the absurdity of ocean's wings when trying to describe other-than-metaphor and shaved an eyebrow off my face after soaking my laptop in ether and lighting aflame such radically stupid nonsense, never for it to return save humor.
Then I remembered Old Norm used to fret he had drank, smoked, raped, and knife-attacked-his-lady-friend away talent and indeed what might have been had Norm not had it so tough.
If I were Chris Hitchens, I could name drop other fancy names than Norm using appropriate grammar and all y'all would be recording for posterity my praises.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19601123&id=1vljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2635,7756007&hl=en
Ah fuck it, if it makes you feel good IT IS GOOD MAN. We aren't talking Buckley here; far from it. We talk of Mailer because he matters.
Are you trying to increase ER stab wound first responder's unemployment rate wingnut? Without Mailer-types taking it upon themselves to stab lady-friend's who will employ surgeons, ya jerk?
And Mailer didn't repeatedly stab the knife by himself alone. He didn't fabricate the weapon he used to nearly kill his lady-friend, he didn't build the roads the knife was on in transit to its stabbing location, and I wouldn't doubt if the attempted-murdering prick used lighting he didn't create nor power by himself: that is on you jerks.
Now BE A MAN and take your well-earned responsibility.
Jerk.
"Then I considered the absurdity of ocean's wings..."
I hung up there for a moment too. What would ocean's wings be? Rivers? Bays? Dostoevski Bay. The Kierkegaard River. No. Maybe Kierkegaard Falls up river from Dostoevski Delta.
how about that thug he sprung from death row,
"What would ocean's wings be?"
Not Eagle's Wings.
Mailer was too big for that secular-within-itself black hole called religion or some small symbol like the eagle.
Norm wasn't too big to ass-rape females though.
If there is any observation we can use to measure future ass-rapers in terms of focusing on limiting that action, Buckley saw it and I apologize I cannot recall it.
I apologize once again.
Perhaps the most beautiful sound Obama has heard, the call to submit to Allah 5 times per day, is/are the ocean's wings.
I hadn't thought previously of it, so again, your forgiveness I beg yet do not expect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSiyA1cLTWQ
*From the above URL:
"Uploaded on Feb 13, 2011
Comments disabled. No one cares if you are an Atheist or Christian and want to bash each other. Take it to a religious forum if you really want to argue."
Let's accept for the moment's discussion the premise that Trump will have his man of the momentness to offer and Hillary will have nothing. Nothing, as is often pointed out in this blog, is a high standard.
Sad to say only Trump is offering a national unity theme right now. Clinton, Obama and the Democrats are still milking victimization narratives. If Trump adds a strong law and order theme to his campaign [as Nixon did in 1968] he might win in a landslide.
Hillary will have nothing. Nothing, as is often pointed out in this blog, is a high standard.
Nothing is not the same as "nothing good" Unless you think her days of ignoring the law, war mongering, thinly veiled bribery, pathological lying, etc, etc, etc, are behind her.
She will have complete power to cement in the complete corruption of the FBI. There will be a known and unpunished forcible rapist with an office in the West Wing and a position of power.
She will have complete power to cement in the corruption of the IRS.
Just not doing any of that would be great for Trump.
One of the many extraordinary things about this present political crisis is the reality that the Democratic establishment is lockstep behind a woman who has unquestionably failed the public in multiple, consequential ways — yet they believe she’s somehow triumphant because she’s not actually facing a criminal trial.
Consider the following: Benghazi — yes, she pushed a military intervention that turned Libya into an ISIS playground, failed to adequately protect U.S. diplomatic personnel, and then misled the public when four brave men (including a U.S. ambassador) died, but there’s no proof that she actually intended their deaths, so she’s cleared to be POTUS.
Clinton Foundation — yes, her family foundation took massive donations from foreign entities, and then the State Department made decisions that benefited those same entities, but there’s no “smoking gun” evidence of a quid pro quo, so she’s cleared to be POTUS.
Emails — yes, there’s evidence that she sent and received highly-classified emails on an unclassified system, and she unquestionably systematically lied to the American people, but the FBI director won’t recommend prosecution, so she’s cleared to be POTUS.
See a pattern here?
I think Nixon had his flaws, but a lot of them were exacerbated by the time period during which he was president--having to deal with riots, Vietnam and rising crime, inflation and recession--much of which might have been avoided if he had been elected eight years earlier. It doesn't excuse Watergate, but rather suggests it might not have happened without the opportunity of events.
Nixon seemed to be paranoid and holding a deep hatred of the Kennedys, both of which manifested in the Watergate affair (which, honestly, could've led to nothing if Nixon ignored John Dean's advice for the most part).
That may be, but Nixon and his men were involved in enough to sink him--enough to make him resign
Unlike any Clinton, Nixon had shame. He felt shame. He, I feel, was ashamed of what he did to try and protect himself and the people around him knew it. If he was a Clinton, he'd have gotten his party to stand behind him regardless.
I am sure that their big donors are horrified by the prospect of Bernie, so they stand by one of their own.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा