HAVING ONE BIG INK BLOT ON YOUR RECORD. I think that it is sometimes an advantage to have a huge blot on one’s historical copybook. An example is Richard Nixon. Watergate dominates any other negatives on his record; those other negatives tend to be passed over. Watergate thus distracts attention from his administration’s disastrous economic record. I suggest that this distortion of perspective shows up in evaluating Communism in Eastern Europe. Historians are still coming to grips with the fact that Stalin killed millions. They then tend to pass over the fact that Communism destroyed the Eastern European economies and deprived millions of basic freedoms by controlling their lives to the point where they couldn’t even listen to music of their choice.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
I agree with your big ink blot theory. None of my history books had ever really touched on the economic crisis the country was in during the Nixon years. It wasn’t until I read President Nixon: Alone in the White House by Richard Reeves that I knew what drastic changes were implemented then…or how hard Nixon was trying to plug the hole in the dike just long enough to get re-elected.
I’m amazed that you consider Nixon’s economic record so disastrous. Doesn’t the real blame for the crisis Nixon faced rest with LBJ? His trying to finance the Great Society and Vietnam War without paying the bill left Nixon with a crisis that Nixon compounded by his decision to remain emeshed in Vietnam. But a European crisis of confidence in US policies coupled with the Gaullist run on the Fort Knox forced Nixon to make hard choices. In retrospect, could the US have continued to to back fixed exchange rates, given that the successful reconstruction of World War II allies and enemies had spawned strong competition? Wasn’t the two step devaluation of the dollar and move to floating (if managed) exchange rates ultimately beneficial?
I hate to think what Bush’s financial profligacy will leave for his successor, but I fear that he/she will reap the same sort of bum rap you are giving Nixon.
I had in mind Nixon’s disastrous policy of imposing price controls and stepping on the economic accelerator.