Richard Nixon Foundation: President Richard Nixon's Farewell Address to White House Staff

Source:The New Democrat

This was the one thing that was missing from Richard Nixon's career that I believe could've made his career even better and more successful. And he did by most standards had a very successful career in public service even with the way it ended. Especially considering where he came from and how far he went and how much he accomplished. But I believe the one thing that was missing about his career was candor about himself and letting people into the personal world of Richard Nixon.

I believe he had two great lines from this speech that were lessons and advice that he gave the American people based on his own personal experience. "You'll never know what it is like to be on the highest mountain until you've been in the deepest valley". Meaning you'll never know what it is like on top until you've been at the bottom. Because success isn't given to anyone and before you achieve success there are certain steps you have to take first and even failures so you know how to improve and get to the top.

The other great line I believe from President Nixon's speech is. "Don't ever get discouraged and ever be petty. Because others may hate you, but they only win when you hate them and then you destroy yourself". Meaning people may hate or seriously dislike you, but that shouldn't bother you as long as you are doing your best and are a good person. So what if some schmuck hates you especially if you are a good productive person. What the hell they know and they may hate you for being what they are not which is a decent productive successful person.

The main problem that Dick Nixon had that I believed destroyed what otherwise would've been a great presidency what that he didn't live the advice that he gave at his farewell address. He didn't take his own advice and let people who did hate him and he had perhaps more than his share of haters from his days in Congress to being Vice President of the United States and out of office all together from 1961-69 and he let those haters destroy him by feeling the need and urge to destroy them even by using illegal means. And it cost him his presidency.

Kyungho Dean: Edward R. Murrow vs. Joe McCarthy

Source:Kyungho Dean- CBS News anchor Edward R. Murrow, I'm guessing with his son.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In 1958, Edward R. Murrow stated, "Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live."

Next year, Mr. Murrow's speech will "celebrate" its 50th anniversay...

The citizens in our free countries (I'm Canadian) are in such desperate-desperate need for Edward R Murrows. Not just on television, or in national printed media --but even at the smallest of local levels.

Yes, Washington and Ottawa affairs are important. But the day-to-dayness that most affects people's lives play themselves out at the local, municipal level.

I reached the sad and unavoidable conclusion that some of our "city halls" are dominated and run by a Corporate Repressive Evil Empire Power Structure.

I despair that I'm just not smart enough, tenacious enough, courageous enough to right the problem. I realize it isn't me whose most affected since I'm part of the comfortable class.

I despair though at the statistics of "The Others"

"Harvest of Shame" aired just after Thanksgiving 1960. The Dec. 5, 1960.

It was a documentary on the grinding poverty of migrant workers in Florida. 

Edward R Murrow made these closing remarks:

"The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck."

It isn't just migrants who have no lobby. Our working minimum-wage poor neighbours living right here in our own municipalities "do not have the strength to influence legislation." Or do not speak sufficient English.

From Kyungho Dean

To quote Edward R. Murrow: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Which pretty much sums up the difference between people who believe in free speech and fascists. "We cannot defend freedom abroad when we are making it weaker at home". Going to other countries to defend freedom and American values as we are crushing those values at home for the American people. That is what this debate in the early and mid 1950s was about.

Ed Murrow and his nightly newscast See it Now and their investigation into Senator Joe McCarthy's committee hearings about supposed Communists inside of the U.S. Government put CBS News on the map as far as TV in this country. And probably led to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite that eventually became a half-hour show. Because Murrow and See it Now took down a movement that was trying to destroy free speech and assembly for the rest of the country. Which is what Joe McCarthy and his supporters were about.

Dennis Prager: 'Why America is in Jeopardy'

Source:The New Democrat

Oh man Dennis Prager, well at least he is provocative and keeps bloggers in business. And I must say that I respect him in the sense that he tells you what he believes and I really believe he means well. Just like he says that "Liberals are good people to and that he just disagrees with them". I believe Conservatives or in Mr. Prager's case Neoconservatives generally speaking are good people to. I just tend to disagree with them, but Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater are two of my favorite people and I'm a Liberal myself.

"America is not in jeopardy" as Dennis put it because we are becoming less religious. The real and I mean real threats in all due respect to Dennis have to do with a sluggish economy that is not growing fast enough and producing enough high quality jobs that keep people off of public assistance. And with the crazy world that we live in all sorts of terrorists that would want to hurt us. And perhaps the rise of Russia in Europe and Eurasia as well. But not because fewer Americans go to church every week, or even believe in God.

But if you look at what are called the moral indicators that give us an idea how the country is behaving so to speak and how we are treating each other we are doing very well. Crime is down which is really the main thing you want to focus on when it comes to morality how people actually treat each other. Instead of how we live our own personal lives. The religious-right may hate hearing this, but we live in a constitutional liberal democracy with basic individual rights that include personal freedom and privacy.

Morality is not how whether you believe in God or not. As both a Liberal an Agnostic I find the notion that you have to be religious and believe in God to be moral, offensive. Morality is not about how you live your own personal life. Whether you live with your boyfriend or girlfriend before you are married or not. Or have sex before marriage. Or date a person of the same gender. Morality is about how we treat each other as people and how we live up to our own personal responsibilities. Especially as it relates to our family and friends, but people we work with and are associated with.

I know for a fact that religion has been a huge factor and benefit for millions of Americans. I respect that and I do even as someone who has spent less than a handful of days in any house of worship period in my life. But you don't need to be religious to be moral. You need to be raised well and educated well, loved by the people you depend on growing up and later in life. As well as healthy sense for yourself and intelligence and conscience that stops you from doing bad things to innocent people. And treating people with the respect that they deserve.

Arthur Brooks: A Conservative Vision For Social Justice

Source:The New Democrat

I'm trying to think of a conservative vision for social justice and it's hard. Because it almost sounds like creating an Oxymoron. And what I mean by that is that social justice or economic justice tend to be socialist terms. It's Social Democrats running for office in this country and in other countries who say "I'm fighting for social justice"! Which is something that frankly makes Conservatives or people who are supposed to pass as today's Conservatives (which is different) want to puke. Because when they hear social justice people in the Tea Party and Libertarians talk about social justice they automatically think that is wealth redistribution.

But just to take the conservative vision of social justice seriously for a minute for the purpose of this blog (if nothing else) I guess Newt Gingrich would be the best spokesperson for it because it was something that he was truly interested in at least when he was Speaker of the House and throughout his congressional career. And something he talked a lot about post-Congress and when he ran for President in 20011-12. The 1996 Welfare to Work Act was an example of that where they took the best of liberal and conservative ideas to empower people on Welfare to get off of Welfare into the workforce.

Speaker Gingrich when he ran for President was constantly talking about what government of all things could do to empower people on Welfare and Unemployment Insurance to get themselves the skills so they can get themselves a good job. He was constantly talking about the amount of time that someone on Unemployment Insurance spends that they could use that time to get degree at a community college or a bachelors degree. Instead of trying to look for a job with the current skills that they have.

I mean if you are truly Conservative who believes in social justice that is empowering people at the bottom so they are no longer on the bottom and trapped in poverty, (and I'm trying to say this without laughing at least based on the Tea Party and libertarian-right) then you believe government has some role here unless you are simply only interested in wrecking the safety net in America. And that role from a conservative perspective is about using market values in government to empower people to be able to make it on their own. Getting good skills to pay the bills to use a pop culture analogy.

That instead of saying that "the problem is the rich are too rich, or just rich period and what government should do is take most of their money to take care of everyone else". Which is basically the socialist, or social democratic vision of social justice that "we as Conservatives should instead say wealth and work is a good thing in America and good thing about our system. And that these things should be encouraged not discouraged and that the problem is not that we have rich people or too many. But not enough and what we need to do as a country with government playing a role, but not the only role is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to become successful and even rich on their own."

Townhall: Terry Jeffrey: 'Pat Buchanan Chronicles the 1960s: The Greatest Comeback'

Source:The New Democrat

When it comes to Richard Nixon's political career at least pre-White House I'm mostly interested in his career from 1961 after he just left the Vice Presidency after losing the 1960 presidential election to Senator Jack Kennedy. Up until January of 1969 when he's sworn as the 37th President of the United States. Because during this period Dick Nixon is completely out of public office either as a politician or as a public official in any office for the first time since January, 1947 when he gets sworn in as an elected U.S. Representative in the House of Representatives.

This was a very rough, but very productive time for Dick Nixon post 1962 California governor's race debacle where he lost to California Governor Pat Brown in a major landslide. So Nixon was at a point where he didn't know what to do with the rest of life. He got addicted to politics and public office his six years in Congress both in the House and Senate. And was a very hardworking and productive Vice President for President Dwight Eisenhower. And which Jack Kennedy still President going into 1963 it looked like JFK would get elected with huge Democratic majorities in Congress once again in 1964.

So what was Dick Nixon to do a man who loved political and public affairs and serving in government. What he did seeing that it would be at least a while before he would have another real shot at the presidency 1968 at the earliest. And that might of depended on who the Democratic nominee might be that year, he decided to make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer in New York. Defending and representing companies across the country and become a party man inside of the Republican Party in his spare time.

And when he wasn't doing those things he was studying current affairs inside of the United States and challenges that the country was facing and would be facing. Especially when it came to foreign policy and sort of did what would be called a world tour and meeting foreign leaders all over the world. So when he decided to run for public office again especially for president that he would be completely ready for it.

There was a PBS 1990 film from their American Experience series that chronicles all of these changes in Dick Nixon's life. That I highly suggest and a clip of that is on this post. And it shows exactly how he came back and all of the Congressional Republicans he helped out and backed in the 1966 mid-terms when House and Senate Republicans made big comebacks and the same thing in 1968 when they picked up a lot of seats again with Dick Nixon winning back the White House for the Republicans.

Washington Examiner: Mark Tapscott: Is Banning Fringe Views How Leftists Want to Deal With Conservatives?

Source:The New Democrat

It is really Conservatives and the far-right that get's stereotyped and accused of being fascists. And that is true to the extent that there is plenty of right-wing fascism in the world and even in America. We see that with the Tea Party especially in 2011-12 and even today that seem to have this view that you either live their traditional way of life and share their traditional view of what America is, (which is stuck in the 1950s) or you are not a real American.

But fascism is unfortunately bipartisan and not something that the Left can bash the Right over with no real fascist charges on our side. This blog has covered a few posts alone this year about leftist fascists. One dealing with leftists on campus trying to ban rightists from speaking at their schools. Another one even more extreme than that having to do with Fred Jerome's article in Salon back in January or February having to do with nationalizing FOX News because of the success that FNC especially has had as a right-wing voice. And even nationalizing news all together in America. So so-called Progressives could tell the truth.

But my point especially directly to the right-wing America whether they are Conservatives or not is that these leftists fascists aren't Liberals as they tend to be called. But people who are on the far-left in America where fascism not only exists, but Socialists, or even Communists or Anarchists on the far-left who see fascism as a necessary tool to create their vision of a fair and equal America, or however they would put that. And for them to accomplish their goals they feel the need to destroy right-wingers even by forcing them to shut up through government force.

The fact is you can't be a Liberal and a fascist. It is one or the other because there is nothing liberal about fascism. Liberals not only believe in the First Amendment and Free Speech, but we created these things for crying out loud. And wouldn't do anything especially through government to shut up the opposition. Other than by winning the debates, but with both sides having equal opportunity to make their case. And there are some on the Right especially in the Tea Party that are so damn partisan and hate anyone who disagrees with them that they simply can't believe and handle that.

Patrick J. Buchanan: 'Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy & the Big Liberal Lie'

Source:The New Democrat

I first saw Pat Buchanan's column about Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy over the fourth as I checked my email that day. And because of other things I've been doing the last few days it's just now that I'm replying about it today. But I just read Mr. Buchanan's column about the Southern Strategy today and didn't see much of anything in it about the Southern Strategy. Other than calling a piece in the New York Times about it calling it a "big liberal lie". Most of what Pat Buchanan had in it was about racist policies from previous Democratic presidents from the 1940s, 30s and President Woodrow Wilson.

But let's be real the Nixon Southern Strategy was real. Dick Nixon whatever you think about him was a brilliant man and politician and saw how America was changing politically and how he could breakthrough and complete probably the greatest comeback in American political history. Pre-civil rights movement the Democratic Party was the Southern Party representing the bible belt. And no not with Liberals, Progressives and Socialists as we see today. But with people who are called today Neoconservatives, classical Conservatives, and the Religious-Right today. As well as the far-right especially as it related to civil rights, equal rights and segregation as just flat-out racism when it came to African-Americans. And bigotry when it came to non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans who weren't from the South.

The Republican Party pre-civil rights and into the civil rights movement was both a progressive and a conservative party. But there Conservatives were conservative in the classical sense and probably would be called Conservative Libertarians today. People like Senator Barry Goldwater a perfect example of that and even at the time House Minority Leader Gerry Ford and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. With the progressive wing of the party representing the Northeast and to a certain extent the Midwest. Senator Jacob Javits from New York comes to mind.

The civil rights movement and the civil rights laws of the 1960s changed that with African-Americans now backing President Lyndon Johnson and other Progressive Democrats who had similar politics. With the Southern Democrats and their voters bolting to the Republican Party. Which started to a certain extent in 1964 with Barry Goldwater for President winning a few Southern states. That campaign was a disaster in the 1964 general elections both for president and Congress with Congressional Republicans getting hammered and Senator Goldwater failing to win forty-percent of the national vote. And barely winning his home state of Arizona.

But what we saw in 1964 was Southern right-wing Democrats moving away from Lyndon Johnson and the progressive and liberal wings of the Democratic Party. And moving to the Republican Party and supporting Conservative Libertarians like Barry Goldwater. But what we also saw was what would is called the Neoconservative and religious-right base of the Republican Party today, but back in the 1960s these Democrats were simply called Southern Democrats, or the Southern Caucus in Congress, Democrats like this politicians and their supporters bolting the Democratic Party for the Republican Party.

So what started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater became an opening for Congressional Republicans both House and Senate and for Dick Nixon. A chance for Republicans and Republican leaders to break into the Democratic political monopoly in the country and bring in new Republicans to the party that were primarily from the Bible Belt. But also from the Midwest and the libertarian West. And as a result House Republicans pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Going from a pretty small minority after 1964 to a sizable minority going into 1967. Especially since there were still a bunch of Southern right-wing Democrats in the House that could work with the Republican Leadership to stop legislation that the Democratic majority wrote.

Senate Republicans picked up three seats in 1966 going from 33-36, but it still took sixty-seven votes to prevent bills from being blocked in the Senate back them. But also there were enough Southern Democratic senators that would work with the Senate Republican Leadership to block bills from the Senate Democratic majority as well. But more importantly Dick Nixon saw this as the opening that he needed to win the presidency. Because now he saw what used to be Democratic strongholds as potential Republican pickups by appealing the the religious-right in those states. What I call the Traditional Values Coalition that now dominates the Republican Party today.