Greatest Comeback: Nixon, Buchanan, and George Wallace

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 15, 2014

RichardNixon
An insider’s look at the 1968 presidential campaign.

Patrick J. Buchanan, The Greatest Comeback: How Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority, Crown Forum, 2014, 400 pp., $28.00.

Patrick Buchanan is the most prominent American who speaks openly of the importance of preserving our historic nation. As he wrote in his 2006 book, State of Emergency, “If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built,” and “should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive.” In 2011, he pointed out in Suicide of a Superpower that as the American population becomes blacker and more Hispanic our international competitiveness will decline.

Mr. Buchanan’s latest book, The Greatest Comeback, is about Richard Nixon’s road to the White House after two crushing defeats that should have finished his career as a politician. It is actually more about Mr. Buchanan–his role as confidant and policy adviser–but it throws light on the complex figure of Richard Nixon and is an engaging account of presidential politicking in what was one of modern America’s most turbulent years: 1968. This is not an openly dissident book like some of his others, but it includes insights into the role of race in American politics, and what Mr. Buchanan writes about the third-party candidacy of George Wallace–which could have kept Nixon out of the White House–is especially interesting.

GreatestComeback

The young devotee

Nixon had served for two terms as Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president before he ran against John Kennedy in 1960. He was one of the country’s best known politicians and had every hope of winning, but lost by one of the thinnest margins in American history. Eisenhower’s support had been tepid, the Republican Party was disorganized, and the press never liked Nixon. Even Kennedy privately conceded that the press was unfair.

Nixon went home, and in 1962 ran for governor of California, confident this would be the perfect office from which to make another bid for the White House in 1968. It was another loss. In his concession speech after his defeat by Pat Brown, he declared he would never run again and took his famous poke at the press: “Think of all the fun you’ll be missing . . . . You don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore . . . .”

Mr. Buchanan followed these events from afar, and had the insight to recognize that Nixon was likely to run again and could win. He appears to have been fascinated with conservative politics all his life; in 1955 he had even caddied for Vice President Nixon. In 1965, he wangled a meeting, in which he told Nixon, “If you’re going to run in ’68, I’d like to get aboard early.” After an interview that Mr. Buchanan describes as “exhausting,” in which Nixon grilled him on his views on every aspect of politics, he was hired to handle Nixon’s correspondence and help him write a monthly syndicated column. Mr. Buchanan had a somewhat larger view of his role: to do everything possible to make Nixon the next President of the United States. Mr. Buchanan–27 years old–soon became part of the inner circle.

Buchanan_1968

Pat Buchanan, 1968

George Wallace

Most of the The Greatest Comeback is about the inner workings of the Nixon political machine: how his advisers helped craft policy positions, how Nixon won the nomination, the turning points in the campaign, the challenges of dealing with the press, etc. Mr. Buchanan gives us a good look at the underside of American democracy, as he describes how carefully Nixon’s managers crafted his messages to follow the polls, and how every step had to be weighed in terms of how the press would react.

One of the most interesting parts of the book, however, is how the Nixon team dealt with George Wallace. Today, Wallace is mostly dismissed as a primitive white supremacist, but in the 1960s, he cut an impressive figure. Mr. Buchanan reminds us that 1968 was a profoundly traumatic and divisive year that offered a perfect opening for a populist spoiler such as Wallace. The North Vietnamese drove the Americans out of the Marine combat base in Khe Sanh after a siege that lasted for months. Americans were terrified by the Tet Offensive. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. Cities went up in flames. Demonstrators paralyzed elite universities. As Mr. Buchanan notes, it was certainly not what President Lyndon Johnson expected when he lit the Washington Christmas tree shortly after his 1964 landslide election and said, “These are the most hopeful times in all the years since Christ was born in Bethlehem.”

In this context, as Mr. Buchanan writes:

Wallace was an ideal backlash candidate. He had been for five years America’s most outspoken opponent of integration. He had denounced hippies, rioters, and campus anarchists with a populist rhetoric Nixon could not match. He was a demon campaigner with a brutal but effective sense of humor. Everywhere he went the crowds were big and excited.

Wallace could appeal to conservative whites in ways that were off limits to Nixon. “Had Nixon dared to try,” notes Mr. Buchanan, “he would have crippled himself with his base of centrists and independents.”

In his 1962 inaugural address as governor of Alabama, Wallace had promised to “make race the basis for politics in this state, and . . . the basis of politics in this country.” For his 1968 presidential campaign, he started a new party, the American Independent Party, and got a place on the ballot in all 50 states. He laughed at Washington bureaucrats, whom he called “pin-head social theorists” and “pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t even park a bicycle straight.” “And what do you think they carry around in those fancy brief cases?” he would ask to roars of laughter. “Ham sandwiches.”

Wallace1965

George Wallace, 1965

As for Nixon and his Democratic opponent Hubert Humphrey, Wallace warned that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them.”

Once when Wallace was heckled by hippies, he called out to them:

You come up when I get through and I’ll autograph your sandals for you. That is, if you got any on . . . You need a good haircut. That’s all that’s wrong with you. . . There are two four-letter words I bet you folks don’t know: ‘work’ and ‘soap.’

Nixon had none of this off-the-cuff appeal.

Wallace was immensely popular in the South and with working people in the North. At his high point, pollsters predicted he could win 20 percent of the vote. Mr. Buchanan calculated that 60 to 65 percent of the electorate was sick of Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats, but worried that Wallace could take so many votes from Nixon that no one would get enough electoral votes to win, and the election would be decided in the House of Representatives. The Democrat-dominated house would have handed the White House to Humphrey.

How to solve the problem? It is fascinating to learn that in 1968, Republicans were already bewitched by the futile hope of attracting more blacks and Jews (today they would include Hispanics). Even among Nixon’s advisers there was a group lead by William Safire, who wanted to tack left. Mr. Buchanan calls this the “Bring Us Together” view, which “some of us had come to regard as the politics of nice and utterly utopian.”

Buchanan_Nixon

Mr. Buchanan instead wanted to woo the “Humphrey Catholics” and the “Wallace Protestants.” He was convinced that either group could take Nixon over the top, and that both groups together could give him a landslide. Judging from early poll results, Mr. Buchanan figured that Wallace could get 12 million votes. Peeling away 8 percent of those votes was the equivalent of getting 20 percent more black voters–highly improbable–or increasing the tally of Jewish votes by 60 points, which was impossible. The choice was obvious, but Mr. Buchanan had to fight for his position. His overall advice:

I urged Nixon to treat Wallace with the respect the press denied him. If asked, ‘Mr. Nixon: Do you consider Wallace a racist?’ I told Nixon he should reply, ‘Governor Wallace, by his own admission, believes in segregation and I oppose segregation.’ Not calling Wallace vile name and treating him with decency would make Nixon more acceptable to Wallace voters when they abandoned his candidacy to choose Nixon or Humphrey. Moreover, it was the right thing to do. We did not know what was in George Wallace’s heart. Years later, I came to know and regard the governor as a friend.

In these hysterical times, it takes a brave man to say that he considered George Wallace a friend.

Needless to say, there were plenty of people in the press who thought anything short of blasting Wallace with the fires of hell was a sign of bigotry, but Nixon continued to treat Wallace with respect. As Mr. Buchanan notes, the press kept to its usual biases. It looked the other way when Humphrey cozied up to Lester Maddox, the segregationist Democrat governor of Georgia, who had kept blacks out of his restaurant by brandishing a pick handle. Walking arm in arm with Maddox, Humphrey said, “I am happy to be in the presence of a good Democrat,” adding, “The Democratic Party is like a big house. There’s room for all of us.”

Mr. Buchanan agrees with the general assessment that Wallace was badly hurt by his choice of running mate, General Curtis LeMay. LeMay had run the B-29 bombing campaign against the Japanese, and when Wallace first introduced him to the press, a reporter asked if LeMay would use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. LeMay left no doubt that he thought it was a good idea, and Wallace had to step in to stop LeMay going any further. For the rest of the campaign, Wallace had to dodge shots aimed at “Bombs Away” LeMay.

This was a lucky break for Humphrey, whose party convention had been a nightmare. In that way activists have of hating people who are politically close to them more than they hate outright opponents, 10,000 hippies, Yippies, anarchists, and SDS supporters gathered in Chicago for the convention, determined to stop Humphrey. They were furious because they thought that as vice president, he had helped Johnson drag the country into the Vietnam War. They filled Grant Park, where they chanted “Dump the Hump,” and shouted obscenities at the police, who eventually lost patience and attacked the demonstrators for 17 violent minutes in what became known as the Chicago “police riot.”

Police clash with activists at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Police clash with activists at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

The riot and the open warfare within his party set the Humphrey campaign off to a terrible start, but Mr. Buchanan admires the grace and persistence with which “the happy warrior” fought back to a near draw. Humphrey moved left, promised to end the war in Vietnam, and picked up a good number of the people who had wanted to dump him. And, as later analysis of news coverage confirmed, he was helped by a national press that backed him overwhelmingly.

In the end, Wallace got only 13.5 percent of the vote, though he won five states, all in the South. Nixon barely nudged out Humphrey–43.4 percent to 42.7 percent–and managed to keep the election out of the House of Representatives. The divided election was a sign of divided times; Nixon’s limousine was pelted with rubbish as he rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House after his inauguration.

Spiro Agnew

Mr. Buchanan offers other interesting glimpses of the times. Nixon’s running mate, Spiro Agnew, was later caught in a bribery scandal and became the first vice president in American history to resign, and was generally seen as a gaff-prone liability. Why did Nixon choose him?

Agnew was governor of Maryland in 1968, when Baltimore suffered a week-long black riot after King was assassinated. Agnew called in federal troops to help restore order and then invited 100 black leaders to a televised meeting before the press corps. He excoriated them for not denouncing the black radical, Stokely Carmichael, who had been stirring up trouble. Not one black leader, he pointed out, had said a word when a Carmichael lieutenant called the Baltimore police “the enemy of the black community.” Agnew had learned of a secret meeting with Carmichael, in which there had been an agreement that no black would publicly criticize another black, no matter what he said. Agnew called this a “perverted sense of race loyalty.” Many blacks walked out and white liberals screeched, but Nixon admired Agnew’s toughness. Mr. Buchanan says the Baltimore speech was “a major factor” in Nixon’s choice of VP. In another admission that will win him no friends, Mr. Buchanan adds that he liked and always got on well with Agnew.

Spiro Agnew, William Safire, and Pat Buchanan

Spiro Agnew, William Safire, and Pat Buchanan on a flight to a campaign stop in 1972.

There are other bits of lore. In 1963, even before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, the California state legislature had passed a law forbidding landlords or homeowners from racial discrimination in rentals or sales. The California Real Estate Association thought this was a violation of private property rights, and it got one million signatures–twice the number needed–for a ballot initiative to overturn the law. The initiative won with a resounding 65 percent of the vote, but the California Supreme Court struck it down on the novel theory that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

When Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California in 1966, he promised to repeal the law and let Californians rent or sell to whomever they liked. He never got the chance; the US Supreme Court upheld the Californian Court’s rejection of the ballot initiative. Still, it is interesting to note that the man whose name is on Washington Reagan Airport campaigned for freedom of association.

Mr. Buchanan does not have much admiration for Robert Kennedy, who jumped into the race for the Democratic nomination only after Senator Eugene McCarthy’s shoestring-budget New Hampshire campaign had shown that Lyndon Johnson was vulnerable. (Johnson was so demoralized by the war and by dissent in his own party that he later declared he would not run for reelection). Mr. Buchanan notes that when Robert Kennedy had been attorney general for his brother John, he had authorized wiretaps on Martin Luther King. By 1968, however, King was a martyr, and Robert denied knowing anything about the wiretaps. A furious J. Edgar Hoover called that “absolutely inconceivable.”

Mr. Buchanan is obviously master of his material in this book, but he draws a strange conclusion from the chaos of the Chicago Democratic convention. He calls it “a crisis of liberalism” and proof that “liberalism was being rejected as a failed ideology. It had been tried and found wanting.”

If only that were true. Nixon and Reagan briefly slowed the march of some elements of liberalism, but it has been the crushingly dominant ideology of the last 50 years. It does now have a slightly different flavor: It has lost its tincture of revolutionary Marxism, and few college students hang pictures of Che Guevara in their dorms. But it is hard to think of a single change in American society that the mob in Grant Park would not have approved: forced integration, race preferences, multi-culturalism, white-shaming, homosexual marriage, de facto amnesty for illegals, campus speech codes, women in combat, “medical” marijuana. Workers have not seized the means of production and it is still possible to become a billionaire, but otherwise today’s America is a revolutionary’s dream come true.

NixonReagan

The comeback goes bad

Mr. Buchanan gives Nixon very high marks for his first term in office, and believes that if he had vanished in 1973 he would be remembered as a great or near-great President. Indeed, he was reelected in 1972 with an overwhelming 62 percent of the vote, and won 49 states. And yet, of course, he was destroyed by the Watergate scandal, and became the only president ever to resign. The clouds of disgrace never entirely parted over his later years.

Mr. Buchanan was by Nixon’s side up until the moment he helicoptered off the South Lawn for the last time. “All that,” he writes, “is the subject, the Lord willing, of another book.” The Greatest Comeback is a unique insider’s view of an important part of American history. Let us hope the Lord is willing.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Pat Buchanan’s first job out of journalism school was an assistant editorial page editor for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. The editor-in-chief of the paper at the time, Martin Duggan, would later be the lead moderator of the local political roundtable weekly show on public television, Donnybrook. And Nixon recruited PJB directly away from the Globe.

    The real secret weapon that helped Nixon nuance the “frienemy” threat from George Wallace in 1968 was Strom Thurmond. Four years prior, Thurmond changed parties (the only real “Dixiecrat” to change parties, incidentally), and by 1968, he forgot all about segregation and turned into a Republican establishment hack. Thurmond went all over the two Carolinas promising people that Nixon was as good as Wallace and could win. That was just enough to swing NC and SC from Wallace to Nixon in the electoral college, and put Nixon over 270. Otherwise, no candidate would have gotten to 270, it would have gone to the House, and Wallace could have been the king maker. Ironically, 20 years before, that’s what Strom Thurmond himself set out to do when he ran for President as an unofficial Democrat, deadlock the EC.

    In reality, after Nixon got into the White House, he set out to try to ruin Wallace, because he did not want Wallace running again in 1972 as an independent to repeat the headace of 1968. What Nixon wanted of Wallace was to run as a Democrat, because Nixon probably rightly assumed that the Democrat Party had gone so far left that there’s no way Wallace could have won the Democrat nomination. Unfortunately, the actions of Arthur Bremer prevented that theory from being tested in the real world.

    And also…PJB is at his absolute worst when he gets into Nixon apologetics. And PJB doesn’t do much bad.

    • anony

      As a wide-awake White in 1968, I voted for Wallace.

      • RIN0Huner

        My dad voted for Wallace too.

        • anony

          I hope you have given him credit for standing up for the truth. That is still un-popular today, probably more so.

    • propagandaoftruth

      Strom was subtly compromised it turned out…

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        Come to think of it, Nixon might have used that against Thurmond. Nixon was the type to do those sorts of things. No conscience psychopath that he was.

        • George Clark

          Armchair psychology. Nixon was no psychopath. Many people call his behavior sociopathic–I doubt it. Would a person with no conscience have isolated himself at San Clemente and dismissed the Secret Service? Nixon had his faults, but he was hardly a psychopath.

          • ZB01

            I’m with you on this. If anything, one of Mr. Nixon’s biggest flaws was his deeply held suspicions and inability to trust a lot of people who surrounded him. But in historical hindsight, this “flaw” in character had a heck of lot of basis in political reality, Watergate being among them.

          • Rurik

            As we have learned subsequently, Nixon’s big mistake was standing by his subordinates who had originated the break-in, A psychopath would have hung them out to dry.

          • propagandaoftruth

            As much as I’ve come to like him as an anti-hero and respect his abilities…

            He had some fatal flaws and an uncanny self destructive streak. Would have done fine if elected in 60, I think. Couldn’t handle the insane changes and cracked.

          • jayvbellis

            Minor crimes,harassing some Defense Department Jew leaking classified documents. Nixon or any of his aides never drugged an analy raped a teenage girl, that would have been Hollywood movie producer Roman Polanski , Polanski was never punished for this terrible crime and continues to make movies, have them reviewed in the New York Times, Washington Post that crucified Richard Nixon for some minor legal technicality.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Like I said below, if Tricky Dicky had won in 1960 I think it would be a much better world we live in. He would have done fine. That Camelot superstar bunk that stuck to the Kennedy years might well have tarnished sans martyrdom, but Nixon…who knows

          • RileyDeWiley

            Mistrusting Kissinger was hardly the mark of paranoia, quite the contrary.

          • ZB01

            No; I meant to imply that mistrusting Kissinger was the right attitude to have. In other words, Nixon didn’t trust people on the whole, and that’s considered a character flaw, but in Kissinger’s case, it isn’t.

        • propagandaoftruth

          Nixon was master of realpolitik.

    • George Clark

      The best book on Nixon is still Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72.” Unless you wish to read Nixon’s own words, and look at his book “Leaders.”

      • jayvbellis

        Agreed. Hunter S Thompson sat in the same limo with Nixon and discussed football . hST conceded that Nixon knew football.

        • George Clark

          Two of the most demented minds in modern history getting together to discuss football. I mean “demented” as a compliment.

      • propagandaoftruth

        Actually Oliver Ston

    • jayvbellis

      Loyalty is a very White virtue. pJB was loyal to Richard Nixon, a decent White man crucified by the Red Diaper babies at the Washington Post.

      Most good White folks don’t like to see other solid White folks…
      Crucified.

      If you have the misfortune to see kind of off White people inciting mobs to crucify some decent person…. These aren’t our folks.

  • Rhialto

    Mr. Taylor is correct in asserting that Liberalism is the dominant ideology in America today. But it’s important to note that Liberalism is the dominant ideology in all Western countries (There are no longer any Western nations.)

    There were unique reasons why Liberalism triumphed in America, as Liberalism did in Sweden, Spain, Ireland, Canada, Germany, Italy, etc., but the fact is that Liberalism has triumphed.

    • George Clark

      Yeah, well, groovy for liberalism. I am so enjoying the yoke around my neck that liberalism put upon it.

    • JohnEngelman

      Since 1970 the United States has moved to the left on social issues, but it has moved to the right on economic issues. The top tax rate has declined. So has the percentage of the work force that is in labor unions. Economic inequality has increased considerably.

      • Garrett Brown

        That income equality would be because of the change in social issues.

        • JohnEngelman

          I see three reasons for the increase in economic inequality.

          The first is the growth in the working population. This has been brought about primarily by immigration. More people mean more competition for jobs. This means lower wages and higher profits.

          The second is computer technology. This increases the relationship between intelligence and income.

          The third is that the tax system has become flatter, and labor unions have become weaker.

          • M&S

            Rubbish.

            Unions don’t exist because they give the proletariat a way to feel like they have a way to compensate for their lack of power as social ability. Depending on whom you believe, the rise of unions was either -always- a tool to be used and discarded or the left has learned (finally) that the workers will be quite content to be lazy, fat, politically indolent, bastards, ‘useless to the cause’, because the game’s on and Jimmy brought beer.

            Rather than play the left’s game, the capital class simply shut the doors on the factories and moved them to East Asian and Central America and now there are no good jobs at all, while rising income inequality, coming soon huge taxation increases inherent to debt and social welfare paid out to immigrants by a shrinking middle class will bring them to the side of the left, ‘at last’ (gasp of our country) to overthrow the capitalist moneyed elite who will be given power to be scapegoated into ‘change’.

            In this, you must see that it’s a power struggle in which despoilment is the key to gaining allies after the -combined- efforts of ‘moderate’ politics makes capitalism look so rawly evil that there is no one left but the left.

            If conservative economics (formerly known as mercantilism) were actually being practiced, a lack of backing for the unions would mean that industry would remain inside the U.S. rather than being scattered to the four winds where it is effectively beyond the control of the wealthy who profit from it only so long as the U.S. itself exists to force payment from places like China.

            What the left doesn’t realize is that the world is just as greedy as the elitist, centrist, classist devils they plan to slow cook here. And thus the end of wealth based capital economics _here_ (as the military power to enforce it) will mean it’s rise /elsewhere/, when foreign interests realize they don’t have to pay their moneyed elite in a non-country undergoing revolution a damn thing.

            Nor will the left be able to export their madness because those whose see what the left are doing in this country will realize that, to survive with their new found money (and populations much more usd to submissive-to-hierarchy behavior), they have to have to STOP the process of-

            Demoralize,

            Destabilize,

            Crisis,

            (re)Normalization.

            Interdict any one of these steps by _controlling who can speak_ to your nations weak and young and foolish and you can avoid the decay of social trust into revolution which is what the left is deliberately seeking here.

            Places like China and Russia already have such controls in place and thus remain, relatively, stable as growth driven economic states.

            The left are so obsessed with their quest for ultimate power as ‘their way’ and see the destruction of the right as the obstacle to their perfect world that they will use any method to win.

            But they never look in the mirror to see the face of the person that everyone else will see when they topple the U.S. into anarchy and get the mob to follow them.

            Desperation is not ability or choice, it is instinct. And when the left have their revolution, they will create such massive destruction in the release of stupid instinct on the part of the lowest classes that every nation will flee into the embrace of elitist classism to protect them from the meltdown that they will get to see happening here.

            The left are destroying our nation for nothing.

          • jayvbellis

            “The workers”…..

            Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheldon Adleson, Rand Paul, Elena Kagin, John (not original last name) Stuart, all the Harvard and Yale Presidential nominees from both political parties (‘Cept Clinton – he went to Oxford) – all those fake Black “Reverends”, none of these “,leaders” were ever “workers”

          • propagandaoftruth

            Well, technology also increases efficiency and thereby kills jobs, all robots aside. And then there’s the robots.

            My last defense of anything resembling economic “liberalism” is the firm belief that economic health is contingent on consumer purchasing power and that without wealth redistribution, the economy will grind to a very efficient, computerized, halt.

            The question is how to do it wisely – without creating a sluggardly, entitled thinking pack of eternal adolescents. And without robbing Whitey to pay our enemies or potential enemies.

            The answer, of course, involves a realistic dedication to MERIT in all aspects public and private, something race realism denying excuse mongers and witch hunters can’t ever admit to lest natural order be restored.

            Hey. I admit it. I think Nikki Haley is hot. What do you think?

  • LHathaway

    “They (leftists) filled Grant Park, where they chanted “Dump the Hump,” and shouted obscenities at the police”

    This sounds like the ‘worse is better’ crowd of today?

    “Workers have not seized the means of production and it is still possible to become a billionaire, but otherwise today’s America is a revolutionary’s dream come true”.

    So true JT.

    VP Spiro Agnew didn’t just resign. He was sentenced to and spent time in prison.

    • JohnEngelman

      At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago the anti war movement made itself, rather than the War in Vietnam, the issue. The message it should have given middle aged parents was, “Your son does not need to risk his life in Vietnam.”

      The message many anti war protesters seemed to give was, “If your son fights in Vietnam, he deserves to die.”

      • Garrett Brown

        I believe if that was the message that got across (which it most certainly did, my father was told that to his face after he was spit on) then that’s what they had always wanted to portray since the beginning.

        • JohnEngelman

          I was involved in the anti war movement. I respected combat veterans of the War in Vietnam, especially those who joined the anti war movement when they came back. I never witnessed an act of disrespect for a war veteran. I would have expressed my disapproval if I had.

          • Garrett Brown

            You can even watch some clips on YouTube. He also had coke poured on him.

      • M&S

        You clearly were not alive in the period to understand the difference of nobility in the American people. Dying for a cause that needed accomplishing was an acceptable, if harsh, fate for families that still had 2-3-4 other children to invest in.
        These were the sons and daughters of WWII vets who had that sense of honor passed onto them.
        What the left did, when they used baby killer and ‘you deserve to die!’ shaming psychology was strip the rightness of the cause as an ideal to cling to so that the nation’s sense of self-integrity could be shattered.
        What is left of that nation, today, thinks only of itself and has no belief in the notion of national ideals and objectives worth dying for. Thus the whole concept that ‘your son doesn’t deserve to die’ is actually proof of the collapsed ego and shrunken abuse victim psychology by which every person is reduced to individualism rather than having any group identity with which to associate.
        It is the torturers kind hand up after the vicious whipping of a completely debilitated, effeminized, American population.
        But the words you hear today would not have worked in 1968 because the evil of the left’s Agenda had not yet had it’s way with 2 generations of losers conned into thinking they didn’t deserve to win.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Richard Nixon’s first HUD Secretary, George Romney, wielded the power of the Federal government to get white people in Black Jack, Missouri to stop their resistance of housing projects which everyone knew the black undertow from north St. Louis City would fill.

    Black Jack is immediately to the northeast of…

    …Ferguson.

    This is one reason why PJB’s constant taking up for Richard Nixon frustrates me.

    • George Clark

      Did Dick Nixon pry a lollipop from your hands when you were a child, and lick it to the center in front of you or something? Why don’t you forget about Nixon, and concentrate on Obama? Or is Obama just doing things that you agree with, and you would dare not attack your homie?

    • NoMosqueHere

      In 1968, america was still an optimistic white country, despite the war and civil unrest. Diversity seemed maintainable. So, supporting black oriented projects didn’t seem all that problematic. But today we clearly see the bad results.

  • gemjunior

    If only George Wallace had become the president at that time, we would most likely be in a much better place now. He would never have let this happen – it would never have progressed to the point where it is now. I had my 80 year old mother here today arguing with me that “NOBODY should be shot dead by police unless they are shooting at them” even after I showed her poor innocent little black boy Michael Thug Brown menacing the daylights out of the little Hindu store owner. What can you do with her? She’s my mom, so I can’t pound her head in like I’d like to and call her a DWL. That photo of that thug alone merits a removal from society in my view – sorry but I just don’t see any real value in such a person. So honestly, if Wallace had been elected the savages would never have run amok seeking revenge on whites. They wouldn’t be learning the lies that make them think we owe them anything. It boggles the mind that after seeing what he was up to, the negroes are rioting with not an iota of shame that the man who was shot was committing a crime (probably one of many) – it doesn’t even seem to register.

    • LHathaway

      “NOBODY should be shot dead by police unless they are shooting at them”

      Is there something wrong that statement? Listen to your elders!

      • gemjunior

        I don’t agree with shooting people. I’m just fed up with black criminals.

      • Garrett Brown

        What if they are attempting to shoot you with your own firearm?

      • IBWHITE

        You do realize that a man can kill someone with his hands don’t you?

  • jayvbellis

    Pat Buchanan simply was the best.

    He was everything we want at Amren. And he did it with humor, good faith, and fairness to everyone.

  • LHathaway

    Changer your hairdo. Wear a tie. And get friendly with some conservative politicians, Matthew Heimbach.

  • Garrett Brown

    Pat was and still is a hero, unfortunately the demographics are no longer there to support a man with his beliefs. Whites should have woken up in the early 70s.

  • Sam Oranger

    Nixon gave us the EPA, racial quotas, supported National Health Insuarance (aka Obamacare-like), never proposed cutting taxes, extended the war for 4 more years and said “We’re all Keynsenians now”. Nixon was no conservative. He was just a paranoid nut who craved power.

    • robertds47385

      umiru bolno…

  • JohnEngelman

    In 1968 there was more energy on the left, but the American electorate was moving right.

    The War in Vietnam turned liberals into radicals. This made many of them sympathetic to the black ghetto riots.

    The black ghetto riots and the rise in crime turned white moderates into Republicans.

    Because the average standard of living had been increasing fairly steadily since the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, capitalism seemed to be working. Because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the War on Poverty was followed by a rise in crime and the black ghetto riots, liberalism did not seem to be working.

    The disruptive behavior of many anti war demonstrators angered many Americans who were unenthusiastic about the War in Vietnam, and caused them to vote for hawks, who prolonged the war effort.

    • LHathaway

      Looking back, Nixon capturing over 60% of the vote in 1972 is incredible. Wasn’t there a recession/fuel rationing at the time? He had 4 years to stop the war, and I think he campaigned on ending the war, and hadn’t yet.

      I’m sure he just seemed statesman like and all, perhaps even fatherly, and there was an independent, perhaps even no-nonsense streak to him, maybe he was even kind of an underdog figure somehow, but how did Nixon really do it? There was a cold war, a real war, and the possibility, perhaps, of a nuclear war. How did Nixon really do it? Anyone Really know or hazard some guesses?

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        There’s an easy answer to this riddle:

        George McGovern.

        • JohnEngelman

          George McGovern was not an extremist. He promised to end the War in Vietnam “immediately, unilaterally, and unconditionally.” If he had been able to as President many whites, and many more Vietnamese who were killed in that tragically futile war would still be alive.

          George McGovern was unfairly associated with the often moral squalor of the counter culture.

          During the 1972 campaign Sen. McGovern spoke at my college. He had the demeanor of a mainline Protest clergyman. He did not seem like someone who would have been comfortable at a party at the Playboy Mansion.

          • George Clark

            He was dumb enough to nominate a manic/depressive alcoholic as his initial running mate.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            Tom Eagleton, who, when he died several years ago, the local media wore “integrity” out of the dictionary.

            Examples of his “integrity.”

            http://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/the-eagleton-affair/

          • JohnEngelman

            Mental illness is a treatable ailment, rather than a moral deficiency. Taking bribes is a moral deficiency. That is what Vice President Spiro Agnew did as Governor of Maryland.

          • George Clark

            What meds do you take? If mental illness is treatable. Eagleton was subjected to shock therapy–it scrambles the mind, sinophile.

          • anony

            “Mental illness” encompasses many, many conditions, some of which are not “treatable” today.

            One could say that some “mental illness” causes a person to take bribes. LOL.

          • anony

            “During the 1972 campaign Sen. McGovern spoke at my college. He had the demeanor of a mainline Protest clergyman. He did not seem like someone who would have been comfortable at a party at the Playboy Mansion.”

            Are you really naive enough to think that a politician will cannot act. To say that “He did not seem like…” is nothing more than utter subjectivity on your part.

      • JohnEngelman

        Whites noticed that the black ghetto riots ended abruptly with Richard Nixon’s inauguration in 1969. Those riots did not end because President Nixon ended poverty and racial inequality. They ended because he made it perfectly clear that he would deal harshly with rioters.

        President Nixon’s landslide reelection victory was a thank you gift from the white majority for stopping the riots.

    • Luca

      “The War in Vietnam turned liberals into radicals.” I would disagree a bit. Liberals always use a crisis to their advantage. They used Vietnam, civil rights, and poverty as weapons against the “Establishment”

      Who was the “Establishment”? White, heterosexual, Christian, male capitalists.

      This Liberal (Cultural Marxist) war has been waged for 50 years now. The War in Vietnam was just one handy tool in their toolbox to turn popular opinion in their favor.

      • JohnEngelman

        Vietnam was unimportant to American security and the American economy. Nevertheless, the United States devastated the country and killed about two million Vietnamese in order to prevent the ascension of a leader the vast majority of the Vietnamese – President Eisenhower estimated as many as 80 percent – wanted.

        Because I do not want to believe that the United States is an evil country I prefer to believe that the War in Vietnam was a colossal mistake.

        Liberals are wrong about blacks. They were right about the War in Vietnam.

        • Luca

          Agree with your last sentence but must enhance it. Liberals are wrong about blacks and most other things in their platform, especially economics. They were right about Vietnam but the way they went about it is questionable.

          • JohnEngelman

            Liberals are wrong about blacks and most other things in their platform, especially economics.

            – Luca

            On previous occasions I have documented that from 1921 to 2000 the per capita gross domestic product has grown over twice as much under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, that from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there have almost always been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents as under Republican presidents, and that since 1900 the stock market has grown over twice as much under Democrat presidents.

            I have always disliked the sexual revolution, which most liberals have liked, but that has not really been a political issue.

          • anony

            Presidents have little impact on the economics of the country. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve have everything to do with it. To the extent that a president (and Congress) put in place economic laws/regulations, they are doing the will of the aforementioned institutions.

            This is well documented. For example, look at the individuals who actually wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

            Most banking regulation is written by…….bankers. This is well documented in the book ALL THE PRESIDENTS BANKERS by Naomi Prins which is an excellent source for recent economic history.

          • JohnEngelman

            Patterns as durable as those I have documented cannot be dismissed as happenstance.

          • anony

            Statistics 101: Correlation does not imply causation.

            So, yes, it can be dismissed as happenstance.

            I will repeat that the policies of the Fed alone, which is independent of the White House, has a great deal to do with the economics of the U.S. . And I will not mention the influence of Wall Street this time.

          • Luca

            On previous occasions I have told you there is much more to a national economy than a GDP statistic. The Carter years in particular were a disaster: inflation, high unemployment, high interest rates etc. His economic policies are widely accept as disastrous except in the minds of wacko liberals.That is why he was a one-term president.

            On previous occasions I have also told you not to throw cherry-picked statistics at me. All it convinces me of is your ability to sift through haystacks and find a needle here and there that you think persuades an argument or makes your point.

            I lived through that period, I don’t need a pie chart or a single statistic to convince me that they were glorious years.

            All presidents do good and bad on economic issues because they are so complex and symbiotic. Don’t try to convince me that Democrats and Democrats only are economic geniuses.

            Modern day liberals are also wrong about diversity, entitlements, immigration, education, healthcare, foreign policy, energy, the justice system, international affairs, Israel, and our military to name but a few.

          • JohnEngelman

            The bad economic numbers of the Carter administration were due to fluctuations in the world price of oil over which Carter and Reagan had little control. Nevertheless, there was much less deficit spending under Carter.

            The source for my assertion that more jobs were created per year under Carter than Reagan is The Wall Street Journal. That is also the source for my assertion that during the twentieth century the stock market grew over twice as much under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

          • expitch

            Are you saying that the sexual revolution is not a political issue to you or not to American politics in general? If the latter, it would come as a surprise to the working-class voters who supported Reagan in 1980. Those people, especially the Irish, had always voted Democratic because of economic issues, but they were social conservatives.

        • Carney3

          You’re wrong. Like Korea, Vietnam was a vital test of wills in the larger struggle of the Cold War. Like Korea, the North was a Stalinist nightmare state and the South was a typically Third World corrupt authoritarian state. And we could have won in Vietnam, just as we did in Korea, defined by defeating the attempt to seize the South, by being willing to cross with full strength on the ground into the territory of the North, and bomb anywhere and everywhere in it, with no political restrictions on targeting or intensity, save to not cross the Chinese border.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Geneva Agreement of 1954 said that the division of Vietnam into North and South was temporary, and to be ended by an election scheduled for July 1956. It also said that foreign troops were not to be admitted in North or South Vietnam.

            This is why the United States refused to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954: “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh.”

            – Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

      • Jacobite2

        Gramsci’s Cultural Marxism began when Ivy league colleges dropped their quotas in the late 20s and early 30s. The supercharger was the admission of the Frankfurt School fifth-columnists into the US and into professorships at those same Ivy League schools, to brainwash an entire generation of ‘elites’ into flaming hatred of America and its society. The New Left was the result of indoctrination in college and by various books published in the 40s ( numero uno “The Authoritarian Personality”), which diagnosed being a Euro-American Christian in itself as pathological.

    • M&S

      And what happened when mom and pop ignored little Johnny or Jennifer’s adolescent power-tantrum and voted the way adults in every generation do?
      It split an entire generation from teaching it’s youth to reject radicalism as the actions of the hormonally foolish. And left an abiding rebellion and anger in a whole generation who turned their 1960s rejection and powerlessness into 1970s and 1980s voting habits retribution.
      You recall your time in that world with some kind of golden glow nostalgia in immediate terms rather than 20-50 year eventualities sir.
      The slapped down, spoiled, children of the 60s have spent their entire majority getting pay back by refusing to acknowledge the purpose of nationalism in a competitive world and seeking to embrace other weak people like they _still_ feel themselves to be, with uncontrolled immigration and blanket social welfare programs whole ‘liberal’ ideals have since become the inheritance of their own children, irrespective of the real world consequences that are now so obvious that to ignore them can only be possible through delusion.
      All because ‘certain groups’ made sure there was never any wisdom to impart from the parents to the children in that decade and for that war.
      This is what your ‘sixties social revolution’ did.
      And it’s a fools quest to think that ANYTHING that has happened since has been more than the liberal left continuing down a dark path seeking more and more dependent power from society as a whole, rather than admit that they were wrong to begin with.
      Vietnam is a mirror image of California. It is a stopper on the Asian landmass and an easy control point for keeping Chinese maritime trade under constant watch. That is _all_ that Vietnam ever was. And when the dollar collapses when China gets oil overland and uncouples the RMB from the USD and we lack the geo-strategic positioning to be a real naval threat to her imports, it will be the fault of a bunch of moronic fool teenagers from the 60s who started the process towards U.S. national implosion.
      No more latte`, no more IPhone, no more power, water, internet.
      This is the consequence of liberal idealism substituting for the realities of nationalist economics.
      And the simple fact that these 60s genius rebels without a cause couldn’t look at a globe and see what was coming, especially after Nixon’s trip, makes them totally worthless as ‘paragons of peace’.
      Nothing like a retired zealot trying to remember when he wasn’t a hero, to make the current mess all the more insoluable.

      • LHathaway

        “seeking to embrace other weak people like they _still_ feel themselves to be”
        I knew a lady who made over 40,000 dollars a year over 20 years ago. For a single income, this put her in the top 10%, but she still imagined she was poor. 20 plus years later, rising up the ladder, she still feels she’s one of the poor people. Leftists entertain some strange delusions. So do we.

  • JohnEngelman

    Christians like me who vote Democrat do so because we do not believe that wealth is the reward for virtue.

    In the New Testament the only people who thought that God rewarded the righteous with wealth were the Sadducees. These were rich themselves, and saw the fact of their wealth as its justification. They also conspired with the Romans to crucify Jesus.

    The Old Testament prophets believed that the oppression of Israel’s poor by Israel’s rich was one of the reason David’s empire declined and fell.

    • anony

      Most democrats enjoy the feeling that they are morally superior to others, that they “care” about the poor and down trodden and that others do not.

      There is little, if any, connection between wealth and virtue.

      And how do you pretend to speak for anyone else who votes democrats?

      • LHathaway

        I believe you are right. In fact, there may be an inverse correlation between wealth and virtue. Atheists and the greedy are much more likely to be wealthy than the cautious and pious? In a sense, wealth from greed, even our national wealth, is a product of capitalism?

      • expitch

        Concise and correct.

      • Jim Davis

        Most people who vote Democrat are the most greedy people on the planet. I can’t quit laughing at how people can think I’m “greedy” for wanting to keep money that I EARNED, yet they don’t think themselves greedy for wanting to forcefully take that earned money from me and give it to themselves for doing nothing.

    • Luca

      Wealth is usually the reward for hard work and money management. Whatever I earn, I should do with as I please. I believe in taxation but I do not consider the government to be a better manager of charity than I am. Governments are notoriously poor spenders of other people’s money, mired in inefficiencies, corruption and fraud.

      Giving my money to drug addicts and illegal aliens is not something I would willingly do as I know it is fundamentally wrong and counterproductive. If other people voluntarily give money to such causes, I’d have nothing to say as it is their right to do so.. I would rather donate some of my money to children’s hospitals or to colleges that don’t take federal money.

      • Jim Davis

        Great Post!

    • LHathaway

      In our modern society, atheists and the greedy are much more likely to be wealthy than the cautious and pious? In a sense, wealth being a reward of greed, and national wealth, is a product of capitalism?

    • Jim Davis

      Is this a joke post?

      Soooo, let me get this straight, you think Democrats don’t reward the rich? Boy are you clueless. BTW, it’s now about “rewarding” anyone, Capitalism is about saying I offer to wash your car for $5, you agree, I wash the car, I get the $5.

      That five dollars is not a reward, nor am I oppressing you, it is payment for a service which was voluntarily agreed upon, whether it’s $5 or $5,000,000, if it was freely given to me it’s mine and you have no right to it, if you say you do that is called stealing, which the Bible is most certainly against.

      • Vyncennt

        Excellent post, Jim! If I may, I’d like to add another (long) sentence to it: Capitalism is also about my personal willingness to wash your car correctly and quickly…and about my personal willingness to work long hard hours in order to wash 100 cars that day….and about my personal willingness to do that 6 to 7 days a week, often at cost to my personal life and family.

        I harbor no illusions about the path my life is on. I am not going to win the lottery, create the next chart topping app/song, invent the next must have fad item, or be discovered by an agent as an athletic prodigy.

        Any success that I obtain will be through diligence and the willingness to do what the other man will not. I will likely not die rich, but God willing, I will not die poor either. I assume God has no problem with that mindset, but I don’t know…he doesn’t stop by to clarify things for me, unfortunately =)

  • MikeT53

    “Nixon’s running mate, Spiro Agnew, was later caught in a bribery scandal and became the first vice president in American history to resign”
    John C. Calhoun resigned as Andrew Jackson’s vp to better represent South Carolina in its struggle against the federal government.

  • Jacobite2

    I agree 100%. But the fact that Nixon felt that he couldn’t get closer to Wallace, shows one of two things: either Nixon was the RINO some people accuse him of being (EPA and race quotas don’t look good); or he was a skilled politician who observed that Euro-Americans were already doomed to subordination to other-Americans. Just as I infer from the Commenter’s words, at least 1968 would have been a much better time to make a stand than today. I can’t say for sure, but, in 1968, Euro-Americans were still 80-85% of the population. Is it believable that things were already beyond our control? 1968 was my first vote in a Presidential Election, and I voted for Wallace. I would today, for the Wallace of 1968. He was on my side and said he was on my side, and he’s the last national politician who’s given me that impression.

  • Paleoconn

    I love PJB and I think he would have made a great President, but his repeated encomia of what can only be described as an early version of the respectable right or Conservatism Inc. in the person of Tricky Dick, is getting tiresome to me. It’s almost like he is appealing to liberals,’ look, Nixon wasn’t that bad, he fought against segregation, he created the EPA, he implemented wage and price controls, he saved Israel with the airlift’ and on and on.

    Wallace was right, there was not a dime’s worth of difference between Humphrey and Nixon. PJB should have worked on the Bama governor’s campaign.

    • Jim Davis

      Brilliant, I feel the same, I really like Pat a lot, he is one of the few who has the balls to openly say the truth, but yeah, his endless defense of Nixon drives me nuts.

  • propagandaoftruth

    Well, policy-wise he was the last great liberal president prior to Obama, you are correct. But this should be viewed in the context of the times I’d argue.

    • Zimriel

      The American Bismarck, was Nixon.

  • Epiminondas

    Excellent review, Mr. Taylor.

  • Epiminondas

    Precisely. No Taft Republican, he.

  • Jkjljmt Pqprpstt

    Combine that with the ’64 “Civil Rights” Act.

  • none of your business

    Let’s tell the truth about Nixon. He, not Johnson was the affirmative action President. In 1970 by executive order he invented the hispanic race entitled to affirmative action by executive order to the census bureau. He invented section 8 as a way to preserve property taxes (vast sections of cities had buildings worth $1.00) School busing was EXPANDED under Nixon.
    He EXPANDED Johnson’s war on poverty programs. Those programs employed the likes of Bill Ayers, Kathy Boudin, Bernadine Dohrn and other weather underground and black panthers. Of course Ayers et al were on the run and using fake names, but the people who ran the War on Poverty programs that employed them knew exactly who they were.

    Face it folks, Nixon was a complete tool of the Rockefellers and Kissinger was his minder.
    He won a landlside. And what did he do? Section 8, affirmative action, and worst of all he allowed the endless war on poverty programs to continue their subversion.

    I know all about it, I was there and knew Dorhn and Ayers when they worked on a San Francisco legal aid program under false names. While she was getting a federal paycheck Dorhn planted the bomb at SF’sPark Police Station that killed one and blinded another White Police Officer.

    As I told my girl friends about men, “Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.”

    Nixon’s was the most dangerous administration to Whites in the 20th century. He was a Rockefeller stooge.

    • Jim Davis

      Yep, I like Pat, but I do get tired of hearing him defend Nixon, and Reagan too for that matter, don’t know how Reagan became this icon of “Traditional America”, he looks and sound the part, no doubt, but his actions were quite another story.

  • none of your business

    A major reason Nixon won by such a landslide in 1972 is that his opposition was it McGovern? proposed ending the mortgage interest tax deduction. This is of course the major middle class federal tax deduction. It is also a major reason for buying instead of renting. So the real estate people as well as homeowners also voted for Nixon as well as putting in a lot of money against McGovern.

  • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

    Fine review. Recalling that time, I doubt that Americans were “terrified” by the Tet Offensive. Many saw it as the last straw in proving that the U.S. should stop pouring countless young lives into that endless meat grinder. Of course there are military experts who still maintain that the North Vietnamese lost the Tet Offensive, but that debate will go on forever. For one thing, if an offensive is a huge psychological victory, can it still be said to be a defeat?

    • jayvbellis

      Tet was a huge military defeat for Communist forces in Viet Nam, propaganda victory of sorts in US for Communists as Walter Cronkite and CBS pronounced US forces were doomed to defeat. Moral was/is, we have to more than just military sip ices, need media, propaganda success . Our side tends to suck at propaganda, media, artists etc.

      • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

        Well said, but our brave young men should never have been sent over there in the first place. Particularly after the 1965 Immigration Act, our military should be used to secure our borders against invasion and, if necessary, send an up close and personal message to the various past and present hostile expansionist Mexican governments.

    • Carney3

      It was countless and endless because Johnson wasn’t fighting to win, just doing the minimum possible so defeat would not happen on his watch. If we had fought to win, we could have crushed North Vietnam. Once Nixon finally unleashed the B-52s the rats came scurrying to the negotiating table they had spurned.

      • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

        North Vietnam and China could have sent infiltrators endlessly.

        • Carney3

          North Korea tries that. Hasn’t worked.

          • http://tmasierrahills.blogspot.com/ tma_sierrahills

            And how many troops do we still have stationed there? Open borders and far-off endless empire wars such as that in Vietnam–how long would you be willing to fight if we were occupied by the Vietnamese?–Iraq and Afghanistan eventually destroys not only the empire, but, along with open borders, economically and genetically destroys the people who once made a nation so successful that it was able to become an empire in the first place. Now, at he behest of our open-borders overlords, we are quickly sinking into the Third World and you want to spend your time re-debating the Vietnam War. Well, thank you for your comments and good luck to you.

  • Jim Davis

    I really like Pat, but sounds to me like he should have been backing Wallace instead of Nixon, I have to read more about this Wallace guy, he sounds like someone I would like for President.

    • Vyncennt

      Pat backed the candidate who could win, even if he were the lesser of two evils, instead of the greater of three candidates.

  • Jim Davis

    Heck, people STILL don’t see it, I’m quickly becoming the “crazy old crank” in my family, so I’ve learned to just be quiet. They are all conservative Christian types, so it isn’t just the boot-licking white liberals, white conservatives kinda see it, but they don’t think it’s as big a deal as it is.

    • Vyncennt

      You are crazy. Is it anything less than insane to employ logic and reason to an uncomfortable dilemma in 2014? You should be making all your decisions based on your emotional state at that time and flavored by a utopian fantasy you lifted from a plethora of sci-fi authors.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    If only that were true. Nixon and Reagan briefly slowed the march of some elements of liberalism, but it has been the crushingly dominant ideology of the last 50 years. It does now have a slightly different flavor: It has lost its tincture of revolutionary Marxism, and few college students hang pictures of Che Guevara in their dorms. But it is hard to think of a single change in American society that the mob in Grant Park would not have approved: forced integration, race preferences, multi-culturalism, white-shaming, homosexual marriage, de facto amnesty for illegals, campus speech codes, women in combat, “medical” marijuana. Workers have not seized the means of production and it is still possible to become a billionaire, but otherwise today’s America is a revolutionary’s dream come true.

    A great summary of exactly where this country is today. That the Repubs do not see the last half century as exactly what it is, a series of embarrassing, crushing defeats for their party, shows that they really only care about that last part: that in the US today it is still possible for a tiny few to become billionaires.

  • jayvbellis

    Mods, please delete – wild unsubstantiated conspiracy theory paranoia. The worst crime Richard Nixon did was to cover for some aides who harassed a disloyal Jew in the Defense Department Daniel Elsberg, who was himself doing illegal things leaking confidential Defense Department files to New York Times and Washington Post.

  • Vyncennt

    It is embarrassingly easy to label our current politicians, both Democrat and Republican, as “unintelligent” or “out of touch with the people they represent.” Many attribute their apparent ineptitude with the inability to foresee the consequences of their collective actions.

    Personally, I do not believe any of this. These men and women likely hold many of the same views as those who post here and other similar sites. Unfortunately, they are much more comfortable backing positions that will enable them to absorb wealth and maintain power bases, than they are advocating for personal principles. Never forget that all of these politicians live in nearly 100% white areas and likely exhibit personal behaviors that mirror our own. They are not blind to the current state of world affairs. They simply choose to ignore it for the sake of personal gain and the fear of personal loss.

    The willingness to exhibit any shred of fortitude…any hint of principle or morals…seemingly has been lost. No one, myself included to a point, is willing to sacrifice themselves at the altar of political incorrectness. Very few are willing to lose a dime or absorb a negative criticism. Whether we call it fear, or simply weakness in our cultural fabric, the results are clear. This nation is quickly slipping into a state that even our historical enemies never regressed to.

  • dd121

    Never heard that story about Wallace. Makes me respect him all the more.

  • dd121

    Even today the libs have their annual celebration of the take-down of Nixon. Nixon may have had his faults but he also many good points. He was a shrewd politician and he loved this country. He always acted in the best interest of our country. Nobody can say that about the clown in office now.