Friday, August 15, 2008


Sorry, I just think that What Would Richard Nixon Do? is a lot more entertaining than What Would Jesus [even Republican Jesus] do?.

And with WWRND you even get the obligatory asterisk to note what he would do in private after he did something in public.

But sometimes it's actually quite relevant.

For example, over on DelawareMorallyOutragedLiberal, nemski makes one of the first common-sense comments about the connection between rhetoric and the recent murders of an Arkansas Democrat and parishioners at a progressive church.

nemski says he'd like to see:

Right-wing pundits to be outraged over these political shootings.

Good question/observation. And since I'm currently reading Richard Reeves' very interesting President Nixon--Alone in the White House, I can answer the question, WWRND?, because he did so in a speech in 1970 at Kansas State University:

Those who bomb universities, ambush policemen, who hijack airplanes . . . deserve the contempt of every American. . . . There have always been those among us who would choose violence or intimidation to get what they wanted. . . . What is new is their numbers, and the extent of the passive acquiescence, or even the fawning approval, that in some fashionable circles has become the mark of being 'with it.' . . . The blood is on the hands of anyone who encouraged them [by] . . . hinting that the cause is right all the same.*

Yes, the time was different, and the objects of his scorn were liberal intellectuals encouraging college students to greater and greater violence in protest demonstrations, but when I read the words I find them eerily evocative.

And like nemski (although not at all like jason), I'd like to hear similar words from some of our leaders today.

*But, of course, as Nixon said this, on his express orders the CIA was planning a coup/assassination against Salvador Allende in Chile, at the instigation of Henry Kissinger, who said, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people" in voting the wrong way in an election.


Anonymous said...

Ummmm...quoting a RN speech isn't actually proof of anything. In fact, RN was known to lie quite often during speeches (Cambodia, not a crook, etc.)

There are many histories that detail RN's real sentiments. Let us not forget he and his minions seriously talked about killing Jack Anderson, burglarized Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, wiretapped political foes and friends, etc.

Steve Newton said...

Ummmm... anonymous, did you happen to read the footnote?

You really should start reading all the way to the end of the post before you comment.

It generally raises everyone else's opinion of you as an intelligent and perceptive commenter.

nemski said...

Hmmm, do I think this was a good post because it is or do I think this is a good post because I am quoted?

Though Nixon hated the left and his outrage could be a little political, leaders on the left and the right should always speak out against violence. But that's the pacifist in me speaking.

Apparently the right like to get folks in a nationalistic uproar and send the poor's children off to die. Until the poor and working class realize this, there will always have leaders like Bush, Cheney and McCain.

ni said...

Yeah but man needs to understand that violence is not the solution. Nothing can be gained by killing innocent lives except hatred. People need to be more sensible and mature to make a good healthy world. I hope we as bloggers can do something good for the betterment of others. Right!!??
Delaware Drug Treatment