Skip to main content

WWRND?


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.

Comments

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.
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.
Anonymous 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.
Unknown 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!!??
------------------
Jessy
Delaware Drug Treatment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...