FROM THE NIXONIAN PERSPECTIVE

By Edwin Cooney

Yes, indeed, today would be Richard M. Nixon’s 104th birthday.  For those Americans who both loved and hated him, his significance is such that it’s possibly instructive to consider, as best we can, how he’d likely view President-elect Donald J. Trump as a player in international relations.  Hence the question of the week:  If you were Richard Nixon, what would be your assessment of Donald J. Trump’s outlook on the world? Nixon’s and Trump’s individual backgrounds and political similarities and differences are exceedingly sharp.  Richard Nixon was a politician more than he was anything else. Donald Trump is first and foremost a businessman.

Richard Nixon’s primary goal in life was, however he behaved or was viewed during his campaigns for the House, the Senate, the Vice Presidency, and ultimately for the Presidency, to create a “generation” of peace. President-elect Trump, insofar as this observer is aware, has never stated a lifetime goal.  As of this date, I’m convinced that Richard Nixon would consider a lack of a political goal a reckless oversight.  As a practical politician, however, he’d probably ignore Trump’s “oversight,” reserving his perception of Trump’s oversight as a significant political weapon until there’s a politically advantageous time to use it against him.

Richard Nixon had three international Communist adversaries: Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, and Ho Chi-minh.

From his memoirs and other writings, Nixon was genuinely fascinated especially by Khrushchev and Brezhnev.  Nixon found Khrushchev crude, braggadocios but politically very, very shrewd.  During a good portion of their first meeting in Moscow during July of 1959, Khrushchev and Vice President Nixon spent time debating whether cow manure, which Nixon said some forms of propaganda smelled like, or pig manure, which Khrushchev said American propaganda smelled like, was worse.  Nixon finally conceded that pig manure did smell worse than cow manure.  Brezhnev, on the other hand, Nixon found personally very affable. Brezhnev, according to Nixon, was like Lyndon Johnson, who was always touching and grabbing at you during negotiations.  Brezhnev, who always made references to the horror of World War II, was nevertheless very stubborn especially when it came to Middle East negotiations.

As for Ho Chi-minh, Ho died in September of 1969, about eight months into Nixon’s presidency, but from what Nixon has said about his efforts to negotiate with the North Vietnamese leader, Ho appears to simply have ignored Nixon.  Nixon’s international opponents were men of political doctrine at odds with free enterprise and of what they labeled as traditional American imperialism.

To President-elect Trump, the practical businessman, Putin’s international adventurism and domestic authoritarianism aren’t barriers to practical measures to defeat international terrorism.  After all, didn’t Churchill and Roosevelt save the devil Joseph Stalin from Hitler’s invasion of Soviet Russia in June of 1941?

Since the resignation of Richard Nixon in August of 1974 and the defeat of South Vietnam in April of 1975, the following trends have been predominating.

First, opposition to Soviet Communism, although still the primary objective of our foreign policy, has been tempered by the realization that America could no longer afford to be “the world’s policeman.”  Second, Americans have become increasingly skeptical about the value of the United Nations and other agencies of international peace.  Thus every president from Ford through Obama, and every unsuccessful presidential candidate from Ford in 1976 to Mitt Romney in 2012, has been reluctant to be too bellicose with regard to foreign policy pronouncements.

Presidents Carter and Obama have been anxious to respond to the American public’s determination not to put “boots on the ground” in so many troubled areas of the world.  Hence they appear to have made America vulnerable to the demands of states and entities, such as ISIL, Al-Qaeda and North Korea.

What fascinates me is how suddenly Putin’s Russia has become so favorable to Republicans who have, after all, been vocal opponents of totalitarianism since the days they accused Harry Truman of turning China over to the communists.

Perhaps President-elect Trump is right.  Putin isn’t a communist despite his service in the KGB.  Putin’s merely a gangster who’ll make a deal with anyone so long as they acknowledge his prerogatives and his right to apply them.

Somewhere there’s an explanation, even a legitimate one, for this American-Russian partnership.

Candidate and President Richard Nixon used to assert that the renunciation of communism would be the primary factor in the creation of American-Russian peace.

President-elect Trump appears to believe that principles and doctrines ultimately don’t matter.

As for former President Nixon, I suspect he really didn’t think principles and doctrines mattered either.  The difference between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon needed politics in order to prevail.

Eleven days before taking office, Donald Trump appears to believe that he’s totally above politics.

It’s my guess that our new president will soon discover, as did Richard Nixon, that politics always ultimately prevails.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY