Tricky Dick, Slick Willy, and Bad Bush

When I saw the trailer for Frost/Nixon, and Frank Langella as Nixon says, “I’m saying when the president does it, it’s not illegal.” I was shocked and disturbed. But by the time the line came up in the movie—after watching Langella for an hour and a half as Nixon—I thought, “Yeah, that seems about right. I agree with that.”

I’m 26 years old. My presidential experience has been Clinton and Bush. That’s been my life for the last 16 years. Aside from being vaguely aware of the first Iraq war and Bush, Sr. as the figure that took us there, Clinton and Bush are all I know. Reagan exists in my knowledge of him, but not in my memory. What my personal experience is comprised of is one man known for getting B.J.s in the Oval Office, and another that led us into a war on disputable evidence. More importantly, as he leaves office, we’re coming up on six years in two wars.

Clinton was impeached. Bush should at least be investigated. Eight years after high school and American History I know or remember very little about Nixon. So watching the movie and relearning what he did, I kept waiting to find out something else. He broke into the DNC headquarters. Is that it?

One of the film’s characters, James Reston Jr., has a line about how anti-democratic Nixon’s actions were. He tried to get a leg up in an election, tried to learn the Democrats’ strategy. It’s not like he bent the vote. He didn’t make up ballots, or discount ballots. What he did was unethical, but it doesn’t raise my eyebrows. I don’t relate to this response—that was prevalent at the time and is still felt by many today—of feeling personally insulted by Nixon’s supposed blatant disregard for democracy. Older generations—like my parents'—experienced Nixon first, and then, years later, Clinton and Bush. It didn't happen that way for me. I learned about Nixon in history class while I was experiencing Clinton (and Bush) firsthand. If it's 1977, and there’s no Mr. BJ or Mr. Decider to compare Nixon to, I can see how one could become offended by Nixon’s actions. But my knowledge of Nixon came after my experiencing Clinton
and Bush everyday in newspapers and on TV.

And Kennedy—I didn’t experience him as a refreshing contrast to Eisenhower who might revive the spirit of the country, but through the few repeated images that are thrown up in every television piece of him and are always alongside pictures of Marilyn Monroe or candid photos of him lounging poolside with various other women. And there’s always that undercurrent that something bad is about to happen. The sense of happy-go-lucky snapshots leading to trouble.

So it’s hard to see Nixon as betraying the legacy—and the Golden era—of the Presidency. Because I didn’t see Kennedy as being all that great before him. And what came after Nixon was so much worse. Nixon’s actions were neither unique to a President, nor were they the best example of a President abusing power. Andrew Jackson still bears that title, having massacred hundreds of thousands of Native-Americans by presidential order. Even in recent history—in my life—Nixon’s actions do not stand out in comparison to Clinton and Bush. I know most Democrats dismiss what Clinton did, saying it didn’t affect how he governed. But I find him getting a blow job in the Oval Office to be a greater mockery of the office of President than anything Nixon ever did. And Bush? I don’t understand how a person today could get worked up over Nixon saying, “I’m saying when the president does it, it’s not illegal.” when more recently, a President has said, “I’m the decider.” More people balked at the poor grammar in that sentence than at the idea behind it.