Nixonland
By Thoreau
I just finished chapter 2, which ends with his “Checkers” speech and a recounting of pundits recoiling from his common man schtick. The Sacramento Bee said that this alleged common man is actually the front man for rich interests. Pundit Mort Sahl said that if this sort of appeal actually works then Nixon should read the Constitution to his daughters, while his wife sews an American flag.
When I read that last part, my first thought was that if Sarah Palin read the Constitution to her kids while Todd folded an American flag in a ceremonial manner or something (I don’t think he’d look too credible sewing), a lot of teabaggers would probably go crazy with joy.
Now, maybe I’m misunderstanding the psychology, and not really getting the teabaggers. Maybe the pundits of 1952 didn’t understand the psychology of Nixon’s appeal either. That itself would still be part of the pattern, though: Despite my disdain for much of the punditocracy and my insistence that I am not a liberal, I am at the end of the day a latte-sipping academic on a good trajectory in an elite profession, and I am definitely NOT a conservative or Republican. I am an outsider, and perhaps I am simply too removed (and uninterested) to get what is really going on. Well, the same was true of the elites who didn’t get Nixon and didn’t get how he got as far as he did. I don’t think Palin will get nearly as far as Nixon did, but I do think she will remain on the scene and a factor on the right for some time, even as the rest of us scratch our heads in bafflement.
Although, to be fair, part of the reason why the Checkers speech worked is because it was in response to revelations that he was getting perks from rich supporters, and none of his opponents could really claim a moral high ground there either, so they had to back down. That is an understandable constant in politics, rather than an inscrutable cultural factor that we latte sippers simply can’t get.
Comment by sglover —
April 18, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Everything I’ve seen about Palin strongly suggests that, outside of the romper room of disgruntled white guy politicing, she gets more unpopular every time she opens her mouth. Maybe the most damning single statistic is that she’s least popular among women, women who hold jobs and raise families.
Palin’s a lightweight and a quitter, plainly angling for celebrity more than genuine political influence. During her comic opera VP candidate days, she had to field softball questions that were easier than those asked during a typical job interview — and she couldn’t hack **that**. This is not something she’s going to be able to slough off. So yeah, Palin will probably be “on the scene” for years to come, but only in the same fashion that Coulter or Malkin are: Preaching to the choir, milking it for appearance fees — and attracting precisely **zero** new voices to the ensemble.
Comment by Jordan Cartilla —
April 18, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Most of U.S. politics baffles me, but it has its own logic.
Comment by Bob Weber —
April 19, 2010 @ 12:28 am
Nixon actually was pretty much a “man of the people” in that he came from middle to lower-middle class origins, like LBJ, Clinton, and Obama, and unlike JFK or both Bushes.
Like LBJ, but unlike Clinton or Obama, he harbored a grudge all his life against his “betters”. See Nixon and his “Orthogonians”, or how LBJ delighted in vulgar behavior in front of his “betters”.
Clinton and Obama, OTOH, always showed an eagerness to please higher-ups. At least, that’s what I think.
Comment by de stijl —
April 19, 2010 @ 2:00 am
Thoreau,
Mort Sahl was primarily a stand up comedian (albeit a particularly brainy one), not a pundit as we understand the word today – think of a 1950s version of Jon Stewart.
Maybe that explains you’re confusion about his quote.
Comment by de stijl —
April 19, 2010 @ 2:01 am
you’re / your = Grr!
Pingback by Well Steeped : MCCS1977 —
April 19, 2010 @ 2:09 am
[...] Thoreau: Despite my disdain for much of the punditocracy and my insistence that I am not a liberal, I am at the end of the day a latte-sipping academic on a good trajectory in an elite profession, and I am definitely NOT a conservative or Republican. I am an outsider, and perhaps I am simply too removed (and uninterested) to get what is really going on. Well, the same was true of the elites who didn’t get Nixon and didn’t get how he got as far as he did. I don’t think Palin will get nearly as far as Nixon did, but I do think she will remain on the scene and a factor on the right for some time, even as the rest of us scratch our heads in bafflement. [...]
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 19, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
They and the disgruntled Red-leaning white women come in large numbers, mind.
I think Palin-fandom is a lot broader than it’s deep, though. People like the marketed idea of her; the reality of her can’t stand up to focused attention, hence the avoidance of real interviews. If she ever got a TV or radio show, I suspect her fan base would fall away with a season or two or exposure.
Comment by Glaivester —
April 19, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
I think a lot of leftists were long angry at Nixon for the Alger Hiss incidents, whereas a lot of rightists loved him for it. As such, a lot of people typed Nixon as a witch-hunter and arch-conservative bad guy with his detractors as underdog heroes searching out the truth from the mastermind, and a lot of other people typed him as the heroic anti-communist fighting against the communist-controlled media and anti-American interests.
Considering that Nixon did not have a particularly conservative record as President, I think that the tendency to either lionize him as a model conservative Republican or to demonize him largely came from the narrative formed by identifying with or against him way back in the late 1940s early 1950s rather than from his actual policies.
The “Checkers” speech could, in that sense, be viewed in a similar way, like Bush the Elder’s “anti-wimp” moment (start at about 6:30) with Dan Rather.