Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Excerpt: Playing President

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted April 28, 2006.


Comparing Richard Nixon and George W. Bush reveals not only two often-compared but very different men, but two very different ages of media and politics.
bazaar_play_pres_cover
Advertisement

[Editor's Note: Robert Scheer's new book, Playing President: My Close Encounters with Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Reagan and Clinton -- and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W. Bush, details his interactions with six presidents in the last three decades. Below are excerpts from Scheer's reflections on Richard Milhouse Nixon and George Walker Bush.]

RICHARD NIXON'S FROZEN SMILE

Most of the time that I spent in one-on-one interviews with the Presidents in this book occurred while they were still trying out for the role, mostly in the rush of national campaigns for the presidency. As a print journalist, I was granted an access that -- as the candidates' handlers would often remind -- was unwar-ranted by the declining power of the news organizations I represented.

Difficult as it may be for younger generations to imagine, each of these Presidents could remember a time when print media was dominant and television was not to be taken so seriously. Some adjusted more fluidly to the evolving impact of the instantaneous and visual mass media, while others barely ever got it. Television entered the nation's life at different points in these men's political development, and they had varying degrees of familiarity with the medium while growing up. Absent in the youth of Nixon, Carter, and Bush I, but increasingly dominant in the early years of Clinton and George W. Bush, television and its dramatic impact would prove decisive for all. Reagan is an exception in this regard, for while television was virtually nonexistent in the formative years of his life, his acting career made him superbly confident on any public stage.

The most reluctant to acknowledge the new television age was Richard Nixon, who, despite being unquestionably the best prepared of all modern Presidents before assuming office, never fully adjusted to the media form, which requires mastering a casual, open, and confident demeanor. This was no small failing, for in the end, whatever one concludes about his performance as President, it was his indelibly awkward and secretive style that did him in. He became the most disgraced of our Presidents, not because of the substance of his performance, but because of its fatally flawed delivery before a national audience.

If not for that failure of style, Nixon would have been able to finesse the Watergate burglary with the ease that all these other Presidents handled crises of far greater international significance. For example, Jimmy Carter's overreaction to a pro-Soviet coup in Afghanistan, which ended up nurturing dangerous Muslim fundamentalists -- most notably Osama bin Laden -- represents a far greater betrayal of the public trust. So, too, Reagan's Iran Contra scandal and George W. Bush's cooking of the WMD smoke to justify occupying Iraq.

As much as I disagreed with some of Nixon's policies (and my anti-Vietnam War activities resulted in various forms of harassment from his Administration, including a tax audit), I came years later to acknowledge that I had underestimated the accomplishments of his tenure in the White House. That is what led me, in the following essay written for the Los Angeles Times a decade after Nixon was run out of office, to attempt to separate the man's often loathsome style from his at times quite impressive substance. I didn't undertake this reporting assignment for the Times in an effort to rehabilitate Nixon, and certainly not to court the approval of the disgraced President then living in virtual exile in his own country. I knew in advance that my requests for an interview would be turned down, since I had established myself years earlier as one of his most vociferous critics.

It was much to my amazement, then, after sending my published article to Nixon's office as a matter of formality, that I received a letter from the man himself. Given how most of us in this profession struggle so mightily to attain a degree of objectivity, I value Nixon's response to my article as professional praise.

My visit with Nixon after his kind offer to grant me an interview proved to be every bit as awkward as I anticipated. What I recall most is a sort of box-step dance we did as I entered his office: A standing Nixon greeted me with that odd frozen smile of his, just like in all the pictures, appearing to be warmly welcoming me, while actually retreating -- causing me to stumble forward with my hand extended.

But no sooner was he seated behind his desk than did the other Nixon appear, the old fox who had mastered world politics. Confident and resolute to a fault, he quickly ticked off facts and theories on any subject I brought up, as if he had a Wikipedia chip implanted in his brain.


Digg!

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the time of reckoning
Posted by: rsaxto on Apr 28, 2006 5:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The time of reckoning for W will come sooner than Scheer supposes else humanity and our planet will be in desperate trouble in terrible ways. The sooner the Bushies are impeached the better the scenario will be for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HATED NIXON, BUT
Posted by: krose on Apr 28, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I LOOK BACK ON THAT TIME WITH NOSTALGIA.

WHAT WE HAVE NOW, IS PURE HELL! THIS SO-CALLED "president" is not only dangerous in his lack of intelligence, but in his LACK OF PATRIOSM & INTEGRITY, & PURE DISREGARD FOR WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS COUNTRY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HATED NIXON, BUT
Posted by: krose on Apr 28, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I LOOK BACK ON THAT TIME WITH NOSTALGIA.

WHAT WE HAVE NOW, IS PURE HELL! THIS SO-CALLED "president" is not only dangerous in his lack of intelligence, but in his LACK OF PATRIOSM & INTEGRITY, & HIS PURE DISREGARD FOR WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS COUNTRY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More gossip about political elites! That will get us progressive taxationa & universal healthcare!
Posted by: cry0fan on Apr 28, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how many times do I have to point out that the pseudoLeft agenda is guided by the overclass with the effect of simply electing a new set of democratic overclass elite, who will be no better than the GOP overclass elite.

Politics is NOT ABOUT PEOPLE. It is about putting ideas into people's heads about what America is, where we came from, where we are headed, etc.

Electoral politics only plays off of these ideas. THe ideas are put there by CorpGovMedia overclassers.

STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICIANS! Start talking about how to get comparisons of the european leftist economics into the brains of American voters, particularly those in OH, PA and FL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's undoubtable that...
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Apr 28, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
while the last five Presidents may have had their shortcomings, they all did attempt to significantly prepare themselves for service, as Scheer points out. As he notes, Nixon did make some significant policy decisions such as creating affirmative action, renewing contact with China, initiating efforts to protect the environment (though I'm citing from memory here, I may be wrong on that last one). But the point is, he knew some stuff. He wasn't an idiot. He might have been devious, he might have been paranoid, he might have had difficulty in trusting his subordinates and might have been racist, but the man wasn't an idiot. One gets the sense that Monkey Boy hasn't learned one damn thing in his life. He admits he's not into reading. Really, there should be some sort of requirement on that if you want the job with the most responsibility in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only a Dubya could make Reagan look better.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 28, 2006 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, Reagan was not as bad as Dubya. That's the most that can be said for him. He demolished the progressive agenda. He began the packing of the supreme court with rock-ribbed wing nuts for Dubya to complete. He tripled the national debt by militarizing the US and shrinking from internationalism to the point that Gorbychev had to tackle him in Iceland to get a disarmament agreement. He had no more real world political experience than Dubya--both governors; both privileged plutocrats.

I appreciate what Scheer's Reagan comments reveal, not about Reagan but about Scheer. Kiss up to Hollywood. Let millionaires tell you how things ought to be. And let your teeth be pulled out by the social lions. You may have a lisp, but you still can pretend to growl.

Where's your growl, Scheer? Have you lost it? Yes, more memoires will keep you in fat city--until it hits the fan. Where you gonna run to?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ooooh, Robert, you had me.
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 30, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right up to the last paragraph.

I was alive and kicking and in college and then grad school during the Nixon Administration. God, I was arrogant and uncompromising, and I knew what I was talking about and you couldn't tell me any different. Nixon was evil. Period. He could have parted the waters from here to Viet Nam in a message of peace, I'd have cursed him for killing fish, that's how much a symbol of fear and loathing and danger in the world he was for me. Through all my rancor, however, I never thought of him as stupid.

With my attitude it would have been nearly impossible for me to give him credit for his other numerous achievements. But in my defense, I'll say that with a repugnant war that had us all worried for friends and neighbors who had been drafted, and later a scandal that, in a more respectful age, had us wondering if our Constitution was strong enough to withstand one man's malfeasance, the simple triage of anxiety didn't allow for other considerations.

I grew up. I acquired some understanding about the imperfection to which we are all heir. Some of us are imperfect on our own time, and only our dogs know it. Others of us are imperfect and the world shakes, and people die.

The next I heard of Nixon, some co-op board on Park Avenue was giving him a hard time about buying into the building because the members didn't like him, and I thought they were being assholes. I read a lot of history then, of the presidency, and of the development of law and culture. In my forties, Nixon was a fascinating figure to me. We lived in the same city. When he died, I wished I'd known him.

George W. Bush is good at only one thing--disarming the enemy, when the enemy can be defined as a person, an idea, an event or a job which criticizes, taxes, perplexes or otherwise causes him discomfort. It's a fine art, and he's an old master. Want to see him at it? Go to the film of the fellow standing up at a meeting asking him if he isn't ashamed of himself for his many violations of our rights. Bush handles it with self-deprecating chuckles and jokes, and for a nanosecond, before you recover yourself, you're with him, and wish the guy would stop.

That's how good Bush is at his one, sole, single, solitary talent.

He has nothing in common with Nixon. It did take a while for the world to assess Nixon's career and judge him with a bit less venom. He'll never be a hero, but there's brilliance to mitigate the villainy.

The country and the world are now judging Bush and his cousins every day, and the judgment is harsh. I think only the easily distractable and naive still believe that Bush's autistic vision of the "war on terror" hasn't worsened life on earth. Lots of folks are still terrified, but facts are facts. Bush's role as a strong leader has deteriorated to a barely watchable burlesque.

History will be no kinder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From one who has met Bush
Posted by: Gazza126 on May 3, 2006 7:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Scheer may not have had the dubious pleasure of getting some one-on-one time with George Walker Bush. But a close friend of mine, who, in 2000, was the political journalist with a small mid-west newspaper did. And during the election.

She got to spend about 45 minutes alone with him in the back seat of a limo on a trip from the airport to the city where he was due to give a speech.

This lady, who has personally met and interviewed dozens of presidential candidates on other 45 minute drives from that airport, said she was appalled by how uninformed Bush was.

In fact, her most striking remark - I'll never forget it - was that during the entire interview, she felt like knocking on Dubya's skull - the way you and I knock on a front door - and shouting:'hello... is there anybody in there??!!'

'Nuff Said. Say what you like about Dubya (and let's face it, who hasn't?), what you see is what you get. A true fool playing President.

In hindsight, exposure to previous presidents may not have prepared Mr Scheer for Dubya and Co., but there is one film that I think did... had we the forsight to know it at the time. The movie: Being There starring the immortal Peter Sellers. What a wonderful George W. Bush Peter Sellers would have made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comic book elections give us comic book presidents.
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 5, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the american public placed this "What, me worry?", "aw, shucks" moron in the White House TWICE speaks not only to Bush's perpetual adolescence, but to the american voters' childishness as well – and that is more dangerous, because it virtually assures that another like Bush will be elected in the future by a population that seems to get its ideas about life solely from television and movie fantasies. The British newspaper headline after the 2004 reselection that asked how millions of american voters could be so stupid said it all: we on this side of "the pond" may be adults in the chronological sense, but we certainly do not act like grownups.

Take a good look around, kiddies – recess is over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]