Damn-- it IS 1972 all over again

[Art_from_Ark]

The Nixonian tactics that I have witnessed in the past few days would make even Nixon blush. But they're not coming from a crooked, entrenched Republican incumbent-- they're coming from supposedly "our" side. But they are just as sleazy.

I was very politically cognizant in 1972-- I remember the election, the hints of impropriety of the Nixon side, the sleazy trashing of the best candidate in that election, a solid, decorated Democrat who wanted to get us out of Vietnam and work toward a society where everyone benefits. And he was constantly trashed as being "too liberal" and a "wacko". How much better off would we have been if he had been elected? Given that the winners of that election, Richard Nixon and his Vice President Spiro Agnew, were sleazebags who both ended up resigning in disgrace, I think we probably would have been MUCH better off.

Today, we have a candidate who is, in every respect, a man of integrity who represents the best ideals of the Democratic Party of 1972-- and yet, he is constantly being trashed, not by members of the Other Party, but by members of the supposedly liberal Democratic Party as being "too liberal" and a "wacko". And Nixon had a "Southern strategy" which we are seeing in somewhat modified form here. While Nixon's Southern Strategy appealed to white Southern racists, the "Southern strategy" that I'm seeing here is a slightly different version of the same theme-- the candidate who has done the most for people of color in his career is getting trashed in the South, while the candidate who has done next to nothing for those same people is being heralded as some sort of champion for them.

Nixon relied on sleazy tactics to trash the better man in the 1972 election, and I am seeing similar tactics today. Not just among posters on this particular site, but outside of this Internet community-- the most recent of which was the omission of the names of Bernie Sanders and his delegates from the sample ballot of Chicago's 13th ward.



Where else are such sleazy tactics being employed?

So even though some things have greatly changed in the 44 years since 1972, in many ways, the sleaze which characterized the "win-at-all-costs" side is once again rearing its ugly head. Only this time, it's from what is supposedly "our" side.

[flor-de-jasmim]

1. Breathtaking, and not in a good way.

[BernieforPres2016]

2. The Clintons remind me of Richard Nixon

Power at any cost. But the Clintons are more money hungry. I think they are about the same on foreign policy and the Clintons are probably to the right of Nixon on economic issues. Nixon didn't have a close relationship with Wall Street, which played a much smaller role in the economy in the late 1960's and early 1970's than it does now.

See Bill Clinton's eulogy for Richard Nixon, in which he says he was taking foreign policy advice from Nixon in the last few weeks of Nixon's life. Hillary, as Secretary of State, was taking advice from Henry Kissinger.

[Mufaddal]

3. This ^^^^

The Clintons are easily more corrupt than Nixon, and even less ideologically principled.

This is what kills me: the issue is always framed as either "the Clintons are corrupt" or "there is a vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons to make them appear corrupt." Never is the possibility entertained that both can be equally true.

[TTUBatfan2008]

6. That is a great point.

I think both statements are true. The Clintons are corrupt and there is definitely a right wing conspiracy to attack them on stuff that is completely bogus (like Vince Foster and Benghazi).

[hifiguy]

5. The Nixonesque quality of both Her Majesty's

campaigns has been readily apparent to this long-time amateur Nixonologist.

The naked ambition and lust for power, the unscrupulousness and slipperiness and the "ends justify any means" attitude of the Clintons are all pure Richard Nixon.

[bunnies]

4. Despicable.