Can anyone explain why Nixon won in 1972 despite alienating conservatives?

I'm reading J. Peter Scoblic's book U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security, and he described conservative opposition to President Richard Nixon's foreign policy. Scoblic describes the conservative frustration: "The hard-line anticommunist they had elected president seemed to have been replaced with a liberal doppelganger. In July (1971), twelve leading lights of the conservative movement...met in William F. Buckley's townhouse on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and announced their 'suspension of support' for Nixon. Their disillusionment only grew when Nixon promoted the Family Assistance Plan, which included a guaranteed income, and announced wage and price freezes, the kind of government meddling that rankled conservatives. With the presidential visit to China, the conservatives had had enough, and that December, the 'Manhattan Twelve' decided they would oppose Nixon in the 1972 Republican presidential primaries" (p. 65).

That's an interesting historical contrast to the current liberal frustration and possible primary challenge by Bernie Sanders to Barack Obama. In 1972, conservative Republican Representative John Ashbrook ran in the primaries and got only 5% of the vote, ahead of the 2% that liberal Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey got. Nixon won the primaries with 86% of the vote.

By August 1971, unemployment nearly doubled to 6.1% from the 3.4% from Nixon's first month in office (Jan. 1969). Similarly, unemployment has increased (7.8% to 9.1%) by now two years after Obama's first month. And by October 1972, it was 5.6%.

Do you think that Election 2012 will be more like 1972 or 1980? Because look what happened to Jimmy Carter after Ted Kennedy challenged him. , and Carter ended up losing to Reagan in November...and we all know what happened to America after Reaganomics.

So I'm wondering. Is history repeating itself with liberals disillusioned with Obama now like 40 years back the conservatives disillusioned with Nixon? It seems that both presidents marketed themselves to their party bases only to perform more at the center. To get my perspective, I'm 20 and only began following politics regularly during the second term of George W. Bush. And did Nixon establishing trade relations with China lead to the rise of "Made in China"? I wonder how many of the free trade opponents wish we kept the embargo.

Under president Nixon,Spending on social services doubled, and military budgets actually decreased. He oversaw the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His administration was the first to encourage and enable American Indian tribal autonomy. He quadrupled the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, almost tripled federal outlays for civil rights and began affirmative action in federal hiring. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and signed Title IX, the law granting equality to female student athletes. One of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the Roe v. Wade decision.

Nixon made Social Security cost-of-living increases automatic, expanded food stamps and started Supplemental Security Income for the disabled and elderly poor. It helped, of course, that Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But it was the president, not Congress, who proposed a universal health insurance plan and a transformation of welfare that would have set a guaranteed minimum income and allowed men to remain with their welfare-recipient families. It was Nixon who radically intervened in the free market by imposing wage and price controls, launched détente with the Soviets, normalized relations with Mao’s China and let the Communists win in Vietnam.

And, for good measure, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts grew sixfold, by far the biggest increase by any president.

"it's deja vu all over again."

because he campaigned in 1968 appealing to racist southerners by using "law and order" rather than "lock up those n****rs."

but didn't know about Nixon's role, I'll look that up later

And whose protege was Kissinger? Nixon! Ford was just
a caretaker for Nixon now resigned. It matters little
if "official" end happens during Ford admin.

That's a key phrase for you to check out.

Nixon was a Quaker, too. Give a listen to his second inaugural speech.


The peace we seek in the world is not the flimsy peace which is merely an interlude between wars, but a peace which can endure for generations to come.

It is important that we understand both the necessity and the limitations of America's role in maintaining that peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve the peace, there will be no peace.

Unless we in America work to preserve freedom, there will be no freedom.

But let us clearly understand the new nature of America's role, as a result of the new policies we have adopted over these past four years.

We shall respect our treaty commitments.

We shall support vigorously the principle that no country has the right to impose its will or rule on another by force.

We shall continue, in this era of negotiation, to work for the limitation of nuclear arms, and to reduce the danger of confrontation between the great powers.

We shall do our share in defending peace and freedom in the world. But we shall expect others to do their share.

The time has passed when America will make every other nation's conflict our own, or make every other nation's future our responsibility, or presume to tell the people of other nations how to manage their own affairs.


.....

Let us build a structure of peace in the world in which the weak are as safe as the strong—in which each respects the right of the other to live by a different system—in which those who would influence others will do so by the strength of their ideas, and not by the force of their arms.

Let us accept that high responsibility not as a burden, but gladly—gladly because the chance to build such a peace is the noblest endeavor in which a nation can engage; gladly, also, because only if we act greatly in meeting our responsibilities abroad will we remain a great Nation, and only if we remain a great Nation will we act greatly in meeting our challenges at home.

We have the chance today to do more than ever before in our history to make life better in America—to ensure better education, better health, better housing, better transportation, a cleaner environment—to restore respect for law, to make our communities more livable—and to insure the God-given right of every American to full and equal opportunity.

when we went there in 1975 and pulled the people out that helped us just before the north took over. I was in the usn in the philippines when it happened, we went there under operation frequent wind.

Last US combat troops left Vietnam in 73.

The most interesting year of the war to me was 1974.

The US had left. It was the big test of Vietnamization.

The ARVN fought off the NVA and Viet Cong decently well in 1974. It looked like Vietnamization would work.

Then the NVA attacked in 1975 and the ARVN collapsed.

It's an interesting story that really hasn't been told. The ARVN officers really didn't write enough books about what happened at the end.

In 1972 they fought a major NVA offensive off pretty much on their own on the ground. In 1974 after we left they held pretty well. Then in 1975 they collapsed.

I'd like to read more on this period.

I know one major event was as Nixon lost his power with Watergate, the congress cut aid to South Vietnam. Whether this made4 a major difference or not I don't know. Not fair to teach them our expensive way of fighting and then cut off their money though. I know this made a major difference in abandoning the Highlands which started the rout.

Progressed all the way from Vietnam through Cambodia and into Laos.

Oh, sorry. Obama is the DRONE bomber, progressing all the way from Yemen, to Iraq, Afhganistan, and Pakistan.

We've been lobbing cruise missiles and drones for close to 20 years.... hardly an "Obama" issue.

Because he didn't really care one way or the other. Nixon was interested in crime and he was interested in foreign policy and he was interested in punishing his enemies. By signing all of the bills that liberals liked, it got them to look the other way when he did his whole secret war in Cambodia and doing all sorts of blatantly unconstitutional wiretapping and spying.

Did somebody forget about LBJ?

purely based on number of progressive bills passed and signed, Nixon has the record.

And given LBJ's impressive record, which includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Social Security Act of 1965 (Medicaid and Medicare) and the War on Poverty, it's a slap in the face to say that LBJ's record is less progressive than Nixon.

Those were turbulent times, and some people weren't above bombs and riots to make their points. Or, at least that's the way it appeared to be to people like my parents, who were a little older and settled down. (I was in second grade then). I think that the radicalism scared a lot of people away from the Dems.

Who should have used his military credentials (he was a war hero, got a DFC) to much better effect, but he wanted to play the antiwar card in a big way and was afraid of alienating all of those young kids who had just gotten the vote thanks to the 26th Amendment (and who never showed up at the polls).

History isn't repeating itself. Nixon the Republican was the incumbent in 72, McGovern the Democrat was the challenger who came out of a very crowded and discombobulated field.

From the has-been Newt Gingrich, religious crazies Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, anti-everything-in-government Ron Paul, elitist Islamophobe and former pizza CEO Herman Cain...

The "crowded and discombobulated" team LOST back in 72, and the incumbent, Nixon, won--by a landslide.

I'm hopful that the "crowded and discombobulated" GOP field will repeat the experience in the next election, and the Dem incumbent will prevail. A landslide would be nice.

...oooh, that's like remembering "that night I had a few drinks and I'm not really sure how I ended up where I did."

It's why Watergate was, in some people's minds, a matter of "no harm, no foul." The Democrats didn't need any help losing that year.

It is sad, but true.

Obama doesn't have an "enemies list." No one's caught him wiretapping, using federal agencies to bully political 'enemies,' laundering illegal campaign contributions, breaking into the opposition's headquarters, obstructing justice, undermining the US Constitution, etc.

Thinking you're above the law is about as rightwing as you can get, IMO.

Sometimes, I think they oughta call this place "Revisionist History Underground!"

commit crimes. On policy issues Nixon was a liberal by today's standards no doubt. That does not excuse his crimes of course.

Treating the Executive Branch like your personal empire? Yeah, that's pretty "ideological" to me.

Subverting the Constitution? Same deal.

How you can call a guy who did that a "liberal" just because he (after being bullied into it) created, reluctantly, the EPA is beyond me.

The crimes are part and parcel of his ideology, and his ideology was "I am the King and I can do as I please--fuck you, little people." Don't be confused by the crumbs he threw to distract you--this guy was a disgrace to the office of the Presidency and he got off light by being permitted to resign.

He resigned on the very brink of impeachment.

That stuff is in the Constitution for good reasons.

You know, you never hear anyone reverently going on about their Third Amendment Rights, because the ones that never get tested aren't all that interesting.

(it's the one about housing troops in civilian quarters without the owner's permission in peacetime)

Just because he finally got "caught" as a consequence of his stupidity and the stupidity of his underlings doesn't mean the Constitution was working--he was getting away with criminal activity, using the Executive Branch in illegal ways, and had not his bungling pals screwed up with their tape on the lock, he might have gotten away with all of it. Yes, the Constitution "worked" to finally get rid of him, but he had the time of his miserable little life ignoring it up to that point, and it was no small amount of luck that caught him out in the first place.

The Third Amendment hasn't had much, if any, play since the Revolutionary War (which is what inspired the thing in the first place)--that's why no one talks about it. If someone showed up at my door with government orders to seize my guest room, I wouldn't be too happy. If it became an issue, you can be damned sure people would be griping, particularly if the quartered personnel were bathroom hogs!

Because Obama's secret Muslim army is being moved into position under the guise of students at nearby schools looking to "rent rooms". But, when the time comes, they are going to quit paying rent and start enforcing some weird form of communist Sharia Law...

...and...

...uh, what were we talking about?

Something about paranoia?

And those are not signs of conservatism, but of paranoia. Obama, with all his faults, is not a paranoid. He'd probably be a better politician if he was a little more paranoid.

Guaged purely on political acts, the stances of the two, Obama is clearly more conservative than Nixon. Nixon never suggested killing social security, or even overturning the newly passed Medicare. He didn't unfund science and education. He was paranoid and bigoted, and he also started the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

The problem with 'centrists' is they don't understand the definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' - if they did, they'd know that centrism does not lie on a spectrum between them.

shitting on the rights of others they deem inferior. The Bush team are a recent example. Reagan was priceless that way, too.

Liberals tend to have more respect for the rule of law and believe it applies to everyone equally.

Nixon didn't have the economy Obama had, either. He also didn't cheerily start the EPA--that was shoved down his throat and very much a political move. Love Canal, anyone? People have this false notion that Nixon was a dewy-eyed environmentalist. He was anything but--he was a cynic looking for a reelection hook:

The growth of the cities also made plain the evils of pollution. Media stories covered radioactive fallout and its effect on the food chain, dangerous impurities in urban water supplies, and the deterioration of city air. The subtle metaphor of a "web of life," in which all creatures depended upon one another for their mutual perpetuation, gained common currency. Hence, the powerful reaction to Rachel Carson's 1962 classic Silent Spring, a quietly shocking tale about the widespread pesticide poisoning of man and nature. Her book elicited a public outcry for direct government action to protect the wild; not for its future exploitation, but for its own innate value.

In the process of transforming ecology from dispassionate science to activist creed, Carson unwittingly launched the modern idea of environmentalism: a political movement which demanded the state not only preserve the Earth, but act to regulate and punish those who polluted it. Sensing the electoral advantage from such advocacy, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson added the environment to their speeches and legislative programs. In his 1964 and 1965 messages to Congress, Lyndon Johnson spoke forcefully about safeguarding wilderness and repairing damaged environments.

Richard Nixon showed as much eagerness as his predecessors to profit from the issue, and he invoked it during the bitter presidential election of 1968. As President, however, he acted with ambivalence, moving in two directions at once. On one hand, he raised eyebrows by appointing a National Pollution Control Council, a Commerce Department body comprised solely of corporate executives. He also vetoed the second Clean Water Act. At the same time, in 1969 and 1970, he approved and directed a succession of sweeping measures which vastly expanded the federal regulatory protections afforded the environment. http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/publications/print/origins.html



A bit of bread and circuses, he gave the nation what they asked for, in essence.

Obama has not "killed" social security or overturned Medicare. He "put them on the table" because Bonehead was being petulant, and he dared the GOP to bite.

When he comes on TV with the bloody knife, we'll talk.

Nixon's record of environmental progressivism did not in any way arise out of personal conviction. Tricky Dick had no personal use for "greenies", and he saw the conservation and environmental protection agenda that he lobbied Congress to adopt largely in terms of political benefit.

Still what I might ask from you in turn is whether it really matters as to what Nixon's motivations were in pursuing much of the domestic agenda that he did. Whether he genuinely believed in it or was simply out to bamboozle the political opposition is irrelevant, one might argue, in the face of the fact that he did push for it, and was rewarded for it by the enactment of important laws and programs which constitute one of the most formidable domestic policy records of any of the superpower-era POTUSs.

Nixon recognized the political value in environmentalism and sought to get out ahead of it - and it was because of this that he never had to have the various reforms that he signed off on "shoved down his throat" - on the contrary he was well out ahead of much of the political establishment in seeking. It was in 1969 that Nixon used his State of the Union address to call for a comprehensive package of environmental legislation from Congress - and most of the successful initiatives in this area that were enacted over the course of his first term arose out of that original proposal, aided and abbeted by Executive action and additional initiatives that subsequently came from the White House. The results were by almost any standard singularly impressive: as well as the formation of the EPA the President signed more strictly environmental bills than any of his predeccessors or successors, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act of 1970, and Endangered Species Act, to say nothing of . Too much is often made of his veto of the 1972 Clean Water Act - apart from being a sop thrown to conservatives, his opposition to the bill was in response to specific sections of the bill's mechanics - the basic aim of the legislation was in accordance with his own original proposals, and when the bill passed over his veto he only impounded the funds for certain parts of the bill, allowing the rest to function.

The full range and scope of Nixon's environmental policy is detailed in a variety of sources (probably the best is by J. Brooks Flippen, but books by Joan Hoff and Melvin Small are also excellent) and the general consensus remains that while much of it was politically motivated it was on balance quite a good record.

It is worth noting that Theodore Roosevelt exploited public outcry on an issue in a similar manner to Nixon (who admired TR)in order to pressure Congress to pass the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. Two other statesmen that Tricky Dick regarded as personal heroes were Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck - both of whom, despite being highly conservative in both their politics and political ideology, were noted for extensive liberal social reforms that they pursued out of a mix of motivations - equal parts political opportunism and policy pragmatism. Although comparisons between the four must be loose at best, these four leaders had in common that they all regarded themselves primarily as foreign policy-makers, and regarded domestic policy as partly a means to strengthen their respective polical bases (and weaken those of their opponents) but also to ensure that the diplomacy that they were primarily concerned with was rooted in a domestic scene that was basically stable.

As far as Nixon's numerous abuses of power go, you'll hear no defence of him from me on that count, but to equate these crimes with the relative merits of his policies does not wash.

It was over before it even began. McGovern had no chance of winning. Nixxon was still relatively popular and Watergate was only just happening.

Nixon ran as a conservative and won in 1968; he was re-elected in '72 despite sliding more to the center (some would even say left); Goldwater ran as a conservative in '64 and lost.

I think that the influence of the right wing as well as the leverage of independents and moderates could be why Nixon was still popular in 1972. That was 40 years before the rise of cable TV and the Internet. In the '70s, the news came from either three TV networks, the radio, or print. TV journalists actually reported news - especially Walter Cronkite!

And there was still a Fairness Doctrine back then, so if you listened to the radio back then you could get both sides of political issues and then think for yourself. Compared to now post-FD/Telecommunications Act how corporate dominance of talk radio feeds the lies and kookiness of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, etc. all over the nation yet only in larger media markets and a few smaller ones you can hear the liberal talkers like Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes.

If you were watching the news in the '70s (I wasn't but just know about this history) you might remember that you could turn on the evening news on ABC, CBS, or NBC and expect to be enlightened and informed. But now that those networks would rather be infotainment than serious information you need to watch PBS or go on DU for real news! Independents who didn't follow politics often could be easily well-informed by turning on Walter Cronkite or John Chancellor back then. But now most average Americans who don't identify as liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican are being suckered into believing corporight-wing propaganda thanks to Fox News and trash talk radio and a submissive corporate media!

end of rant, but this is getting to be an interesting discussion!

We're talking the peak of the WWII generation. Barry Goldwater in 1964 was the apex. Then the crazies were banished underground where they stayed until recently. But conservatism has also evolved to a form now that has taken the most insane ideas of those driven underground and injected them into the mainstream.

(Wikipedia)

Don't you find it odd how someone revered in the conservative movement opposed the Democrat-signed Don't Ask, Don't Tell? The Wikipedia article also summarized: "By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as gay rights and the role of religion in public life." See? Goldwater knew crazy when he saw it. Wouldn't you rather have had him than Goofy Lil' Bush?

Yeah... he was something of a canary in a canary mine, or something like that.

IIRC, there were several reasons. The three I remember:

1. The Democratic Party was split into factions after the 1972 convention, which was a brutal intra-party brawl. The old guard wanted Edmund Muskie and considered McGovern unelectable in the general.

2. Because of the party rift, none of the better-known Democrats wanted to serve as VP. McGovern picked Eagleton as his VP without completely vetting him. It was discovered Eagleton had been treated for mental illness. Although McGovern vowed to keep Eagleton, he quickly dropped him for Sargent Shriver, making McGovern look even weaker.

3. McGovern had floated a plan to provide $1000 for every household in the US, which was widely decried as socialism/redistribution of income.

In a way, the current atmosphere feels a little more like the run-up to the 1968 election, except in reverse. The Tea Party is capable of wreaking a lot of 3rd-party havoc if it doesn't get its preferred candidate, much like George Wallace did. There's a lot of anger on the Democratic side, but imo there will not be a serious primary challenger to Obama. I've been wondering if Ron Paul or Sarah Palin might be considering holding off on a Republican presidential run so they can jump in as a 3rd-party candidate.

I believe it would be healthier for the Democratic Party if he were primaried by a more progressive Democrat.

But that's not going to happen since the Democratic Party is mostly to the right of Obama already. They'd have to wade into the GOP pool of moderates to find a candidate they'd prefer, and slap a D on his/her lapel.

The elected Democrats, OTOH, arguable are. The party is us, and our representatives do not, for the most part, represent us.

John McCain ran as a conservative in 2008 and thus became the nominee despite being rather moderate as a Senator (he still is now...listen to him taking a jab at the tea party). In contrast, the moderate Rudy Giuliani came and went. And great to hear from someone who grew up during the Nixon era. Would you agree that if Nixon ran for president this decade the Republicans would shun him?

Look what's happening now. The independent Bernie Sanders wants to primary Obama, moderate DLC types like Kent Conrad get to represent the influential budget committees, and not a peep of outrage from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.

It takes time for a splinter movement within a party to reach critical mass.

The 1972 collapse of the Democratic Party started at the 68 convention. Just as today, many liberals/progressives felt their voices would never be heard in the "smoke-filled back rooms" where presidential candidates were selected by party insiders. Up till the 80s, no presidential candidate from either party ever came to the national convention with enough pledged delegates to ensure nomination. The liberal faction watched the 68 circus and came prepared in 72, using the old guard's tricks against them. The liberals even got Richard Daley's IL delegate slate removed in favor of the delegates headed by Jesse Jackson. Liberals won the battle and lost the war; in some ways, I think that was the beginning of the marginalization of the liberal/progressive viewpoint in the Democratic Party. We were wild-eyed fanatics who would rather lose than compromise. The McGovern loss prompted the rise of super-delegates, to make sure no D faction ever hijacked the nomination again. The presidential primary/caucus as the method of candidate selection emerged in the 80s to make the process more egalitarian.

This is why I see more similarities with the Republicans. The party lost seats in 2006 and was crushed in 2008. I live in Texas, so I see the more extreme Teavangelical version of the Tea Party; this group thought the GOP had sold out its conservative base when McCain got the nod. Although Hillary took it all the way to the convention, no one really doubted that Obama was the selection (notice how the real roll call took place outside of prime time tv, though.) The Republicans have always had an uneasy alliance with the Xtian extremists and weak federal government libertarians. Unfortunately, 2008 practically destroyed the GOP brand. I think there was a strategic decision made by the GOP power structure to harness these unruly groups into a loose Tea Party network, keeping groups small and local, so the GOP insiders could more easily steer them in the "proper" direction. It worked well, as far as taking back seats from the Democrats. Unfortunately, in many places the Tea Party ended up annihilating the old guard GOP candidates in the primaries (I know that happened throughout Texas.) Lots of these freshmen had no ties to the GOP other than via the Tea Party. The analogy I have used is that the GOP planned to herd sheep without realizing the Tea Party consisted of goats. Now we hear that the Tea Party in Texas is planning to primary everybody who isn't aligned with them. They take no prisoners; they brook no compromise. Boehner couldn't control them and they terrify the mushy middle. The Tea Party is going to be a real problem for the GOP, especially in the south.

On the D side, it's August and there's still no one willing and/or able to mount any type of serious primary challenge against Obama. I'd call it right now for Obama, except the economy is the wild card. Sorry this was so long, but it's hard to distill 40 years of history into a few paragraphs.

Mitt Romney is perceived as "normal" enough to pick off some of the colder-climate R's and R-leaner states, and some 3P candidate a la Palin picks up every part of "real America" where the iced tea comes sweetened.

No candidate gets a majority of the Electoral vote.

The House of Republicans, er, I mean, Representatives, decides the winner.

btw, this is reason number umpteen why the House is crucial in 2012.

However, it is exceptionally difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states. There are different rules in every state (TX is one of the toughest states to get on the ballot as a 3rd party candidate.) The Tea Party is also strongest in the very red South, which will likely go R anyway. I don't see a single strong 3rd party candidate that could even be considered slightly right of center with any kind of name recognition. I do see several candidates that are to the right of Attila the Hun. Jmo, but I think a 3rd party would hurt the Rs more, especially in swing states that turned red in 2010. Of course, you have the history of a stronger 3rd party always hurting the party in control of the WH. Wallace tipped it to Nixon in 68, Anderson was running in 80, although I think Carter would have lost anyway, Perot probably tipped it to Clinton in 92, and Nader muddied the water in Florida just enough for Bush to steal the election. LOL, maybe you're right. I'll have to rethink my position.

Aside from the issue of the war, he was by far the most liberal president of either party we've had on a number of fronts since FDR - his environmental achievements is just one example.

In those days, there were liberal republicans and also conservative democrats. In those days, the parties were able to come together and implement policies that were good for the country. Today there are no liberal republicans left.

Some here don't like/agree with this article, but check it out, you might find it interesting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x619008

Carter in 1980 is the only exception in a century. There is extreme benefit of a doubt in that scenario, unless the economy is in shambles, like now.

These ad-hoc "rules" on a limited set of data points are simply statistical noise.

In terms of domestic policy Nixon was way to the left of most prominent Democrats of today - but back in those days outside of a rather narrow band of right-wing extremist we seldom heard phrases like "government is the problem" - even from Republicans who would have been viewed as relatively conservative for the time. The whole argument that slashing regulations and government spending would revive the economy and create jobs and prosperity for all was still on the fringe of popular political discussion although that view was in its infancy and gradually gaining traction. Thus the vast majority of people who would have considered themselves conservatives would have liked Nixon - still recalling his McCartyite anti-Communist record and his stiff upper lip "no nonsense - father knows best" demeanor. He was the absolute iconic contrast to late 60's early 70's counterculture. Most self-described conservatives of the time would have found his persona reassuring and comforting and given relatively little thought to questions of specific political ideology.

not one: How did Nixon get the Republican Party to nominate his for a second term? and How did Nixon win the general election so decisively?

Although both questions might seem fairly complicated considering Nixon's policies, both foreign and domestic, which had a decidedly left-of-center tinge even at the time, they are in fact relatively easy to answer. Nixon was renominated by the GOP because even though a few influential conservative activists were furious at him for his "betrayals" over the course of his first term, the bulk of the party "machinery" was firmly under his control and he remained wildly popular with most of the Republican base - to him Nixon presented himself as a staunch conservative, diverting attention from his more unpalatable (to the Right) policies by playing up a mix of cannards and symbolic gestures as well as a handful of genuinely conservative actions to ensure that many voters had an impression of his policies that was very different from reality. He used a mix of pressure and dirty tricks to undermine potential challengers, and wooed or dazzled enough right-wing mouthpieces to his cause that there was never any real question of a Republican challenging him from the right - especially after he persuaded Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to not only endorse him, but to speak approvingly of him at the nominating convention (where he was hailed as the "greatest Republican since Lincoln").

The general election was even easier for him to win. He was at the time a popular president (his approval rating was in the 60s) who was percieved to have achieved miraculous breakthroughs (the Opening to China, Detente with Russia, elimination of Vietnam as a "concern") in foreign policy and restored domestic stability. His opponent had alienated vast sections of the electorate, and the economy was booming at the time. It didn't require much more than that for him to pull off a victory, angry conservatives or no.

I was A-1 in the draft for two years but never got the call. I remember that the draft was 90% of the debate, protests, and concern of most of us from 68 until it was phased out and we left Vietnam. My father and I didn't talk for a year (he was a Major in the army). Simply put, I would have voted for the devil if it ended the draft. Nixon wanted a volunteer military and said that he would end conscription. For the most part, he did what he said.

We all watched the Watergate hearings in the college student union between classes. I met Nixon in my scout uniform in the 60's, and I campaigned for Jimmy Carter in the 70's. My view at the time was that both Nixon and Carter were ineffective Presidents, but I loved Carter's focus on energy, international peace, and humanity. Unfortunately, the economy was a mess after the oil embargo and high interest rates - and Carter was not an economist - so he was doomed after one term.

:hide:

i was young and really didn't understand everything, but I watched desegregation (i went to HS w Jessie Jackson a couple years behind him), and saw union groups organizing in the south...the 60's were so crazy, and I was in HS and college 60's and early 70's...

The right was still tainted with George Wallace's splinter party from 1968. The left was regarded as a bunch of pot-smoking hippies and "better red than dead" pinkos.

I miss those days, in some ways.

He alienated the far right wing of GOP, which has always been pretty easy to alienate. It was John Schmitz, the congressman who represented the then-reactionary stronghold of Orange County, California, who bolted the Republican Party to launch an independent bid for President. Schmitz, a member of the John Birch Society, was miffed at Nixon's reach out to China. He made little difference in the general election.

The crime rate was something like three times what it is today, almost as bad as the 90s (remember, one of Clinton's most popular initiatives was putting hundreds of thousands more police officers on the streets).

briefly put on hold with a southern Democratic candidate

he was pretty radical for his time. I remember and that's the way many felt.

When a small town College history professor, a Methodist Minister and a World War II War hero can be turned into the very symbol of un-American counterculture - it is clear that there is not much that cannot be redefined and not much that they won't stoop to when someone seriously challenges the power structure. I'm afraid it is not coincidence that no progressive has come within striking distance of winning the Democratic Party nomination for President since then.

What is even more disturbing, is that even Richard Nixon would be a radical left-wing extremist by current Republican Party standards and at least on economic issues, the Democratic Party of today is way, way to the right of the Republican Party of Richard Nixon.

See, when the right wing of the party is asked to compromise and get behind a candidate, they don't do it. Only the worthless, whiny liberals are supposed to do that.

McGovern had no support among independents (those who are neither Dems nor Repugs), the largest part of the electorate.