What do you think?
Rate this book
Nixon #2
Nixon Volume #2: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972
Stephen E. Ambrose’s biography of one of the most complex and puzzling US presidents at the apogee of his career, rebounding from defeat to an innovative, high-risk presidency, already sowing the seeds of his ruin.
Starting with Nixon’s drive to the presidency, volume two of Ambrose’s major biography of America’s 37th president chronicles Nixon’s campaigns, his ultimate victory in 1962 as well as his first term as President, and culminates with the Nixon’s reelection on November 7, 1972.
Nixon was a complex man graced with superb intellect, creative, knowledgeable about world activities and peerless in his talent for foreign affairs. Yet he could also be manipulative, quick to anger, driven by unseen ambitions, cynical about domestic politics, and sensitive to criticism.
Culled from his private papers, speeches, hand-written notes, audio recordings of conversations in the Nixon White House and much more, Ambrose’s account offers insight into the thought patterns and attitudes of the man whose Presidency was marked by the debacles of Watergate and Vietnam, yet who also began the process of nuclear disarmament and opened up crucial diplomatic relations with China. This is a brilliant and detailed second part to Ambrose’s Nixon trilogy.
Starting with Nixon’s drive to the presidency, volume two of Ambrose’s major biography of America’s 37th president chronicles Nixon’s campaigns, his ultimate victory in 1962 as well as his first term as President, and culminates with the Nixon’s reelection on November 7, 1972.
Nixon was a complex man graced with superb intellect, creative, knowledgeable about world activities and peerless in his talent for foreign affairs. Yet he could also be manipulative, quick to anger, driven by unseen ambitions, cynical about domestic politics, and sensitive to criticism.
Culled from his private papers, speeches, hand-written notes, audio recordings of conversations in the Nixon White House and much more, Ambrose’s account offers insight into the thought patterns and attitudes of the man whose Presidency was marked by the debacles of Watergate and Vietnam, yet who also began the process of nuclear disarmament and opened up crucial diplomatic relations with China. This is a brilliant and detailed second part to Ambrose’s Nixon trilogy.
736 pages, Hardcover
First published December 31, 1987
59 people are currently reading
744 people want to read
About the author
Stephen E. Ambrose
136 books2,407 followersStephen Edward Ambrose was an American historian and biographer of U.S. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon. He received his Ph.D. in 1960 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In his final years he faced charges of plagiarism for his books, with subsequent concerns about his research emerging after his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
February 27, 2018
''Richard Helms, head of the CIA, opened the meeting by listing the countries that had recognized Biafra. Nixon stopped him and said ''Look Dick, you've left a couple of countries - Zambia and the Ivory Coast.'' Helms, somewhat shaken, got going again, this time about tribal rivalries being part of the problem. Nixon stopped him again. ''Yes. And this is a problem which really goes back to the history of that country. The British colonial policy favored the Moslem Hausas in the north and that aggravated the tensions and there's cultural as well as economical and political factors here. It's a very, very tragic problem.'' One foreign Service officer was absolutely astonished at the level of knowledge of Nixon''.
Volume 2 of Ambrose's Nixon's biography is filled with lots of interesting insights about the man, the lawyer, the politician, the commander in chief that was the 37th president. the book covers his life from his exile of active politics in 1962 to his triumphal reelection in 1972. It is a tale of an astute politician who waits quietly, tours the world's capitals, builds his network and wins the big price (twice).
I was really interested in learning details about RN's life when he was no longer under the limelight. His comeback in 68' was everything but meticulously planned since his ''retirement'' in 62'. Nixon tried to be the poster boy of the opposition to LBJ's Great Society and involvement in Vietnam and was very successful at getting attention from the press.
His first mandate covers most of the book. Ambrose spends a great deal of time elaborating on the White House policies and the battles between RN, a democratic controlled congress and a liberal leaning Supreme Court. But, as the author points out often, Nixon had little interest in domestic policies. Focusing much of his energy on the Cold War and his obsession with the press and leaks from his staff.
Vietnam is, of course, covered at length. Here, Ambrose doesn't go soft on his deception about Nixon's false campaign pledge to end the war in his first term. He also discusses the 1968 cease fire and LBJ's attempt to negotiate peace before the election saying that we can't be sure if Nixon sabotaged the negotiation. However, thanks to Farrel's biography of Nixon published in 2017, we now have documents proving he actually had had a back channel to South Vietnam through a political operative and tried to convinced Saigon and Hanoi not to play ball with the democrats. Johnson knew it but decided not to expose Nixon's trick because it would have shown that the White House was spying on the republican candidate (LBJ spied on Humphrey as well).
The slowly unfolding Watergate Scandal gets a great deal or writing too. The authors makes a point of analyzing it through the sole perspective of Nixon's actions. He also does a good job at showing the essential with a talent for great narrative:
''Nixon had actively attempted to obstruct justice by ordering the CIA to lie to the FBI and by buying the silence of the guilty through offers of clemency and financial support. In his public statements - that he ordered a vigorous FBI investigation and that he had ordered an internal White House investigation that proved no one on his staff was involved - he had lied. He had also lied in private to Halderman, Ehrlichman, and Colson. Eisenhower had once told Nixon that he had learned a long time ago that when you got caught, ''don't try to be cute or cover up. If you do, you will get so entangled you won't know what you're doing'' ''
Great read, valuable book.
Volume 2 of Ambrose's Nixon's biography is filled with lots of interesting insights about the man, the lawyer, the politician, the commander in chief that was the 37th president. the book covers his life from his exile of active politics in 1962 to his triumphal reelection in 1972. It is a tale of an astute politician who waits quietly, tours the world's capitals, builds his network and wins the big price (twice).
I was really interested in learning details about RN's life when he was no longer under the limelight. His comeback in 68' was everything but meticulously planned since his ''retirement'' in 62'. Nixon tried to be the poster boy of the opposition to LBJ's Great Society and involvement in Vietnam and was very successful at getting attention from the press.
His first mandate covers most of the book. Ambrose spends a great deal of time elaborating on the White House policies and the battles between RN, a democratic controlled congress and a liberal leaning Supreme Court. But, as the author points out often, Nixon had little interest in domestic policies. Focusing much of his energy on the Cold War and his obsession with the press and leaks from his staff.
Vietnam is, of course, covered at length. Here, Ambrose doesn't go soft on his deception about Nixon's false campaign pledge to end the war in his first term. He also discusses the 1968 cease fire and LBJ's attempt to negotiate peace before the election saying that we can't be sure if Nixon sabotaged the negotiation. However, thanks to Farrel's biography of Nixon published in 2017, we now have documents proving he actually had had a back channel to South Vietnam through a political operative and tried to convinced Saigon and Hanoi not to play ball with the democrats. Johnson knew it but decided not to expose Nixon's trick because it would have shown that the White House was spying on the republican candidate (LBJ spied on Humphrey as well).
The slowly unfolding Watergate Scandal gets a great deal or writing too. The authors makes a point of analyzing it through the sole perspective of Nixon's actions. He also does a good job at showing the essential with a talent for great narrative:
''Nixon had actively attempted to obstruct justice by ordering the CIA to lie to the FBI and by buying the silence of the guilty through offers of clemency and financial support. In his public statements - that he ordered a vigorous FBI investigation and that he had ordered an internal White House investigation that proved no one on his staff was involved - he had lied. He had also lied in private to Halderman, Ehrlichman, and Colson. Eisenhower had once told Nixon that he had learned a long time ago that when you got caught, ''don't try to be cute or cover up. If you do, you will get so entangled you won't know what you're doing'' ''
Great read, valuable book.
July 16, 2021
The book is enormous and lacking in quotable pith that might translate to life outside its covers. Nevertheless, Pres. Nixon is such a fascinating, Shakespearean character, and Stephen Ambrose so able to raise his praiseworthy aspects and point out his mistakes without foreshadowing Watergate unduly that this is certainly a worthwhile read.
May 22, 2018
https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2018...
Published in 1989, "Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972" is the second book in Stephen Ambrose's biographical trilogy covering the life of Richard Nixon. Ambrose was a historian and author who remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have tarnished his reputation. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This 662-page biography covers Nixon from just after his 1962 defeat in the race to become California's governor to his re-election as President of the United States ten years later. This volume exhibits many of the attributes of the inaugural book in this series: remarkable balance toward its subject, careful organization and an uncommonly unpretentious and readable style.
With its lively and comprehensible narrative this book moves faster than its length might suggest. Readers familiar with Ambrose's other biographies will recognize his careful balance of observation and analysis. And where many biographers adopt a "love him or hate him" attitude toward Nixon, Ambrose maintains a carefully balanced perspective toward his subject - praising Nixon for his best decisions and excoriating him for his worst.
The review of Nixon's years in self-imposed political exile (between 1962 and 1967) is surprisingly engaging, and his description of Nixon's campaign for the presidency in 1967 is no less compelling. President-elect Nixon's "transition" and inauguration-related activities are very well-covered and only the description of his Cabinet selection proves somewhat disappointing.
It is hardly surprising this book devotes a great deal of time to Watergate and Vietnam. Both discussions are enlightening, but the pages devoted to Watergate are a particularly commendable introduction to that topic. It is unfortunate that, while this book was being researched and written, Nixon and Kissinger were actively fighting to restrict access to their archived documents and audiotapes. Consequently, Ambrose lacked access to the full range of materials which would eventually become available.
In fact, the age of this volume and its resulting inability to draw from important sources available to the modern biographer is one of the book's most significant shortcomings. And while Ambrose's narrative is generally engaging, it is not particularly colorful. Biographers such as McCullough, Goodwin and Millard give readers the sense of being in the moment while Ambrose recounts important events with a semi-sterile clarity...and from a distance.
As a result the reader never gets fully inside Nixon's head. Ambrose nicely describes many of his subject's strengths, flaws and contradictions...but never offers readers enough insight to really understand what makes Nixon tick. Henry Kissinger, too, plays an important role in this volume. But his portrayal here almost entirely fails to capture his enigmatic and wildly intriguing persona.
Overall, "Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972" provides readers a straightforward, impressively balanced and well-paced review of the ten years culminating with the pinnacle of Richard Nixon's political career. Written with the general reader in mind, this volume can be appreciated by almost anyone. And while it is not exceptional in many ways, it is solid in almost every way.
Overall rating: 4 stars
Published in 1989, "Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972" is the second book in Stephen Ambrose's biographical trilogy covering the life of Richard Nixon. Ambrose was a historian and author who remains one of the best-known biographers of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, allegations of plagiarism and exaggeration have tarnished his reputation. Ambrose died in 2002 at the age of sixty-six.
This 662-page biography covers Nixon from just after his 1962 defeat in the race to become California's governor to his re-election as President of the United States ten years later. This volume exhibits many of the attributes of the inaugural book in this series: remarkable balance toward its subject, careful organization and an uncommonly unpretentious and readable style.
With its lively and comprehensible narrative this book moves faster than its length might suggest. Readers familiar with Ambrose's other biographies will recognize his careful balance of observation and analysis. And where many biographers adopt a "love him or hate him" attitude toward Nixon, Ambrose maintains a carefully balanced perspective toward his subject - praising Nixon for his best decisions and excoriating him for his worst.
The review of Nixon's years in self-imposed political exile (between 1962 and 1967) is surprisingly engaging, and his description of Nixon's campaign for the presidency in 1967 is no less compelling. President-elect Nixon's "transition" and inauguration-related activities are very well-covered and only the description of his Cabinet selection proves somewhat disappointing.
It is hardly surprising this book devotes a great deal of time to Watergate and Vietnam. Both discussions are enlightening, but the pages devoted to Watergate are a particularly commendable introduction to that topic. It is unfortunate that, while this book was being researched and written, Nixon and Kissinger were actively fighting to restrict access to their archived documents and audiotapes. Consequently, Ambrose lacked access to the full range of materials which would eventually become available.
In fact, the age of this volume and its resulting inability to draw from important sources available to the modern biographer is one of the book's most significant shortcomings. And while Ambrose's narrative is generally engaging, it is not particularly colorful. Biographers such as McCullough, Goodwin and Millard give readers the sense of being in the moment while Ambrose recounts important events with a semi-sterile clarity...and from a distance.
As a result the reader never gets fully inside Nixon's head. Ambrose nicely describes many of his subject's strengths, flaws and contradictions...but never offers readers enough insight to really understand what makes Nixon tick. Henry Kissinger, too, plays an important role in this volume. But his portrayal here almost entirely fails to capture his enigmatic and wildly intriguing persona.
Overall, "Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972" provides readers a straightforward, impressively balanced and well-paced review of the ten years culminating with the pinnacle of Richard Nixon's political career. Written with the general reader in mind, this volume can be appreciated by almost anyone. And while it is not exceptional in many ways, it is solid in almost every way.
Overall rating: 4 stars
December 26, 2023
pedantic ... dull ... presents what are no doubt correct facts but without interpretation of the immediate and subsequent impact and the often fierce reaction to those facts by others both within and outside the Nixon circle
July 23, 2017
Volume II of Stephen Ambrose's series on Richard Nixon begins with the aftermath of Nixon's disastrous run for Governor of California in 1962, and his “last press conference.” This volume chronicles Nixon's slow, gradual political reemergence throughout the mid-60s, his campaign and subsequent election to President in 1968, and through his first term, following the foreign policy successes of the trips to Peking and Moscow and his landslide victory over Senator George McGovern in 1972. It ends with Watergate beginning to fill Nixon's life, like a dark cloud moving in from the horizon and gaining in size as it moves.
For the most part, Ambrose keeps the narrative moving swiftly, providing a good balance of facts and analysis. Nixon's views and actions are reviewed with a critical but contextual eye – Ambrose attempts to explain the context of the times that Nixon was operating in, and the disparate and often highly egotistical personalities that he had to deal with. Much of the parts concerning the presidency obviously focuses on Nixon's efforts to find a way out of Vietnam. Ambrose scores Nixon on being unhelpful at the best, and possibly intentionally interfering at the worst, with Lyndon Johnson's attempts at a settlement in 1968. I say “possibly” only because recently has it been proven by John Farrell in his new Nixon biography that Nixon did indeed obstruct the peace process that year.
Occasionally, Ambrose wanders a bit too far afield. He spends an entire page writing about the wedding of Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower, all the way down to the wedding gown styles worn (p. 240). This kind of detail could be spared from the book without anyone being the worse for it.
Ambrose is by no means a Nixon apologist; nor is he necessarily a Nixon hater. Overall, he strives to be as impartial as possible, but Nixon is one of those people who it is almost (and maybe is) impossible to be impartial about. Nixon, like all of us, had his flaws. Yet, so many of those seemed so petty, and they ended up affecting so many people, that rightly or wrongly the flaws take on added importance. While Ambrose strives to be fair, and does not maliciously go after Nixon when many others would, this volume would by no means be considered Nixon-friendly.
The paranoia, distrust, suspicion and anger seeped through in almost everything that Nixon did. Ambrose makes good use of Nixon's comments on his daily News Summaries – detailed media capsules prepared by Mort Allin and Pat Buchanan highlighting the news media's coverage of the Nixon Administration. The authors of the summaries were hard-corer right-wingers, and their bias was reflected in the information they provided to Nixon, who in turn ate it up, believed all of it, and would scribble notes in the margins – marching orders to his subordinates. A brief example from page 617: “When he read that Senator Charles Percy had expressed his dismay over Nixon's refusal to support a consumer bill, Nixon noted that Illinois looked safe in the presidential race, then ordered 'H – Hack him [Percy] up a bit'.' The “H” stood for Bob Haldeman, Nixon's domineering Chief of Staff.
While this biography is now somewhat dated, and Ambrose was hampered to an extent by the relative small number of tapes that had been made available when he wrote this book, he makes up for it in his trenchant analysis of Nixon both as a person and as a politician. Unfortunately, as is typically the case with Ambrose, the notes section is bare-bones and shows that he did not have the breadth of sources that one would ideally like to have in crafting an accurate portrayal of a famous person. Nonetheless, this is a highly readable and entertaining book, and anyone interested in Nixon or his presidency will find it worthwhile to read.
Grade: B+
For the most part, Ambrose keeps the narrative moving swiftly, providing a good balance of facts and analysis. Nixon's views and actions are reviewed with a critical but contextual eye – Ambrose attempts to explain the context of the times that Nixon was operating in, and the disparate and often highly egotistical personalities that he had to deal with. Much of the parts concerning the presidency obviously focuses on Nixon's efforts to find a way out of Vietnam. Ambrose scores Nixon on being unhelpful at the best, and possibly intentionally interfering at the worst, with Lyndon Johnson's attempts at a settlement in 1968. I say “possibly” only because recently has it been proven by John Farrell in his new Nixon biography that Nixon did indeed obstruct the peace process that year.
Occasionally, Ambrose wanders a bit too far afield. He spends an entire page writing about the wedding of Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower, all the way down to the wedding gown styles worn (p. 240). This kind of detail could be spared from the book without anyone being the worse for it.
Ambrose is by no means a Nixon apologist; nor is he necessarily a Nixon hater. Overall, he strives to be as impartial as possible, but Nixon is one of those people who it is almost (and maybe is) impossible to be impartial about. Nixon, like all of us, had his flaws. Yet, so many of those seemed so petty, and they ended up affecting so many people, that rightly or wrongly the flaws take on added importance. While Ambrose strives to be fair, and does not maliciously go after Nixon when many others would, this volume would by no means be considered Nixon-friendly.
The paranoia, distrust, suspicion and anger seeped through in almost everything that Nixon did. Ambrose makes good use of Nixon's comments on his daily News Summaries – detailed media capsules prepared by Mort Allin and Pat Buchanan highlighting the news media's coverage of the Nixon Administration. The authors of the summaries were hard-corer right-wingers, and their bias was reflected in the information they provided to Nixon, who in turn ate it up, believed all of it, and would scribble notes in the margins – marching orders to his subordinates. A brief example from page 617: “When he read that Senator Charles Percy had expressed his dismay over Nixon's refusal to support a consumer bill, Nixon noted that Illinois looked safe in the presidential race, then ordered 'H – Hack him [Percy] up a bit'.' The “H” stood for Bob Haldeman, Nixon's domineering Chief of Staff.
While this biography is now somewhat dated, and Ambrose was hampered to an extent by the relative small number of tapes that had been made available when he wrote this book, he makes up for it in his trenchant analysis of Nixon both as a person and as a politician. Unfortunately, as is typically the case with Ambrose, the notes section is bare-bones and shows that he did not have the breadth of sources that one would ideally like to have in crafting an accurate portrayal of a famous person. Nonetheless, this is a highly readable and entertaining book, and anyone interested in Nixon or his presidency will find it worthwhile to read.
Grade: B+
July 10, 2017
Everyone agrees that Nixon was a complex and perhaps a strange man. What strikes me about Stephen Ambrose's biography is that how similar Nixon is to other conservative leaders. I'm not sure if conservative politicians consciously followed the Nixon template or that it is the nature of right wing governments in liberal democracies that they tend to be secretive, paranoid and run by resolute cynics who tend to be driven by reacting to enemies.
A demonised man, the ultimate political cynic whose nick name, while on one level trite, was powerfully true; he was "Tricky Dicky". He played the American political system like a master musician plays his chosen instrument. He wire tapped his own cabinet. He ran vendettas against his "enemies". He could not rise above the fray, indeed he often undercut his own programs to gain political advantage. He employed people who employed all the political black arts. He played them and they played him. The paranoid, back biting secretive style permeated the whole of his administration.
Ambrose's style is to meticulously dissect Nixon's actions and political conduct. Occasionally he cannot help himself and editorialises on Nixon's personality. Mostly however he lets Nixon's actions speak for themselves. An example is an agonisingly awful episode when Nixon emotionally blackmails his family into pleading with him to run in the 1968 election even after he promised that he had enough of politics and would never run again. He knew his wife Pat particularly hated campaigning. Strangely so too did Nixon. He was the shy Quaker boy who hated falsity and fake bonhomie. What is democratic politics but fake bonhomie? Conversely what kind of prick plays politics on his own family?
Ambrose has been accused of plagiarism and I only heard of this after I was halfway through the book. I cannot say anything about this in relation to this book. I feel that he has not set out to "get" Nixon. He does try to set him in the context of his times and when he can underlines Nixon's success. Maybe Ambrose did take others stories and work and claimed them as his own but in this case I think not.
"IT IS MEALYMOUTHED, even cowardly, to end an assessment
by saying that Nixon deserved to be re-elected and deserved to be repudiated. But a contradictory judgement seems inescapable with this contradictory man, the author of détente and the author of the Watergate cover-up."
A demonised man, the ultimate political cynic whose nick name, while on one level trite, was powerfully true; he was "Tricky Dicky". He played the American political system like a master musician plays his chosen instrument. He wire tapped his own cabinet. He ran vendettas against his "enemies". He could not rise above the fray, indeed he often undercut his own programs to gain political advantage. He employed people who employed all the political black arts. He played them and they played him. The paranoid, back biting secretive style permeated the whole of his administration.
Ambrose's style is to meticulously dissect Nixon's actions and political conduct. Occasionally he cannot help himself and editorialises on Nixon's personality. Mostly however he lets Nixon's actions speak for themselves. An example is an agonisingly awful episode when Nixon emotionally blackmails his family into pleading with him to run in the 1968 election even after he promised that he had enough of politics and would never run again. He knew his wife Pat particularly hated campaigning. Strangely so too did Nixon. He was the shy Quaker boy who hated falsity and fake bonhomie. What is democratic politics but fake bonhomie? Conversely what kind of prick plays politics on his own family?
Ambrose has been accused of plagiarism and I only heard of this after I was halfway through the book. I cannot say anything about this in relation to this book. I feel that he has not set out to "get" Nixon. He does try to set him in the context of his times and when he can underlines Nixon's success. Maybe Ambrose did take others stories and work and claimed them as his own but in this case I think not.
"IT IS MEALYMOUTHED, even cowardly, to end an assessment
by saying that Nixon deserved to be re-elected and deserved to be repudiated. But a contradictory judgement seems inescapable with this contradictory man, the author of détente and the author of the Watergate cover-up."
July 31, 2015
Finished Ambrose's trilogy. At roughly 2,000 pages, the trilogy offers a fascinating portrait, from his ascent, fall, rise, and fall again. The books do nothing to dispel the notion that Nixon was a Machiavellian, disturbed man who ultimately harmed the political process, but it also shows a man gifted with several foreign policy triumphs, including triangulation with the Soviets and Chinese that did more to set the stage for the Cold War's end than probably any development, not to mention the moves towards detente and arms control.
I still think Nixon was ultimately more bad than good, but he was an exceptionally bright man whose personal foibles tragically undermined his ability to lead and inspire. Watergate of course shadows everything about Nixon, but when placed within the context of something like Iran Contra (the fact that Reagan wasn't impeached over this still makes no sense), it was not the worst crime a president ever committed (hell, it's not the worst crime Nixon ever committed). Ambrose's quote concluding his overview of Nixon's mid-term best encapsulates the man.
"It was so sad. He was a man of very great gifts, to whom much had been given, but he was incapable of enjoying life, or of seeing himself and his role realistically...Surely this author is not alone in thinking it must have been a terrible thing to be Richard Nixon.
I still think Nixon was ultimately more bad than good, but he was an exceptionally bright man whose personal foibles tragically undermined his ability to lead and inspire. Watergate of course shadows everything about Nixon, but when placed within the context of something like Iran Contra (the fact that Reagan wasn't impeached over this still makes no sense), it was not the worst crime a president ever committed (hell, it's not the worst crime Nixon ever committed). Ambrose's quote concluding his overview of Nixon's mid-term best encapsulates the man.
"It was so sad. He was a man of very great gifts, to whom much had been given, but he was incapable of enjoying life, or of seeing himself and his role realistically...Surely this author is not alone in thinking it must have been a terrible thing to be Richard Nixon.
July 11, 2014
Ambrose's writing is engaging and almost conversational. He strikes an appropriate balance of maintaining objectivity and providing critical assessments of Nixon and his excesses (of which there were many). He gives credit where credit is due, but also does not hesitate to call Nixon on his lies and manipulations (of which, again, there were many). To the extent that Ambrose has been accused of plagiarism in his works, I'm not aware of any alleged instances of that in this book. All in all, the book provides an excellent narrative of Nixon's comeback from political oblivion and his first term as President. It also provides an insighftul closing assessment of Nixon's first term.
May 27, 2017
Vol. 2 of Ambrose's biography picks up after Nixon lost his bid for California governor to Pat Brown in November 1962, thru Nixon's victory in the '68 presidential election campaign, then the presidential election night of Nov. 1972. Ambrose was a highly respected biographer, and does Nixon justice, despite his personal disclaimer in volume 1 that he never liked the man. Rather even-handed treatment of a complex political life.
April 2, 2012
I wish Ambrose had taken a bit more of an unbiased look at Nixon in this book. He did a better job of hiding his hatred of the man in Volume 1. Nixon had enough faults and problems without having to ramp up any negatives.
I've really liked Ambrose's other works and was just disappointed to see him let his bias show so much.
I've really liked Ambrose's other works and was just disappointed to see him let his bias show so much.
April 3, 2025
The second volume of the series continues where the last one left off, in terms of both chronology and quality. The drawback this time around is the coverage of Vietnam which was a bit of a slog to get through (which is probably how Nixon felt)
December 28, 2012
The book closes with the election of 1972 when the Democrats imploded around the candidacy of George McGovern. Nixon should have behaved as Reagan did in 1984 and been a gentleman to the man he knew he was going to crush. Instead, his paranoia of losing and his drive to create a massive "mandate" that would empower him to completely reshape government and the federal bureaucracy to his liking, planted the seeds of his downfall.
The machinations of Watergate are covered in Ambrose's third volume. What emerges from Ambrose's text in this volume is an appreciation of Nixon's intelligence, strength in the face of adversity, and his personal conduct. What is also evident is Ambrose's frequent disgust with Nixon's ruthless and cruel conduct in both politics and government. Nixon was a study in the duality of man and Ambrose covers both sides well.
The machinations of Watergate are covered in Ambrose's third volume. What emerges from Ambrose's text in this volume is an appreciation of Nixon's intelligence, strength in the face of adversity, and his personal conduct. What is also evident is Ambrose's frequent disgust with Nixon's ruthless and cruel conduct in both politics and government. Nixon was a study in the duality of man and Ambrose covers both sides well.
July 9, 2024
Enjoyed reading about someone who has spent their entire life campaigning, focusing on attacking their opponents’ words and actions without ever really holding an executive position themselves, ends up acting once they are elected president, and how that is reflected in their methods of leadership. Learned a lot about the war in Vietnam and why it continued to drag on so long, how violently the American public reacted to it and how that did not prevent Nixon being elected to a second term, what Kissinger’s role in the administration was, and how Nixon created the atmosphere in his office that led to Watergate.
June 28, 2025
This is the middle volume of Nixon Series. Mainly, this is the run up to the first presidential term to the election for his second term.
It is hard for me not to think of similarities to Trump. Both men as presidents were small-minded, dictatorial, retaliatory...
Nixon's 2nd term plans involved radical shrinking of the federal government.
There is, of course a fair amount on the Watergate even from planning to fallout. Nixon seemed to hate and have an unhealthy fixation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry O'Brien. The Watergate break-in was actually the second one, to replace a faulty bug on O'Brien's phone. Was it a direct Nixon order, or just an over-enthusiastic action Nixon covered up? Also, Nixon had problems with cash from Howard Hughes who had O'Brien on retainer (which O'Brien properly reported to the IRS) and then there is cash from ITT.. Who knows why? This book overtly is not seeking to answer that. However, it does lay out the evolving case around the election. The FBI couldn't (or, is that "didn't", ghost of J. Edgar? Nixon's FBI: Hoover, Watergate, and a Bureau in Crisis) tie the cash on Liddy to the CREEP until too late to make a difference to the electorate.
Nixon made sweeping attacks on the Dems, hated the press, etc. and the concluding review feels to me like it could be of Trump with little editing.
So, I ask myself, Why does GOP return again and again to criminal, dictatorial leaders? I guess that question is one explored in The Authoritarians.
It is hard for me not to think of similarities to Trump. Both men as presidents were small-minded, dictatorial, retaliatory...
IT SOMETIMES SEEMED that Nixon was more concerned about and angrier with the American press than with the North Vietnamese. His fury escalated to new heights at the end of January, when new uniforms he had had Ehrlichman design for the White House police were worn in public for the first time. Inspired by the guards at Buckingham Palace and others he had seen on Nixon’s European tour a year earlier, Ehrlichman had put the White House police into white-tunicked, gold-braided, pillbox-hatted ceremonial uniforms.
The press ridiculed the result. The Chicago Daily News was reminded of movie characters from The Student Prince. The Buffalo Evening News thought “even ushers at old-time movie palaces were garbed with greater restraint and better taste.” “Ruritania, D.C.,” scoffed The New York Times.
Mort Allin, in the News Summary, informed Nixon that Newsweek had used a photo from a 1925 movie, The Merry Widow, and that Life used a photo of Emperor Francis Joseph for comparison.
Nixon was defiant. He wrote on the News Summary, “H—I want our staff to take RN’s position on this regardless of their own views—remind them of K’s line—a W.H. staffer does not have independent views on W.H. matter. H—Have Klein take the offensive on the slovenly W.H. police we found.” Happily for the police, his defiance didn’t last, and soon they were back in less colorful uniforms.
His rage against the press did last. When John Gardner criticized his budget, Nixon wrote: “H & E—He is to be completely cut off from now on. This is an order.”
When Walter Cronkite was quoted by Allin in a critical remark, Nixon circled his name and scribbled furiously, “A Nothing!” He didn’t much like Cronkite’s competitor, either; at his insistence, Jeb Magruder mounted a campaign to discredit David Brinkley, including such actions as having Don Kendall of Pepsi-Cola, an old Nixon friend and client, complain to the NBC corporate heads about Brinkley.
Hugh Sidey was another target. “H—I’m inclined to think Sidey is under orders,” Nixon wrote on one report. “No Contact with him for 30 days will shake him—order this to all hands.”12 When Sidey mentioned in a column Nixon’s lavish private homes and his wealthy friends, Nixon commented, “Freeze him completely for 60 days.”13 He also instructed Magruder to “initiate some letters to the editor comparing RN with LBJ, Ike, and JFK on this score.”
The obsession with the press and PR in the Nixon White House was never ending. On February 27, after his morning conference with the President, Haldeman sent a note to the staff. He began, “There is a need for some cold, tough decisions regarding the amount of time spent being king vs. that spent as leader of the government. Perhaps we should consider a drastic shift—reducing the ‘king’ time to a bare minimum. We also have to recognize that some of the time has to be spent just in being a nice person.”
(Ten years earlier Ann Whitman, Ike’s secretary, had observed in her diary, “The Vice-President [Nixon] sometimes seems like a man who is acting like a nice man rather than being one.”)
Haldeman went on to call for some “deep thinking” about the presentation of the President, “recognizing always that it actually gets down to what is the best television.”
Nixon loved television, especially when he could use it to speak directly to the people from the majesty of the Oval Office, with all three networks carrying his speech on prime time (after the networks caught on and began dividing up the chore, with two showing their regular programs, Nixon’s ratings sank, and he cut back drastically on his TV time).
Nixon's 2nd term plans involved radical shrinking of the federal government.
Nixon also brought Caspar Weinberger and John Ehrlichman in on his plans. On September 20, at Camp David, he subjected them to a two-hour monologue on how things were going to change after he got his mandate. He wanted Weinberger to prepare a radically austere budget for fiscal 1973. He wanted Ehrlichman to get cracking on the reorganization, not only of departments (Nixon wanted to reduce the Cabinet to eight departments; there would be four new ones, Economic Affairs, Human Resources, Natural Resources, and Community Development, plus four traditional ones, State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury) but by finding new people to replace the current officeholders.
NIXON’S ANTICIPATED MANDATE not only strengthened his tough-guy and mean-streak attitude toward McGovern and the Democrats, and toward his own Cabinet and the federal bureaucracy,...
There is, of course a fair amount on the Watergate even from planning to fallout. Nixon seemed to hate and have an unhealthy fixation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry O'Brien. The Watergate break-in was actually the second one, to replace a faulty bug on O'Brien's phone. Was it a direct Nixon order, or just an over-enthusiastic action Nixon covered up? Also, Nixon had problems with cash from Howard Hughes who had O'Brien on retainer (which O'Brien properly reported to the IRS) and then there is cash from ITT.. Who knows why? This book overtly is not seeking to answer that. However, it does lay out the evolving case around the election. The FBI couldn't (or, is that "didn't", ghost of J. Edgar? Nixon's FBI: Hoover, Watergate, and a Bureau in Crisis) tie the cash on Liddy to the CREEP until too late to make a difference to the electorate.
Nixon made sweeping attacks on the Dems, hated the press, etc. and the concluding review feels to me like it could be of Trump with little editing.
...whereas Eisenhower downplayed the importance of the press, Nixon exaggerated it; whereas Ike wooed the press, Nixon went to war with it.
NIXON’S HATREDS extended far beyond the reporters. He was constantly railing at “they,” threatening to “get them.”
One day late in the first term, Nixon was sitting around with Kissinger, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Colson. They were discussing some of Nixon’s enemies (in this case, antiwar Democratic senators). Nixon said, “One day we will get them—we’ll get them on the ground where we want them. And we’ll stick our heels in, step on them hard and twist—right. Chuck, right?”
...
As President, Nixon had struck back at his perceived enemies by going outside the law. He had used illegal wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance to spy on government employees and newspaper reporters. The Justice Department, at his urging, had undertaken a widespread program of bugging and infiltrating radical groups (which was declared illegal in June 1972). Nixon created, set the tone for, and gave the objectives to the Plumbers, an unauthorized, unknown intelligence-gathering and covert-operation unit operating from within the White House. It was in an atmosphere established and encouraged by Nixon that agents of the President of the United States made forcible illegal entries into Dr. Fielding’s office in Los Angeles, and Larry O’Brien’s office at the Watergate in Washington, in the first instance to try to steal material that would incriminate or embarrass Daniel Ellsberg, in the second instance to leave a bug that would allow Nixon’s people to listen to O’Brien’s phone conversations.
So, I ask myself, Why does GOP return again and again to criminal, dictatorial leaders? I guess that question is one explored in The Authoritarians.
June 9, 2017
This volume follows the first in good pacing, a nice amount of detail, and enough asides and analyses to make it fun and interesting. (Subject is pretty interesting, anyway!)
February 27, 2025
Stephen Ambrose's biography "Nixon" volume 2 covers a ten-year period: 1962-1972, starting right after Nixon's defeat in the 1962 California gubernatorial election to his landslide re-election as president in 1972.
Following his 1962 defeat, on Nov 7, 1962, Nixon gave what he called his "last press conference": "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." He bitterly denounced the biased press and never apologized for doing so.
But campaigning and politics were Nixon's life blood. A corporate friend recommended he establish himself in New York City, a powerhouse in national politics. He took his family to New York and took a job with a law firm.
The job gave Nixon ample time for politics. He gamefully insisted he wasn't running for president even though in reality he was the leading candidate for the 1964 GOP nomination. The former vice president devoted his efforts to lambasting the Kennedy Administration, an exercise in pure politics since Nixon actually shared many of JFK's policies (increased defense spending, sending combat units to Vietnam).
Nixon's failure to win the 1964 GOP nomination proved to be a god-send. The far right wing of the GOP had been looking for restitution after having to accept a moderate in Nixon back in 1960. But their candidate Barry Goldwater, as well as the GOP party in general, was trounced in the 1964 election.
Who better to pick up the pieces than Richard Nixon?
Between 1964 and 1968, Nixon hammered away at Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War. Ironically, Johnson actually did a lot of what Nixon was demanding, especially deploying more troops: in April 1969, there were 543,000 US troops in Vietnam. But Nixon remained the attack politician: no matter what Johnson did, it would never be enough for Nixon.
Nixon was easily the frontrunner for a 1968 GOP nomination. He was known all over the world, and appealed to the right-wing GOP'ers who opposed JFK and LBJ. His law job in NYC paid well and gave him plenty of time for politics. He was highly praised for his lawyering skills, but he did not find the work satisfying.
In 1966, Nixon was at his campaigning best. For the first time in a decade, Nixon was campaigning for the GOP with confidence.
The Democrats' huge electoral mandate in 1964 was falling apart: bigger federal deficits, race riots, civil rights demonstrations, and most of all the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement at home. It all spelled good news for the GOP.
Nixon was the chief manager of the GOP resurgence: Goldwater was disgraced, and Eisenhower and Dewey in retirement, Reagan was busy campaigning for governor in Calif. Nixon campaigned in 35 states (including all 11 Confederate states) and for 105 candidates.
The 1966 GOP comeback was striking. The Republicans added 47 House and 3 Senate seats (NY Times predicted 28 and 0) and 540 seats in state legislatures. Still, the Democrats managed to retain both houses of Congress.
Nixon rode the wave of change that the 1966 voters were demanding. Nixon traveled all over the world, visiting many of the foreign leaders he had known as vice president. He continued to hammer away at Lyndon Johnson, and self-righteously condemned the race riots and the student demonstrations that were leaving the country hemorrhaging.
Nixon's biggest threat to the nomination was Ronald Reagan who was a favorite among the Goldwater conservatives. But while there was a fear that the GOP right wing would go to Reagan, it didn't happen. Nixon outspent Reagan, and beat him handily in the primaries.
Spiro Agnew, the feisty governor of Maryland, was considered an excellent choice for running mate by the Nixon team. But Nixon would only appear with him once between the GOP Convention and the Nov election. Nixon hardly even mentioned him.
The 1960 election was a squeaker for Kennedy. The 1968 vote was in turn a squeaker for Nixon: Nixon (43.4%), Humphrey (42.7%), Wallace (13.5%). And once again, the Democrats retained large majorities in both houses of Congress.
The Democratic Congress proved a major drag on Nixon's first term. As the author put it, they resisted Nixon on Vietnam, opposed welfare reform, sharply cut back on Nixon's revenue-sharing proposal, forced him to adopt wage-and-price freeze, opposed a moratorium on busing, threatened to cut funding to war while launching an investigation into Watergate and the Nixon campaign (CREEP).
With the Supreme Court, Nixon appointed four members: Chief Justice Warren Burger, Blackmun (on the 3rd try), Powell, and Rehnquist. But the Burger court didn't overturn Miranda v Arizona, did not restore prayer in schools, did not outlaw pornography, struck down state laws that banned the distribution of contraceptives, upheld the rights of welfare recipients, struck down all Nixon's attempts to soften Brown v Topeka, ruled in favor of busing, and told the Nixon Justice Dept it had no right to wiretap domestic radicals (even though JFK and LBJ did it all the time). It wouldn't be until 1986 when Rehnquist (a staunch Goldwater supporter!) succeeded Burger as Chief Justice when the court would finally achieve its current conservative tone.
The author notes that Nixon didn't seem to enjoy being president; he was almost never happy. But given the endless roadblocks he faced from Congress and the US Supreme Court, it is probably not that surprising.
Despite the Democrat control of Congress and widespread antiwar sentiment, Nixon was a shoe-in for re-election: trips to China, Russia, SALT talks, the Edmund Muskie meltdown. Other than the Washington Post, no one was covering Watergate. Polls showed that 48% had never even heard of Watergate. Everything was working in Nixon's favor.
The 1972 election was a landslide for Nixon who got 60.7 % of the total. But Democrats still controlled Congress: the GOP gained 12 House seats but lost two more Senate seats.
Nixon had won 49 states, but still felt like he lost. States the author, the war wasn't over, the courts wouldn't stop busing, the CIA refused to cooperate with the Watergate cover-up, and the FBI was continuing their investigation and leaking to the press. Congress was ready to attack Watergate with both barrels.
The day after winning re-election, Nixon had letters sent to all presidential appointees demanding their resignation letters.
Nixon was going to clean up shop. But he forgot to clean up his own.
Volume 2 of Ambrose's bio of Nixon continues to use the straightforward, non-politicized style that made Volume 1 such a pleasure to read. It not only discusses the man but also his era. The book is arranged in strict chronological order, and presents the facts in a nonjudgmental way. His discussion of Watergate is a good example of his only-the-facts approach. He examines the man's character flaws objectively without resorting to outlandish psychological theories.
A fascinating and informative read.
Following his 1962 defeat, on Nov 7, 1962, Nixon gave what he called his "last press conference": "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." He bitterly denounced the biased press and never apologized for doing so.
But campaigning and politics were Nixon's life blood. A corporate friend recommended he establish himself in New York City, a powerhouse in national politics. He took his family to New York and took a job with a law firm.
The job gave Nixon ample time for politics. He gamefully insisted he wasn't running for president even though in reality he was the leading candidate for the 1964 GOP nomination. The former vice president devoted his efforts to lambasting the Kennedy Administration, an exercise in pure politics since Nixon actually shared many of JFK's policies (increased defense spending, sending combat units to Vietnam).
Nixon's failure to win the 1964 GOP nomination proved to be a god-send. The far right wing of the GOP had been looking for restitution after having to accept a moderate in Nixon back in 1960. But their candidate Barry Goldwater, as well as the GOP party in general, was trounced in the 1964 election.
Who better to pick up the pieces than Richard Nixon?
Between 1964 and 1968, Nixon hammered away at Lyndon Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War. Ironically, Johnson actually did a lot of what Nixon was demanding, especially deploying more troops: in April 1969, there were 543,000 US troops in Vietnam. But Nixon remained the attack politician: no matter what Johnson did, it would never be enough for Nixon.
Nixon was easily the frontrunner for a 1968 GOP nomination. He was known all over the world, and appealed to the right-wing GOP'ers who opposed JFK and LBJ. His law job in NYC paid well and gave him plenty of time for politics. He was highly praised for his lawyering skills, but he did not find the work satisfying.
In 1966, Nixon was at his campaigning best. For the first time in a decade, Nixon was campaigning for the GOP with confidence.
The Democrats' huge electoral mandate in 1964 was falling apart: bigger federal deficits, race riots, civil rights demonstrations, and most of all the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement at home. It all spelled good news for the GOP.
Nixon was the chief manager of the GOP resurgence: Goldwater was disgraced, and Eisenhower and Dewey in retirement, Reagan was busy campaigning for governor in Calif. Nixon campaigned in 35 states (including all 11 Confederate states) and for 105 candidates.
The 1966 GOP comeback was striking. The Republicans added 47 House and 3 Senate seats (NY Times predicted 28 and 0) and 540 seats in state legislatures. Still, the Democrats managed to retain both houses of Congress.
Nixon rode the wave of change that the 1966 voters were demanding. Nixon traveled all over the world, visiting many of the foreign leaders he had known as vice president. He continued to hammer away at Lyndon Johnson, and self-righteously condemned the race riots and the student demonstrations that were leaving the country hemorrhaging.
Nixon's biggest threat to the nomination was Ronald Reagan who was a favorite among the Goldwater conservatives. But while there was a fear that the GOP right wing would go to Reagan, it didn't happen. Nixon outspent Reagan, and beat him handily in the primaries.
Spiro Agnew, the feisty governor of Maryland, was considered an excellent choice for running mate by the Nixon team. But Nixon would only appear with him once between the GOP Convention and the Nov election. Nixon hardly even mentioned him.
The 1960 election was a squeaker for Kennedy. The 1968 vote was in turn a squeaker for Nixon: Nixon (43.4%), Humphrey (42.7%), Wallace (13.5%). And once again, the Democrats retained large majorities in both houses of Congress.
The Democratic Congress proved a major drag on Nixon's first term. As the author put it, they resisted Nixon on Vietnam, opposed welfare reform, sharply cut back on Nixon's revenue-sharing proposal, forced him to adopt wage-and-price freeze, opposed a moratorium on busing, threatened to cut funding to war while launching an investigation into Watergate and the Nixon campaign (CREEP).
With the Supreme Court, Nixon appointed four members: Chief Justice Warren Burger, Blackmun (on the 3rd try), Powell, and Rehnquist. But the Burger court didn't overturn Miranda v Arizona, did not restore prayer in schools, did not outlaw pornography, struck down state laws that banned the distribution of contraceptives, upheld the rights of welfare recipients, struck down all Nixon's attempts to soften Brown v Topeka, ruled in favor of busing, and told the Nixon Justice Dept it had no right to wiretap domestic radicals (even though JFK and LBJ did it all the time). It wouldn't be until 1986 when Rehnquist (a staunch Goldwater supporter!) succeeded Burger as Chief Justice when the court would finally achieve its current conservative tone.
The author notes that Nixon didn't seem to enjoy being president; he was almost never happy. But given the endless roadblocks he faced from Congress and the US Supreme Court, it is probably not that surprising.
Despite the Democrat control of Congress and widespread antiwar sentiment, Nixon was a shoe-in for re-election: trips to China, Russia, SALT talks, the Edmund Muskie meltdown. Other than the Washington Post, no one was covering Watergate. Polls showed that 48% had never even heard of Watergate. Everything was working in Nixon's favor.
The 1972 election was a landslide for Nixon who got 60.7 % of the total. But Democrats still controlled Congress: the GOP gained 12 House seats but lost two more Senate seats.
Nixon had won 49 states, but still felt like he lost. States the author, the war wasn't over, the courts wouldn't stop busing, the CIA refused to cooperate with the Watergate cover-up, and the FBI was continuing their investigation and leaking to the press. Congress was ready to attack Watergate with both barrels.
The day after winning re-election, Nixon had letters sent to all presidential appointees demanding their resignation letters.
Nixon was going to clean up shop. But he forgot to clean up his own.
Volume 2 of Ambrose's bio of Nixon continues to use the straightforward, non-politicized style that made Volume 1 such a pleasure to read. It not only discusses the man but also his era. The book is arranged in strict chronological order, and presents the facts in a nonjudgmental way. His discussion of Watergate is a good example of his only-the-facts approach. He examines the man's character flaws objectively without resorting to outlandish psychological theories.
A fascinating and informative read.
December 5, 2018
Richard Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972 by Stephen Ambrose
“I’m not going to be the first President of the United States to lose a war.” – Richard Nixon
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…” – The Who
After reading the highly enjoyable first of three books of the life of Richard Nixon by Stephen Ambrose, I was delighted to pick up the second volume, and I immensely enjoyed this work with the same fervor as the first. This one immediately picks up where the first volume ended, Nixon’s failed run for Governor of California in 1962, which in a sense, was a bigger defeat than his first run for President two years earlier in 1960.
At the infamous press conference after he lost the governor’s race, he informed the press that it would be his “last” press conference, and that he was, so to speak, retiring. Those close to the man knew better. Although he does go into a successful practice as a lawyer in New York City after his defeat, it’s very clear to everyone close to him that the man is nowhere near finished with his political career. Being the smart politician he was, he knew just what to do to keep his name “alive”. Realizing (correctly) that he has no shot at the 1964 nomination, he spends the years preparing for 1968.
Well, anyone who knows anything about history in the 1960s knows that this was the decade of Vietnam. Before Nixon becomes president, Vietnam is already a tangled mess of a nightmare, and the counter culture of American youth has never been so exasperated. Nixon realizes that he’s to win the election, he needs to speak about all of the wrongs of the current administration’s handling of the war, and what needs to happen differently. Without knowing it, this begins his downfall. Simply put, he never really knew what he wanted to do differently in Vietnam. Yes, he wanted to end it, but so did the Lyndon Johnson administration. So his plan was shaky at best, but being the politician he was, he made a lot of lofty promises that sounded awfully good. He’s elected over Hubert Humphrey (Johnson’s VP) by a slim margin, and the long awaited presidency begins.
And sadly, this where the Nixon story sadly deteriorates. First, as I mentioned in my review of the first Ambrose biography, there were many that hated this man because of his ruthlessness. The fact that he was never a warm, fuzzy kinda guy, meant that his mudslinging and name calling seemed much worse than it actually was. It didn’t help when the youth of the day distrusted him from day one, and had their feelings justified shortly after Nixon took office. Ending a jungle war in Vietnam “with honor” was not as easy as it sounded. In many instances, you could forget that this book was about Nixon and, instead, about the war itself. There are many immaculate details of all of the plans, talks, strategies and ideas to bring the war to a conclusion throughout these pages, that one can easily get a bit lost. It seems as though nothing can go Nixon’s way.
What makes things worse is that Nixon takes all of the criticism that is heaped upon him incredibly personal. So much that he directs his “inner circle” of advisors to sabotage those in the press and the left-wing that are out to get him. Each day, Nixon reads a briefing of what is being said about him and his administration, and simply makes notes to have those that are “harming him” to be discredited. It’s amazing the length and frequency of what President Nixon will do. So much so, that when there’s an order to bug the DNC chairman, Larry O’Brian’s, telephone at the Watergate hotel, it really isn’t a surprise when Nixon later stated that he “couldn’t recall” giving such an order.
Watergate is only briefly touched here, and the scandal doesn’t unfold until after Nixon wins re-election. With all the turmoil, it’s almost hard to imagine how Nixon could win a re-election. He manages quite well, however. As the 1972 election draws closer, he manages to reduce the fighting in Vietnam significantly as well as open up relations with Communist Russia and Communist China. It didn’t hurt that the Democratic Party was in a bit of a mess themselves and were deeply divided. Their nominee ends up being South Dakota Senator George McGovern who manages to actually swallow his feet several times during his own presidential campaign.
So Nixon is back for, what appears to be, four more years. The press are starting to talk more and more about Watergate, but Nixon and his crew aren’t the slightest bit worried. These things, after all, happen all the time in politics. So the second volume concludes after Nixon’s re-election.
Unlike the first volume, I actually began to immensely dislike this man. Once he became President, he was simply too paranoid, too untrusting, and never good at understanding why so many were against him. He knew how to win, but when he lost, even in public opinion, he never handled it well. So with “dirty tricks” abound, the man simply plays hardball a bit too feverishly and alienates many around him. It really is a shame that a man that was so smart in areas of foreign affairs and world government could be so helpless and baffled while trying to do something relatively simple, such as make small talk with a group of students. A tragedy indeed.
Eagerly awaiting to read the third, and final installment.
November 9, 2016
Part 2 of Ambrose's Nixon series is a balanced look at his return from the political wilderness, eventually to reach the Oval Office. Such a biography of Nixon seems unlikely today, which is unfortunate. Well done, sadly very few reviews here.
October 31, 2024
Just finished reading Nixon Volume II by Stephen Ambrose a few days ago and I just wanted to write down a few lines on the book. I read Nixon Volume I first and Volume II right after and my thoughts cover both books. More than anything else I came away from reading these books feeling that the story of Richard Nixon is a tragedy. A tragedy not only for a person but for America. Richard Nixon had the potential to be a great president, at a time when this country needed a great president. Instead, he became his own worst enemy. Instead of leading through inspiration and trust, he tried to lead through intimidation, deception and mistrust. Instead of surrounding himself with a cadre of trusted advisors, he chose to surround himself with people he did not trust, people he sought to set against each other and undermine. In my opinion he broke one of the cardinal rules of leadership, (one of several), that is that there is no limit to what you can accomplish so long as you do not care who gets the credit. Nixon always wanted the credit.
It has been my observation through reading that most great leaders come to greatness not only because of their gifts but because of the times in which they rise to prominence. Had Winston Churchill been born either 20 years earlier or later than he had, he may never have risen to his present stature as a world leader. In my opinion Richard Nixon had this same opportunity with America in crisis in the late 60’s with Vietnam and he squandered it.
Certainly, Nixon was not entirely to blame for his situation. The political system and the American press contributed with their often-unfair treatment of him. But make no mistake, Richard Nixon bears the lion’s share of the blame for his own demise.
I plan on reading Nixon Volume III soon. I think Stephen Ambrose did a good job of objectively analyzing the life and career of Nixon and I look forward to reading the final installment of this series.
It has been my observation through reading that most great leaders come to greatness not only because of their gifts but because of the times in which they rise to prominence. Had Winston Churchill been born either 20 years earlier or later than he had, he may never have risen to his present stature as a world leader. In my opinion Richard Nixon had this same opportunity with America in crisis in the late 60’s with Vietnam and he squandered it.
Certainly, Nixon was not entirely to blame for his situation. The political system and the American press contributed with their often-unfair treatment of him. But make no mistake, Richard Nixon bears the lion’s share of the blame for his own demise.
I plan on reading Nixon Volume III soon. I think Stephen Ambrose did a good job of objectively analyzing the life and career of Nixon and I look forward to reading the final installment of this series.
November 17, 2022
This excellent biography of Nixon continues, covering his time out of office and through his first term as President.
As I said in my review of the first volume, my mind is already made up about the man. Although he possessed some remarkable personal qualities, I feel they're more than offset by his negative traits, particularly his paranoia.
Ambrose remains remarkably fair and even-handed. One point (of many) where I think Nixon was working against the best interests of the USA and American citizens was when, during the campaign of 1968, Nixon worked to sabotage LBJ's efforts to arrive at a negotiated peace in Vietnam. Ambrose dismisses the issue, saying that the talks were doomed to fail regardless of Nixon's interference. I disagree with this line of thought. If, say, an assassin enters the bedroom of his target and pumps it full of bullets, does it really matter if the target was already dead? I don't know if said assassin could be charged with murder. But the intent is clear, and if the target had been alive when the assassin entered the room, it certainly would have been murder. So, is Nixon responsible for the war's final 4 years? Even if his actions weren't the sole reason the war dragged on, it was clearly his intent.
As in the first volume, I'll laud Ambrose for the two chapters (18 and 28) in this volume that assess his first term. Each of these chapters covers two years. (These are summary chapters analyzing the events that are fully described in the preceding chapters.)
As I said in my review of the first volume, my mind is already made up about the man. Although he possessed some remarkable personal qualities, I feel they're more than offset by his negative traits, particularly his paranoia.
Ambrose remains remarkably fair and even-handed. One point (of many) where I think Nixon was working against the best interests of the USA and American citizens was when, during the campaign of 1968, Nixon worked to sabotage LBJ's efforts to arrive at a negotiated peace in Vietnam. Ambrose dismisses the issue, saying that the talks were doomed to fail regardless of Nixon's interference. I disagree with this line of thought. If, say, an assassin enters the bedroom of his target and pumps it full of bullets, does it really matter if the target was already dead? I don't know if said assassin could be charged with murder. But the intent is clear, and if the target had been alive when the assassin entered the room, it certainly would have been murder. So, is Nixon responsible for the war's final 4 years? Even if his actions weren't the sole reason the war dragged on, it was clearly his intent.
As in the first volume, I'll laud Ambrose for the two chapters (18 and 28) in this volume that assess his first term. Each of these chapters covers two years. (These are summary chapters analyzing the events that are fully described in the preceding chapters.)
November 9, 2017
Stephen E. Ambrose was Richard Nixon's best biographer, basing his insights into Nixon's life and presidency on the facts (Facts! I remember those!) and never being swayed by any particular political persuasion. Ambrose calls Nixon out on actions when he deems them patently foolish, and praises him for actions that appear to have worked, to have been effective, particularly in foreign policy, as there was little to speak of in domestic policy in Nixon's first term.
If you're looking for the truth of Nixon, as best as can be ascertained, Ambrose is the finest guide.
If you're looking for the truth of Nixon, as best as can be ascertained, Ambrose is the finest guide.
March 7, 2020
This is a very good book about the Nixon presidency. It showcases Nixon’s considerable gifts in politics and foreign policy, tells a cautionary tale about the sticky Vietnam quagmire, and highlights his vast personal insecurity and foreshadows the sad end that it will bring.
August 12, 2017
Dense, entertaining, engrossing. A long read but worth the time.
October 4, 2020
Was really more of an into to nixon's presidency than a detailed, solid history.
June 8, 2021
Comprehensive with a great account of how Watergate unfolded.
January 17, 2019
Excellent chronicle of Nixon post disastrous gubernatorial race through his first term and reelection. Does a great job describing Nixon prior to becoming a candidate in ‘68 and then covering that monumental election. Author makes assessments through.
December 29, 2017
Looking forward to volume 3!
January 8, 2017
Oh Nixon, you fiend! You only wanted to be loved by those who deserved to love you. That list of lovers shrank and shrank from early on (Vorhees?) until at least 1973; probably beyond. I'll find out in Volume 3.
But look what you created. You added this new puzzle piece to the U.S. political scene. You nurtured it and it grew. We grew with it. And here we are today worshipping at the foot of the Golden Nixon; a false image, but Nixon is an impotent God in terms of immediate diminishments however potent he has been in reshaping U.S. culture along lines of division and globalisation.
Nixon, you human being you! My cynicism grows without bound, but apparently so did yours.
But look what you created. You added this new puzzle piece to the U.S. political scene. You nurtured it and it grew. We grew with it. And here we are today worshipping at the foot of the Golden Nixon; a false image, but Nixon is an impotent God in terms of immediate diminishments however potent he has been in reshaping U.S. culture along lines of division and globalisation.
Nixon, you human being you! My cynicism grows without bound, but apparently so did yours.
November 9, 2009
Picked this one up after seeing the film Frost/Nixon, which provided an interesting glossing over of the crucial issues of Nixon's presidential regime. I've been itching to dive a little deeper into some American history (about which I'm woefully under-educated), and the movie made me realize Nixon's era might be a good place to start as it covers a huge array of major economic and political issues that continue to be hot topics to this day.
The late Stephen Ambrose was a respected biographer who was successful enough during his life to actually be contacted personally by President Eisenhower to write HIS biography—which he did. He's an extremely thorough researcher, and not much of a writer. Triumph of a Politician clocks in at nearly 650 pages, and it's just one-third of an entire trilogy about the man, each installment as weighty as the next. There's no filtering going on in this book, no artful array of information, no nuance, no craft. Ambrose absorbed a massive amount of information, then sprayed it all over the page, for page after page, scribbling down seemingly every detail he could get his hands on regarding the period of Nixon's life during his rise to the presidency. There's analysis, but it's crude, borderline juvenile, sarcastic, and often shockingly poorly worded, sometimes nearly unreadable.
Nixon was a conflicted, contrary, dazzlingly confusing man, who did both great and terrible things for his country. Ambrose covers and comments on both, jumping at any chance to snidely deride the man, sounding reluctant when he has to relate the man's achievements. There can be no doubt Nixon was secretive, conniving, paranoid, self-serving and vaguely unpleasant—in Ambrose's hands he also comes across as naive and supremely self-deluded. Ambrose simply didn't like him, and though he does fairly represent the successes of the Nixon presidency (along with many failures), he doesn't sound happy about it. His condescending tone makes him seem like more of jerk than Nixon was.
All that aside, though, this book IS chock full of historical information, and I really did learn a ton about the Vietnam war, racial relations in the late '60s/early '70s, Soviet/American relations during the cold war, and a bunch of other interesting stuff. Ambrose also does a nice job of relating the actions of Nixon's co-stars, particularly Henry Kissinger, who was second only to Nixon himself in terms of conniving antics and deeds that put his own PR and best interests before the country's. I'd heard of Kissinger of course, but didn't really know what his role was in American history outside of the fact he seems to be generally reviled and often parodied. In terms of international relations, though, he was basically Nixon's righthand man, and now I want to read a whole book about Kissinger.
As a pure read, I can't recommend Triumph—it's way too dense and under-edited. As a reading experience, it's barely a step removed from reading the encyclopedia. But it provides a great survey of the key issues and events of Nixon's time. For this aspiring history buff, it was an excellent starting point. Now I'm going to read some books by some biographers and historians who can actually craft a sentence.
The late Stephen Ambrose was a respected biographer who was successful enough during his life to actually be contacted personally by President Eisenhower to write HIS biography—which he did. He's an extremely thorough researcher, and not much of a writer. Triumph of a Politician clocks in at nearly 650 pages, and it's just one-third of an entire trilogy about the man, each installment as weighty as the next. There's no filtering going on in this book, no artful array of information, no nuance, no craft. Ambrose absorbed a massive amount of information, then sprayed it all over the page, for page after page, scribbling down seemingly every detail he could get his hands on regarding the period of Nixon's life during his rise to the presidency. There's analysis, but it's crude, borderline juvenile, sarcastic, and often shockingly poorly worded, sometimes nearly unreadable.
Nixon was a conflicted, contrary, dazzlingly confusing man, who did both great and terrible things for his country. Ambrose covers and comments on both, jumping at any chance to snidely deride the man, sounding reluctant when he has to relate the man's achievements. There can be no doubt Nixon was secretive, conniving, paranoid, self-serving and vaguely unpleasant—in Ambrose's hands he also comes across as naive and supremely self-deluded. Ambrose simply didn't like him, and though he does fairly represent the successes of the Nixon presidency (along with many failures), he doesn't sound happy about it. His condescending tone makes him seem like more of jerk than Nixon was.
All that aside, though, this book IS chock full of historical information, and I really did learn a ton about the Vietnam war, racial relations in the late '60s/early '70s, Soviet/American relations during the cold war, and a bunch of other interesting stuff. Ambrose also does a nice job of relating the actions of Nixon's co-stars, particularly Henry Kissinger, who was second only to Nixon himself in terms of conniving antics and deeds that put his own PR and best interests before the country's. I'd heard of Kissinger of course, but didn't really know what his role was in American history outside of the fact he seems to be generally reviled and often parodied. In terms of international relations, though, he was basically Nixon's righthand man, and now I want to read a whole book about Kissinger.
As a pure read, I can't recommend Triumph—it's way too dense and under-edited. As a reading experience, it's barely a step removed from reading the encyclopedia. But it provides a great survey of the key issues and events of Nixon's time. For this aspiring history buff, it was an excellent starting point. Now I'm going to read some books by some biographers and historians who can actually craft a sentence.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews