Richard Nixon: The Life

by John A. Farrell

From a prize-winning biographer comes the defining portrait of a man who led America in a time of turmoil and left us a darker age. We live today, John A. Farrell shows, in a world Richard Nixon made.
 
At the end of WWII, navy lieutenant “Nick” Nixon returned from the Pacific and set his cap at Congress, an idealistic dreamer seeking to build a better world. Yet amid the turns of that now-legendary 1946 campaign, Nixon’s finer attributes gave way to unapologetic ruthlessness. The story of that transformation is the stunning overture to John A. Farrell’s magisterial biography of the president who came to embody postwar American resentment and division.
     Within four years of his first victory, Nixon was a U.S. senator; in six, the vice president of the United States of America. “Few came so far, so fast, and so alone,” Farrell writes. Nixon’s sins as a candidate were legion; and in one unlawful secret plot, as Farrell reveals here, Nixon acted to prolong the Vietnam War for his own political purposes. Finally elected president in 1969, Nixon packed his staff with bright young men who devised forward-thinking reforms addressing health care, welfare, civil rights, and protection of the environment. It was a fine legacy, but Nixon cared little for it. He aspired to make his mark on the world stage instead, and his 1972 opening to China was the first great crack in the Cold War.
     Nixon had another legacy, too: an America divided and polarized. He was elected to end the war in Vietnam, but his bombing of Cambodia and Laos enraged the antiwar movement. It was Nixon who launched the McCarthy era, who played white against black with a “southern strategy,” and spurred the Silent Majority to despise and distrust the country’s elites. Ever insecure and increasingly paranoid, he persuaded Americans to gnaw, as he did, on grievances—and to look at one another as enemies. Finally, in August 1974, after two years of the mesmerizing intrigue and scandal of Watergate, Nixon became the only president to resign in disgrace.
     Richard Nixon is a gripping and unsparing portrayal of our darkest president. Meticulously researched, brilliantly crafted, and offering fresh revelations, it will be hailed as a master work.

Genres: Biography, History, Presidents, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Us Presidents

784 pages, Paperback

First published March 28, 2017

Reviews

[Jeffrey Keeten · Rating 5 out of 5]

”The president ‘was an almost completely political animal. He was neither moral nor immoral, but was amoral,’ said Farmer, the civil rights leader….’I don’t think right or wrong entered into it.’

‘Nixon would have been recorded as being a very great president had it not been for the fatal character flaw,’ said Farmer. ‘He did not believe in anything.’”



I can remember in 1994 when Richard Nixon died that one of my friends, who has been an unrepentant hippy her whole life, said she was going to the Nixon funeral, but only if it was an open casket. She wanted to make sure the SOB was really dead. Nixon certainly inspired this level of animosity, not only in political enemies, but the numerous personal enemies he made over the years for being...well...a dick.

”’When you got into a campaign, especially with a guy like Nixon whose guts we hated, it was easy to get combative. You’re not running against a nice guy. You’re running against a first-class son of a bitch.’”

I didn’t know much about Nixon’s early days in California. John A. Farrell gives some background. The deaths of several members of his family seemed to have a lifetime impact on Nixon. I was more interested in what kind of man he was after he got back from service in WWII. I thought maybe I would see the progression of a brash, idealistic, young man who eventually evolved into the brooding, wounded Darth Vader who resigned in 1974. His opponents, from Jerry Voorhis for the 1946 House seat to the ‘pink lady’ Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950 for the Senate seat, were both completely unprepared to face the type of tactics that Nixon was willing to unleash. Winning was everything. There was no sense of decorum in a Nixon campaign. There was no progression, Nixon was as ruthless at the beginning of his career as he was at the end of his career.

I know you are going to be shocked about this, but there were two main staples of Nixon’s campaign tactics. One was to paint any Democrat as soft on communism, thus dubbing Helen Gahagan Douglas as the pink lady. Two was to lie and, when caught in a lie, to lie about ever saying the lie. Then, bludgeon the opponent for using unfair tactics by calling Nixon a liar.

Sound familiar?

When he was campaigning to be Dwight D. Eisenhower’s vice president, he called President Truman a traitor. Which is a *gasp* moment. Where is the line that should never be crossed? Then, he denied saying it. He became furious when reporters started carrying around tape recorders to his events. We have discovered in the current political climate that even getting a politician on tape may not be enough to convince his party followers to condemn him.

I was surprised to learn that Richard Nixon was Tricky Dick Nixon from the first moment he decided to become a politician. There was simply nothing he wouldn’t do to win a campaign. It was all about winning and achieving power. Whatever he had to do to make that happen was not weighed on a moral scale, but was weighed by how much it would help him win and by a calculation of what his chances were to get away with it.

I knew he was diabolical, but underneath it all, I thought maybe there was merit. I’d, over the years, began to give him some credit for being a good statesmen, after office. I considered him a thoughtful writer who seemed to see the world with more objectivity and not through the darkened optics of a warped Nixon lens.


This is the moment in the speech when Richard is showing how he has the universe by the nuts and how he is going to squeeze until he gets what he wants.

His famous Checkers speech, when he went on the air and defended his use of campaign finances, was that moment in time when his footnote to history could have been smaller. Eisenhower was about to drop him from the ticket as his vice president. This is one of those moments in time where Nixon could explode, casting his boiling vile and deep seated hate for the world in all directions. He could have been the disgruntled civil servant who throws grenades over his shoulder as he walks out the door. This speech was given with such feeling and passion that he brought tears to the eyes of the film crew, not to mention the public.

How does he do that? He doesn’t even like people enough to pull off a speech like that. The only thing I can think is that his adoration for himself overcame his natural loathing for himself long enough for him to save his career. He didn’t want “them” to win.

Escaping these moments, and there are many throughout his career where he should have been politically destroyed, kept enhancing his ego, gave fire to his paranoia, and, ultimately, lead to his spectacular demise.

”’Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ mused Henry II, and a knight seeking royal favor murdered Archbishop Thomas Becket in the cathedral at Canterbury. Did Richard Nixon order every breach of the law? No. But in May 1971 he called for the wiretapping of his Democratic foes. And in June he instructed Haldeman and Colson: ‘You’ve got to really have a sophisticated assault upon the Democrats. Humphrey must be destroyed. Muskie must be destroyed. Teddy Kennedy must be.’ It wasn’t hard for Nixon’s knights to know what the sovereign wanted. Nixon’s mutterings led not to Canterbury, but to Watergate.”

The dubious men who were hired to carry out these clandestined tasks called themselves The Plumbers, but plumbers all over the world should be insulted because of what bumbling fools they turned out to be. Certainly, Nixon did not specifically order everything these idiots attempted to do, but to be frank, Nixon loved the covert nature of their cloak-and-dagger enterprises. He wanted to know details so that he could relish in the belief that he was smarter and craftier than his moron opponents. What sinks him is a White House tape from June 23rd. Oh, yes, the taping setup that would help him write books about his life as president after office. He would have plenty of time to write books, sooner than he thought.

Farrell talks about some interesting things that have been revealed for the first time. I’m not going to go into detail because those are the type of things that encourage people to read the book for themselves, but one particular covert Nixon action is haunting for me because it led to seven more years of war in Vietnam. The cost in blood and money was going to be steep.

I was also really bothered by his selection of Spiro Agnew as vice president. ”The selection of Spiro Agnew revealed Nixon at his worst. It was a cynical nod, a race-baiting wink--a catastrophic blunder. It was Nixon’s first ‘presidential’ decision--the choosing of a running mate--and a disaster.” Nixon referred to Agnew as the ”assassin’s dilemma.” I felt the same way when George H. W. Bush selected Dan Quayle, or how about George W. Bush putting Dick Cheney one heartbeat away from the presidency, or how about the baffling choice of Sarah Palin by John McCain? Are these choices merely hedges against assassination? Nixon was that cynical. I’m not sure these other presidential candidates were, but sometimes I do wonder.


Dick, if you stare into the camera with enough intense concentration, maybe the world will burst into flames.

Farrell’s writing style is very fluid. He does not become bogged down in minutiae. Certainly, my perspective has shifted once again about one of the more conflicted and controversial figures in American history. Unfortunately, history tends to repeat itself, and here we are stuck with another paranoid, delusional, blustering court jester in the presidency. People tell me how boring they find history to be, but they don’t seem to realize that, by reading the past, you are reading the present and the future. It is infinitely fascinating.

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Army One lifted from the lawn, rose above the muggy capital, the National Mall dimmed in a summer morning’s haze. Below, L’Enfant’s grand boulevards and Brumidi’s halls and corridors pulsed with visionaries, parvenus, and hustlers; with dreams and scheming; with avarice, ambition, rivalry, and purpose. The chopper soared over statues of heroes, and monuments to great statesmen whose ranks, with such American audacity, the awkward grocer’s boy had presumed to join, had come so near, only to fall…They spent the flight to California alone, each in his or her cabin on Air Force One. The president had a cocktail. At noon, when they were somewhere over Missouri, the resignation took effect…”
- John Farrell, Richard Nixon: The Life

“We think that when someone dear to us dies, we think that when we lose an election, we think that when we suffer a defeat, that all has ended… Not true. It’s only a beginning, always. The young must know it; the old must know it. It must always sustain us, because the greatness comes not when things go always good for you, but the greatness comes and you are really tested when you take some knocks, some disappointments, when sadness comes, because only if you’ve been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain.”
- Richard M. Nixon, farewell address to his White House staff

If you were a novelist, writing about a president, you would want to use Richard Nixon as a template. An up-from-nothing boy with big ambitions and sharp claws, rising from the heap of a no-name college and a sturdy-but-unspectacular naval career to beat a longtime incumbent congressman, only to use that position as congressman to jump to the Senate (the story of Horatio Alger taking on Alger Hiss), and to use the Senate to become vice-president, all in such a short time it might cause your head to spin. A man with incredible vision, yet incredibly shortsighted; a man who played tough, made lists of enemies, saw revenge as a virtue, yet who remained painfully thin-skinned throughout his life; a man who changed the world for the better, yet also changed it for the worse, and perhaps in equal measure.

Yes, if you were a novelist, you would use Richard Nixon as a template, because you could fill thousands of pages with the drama created by this single tortured man.

John Farrell attempts to squeeze this big life into a book less than 600 pages in text. That he succeeds, and succeeds spectacularly, is testament to his sublime authorial skills. This is a masterpiece of comprehensive distillation.

Richard Nixon: The Life is a cradle-to-grave biography that does not actually begin in the cradle, but with Nixon coming home from World War II and running for Congress in California’s 12th District, against longtime Democrat incumbent Jerry Voorhis. Only after Nixon’s surprise victory does Farrell backtrack to Nixon’s birth and upbringing, a childhood marred by striving and tragedy and enough pivotal incidences to fill an entire psychobiography.

From there, Farrell is off and running, attempting to capture the life of Nixon, a man who could be the representative symbol of one of the most turbulent eras in American history.

Whenever I read a history book, I have a Venn diagram in my mind. On one side is Literary Ability, on the other side is Scholarship, and the place where the two overlap is the Sweet Spot. Farrell hits the sweet spot. He is an engaging writer with a real knack for cutting to the core of complex events while maintaining excellent narrative pacing. I thought he was superb breaking down Nixon’s big moments, whether that is his role in the Alger Hiss/Whittaker Chambers case, the “Checkers” speech, or his trip to Red China. With the exception of Robert Dallek’s Nixon and Kissinger, which is narrowly focused on Nixon’s foreign policy, this is the first book I’ve read devoted solely to our 37th President. Despite that, I never got lost or confused, at least not by Farrell's storytelling. (Nixon's decision-making is another matter).

Though this is written with the clarity and thrust of a popular history, it is also impeccably researched. The notes are extensive, and extensively annotated, making this a two-bookmark-book: one bookmark to keep my place in the text, the other to keep my place in the endnotes. One of Farrell’s coups is finding evidence of Nixon’s direct involvement in the Chennault Affair, showing that his campaign directly interfered with the Vietnam peace process during the 1968 election in order to assure that a late-breaking peace did not give Hubert Humphrey an electoral boost. Nixon's involvement has long been speculated, but Farrell provides what he believes to be the missing link.

(The Nixon foundation has attempted to explain Farrell’s research away, but Nixon certainly does not deserve the benefit of the doubt here. This may not be enough to convict him in a Court of Law. The Court of History is a different matter. Having read both interpretations, I agree with Farrell).

In these hyper-partisan times, when even football and hurricanes are politicized, there is always going to be a question of bias. In the main, I found Farrell extremely judicious. While he certainly injects his opinions and interpretations into the book, he does not write with any kind of polemical fire either for or against Dick Nixon. He does not, for instance, attempt any sort of apology for Watergate. But he also refrains from name calling and has not (at least to my knowledge) tried to break into the Nixon Library to draw devil's horns on Dick's portrait. He takes Nixon very much as a man, flawed and imperfect but not driven by evil motives.

(I understand this will not satisfy his partisans or satiate his detractors. But as I always tell my wife, in the context of parenting our three children, that you know you've done something right when no one is happy).

A couple things do combine to give Richard Nixon: The Life a pro-Nixon slant. First, there is the nature of a single-volume biography. This book is simply too short for a full airing of Nixon’s triumphs and sins. As Farrell himself points out, Stephen Ambrose gave us multiple volumes even without the benefit of thousands of hours of taped conversations and hundreds of oral histories.

With space so tight, there is little extra room for amplification, exploration, or meditation on any single event. Thus, the good and bad, the big and small, tend to have the same impact. For example, in the aforementioned Chennault Affair, Farrell drops his revelation, notes that it is probably a more reprehensible action on Nixon’s part than Watergate, and then moves on, all within the space of a few pages. Meanwhile, my head is spinning, and I’m like: Wait, shouldn’t we talk about this some more? I mean, you’re saying Nixon was willing to blow up a peace deal just to win an election.

(As Farrell notes, there is no certainty that Lyndon Johnson would have gotten a settlement done, even without the shenanigans. That, to me, is a bit beside the point. It is the intent that matters, here. Farrell notes that a private citizen’s interference with international treaty-making might have been felonious. I have another word for it. If Benedict Arnold as taught us anything, it is this: A man can commit a hundred brave acts in support of a worthy cause, but if he sells one strategic fort to the enemy, he will be known as a traitor and not a patriot. That Nixon would risk one American life, much less thousands, just to give him better odds to win the presidency, shows the existence of an extremely dark mindset).

The other element that tends to make this markedly sympathetic to Richard Nixon is that the story is told from his perspective. We only really see events though his own eyes. Indeed, even though Farrell tries to give us a snippet of his family life, even those closest to Nixon come across as pawns on his chessboard, rather than individuals with their own lives and motivations.

The upshot of this is that cameo figures in Nixon’s life, such as Lyndon Johnson (crude, duplicitous, bad intentioned) and John Kennedy (rich, ruthless, unserious, and a sexual deviant) are not given the same benefits that Nixon receives. These men, like Nixon, had to make extremely difficult decisions within an intricate matrix. But while Nixon’s rationalizations are discussed in full, that courtesy is not extended to others, nor is the assumption that these men, despite their failings, acted with a fundamental decency.

Towards the end, Farrell starts to rely heavily on a tu quoque defense, especially with regards to Watergate (which of all the events portrayed, gets the longest and most thorough narrative arc). Nixon may have tapped phones, authorized break-ins, and played other dirty tricks, but so did LBJ and JFK. The implication is that Nixon was punished for doing what everyone else did.

I found this argument a bit absurd. It’s playground logic. That others did what Nixon did is irrelevant to the fact that Nixon did do these things. He committed crimes and is guilty of that, whether or not others got away with it. A man who kills is spouse cannot not, with any expectation of success, go in front of the judge and say: But your honor, O.J. got away with it! Farrell also tends to agree with Nixon that he was a victim of his enemies vis-à-vis Watergate. Again, I don’t accept that. The fact that Nixon’s enemies pursued him for his activities, and did so gleefully, does not change his role in events. Nixon was not set up. He did what he did, and then spent the balance of his life ruing the fact that he got caught.

(The amount of scandal and controversy during the Nixon Administration is amazing. There's enough there to force him to resign three times over. Your Vice President is an honest-to-God crook! You're so intoxicated during the Yom Kippur War that your cabinet goes to Defcon 3 while you're drunk on your ass!)

These are observations, not criticisms. I think that Farrell honestly grapples with Nixon’s character. I did too. Of all our presidents, Nixon is one of the most glaringly human. (He shares that trait, and many others, with LBJ). He achieved some great things. He rose to many occasions. He flashed greatness. He had tremendous vision and political acuity. But he also had a smallness that is entirely relatable. He lashed out at his enemies; he was deeply wounded by criticism; and in hard times, he often took to drinking to the point of incoherence. It’s almost like a caption in People magazine: Presidents! They’re Just Like Us!

(If I faced the pressures Nixon faced, I don’t pretend I would have done any better. You likely would’ve found me at the Lincoln Monument in the middle of the night, in my underwear, clutching a half-empty bottle of bum wine in one hand, and haranguing a trash can that I had mistaken for Henry Kissinger).

Despite the literary and scholarly virtues on display here, there is no solving the riddle of Richard Nixon.

Shortly after I finished this, I went online and watched Nixon’s farewell address to the White House staff. It is a remarkable speech, and worth viewing: rambling, self-conscious, often awkward, by turns vulnerable and defensive.

At the end of that speech, Nixon – perhaps unwittingly – wrote his own epitaph for himself and the greatness he let slip through his grasp, destroyed by his own pettiness: “Always remember, others may hate you – but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nixon: The Life by John A. Farrell is a 2017 Doubleday publication.

There is no shortage of books written about Nixon, with Nixon himself having written several books, published as memoirs. So, with all that material floating around, why do we need another book about Nixon, and why now?


Well, first, I think having a Nixon biography published in one book, as opposed to, say, Stephen Ambrose’s chronicles of Nixon’s life, published in three volumes, makes this biography a terrific choice. It’s enormous, with nearly eight hundred pages, but it is a very polished publication, that can be enjoyed by anyone, whether you are a novice or an aficionado.



Secondly, this book is a very comprehensive biography that does not allow Watergate to define it, so it’s not a rehash of the same old material over one period in Nixon’s life, which has been analyzed to death already, although it is covered very succinctly here.

Third, this is a new release, which means material unavailable previously, like in Ambrose’s case, has now been released, which gives us a fresh perspective on Nixon’s life.

Last, but not least, is the timing of this book’s release and the parallels to our current political climate and the nation’s polarization, which is hard to ignore.


The author has done an amazing job with this book. It’s so well organized, with some incredibly powerful passages, and covers the entirety of Nixon’s life, and lays out his slow transformation over the years, showing how, when, where and why he became the type of person and the type of leader he was.

Here are few of my musings, quotes and impressions, in no particular order:

“This Administration is going to turn away from… offbeat art, music, and literature. (Sounds eerily familiar, no?)

It wasn’t ALL Bad:

Nixon saw that an equal amount of funding went into women’s athletics.

He ended the draft, approved the lowering of the voting age, and had a surprising health care plan, which also looked pretty darned familiar and included mandated coverage and augmented public subsidies.

He did some important things for the environment- up to a point- by signing legislation to regulate pesticides and to police oceans and protect marine mammals, just to name a few.


Nixon was known for small acts of kindness, which were rarely remarked upon.
Yet, there were moments like these which reminds you of how the dark side seemed to take over completely after a time.

‘Fretting as he waited for the rain to lift and give Tricia the outdoor wedding, she hoped for, Nixon had raged, sequentially, about his enemies. It was a list that included ‘long-haired, dirty looking’ protesters; the eastern establishment, feminists; teachers’ unions; Jews, African Americans, and the ‘softies’ of the Ivy league; the ass kissers and butter uppers in the bureaucracy; and the lousy dirty… cowardly bastards in the press.’

Nixon encouraged Haldeman- the White House Chief of Staff- to enlist thugs from the Teamsters Union to beat up protesters.

‘They’ve got guys who’ll go in and knock their heads off,’ Nixon said.

“Sure. Murderers,” said Haldeman.


‘This is the time men have to be strong, Nixon told his aides. ‘I don’t have contempt for strong men that disagree with me- like the communists. I respect them.

I have utter contempt for the so-called… intellectuals who put themselves on a high moral plane and are just weak.

‘Weak, selfish, and cowardly, Kissinger chimed in.

‘Clowns, dilettante intellectuals…. Who bite us like sand flies.



In Nixon’s attempts to block the press-

“It was the duty of a free press ‘to prevent… the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die,’ wrote Justice Hugo Black.


“Washington is a jaundiced town. Nixon was welcomed back to the Capitol for Hubert Humphrey’s funeral in 1978, and to a state dinner honoring Deng at the Carter White House in 1979. He was visibly proud to join Ford and Carter in 1981 and represent the United States at the rites for the assassinated Anwar Sadat. The trinity inspired Senator Bob Dole’s arch description, at a Gridiron dinner, of the three former presidents as: ‘See no evil. Hear no evil. And Evil.


Overall, this was an incredibly insightful biography, very well researched and outlined. Nixon will never paint a sympathetic figure in my mind, and this book does nothing to expel that image of him. In fact, my opinion of him is still steeped in contempt, but I did get a much clearer picture of him as a man, a human being, a husband, a father, and as a politician.

I enjoyed reading about Nixon’s early political career, how the author builds Nixon’s burgeoning personality, the many ways he changed over the years, his insecurities, and sensitivities to slights which made him work harder to prove himself, yet led to his ultimate downfall.

‘What did the President know and when did he know it” - He knew it all, and he knew it all along.

This book covers several decades of politics, with many interesting tidbits I'd never heard about, leading up to the resignation of Nixon, with a short look at his life outside of politics.

After reading this book, I sat back and wondered how on earth we survived it all.

In the seventies, I was just a kid, concerned more about playground politics than Washington politics, holed up in my room applying copious amounts of blue eye shadow and strawberry lip gloss, dancing around to Casey Kasem’s top forty countdown on the FM dial. I was pretty much oblivious to most of the details back then, and had forgotten many of the details I had learned, but this seemed like a perfect time to take a measured look back at the events that shaped a nation and the man behind one of the darkest, coldest, and most corrupt administrations we experienced…. So far.

I was thankful for the author’s approach, steering clear from adding his own slant or political opinion to the book. He neither attempted to evoke a sympathetic view of Nixon, in an attempt to soften our viewpoint, nor did he ruthlessly crucify him with a disdainful tone. He didn’t attempt to take one side over the other, but presented the book as a biography should be presented- with as neutral in tone as possible. Let the facts speak for themselves and back up your information with credible sources and you will done the subject justice.

Nixon, like so many other world leaders had many, many sides to his personality. ‘Tricky Dick’ turned out to be far more interesting than I ever could have imagined and this book has left a big impression on me.

This book is perfectly presented and is a riveting, absorbing read, something that is rarely the case when reading non-fiction politics or history.




5 stars

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this on the heels of reading the 3rd volume of Caro’s LBJ biography. I enjoy Caro’s detail, but Farrell does a remarkable job at making a riveting study of Nixon in just one book.

With this background in mind I read the book with a high interest to compare LBJ and Nixon. They are an interesting pair to compare (self-made men, sociopathic tendencies, born just 5 years apart) and contrast (loner vs extrovert, Republican vs Democrat).

A key moment in the book is the Chennault affair. When he was running for president in 1968, Nixon interfered in Vietnam peace negotiations and prevented any chance for an agreement. Even with everything we know about Nixon, it was still shocking to read all the sordid details. Farrell calls it the “most reprehensible” of Nixon’s actions, which of course is quite a strong statement.

Prior to this point in the book, I did have some amount of sympathy for Nixon. Not that he was anybody I would admire or even like, but in the 1946 to 1960 years he did not seem quite so terrible. He did have some sort of moral code, in contrast with LBJ who was more of a born sociopath. Nixon was right about some things, like the Marshall plan and Alger Hiss (at least if you believe Farrell’s account of the Hiss investigation), and at times showed the courage to do what he thought was right even when it was difficult. And as the author points out, he really was treated unfairly by the media. He still did some dirty things, but it seemed like his level of sliminess was not worse than average relative to his House and Senate colleagues.

I did not have this view by the end of the book, with the Chennault affair being the biggest turning point. It seemed like everything he did after this through the course of his presidency was completely devoid of any kind of ethical code. It was not just the Watergate cover-up. His entire presidency was riddled with corruption.

This is probably just some lame armchair psychoanalysis - but it almost seems like his insecurities eventually consumed him, as the election losses and negative press coverage piled up, so by 1968 he just turned into a pure political animal.

I’ve heard some version of the phrase “it was the cover-up, not the crime” to describe Nixon’s actions in Watergate before, but after reading Farrell - you know, it was the crimes too. He created a culture where his team felt like they had implicit permission to do whatever they could to help his reelection, by any means necessary. This culture was not just the result of misunderstandings or bad management, it was the result of things Nixon directly told people or actions he ordered, like the hard-hat riots.

The secret bombing of Cambodia also stands out. Like the Chennault affair, this also might have been worse than anything he did with Watergate.

Farrell not unreasonably points out some of his successes during his presidency. Because of the considerable time spent on this, some reviewers criticize him for being too soft on Nixon. I think the author just chose a tack of laying out both the successes and failures and allowed the reader to make their own assessment of how to weigh things.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

For all the books written about Richard Nixon, there are surprisingly few cradle-to-grave biographies (and most of those by Nixon apologists whose views on their subject aren’t reliable). Or maybe not surprising, considering how complex and tormented he is: what biographer could cram Nixon’s tortured life and tumultuous times into a single volume? Farrell, author of formidable works on Tip O’Neill and Clarence Darrow, makes an excellent try in this 2017 volume. Unlike recent works by Evan Thomas (who’s too eager to apologize for Nixon) or Tim Weiner (whose relentlessly evil Nixon borders on caricature), Farrell teases out flaws and complexities in his subject. He shows sympathy for Nixon’s hardscrabble background, rhetorical skill and understandable ambition to transcend small-town California, while avoiding the pitfalls of psychobiography that ensared so many historians. In Farrell’s view, Nixon’s entering Congress in the post-WWII era, when Red-baiting, public exhaustion with the New Deal (and resurgent corporate influence) and reflexive partisanship drove American politics, shaped his career and worldview as much as any Freudian nightmares from Nixon’s childhood. From both conviction and convenience, Nixon abandoned principle for gamesmanship early on, a tendency warped over time by slights and humiliations from Alger Hiss, Eisenhower, Kennedy, the press and a nebulous Establishment, making him the tribune of America’s perpetually resentful “Silent Majority.” Farrell’s Nixon isn’t unsympathetic as a person (we’re reminded that he was an affectionate, if sometimes distant family man, a pragmatist on civil rights and other domestic issues and, at times, a genuinely brilliant thinker and geopolitical strategist) but remains reprehensible as a politician and leader. The author presents new proof that Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks just before the 1968 election, while revisiting his cynical manipulation of Vietnam and rhetorical “positive polarization” of Real Americans against liberals, radicals and the rest - and, of course, the self-obsessed, revenge-driven, Win-at-Any-Cost ethos that turned the White House into a paranoid echo chamber, triggered Watergate and poisoned politics forever. Little that’s strictly new, then, but Farrell’s telling details and muscular prose add fresh, believable contours to his familiar portrait.

[Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon in a conversation with President Lyndon Johnson in October 1968:

“My God. I would never do anything to encourage [South Vietnam] not to come to the [peace] table.”

But as John Farrell proves, Nixon did that very thing in an effort to sabotage possible peace talks to end the Vietnam War. He did so because he was afraid that a settlement would damage his prospects while enhancing those of his Democratic opponent, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, in the upcoming election.

Rumors had been floating around for decades that Nixon had informed Nguyen Van Thieu, the president of South Vietnam, that if he would resist peace negotiations that he would get a better deal after Nixon was elected.

The rumors became fact when Farrell discovered a cache of H.R. Haldeman’s notes that were not made available until 2007 and apparently had not been closely examined by anyone prior to Farrell’s discovery. In those notes is the “smoking gun” evidence that Nixon ordered Haldeman, a campaign aide and later the President’s chief of staff, to use an intermediary to pass the word to Thieu.

Farrell readily admits that since Thieu was not predisposed to accept any settlement under any conditions at that time (or later) that Nixon’s actions probably had no impact on the outcome of the election of 1968. However, a failed bank robbery is still a crime and even if the Nixon campaign’s efforts in this instance failed to influence the outcome of the election, it was nevertheless a crime, and because the process involved conspiracy with a foreign government to influence a U.S. election, it might have been treason.

Furthermore, even if it exerted no impact on the election, when one considers that on the average three hundred American troops were being killed every week, in addition to untold numbers of North and South Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, to be willing to do anything to stifle peace talks is unconscionable and totally unforgivable and worse than anything he did related to Watergate.

The episode is the final proof of what we already knew: Richard Nixon would do almost anything to win, even if that meant sacrificing both truth and people.

Farrell writes that “given the lives and human suffering at stake, and the internal discord that was ripping the United States apart, it is hard not to conclude that, of all Richard Nixon’s actions in a lifetime of politics, this was the most reprehensible.”

But it isn’t all that surprising when one examines his record of the politics of grievance and polarization. In December 1972, after just being re-elected by historic margins, he told his aides:

“The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Professors are the enemy. Write that on the blackboard one hundred times and never forget it.”

I have highlighted Nixon’s actions regarding the election of 1968, because that is the blockbuster disclosure in the book. But there is so much more than that in Farrell’s biography. He has done his homework, he has taken advantage of more recently released information, including more tapes, and he has crafted the best Nixon biography ever written – and possibly the best that will ever be written.

Finally this:

The historian Margaret MacMillan has written that "[e}ven historians who disapprove of psychohistory find themselves tempted irresistibly when it comes to Richard Nixon."

Farrell does not resist the temptation to put Nixon on the couch, but I think it is more than just a temptation, for it is impossible to write a meaningful biography of the man without doing it. As a result, Nixon, who hated psychoanalysis and often publicly said so, has become the most psychoanalyzed president in our history.

Well, at least until now.

[Donna Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

History buffs rejoice; the definitive Nixon biography is here. John A. Farrell is the renowned biographer of Clarence Darrow. Now he gives us a comprehensive, compelling look at the only US president ever to resign from office under the cloud of imminent impeachment. This is the only Nixon biography that answers the many questions that left Americans—and those around the world that were watching—scratching our heads. Why, why, and why would he do these things? Farrell tells us. I read this book free and in advance, thanks to Net Galley and Doubleday, but it would have been worth paying the full retail price if I’d had to. It’s available to the public now.

Anytime I read nonfiction, I start with the sources. If the author hasn’t verified his information using primary sources, I go no further. Nonfiction is only fact if the author can prove that what he says is true—and I have never seen more meticulous, more thorough source work than what I see here. Every tape in the Nixon library; every memoir, from Nixon’s own, to those of the men that advised him as president, to those written by his family members, to those that opposed him are referenced, and that’s not all. Every set of presidential papers from Eisenhower on forward; the memoirs of LBJ, the president that served before Nixon took office; reminiscences of Brezhnev, leader of Russia ( which at the time was part of the USSR); reminiscences of Chinese leaders that hosted him; every single relevant source has been scoured and referenced in methodical, careful, painstaking detail. Farrell backs up every single fact in his book with multiple, sometimes a dozen excellent sources.

Because he has been so diligent, he’s also been able to take down some myths that were starting to gain a foothold in our national narrative. An example is the assertion that before the Kennedys unleashed their bag of dirty tricks on Nixon’s campaign in 1960, Nixon was a man of sound principle and strong ethics. A good hard look at his political campaigns in California knocks the legs out from under that fledgling bit of lore. Gone!

Lest I lend the impression that this is a biography useful only to the most careful students of history, folks willing to slog endlessly through excruciating detail, let me be perfectly clear: the man writes in a way that is hugely engaging and at times funny enough to leave me gasping for air. Although I taught American history and government for a long time, I also learned a great deal here, not just about Nixon and those around him, but bits and pieces of American history that are relevant to the story but that don’t pop up anywhere else.

For those that have wondered why such a clearly intelligent politician, one that would win by a landslide, would hoist his own petard by authoring and authorizing plans to break into the offices of opponents—and their physicians—this is your book. For those that want to know what Nixon knew and when he knew it, this is for you, too.

I find myself mesmerized by the mental snapshots Farrell evokes: a tormented Nixon, still determined not to yield, pounding on the piano late into the night. I hear the clink of ice cubes in the background as Nixon, talking about Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, suggests that “The Indians need—what they really need—is a mass famine.”

I can see Kissinger and the Pentagon making last minute arrangements to deal with a possible 11th hour military coup before Nixon leaves office. Don’t leave him with the button during those last 24 hours, they figure.

And I picture poor Pat, his longsuffering wife to whom he told nothing, nothing, nothing, packing all through the night before they are to leave the White House…because of course he didn’t tell her they were going home in time to let her pack during normal hours.

The most damning and enlightening facts have to do with Vietnam and particularly, Cambodia. Farrell makes a case that the entire horrific Holocaust there with the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot could have been avoided had Nixon not contacted the Vietnamese ambassador and suggested that he not make a deal with Johnson to end the war.

Whether you are like I am, a person that reads every Watergate memoir that you can obtain free or cheaply, or whether you are a younger person that has never gone into that dark tunnel, this is the book to read. It’s thorough and it’s fair, and what’s more, it’s entertaining.

Get it. Read it. You won’t be sorry!

[Charles Haywood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Nixon’s name is often invoked, but what we hear, for the most part, is not history. Rather it is incantation, much like watching a medieval morality play, where every character has his place, and Nixon’s is Evil. Given this, John Farrell’s 2017 biography performs two services. The first is to go behind the stage and show Nixon in all his lost complexity. The second is to show how the destruction of Nixon has been used as the template in attempts to similarly destroy Donald Trump. For people like me, who did not live through the Nixon years and only know of him through the malevolent mumblings of senile Baby Boomers, lost in their delicious opium dreams of youth and JFK, this book is therefore most enlightening, both of the past and the present.

Nixon was an American archetype—the wholly self-made man. Maybe there are some such in political life today, but I can’t think of any. Nixon was not privileged in any way; every single thing he got in his life he earned by the sweat of his brow. Born in California in 1913, in rural Yorba Linda, back when California was the land of opportunity, he had a hardscrabble upbringing. His family wasn’t desperately poor, and his mother’s family had some stature in the town, but his father was a difficult man who failed at farming and took up running a gas station and grocery store, eking out a modest living from the family working around the clock. Nixon thus had a reasonable, if fairly tough, childhood, made tragic by that two of Nixon’s four brothers died young—his idolized older brother Harold, of drawn-out tuberculosis, and his adored younger brother Arnold, of meningitis.

Thus, between circumstance and inborn personality, Nixon became a tightly wound, tightly controlled boy, serious and driven. Naturally, he resented those to whom things came easy. He was very, very smart (and talented in other ways, including musically). But he couldn’t go away to the Ivy League for college, even though he could have gotten an academic scholarship—his parents couldn’t pay room and board, and they needed him at home helping with the store. So he went to local Whittier College, which he enjoyed, and which grounded him in California, but left him looking for, and hyper-sensitive to, the sneers of Ivy League types who looked down on him (most famously, Alger Hiss, who when he thought he was going to get away with his crimes publicly sneered at Nixon’s attending Whittier).

Nixon, like most young men, matured in college. And he managed to then get a scholarship at Duke Law School, then new, matriculating in 1934, where he scrimped and worked odd jobs to get by, and still graduated third in his class (back before class ranking disappeared, killed by asinine federal “privacy” laws and a false egalitarianism). In both places, he showed his kindly side that has been forgotten, or rather suppressed in the interests of the morality play. “At law school he befriended a disabled young man, put him on his ticket in a student election, and carried him up granite steps to class.” There are many such stories, as well as stories of Nixon’s refusal to countenance racism, integrating teams and clubs of which he was a member. In 1946, in his first California campaign, “he accepted an honorary membership in a local NAACP chapter—no small gesture in an election where . . . the Ku Klux Klan was burning crosses in Los Angeles.” At a time the Democrats were mostly overtly racist, and many Republicans not much better, Nixon was consistently not. Doubtless many more examples of Nixon’s virtue have been lost to history. If Nixon had been a Kennedy, or any kind of Democrat, all these stories would be well-known, and recited endlessly to burnish his image. As is its, very few people know a single one of these stories. They are forgotten, or rather memory-holed.

But even as a top graduate, Nixon got no offers from Wall Street law firms (who, as they now like to forget, were until the 1970s only hiring the right type of people, meaning no Jews or African Americans, or unpolished California bumpkins), reinforcing his feeling of being an outsider. So he took a job as a generalist lawyer at a Whittier law firm. He was unhappy, as any young man would be who, seeming like he was on the road to success, instead at age twenty-four, looked like he had failed to launch. Still, he moved on with life, pursuing, in his stolid and determined way, Patricia Ryan, marrying her in 1940. Despite his Quaker background (though his own belief had lapsed into a vague Deism, where it stayed), and that he could have avoided the draft through various deferments, he enlisted and was made a naval officer. By 1943 he was serving in the South Pacific. “By all accounts, he served ably and was popular with his men.” Nixon insisted on being sent to the front lines, and was repeatedly in danger of death (from shelling, mostly—he wasn’t a Marine, killing Japanese in the jungle). He made it home safely, and, encouraged by local backers, began his political career.

Nixon won his first election, in 1946. He ran as a progressive Republican against an incumbent Democrat, Jerry Voorhis, at a time when the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were riding high. Voorhis was an easy target for Nixon’s body blows, in part because he “had chosen sanctimony as a form of self-identity,” fond of disquisitions on obscure monetary theories and out of touch with the young families rapidly filling the Whittier area. Plus, he was too close to Communists in labor unions, though he wasn’t a Communist himself. Nixon and his advisors didn’t care to make that distinction, setting Nixon’s future approach to all his early elections, and slaughtered Voorhis both in debates and in the election.

The freshman Congressman and Pat moved to Washington, D.C., where he became friends with another freshman Representative, John F. Kennedy. He discovered the need to balance among his constituents, and between them and what he thought best for the country. Marked as a comer, he was picked to be on a group to tour Europe deciding whether the Marshall Plan was a good idea. This was formative; Europe was, as Churchill said, “a rubble-heap, a charnel house,” and the tour showed Nixon, close-up, both the ruin of war and the evil, and growing power, of Communism. Nixon was appointed to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, HUAC, whose job was to investigate Communist infiltration of American institutions. Such infiltration was deep and wide, both in the government and in cultural institutions, notably Hollywood. HUAC was already perceived as the enemy by mainstream American liberals (themselves often thickly intertwined with Communism), who sniffed at the déclassé Congressmen who served on it, and caricatured them as clowns (which, to be fair, some of them were). Nixon was the opposite of a clown, though—he strove to be fair and lawyerly, not to use HUAC as a propaganda mouthpiece, at least at first.

Today, like Nixon, HUAC gets a bad rap, and filthy Stalinists like Dalton Trumbo, justly punished by the Committee, are celebrated (including by a 2015 movie, where the actor hagiographically portraying Trumbo, Bryan Cranston, was, as surely as water will wet us, given many awards). The reality is that those attacked by HUAC as Communists mostly, or all, actually were Communists, and deserved far more punishment than they got. Which wasn’t much—those in government often lost their jobs, which was good, but those outside government, on the so-called Hollywood blacklist, kept working incognito and then, a few years later, roared to prominence on the back of their pseudo-victim status, never apologizing or changing their evil views one bit, while the real heroes, those who accused the guilty, like Elia Kazan, were persecuted for the rest of their lives. It is not only in the modern era that the entertainment media is the witting and willing handmaiden of evil.

Farrell covers Nixon’s exposure of the Communist spy Alger Hiss competently and fairly, including Nixon’s own simultaneous relentless self-promotion (nobody ever said Richard Nixon wasn’t nakedly ambitious) and the vitriol directed at him and Whittaker Chambers. Even today, there are a few crazy people who think Hiss wasn’t guilty; Farrell isn’t one of them. Still, his exposure of Hiss sealed Nixon’s fate, because the Establishment, top to bottom, took an attack on Hiss as an attack on them by this upstart man from rural California with dirt under his fingernails. In particular, the press, whose line was set by anti-anti-Communists and therefore was strongly supportive of Hiss, raged against Nixon for humiliating and exposing them when he proved Hiss’s guilt. Nixon, to the press, was no longer a young, up-and-coming former soldier with progressive Republican views, he was a threat to the right people, a “primitive” who threatened the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal, and decades of left-wing dominance. After all, the American Left never had any objection to Communism, any more then than now. There were, and are, no enemies to the Left. Hiss’s flaw, to American liberals, was getting caught, not spying for Russia.

Thus, early on, Nixon learned what he later, as President, lectured his team. “Never forget, the press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Professors are the enemy. Write that on the blackboard 100 times and never forget it.” Nothing has changed in fifty years, except that the ability of those enemies to control and direct the country has increased greatly.

Quickly moving up the greasy pole, Nixon defeated Helen Gahagan Douglas for Senate, in 1950. He successfully painted her as soft on Communism, which she was, even if Nixon exaggerated, among other things calling her the “Pink Lady” and distributing pink flyers listing her agreements with Communists. It was gutter politics, though par for any political contest. To this day, nastiness in politics, even if wholly truthful, is only a “smear” when someone on the Right does it, and “whistleblowing” or “calls for justice” if someone on the Left does it, a rule enforced by the Left’s control of the press that decides what news is and what is news. Nixon would not, as he was, have been nicknamed “Tricky Dick” if he were a Democrat. But Nixon won mostly because he campaign relentlessly, driving from town to town and speaking from an open car, and also because he had charisma, and Douglas didn’t.

Defeating Douglas compounded Nixon’s sins in the eyes of the Establishment. As Farrell notes, “Nixon had [now] vanquished three bannerets of New Deal Nobility. The left now identified him ‘as a menace to liberalism.’ ” Nixon’s multitudinous enemies made no attempt to hide their hate, and Nixon, insecure and brooding, repaid them in kind, though he lacked their power, so all he could do was respond, not set the tone or agenda. He was socially denigrated in Washington and relentlessly savaged in the press, by men then of great power, like Averell Harriman and Joseph Alsop. Still, Nixon’s star was on the rise. Or perhaps star is too refined a metaphor—he was more like a rhinoceros set on reaching a goal, using his horn and carapace to plow his way forward against opponents of lesser determination, while at the same time being strangely insecure and often privately maudlin. Pushing himself forward, and leveraging California’s rapidly growing importance on the national political scene, he played a critical role in the 1952 Republican national convention, helping Eisenhower defeat both Taft and the Republican-in-name-only Earl Warren. Partially in response, and partially nearly randomly, Eisenhower named Nixon his candidate for Vice President.

The Nixons swung into yet more campaigning (something Pat hated, but loyally did), at the same time Nixon’s enemies strove ever harder to destroy him. Their latest dodge was trying to crucify him for a common and not illegal practice of the time, maintaining a fund, to pay job expenses beyond those paid for by the government, consisting of donations from rich friends. At first, when the attacks in the press, organized and coordinated by the Left, got started, Nixon barely noticed—after all, having such a fund was perfectly legal, and he had always been entirely open about the fund. He did not reckon with the ability of the press to create fake scandals out of nothing by the simple mechanism of repeated lying and questioning his “propriety,” the weasel language of those who have no actual wrongdoing of which to accuse someone. CBS Radio, for example, said “Never in the history of American politics has such as situation arisen. The furor . . . has spread across the country.” The furor was created from whole cloth, deliberately, by organizations such as CBS. That is, the furor was about nothing at all, other than an attempt at personal destruction. The reader is not overly surprised to learn, once again, that fake news generated by the Left has a very long, though not distinguished, pedigree.

Eisenhower, a political trimmer if there ever was one, nearly dumped Nixon from the ticket, but wanted Nixon to resign, which he refused to do. Instead, he went on national TV, and gave one of his most famous speeches, the “Checkers” speech, named after the dog given to his family by a donor that he said he was going to keep. The speech, a combination of defense and attack on his enemies, was a wild success among the deplorables, and Nixon’s enemies had to flee the field. Nixon’s enemies at the time, unable to respond to Nixon’s devastation of them, whined that the speech was “schmaltzy,” “fake,” and “corny.” Farrell seems to agree. I wondered. So I watched it, on YouTube (modernity does have something to recommend it). It is an unbelievably good and powerful speech and those adjectives are simply desperate lies. More fake news, I guess.

But the piling on by both his enemies and his supposed friends, and the realization for the umpteenth time that he had few friends among the powerful in any walk of life, hugely reinforced Nixon’s insecurity and persecution complexes—and with good reason. As they say, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Longer term, and aside from Nixon, the near success of this smear campaign set the pattern for decades of similar organized campaigns, taking any Republican who dared to actually act, rather than just speak, conservative and either manufacturing a “scandal” out of whole cloth or simply repeating the false claim that scandals surround him, while deliberately hiding far worse activities of any Democrat (or properly subservient Republican).

As Vice President, however, Nixon at least flourished in his favorite role, man of international affairs. He was happiest, politically and probably personally, when outside America. Among other places, he represented his nation while touring Asia and South America (facing down violent Communist-organized anti-American attacks in Venezuela) and meeting substantively with the powerful across the globe. Eisenhower’s major health problems highlighted that Nixon was one heart attack away from the Presidency, leading the calculating Eisenhower and his Establishment coterie to consider replacing Nixon for his reelection campaign. But as usual Nixon refused to cooperate in attempts to take him down, and Eisenhower decided it would harm more than hurt him to force the issue, so Nixon was reelected Vice President again in 1956. In his second term, he continued his role as foreign policy tip of the spear, famously confronting Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow, and in general serving as loyal soldier to Eisenhower.

But his ambition hadn’t cooled. Conquering Nelson Rockefeller, Nixon managed to be nominated in the 1960 election, and then lost an extremely close election to his old (no longer) friend John Kennedy. Eisenhower’s lack of support for Nixon (unsurprising since he was the original model of the John McCain type of Republican, eager to backstab any actual conservative and curry favor with his perceived betters on the Left), combined with massive voter fraud in key areas, and “fawning press support” of Kennedy, “which, as any sentient being recognized, had skewed their reporting in favor of Kennedy,” all made the difference between winning and losing, but rather than carp or further contest the matter, though he could have, Nixon conceded. He wasn’t happy about it, and this defeat resulting from betrayal, fraud, and double-standards unsurprisingly further exacerbated the defects in his personality, most of all an obsessive tendency to hate.

So Nixon read and wrote, and waited for the future to arrive. As so often, the future veered from its apparent course. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination brought Nixon back to the public eye, and in 1968 he was nominated again (over the strenuous efforts of left-leaning Republicans, including George Romney—apparently the Romney family has been betraying conservatives for at least fifty years). He won, pretty easily. Much of his first term was taken up with foreign policy; Nixon had little interest in domestic policy, and failed to grasp the essence of the cultural warfare being waged by the Left from the early 1960s onward. When he did think about domestic politics, he focused on the superficialities—the dirty hippies, the demands for “rights,” the drugs. Failing to make the effect-and-cause connection between the degradation he despised and left-wing social policies, in the domestic sphere he massively expanded welfare, as well as the administrative state, laying the foundation and the first masonry courses on today’s monstrosity that rules us all without accountability. That was all a distraction to Nixon, though. He wanted to be a great man, and that meant triumph in foreign policy.

He chased that triumph, working on improving America’s relationships with the Soviet Union and with China, in both cases with the help of Henry Kissinger, trying always to balance carrot and stick. He vacillated on how to approach the Vietnam War, torn again between a morality-based approach and one of realpolitik. And, like other Presidents, but probably on a lesser scale than many, he engaged in, through subordinates while mostly preserving plausible deniability, a variety of dirty tricks, such as bribery, wiretappings and political burglaries. Hence Watergate, the stage setting for Nixon’s role in the morality play.

Farrell spends an adequate, but not excessive, amount of time on Watergate. As everyone knows, the coverup is what killed Nixon. Well, actually, it was his enemies who killed Nixon—similar activity by Lyndon Johnson would never even have reached the public eye, and if it had, there would have been no consequences. But Nixon didn’t help with his Henry II routine, ranting at his subordinates (who, shades of Trump, often had to ignore his more insane demands), arranging for hush money, and other kneejerk, ill-considered behavior. Still, he won reelection in 1972, even though the mostly manufactured scandal was percolating. It exploded into full flower soon after his second term began.

[Review completes as first comment.]

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://bestpresidentialbios.com/2018...

Published in 2017, John Farrell’s “Richard Nixon: The Life” is the most recent comprehensive, single-volume biography of Nixon. Farrell is a former White House correspondent for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of award-winning biographies of Massachusetts congressman Tip O’Neill and attorney Clarence Darrow.

This 558-paged biography proves balanced, lucid and consistently captivating. It begins with Nixon’s run for Congress in 1945 before back-tracking briefly to review his early life. In more-or-less chronological fashion, the book proceeds through his Senatorial career, his service as vice president, his “wilderness” years, his now-infamous presidency and his fascinating two-decade retirement.

In a world well-stocked with Nixon biographies, Farrell’s claim-to-fame involves his discovery of notes penned by Nixon’s chief of staff that show Nixon sabotaged LBJ’s peace initiative with North Vietnam in 1968 for political gain. But beyond that notable revelation, Farrell provides other fresh insights…and he saturates the narrative with clever quips and brilliant one-liners.

Farrell describes Nixon’s wilderness years more colorfully than I have seen elsewhere and his examination of Nixon’s efforts to enhance America’s relationship with China is excellent. Also included is a particularly thoughtful review of civil rights issues during the course of Nixon’s political career, and Farrell is able to distill the complicated decades-long conflict in Vietnam to its most comprehensible essence.

But the best aspect of this biography is probably its review of Watergate. Farrell moves through this sordid tale efficiently, providing just enough detail to inform a Nixon-era novice while providing an engrossing narrative for readers already familiar with this political tragedy. These sixty or so pages are refreshingly clear, cogent and convincing.

Although some readers have proclaimed this the new “definitive” biography of Nixon, it has its share of flaws. In the interest of efficiency much of Nixon’s life is covered too quickly. His first three decades, for instance, only receive about forty pages of coverage – not nearly enough to fully examine these critical years when his character was being forged.

Other important moments are considered with comparative haste or only modest scrutiny: the Checkers speech, his vice presidential trip to Asia and his Cabinet selection as president-elect, to name a few. In addition, Farrell’s inclusion of historical context is rather uneven. At times this book seems to be more history than biography while at others times context is almost entirely lacking.

But the most disappointing aspect of this biography for some will be that despite its compelling insights, revealing quotes and keen observations, Nixon remains stubbornly enigmatic. Farrell’s reluctance to psychoanalyze the man will please purists but leave others searching for a better sense for the origin and evolution of Nixon’s pernicious personality.

Overall, “Richard Nixon: The Life” is a mostly-familiar story which proves nicely balanced and quite well-told. Readers familiar with Nixon’s life are likely to find just enough fresh insights and good writing to justify “one more” Nixon biography while readers new to Nixon will find Farrell’s biography a terrific introduction to this oddly fascinating and sadly self-destructive politician.

Overall rating: 4 stars

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The president was “a gut fighter….His first reaction was to fight back…to get even.”

Amongst my earliest memories during the early/mid 1970s was the ubiquity of the word Watergate. Somehow I imagined it was related to the games of dominos that my grandparents played with their friends. The designs created during the game evoked plumbing -- I was too young to grasp that Plumber was another timely designation.

Perhaps it is hubris, whatever the motivation--it is daunting to attempt to encapsulate a man's life in 540 pages, especially as one as involved Richard M. Nixon. Beginning in WWII and then retracing back to Nixon's birth and ancestors, a conflicted portrait emerges, fuelled by the dueling temperaments of his parents. Nixon--ever insecure--always felt his success while girded by hard work was purely coincidental. Dumb luck.

“Nixon “didn’t give a damn” about the finer points of domestic policy, said aide Tom Huston. “All he wanted to do was to keep the sharks away.” And so many progressive measures, crafted with the help of his administration, made their way to Nixon’s desk, where he acquiesced, signed his name, and took his just share of the credit.

The foreign policy aspects of the book were riveting, domestic less so. It is important to recognize that during the 1950s Nixon was a much more vocal supporter of civil rights than Eisenhower, Johnson or Kennedy. Nixon felt betrayed then when African-Americans voted for Kennedy in the 1960 election.

Nixon's entreaties with the Soviets and the Chinese are simply breathtaking. His approach to strife in the subcontinent is abominable. As was the stewardship of Vietnam -- though who amongst his storied predecessors handled it better?

A very human biography of a most human president.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very solid bio on Nixon. That said, as I was reading, I couldn't help but think of Robert Caro's massive (and highly praised) LBJ project. The arc of Nixon's life is epic. If you're of a certain age, his life covers a good part of our post-World War II experience. In other words Nixon, whatever you think of him, should probably be the subject of a multi-volume effort. Then again, any biographer is also going to confront the lifelong enigma of Nixon. On one hand, he was a great up-from-your-bootstraps example of American determination and grit. And not just hard-working, but also darkly brilliant. Early on Farrell signals this by showing a young Nixon in the midst of his first congressional campaign jotting down on his ever present legal pad the need to infiltrate his opponents camp. I'm not sure I liked the way Farrell did that. It seemed a bit too novelistic, and hardly unusual, but there also seems to be larger purpose, which is the exposure of a dark thread which Farrell will follow throughout the book. Nixon will do what he has to do to win. What compounds this competitiveness is Nixon's ever raging and ever growing insecurities.

As many have noted, Farrell is very fluid writer. So much so that it is jarring when you get to Nixon's presidency. The reason for this is, of course, the tapes. What emerges in this part of the book is Nixon unplugged. Profane, raging, brilliant, petty. It's totally Gonzo out of necessity, as Farrell's polished prose and pacing becomes manic and driven (like the man himself). Paralleling Nixon's fall are an incredible array of great events. Nixon to China, Nixon and Cambodia, Nixon bombing the bejesus out of North Vietnam, Nixon and the U.S.S.R., Chile, while along the ticking of Watergate bomb gets louder and louder. Hits and misses and crimes, no question, but there is also tragic greatness to it all.

[Peter Beck · Rating 5 out of 5]

How dare you, John A. Farrell! You have taken someone I have considered my whole life to be pure evil and made me feel empathy and compassion for him. I actually had tears in my eyes as I reached the final page. You have ruined my plan to give my copy of “Richard Nixon” to my library.

As a boy, I wondered what a “water gate” was when my parents watched the news. Over the years, I gradually learned about Richard Nixon’s dark side, especially with the release of more and more of the Nixon Tapes. I have always wondered how someone raised a Quaker could turn out to be so lacking in a moral compass. Having spent many years studying about China, I also wanted to know how much credit he deserved for normalizing relations. My final burning question was, what lessons can we learn from Nixon’s resignation in 1974 in terms of the efforts today to impeach Donald Trump. Farrell eloquently answers all of those questions, and so many more.

Nixon was born in 1913, within a few years of all of my grandparents. Like my father, Nixon grew up in Southern California to a Quaker mother and a father who did not finish high school. His parents reminded me of Grant’s--an overbearing father and a distant mother. Nixon’s adolescence was bookended by the deaths of his then-youngest brother and oldest brother from TB. Their deaths would shatter his view of a powerful and merciful God and lead him to volunteer to fight in World War II (my father remains a pacifist).

When my grandmother passed away and we were going through her library, one of the books I picked out was Jessamyn West’s “The Friendly Persuasion” (1945) to help me understand the Quakers. My grandmother liked the book so much that she pasted pictures of the movie adaptation starring Gary Cooper inside the cover. It turns out Jessamyn was one of Nixon’s cousins and is mentioned more than any other non-immediate family member by Ferrell. Her book is based on the lives of Nixon’s Quaker ancestors and the moral dilemma they faced during the Civil War.

The best thing that can be said about Nixon was that he was highly intelligent and focused. He had to pass up an Ivy League education because of the economic hardships experienced by his family during the Depression. I believe this produced a chip on his shoulder that he carried for the rest of his life. Nixon described himself as introverted, but he could turn on the charm when necessary. This skill enabled him to stay on the presidential ticket with Ike in 1952 when he gave his famous “Checkers” speech to explain his political slush fund. Farrell's description of what went into that speech makes it all the more impressive to watch today.

Nixon was the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of 1947 (the star Congressional freshman) by leading the hunt for Communists working in the government, which paved the way for McCarthy. Only one would ultimately be found guilty of a crime--American diplomat Alger Hiss. Farrell answered all of the questions I had from reading McCullough’s brief description in “Truman.” Hiss was found guilty of perjury, but was never tried for spying. McCullough is non-committal as to whether Hiss was a spy, but Farrell insists that he was, even though he presents no evidence. Liberals considered Nixon a vile “Red Baiter,” but Ike saw him as a useful “Hatchet Man” during his presidency.

Nixon was not as easy to like as Ike. Ike famously said when Nixon ran for president in 1960 that if given a week, he could think of something good to say about him. Ouch! Ike considered Nixon a political hack and an opportunist. Even Nixon’s aides considered him to be a mercurial, high strung, self absorbed, deeply insecure and awkward around people. He was such a loner that he would even ask his aides to pass on messages to his wife Pat and two daughters. But the trait that led to his downfall is also the one I find most strikingly similar to Trump: An "abysmally amoral" (George H.W. Bush quote!) nature or complete lack of a moral compass. Laws/rules just didn’t apply to them. Indeed, Trump is the first president to embrace Nixon's "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal" (p. 550).

Watergate and Ukraine-gate both represent a significant abuse of presidential power and equally significant obstruction of justice. Both strike me as far more serious than what I would call Andrew Johnson's Cabinet Personnel-gate or Clinton's Sexual Indiscretion Perjury-gate. Both Nixon and Trump thought nothing of breaking the law to help win reelection. Both cases feature a “smoking gun” (the 23 June 1972 tape, the 25 July 2019 call transcript). I can't decide which one is more serious. Watergate involved more blatant and numerous crimes than Ukraine-gate, but there is no evidence that Nixon knew about, much less ordered ex-CIA operatives to conduct break-ins, whereas Trump ordered the dirt on his opponent. Also, Watergate did not involve a foreign power.

The key difference is Congress. The Senate unanimously passed a Watergate inquiry resolution, but every Republican House member rejected a similar Ukraine resolution. The most cautionary lesson from Watergate? Nixon was able to win reelection despite Watergate in part because the Democrats nominated a candidate far more to the left than the center of the political spectrum. Will history repeat itself in 2020?

Which president was more racist and profane? That is also a tough one. In public, clearly Trump, but in private I would give a clear edge to Nixon. Nixon frequently slurred religious and ethnic minorities in front of his aides. On the other hand, not only did Nixon have several Jewish Americans serve in his cabinet, his first campaign director was also Jewish. Farrell quotes one Jewish member who insists that Nixon was never said anything offensive in front of him, but Farrell's last footnote is one of the most chilling, telling his chief of staff Haldeman (known as his lead "German Shepard," Erlichman being the other) that he "doesn't want a Jew or Catholic to participate" in his funeral (p. 688). In terms of profanities, "cxxxsucker" appears at least three times in Farrell. Trump's "You can grab `em by the puxxx"strikes me as equally vulgar, but with added sexual predator overtones.

Nixon's dark side cast several notable accomplishments into even darker shadows. For starters, while conducting his hunt for Reds, he made a moving visit to Europe to see if the Marshall Plan was really needed (it was). As president, Nixon embraced a range of progressive policies, including Title IX in education, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, the Clean Air Act, a more enlightened policy toward Native Americans and a massive expansion in funding for integrating schools (pp. 376-94).

Nixon also deserves much more credit than I had realized for normalizing relations with China, but far more blame for Vietnam. Reaching out to Beijing was not Mao or Kissenger’s idea; it was Tricky Dick’s (a nickname he acquired back in California in the 1940s). As for Vietnam, JFK and LBJ clearly started the war, but Farrell makes it clear that 20,000 more American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asians died for the same peace deal in 1973 that Nixon could have signed in 1969. A Virginia teenager came up to Nixon in 1971 and asked, “Mr. President, how does it feel like to be a war criminal?” (p. 687). Republican Senator Bob Dole described a funeral attended by Carter, Ford and Nixon as "See no evil. Hear no evil. And evil" (p. 555).

Farrell is a superb writer and an excellent biographer. A main text of 558 pages was the perfect length. There are many insights in the 100+ pages of footnotes, but Farrell is so thorough that finding them can be tough when a single footnote can have 20 or more sources. Farrell quenched my thirst for information about Nixon and those around him, but I do want to read more about Vietnam, starting with Christopher Goscha’s “Vietnam: A New History” (2018). Nixon's favorite book, "War and Peace" reminds me that I need to put it higher on my "Classics to Read" list. This is the worst and most recent president I plan to read about. Next up: Dallek’s JFK.

[Cynthia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Farrell's life and times of Richard Nixon is surprisingly approachable. At over seven hundred pages its long but he writes entertainingly while managing to weave in history lessons painlessly. Farrell is sympathetic to a president we've seen as a near villain during and after Nixon's time in politics. "Richard Nixon" is also an in depth character study of a man who so often got in his own way. Nixon made it hard for his public to like him and this is where Farrell shines by clarifying Nixon's complicated psyche. Maybe we've finally reached a distant enough time to achieve this re-evaluation and Farrell's skilled and swimmingly easy going writing goes a long way in guiding the reader through the light and dark passages that made up Nixon's career.

Thanks to the publisher for providing an e-copy

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not sure the delineation between tactics and strategy has ever been used to assess a biography but I'm going to try it and we'll see how it goes.

Tactically—the actual execution of the thing—this is a superb biography.

It begins in media res, with a 32-year-old Richard Nixon venturing into his first campaign for Congress. After plunging us into the action, Farrell reverts to standard chronology. It’s the perfect approach. Starting a book with, ‘He was born in...’ can be wearying before it even begins but getting too cute by trying to be unconventional can all too easily go awry.

Farrell has also mastered the art of weaving in the broader context of world events without getting bogged down. Will you learn the full sequence of events that led to the Paris Peace Accords in '73? No—but at least you won’t be lost when they surface in the narrative.

But what I believe the book’s true strength to be is that Farrell shows the inner man. Regardless of your political persuasions, there are so many times you’d like to grab Nixon and shout, What were you thinking?! Farrell asks and answers. He doesn’t treat Nixon as a wax figure in a museum nor an animal observed through glass. He gets near, analyzing the thought processes behind each situation—each incredibly complex situation. It’s a commendable attempt to understand Nixon the man not merely Nixon the politician.

Strategically though—the bigger picture, the grand objective, orientation, purpose, goal—this is where I thought Farrell could have risen to another level. To use Churchill’s wonderful though well-worn words, “This pudding has no theme.” There did not seem to be a coherent motif beyond simply telling the story of Nixon. The reason I raise this is that I think there was a theme—a big one—that could have been put forth.

Try this: the Nixon years were the Third American Revolution. The first of course being the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary War, the second being Lincoln and the Civil War, and this, the third. Nixon was the one who created today’s partisan political divide—the East Coast Elites versus the Silent Majority, the Establishment versus the rest. That was Nixon. And it was in the wake of Watergate that the Alphabet Agencies were unmasked. It was a watershed revelation about what they really do. Furthermore, if someone were to make the sinister argument that a true revolution must be accompanied by war, this was.

If Farrell deemed that a step too far, too ambitious, he could have at least emphasized the undeniable transformation in American character that took place in the two decades of Nixon. Though he mentioned it here and there, it was not interwoven into the fabric of the storyline, something which would not only have solidified book but elevated it.

Is the book an all-timer? No. But the more I read, the more I realize that those are few and far between—special gifts to the world that should be prized as such rather than used as benchmarks against which others are measured. Farrell's work, standing on its own two feet, is a well-written biography. It sings. There are long sentences and short sentences. They are ornate at times and spartan at others. Farrell lays a sturdy foundation with a plain recounting of the facts and mixes in alliteration, analogy, and anecdotes—just a little of each, not too much—to add color and life and soul.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

The newest presidential biography I’ve read, John Ferrell’s Richard Nixon: The Life is one of the best I’ve devoured. Ferrell’s storytelling combined with Nixon’s often bizarre experience make for a biography that reads more like a novel than a textbook. I purchased Rick Perlstein's Nixonland for my collection and checked this one out from my library, but I will be purchasing this wonderful tome as well.

Its unconventional start places an adult Nixon at the onset of his civilian life after World War II, before he is steered onto the jagged road of politics, then it turns to the beginning of his life and moves forward. The surprise first left me thinking I did not have a cradle-to-grave tale, but later reminded me of a movie that has a dramatic start in the middle of the story and then returns to how it all began. Even Farrell's subtle cover anomaly--biographies typically carry the subtitle "A Life"--suggests that this is a story of the kind of life a person wants to live. Despite its bitter last chapters, it may be just that.

Other reviewers have come away with warm feelings for a misunderstood man, but I could never entirely escape Nixon’s arrogance and presumptuousness, and the more I read, the more I felt like I was reading a biography of President Trump. From petty insults of friends and rivals, to everything about the road to impeachment, the story seemed like today’s news. Published in 2017, the similarities of The Life to current events are merely coincidence, and history nearly repeating itself.

I was, however, left with a better appreciation for Nixon’s accomplishments, and felt sad for Kissinger’s assurance to Nixon that history would remember him for the positive things. Until now, perhaps, history has not been so kind.

[Scott Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. One of the few biographies I have read that left me wanting more. This book is fast paced and fascinating. I felt the writer was even handed.

Amazing how much American history Nixon touched when you consider Nixon was involved in Alger Hiss case, Vice President for 8 years, President for 6 and involved in one of the closest Presidential races in history among other things. This book is a wild ride through some amazing times in Americas history.

Highly recommended for anyone interested in Nixon.

[Lu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well researched, detailed filled look back into American tumultuous past and the driven man who is to be haunted by his insecurities, decisions and public opinion.
Found many similarities to today’s political landscape. As time resolutely pushes us forward, some things never change.

[TheBookWarren · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.75 Stars - Irrespective of your view of ‘Tricky Dick’ or whether or not you’re a particularly keen observer of World or US Politics, this biography is a read that is able to pay handsomely for the investment made to partake in reading it.

Right off the bat, you are engulfed in the world of Richard Nixon, this may seem obvious to state but I’m particularly keen on expressing that this is no surface level or highlight reel bio, I found myself consumed in the childhood, formative years & career of Nixon in a way that thanks to the authors truly magnificently engaging prose, was thoroughly enjoyed. Far from a transactional experience, the fact I was so absorbed enabled me to leave my preconceptions behind, but without ever even realising it until I was cogitating on passages after putting it down.

Might seem like a baby investment, but it is one you’ll relish if you enjoy being engrossed in a topic or life that you
May think you know fairly well, but soon realise thanks to stunning research and anecdotal evidence, you really
Do not.

[Mehrsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was so excited about this book because it's timely and also because it's far enough in the past where we can look back accurately on the life. I've read several other Nixon bios and his autobios and also spent significant time in the Nixon archives so I was familiar with the arc of this story. But somehow, this bio fell flat for me. He nailed the character and sometimes the context, but as with most biographers that spend a lot of time with their subjects, I think he's too soft on Nixon. Especially on race, which is too bad because the hype about this book was that he would delve into it some more. Still, it's a comprehensive history and a pretty balanced take on a very complex figure.

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree, they really should have tested their cow.

[Diego · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are similarities to Trump, thus is why I read this. Didn't know much about Nixon, but this book proved as a great intro into his mindset. From my opinion, Trump was and is isolated and detached from reality as a privileged child born into his business, how could he possibly understand low to middle class America. Nixon however grew up from nothing but was slowly ruined by politics of the time due to his insecurities and introvert personality.

To me, this read like a tv drama at times. Felt like it made you believe he is a political monster with no soul, but then discusses his great accomplishments. Ups and downs.

I like to take notes of interest while I read:
- insecure, introvert, Quaker life, always searching for approval, did not want to fail parents
- brothers died of tb, that may have set it off as a child
- relentless, must win attitude
- initial good public service intentions, political competition slowly ruined his innocence and brought out the worst in him, but also his best
- though his senate campaign of driving to every California small town and speaking from the car is impressive
- he was an honest person, when required
- tv helped immensely at that time as a new avenue of exposure
- humanized the Rupublican party, related to the common folk
- media really attacked Nixon, with ruthless lies
- democrats were useless at that time
- "A serious young man, became a political megalomaniac."
- Ike treated Nixon like dirt and toyed with him. But Nixon always had to prove himself, which doesn't bode well for public service.
- despite Ike's poor mentoring ability, he knew Nixon was not mature enough to be president
- great quote: "When you aren't around people whose conversation is stimulating, you begin to rot"
- the feud with Kennedy ruined his good intentions. He became obsessed with defeating him. Constant Paranoia. Kennedy contributed to his personality downfall.
- great quote: "It is struggle that gives life meaning". Nixons interpretation of Nietzsche.
- List of resolutions (slightly modified): set goals, daily rest, brief vacations, knowledge of all weaknesses, better use of time, daily exercise of some kind, learn each day
- After Kennedys death, his good nature seemed to have flipped. Opposed Johnson and wanted more bombing in Vietnam. That is strange to me.
- Every action he took was about votes. Ex. Attending Martin Luther Kings funeral since he did not call to console Coretta King when her husband was arrested at a sit in. He believed that inaction cost him votes.
- On the outside he appeared to have improved, but really he's an opportunist as well. But had great insight. Another great quote: "You can't be an island in the world. You can't live in your comfortable houses and say' Well, just as long as I get mine, I don't have to worry about others..., This isn't going to be a good country for any of us to live in until it's a good country for all of us to live in."
- An opportunist, he even committed treason through the Chennault affair. A new discovery from this book as claimed. Had prevented the end of the Vietnam war and closed the window LBJ opened with Russia. Though, reading the RN foundation website, they dispute Farrell's interpretation of the "monkey wrench" phrase in the Haldeman notes. They claim more of the notes describe that RN meant that he simply didn't agree with the bombing halt.
https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2017/...
- He also had really appalling quotes: "We will bomb the bejeezus out of North Vietnam, and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."
- it's disturbing he was deliberately playing a "madman" role to worry other countries like Russia.
- He really believed he was preventing another Hitler by bombing Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam to fight Communism; and that destruction was necessary to save a country.
- Oddly he changed in his second year to a more political pragmatist. But his work for school desegregation did not receive enough credit.
- There are multiple quotes from colleagues about his demeanor. "He may well never have been president without his insecurity." "He courted controversy and in it received a thrill."
- he turned from worse to insane leading up to watergate. Kissinger and everyone around him seem to enable it.
- Nixons proposed economic plan is eerily similar to Trumps. Make large announcements of reform, then make it up as you go.
- Alarming relevant quote being murmured by Trump, "The press is the enemy. The professors are the enemy."
- Kissinger, "It was hard to avoid the impression that Nixon, who thrived on crises, also craved disasters."
- Just like Trump, Nixon wanted to clean house that weren't loyal to him. FBI, CIA and federal judges.

Nixon's last days were sad, but after reading that he desperately tried to stay relevant, I believe that Trump would have invited him as a guest and he would have loved it, just like he invited Kissinger for advice. This would have re-ignited an old fear. But he's slowly accomplishing that on his own anyway. This book has made me realize we were very spoiled with Obama.

Nixon was a fascinatingly troubled personality.

[Jim Bowen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not altogether sure why this book has been getting the rave reviews that I saw before I started reading this book. It's the 4th book (at least) that I've read about Nixon (after books by Jonathan Aitkin, Robert Dallek, and John Dean), and of the 4, this... felt like the worst, to me at least. Maybe it's my fault, but I really don't believe it is.

This book is a fuller biography of Nixon's life than any other book I've read since Aitkins, in as much as it starts with his early life, and runs through till his departure from office (Dallek's tended to focus on Nixon's foreign policy more, while Dean's focused on Watergate), but it felt more hagiographic than any of the other books I'm read, in as much it tried to explain Nixon'a flaws (his paranoia, inferiority complex, and antisemitism for example) than any other book I've read.

The result is I'm left feeling blah about the book. I'm not sure it helps if a biographer dislikes his target, but I suspect that he's more than willing to accept his target's warts. I'm not sure that Caro likes LBJ for example, but he leaves it up to the reader to decide if they're going to like him. With this book, I suspect that Farrell wanted us to feel "Oh well, he was no worse in the main than the rest" when he's (at present) the only President to have resigned from office.

So, all in all, I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth after reading this book.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best bio I’ve read of Nixon. Really appreciated how the author points out so well that although Watergate was a foolish series of acts, Nixon was held to a much more severe standard than many prior Presidents who engaged in similar conduct. While very flawed in personal respects, Nixon was a truly bright individual who brought tenacity and an iron will to succeed and survive in tumultuous times. He showed us that our hubris can both be harmful and eventually lead to redemption.

[Bryan Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best one-volume treatment of Nixon I have read.

[Marc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Farrell's bio of Nixon is masterful, fluid, incisive and provides a well balanced view of the Californian president. It is filled with insightful quotes from a very wide array of sources ranging from former Nixon biographers, newly declassified material on the Vietnam War to Hunter Thompson, Tip O'Neil, Gerry Ford's personal papers.

I loved every page of that book

[Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

The story of a malcontent, awkward, and bigoted man who helped desegregate schools, pass landmark environmental legislation, end the Vietnam war, open up China, pass many other decent reforms, and generally was a solid foreign policy strategist. I guess because he hated communists (and many others)? He seemed to be largely moved by hatred and paranoia that grew throughout his career (his law and order, silent majority, and crass anti semitism era started fairly late in his career). He clearly craved power and popularity but only because those were vehicles by which he could be politically active. He didn’t seem to care about either on their own, unlike the current president elect. I don’t think he enjoyed politics, rather seeing it as his sole purpose. His job was to analyze his situation and then act, nothing more. Just an insecure and strange but brilliant man who was massively consequential because he couldn’t stomach just being a lawyer.

Whether rooting for him at times and then being totally revolted by Nixon, it’s a very well done book that feels quicker than it should be (in a good way).

Some notable highlights:
- his friendship with Jackie Robinson, which even involved Robinson sending him a letter begging him to get back into politics after his loss to JFK
- his brutally bad small talk throughout the book
- oedipus complex
- his weird surprise meetup with protestors, described as being similar to when parents come down to the basement during a high school party to make conversation
- the recorded conversations with Kissinger and Haldeman
- being a grump about anything popular he did
- and lastly his continuous comeback after comeback against heavy odds

[Vheissu · Rating 4 out of 5]

For readers interested in a single volume biography of Richard Nixon based on the most currently available documentation, this book is a good place to start. While less detailed than Irwin F. Gellman's impressive work on the subject (The Contender: Richard Nixon, the Congress Years, 1946-1952 and The President and the Apprentice: Eisenhower and Nixon, 1952-1961), Farrell's work is also less hagiographic than Gellman's. Farrell notes Gellman's assistance in preparing this work. Other biographies of Nixon, in particular the three volume work of Stephen Ambrose, which did not have access to today's archival materials, are doubtlessly superannuated.

Farrell makes some interesting claims about Nixon. He argues that the "Checkers Speech" was the first effective use of television for political purposes (p. 195), although the medium turned against Nixon in the 1960 debates. Farrell pays much more attention to the bankers and oilmen who secretly financed Nixon's first Congressional race than does Gellmann (p. 27), but like Gellmann, Farrell argues that Nixon's victories in 1946 and 1950 owed less to "dirty tricks" than to the ineptitude of his opponents (Jerry Voorhis and Helen Douglas, respectively). Nixon's victories over these two beloved liberal icons and his complete destruction of Alger Hiss earned him the everlasting animus of the East Coast liberal elite and the mainstream media, which Nixon was never able to shake. Neither Farrell nor Gellmann fault Nixon for this "undeserved" animosity (their conclusion, not mine).

Farrell and Gellman disagree about Nixon's relationship with Eisenhower, the former arguing that there was mistrust and mutual resentments between the two, while the latter argues that there was trust and a mutual admiration--if not personal friendship--between the men. Farrell also gives Richard Nixon most of the credit for the 1957 Civil Rights act (p. 256), which will come as a surprise to the readers of Robert A. Caro (Master of the Senate). Farrell portrays Nixon as a genuine advocate of civil rights for African Americans and other minorities (p. 257) and friend to movement leaders including Dr. Martin L. King and Jackie Robinson (p. 249-51). In view of Nixon's harshly racist comments recorded on the White House tapes (p. 385-6), this conclusion is a bit hard to swallow.

Farrell is not always admiring of his subject. Farrell takes credit for reporting on the so-called "Chennault Affair," "...kept secret until the publication of this book" (photo insert, pp. 180-81). Also known as the "October Surprise of 1968," Nixon interfered with the Paris Peace negotiations, promising the South Vietnamese that they would get a better deal from Nixon than Johnson. A blatant violation of the Logan Act, Farrell concludes that "of all of Richard Nixon's actions in a lifetime of politics, this was the most reprehensible" (p. 344). The interference had long been rumored, and LBJ considered prosecuting Nixon for treason (p. 343). One can never know if the peace talks would have produced results if not for Nixon's interference, but the deal that Nixon and Kissinger brokered with North Vietnam in 1973 was virtually identical to the one being discussed in 1968. So the Vietnam War continued for seven more years and another 20,000 Americans died. Far from giving the South Vietnamese a better deal than LBJ, Nixon cynically turned his back on the Thieu government and abandoned Saigon "time and again" (p. 486). Ironically, perhaps, the peace deal Nixon undermined in 1968 perpetuated a war that "overshadowed everything [in the Nixon administration], all the time, in every discussion, in every decision, in every opportunity and every problem" (p. 359). Be careful what you wish for.

Farrell also puts to rest the Nixon-Kissinger slander that Congress was responsible for America's humiliating defeat in Vietnam. Nixon had no confidence that Saigon was defensible with or without Congressional support; his most optimistic expectation was "We didn't think a loss was inevitable" (p, 540). Yet the bombing increased and more Americans and Vietnamese died. During the Christmas bombing in 1972 (Linebacker II), Nixon, Kissinger, and Haldeman were entirely dismissive of civilian casualties. "Don't worry about killing civilians, go ahead and kill 'em," was how Bob Haldeman looked at things (p. 492).

Watergate necessarily consumes a large part of the book, mostly because many more tapes are now available to historians than before. Farrell acknowledges the criminality in the White House, although he claims that the Watergate defendants did not get a "fair trial" (p. 538). The author also claims that Nixon was, as the president alleged, judged by a "double standard" (p. 541). The Watergate investigation and others (e.g., the Church Committee) revealed a long history of presidential misconduct, going back to the Truman administration if not before (p. 541). Nixon's actions were not unprecedented, but there was one significant difference: whereas previous presidents acted in a way that allowed "plausible deniability," Nixon orchestrated the wrongdoing from the Oval Office, depriving him of deniability (p. 543).

This book helped dismiss whatever grudging admiration I might have ever afforded Nixon. I eagerly await Irwin Gellman's next volume in his biography of Tricky Dick.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

He might be considered the original Cold Warrior and his quarter-century career was defined by and defined the period in the United States, but his legacy is intertwined with a landmark Washington hotel. Richard Nixon: The Life by John A. Farrell reveals the personal and political life of one of the most divisive figures of mid-20th Century America.

Farrell’s life of Richard Nixon revolves around the political life of the United States from the end of World War II to the end of the Vietnam War, in which he was a significant player. The biography begins with how Nixon entered politics before going into his childhood, courtship of Pat, and experience in World War II. While Farrell doesn’t ignore Nixon’s family life after 1946, this is essentially a political biography because that’s how Nixon lived his life. His red-baiting tactics in 1946 and 1950 heralding the McCarthy era are examined in full, the Alger Hiss case is examined in full, Nixon’s role in Eisenhower’s nomination is revealed, his friendship then antagonism with the Kennedys is full revealed, and his hate-hate relationship with the press and the Establishment is a constant theme. Once in the Oval Office however Farrell’s focus of the biography revolves around Vietnam and the events that lead up to the momentous events both foreign and domestic of 1972 that would define his legacy. With just under 560 pages of text, Farrell had a lot of history and politics that he needed choose what to focus on and what to breeze by. I did not agree with some of Farrell’s decisions when it came to Nixon’s time in the White House as it felt he was short shifting some things, not Vietnam, so he could get to Watergate; however, Farrell’s time spent on the Bangladesh Liberation War/Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 revealed new information to me and was a great addition.

Richard Nixon: The Life is a well written and informative biography of the 37th President of the United States that John A. Farrell did an impressive job in researching and authoring. While I had minor grips with Farrell’s decisions during Nixon’s years in the White House, it doesn’t undermine the overall quality of the book.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptionally good account of the rise and fall of Richard Nixon. If ever an American life played out like a Greek tragedy it is the life of RMN, and Farrell's account is rich in both detail and insight. He masterfully weaves the observations of Nixon and others throughout his narrative, bringing an immediacy to the unfolding events that makes this book a particularly gripping and compelling read. I have read and enjoyed many books about Nixon over the years, and this is in my opinion certainly the best. Highly recommended.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best, most even handed, informative, and unbiased book on Nixon ever written. The scholarship here in on par with David Herbert Donald's treatment of Lincoln; never focusing on the good or bad, but dispassionately detailing history as it was, and showing each president for who he was as a person.

This book clearly shows Nixon outside of the view of the media and also outside of himself: the two main factors that destroyed his presidency.

This book opens with perhaps the most detailed account of Nixon's first run for political office put to writing. Backed by a Bank of America lobbyist, Nixon ran for the House by demonizing his opponent as a communist, because he voted for FDR New Deal policy. After he won, he personally stated that he knew this man wasn't a communist, but "there was gold in those hills". To clarify, he meant: there was a path to the presidency in demonizing each political rival as a communist--and from his congressional campaign against the "Pink Lady" until his second term as president, that's the line he stuck to.

Early Nixon seems to have had little vision for America aside from himself as its leader, and he was often brutal at accomplishing that goal. That is, until his brutality failed against the Kennedy coolness that destroyed his image for a decade. (Nixon at at least one point in his life called himself a "square", and even drew the square in the air, Pulp Fiction style.) In a strange act, this book describes Nixon as ordering his staff to go through the White House and to remove any likeness or picture of JFK from the mansion, and to further submit any staffer with the item to extensive loyalty questioning. When Robert Kennedy was assassinated, he is reported to have been jubilant. And then there is the strange portion on the Nixon tapes where he references the possibility of using the CIA to assassinate Ted Kennedy.

At his worst, he was a career politician that forced his way on America through smear campaigns and false promises to end Vietnam. His greatest legal crime was, as a private citizen, negotiating with Vietnamese leaders not to accept Lyndon Johnson's peace terms, to make his own election look more promising. (Read: He traded seven more years of war and untold death and destruction for two weeks of a better image for himself.) During his second term campaign, he artificially fixed commodity and food prices before the election, only to remove the price fixes after his election win, which nearly wrecked the American economy through severe inflation that was unseen since WWII. (This trick was later used by Obama with gas prices in his 2012 election.)

Nixon also was verbally abusive to Pat. By his second term, he was recorded as saying to the staffer in charge of event seating: "I don't want to be seated next to Pat, because I find myself having less to say to her." Pat, living through Watergate, mentally and physically seems to have been reduced to the most miserable existence of any president's wife. (Which is saying a lot, when taken in comparison to Mary Lincoln, Jackie Kennedy, and the exiled Eleanor Roosevelt.) She died with some of her last living statements being about how unhappy her life had been.

At his best, Nixon understood and (tried to) relate to a large portion of the American public that was unrepresented in over a decade, perhaps longer. His "Silent Majority" speech details a desire he had to start a third, less extreme political party (similar in effect to the "independent" movement today). Nixon, who was privately pro-life, for gay rights, didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, and publicly did more for the environment than any president before or after him, couldn't relate to the conservative extremists like Goldwater or Reagan. He never felt comfortable with Republicans propping up zombie capitalism (propping up business that would fail without government support) for votes. He also was disturbed by the Democratic liberals that overlooked the majority of Americans to funnel money and idealism into their constituencies (namely poor nonworking groups) for votes. (He, being a Washington insider, described Democrats as race baiters, and Republicans as 'bought'.)

This third party never came to be, of course, and was actually crushed out of existence by the later 20th century making each political party more extreme, rather than less. Still, it's refreshing to see that Nixon understood the dynamic of each party, and may have been the last president to take office outside of an idealogical basis.

Nixon, as the now famous quote goes, inherited a doomed presidency. After the assassination of JFK--who history makes clear was likely the only politician of his era with the ability to solve the Vietnam problem--Johnson and Nixon simply didn't have the advisers or the intellect to do anything except stubbornly persist through a war that couldn't be won. He could have made a decent (maybe even progressive) president had he come to term before WWII. Had he fully realized his third party (that of the "silent majority"), he could have changed partisan politics for at least a century. (Having won 48 states for his second term race, he certainly had the popularity to swing voters to a third party.)

Was Nixon unfairly judged by the media and the public? In contrast with the Cold War presidents around him (John/Robert Kennedy's use of the CIA, Johnson's Vietnam and domestic surveillance programs, Ford and Carter's inflation, Reagan's economic and peace fantasies), Watergate pales in moral comparison. In a way, he was a scapegoat for the distrust and hate for Johnson, who the schizophrenic public and myopic media could no longer blame once he was out of office. In another way, however, Nixon was everything that everyone said he was, and he trapped himself, instead of embracing the realities of what he inherited.

Inheriting Vietnam, an enlightened and angry media, Johnson's incarceration program, violent social change, the already failing Great Society social programs, and (above all) his own life experiences that made him paranoid and resentful, Nixon was on course to be the failed president that we now think of him as.

Note: Then there is Checkers. This is the first Nixon biography that I've read that also has a running biography of the life of Nixon's dog, Checkers. Checkers apparently ran off in Washington and was impregnated by a stray. (What happened to the puppies?) She ran off when Nixon was on one of his many Mexico drinking vacations and took the secret service to retrieve. (And because my wife keeps asking: Yes, this seems to have been due to an outburst where Nixon kicked her.)