What do you think?
Rate this book
Nixon: A Life
The rise, fall, and rebirth of Richard Nixon is perhaps the most fascinating story in American politics. Presidential chronicles and other outside sources have tried to capture it in full, but A Life is the first to succeed. A Life is the first entirely objective biography of Richard Nixon. Jonathan Aitken, who, in addition to serving in Parliament, serves as Her Majesty's Minister of State for Defense, conducted over sixty hours of interviews with Nixon and was granted unprecedented access to thousands of pages of Nixon's previously sealed private documents. The results of Aitken's interviews and research shed new light on a presidency that is just now beginning to be understood by serious students of history. Among the questions Aitken answers with fresh insight . Why didn't Nixon burn the Watergate tapes? How did he achieve his astonishing comebacks after being defeated by Kennedy in 1960 and resigning from the presidency in 1974? What were his relationships with political figures such as Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, and personal friends such as Bebe Rebozo and Robert Abplanalp? What caused him to overcome his doubts and pursue the Alger Hiss spy case in Congress? What are Nixon's innermost spiritual beliefs and intellectual influences? What drives him now? Previously published in Great Britain to rave reviews, A Life is the first Nixon biography written by a non-American author. Aitken's refreshingly unencumbered positions on Watergate and Vietnam provide a unique perspective on Nixon's life and his presidency. A Life breaks important new ground as a major work of political biography. It is a work that will inspire historiansto recognize the outstanding diplomatic achievements of a man whose journey from tainted politician to respected foreign policy expert and elder statesman has been nothing short of remarkable.
633 pages, Paperback
First published April 7, 1994
13 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Aitken
49 books12 followersJonathan William Patrick Aitken is a former Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom for 24 years, and a former British government Cabinet minister. He was convicted of perjury in 1999 and received an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served seven months.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
January 28, 2022
A well annotated biography of Richard Nixon. I can't say the author got anything wrong, and his portrait of an awkward man trying to make a mark in politics seems very true.
July 15, 2020
Back in the early '90s, it became fashionable to try burnishing the reputation of Richard Nixon, who before had been consigned to presidential oblivion. This initial impression has only been intensified through later revelations in way of newly released tapes, declassified documents and other research. Who now can deny, for instance, Nixon's sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks during the '68 election and his utterly cynical handling of Vietnam? The efforts of Joan Hoff, Len Colodny, Conrad Black and other revisionists, often working with Nixon's imprimatur, added a brief blip of spirited debate, but haven't stood up to scrutiny. If anything, recent works by John Farrell, Rick Perlstein and especially Ken Hughes' devastating duology (Chasing Shadows and Fatal Politics) confirs that the initial impression America gained back in the '70s was mostly correct: that Nixon, despite his occasional brilliance and vision on foreign affairs, was the most gruesome excuse for a human ever to occupy the White House (at least prior to 2017).
Written by a former MP, Defense Minister and fellow convict, Aitken's book tries convincing us that Nixon was a brilliant statesman unfairly hounded by the press and political enemies. This requires many sins of omission along with outright nonsense. Sure, there's the usual fluffing over his administration's achievements like the China opening, but there's also ahistorical nonsense about Mr. Outhouses-in-Peoria being devoted to civil rights and the environment. It's a claim which any source from the White House tapes to his aides' memoirs to Haldeman's diaries and specialist studies by Kotlowski, Flippen, etc. demolishes. Any achievements that can be credited to Nixon on these front were either pushed by his more liberal underlings (Pat Moynihan, Bob Finch, John Ehrlichman) or acquiescing to Congressional initiatives and public pressure. After reading Dean Kotlowski's Nixon's Civil Rights in particular, we know that he used affirmative action and desegregation policies in an utterly cynical fashion to turn blacks and working class whites against each other. At best, you can argue that Nixon deserves credit for not resisting an already sweeping public tide, or that his policies had positive effects regardless of how much Nixon believed in them. At worst, it's the sort of unprincipled, triangulation that other politicians are excoriated for. Though Aitken's capable of even worse, as when he insinuates that Daniel Ellsberg was a Soviet spy and grouses about the "Jewish lobby" sabotaging Nixon's judicial appointment.
Or Aitken's assuming that Nixon's handling of Vietnam, far from a callously cynical prolongation of an already wrongheaded war, was executed in good faith (which is easier, admittedly, when Aitken ignores disasters like Lam Son 719 altogether), made earnest efforts at peacemaking and sabotaged by Democrats and protesters. This "stab-in-the-back" myth was dubious during Nixon's presidency and is positively untenable now. Not after the release of more tapes over the past few decades showing Nixon musing about dropping nuclear weapons on Hanoi ("I just want you to think big, Henry!") or openly discussing how best to prolong the war through election day. The idea that Nixon and Kissinger would have saved South Vietnam had it not been for Watergate and those darn liberals, having openly washed their hands of America's longtime ally, is simple fantasy.
As for Watergate: Aitken brings us the worst of two idiotic theories. One, advanced way back in the late '70s by H.R. Haldeman, is that the CIA was jealous of Nixon for creating the Plumbers and framed him in the Watergate affair (using Alexander Butterfield, Bob Woodward and other ostensibly nefarious figures as plants), a theory too dumb to survive scrutiny. The other is the Len Colodny-Silent Coup theory that John Dean arranged the break-in and cover-up to cover up a call-girl scheme, citing the unimpeachable word of rat-eating lunatic Gordon Liddy. I am no fan of Dean and the way he's still touted as a Man of Principle rather than a fink who turned on his boss to save himself, but the evidence Aitken and Colodny present is laughably weak, based on insinuation rather than facts.
We won't even get into the "two wrongs make a right" playground moralizing, asking us "what about Kennedy and Johnson?" or claiming that the media was out to get Nixon, and that Agnew was either framed or unfairly targeted for commonplace crimes. This childish whataboutism is no more convincing defending today's Republican monsters than it was decades ago.
The worst part is that Aitken, being an Englishman, pretends that he's bringing an objective view to a man unfairly smeared by panicky Americans who can't see the forest for the trees. Which is fine, if you ignore fellow Englishmen like William Shawcross and Fred Emery who've written works that hold Nixon to the same scorn and ridicule as us mere provincial Yanks. Like another later Nixon hagiographer, Conrad Black, he does bring the experience of a conservative politician-turned-crook to bear in analyzing Tricky Dick's character, and perhaps there'd be some perverse value in that. Unfortunately, Aitken hadn't yet been jailed when he wrote this book, meaning it's merely stupid, morally vacuous garbage.
Written by a former MP, Defense Minister and fellow convict, Aitken's book tries convincing us that Nixon was a brilliant statesman unfairly hounded by the press and political enemies. This requires many sins of omission along with outright nonsense. Sure, there's the usual fluffing over his administration's achievements like the China opening, but there's also ahistorical nonsense about Mr. Outhouses-in-Peoria being devoted to civil rights and the environment. It's a claim which any source from the White House tapes to his aides' memoirs to Haldeman's diaries and specialist studies by Kotlowski, Flippen, etc. demolishes. Any achievements that can be credited to Nixon on these front were either pushed by his more liberal underlings (Pat Moynihan, Bob Finch, John Ehrlichman) or acquiescing to Congressional initiatives and public pressure. After reading Dean Kotlowski's Nixon's Civil Rights in particular, we know that he used affirmative action and desegregation policies in an utterly cynical fashion to turn blacks and working class whites against each other. At best, you can argue that Nixon deserves credit for not resisting an already sweeping public tide, or that his policies had positive effects regardless of how much Nixon believed in them. At worst, it's the sort of unprincipled, triangulation that other politicians are excoriated for. Though Aitken's capable of even worse, as when he insinuates that Daniel Ellsberg was a Soviet spy and grouses about the "Jewish lobby" sabotaging Nixon's judicial appointment.
Or Aitken's assuming that Nixon's handling of Vietnam, far from a callously cynical prolongation of an already wrongheaded war, was executed in good faith (which is easier, admittedly, when Aitken ignores disasters like Lam Son 719 altogether), made earnest efforts at peacemaking and sabotaged by Democrats and protesters. This "stab-in-the-back" myth was dubious during Nixon's presidency and is positively untenable now. Not after the release of more tapes over the past few decades showing Nixon musing about dropping nuclear weapons on Hanoi ("I just want you to think big, Henry!") or openly discussing how best to prolong the war through election day. The idea that Nixon and Kissinger would have saved South Vietnam had it not been for Watergate and those darn liberals, having openly washed their hands of America's longtime ally, is simple fantasy.
As for Watergate: Aitken brings us the worst of two idiotic theories. One, advanced way back in the late '70s by H.R. Haldeman, is that the CIA was jealous of Nixon for creating the Plumbers and framed him in the Watergate affair (using Alexander Butterfield, Bob Woodward and other ostensibly nefarious figures as plants), a theory too dumb to survive scrutiny. The other is the Len Colodny-Silent Coup theory that John Dean arranged the break-in and cover-up to cover up a call-girl scheme, citing the unimpeachable word of rat-eating lunatic Gordon Liddy. I am no fan of Dean and the way he's still touted as a Man of Principle rather than a fink who turned on his boss to save himself, but the evidence Aitken and Colodny present is laughably weak, based on insinuation rather than facts.
We won't even get into the "two wrongs make a right" playground moralizing, asking us "what about Kennedy and Johnson?" or claiming that the media was out to get Nixon, and that Agnew was either framed or unfairly targeted for commonplace crimes. This childish whataboutism is no more convincing defending today's Republican monsters than it was decades ago.
The worst part is that Aitken, being an Englishman, pretends that he's bringing an objective view to a man unfairly smeared by panicky Americans who can't see the forest for the trees. Which is fine, if you ignore fellow Englishmen like William Shawcross and Fred Emery who've written works that hold Nixon to the same scorn and ridicule as us mere provincial Yanks. Like another later Nixon hagiographer, Conrad Black, he does bring the experience of a conservative politician-turned-crook to bear in analyzing Tricky Dick's character, and perhaps there'd be some perverse value in that. Unfortunately, Aitken hadn't yet been jailed when he wrote this book, meaning it's merely stupid, morally vacuous garbage.
June 11, 2017
Jonathan Aitken was, at the time of this book's writing, a member of the British Parliament. He came to know Richard Nixon through this avenue, and has produced a highly complimentary, ever so gently critical biography of the disgraced former President. Aitken himself later fell from grace with a perjury conviction on his record. The book was written in 1993, only a year before Nixon's death. Since Aitken is British, he uses British spelling, such as “cheque” instead of “check”, that is a slight adjustment for an American reader.
From the beginning of the book, on page 7, he writes that Nixon's father, Frank, was caricatured as being “cruel” by other biographers, but that this was not so. Yet, Aitken goes onto make an excellent case for Frank being cruel: forcing his family to drink unpasteurized milk, which at a minimum led to frequent bouts of ill health and at its worse may have been the biggest factor in the early deaths of two of Nixon's brothers, Arthur and Harold; frequently screaming at his children and wife, being unable to control his emotions; refusing to accept free treatment from the local hospital for Harold in his battle with tuberculosis, which caused him to drain his financial resources on expensive treatments in Arizona. This last fact resulted in Nixon being unable to accept partial scholarships that were offered to him by both Harvard and Yale. Aitken, however, writes on page 30, “In good times Frank would have gladly scraped together the necessary parental subsidy...”. But Frank's actions, at least in part, caused him to be unable to help fund an Ivy League education for Richard. This is an example of Aitken's attempt to put the best possible gloss on things that Nixon or his family did.
Aitken frequently seems to make numerical errors when writing about something early in Nixon's life and then mentioning Nixon's commentary on it X number of years later. An example of this is on page 228, as writes about Nixon's 1953 trip to Asia: Nixon... claiming in his memoirs thirty-six years later...”. Nixon published him memoirs in 1978, twenty-five years after the Asia trip under discussion. Another example comes on page 248, when he writes that Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1954. This is not so; the heart attack occurred in 1955. Considering that earlier in the book he did get the year correct, and that this was a big moment in Nixon's vice-presidency, this is a sloppy error to make.
Aitken is so busy trying to remake Nixon's image into that of a kind and caring man that he fails to cover other much more important things. Case in point: Aitken spends an entire page detailing Nixon's efforts to help a Hollywood producer stay on a film project (see page 312). Yet, he devotes a total of one sentence to Nixon's nomination of Warren Burger as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He also fails to mention at all Nixon's policies and actions in conjunction with the 1971 India-Pakistan war or Chile's 1970 election of Salvador Allende. Those topics are not even in the book, but we can be rest assured that Nixon helped that Hollywood movie producer.
John Dean's doorstep is where Aitken lays the blame for Watergate. His view of Dean comes on page 417: “Dean was a transparently flashy chances whose track record was as full of ill-smelling holes as a slice of Emmenthal cheese.” He proceeds to finger Dean as the architect of the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Dean's hands are nowhere near clean, nor was his behavior laudatory. Still, Watergate was the summation of many different things, all beginning with Nixon creating a culture in his administration of trusting no one and doing whatever is needed to strike at people opposed to him. While Aitken does not absolve Nixon of any responsibility for Watergate, he loosens the leash as much as possible to the point where, at worst, Nixon is viewed as naive and exercising unwise judgment.
This is nowhere near the best Nixon biography out there. Aitken too quickly looks for ways to spin Nixon's misdeeds into innocent or naive decisions. While his concern that many biographers have focused on Nixon's shortcomings, especially concerning Watergate, is understandable, he over-corrects in his effort to show Nixon in a more human light. Several times, he refers to Nixon as a “prophet” and on the final page admits that he has “affection and admiration for him.” While this is not a fault for a biographer to have, and certainly there are things to admire about Nixon, the admiration in this case has resulted in a biased portrait. Thanks to his exclusive access to Nixon's private papers, and his extensive multiple interviews with Nixon, there is some merit to reading this book if one wishes to gain a different perspective on Nixon. However, if one were looking for one good book to read about Nixon, this one is most definitely not it.
From the beginning of the book, on page 7, he writes that Nixon's father, Frank, was caricatured as being “cruel” by other biographers, but that this was not so. Yet, Aitken goes onto make an excellent case for Frank being cruel: forcing his family to drink unpasteurized milk, which at a minimum led to frequent bouts of ill health and at its worse may have been the biggest factor in the early deaths of two of Nixon's brothers, Arthur and Harold; frequently screaming at his children and wife, being unable to control his emotions; refusing to accept free treatment from the local hospital for Harold in his battle with tuberculosis, which caused him to drain his financial resources on expensive treatments in Arizona. This last fact resulted in Nixon being unable to accept partial scholarships that were offered to him by both Harvard and Yale. Aitken, however, writes on page 30, “In good times Frank would have gladly scraped together the necessary parental subsidy...”. But Frank's actions, at least in part, caused him to be unable to help fund an Ivy League education for Richard. This is an example of Aitken's attempt to put the best possible gloss on things that Nixon or his family did.
Aitken frequently seems to make numerical errors when writing about something early in Nixon's life and then mentioning Nixon's commentary on it X number of years later. An example of this is on page 228, as writes about Nixon's 1953 trip to Asia: Nixon... claiming in his memoirs thirty-six years later...”. Nixon published him memoirs in 1978, twenty-five years after the Asia trip under discussion. Another example comes on page 248, when he writes that Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1954. This is not so; the heart attack occurred in 1955. Considering that earlier in the book he did get the year correct, and that this was a big moment in Nixon's vice-presidency, this is a sloppy error to make.
Aitken is so busy trying to remake Nixon's image into that of a kind and caring man that he fails to cover other much more important things. Case in point: Aitken spends an entire page detailing Nixon's efforts to help a Hollywood producer stay on a film project (see page 312). Yet, he devotes a total of one sentence to Nixon's nomination of Warren Burger as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He also fails to mention at all Nixon's policies and actions in conjunction with the 1971 India-Pakistan war or Chile's 1970 election of Salvador Allende. Those topics are not even in the book, but we can be rest assured that Nixon helped that Hollywood movie producer.
John Dean's doorstep is where Aitken lays the blame for Watergate. His view of Dean comes on page 417: “Dean was a transparently flashy chances whose track record was as full of ill-smelling holes as a slice of Emmenthal cheese.” He proceeds to finger Dean as the architect of the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Dean's hands are nowhere near clean, nor was his behavior laudatory. Still, Watergate was the summation of many different things, all beginning with Nixon creating a culture in his administration of trusting no one and doing whatever is needed to strike at people opposed to him. While Aitken does not absolve Nixon of any responsibility for Watergate, he loosens the leash as much as possible to the point where, at worst, Nixon is viewed as naive and exercising unwise judgment.
This is nowhere near the best Nixon biography out there. Aitken too quickly looks for ways to spin Nixon's misdeeds into innocent or naive decisions. While his concern that many biographers have focused on Nixon's shortcomings, especially concerning Watergate, is understandable, he over-corrects in his effort to show Nixon in a more human light. Several times, he refers to Nixon as a “prophet” and on the final page admits that he has “affection and admiration for him.” While this is not a fault for a biographer to have, and certainly there are things to admire about Nixon, the admiration in this case has resulted in a biased portrait. Thanks to his exclusive access to Nixon's private papers, and his extensive multiple interviews with Nixon, there is some merit to reading this book if one wishes to gain a different perspective on Nixon. However, if one were looking for one good book to read about Nixon, this one is most definitely not it.
January 31, 2013
I thought this book revealed previously unknown insight and showed a side of Richard Nixon i have never knew for example that he started the EPA and the war on drugs; however for anyone interested in reading this book beware that the author takes a shamelessly biased position toward Nixon, every conceivable flaw and dark side of the man is intricately explained away to the point of absurdity.
April 17, 2018
Nixon is a fascinating figure, but Aitken's book comes off as a little fawning, without even really explaining his accomplishments. Aitken is also way too willing to treat G. Gordon Liddy as a credible source, and blame Watergate squarely on John Dean.
For a more nuanced look at Nixon's life, read Evan Thomas's Being Nixon.
For a more nuanced look at Nixon's life, read Evan Thomas's Being Nixon.
September 5, 2013
When I took a college course on the United States presidency, we were required to read a biography on a president of our choice and give a short oral report of it. I chose Nixon because growing up post-Watergate, it seemed to me he was perhaps the most villainized president in American history. I wanted to take the opportunity of the assignment to get the other side, so I deliberately chose a biography after looking among the choices on the bookshelves that seemed the most positive towards him.
I'm afraid Aitken does come across as an apologist and seems too defensive about Nixon's faults (some would say crimes). On the other hand, there's something to be said about a biographer that does feel some empathy for his subject, and this is a thick tome, thoroughly covering Nixon's life from cradle to grave. My professor's comment after my report on Nixon based on what I had read is that I had slighted Kissinger's role in the administration. And it's true, this book puts Nixon firmly in the driver's seat and gives him complete credit for the opening up of relations with China. I do remember this book as a corrective--I just wouldn't recommend it as the only biography of Nixon to read. Someday I'd like to seek out one that is more critical.
I'm afraid Aitken does come across as an apologist and seems too defensive about Nixon's faults (some would say crimes). On the other hand, there's something to be said about a biographer that does feel some empathy for his subject, and this is a thick tome, thoroughly covering Nixon's life from cradle to grave. My professor's comment after my report on Nixon based on what I had read is that I had slighted Kissinger's role in the administration. And it's true, this book puts Nixon firmly in the driver's seat and gives him complete credit for the opening up of relations with China. I do remember this book as a corrective--I just wouldn't recommend it as the only biography of Nixon to read. Someday I'd like to seek out one that is more critical.
August 30, 2025
Aitken, a conservative Brit, was friendly with Nixon. Here he has written a very sympathetic portrait of the ex-president. Maybe too sympathetic.
The only book I had ever read about Nixon was All the President’s Men, so I had a lot to learn. I felt like I learned a lot but it also felt like Aitken let Nixon off easy. Someday I’d like to read a more balanced account of Nixon’s life.
The only book I had ever read about Nixon was All the President’s Men, so I had a lot to learn. I felt like I learned a lot but it also felt like Aitken let Nixon off easy. Someday I’d like to read a more balanced account of Nixon’s life.
May 3, 2021
Who better than Jonathan Aitken to write a biography of Richard Nixon? Aitken is a British conservative who ended up in jail for lying to cover up his shady dealing. Nixon avoided that fate but is famous for his character flaws and the Watergate scandal where he lied to cover up his shady dealings. At the time this book was written - the early nineties - Aitken had not yet fallen but, perhaps presciently, he is very forgiving of Nixon’s misbehaviour. All of Tricky Dicky’s sins are listed but lightly brushed over as routine in politics at the time, understandable because of his tribulations or acceptable because his enemies did worse things. It’s certainly true that in the Presidential election of 1960 the Kennedy’s were not too scrupulous about how they won. Nixon could have challenged the result but - like Al Gore later - decided patriotically that to do so would damage democracy. The fact that rigged elections indicate a democracy already in pretty bad shape doesn’t seem to have occurred to either one.
A forgiving analysis by a crooked politician of another crooked politician doesn’t sound promising and yet this is really a pretty good biography. There are plentiful writings about Nixon by his enemies so it’s refreshing to have one by a sympathizer. The book is also very readable and, as far as I can tell, gives all the facts. The author is on Nixon’s side but this is no hagiography and he doesn’t shy away from listing the great man’s flaws. Aitken also tries to explain how the President’s character came to be that way under pressure from a hostile press. Nixon was not a natural politician but forced himself to keep going with it because he thought he knew the right way forward in foreign affairs and had a duty to take control. His life was not easy, unlike Kennedy’s, and he worked extremely hard to make himself a success. Aitken also explains how his appeal bypassed the ‘Eastern liberal establishment’ and went straight to middle America, or the silent majority as he later called them. In England, we call it the middle ground and practical politicians want to occupy it. The common man can be a difficult chap to woo and public servants with high ideals can’t always do it.
You can’t take this as Gospel, keep pinches of salt to hand, but it’s quite enjoyable.
A forgiving analysis by a crooked politician of another crooked politician doesn’t sound promising and yet this is really a pretty good biography. There are plentiful writings about Nixon by his enemies so it’s refreshing to have one by a sympathizer. The book is also very readable and, as far as I can tell, gives all the facts. The author is on Nixon’s side but this is no hagiography and he doesn’t shy away from listing the great man’s flaws. Aitken also tries to explain how the President’s character came to be that way under pressure from a hostile press. Nixon was not a natural politician but forced himself to keep going with it because he thought he knew the right way forward in foreign affairs and had a duty to take control. His life was not easy, unlike Kennedy’s, and he worked extremely hard to make himself a success. Aitken also explains how his appeal bypassed the ‘Eastern liberal establishment’ and went straight to middle America, or the silent majority as he later called them. In England, we call it the middle ground and practical politicians want to occupy it. The common man can be a difficult chap to woo and public servants with high ideals can’t always do it.
You can’t take this as Gospel, keep pinches of salt to hand, but it’s quite enjoyable.
June 3, 2019
This biography has a bunch of problems. It's so sympathetic to Nixon that it gets ridiculous. And the author speculates a bunch without offering much in the way of warrant. He suggests, for example, that the CIA could have planted Alexander Butterfield in Bob Haldeman's office as a mole in the White House, and that the famous 18.5 minute erasure in the secret White House recordings might have been the work of Deep Throat trying to make Nixon look guilty.
Besides that silliness, Aitken has trouble with pacing. His storytelling is sometimes clumsy. And makes unusual choices about the things that will interest readers.
Despite that, this biography is valuable for its extensive interviews with Nixon and his staff and offers and interesting look pro-Nixon arguments.
Besides that silliness, Aitken has trouble with pacing. His storytelling is sometimes clumsy. And makes unusual choices about the things that will interest readers.
Despite that, this biography is valuable for its extensive interviews with Nixon and his staff and offers and interesting look pro-Nixon arguments.
November 21, 2012
Once again, I've always been fascinated by Nixon. In this book, we get a friendly, honest look at the man from a British MP -- adding a different aspect to this portrait of Nixon's life. Well worth reading. Aitken knows his stuff, holds no punches, and offers a bit of analysis that's fresh and from a perspective that doesn't call for ass-covering or that intense Nixon-hatred that's still out there among some folks.
November 24, 2019
If you have always hated Richard Nixon, or at least hated him since Watergate, and have no desire to open your mind to any suggestion that there is anything honorable or sympathetic in his character, then you do not want to read this book. You probably should, but you don't want to. I was a young man just short of coming of age at the time of Watergate, and have always considered Nixon to be one of the great villains of American history. Who would have thought that reading a thorough, fair, balanced biography of the man would bring me to find that there is much to respect about him, and that even with regard to Watergate it is possible to recognize that although he handled the situation abominably, there is room for sympathy. This book is marvelously well-written and even better researched, and brings its subject to life in a way that few if any biographies I've ever read have been able to. If you're willing to maintain an open mind on the subject of Richard Nixon, this book is highly recommended.
August 27, 2017
This was my Summer reading. With working and studying probability, I didn't have as much time to read as I would of liked. Back to the book being reviewed, I have thoroughly enjoyed it and wouldn't mind reading it again in the distant future. However, this is a very long book at 577 pages of reading material, so be prepared to invest a lot of time into reading it. As other reviews have mentioned, this book looks on Nixon in a favorable light. Most of it discusses his accomplishments, while the minimum amount is devoted to his failures. Since this is practically a biography, it doesn't give the in depth discussion of Nixon as President or Vice-President, so you should look elsewhere if that is what you are looking for. I like the author Jonathan Aitken's writing style and will definitely read more of his books.
April 4, 2019
I liked this book because the author included bits of Nixon's life, but I didn't feel as if he told the "whole" story. There were no pictures in the book which would have added to the value of the book. I thought the author's writing was biased in favor of President Nixon because he left out much of his darker moments. I think I'll find another biography on Nixon to which I can compare Aitken's book.
May 27, 2018
Revisionist Biography of President Nixon
Author w a s obviously great admirer of Nixon and this shown through in the many excuses given for his decisions. Author is British and many examples would be better understood with as British history background. I would suggest choosing an American biographer.
Author w a s obviously great admirer of Nixon and this shown through in the many excuses given for his decisions. Author is British and many examples would be better understood with as British history background. I would suggest choosing an American biographer.
February 15, 2019
Fascinating and well written (and not too revisionist) story of a obviously intelligent and highly ambitious focussed individual who was tripped up by his own hubris. And doubly fascinating because written by Jonathan Aitken who was later tripped up by his own hubris. ( Just look up "rusty sword of truth" and Aitken for that story.
September 26, 2021
This is the second autobiography I’ve read about President Richard M. Nixon recently as he came to mind as a most intelligent and worldly statesman post his resignation. Busy with my life and career, his great accomplishments of the last 20 years of his own life passed me by. Until this summer, when I became intrigued with the question of what happened after he resigned the presidency and left office. I learned so much about a great American statesman through this very thoughtful book; having been presented with a fair, balanced, and less hysterical evaluation of the man. Always considering himself a “Man of the World”, he was certainly that, continuing to reach across the world in finding ways to make our planet a better, safer place to live; advising leaders of other nations as well as three subsequent American presidents in his desire to help achieve better outcomes for all peoples and having great vision after the fall of the former Soviet Union as to how the only remaining superpower, the United States of America, may continue to provide leadership throughout the world! I’m convinced that as people become more aware of the entire man, history will cast a decision on his behalf in acknowledging that President Richard Milhouse Nixon was one of the greatest 20th century statesmen and one of this country’s most outstanding Presidents!
May 17, 2017
Interesting, easy to read and thoroughly enjoyable. I think Jonathan Aitken is a fantastic author. I've read two of his other biographies (on Margaret Thatcher and Charles Colson) and would highly recommend them all.
April 11, 2020
It is a very long book but certainly worth reading because it is not only informative but also enjoyable. Objective, flowing and extremely well written and well researched and documented
November 25, 2020
Excellent!
November 7, 2024
~4 Stars~
August 14, 2025
Richard Nixon I kneel...
Read
September 4, 2016I found this book to be very interesting and informative, with many memorable passages. A passage of the book that I found of particular interest was the following passage commenting on the comparative personal ethics and political ethics of Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon:
“… around this time [Nixon] began to make a difference between personal ethics and political ethics. He was affected by watching what went on in the White House, first with the Kennedys who stopped at nothing – womanizing, abusing the IRS and the Justice Department and so on – and then with Lyndon Johnson who was just totally unscrupulous. I believe Nixon saw what happened with those Presidents and said to himself, “That’s the way the game’s gotta be played.”” (Page 335 of 1993 edition)
This caused me to wonder what a tabular fair and independent head-to-head comparison would look like in comparing Presidents Nixon to Kennedy and Johnson on specific attribute by attribute basis based upon the historical record, such as perhaps in the following hypothetical format, with such additional attributes added as may be relevant:
Head-to-head comparison of US presidents
as to various attributes
Attribute Kennedy Johnson Nixon
Financial honesty ? ? ?
Truthfulness ? ? ?
Intelligence ? ? ?
Morality ? ? ?
Often I read and hear various general comments made comparing various Presidents to each other, but without such comparative comments presented in a format that would assist the reader in easily and quickly seeing and understanding such comparison at a glance. I believe that a tabular head-to-head comparison of Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy by the author of this book would have been helpful to the reader and leave the reader with a more memorable impression.
“… around this time [Nixon] began to make a difference between personal ethics and political ethics. He was affected by watching what went on in the White House, first with the Kennedys who stopped at nothing – womanizing, abusing the IRS and the Justice Department and so on – and then with Lyndon Johnson who was just totally unscrupulous. I believe Nixon saw what happened with those Presidents and said to himself, “That’s the way the game’s gotta be played.”” (Page 335 of 1993 edition)
This caused me to wonder what a tabular fair and independent head-to-head comparison would look like in comparing Presidents Nixon to Kennedy and Johnson on specific attribute by attribute basis based upon the historical record, such as perhaps in the following hypothetical format, with such additional attributes added as may be relevant:
Head-to-head comparison of US presidents
as to various attributes
Attribute Kennedy Johnson Nixon
Financial honesty ? ? ?
Truthfulness ? ? ?
Intelligence ? ? ?
Morality ? ? ?
Often I read and hear various general comments made comparing various Presidents to each other, but without such comparative comments presented in a format that would assist the reader in easily and quickly seeing and understanding such comparison at a glance. I believe that a tabular head-to-head comparison of Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy by the author of this book would have been helpful to the reader and leave the reader with a more memorable impression.
January 28, 2013
The problem with a Nixon biography is finding one that isn't either strongly biased against him or one that goes out of the way to redeem him. Therefore, I specifically picked this author because he was from England and didn't have a political agenda in American politics. Unfortunately he got a lot of his info from personal interviews with Nixon and I get the feeling that he got to like Nixon personally and was a bit of an apologist for him. That said, Nixon is a fascinating and conflicted character which made this a great read. His playing of China, against Russia and how this helped end the Vietnam War was fascinating. As for Watergate, I get the feeling I could read multiple books on the subject and get significant variations on the whole story.
February 16, 2008
I am always interested in the life story of a self-made person, especially one like Nixon.
February 28, 2013
I was never a Nixon fan. But this unauthorized biography is very well researched and will give you a much better insight into Nixon, the man. And, surprisingly enough, he's a pretty good man.
March 9, 2008
A superb biography of a great man.
April 22, 2012
Pure propaganda.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews