What do you think?
Rate this book
Kennedy and Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America
John Kennedy and Richard Nixon shared a dream of being the great young leader of their age. But what drove history, as this work sets out to show, was the enmity between these two figures, whose 1960 presidential contest would set the nation's bitter course for years to come.
400 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1996
39 people are currently reading
897 people want to read
About the author
Chris Matthews
69 books164 followersChristopher John “Chris” Matthews is widely respected for his in-depth knowledge of politics. Now retired, he was a nightly host, news anchor and political commentator on MSNBC (1997-2020), a Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the newspaper, San Francisco Examiner (1987–2000), a Chief of Staff to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill, a Carter era presidential speech writer, and penned a number of bestselling books, to name a small part of his impressive resume. Chris has been married to Kathleen (née Cunningham) since 1980 and they share three children and several grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
April 8, 2023
The subtitle of this book, which posits that the rivalry between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon “shaped postwar America,” may be somewhat overstating the case, but not by much. Even if Chris Matthews’s thesis is hyperbolic, the Kennedy-Nixon rivalry is certainly a useful lens through which to examine national politics in the U.S. for the three-plus decades after World War II.
This is a very readable and accessible book. I think Matthews has done a great job of putting the story together in this way. Other books examine the people and events covered in the book in more detail and depth, but this is a very good overview. I think anyone who is interested in the history of the period would find it valuable. What follows is my summary of the highlights of the story.
The political careers of the two young Navy officers began in 1946 when both were elected to Congress—the first elective office for each of them. Their rivalry reached its peak in 1960 when Kennedy defeated Nixon for the presidency. But as Matthews shows, the rivalry continued to shape events after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, as Nixon watched and fretted about the Kennedy torch being passed to JFK’s younger brothers.
As Matthews presents it, one of the fascinating aspects of this history is how similar Kennedy’s and Nixon’s political outlooks were, despite Kennedy being a Democrat and Nixon a Republican. In the 1946 election, “Kennedy had run as a ‘fighting conservative,’ a phrase he chose himself; Nixon, on a commitment to ‘practical liberalism.’” Both were avowed anti-Communists and were sympathetic to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for Communist subversives. “One reason was that they liked him personally. Another was that they disliked his enemies.” Early on, Kennedy was at least as committed a Cold Warrior as Nixon, if not more so.
Both men were exceptionally ambitious, planning from the beginning to achieve higher office. Nixon moved up first, winning election to the Senate in 1950 before being elected Vice President in 1952, the same year Kennedy won election to the Senate. Both men had similar messages in the 1952 campaign: Nixon attacked outgoing President Truman for being soft on Communism, while Kennedy did the same with respect to his opponent, incumbent Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
Coincidentally—and happily for the sake of the rivalry narrative—when Nixon was the vice president and Kennedy was in the Senate, they were assigned offices across the hall from each other. They saw each other frequently, and the genuinely friendly relationship they had developed as young congressmen continued for a while. Nixon was especially gracious and solicitous when Kennedy almost died after back surgery in 1954.
It was inevitable that their relationship would change when they both ran for president in 1960. And it did, with both candidates attacking each other personally and their respective campaigns engaging in various dirty tricks. Kennedy won the election, but it was extremely close; Nixon was convinced that it had been stolen. “The close call affected both men. Nixon, feeling himself the victim of an ambush, would spend the rest of his career trying to avoid another. Kennedy, stunned by the close split, would remain embittered toward his rival, who had convinced half the country he was Jack Kennedy’s better.”
Kennedy, of course, was assassinated in 1963, but when Nixon eyed another run for the presidency in 1968, the leading Democratic candidate was JFK’s younger brother Bobby—until June 1968, when he too was assassinated. But even though Nixon won the 1968 election, his obsession with the Kennedys continued: he worried that the youngest Kennedy brother, Ted, would be his challenger when he ran for reelection in 1972. Given the Kennedy mystique, Nixon feared that even Ted’s questionable behavior in the 1969 Chappaquiddick auto accident that took the life of a young woman would not disqualify him from a successful campaign.
But Nixon knew that “the Kennedy threat in 1972 arose not so much from the younger brother himself as from the glory he reflected from the past.” So in order to combat Ted Kennedy, Nixon was determined to tarnish John Kennedy’s legacy too. He directed his staff to “get more ‘vicious’ in pounding JFK’s conduct of Vietnam policy” and to get evidence of what he viewed as Kennedy’s catastrophic mishandling of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. To some of Nixon’s campaign operatives, his hunger for opposition research on “the Kennedy crowd” provided the justification for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex.
Nixon himself sealed the fate of his presidency by moving to conceal his people’s involvement in the Watergate break-in. And it was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy who played a leading role behind the scenes in forcing Nixon’s ultimate resignation. First, his Judiciary Subcommittee conducted an extensive investigation into Watergate and other dirty tricks. Second, he pushed for a Watergate special prosecutor with full authority to pursue Nixon. In the end, the “Kennedy crowd,” including Ted as well as JFK’s old pal Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, got the last word in the rivalry with Nixon.
Matthews quotes Nixon’s own candid assessment of what had happened, spoken as he was leaving the White House after his resignation: “‘Always remember, others may hate you—but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.’”
This is a very readable and accessible book. I think Matthews has done a great job of putting the story together in this way. Other books examine the people and events covered in the book in more detail and depth, but this is a very good overview. I think anyone who is interested in the history of the period would find it valuable. What follows is my summary of the highlights of the story.
The political careers of the two young Navy officers began in 1946 when both were elected to Congress—the first elective office for each of them. Their rivalry reached its peak in 1960 when Kennedy defeated Nixon for the presidency. But as Matthews shows, the rivalry continued to shape events after Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, as Nixon watched and fretted about the Kennedy torch being passed to JFK’s younger brothers.
As Matthews presents it, one of the fascinating aspects of this history is how similar Kennedy’s and Nixon’s political outlooks were, despite Kennedy being a Democrat and Nixon a Republican. In the 1946 election, “Kennedy had run as a ‘fighting conservative,’ a phrase he chose himself; Nixon, on a commitment to ‘practical liberalism.’” Both were avowed anti-Communists and were sympathetic to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for Communist subversives. “One reason was that they liked him personally. Another was that they disliked his enemies.” Early on, Kennedy was at least as committed a Cold Warrior as Nixon, if not more so.
Both men were exceptionally ambitious, planning from the beginning to achieve higher office. Nixon moved up first, winning election to the Senate in 1950 before being elected Vice President in 1952, the same year Kennedy won election to the Senate. Both men had similar messages in the 1952 campaign: Nixon attacked outgoing President Truman for being soft on Communism, while Kennedy did the same with respect to his opponent, incumbent Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
Coincidentally—and happily for the sake of the rivalry narrative—when Nixon was the vice president and Kennedy was in the Senate, they were assigned offices across the hall from each other. They saw each other frequently, and the genuinely friendly relationship they had developed as young congressmen continued for a while. Nixon was especially gracious and solicitous when Kennedy almost died after back surgery in 1954.
It was inevitable that their relationship would change when they both ran for president in 1960. And it did, with both candidates attacking each other personally and their respective campaigns engaging in various dirty tricks. Kennedy won the election, but it was extremely close; Nixon was convinced that it had been stolen. “The close call affected both men. Nixon, feeling himself the victim of an ambush, would spend the rest of his career trying to avoid another. Kennedy, stunned by the close split, would remain embittered toward his rival, who had convinced half the country he was Jack Kennedy’s better.”
Kennedy, of course, was assassinated in 1963, but when Nixon eyed another run for the presidency in 1968, the leading Democratic candidate was JFK’s younger brother Bobby—until June 1968, when he too was assassinated. But even though Nixon won the 1968 election, his obsession with the Kennedys continued: he worried that the youngest Kennedy brother, Ted, would be his challenger when he ran for reelection in 1972. Given the Kennedy mystique, Nixon feared that even Ted’s questionable behavior in the 1969 Chappaquiddick auto accident that took the life of a young woman would not disqualify him from a successful campaign.
But Nixon knew that “the Kennedy threat in 1972 arose not so much from the younger brother himself as from the glory he reflected from the past.” So in order to combat Ted Kennedy, Nixon was determined to tarnish John Kennedy’s legacy too. He directed his staff to “get more ‘vicious’ in pounding JFK’s conduct of Vietnam policy” and to get evidence of what he viewed as Kennedy’s catastrophic mishandling of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. To some of Nixon’s campaign operatives, his hunger for opposition research on “the Kennedy crowd” provided the justification for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex.
Nixon himself sealed the fate of his presidency by moving to conceal his people’s involvement in the Watergate break-in. And it was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy who played a leading role behind the scenes in forcing Nixon’s ultimate resignation. First, his Judiciary Subcommittee conducted an extensive investigation into Watergate and other dirty tricks. Second, he pushed for a Watergate special prosecutor with full authority to pursue Nixon. In the end, the “Kennedy crowd,” including Ted as well as JFK’s old pal Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, got the last word in the rivalry with Nixon.
Matthews quotes Nixon’s own candid assessment of what had happened, spoken as he was leaving the White House after his resignation: “‘Always remember, others may hate you—but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.’”
March 29, 2009
This book marks a new twist in my feelings about Christopher Matthews. When he was a secondary talking head and would show up on Sunday morning talk shows, I kinda liked him. He was a democrat with a maverick streak for acknowleding when the Republicans were making more sense then we were. I like the intellectual honesty that underlies that kind of behavior.
Unfortunately, HARDBALL ruined that image for me. He morphed into a loud mouth more interested in hearing the sound of his own voice than even a thinly veiled charade of exchange. In that sense he seemed to be apeing a style that suits the viewers of Hannity and Rush more than it is likely to appeal those of us looking for different fare.
Well, I don't know what to think of Chris Matthews now, because no matter how obnoxious he is as a television personality, this is a DAMN FINE BOOK. The prose is tight, fast-paced and compelling.
The book is basically about the bizarre criss-crossing of the lives of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The story truly has the makings of a Greek tragedy or Shakespearian history. Young friends from different backgrounds, with mutual admiration, spend the rest of their lives competing. But Nixon's basic insecurities eat him alive creating a life of defeats large and small to Kennedy and his ghost. You can not truly appreciate the election of 1960 and everything that comes after it until you read this book.
It is well known to students of politics that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat, despite having taken on liberal icon status in death. Similarly, astute observes of Nixon will note that despite his villification by the left, he was really a liberal Republican. After reading this book, you really understand how similar the world view of these two men actually was.
If you are even vaguely interested in these two men, I highly commend you to this fine book. It did well in sales, but it really is an important contribution to the understanding of this era, and should have been more widely lauded as a piece of history.
Unfortunately, HARDBALL ruined that image for me. He morphed into a loud mouth more interested in hearing the sound of his own voice than even a thinly veiled charade of exchange. In that sense he seemed to be apeing a style that suits the viewers of Hannity and Rush more than it is likely to appeal those of us looking for different fare.
Well, I don't know what to think of Chris Matthews now, because no matter how obnoxious he is as a television personality, this is a DAMN FINE BOOK. The prose is tight, fast-paced and compelling.
The book is basically about the bizarre criss-crossing of the lives of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The story truly has the makings of a Greek tragedy or Shakespearian history. Young friends from different backgrounds, with mutual admiration, spend the rest of their lives competing. But Nixon's basic insecurities eat him alive creating a life of defeats large and small to Kennedy and his ghost. You can not truly appreciate the election of 1960 and everything that comes after it until you read this book.
It is well known to students of politics that Kennedy was a conservative Democrat, despite having taken on liberal icon status in death. Similarly, astute observes of Nixon will note that despite his villification by the left, he was really a liberal Republican. After reading this book, you really understand how similar the world view of these two men actually was.
If you are even vaguely interested in these two men, I highly commend you to this fine book. It did well in sales, but it really is an important contribution to the understanding of this era, and should have been more widely lauded as a piece of history.
July 31, 2011
Chris Matthews is no stranger to anyone interested in American politics, though unfortunately some may be more familiar with the caricature of him on Saturday Night Live than the real Chris Matthews. None of which should matter as far as reading his book, though it does explain the approach he's taken.
The book is easy reading; it's written in decent prose, flows nicely (though there are some unsubtle bits of repetition throughout the text, these are minor, at most a sentence here and there) and is easy to comprehend even if one does not have a hardcore interest in politics. But the reason it flows so well is that it seems superficial in places, and from a scholarly point of view the placement of the notes/sources at the back is frustrating. A good choice for making this a readable and "popular" history, but bad for easily figuring out where Matthews draws his conclusions from. Many of his inferences seem on the face of it to be drawn from thin air, and he steps into the mind of President Kennedy or President Nixon quite readily at times, leaving one to wonder if he has taken an enormous amount of liberty or not.
Nonetheless, for someone with no background at all in the history of these two political careers, the book does draw on a lot of fascinating information. The emphasis is firmly on how the two careers influenced each other. Even if all one did was read the photo captions, that reader would come away with a new and unique perspective on the events of the 1950s-1970s in American history.
The book treats many of the events superficially, however; familiar and dramatic events are discussed briefly (the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is breezed through in a page or so) and others are conspicuous by their absence (no mention of the missing 18-1/2 minutes?).
The largest criticism is that the book is drawn from secondary sources. Of necessity, naturally, since the two main subjects have passed on. However, despite a functional telling of how they became elected to their various offices, we never really learn why. Their ambition is taken as a given and I think Matthews' background as a political observer may have been a stumbling block here; his knowledge of the subject matter, the political world, the reason why either man would do something in a particular situation for a political motive, is so ingrained, he probably sees no reason to explain it to a layperson audience. But for someone outside the political realm with little idea of the very different world that these power brokers lived in, it becomes very hard to relate to the naked ambition of these historical figures, and Matthews does little to help the reader understand why anything is happening. In that regard the book comes across as pedantic.
The book also presents all the events of the era through the lens of the rivalry; the other influences - particularly during the Nixon presidency - are hardly discussed at all, and Matthews tries too hard to make his point that his fear of the Kennedy family drove everything he did, when other sources suggest that other forces were also at least occasionally at work.
Still, there is much food for thought here, and the book should please both the serious student of the eras involved, as well as those doing some light reading.
The book is easy reading; it's written in decent prose, flows nicely (though there are some unsubtle bits of repetition throughout the text, these are minor, at most a sentence here and there) and is easy to comprehend even if one does not have a hardcore interest in politics. But the reason it flows so well is that it seems superficial in places, and from a scholarly point of view the placement of the notes/sources at the back is frustrating. A good choice for making this a readable and "popular" history, but bad for easily figuring out where Matthews draws his conclusions from. Many of his inferences seem on the face of it to be drawn from thin air, and he steps into the mind of President Kennedy or President Nixon quite readily at times, leaving one to wonder if he has taken an enormous amount of liberty or not.
Nonetheless, for someone with no background at all in the history of these two political careers, the book does draw on a lot of fascinating information. The emphasis is firmly on how the two careers influenced each other. Even if all one did was read the photo captions, that reader would come away with a new and unique perspective on the events of the 1950s-1970s in American history.
The book treats many of the events superficially, however; familiar and dramatic events are discussed briefly (the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is breezed through in a page or so) and others are conspicuous by their absence (no mention of the missing 18-1/2 minutes?).
The largest criticism is that the book is drawn from secondary sources. Of necessity, naturally, since the two main subjects have passed on. However, despite a functional telling of how they became elected to their various offices, we never really learn why. Their ambition is taken as a given and I think Matthews' background as a political observer may have been a stumbling block here; his knowledge of the subject matter, the political world, the reason why either man would do something in a particular situation for a political motive, is so ingrained, he probably sees no reason to explain it to a layperson audience. But for someone outside the political realm with little idea of the very different world that these power brokers lived in, it becomes very hard to relate to the naked ambition of these historical figures, and Matthews does little to help the reader understand why anything is happening. In that regard the book comes across as pedantic.
The book also presents all the events of the era through the lens of the rivalry; the other influences - particularly during the Nixon presidency - are hardly discussed at all, and Matthews tries too hard to make his point that his fear of the Kennedy family drove everything he did, when other sources suggest that other forces were also at least occasionally at work.
Still, there is much food for thought here, and the book should please both the serious student of the eras involved, as well as those doing some light reading.
March 27, 2013
Very fun read. Only problem is (like with the Watergate book) it's a little sketchy--could've been longer (like I need another 500+ page book to wade through). Also with this one some of the sketchiness was a bit insiderish--he assumed knowledge I'm not sure I always had. Of course, part of the problem was having to research a friendship (a pretty tough assignment)--and keep one's attention focused on that throughout. But it was beautiful how it worked--and poignant (they really were evidently good pals when they both came up to Congress--and mutual admirers in those salad days). If it had just been a comparison of any two postwar politicians it would've been skippable--but those two in particular...their friendship/wranglings makes a great and sort of haunting structure. And actually, Kennedy was a pretty ruthless sort--and his brother Bobby comes off as a real jerk; plus there was the original dirty trickster Dick Tuck (wasn't he in Midsummer Night's Dream?). Maybe Nixon wasn't quite the monster we thought...there was definitely something to be said about there being a double standard (also thought it interesting that according to Haldeman Nixon never rued the 1962 press conference).
March 25, 2012
Interesting book that more appropriately should have been titled "Nixon's Pathological Obsession with All Things Kennedy."
Beginning with the friendship, and then the rivalry, between Nixon and JFK, the second half of the book details Nixon's fears of a restored Camelot: first through Bobby, then through Teddy, the fear of the latter driving Nixon into the debacle of Watergate.
It's all rather unpersuasive, but author Mathews drives this point repeatedly (and I do mean repeatedly). It's a rather trite motive for a very complex individual, but Matthews has a trenchant for such schemes, so it's not surprising.
Still, this book has a lot of detail and research. There are many fascinating nuggets, such as the revelation that Joseph Kennedy gave financial support to Nixon during one of his campaigns, and even promised to support Nixon for president if Jack didn't win the nomination. The relationship between Nixon and Jacqueline was rather warm, and allowed his more tender and human side to manifest itself.
A good read, but also pick up Stephen Ambrose's bio of Nixon to get a complete portrait of the man.
Beginning with the friendship, and then the rivalry, between Nixon and JFK, the second half of the book details Nixon's fears of a restored Camelot: first through Bobby, then through Teddy, the fear of the latter driving Nixon into the debacle of Watergate.
It's all rather unpersuasive, but author Mathews drives this point repeatedly (and I do mean repeatedly). It's a rather trite motive for a very complex individual, but Matthews has a trenchant for such schemes, so it's not surprising.
Still, this book has a lot of detail and research. There are many fascinating nuggets, such as the revelation that Joseph Kennedy gave financial support to Nixon during one of his campaigns, and even promised to support Nixon for president if Jack didn't win the nomination. The relationship between Nixon and Jacqueline was rather warm, and allowed his more tender and human side to manifest itself.
A good read, but also pick up Stephen Ambrose's bio of Nixon to get a complete portrait of the man.
December 22, 2011
I learned alot. I was actually surprised by a lot of this book. I had no idea that their relationship went so far back, or that in the ealry days, they were friends! Neither man could be considered "a good man." Good intentions, perhaps. But I guess it take a certian vcharacter to become successful in politics (unfortunately). I learned a lot about the Watergate era...that makes me want to read more. Good book for political junkies, or Kennedy junkies. Kennedy is definetly the "winner" in this book, but then again, it was written by Chris Mathews.
Read
July 30, 2011The BEST political book I've ever read. It really gives you an insight into the mind of Richard Nixon, and certainly leaves you feeling somewhat sympathetic toward him. I find it impressive that, given Chris Matthews' known preference for the left, he is able to paint such a sympathetic picture of the liberal arch-nemesis Nixon. I would strongly encourage anyone interested in the Sixties and the development of American politics to give this one a try.
April 21, 2009
Christopher Matthews' book is a fascinating study of two contempories who shaped the last half of the 20th Century, for better or for worse, depending on one's perspective. The promise of Camelot - and what was done - and the 'might' have been's vis-a-vis RN's many ghosts that always haunted him, and as a result our country, keepingcausing past haunted him, and our country.
Read
July 24, 2011Really good book. Brings to life as genuine individuals tthis Brian
o figures that have become icons or archtypes.
o figures that have become icons or archtypes.
August 13, 2012
Never realized how much their paths intertwined until I read this book. Well written. Easy to read.
July 20, 2023
Fairly informative of both parties of the books subject. I was looking for a book to learn about these past presidents and this book delivered with deep cuts👌
October 18, 2015
Christopher Matthews has written a very interesting tome on the rivalry between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. One reader wrote Interesting book that more appropriately should have been titled "Nixon's Pathological Obsession with All Things Kennedy." in his review on Goodreads and I tend to agree with that. I found myself looking forward to my daily read in this book (I read it at lunchtime) until John Kennedy was killed in Dallas. Then the book descended into a psych-eval of Richard Nixon—not a very objective psych-eval either. This book may have been written before Matthews flew off the rails into far left wing punditry1, but his bias toward all things Kennedy is apparent throughout the book, especially after Kennedy leaves the stage and Nixon is alone, lost in soliloquy hell.
Even so, I learned more about the relationship between these two men than I have in any other book. Who knew that Kennedy once contributed to Nixon's campaign for Senate? Who knew that they were friends (or at least friendly) until 1960? Who knew that Nixon, once in office, invited Jackie and her children for a private dinner at the White House?
The book is not a dual biography, though there are elements of that, especially in the beginning. Their careers in the Navy, the House and the Senate are chronicled, but the book really becomes interesting when both men run for president in 1960.
Though Matthews' favoritism toward Kennedy is evident, both men were capable leaders and I believe that history will be kind to both. Kennedy has been rated in the upper tiers of presidential rankings and I believe, that once some time has passed and Nixon's accomplishments are view objectively, his star will also rise. We're already seeing evidence of that.
One does not need to dig very deeply into Kennedy to realize that he would not recognize the Democratic party of today and would probably be more comfortable as a Republican. Kennedy disdained the "liberal elite" that began when Franklin Roosevelt was president. Kennedy wrote about Roosevelt's New Deal:
Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this, not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but brough the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibility. (p. 40)
Kennedy called citizens to responsibility in his now famous "ask not what your country and do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" mantra in his inaugural address—he would be appalled with the welfare and entitlement programs of today.
The Kennedy of this book, in other words, is vastly different from the Kennedy of today's popular culture, where every liberal candidate for political office wants to co-op his image, glamour and heritage. But, that Kennedy does exist. Kennedy described himself as a progressive conservative.
Matthews' treatment of Nixon is even-handed, in my opinion, until he becomes president. Then Matthews turns his attention on the psych-eval of Richard Nixon and it gets ugly—most of what Matthews says is probably true, but the truth can be ugly.
Nixon was the obvious choice for president for the Republicans in 1968. There was no one of his stature within the party. Nixon, ever the astute politician, knew the presidency was pretty much his for the asking...until. Until Bobby Kennedy announced his bid for the presidency—in the same room and with the exact same words as John had used in 1960. Nixon's nightmare was coming true: another election between himself and a Kennedy. In Nixon's eye, everything came easy for the Kennedys and he would lose. Of course, the assassination of Bobby Kennedy changed everything and Nixon squeaked out a victory again Hubert Humphrey. The election of 1972 wasn't even close as Nixon coasted to victory.
Where Matthews loses credibility with me is his fascination and pre-occupation with Nixon's paranoia over a presidential run by Ted Kennedy. According to Matthews, Nixon saw the Chappaquiddick incident as his release from the specter of another Kennedy beating him for president.
In the end, Nixon's paranoia was his undoing. Nixon would have won in 1972, even if Ted Kennedy had been the candidate. But he allowed his low self-esteem and paranoia to torpedo his presidency.
Ironically, in his farewell address as president Nixon said, "Always remember, other may hate you—but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself"—Nixon's hatred and preoccupation with his enemies (Kennedys and others) destroyed him.
Nixon would live until 1994 and became somewhat a shadow-elder statesman, being called upon by his successors for advice, especially in foreign affairs. Bill Clinton, in particular, relied on Nixon.
Today, the Kennedy Center and the Watergate sit beside each other along the Potomac—like unmatched bookends. –Christopher Matthews
Even so, I learned more about the relationship between these two men than I have in any other book. Who knew that Kennedy once contributed to Nixon's campaign for Senate? Who knew that they were friends (or at least friendly) until 1960? Who knew that Nixon, once in office, invited Jackie and her children for a private dinner at the White House?
The book is not a dual biography, though there are elements of that, especially in the beginning. Their careers in the Navy, the House and the Senate are chronicled, but the book really becomes interesting when both men run for president in 1960.
Though Matthews' favoritism toward Kennedy is evident, both men were capable leaders and I believe that history will be kind to both. Kennedy has been rated in the upper tiers of presidential rankings and I believe, that once some time has passed and Nixon's accomplishments are view objectively, his star will also rise. We're already seeing evidence of that.
One does not need to dig very deeply into Kennedy to realize that he would not recognize the Democratic party of today and would probably be more comfortable as a Republican. Kennedy disdained the "liberal elite" that began when Franklin Roosevelt was president. Kennedy wrote about Roosevelt's New Deal:
Mr. Roosevelt has contributed to the end of capitalism in our own country, although he would probably argue the point at some length. He has done this, not through the laws which he sponsored or were passed during his presidency, but brough the emphasis he put on rights rather than responsibility. (p. 40)
Kennedy called citizens to responsibility in his now famous "ask not what your country and do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" mantra in his inaugural address—he would be appalled with the welfare and entitlement programs of today.
The Kennedy of this book, in other words, is vastly different from the Kennedy of today's popular culture, where every liberal candidate for political office wants to co-op his image, glamour and heritage. But, that Kennedy does exist. Kennedy described himself as a progressive conservative.
Matthews' treatment of Nixon is even-handed, in my opinion, until he becomes president. Then Matthews turns his attention on the psych-eval of Richard Nixon and it gets ugly—most of what Matthews says is probably true, but the truth can be ugly.
Nixon was the obvious choice for president for the Republicans in 1968. There was no one of his stature within the party. Nixon, ever the astute politician, knew the presidency was pretty much his for the asking...until. Until Bobby Kennedy announced his bid for the presidency—in the same room and with the exact same words as John had used in 1960. Nixon's nightmare was coming true: another election between himself and a Kennedy. In Nixon's eye, everything came easy for the Kennedys and he would lose. Of course, the assassination of Bobby Kennedy changed everything and Nixon squeaked out a victory again Hubert Humphrey. The election of 1972 wasn't even close as Nixon coasted to victory.
Where Matthews loses credibility with me is his fascination and pre-occupation with Nixon's paranoia over a presidential run by Ted Kennedy. According to Matthews, Nixon saw the Chappaquiddick incident as his release from the specter of another Kennedy beating him for president.
In the end, Nixon's paranoia was his undoing. Nixon would have won in 1972, even if Ted Kennedy had been the candidate. But he allowed his low self-esteem and paranoia to torpedo his presidency.
Ironically, in his farewell address as president Nixon said, "Always remember, other may hate you—but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself"—Nixon's hatred and preoccupation with his enemies (Kennedys and others) destroyed him.
Nixon would live until 1994 and became somewhat a shadow-elder statesman, being called upon by his successors for advice, especially in foreign affairs. Bill Clinton, in particular, relied on Nixon.
Today, the Kennedy Center and the Watergate sit beside each other along the Potomac—like unmatched bookends. –Christopher Matthews
February 23, 2011
My initial reaction to reading Kennedy and Nixon: The Rivalry that Shaped Postwar America is that Christopher Matthews, the author, was not really a fan of either former President. It is clear that he prefers Kennedy to Nixon, but I don’t get the sense that he particularly liked either. That is not a complaint. Matthews’ writing came across as close to unbiased as any political book can. I felt I was reading facts, not conjecture and propaganda.
Kennedy and Nixon was an excellent read. Perhaps it wouldn’t be so to children of the 1960s, but I found it to be very insightful. The perspective was a learning experience for me. While I had already known that Kennedy and Nixon had entered Congress together and had been friendly before the 1960 Presidential race, I did not know how much losing that race affected Nixon’s life path. And that’s the heart of the story. Matthew’s book shows Nixon’s transformation from a generally likeable guy to a man filled with hate and paranoia. From 1960 through 1962, 1963, and 1968, Nixon grew more and more hateful and all consumed with anything Kennedy. Due to the presence and influence of Ted Kennedy, even rising to the Presidency did not stop Nixon from that path.
It’s fascinating on so many levels. And it left me with dozens of unanswered questions—again, this is not a complaint; a factual, unbiased account shouldn’t take sides and provide speculation to things that are unanswerable. For instance, what would Nixon’s politics had been throughout the 60s and 70s had Kennedy thoroughly thrashed him in 1960 instead of defeating him by way of cheating (I must say that most sensible people must agree that Illinois and Texas were stolen from Nixon)? What would Nixon have been like had he won in 1960? What if Jack had lived? What if Bobby? What if both? What if Ted Kennedy had been taken down by Chappaquiddick? What if America had not been so gullible as to believe in the Camelot myth?
What is clear is that Richard Nixon was not the President he would have been had the Kennedy’s not haunted him. I am certain he never knew how much they affected him. We will never know.
It also seems to me that Kennedy and Nixon was a tale of jealousy. They were the Ali and Foreman of American politics. Nixon wanted so much for the people to love and admire him the way they did Jack. It was never going to happen, and he knew it. He just didn’t know why, didn’t know what Kennedy had that he didn’t.
In the end, he was brought down by his desire to become and destroy the Kennedys.
I tell you, it’s fascinating. And it’s a really good read.
Kennedy and Nixon was an excellent read. Perhaps it wouldn’t be so to children of the 1960s, but I found it to be very insightful. The perspective was a learning experience for me. While I had already known that Kennedy and Nixon had entered Congress together and had been friendly before the 1960 Presidential race, I did not know how much losing that race affected Nixon’s life path. And that’s the heart of the story. Matthew’s book shows Nixon’s transformation from a generally likeable guy to a man filled with hate and paranoia. From 1960 through 1962, 1963, and 1968, Nixon grew more and more hateful and all consumed with anything Kennedy. Due to the presence and influence of Ted Kennedy, even rising to the Presidency did not stop Nixon from that path.
It’s fascinating on so many levels. And it left me with dozens of unanswered questions—again, this is not a complaint; a factual, unbiased account shouldn’t take sides and provide speculation to things that are unanswerable. For instance, what would Nixon’s politics had been throughout the 60s and 70s had Kennedy thoroughly thrashed him in 1960 instead of defeating him by way of cheating (I must say that most sensible people must agree that Illinois and Texas were stolen from Nixon)? What would Nixon have been like had he won in 1960? What if Jack had lived? What if Bobby? What if both? What if Ted Kennedy had been taken down by Chappaquiddick? What if America had not been so gullible as to believe in the Camelot myth?
What is clear is that Richard Nixon was not the President he would have been had the Kennedy’s not haunted him. I am certain he never knew how much they affected him. We will never know.
It also seems to me that Kennedy and Nixon was a tale of jealousy. They were the Ali and Foreman of American politics. Nixon wanted so much for the people to love and admire him the way they did Jack. It was never going to happen, and he knew it. He just didn’t know why, didn’t know what Kennedy had that he didn’t.
In the end, he was brought down by his desire to become and destroy the Kennedys.
I tell you, it’s fascinating. And it’s a really good read.
December 15, 2017
I bought this book years ago on a review book table at Strand in NYC. Over twenty years later it remains fresh and relevant and interesting. That these guys' admiration and friendship for one another dissolved into the 1960 Presidential contest-and the razor thin and doubted margin of victory-is the stuff of Hollywood. They started out as WWII vets coming to Capitol Hill to serve. Kennedy ended up in the White House ridiculing Nixon; Nixon's resentment of JFK may well have been a factor in Nixon's pernicious Presidency of corruption and coverup. There is much color in these pages; read the letters between Jackie Onassis and the Nixons after Jackie's one White House visit after Camelot, and the letters from Caroline and John Jr. to the Nixons. In light of their earlier friendship, the story reads as a sort of tragedy and shows how bitter political battle can eat away at one time respect and even affection (Nixon toward JFK). An interesting and informative read.
August 17, 2011
A great telling of two men who dominated their time in the middle half of the 20th Century. Matthews does a superb job of showing how both JFK and Nixon were mirror opposites of one another. If politics were not in the way, these two men probably might have been friends, in a way. The only flaw I saw in this book is when Matthews recounts the death of Diem in South Vietnam. I believe you should check other historians analysis and not just Matthews' take. Other then that, a great read and very informative. I highly recommend it.
June 1, 2017
Easy to follow and very well laid out through personal narratives. An interesting take about the dynamics between these two complicated men. Chris Matthews definitely has a clear bias, but he does give Nixon a fair shake in his framing of these historical events. The themes of this book are completely relevant today. A thin-skinned president who surrounds himself with unlikely characters, has a distrust for the media, and a strange jealous relationship with a charismatic younger politician. Trump's obsession with Obama might be comparable with Nixon's with Kennedy. I suppose we'll see.
July 1, 2017
I looked at the author and thought, "Wait. Christopher Matthews?? As in Chris Matthews from Hardball?!" Forgive my ignorance, I don't know much about him. But he writes well. This book was so incredibly clear that I managed to ready it in a week. I learned a huge amount, even found myself empathising at times with Nixon. It's called Kennedy and Nixon but really it's about Nixon, and not just because Kennedy died prematurely. Fascinating book though and I would suggest it to anyone who has ever been intrigued about the rivalry beyond that cliches about the 1960 debates.
July 3, 2008
Did you know JFK's dad contributed to Nixon's campaign when his son and Nixon were junior senators? He did. I know because Chris "Let's play Hardball!" Matthews said so. If you hate, or even moderately dislike Nixon and you don't know why, read this. I always thought Nixon was the devil. One day I realized I didn't know why, read this and I actually admire the guy now. I even feel bad for him. H-U-B-R-I-S. The dude was alright. Watergate, Schmatergate.
February 19, 2017
I'm a huge presidential nerd, so when I saw a book that was two presidential biographies wrapped in one, I couldn't resist. Matthews does a fantastic job getting into the motivations of each of the men and keeping a consistent motivation from them as young men into their presidencies. Truly a fascinating story of the interconnectedness of the two most fascinating presidents of the mid-late Twentieth Century.
March 28, 2007
A good and easy read that will inform you of the finer details of the beginnings and end of these two's time in office. The only thing I didn't like about it was how it made Richard Nixon seem like an underdog worthy of our pity and sympathy... Pfft. Any book that makes me feel sorry for Nixon deserves a few docked points.
February 8, 2008
a huge kennedy fan, i have read most books on both jfk and rfk. i liked this book because it was almost like a mini split biography of both jfk and nixon. i didn't know much about watergate before i read this, and now i feel like i have a very basic knowledge of the events. now i want to read more. :)
September 23, 2013
Breezy writing most of the way. Solid research, insight and analysis. A must-read for anyone interested in the Kennedys and/or Nixon. Here is one great line from the book. This is in a section about the 1960 campaign and that famous first debate.
"Richard Nixon would learn, to his horror, that it was easier to look good against Nikita Khrushchev than to Jack Kennedy."
"Richard Nixon would learn, to his horror, that it was easier to look good against Nikita Khrushchev than to Jack Kennedy."
November 23, 2012
Solid 3.5-star book; nothing spectacular
Hopefully a few more people will learn from this book that JFK was NOT that liberal. Other than that, what really comes out in this book is Tricky Dick's obsessive need to be liked, even by Jack Kennedy, even when Kennedy's IRS audited him three times in 1963.
Hopefully a few more people will learn from this book that JFK was NOT that liberal. Other than that, what really comes out in this book is Tricky Dick's obsessive need to be liked, even by Jack Kennedy, even when Kennedy's IRS audited him three times in 1963.
December 10, 2016
A light but entertaining overview of the friendship/rivalry between Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy. Nixon's jealousy and paranoia about the Kennedy's ultimately led to the Watergate Hotel and Nixon's resignation.
There are more detailed accounts available elsewhere but this will be fine for those not wanting to tackle a heavier book but want an understanding of these two fascinating characters.
There are more detailed accounts available elsewhere but this will be fine for those not wanting to tackle a heavier book but want an understanding of these two fascinating characters.
July 7, 2018
FASCINATING PORTRAIT OF TWO PRIME POLITICAL FORCES OF THE 20th CENTURY
This book provides more detail than I’ve see before on the intertwined relationship between Richard Nixon, Jack Kennedy and his brothers that had an amazing influence on the history of the second half of the 20th Century.
This book provides more detail than I’ve see before on the intertwined relationship between Richard Nixon, Jack Kennedy and his brothers that had an amazing influence on the history of the second half of the 20th Century.
October 15, 2008
I learned more about Kennedy and Nixon singularly from this book than anything else I've read on either subject. I read this in two days and couldn't put it down. How their careers meshed in history is remarkable and Chris Matthews does a great job in writing an entertaining book.
November 3, 2008
The first part where the interactions between KFK and Nixon was interesting but after the death of RFK, the rest of the book centered on crazy paranoid Nixion and Ted Kennedy two subject that I don't need to read any more about.
July 6, 2009
See, now, this was a well done book. The writing is very good. Though the author appears to prefer Kennedy to Nixon, he gives both men a fair hearing.
The ways in which their lives intertwined is fascinating.
The ways in which their lives intertwined is fascinating.
February 24, 2014
Goes by quickly and contains some interesting behind the scenes information on the Kennedy/Nixon rivalry.
What is most interesting to me is how people continue to worship the Kennedy family, despite how sleazy they were.
What is most interesting to me is how people continue to worship the Kennedy family, despite how sleazy they were.
November 17, 2014
I only know Chris Matthews from his shows on TV. I expected facts and details on Kennedy and Nixon and was pleasantly surprised to get so much more in this book. Matthews paints a portrait of their personal connections, how their relationships and personalities changed. A new favorite.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews