What do you think?
Rate this book
RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon
Former President Richard Nixon's bestselling autobiography is an intensely personal examination of his life, public career, and White House years. With startling candor, Nixon reveals his beliefs, doubts, and behind-the-scenes decisions, shedding new light on his landmark diplomatic and domestic initiatives, political campaigns, and historic decision to resign from the presidency.
Memoirs, spanning Nixon’s formative years through his presidency, reveals the personal side of Richard Nixon. Witness his youth, college years, and wartime experiences, events which would shape his outward philosophies and eventually his presidency—and shape our lives. Follow his meteoric rise to national prominence and the great peaks and depths of his presidency.
Throughout his career Richard Nixon made extensive notes about his ideas, conversations, activities, meetings. During his presidency, from November 1971 until April 1973 and again in June and July 1974, he kept an almost daily diary of reflections, analyses, and perceptions. These notes and diary dictations, quoted throughout this book, provide a unique insight into the complexities of the modern presidency and the great issues of American policy and politics.
Memoirs, spanning Nixon’s formative years through his presidency, reveals the personal side of Richard Nixon. Witness his youth, college years, and wartime experiences, events which would shape his outward philosophies and eventually his presidency—and shape our lives. Follow his meteoric rise to national prominence and the great peaks and depths of his presidency.
Throughout his career Richard Nixon made extensive notes about his ideas, conversations, activities, meetings. During his presidency, from November 1971 until April 1973 and again in June and July 1974, he kept an almost daily diary of reflections, analyses, and perceptions. These notes and diary dictations, quoted throughout this book, provide a unique insight into the complexities of the modern presidency and the great issues of American policy and politics.
1111 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 1978
133 people are currently reading
1747 people want to read
About the author
Richard M. Nixon
94 books100 followersRichard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974. During the Second World War, he served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific, before being elected to the Congress, and then serving as the 36th Vice President of the United States in the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961. After an unsuccessful presidential run in 1960, Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected to a second term in 1972. Under President Nixon, the United States followed a foreign policy marked by détente with the Soviet Union and by the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nixon successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam, effectively ending the longest war in American history. Domestically, his administration faced resistance to the Vietnam War. In the face of likely impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office. Nixon is the only person to be elected twice to the office of the presidency and the vice presidency, and is the only president to have resigned the office.
Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81. ' to 'Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974. During the Second World War, he served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific, before being elected to the Congress, and then serving as the 36th Vice President of the United States in the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961.
After an unsuccessful presidential run in 1960, Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected to a second term in 1972. Under President Nixon, the United States followed a foreign policy marked by détente with the Soviet Union and by the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nixon successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam, effectively ending the longest war in American history.
Domestically, his administration faced resistance to the Vietnam War. In the face of likely impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office. Nixon is the only person to be elected twice to the office of the presidency and the vice presidency, and is the only president to have resigned the office. Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81.
Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81. ' to 'Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States from 1969 to 1974. During the Second World War, he served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific, before being elected to the Congress, and then serving as the 36th Vice President of the United States in the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961.
After an unsuccessful presidential run in 1960, Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected to a second term in 1972. Under President Nixon, the United States followed a foreign policy marked by détente with the Soviet Union and by the opening of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Nixon successfully negotiated a ceasefire with North Vietnam, effectively ending the longest war in American history.
Domestically, his administration faced resistance to the Vietnam War. In the face of likely impeachment by the United States House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon for any federal crimes Nixon may have committed while in office. Nixon is the only person to be elected twice to the office of the presidency and the vice presidency, and is the only president to have resigned the office. Nixon suffered a stroke on April 18, 1994 and died four days later at the age of 81.
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
Read
July 26, 2011I love stories about very intelligent people with a fatal flaw. Nixon fits this to a T. I am fascinated by Nixon’s trip to China. Though it resulted in a foreign relations coup and ultimately opening China provided a huge benefit for the average Chinese citizen, how could Nixon shake hands with one of the worst monsters in world history -- Mao Zedong? He did not seem phased by this, proving he was an adherent of realpolitik.
RN offers an indispensible perspective of a troubled and potentially triumphant presidency. He admits to some errors, such as his dabbling in price and wage controls, but does not acknowledge culpability to the Watergate situation. He makes a good case, but regardless of the ultimate blame, even Nixon admits to making poor judgment calls in responding to the crisis.
Don’t be intimidated by the size of this autobiography (1,000+ pages). It reads easily and our 37th president has a clear unadorned writing style.
RN offers an indispensible perspective of a troubled and potentially triumphant presidency. He admits to some errors, such as his dabbling in price and wage controls, but does not acknowledge culpability to the Watergate situation. He makes a good case, but regardless of the ultimate blame, even Nixon admits to making poor judgment calls in responding to the crisis.
Don’t be intimidated by the size of this autobiography (1,000+ pages). It reads easily and our 37th president has a clear unadorned writing style.
February 22, 2013
I'm always drawn to the flawed and misunderstood hero. Nixon fascinates me as one of the greatest foreign diplomats in US history. An extremely talented and intelligent man plagued by paranoia and and a misguided sense of loyalty.
May 20, 2017
The vast bulk of Nixon's book focuses on his presidency. While this is certainly understandable, he had so many experiences prior to that time that it would have been interesting to have read more about his time in Congress and as Vice President. He hits on the main incidents of both, with particular focus on the Hiss case in 1948 and the fund crisis/Checkers Speech in 1952.But he does not say hardly a word about his relationships with other legislators, or what it was like to preside over the Senate as Vice President.
Perhaps one Nixon's reasons to move past the Vice Presidency is due to his strained and awkward relationship with Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon goes out of his way not to directly criticize Ike – he has too much respect for the man to do that. But he does indirectly indicate his unhappiness with Eisenhower repeatedly keeping him at arm's length. He especially seems irked when Eisenhower tries to convince him to not run for Vice President in 1956 and instead take a Cabinet position. Nixon, the more experienced politician of the two, wisely turned this offer aside. But clearly the incident remained with him and bothered him. He had been loyal to Eisenhower and his administration, often going along with policies that he himself did not fully support personally.
Eisenhower also used him to do dirty political work – things that nobody else wanted to touch, such as dealing with the obnoxious drunken Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. Eisenhower refused to touch McCarthy lest his hands get dirty and he be accused of being political, so Nixon was the emissary from the White House. Another example is when Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, no fan of Nixon's, became embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal. Eisenhower refused to tell Adams to his face that he must resign, so he repeatedly dumped this unsavory task on Nixon. Even though Nixon does not explicitly say that he resented this, when he mentions that Eisenhower interrupted him just after he began a long-delayed family vacation and summoned him back to Washington to talk to Adams, it is quite obvious how he felt about it. Nixon, always an astute observer, notes that Eisenhower was very much in charge while he was President, but did not want that aspect of his leadership to be seen by the public. This impression, written in 1978, is spot-on with what historians now widely call the hidden-hand presidency of Eisenhower.
In his section on the 1968 presidential election, Nixon, while repeatedly saying that Lyndon Johnson did not appear to order a bombing halt in North Vietnam only days before the election only for political gain, says exactly that by coming back to the subject again and again. By writing it multiple times, one gets the sense that Nixon definitely thought Johnson was trying to swing the election towards Hubert Humphrey, even though on the surface Nixon says that he believed Johnson's assertions to the contrary. What Nixon fails to breathe a word is the fact that he meddled in Johnson's attempt to stop the war. Historians, as the years have passed, have gradually moved toward the conclusion that Nixon did indeed torpedo Johnson's peace initiative, correctly surmising that a successful bombing halt would give Humphrey the boost he needed in what was a razor-thin win for Nixon. According to interviews with John A. Farrell, he has been able to definitively conclude this in his recent biography of Nixon.
As one might expect, most of the last quarter of the book deals with Watergate and the subsequent unraveling of Nixon's presidency. Nixon is surprisingly candid here, admitting that he wanted the CIA to pressure the FBI into stopping its investigation of the break-in. Nixon also admits to giving consideration to paying for Howard Hunt's silence, essentially submitting to blackmail. Perhaps when one realizes that Nixon's career has already been ruined, his legacy forever tarnished, and with the tape recordings ultimately being made available for people to listen to, that admitting to some unsavory things is not as forthright of an action as it first appears. What Nixon does not do is say that he is sorry for presiding over the paranoiac and destructive atmosphere that led to something like Watergate occurring in the first place. Nixon has no moral qualms at all about wiretapping people or making life difficult for them – justifying these things by saying that Democrats had caused him similar discomfort. If your best justification for doing something is to say that someone else did the same type of thing to you, then you are out on a very slim reed indeed.
Interspersed periodically in the book are copies of hand-written letters that Nixon wrote to people such as Jackie Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. They serve as reminders that Nixon, despite all of his many faults and insecurities, was human and did care about other people. And perhaps that is exactly why Nixon includes them in his book. Nonetheless, they provide a different perspective from what a reader would see in other books about him. Nixon, like all of us, is a mix of strengths and flaws, good and bad. He is a man whose intelligence and tenacity brought him to the pinnacle of power, but yet allowed his never-ending set of insecurities to ruin his career.
The final part of the book is quite sad. Nixon writes of his emotions as he grapples with whether or not to resign prior to being impeached by the House, and probably also by the Senate. You see a man whose life's work is being forever tarnished due to his mishandling of, as he puts it, a “third rate burglary.” It is difficult to think of another President whose career ended in such an ignominious way. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind, but there are not many. Nixon, in the end, was done in by one person: himself.
Perhaps one Nixon's reasons to move past the Vice Presidency is due to his strained and awkward relationship with Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon goes out of his way not to directly criticize Ike – he has too much respect for the man to do that. But he does indirectly indicate his unhappiness with Eisenhower repeatedly keeping him at arm's length. He especially seems irked when Eisenhower tries to convince him to not run for Vice President in 1956 and instead take a Cabinet position. Nixon, the more experienced politician of the two, wisely turned this offer aside. But clearly the incident remained with him and bothered him. He had been loyal to Eisenhower and his administration, often going along with policies that he himself did not fully support personally.
Eisenhower also used him to do dirty political work – things that nobody else wanted to touch, such as dealing with the obnoxious drunken Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy. Eisenhower refused to touch McCarthy lest his hands get dirty and he be accused of being political, so Nixon was the emissary from the White House. Another example is when Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, no fan of Nixon's, became embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal. Eisenhower refused to tell Adams to his face that he must resign, so he repeatedly dumped this unsavory task on Nixon. Even though Nixon does not explicitly say that he resented this, when he mentions that Eisenhower interrupted him just after he began a long-delayed family vacation and summoned him back to Washington to talk to Adams, it is quite obvious how he felt about it. Nixon, always an astute observer, notes that Eisenhower was very much in charge while he was President, but did not want that aspect of his leadership to be seen by the public. This impression, written in 1978, is spot-on with what historians now widely call the hidden-hand presidency of Eisenhower.
In his section on the 1968 presidential election, Nixon, while repeatedly saying that Lyndon Johnson did not appear to order a bombing halt in North Vietnam only days before the election only for political gain, says exactly that by coming back to the subject again and again. By writing it multiple times, one gets the sense that Nixon definitely thought Johnson was trying to swing the election towards Hubert Humphrey, even though on the surface Nixon says that he believed Johnson's assertions to the contrary. What Nixon fails to breathe a word is the fact that he meddled in Johnson's attempt to stop the war. Historians, as the years have passed, have gradually moved toward the conclusion that Nixon did indeed torpedo Johnson's peace initiative, correctly surmising that a successful bombing halt would give Humphrey the boost he needed in what was a razor-thin win for Nixon. According to interviews with John A. Farrell, he has been able to definitively conclude this in his recent biography of Nixon.
As one might expect, most of the last quarter of the book deals with Watergate and the subsequent unraveling of Nixon's presidency. Nixon is surprisingly candid here, admitting that he wanted the CIA to pressure the FBI into stopping its investigation of the break-in. Nixon also admits to giving consideration to paying for Howard Hunt's silence, essentially submitting to blackmail. Perhaps when one realizes that Nixon's career has already been ruined, his legacy forever tarnished, and with the tape recordings ultimately being made available for people to listen to, that admitting to some unsavory things is not as forthright of an action as it first appears. What Nixon does not do is say that he is sorry for presiding over the paranoiac and destructive atmosphere that led to something like Watergate occurring in the first place. Nixon has no moral qualms at all about wiretapping people or making life difficult for them – justifying these things by saying that Democrats had caused him similar discomfort. If your best justification for doing something is to say that someone else did the same type of thing to you, then you are out on a very slim reed indeed.
Interspersed periodically in the book are copies of hand-written letters that Nixon wrote to people such as Jackie Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. They serve as reminders that Nixon, despite all of his many faults and insecurities, was human and did care about other people. And perhaps that is exactly why Nixon includes them in his book. Nonetheless, they provide a different perspective from what a reader would see in other books about him. Nixon, like all of us, is a mix of strengths and flaws, good and bad. He is a man whose intelligence and tenacity brought him to the pinnacle of power, but yet allowed his never-ending set of insecurities to ruin his career.
The final part of the book is quite sad. Nixon writes of his emotions as he grapples with whether or not to resign prior to being impeached by the House, and probably also by the Senate. You see a man whose life's work is being forever tarnished due to his mishandling of, as he puts it, a “third rate burglary.” It is difficult to think of another President whose career ended in such an ignominious way. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind, but there are not many. Nixon, in the end, was done in by one person: himself.
December 3, 2011
This was a great book. It gave me a sense of the scale of RN's historical achievements and his personality. The last 350 pages were almost painful to read as he goes into intense detail on Watergate and the reader sees how an Administration accomplishes historic goals (opening with China, end of Vetnam, return of POW's, arms agreements with USSR, stabilizing Mid East, opening relations with Sadat's Egypt while helping Golda Meir keep Israel alive in two wars) against a looming scandal which gradually subsumes the administration.
His description of his pre Presidential years are also interesting. He describes such giants as Ike and Churchill and also the bit players like Alger Hiss. The book covers and describes with interesting detail several historical personalities - Brezhnev, Khrushev, Sadat, Golda Meir, DeGaulle, Gandhi, and others all make their appearance.
The book is really a history text from a man who made that history.
His description of his pre Presidential years are also interesting. He describes such giants as Ike and Churchill and also the bit players like Alger Hiss. The book covers and describes with interesting detail several historical personalities - Brezhnev, Khrushev, Sadat, Golda Meir, DeGaulle, Gandhi, and others all make their appearance.
The book is really a history text from a man who made that history.
October 28, 2014
During my entire four years in the USMC, Richard Nixon was my president. With full confidence and admiration for him, I had nothing but the highest regard for Mr. Nixon both as a man and as a president.
While I was stationed in SE Asia, in my estimation and that of other Marines, Nixon was "the man!" He is the one who brought the horrible quagmire which was the Vietnam War to an end, bringing our POWs home with their heads held high.
He had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in. His subordinates threw him under the bus. He didn't realize the seriousness of their actions until it was too late.
His downfall was brought on by the "cabal in congress" and by the "jackals in the media." In other words, those who hated him.
His memoirs show clearly that he was a great man and a great president. The world looked upon him with the deepest respect as he negotiated peace and harmony with the Soviets, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Israelis, and Latin America. Only in the USA did he have enemies!
This book has stirred up my feelings of support for President Nixon while, at the same time, stirring up the old feelings of antipathy, anger, and outright rage for the "cabal in congress" and the "jackals in the media," i.e. the liberals!
While I was stationed in SE Asia, in my estimation and that of other Marines, Nixon was "the man!" He is the one who brought the horrible quagmire which was the Vietnam War to an end, bringing our POWs home with their heads held high.
He had nothing to do with the Watergate break-in. His subordinates threw him under the bus. He didn't realize the seriousness of their actions until it was too late.
His downfall was brought on by the "cabal in congress" and by the "jackals in the media." In other words, those who hated him.
His memoirs show clearly that he was a great man and a great president. The world looked upon him with the deepest respect as he negotiated peace and harmony with the Soviets, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Israelis, and Latin America. Only in the USA did he have enemies!
This book has stirred up my feelings of support for President Nixon while, at the same time, stirring up the old feelings of antipathy, anger, and outright rage for the "cabal in congress" and the "jackals in the media," i.e. the liberals!
November 19, 2019
I hold a degree in political science and have been active in politics and government for nearly 30 years now, and Richard Nixon for me has been the great fascinating mystery of modern politics. No president or politician except perhaps for Woodrow Wilson accomplished so much change yet crashed so dramatically. I have read literally dozens of books on Nixon but could never bring myself to read his memoirs until I found a copy at a used book sale over the summer. After reading this mesmerizing and fascinating book I am sorry I waited so long to hear his side.
Whatever his faults, Nixon was a tremendously good writer and from page one to end, this book reads like he is right there talking to you. He traces his life and career through the end of his presidency and while I know enough from other books to see his omissions and bias, this book nonetheless is a magnificent and powerful read.
There are some curious omissions. His account of his vice presidency under Eisenhower is detailed and sometimes painful, but totally omits any talk of the 1957 Civil Rights bill and the beginnings of the civil rights problems. He says virtually nothing about the USSR pushing ahead in space with Sputnick or the U2 plane shoot down incident. Were the omissions the result of culling by editors from this thousand page book, or was he not involved in these matters or didn't want to confront these failures and problems even though he painfully discusses other problems?
In his account of his painful 1960 loss to Kennedy there is another strange omission-- no discussion of the alleged "missle gap" with the USSR Kennedy used against Nixon. It's strange as Nixon rants against many of Kennedy's other issues.
Knowing how his presidency ended you see him in this book exposing how it happened. Even as he was elected he came to the decision he did not want to spend much time overseeing and interacting personally with his cabinet or staff. His introversion and delegation led him to disaster.
While he clearly cares deeply about his wife and daughters it is painful to read how he ordered them kept away at key times, on the 1968 election night and during his resignation speech and other key times.
Even stranger is how he came to select the disastrous Spiro Agnew as Vice President. He seems to have now known Agnew at all and his staff evidently did no background checks on him. While Agnew was always loyal to Nixon, in the end Agnew's criminal background and resignation helped bring Nixon down too.
It comes across clearly in this book Nixon was insanely obsessed with Vietnam. Elected to end the war, he at first expanded it into Laos and Cambodia and what comes across clearly in this book is he was at least as wrong in Nixon in thinking you could bring the North Vietnamese to real negotiation with a "limited war." Even worse he also failed as Johnson did to understand the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, inefficient, and unstable and had no chance no matter what we did, and no, a loss in Vietnam did not mean world communism.
Nixon made huge changes to American policy that we still live with today. He took the economy off the gold standard, established the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the Great Society, empowered the National Security Agency, tamped down the State Department, changed presidential administration to White House based from cabinet-based, established dialogue with Communist China, and began détente with the USSR which in time would lead to the collapse of the USSR. In a little-known or remembered incident he also resolved a nuclear submarine base issue in Cuba in a way that put Kennedy's misadventure with the Cuban missile crisis to shame.
But in being a West-coast non-elite who dared to challenge the status quo and who never got along with the liberal mass media, and who never got his party a majority in Congress, Nixon made many enemies and when Watergate emerged they ganged up on him.
Reading this book you can see how Watergate happened. Nixon was exhausted after a long binge of foreign policy work and he delegated his 1972 campaign too much while harping on leaks to the hostile media. It is clear even today he never knew of nor approved of the ridiculous scheme of his staff to break into Democratic party headquarters using former CIA operatives and other shady characters. But as you read his painfully candid accounts, it is hard to understand how such a brilliant politician handled the matter so poorly from start to finish.
I used to think there was really some hidden evil behind Nixon's taped remark that the Watergate issue, if not covered up, would re-open the "whole Bay of Pigs" disaster all over again. But as I read this book I really now think he was just seeking a way to obstruct the investigation to what end is never clear. Yes Watergate was embarrassing and should not have happened but it was incompetence at the start not criminal. The problem was never the crime, the problem was the criminal cover-up and that comes across so clearly in this book. In a campaign season that saw campaign offices regularly broken into, vandalized and even fire-bombed all over the country, breaking and entry for bugging hardly raises an eyebrow. It was the criminal misuse of the government to hide the incident rather than the incident itself that ruined Nixon.
Nixon's allegiance to John Mitchell who allowed Watergate to happen comes across clearly in this book along with the back-stabbing of Nixon's white house counsel John Dean who instead of protecting his client, moved on to protect himself. But had Nixon overseen his staff more personally and directly it might never have all happened.
Why Nixon allowed his lies about the "smoking gun" tape that proved he lied at every step of the way about the Watergate cover-up to ruin his presidency is not explained in this book. Why he taped himself knowing his actual conversations were so often at odds with his public image is also a mystery. Why he didn't destroy the "smoking gun" tape the moment he heard it long before it went to the prosecutors also remains a mystery.
Yes this book is biased as Nixon wanted his story be told. Maybe there are some omissions. But in many ways Nixon in this book is candid and openly discusses problems and his shortcomings. The book is simply mesmerizing. Although over 40 years old, it is still worth a careful read on this man who so impacted modern American history. Highly recommended.
Whatever his faults, Nixon was a tremendously good writer and from page one to end, this book reads like he is right there talking to you. He traces his life and career through the end of his presidency and while I know enough from other books to see his omissions and bias, this book nonetheless is a magnificent and powerful read.
There are some curious omissions. His account of his vice presidency under Eisenhower is detailed and sometimes painful, but totally omits any talk of the 1957 Civil Rights bill and the beginnings of the civil rights problems. He says virtually nothing about the USSR pushing ahead in space with Sputnick or the U2 plane shoot down incident. Were the omissions the result of culling by editors from this thousand page book, or was he not involved in these matters or didn't want to confront these failures and problems even though he painfully discusses other problems?
In his account of his painful 1960 loss to Kennedy there is another strange omission-- no discussion of the alleged "missle gap" with the USSR Kennedy used against Nixon. It's strange as Nixon rants against many of Kennedy's other issues.
Knowing how his presidency ended you see him in this book exposing how it happened. Even as he was elected he came to the decision he did not want to spend much time overseeing and interacting personally with his cabinet or staff. His introversion and delegation led him to disaster.
While he clearly cares deeply about his wife and daughters it is painful to read how he ordered them kept away at key times, on the 1968 election night and during his resignation speech and other key times.
Even stranger is how he came to select the disastrous Spiro Agnew as Vice President. He seems to have now known Agnew at all and his staff evidently did no background checks on him. While Agnew was always loyal to Nixon, in the end Agnew's criminal background and resignation helped bring Nixon down too.
It comes across clearly in this book Nixon was insanely obsessed with Vietnam. Elected to end the war, he at first expanded it into Laos and Cambodia and what comes across clearly in this book is he was at least as wrong in Nixon in thinking you could bring the North Vietnamese to real negotiation with a "limited war." Even worse he also failed as Johnson did to understand the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, inefficient, and unstable and had no chance no matter what we did, and no, a loss in Vietnam did not mean world communism.
Nixon made huge changes to American policy that we still live with today. He took the economy off the gold standard, established the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the Great Society, empowered the National Security Agency, tamped down the State Department, changed presidential administration to White House based from cabinet-based, established dialogue with Communist China, and began détente with the USSR which in time would lead to the collapse of the USSR. In a little-known or remembered incident he also resolved a nuclear submarine base issue in Cuba in a way that put Kennedy's misadventure with the Cuban missile crisis to shame.
But in being a West-coast non-elite who dared to challenge the status quo and who never got along with the liberal mass media, and who never got his party a majority in Congress, Nixon made many enemies and when Watergate emerged they ganged up on him.
Reading this book you can see how Watergate happened. Nixon was exhausted after a long binge of foreign policy work and he delegated his 1972 campaign too much while harping on leaks to the hostile media. It is clear even today he never knew of nor approved of the ridiculous scheme of his staff to break into Democratic party headquarters using former CIA operatives and other shady characters. But as you read his painfully candid accounts, it is hard to understand how such a brilliant politician handled the matter so poorly from start to finish.
I used to think there was really some hidden evil behind Nixon's taped remark that the Watergate issue, if not covered up, would re-open the "whole Bay of Pigs" disaster all over again. But as I read this book I really now think he was just seeking a way to obstruct the investigation to what end is never clear. Yes Watergate was embarrassing and should not have happened but it was incompetence at the start not criminal. The problem was never the crime, the problem was the criminal cover-up and that comes across so clearly in this book. In a campaign season that saw campaign offices regularly broken into, vandalized and even fire-bombed all over the country, breaking and entry for bugging hardly raises an eyebrow. It was the criminal misuse of the government to hide the incident rather than the incident itself that ruined Nixon.
Nixon's allegiance to John Mitchell who allowed Watergate to happen comes across clearly in this book along with the back-stabbing of Nixon's white house counsel John Dean who instead of protecting his client, moved on to protect himself. But had Nixon overseen his staff more personally and directly it might never have all happened.
Why Nixon allowed his lies about the "smoking gun" tape that proved he lied at every step of the way about the Watergate cover-up to ruin his presidency is not explained in this book. Why he taped himself knowing his actual conversations were so often at odds with his public image is also a mystery. Why he didn't destroy the "smoking gun" tape the moment he heard it long before it went to the prosecutors also remains a mystery.
Yes this book is biased as Nixon wanted his story be told. Maybe there are some omissions. But in many ways Nixon in this book is candid and openly discusses problems and his shortcomings. The book is simply mesmerizing. Although over 40 years old, it is still worth a careful read on this man who so impacted modern American history. Highly recommended.
September 2, 2015
First, it really doesn’t matter where you stand politically. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, what you’ll find here is a book where the main character is not much given to that kind of sorrow that results in true repentance. Instead, there seems to be a lot of victimhood in here—someone else’s fault, always someone else out to impede or derail the author.
So why would anyone want to read a book by a whiner about the tragedies of his life largely imposed on him by others? Because despite the prism through which world events are presented here, this is a riveting, well-written, fascinating account of some 30 of the most tumultuous years of the nation’s history. This is worth reading just because the writing style is more compelling than you would think it would be for a guy who apparently looked and often sounded pretty wooden. There are times when the writing is just a syllable or two away from being downright animated in a couple of spots.
Another reason you want to read this is for the wonderful fascinating facts and bits of trivia that are here. When President Eisenhower’s grandson married a Nixon daughter, the former president strongly encouraged the young man to cut his hair. He even offered to slip the young man a healthy piece of change if he would cut his hair prior to the ceremony. By the time the wedding occurred, young David’s hair was slightly shorter than that of his college contemporaries, but not short enough for Ike. The young man refused to endure a haircut, and Grandpa never paid up.
You get fascinating trivia about world leaders who were in power at the time, and the small section devoted to the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the escalation of that war into something almost nuclear will fascinate you. We think of the Cuban missile crisis as the only real time the nation was at the brink of nuclear war. But things got pretty hot and dicey in Israel in the fall of 1973, and Nixon insists the U.S. came closer to nuclear war with the Soviets than most people realize. In fact, the air lift that Nixon approved for the Israelis rivaled the Berlin air lift in size and scope.
I’m fascinated by complex people with flawed characters. There is much rich loam in this book in which to grow that fascination. Now maybe you don’t get all that emotionally tied to your books, but I confess that I had this ongoing nauseating feeling as I watched the Watergate scandal inexorably play out. You have to take that whole section with measured careful analysis and thought. Obviously, Nixon’s version of the story is inevitably going to be vastly different from that of John W. Dean or even Judge John J. Sirica who presided over much of the legal side of the mess.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the famous televised hearings from Nixon’s perspective. I had watched them that summer as a 14-year-old geek with my Grandma. She was an old-style new-deal Democrat who worshipped God and J. Edgar Hoover in that order. That, my friends, was a remarkable summer. All these years later, I still recall the accent and voice of Senator Sam Irvin.
So does Nixon have a valid point when he insists the press and the House and Senate were largely against him during the Watergate era? He actually may to some small degree. He points out factually enough that the young staffers who helped manage the hearings that summer were largely Democrats. I’m intrigued even now to think that Mrs. Clinton was one of those young hotshot lawyers involved in the Watergate proceedings.
The thing that will most vividly stand out for me regarding this book is the intensity with which Nixon loved his wife and daughters. There are moving tributes to all three of them here, and you get tender glimpses into their personalities that simply don’t exist anywhere else. He stresses repeatedly here the immense value of his family during the worst of his years in public life.
If you can approach this book from the perspective that it’s a memoir, and therefore will be somewhat self-serving as memoirs are, then you will find fascinating and memorable bits of information in here that will leave you with a lot to think about.
I found myself repeatedly shaking my head and asking “how could you be so stupid. Why, when you were going to carry the country by a massive landslide, did you even feel a need to bug Democratic National Committee headquarters? And if you’re going to bug an office, why use such apparent amateurs and bumblers to do it? I did my share of sighing impatiently during the “poor me, this is all so-and-so’s fault” sections of the book, but it’s truly a worthwhile read. The resignation hours are high drama indeed, and you learn things about the famous 18-minute gap on one of the Watergate tapes from his perspective.
So why would anyone want to read a book by a whiner about the tragedies of his life largely imposed on him by others? Because despite the prism through which world events are presented here, this is a riveting, well-written, fascinating account of some 30 of the most tumultuous years of the nation’s history. This is worth reading just because the writing style is more compelling than you would think it would be for a guy who apparently looked and often sounded pretty wooden. There are times when the writing is just a syllable or two away from being downright animated in a couple of spots.
Another reason you want to read this is for the wonderful fascinating facts and bits of trivia that are here. When President Eisenhower’s grandson married a Nixon daughter, the former president strongly encouraged the young man to cut his hair. He even offered to slip the young man a healthy piece of change if he would cut his hair prior to the ceremony. By the time the wedding occurred, young David’s hair was slightly shorter than that of his college contemporaries, but not short enough for Ike. The young man refused to endure a haircut, and Grandpa never paid up.
You get fascinating trivia about world leaders who were in power at the time, and the small section devoted to the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the escalation of that war into something almost nuclear will fascinate you. We think of the Cuban missile crisis as the only real time the nation was at the brink of nuclear war. But things got pretty hot and dicey in Israel in the fall of 1973, and Nixon insists the U.S. came closer to nuclear war with the Soviets than most people realize. In fact, the air lift that Nixon approved for the Israelis rivaled the Berlin air lift in size and scope.
I’m fascinated by complex people with flawed characters. There is much rich loam in this book in which to grow that fascination. Now maybe you don’t get all that emotionally tied to your books, but I confess that I had this ongoing nauseating feeling as I watched the Watergate scandal inexorably play out. You have to take that whole section with measured careful analysis and thought. Obviously, Nixon’s version of the story is inevitably going to be vastly different from that of John W. Dean or even Judge John J. Sirica who presided over much of the legal side of the mess.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the famous televised hearings from Nixon’s perspective. I had watched them that summer as a 14-year-old geek with my Grandma. She was an old-style new-deal Democrat who worshipped God and J. Edgar Hoover in that order. That, my friends, was a remarkable summer. All these years later, I still recall the accent and voice of Senator Sam Irvin.
So does Nixon have a valid point when he insists the press and the House and Senate were largely against him during the Watergate era? He actually may to some small degree. He points out factually enough that the young staffers who helped manage the hearings that summer were largely Democrats. I’m intrigued even now to think that Mrs. Clinton was one of those young hotshot lawyers involved in the Watergate proceedings.
The thing that will most vividly stand out for me regarding this book is the intensity with which Nixon loved his wife and daughters. There are moving tributes to all three of them here, and you get tender glimpses into their personalities that simply don’t exist anywhere else. He stresses repeatedly here the immense value of his family during the worst of his years in public life.
If you can approach this book from the perspective that it’s a memoir, and therefore will be somewhat self-serving as memoirs are, then you will find fascinating and memorable bits of information in here that will leave you with a lot to think about.
I found myself repeatedly shaking my head and asking “how could you be so stupid. Why, when you were going to carry the country by a massive landslide, did you even feel a need to bug Democratic National Committee headquarters? And if you’re going to bug an office, why use such apparent amateurs and bumblers to do it? I did my share of sighing impatiently during the “poor me, this is all so-and-so’s fault” sections of the book, but it’s truly a worthwhile read. The resignation hours are high drama indeed, and you learn things about the famous 18-minute gap on one of the Watergate tapes from his perspective.
March 27, 2011
Nixon's style is both complex and readable, the Memoirs are a page turner to me because his era in American politics spans such a long time and such a fascinating time. Odd is this may seem, and even though he provides very little as Pat is concerned, I came away with a much deeper respect for her...she was never out front as some of the later Presidential wives have become, and she placed a personal integrity above all else. RN was complex and fascinating...and I have read the memiors twice, just because they're such a good read.
June 26, 2008
More than anything, I enjoyed Nixon's account of how hard he worked to get through college and law school. It inspired me coming out of high school when I found myself in similar circumstances; and it has helped me appreciate Nixon with a bit more humanity than most - faults and all - ever since.
December 11, 2012
This book is basically the history of the US in the 3rd quarter of the 20th century. Nixon is an amazing writer, whatever your opinion about the politician. The man had a razor sharp intellect and the quality so lacking in politicians these days- courage.
July 30, 2022
4.5/5
January 26, 2018
I am truly surprised that I ended up enjoying this as much as I did. And I didn't expect that the end of his presidency would take on an almost tragic, Shakespearean turn. I haven fully developed how RN and Watergate specifically relate to Trump and the current investigations swirling around him, but superficially at least, the similarities are there, if not in the details, then at least in the more broad historico-political lessons to be learned from such hubris.
With that being said, here are my "Random Notes and Observations on Nixon’s Memoirs."
Can his version of history be trusted? Any politician’s motives for writing a memoire is always to: A) set the record straight, i.e., justify his misdeeds (if one is not so cynical, one might say that the politician’s motive is to simply set down an objective record for posterity); B) get that money for that book deal, i.e., the more sensational the better - make it read like it’s the real dirt ; C) confuse the narrative, so much so that it becomes permanently tangled, a Gordian knot. The strategy, then, is to compliment reading RN’s memoires with other readings. Next stop for me is ‘All the King’s Men,’ perhaps the most famous account of Watergate, by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Read historical accounts written by trusted writers and trusted experts from that era. Read, compare, and contrast the memoires of the other primary actors. Use common sense when reading. Every author has her own tone, her own style. At some point one should be able to judge the veracity of the account based on tone.
Difficult to get beyond the common perception of him as 'Tricky Dick.' Interesting, though, that politicians in the 50's seemed to truly have more class and integrity. JFK and RM shared a mutual admiration, if you can believe that. RM seems always on the defensive. He is always the good guy swooping in to save the day at the last second. "My detractors would have you believe THIS...but actually what happened was..."
"All is well in Nixonland. Everything is everyone else's fault, not mine. They're all out to get me, and always have been. Everything I say and do is taken out of context." Seems like this is the essence of what he is always saying. Underlying this assertion is the idea that politics is somehow supposed to be fair. Politics is not fair. It’s a dirty game of hardball. Come to play with a bat, but make sure it’s a spiked bat. NR knows this. Or maybe in the beginning he didn’t. Or did he really believe the myth that fairness, that supposedly quintessential American trait, was part of politics? It seems he simultaneously held fairness in esteem as he himself entertained the most practical political cynicism.
Double-mindedness and Flexible Morals: On the one hand he could entertain breaking the law for the sake of a political win, while on the other he asserted that every night before bed he would utter a Quaker prayer. While no Christian can claim perfection, NR claimed he was a God-fearing man, even as he finessed and manipulated the rule of law for political gain. For NR, politics was amoral. Politics was an occupation, nothing personal. At the same time, NR strongly believed that his opponents had violated some moral code, or ethical code, by relentless savaging him personally, and the Presidency by extension. In his view, there are political ‘tricks,’ ‘political misdeeds,’ and ‘political sins.’ His opponents had committed unforgivable sins.
The public, the electorate, could not, and never will be able to differentiate an amoral politic versus an ethical, moral life. NR had two sets of morals, as any successful politician must. Americans are naïve if they think that politics is about morality. Politicians can offer morality and ethics as a strategy only, never can they be reconciled as a righteous worldview.
RN is obsessed with setting the record straight and goes to great length to provide counter-examples of how his crimes are/were no different than his predecessors from both parties, although he also goes to a lot of trouble to illustrate the cynicism and hypocrisy of the Democrats. NR is no naïf, though. He knows the game and he got caught. He knew that politics is a game of dirty tricks. He’d played the game, too, probably better than most ever – at least until Watergate. He even admits this, at times, but seems more outraged by the fact that the Democrats and the Press, even though they were ‘breaking the rules,’ they were breaking them TOO MUCH.
Fascinating. Mudslinging and hyper-partisanship is nothing new. One might even consider the childish boorish, cynical tactics of today amateurish compared to the early 70's. We've been here before , we will make it thru this.
RN puts forth countless examples of how the press became a victim of its own feeding frenzy and lost its legitimacy. While I think that is impossible to evaluate RN’s assessment of the press as ‘out to get him,’ on the surface it seems that he was right. One can only answer to this: of course it was! Nevertheless, it is also clear that the press was supremely guilty of reporting on every anonymous tip as news. It accepted as fact, without verification, countless false stories that fed into an already outraged and paranoid public that had lost virtually all its trust in government. The public had seen too many examples of graft, greed, corruption, and dishonesty, that no story seemed too implausible. What were probably honest missteps, became unforgiveable offences. Once RN had lost the public trust, there was no way to regain it. False and exaggerated reporting increased exponentially with every minor, and even insignificant, revelation about, not just Watergate, but government corruption in general. Many have said that Vietnam and Watergate ushered the in era of a more cynical, less naïve electorate. True, it did. It also paved the way for total cynicism, for an era of total lack of trust. Eventually the team lines hardened even further into Democrat versus Republican, with no compromise possible. Thinking about the contemporary context, I think, we are going to see a further permanent splintering of the parties, into further mistrustful factions. Politics as the art of the possible just might have become the non-art of the impossible.
Historically, when politics has reached such a nadir as it has today, civil wars and revolutions happen, just as had happened in the decade or so before the American Civil War. The question is, is politics today so fractured as that decade, or is it closer in flavor to Watergate period? If it’s closer to the Watergate era, then we have a chance. If not, then we should expect, at the very least, revolution.
Clichéd interpretations of RN: misunderstood hero (?) – this fits; a man of misplaced loyalties (?) – this fits, but it does seem that his loyalty only extends so far. RN asserts that his ultimate goal was never partisan; no, he was only interested in preventing the Presidency from losing prestige. Seems to me that claim is secondary. NR’s loyalty was first to himself.
After reading Nixon's account of Watergate, I am confident that in politics nothing is ever as it seems when referring to the White House . The public truly has no idea, only speculation, which makes things even more murkier. Reporting on the White House is like a kaleidoscope is always shifting: once you’ve turned knob, reality becomes something totally different.
Closing in on the end of the book, it’s difficult to avoid feeling some sympathy for RN. He presents an intense, heartfelt narrative of a man trying to survive. One must keep in mind that this was still his fault. When he was first informed in July 1972 by FBI Director Grey of the Watergate break in, it was clear that NR had not had any idea about it. He wasn’t in on it. He actually ordered Grey to get to the bottom of it. NR’s crime was that, as he slowly realized the political implications of the break in, he brought to bear all the power vested in his office to deflect any blame that might be associated with the White House. He was worried about his personal prestige, the political damage, and the personal damage to his men. If he would have taken the hit in the beginning and let the public know that he had initiated a full investigation to be headed by the FBI, he could have possibly suffered only political damage, although this, too, could have been managed. Unfortunately, NR’s instinct was to conceal, not reveal. Perhaps he had no choice. Despite the claim made by some that NR was too paranoid, there really does seem to be some truth to NR’s claim that the liberal establishment really despised him and would do anything to bring him down.
With that being said, here are my "Random Notes and Observations on Nixon’s Memoirs."
Can his version of history be trusted? Any politician’s motives for writing a memoire is always to: A) set the record straight, i.e., justify his misdeeds (if one is not so cynical, one might say that the politician’s motive is to simply set down an objective record for posterity); B) get that money for that book deal, i.e., the more sensational the better - make it read like it’s the real dirt ; C) confuse the narrative, so much so that it becomes permanently tangled, a Gordian knot. The strategy, then, is to compliment reading RN’s memoires with other readings. Next stop for me is ‘All the King’s Men,’ perhaps the most famous account of Watergate, by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Read historical accounts written by trusted writers and trusted experts from that era. Read, compare, and contrast the memoires of the other primary actors. Use common sense when reading. Every author has her own tone, her own style. At some point one should be able to judge the veracity of the account based on tone.
Difficult to get beyond the common perception of him as 'Tricky Dick.' Interesting, though, that politicians in the 50's seemed to truly have more class and integrity. JFK and RM shared a mutual admiration, if you can believe that. RM seems always on the defensive. He is always the good guy swooping in to save the day at the last second. "My detractors would have you believe THIS...but actually what happened was..."
"All is well in Nixonland. Everything is everyone else's fault, not mine. They're all out to get me, and always have been. Everything I say and do is taken out of context." Seems like this is the essence of what he is always saying. Underlying this assertion is the idea that politics is somehow supposed to be fair. Politics is not fair. It’s a dirty game of hardball. Come to play with a bat, but make sure it’s a spiked bat. NR knows this. Or maybe in the beginning he didn’t. Or did he really believe the myth that fairness, that supposedly quintessential American trait, was part of politics? It seems he simultaneously held fairness in esteem as he himself entertained the most practical political cynicism.
Double-mindedness and Flexible Morals: On the one hand he could entertain breaking the law for the sake of a political win, while on the other he asserted that every night before bed he would utter a Quaker prayer. While no Christian can claim perfection, NR claimed he was a God-fearing man, even as he finessed and manipulated the rule of law for political gain. For NR, politics was amoral. Politics was an occupation, nothing personal. At the same time, NR strongly believed that his opponents had violated some moral code, or ethical code, by relentless savaging him personally, and the Presidency by extension. In his view, there are political ‘tricks,’ ‘political misdeeds,’ and ‘political sins.’ His opponents had committed unforgivable sins.
The public, the electorate, could not, and never will be able to differentiate an amoral politic versus an ethical, moral life. NR had two sets of morals, as any successful politician must. Americans are naïve if they think that politics is about morality. Politicians can offer morality and ethics as a strategy only, never can they be reconciled as a righteous worldview.
RN is obsessed with setting the record straight and goes to great length to provide counter-examples of how his crimes are/were no different than his predecessors from both parties, although he also goes to a lot of trouble to illustrate the cynicism and hypocrisy of the Democrats. NR is no naïf, though. He knows the game and he got caught. He knew that politics is a game of dirty tricks. He’d played the game, too, probably better than most ever – at least until Watergate. He even admits this, at times, but seems more outraged by the fact that the Democrats and the Press, even though they were ‘breaking the rules,’ they were breaking them TOO MUCH.
Fascinating. Mudslinging and hyper-partisanship is nothing new. One might even consider the childish boorish, cynical tactics of today amateurish compared to the early 70's. We've been here before , we will make it thru this.
RN puts forth countless examples of how the press became a victim of its own feeding frenzy and lost its legitimacy. While I think that is impossible to evaluate RN’s assessment of the press as ‘out to get him,’ on the surface it seems that he was right. One can only answer to this: of course it was! Nevertheless, it is also clear that the press was supremely guilty of reporting on every anonymous tip as news. It accepted as fact, without verification, countless false stories that fed into an already outraged and paranoid public that had lost virtually all its trust in government. The public had seen too many examples of graft, greed, corruption, and dishonesty, that no story seemed too implausible. What were probably honest missteps, became unforgiveable offences. Once RN had lost the public trust, there was no way to regain it. False and exaggerated reporting increased exponentially with every minor, and even insignificant, revelation about, not just Watergate, but government corruption in general. Many have said that Vietnam and Watergate ushered the in era of a more cynical, less naïve electorate. True, it did. It also paved the way for total cynicism, for an era of total lack of trust. Eventually the team lines hardened even further into Democrat versus Republican, with no compromise possible. Thinking about the contemporary context, I think, we are going to see a further permanent splintering of the parties, into further mistrustful factions. Politics as the art of the possible just might have become the non-art of the impossible.
Historically, when politics has reached such a nadir as it has today, civil wars and revolutions happen, just as had happened in the decade or so before the American Civil War. The question is, is politics today so fractured as that decade, or is it closer in flavor to Watergate period? If it’s closer to the Watergate era, then we have a chance. If not, then we should expect, at the very least, revolution.
Clichéd interpretations of RN: misunderstood hero (?) – this fits; a man of misplaced loyalties (?) – this fits, but it does seem that his loyalty only extends so far. RN asserts that his ultimate goal was never partisan; no, he was only interested in preventing the Presidency from losing prestige. Seems to me that claim is secondary. NR’s loyalty was first to himself.
After reading Nixon's account of Watergate, I am confident that in politics nothing is ever as it seems when referring to the White House . The public truly has no idea, only speculation, which makes things even more murkier. Reporting on the White House is like a kaleidoscope is always shifting: once you’ve turned knob, reality becomes something totally different.
Closing in on the end of the book, it’s difficult to avoid feeling some sympathy for RN. He presents an intense, heartfelt narrative of a man trying to survive. One must keep in mind that this was still his fault. When he was first informed in July 1972 by FBI Director Grey of the Watergate break in, it was clear that NR had not had any idea about it. He wasn’t in on it. He actually ordered Grey to get to the bottom of it. NR’s crime was that, as he slowly realized the political implications of the break in, he brought to bear all the power vested in his office to deflect any blame that might be associated with the White House. He was worried about his personal prestige, the political damage, and the personal damage to his men. If he would have taken the hit in the beginning and let the public know that he had initiated a full investigation to be headed by the FBI, he could have possibly suffered only political damage, although this, too, could have been managed. Unfortunately, NR’s instinct was to conceal, not reveal. Perhaps he had no choice. Despite the claim made by some that NR was too paranoid, there really does seem to be some truth to NR’s claim that the liberal establishment really despised him and would do anything to bring him down.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 21, 2023
The Memoirs of Richard Nixon by Richard Nixon
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DETAILS
-PRINT: COPYRIGHT: January 1, 1978: ISBN 978-0333230213; PUBLISHER: Grosset & Dunlap; First Edition; LENGTH: 1120 pages [Hardbound Info from Amazon]
-*DIGITAL: COPYRIGHT: (1978) January 8, 2013; PUBLISHER: Simon & Schuster; LENGTH: 1713 pages [Kindle Info from Libby version, LAPL & Amazon]
FILM: No.
SERIES: No
SUMMARY/ EVALUATION:
-SELECTION: President Nixon had a few book signings after publishing this book and I was fortunate enough to be invited to one, via the fact that my Dad and President Nixon shared the same Barber. President Nixon spoke to everyone present. He shook my hand and asked about my studies. At the time, I’d known of his fall from grace, of course, but, aside from knowing he had a home in San Clemente where I too lived during his presidency, I knew very little about him. I was fresh out of high school and had had very little exposure to politics. Not even yet understanding the value of a signed copy of anyone’s autobiography, let alone a former president, I gave this copy away as a gift to someone special who was more politically savvy…and have since regretted it, not even so much because of the potential value, but because it was a memento of the moment, and after FINALLY reading it, I regret it all the more, because it turns out I feel so terribly sad for him. I wish I’d known then how much he’d gone through; how much he’d done for the country; how dear his family was to him; and more. I like to think that I’d have been so much more compassionate, engaged, and thrilled to be in his presence.
A person writing about themselves might, of course, paint themselves in the best light possible, but I have learned that one must at least know what it is to be a good person to do that. President Nixon knew, and I believe he was in fact, a good person. I even find myself wondering if he may have been harder on himself than circumstances warranted. Vague statements about having made mistakes leaves too much to the imagination of those who’d like to think the worst.
-ABOUT: Well, obviously, it’s about the life of President Nixon; 😊 from birth to the end of his Presidency.
-LIKED: I liked that so much came from his diaries and that of his daughter; that it was detailed, and frank. I liked how he praised people he interacted with, regardless of their politics, and regardless of unfavorable actions towards himself. I loved the parts that demonstrated a devotion to his family, and friends, again, regardless of whether he agreed with all of their views.
-DISLIKED: No, he was a good writer. There isn’t anything I can think of that I disliked.
-OVERALL: I value it for the details of a part of history that, although I lived through it, was quite vague to me, and for the insight of how strong a leader must be in terms of keeping one’s head in the face of those who hate, especially out of a prejudice of political party labels rather than from an analysis of facts.
AUTHOR: Richard Milhous Nixon (From Wikipedia)
“Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. A politician, lawyer and member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a representative and senator from California and was the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His five years in the White House saw reduction of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, détente with the Soviet Union and China, the Apollo 11 Moon landings, and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal.”
NARRATORS: None, this book is not in an audio format.
GENRE: Autobiography; history; Politics;
LOCATIONS: Multiple
TIME FRAME 1913-1974
SUBJECTS: History; Communist Countries; Lifestyle; Presidency; Family devotion; Foreign Relations; Politics; Statesmanship; Leaders; Economics; Vietnam War; Apollo 11; Campaigns; Loss; Defeat; Media influence
DEDICATION “For Pat, Tricia, and Julie“
SAMPLE QUOTATION:
From “Sources and Acknowledgements”
“During the presidency, from November 1971 until April 1973 and again in June and July 1974, I kept an almost daily dictated diary. In this book these passages are introduced by the heading Diary. With the exception of a few that were subpoenaed by the Watergate Special Prosecutor, none of these diary cassettes was transcribed until the summer of 1976 in San Clemente. While I have excerpted the passages from them that appear in this book, no word has been changed without adding brackets to indicate the change. These dictated diaries do not have the orderliness of a written diary—often I would dictate on a subject one day and then expand on the same subject a day or two later. Because of this, in some cases, I have combined entries that deal with the same subjects but were dictated on different days. Diary entries dealing with Watergate, however, are always from the same dictating session on the same day.
For the Watergate period I have used some of the tape transcripts that are already public or that were used by the Special Prosecutor in different investigations and trials. In an effort to reconstruct as completely as possible what I knew and what I did in the crucial period immediately following the Watergate break-in, I asked Mrs. Marjorie Acker, a member of my staff since the vice presidential years, to type transcripts as well of the tapes of every conversation I had with H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Charles Colson for the month after my return to Washington following the break-in, June 20–July 20, 1972. I asked her to do the same for my conversations with Haldeman in May 1973, when we were discussing what we remembered of the events of June 23, 1972, when I authorized the meeting in which the CIA was asked to limit the FBI’s investigation of Watergate.
There were many unintelligible passages on these new tapes. Even so, I believe that they have enabled me to give the most complete account of those days that has ever been given.
In this book I recount many conversations, some of them as direct quotes. Those dealing with Watergate are largely based on the language recorded on the White House tapes. Others are based on my handwritten notes or my dictated diaries. There are also extensive memoranda of conversations—“memcons”—covering most talks with foreign leaders, and I have been able to use these to confirm and supplement my notes and recollections. Conversations in which I did not take part are obviously dependent upon reports from the participants or on secondary sources In a few cases, I have had to depend solely upon my memory of a conversation in re-creating it, but I have tried to limit this to exchanges in which the vividness of the words lodged them unforgettably in my mind.”
RATING: 5 Stars
STARTED-FINISHED 9/26/2022 – 8/20/2023
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DETAILS
-PRINT: COPYRIGHT: January 1, 1978: ISBN 978-0333230213; PUBLISHER: Grosset & Dunlap; First Edition; LENGTH: 1120 pages [Hardbound Info from Amazon]
-*DIGITAL: COPYRIGHT: (1978) January 8, 2013; PUBLISHER: Simon & Schuster; LENGTH: 1713 pages [Kindle Info from Libby version, LAPL & Amazon]
FILM: No.
SERIES: No
SUMMARY/ EVALUATION:
-SELECTION: President Nixon had a few book signings after publishing this book and I was fortunate enough to be invited to one, via the fact that my Dad and President Nixon shared the same Barber. President Nixon spoke to everyone present. He shook my hand and asked about my studies. At the time, I’d known of his fall from grace, of course, but, aside from knowing he had a home in San Clemente where I too lived during his presidency, I knew very little about him. I was fresh out of high school and had had very little exposure to politics. Not even yet understanding the value of a signed copy of anyone’s autobiography, let alone a former president, I gave this copy away as a gift to someone special who was more politically savvy…and have since regretted it, not even so much because of the potential value, but because it was a memento of the moment, and after FINALLY reading it, I regret it all the more, because it turns out I feel so terribly sad for him. I wish I’d known then how much he’d gone through; how much he’d done for the country; how dear his family was to him; and more. I like to think that I’d have been so much more compassionate, engaged, and thrilled to be in his presence.
A person writing about themselves might, of course, paint themselves in the best light possible, but I have learned that one must at least know what it is to be a good person to do that. President Nixon knew, and I believe he was in fact, a good person. I even find myself wondering if he may have been harder on himself than circumstances warranted. Vague statements about having made mistakes leaves too much to the imagination of those who’d like to think the worst.
-ABOUT: Well, obviously, it’s about the life of President Nixon; 😊 from birth to the end of his Presidency.
-LIKED: I liked that so much came from his diaries and that of his daughter; that it was detailed, and frank. I liked how he praised people he interacted with, regardless of their politics, and regardless of unfavorable actions towards himself. I loved the parts that demonstrated a devotion to his family, and friends, again, regardless of whether he agreed with all of their views.
-DISLIKED: No, he was a good writer. There isn’t anything I can think of that I disliked.
-OVERALL: I value it for the details of a part of history that, although I lived through it, was quite vague to me, and for the insight of how strong a leader must be in terms of keeping one’s head in the face of those who hate, especially out of a prejudice of political party labels rather than from an analysis of facts.
AUTHOR: Richard Milhous Nixon (From Wikipedia)
“Richard Milhous Nixon (January 9, 1913 – April 22, 1994) was the 37th president of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. A politician, lawyer and member of the Republican Party, he previously served as a representative and senator from California and was the 36th vice president from 1953 to 1961 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His five years in the White House saw reduction of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, détente with the Soviet Union and China, the Apollo 11 Moon landings, and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nixon's second term ended early when he became the only U.S. president to resign from office, as a result of the Watergate scandal.”
NARRATORS: None, this book is not in an audio format.
GENRE: Autobiography; history; Politics;
LOCATIONS: Multiple
TIME FRAME 1913-1974
SUBJECTS: History; Communist Countries; Lifestyle; Presidency; Family devotion; Foreign Relations; Politics; Statesmanship; Leaders; Economics; Vietnam War; Apollo 11; Campaigns; Loss; Defeat; Media influence
DEDICATION “For Pat, Tricia, and Julie“
SAMPLE QUOTATION:
From “Sources and Acknowledgements”
“During the presidency, from November 1971 until April 1973 and again in June and July 1974, I kept an almost daily dictated diary. In this book these passages are introduced by the heading Diary. With the exception of a few that were subpoenaed by the Watergate Special Prosecutor, none of these diary cassettes was transcribed until the summer of 1976 in San Clemente. While I have excerpted the passages from them that appear in this book, no word has been changed without adding brackets to indicate the change. These dictated diaries do not have the orderliness of a written diary—often I would dictate on a subject one day and then expand on the same subject a day or two later. Because of this, in some cases, I have combined entries that deal with the same subjects but were dictated on different days. Diary entries dealing with Watergate, however, are always from the same dictating session on the same day.
For the Watergate period I have used some of the tape transcripts that are already public or that were used by the Special Prosecutor in different investigations and trials. In an effort to reconstruct as completely as possible what I knew and what I did in the crucial period immediately following the Watergate break-in, I asked Mrs. Marjorie Acker, a member of my staff since the vice presidential years, to type transcripts as well of the tapes of every conversation I had with H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Charles Colson for the month after my return to Washington following the break-in, June 20–July 20, 1972. I asked her to do the same for my conversations with Haldeman in May 1973, when we were discussing what we remembered of the events of June 23, 1972, when I authorized the meeting in which the CIA was asked to limit the FBI’s investigation of Watergate.
There were many unintelligible passages on these new tapes. Even so, I believe that they have enabled me to give the most complete account of those days that has ever been given.
In this book I recount many conversations, some of them as direct quotes. Those dealing with Watergate are largely based on the language recorded on the White House tapes. Others are based on my handwritten notes or my dictated diaries. There are also extensive memoranda of conversations—“memcons”—covering most talks with foreign leaders, and I have been able to use these to confirm and supplement my notes and recollections. Conversations in which I did not take part are obviously dependent upon reports from the participants or on secondary sources In a few cases, I have had to depend solely upon my memory of a conversation in re-creating it, but I have tried to limit this to exchanges in which the vividness of the words lodged them unforgettably in my mind.”
RATING: 5 Stars
STARTED-FINISHED 9/26/2022 – 8/20/2023
July 18, 2009
This book was quite interesting when I began reading it but as I progressed and Nixon "got more into" his own "story" I got the sense that the man was bizzar. At every turn he was "enunciating" some other "doctrine" which description always included his name. He was indeed a complex man, very intelligent and would have ended up being quite an effective president had it not been for his Waterloo: Watergate.
January 13, 2013
Say what you will about Nixon--and very likely what you have to say will preclude your considering this book--but he was a bright guy and had a unique perspective, having endured arguably the greatest fall in history. I was interested for those reasons. The book is insightful, exquisitely-written, compellingly humble and full of remorse. Also Dick is quite the raconteur. He may still be the worst-ever US president. But he is the best presidential autobiographer.
October 4, 2009
Nixon was witness to many leaders and events. The only man aside from FDR to be nominated to a national ticket of a major party FIVE times. His recounting of events and leaders is very interesting. When we get to the Watergate period, it bogs down in legal tit-for-tat, where we already know the outcome.
August 28, 2017
I have always intensely dislike Richard Nixon, both as a person and as a President. I read the book hoping to come to a more nuanced view; instead I came to feel he was even more profoundly depraved.
Still, I was one of the few in my senior year of high school class to support his pardon. I did not feel then that "piling on" was in the American tradition.
Still, I was one of the few in my senior year of high school class to support his pardon. I did not feel then that "piling on" was in the American tradition.
July 19, 2013
This is the first presidential memoirs I have read. Very interesting since I was one of those Nixon haters back then. I learned a lot about the man and appreciate the struggles involved in ending the war in Vietnam. In that way gives me better perspective on today's wars.
Well written and the diary notes were most interesting.
Well written and the diary notes were most interesting.
June 5, 2013
I've read everything Nixon wrote, several times. He was brilliant, insightful, liberal in many ways, by today's neo-con standards, and, of course, tragically flawed. In a word, he was human. All of that is on display in his memoirs. It is well worth the read, no matter what perspective on him or politics, you bring to the experience.
August 6, 2011
You don't have to like Tricky Dick, but this is a far better written presidential memoir than most. Nixon is not exactly forthcoming about Watergate but the book gives a good glimpse of the thinking and philosophy of the man.
December 24, 2012
If you are interesting in self-deception and expert level rationalizing and justifications, this is a fascinating book. After reading it, I was left with no doubt about how Nixon got so many people to do his bidding.
May 25, 2020
Nixon’s grit, self-righteousness, fatalism, and paranoia are on full display in his memoirs. He uses his diary notes and the diary entries of those close to him, compiled throughout his life, for detailed accounts of his decision-making. The sections on opening relations with China, ending the Vietnam War, and his perception of the handling of Watergate are incredibly detailed - the Watergate details dominate the second half of the book and I found it to be somewhat of a slog. It’s a page turner for the first half. Nixon is a no frills author, but his accounts seem to be out of touch with reality at times. He also has an almost obsessive recollection of his interactions with hecklers. I give the first half of the book 4.5, but the second half dragged and is a 2 - maybe a byproduct of the author’s frustration with Watergate. The details are immense, but it is a hodgepodge that was difficult to track (could be reader error too haha). If you are a presidential history enthusiast, it is essential reading, but probably not for the average history buff.
Favorite passages:
“In politics, most people are your friends only as long as you can do something for them or something to them.” P. 1100
“The problem with most politicians is that their mouths move faster than their brains.” P. 185
“If being a liberal means federalizing everything, then I’m no liberal. If being a conservative means turning back the clock, denying problems exist, then I’m no conservative.” P. 268
Nixon’s list for becoming a candidate P.291
Nixon always went to consult with allies in Europe first before heading to the Soviet Union
Nixon’s belief that the President may behave in a manner that places him above the law (regarding Houston Plan, but the presidency in general as well) P. 476
“On perilous peaks dwells beauty in its infinite variety.” Zhou Enlai to Nixon Beijing 1972 P. 578
Favorite passages:
“In politics, most people are your friends only as long as you can do something for them or something to them.” P. 1100
“The problem with most politicians is that their mouths move faster than their brains.” P. 185
“If being a liberal means federalizing everything, then I’m no liberal. If being a conservative means turning back the clock, denying problems exist, then I’m no conservative.” P. 268
Nixon’s list for becoming a candidate P.291
Nixon always went to consult with allies in Europe first before heading to the Soviet Union
Nixon’s belief that the President may behave in a manner that places him above the law (regarding Houston Plan, but the presidency in general as well) P. 476
“On perilous peaks dwells beauty in its infinite variety.” Zhou Enlai to Nixon Beijing 1972 P. 578
December 7, 2019
Political autobiographies are not for the faint-hearted reader. Long winded and repetitive much like the way politicians, in general, speak they offer amzing insights into behind the scenes machinations of political life. Every head of state, at some stage will write one of these and it will sell very well. No surprise there. Richard Nixon's Memoirs are not in anyway different from other political biographies except for one thing.
Very early in this 100 page epic, where Nixon was recounting his childhood, I was moved to tears. This gave me high hopes for the rest of the book, but apart from a few choice pieces of wisdom (about endings being beginnings) and some prophetic words (about the mass media dominated populist politics) it was very dry.
Especially once the pandora's box of Watergate was opened up. Nixon, is of course most famous for Watergate and his resignation form the presidency which it caused. Too much detail. I skipped a lot of it because it was boring. You can't beat a good summary. Even Nixon's frequent mentions of family and faith which would ordinarily connect with me failed to overcome the general feeling of walking through a desert, desperate for a drink.
Memoirs is a just another political bio, and such works are your thing, then you'll love this. Me? I was glad to finally finish.
Very early in this 100 page epic, where Nixon was recounting his childhood, I was moved to tears. This gave me high hopes for the rest of the book, but apart from a few choice pieces of wisdom (about endings being beginnings) and some prophetic words (about the mass media dominated populist politics) it was very dry.
Especially once the pandora's box of Watergate was opened up. Nixon, is of course most famous for Watergate and his resignation form the presidency which it caused. Too much detail. I skipped a lot of it because it was boring. You can't beat a good summary. Even Nixon's frequent mentions of family and faith which would ordinarily connect with me failed to overcome the general feeling of walking through a desert, desperate for a drink.
Memoirs is a just another political bio, and such works are your thing, then you'll love this. Me? I was glad to finally finish.
December 10, 2020
While this is a very long read, it is worthwhile pursuing. Nixon writes very coherently and honestly about one of the more stressful and tumultuous events in American history. So many works often are quick to portray Nixon as a villain or a crook, who was completely aware of his intentions. But these memoirs show another side of the 37th president: A deeply flawed but passionate man that did his absolute best to ensure that all his goals were carried out. Nobody is ever truly good or evil: we are a complex mix of both, and these memoirs are a testament to that.
What I found most intriguing about these memoirs was not so much the fact that Nixon spoke straight from the heart (especially during the last couple of chapters which showcased his downfall) but that he even included his daughter Tricia's diary entries. This gives an even more complete perspective of what Nixon was going through, and how trying Watergate was to the rest of his family members. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is interested in not only American history, but those who are curious to know what exactly goes on in the seemingly indestructible position of power.
What I found most intriguing about these memoirs was not so much the fact that Nixon spoke straight from the heart (especially during the last couple of chapters which showcased his downfall) but that he even included his daughter Tricia's diary entries. This gives an even more complete perspective of what Nixon was going through, and how trying Watergate was to the rest of his family members. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is interested in not only American history, but those who are curious to know what exactly goes on in the seemingly indestructible position of power.
March 29, 2023
Often cited as possibly the best of the Presidential Memoirs...this book was a natural next step to my deep dive into understanding Nixon and his tumultuous presidency. At 1,090 pages it definitely took a bit of effort to get through but offered some tremendous insight into a man who has been shrouded by controversy and mystery. What I noticed the most when reading Nixon's memoirs is that you can definitely see within his writing someone who has a really hard time letting things go. He makes a lot of excuses, justifications, and tries to come across as being completely oblivious and innocent to any of the controversial actions that were taken that ultimately led to the end of his presidency. He definitely comes across as someone who was always calm and in control when there are many accounts to the contrary in his final days. It's always so important to get multiple accounts and viewpoints because no one account can give you the whole truth. My hope by reading multiple sources is that I will be able to gain a more accurate view of Nixon and this time in our history.
January 17, 2021
If you were expecting an apology from Richard Nixon for his crimes, you won't get it here.
In fact, he never really apologized for his crimes in the White House.
Some of his most loyal "soldiers" took the fall and went to jail while he was handed a rather quick pardon from President Ford.
Perhaps he should have been impeached for his crimes against the peoples of Cambodia and Laos in his plotting with Henry Kissinger the "secret" bombings'.
The fallout from this deadly chapter was the instability that lead to the "Killing Fields" in Cambodia.
During his administration, they launched the E.P.A , N.A.S.A continued it's space exploration, and much wa accomplished at home.
I finish with these words (from outside of this book), from Henry Kissinger, " Can you imagine what this man would have been has somebody loved him"?
In fact, he never really apologized for his crimes in the White House.
Some of his most loyal "soldiers" took the fall and went to jail while he was handed a rather quick pardon from President Ford.
Perhaps he should have been impeached for his crimes against the peoples of Cambodia and Laos in his plotting with Henry Kissinger the "secret" bombings'.
The fallout from this deadly chapter was the instability that lead to the "Killing Fields" in Cambodia.
During his administration, they launched the E.P.A , N.A.S.A continued it's space exploration, and much wa accomplished at home.
I finish with these words (from outside of this book), from Henry Kissinger, " Can you imagine what this man would have been has somebody loved him"?
August 17, 2021
One of the most well-written, intelligent autobiographies I've ever read. On the one hand the man was surprisingly candid. On the other, perhaps without realizing it, I agree with others - he often takes credit for the good things and places blame on others for the bad ones.
There are certain things to admire about this man. His intellect, his talent and his desire to achieve good ends for his country. But his character flaws, which include paranoia, an insatiable ambition, tremendous hubris and a "no blow is too low" when it comes to winning, removed any real chance of his achieving greatness as a leader. That and his idea that the ends always justify ANY means.
Regardless, this very long book is well worth the effort for those who wish to know more about the man from his own perspective.
There are certain things to admire about this man. His intellect, his talent and his desire to achieve good ends for his country. But his character flaws, which include paranoia, an insatiable ambition, tremendous hubris and a "no blow is too low" when it comes to winning, removed any real chance of his achieving greatness as a leader. That and his idea that the ends always justify ANY means.
Regardless, this very long book is well worth the effort for those who wish to know more about the man from his own perspective.
October 8, 2023
A very interesting read, even if, like me, you're not very interested in international politics. He was no doubt a dodgy politician, but an intriguing one. I liked the story of him telling Eisenhower to 'either shit or get off the pot' when Nixon was his running mate in 1952 and Ike couldn't decide whether to drop Nixon or not over some scandal involving his expenses. I also found it amusing that he had no interest at all in culinary matters. He must have attended countless formal dinners and all sorts of official banquets yet his favourite meal was simply....bacon and eggs. A humble man indeed.
December 23, 2025
Very well written. Our former president comes across as extremely intelligent and at the same time, very easy to understand. He was transparent throughout as well as self degrading when he was the situation called for it. A president that did a lot of good for the country but unfortunately will not be remembered for any thing other than the Watergate incident.
Thoroughly enjoyed it as well have a new perspective of the President .
Thoroughly enjoyed it as well have a new perspective of the President .
December 25, 2018
a long slog but very interesting hearing the story from Nixon's perspective. He, too, felt that some laws were less important than others and, on more than one occassion, mentioned that some of the things he and others in his administration did were no worse than things Democrats did ,as though that excused bad behavior.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews