Fifty years later, Nixon’s influence on the presidency and the political landscape continues

Since then, his legacy has become complex, marked by alternating periods of heightened scrutiny and revision. Both his defenders and his detractors agree on one thing: Much of the modern presidency and political landscape can be traced directly back to Nixon, for better and for worse.

THE Washington Examiner spoke with University of Miami political science professor Christopher Kelley and former Nixon special assistant Bob Bostock to better understand the former president’s legacy.

Nixon’s Political Model

One of the most ambitious visions of Nixon’s impact comes from left-wing historian Rick Perlstein’s book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracture of Americawho argues that the modern political landscape is the work of Nixon.

“Richard Nixon is long dead. But these two camps have hardly changed,” Perlstein wrote in 2008, referring to the camps formed in 1972 that largely identified with or despised Nixon. “We now call them ‘red’ or ‘blue’ America, and the question of whether one or the other wins the temporary allegiances of 50 percent plus one of the electorate—or 40 percent of the electorate, or 60 percent of the electorate—has been the theme of every election since.”

Nixon built the modern Republican coalition, Perlstein argues, by exploiting growing resentment toward the civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and hippie movements by rallying the “silent majority.” He harnessed the Democrats’ populist energy, mobilizing the silent majority against the so-called “elites,” an approach unheard of by Republicans when he ran in 1968.

Kelley largely agreed with Perlstein’s thesis, arguing that today’s Republican Party can trace much of its origins back to Nixon rather than to its formal founding in the 1850s.

“Even though the Grand Old Party was born in the 1850s, it is an echo of Nixon’s Republican Party in 1969,” he said. “The coalitions of voters it assembled, particularly those of white working class, non-college educated people, certainly have a connection to evangelical religious communities. Nixon himself married the Rev. Billy Graham and other evangelicals as a testament to the growing power of evangelicals, particularly those in the South, within the Republican Party.”

Kelley also agreed with Perlstein’s thesis that Nixon was the main driver of a populist shift within the Republican Party toward distrust of elites.

“Nixon was anti-elite. That’s a trend that’s more pronounced today in the Republican Party, although you could argue it exists in the Democratic Party as well, which reflects populism and the power of populism in the United States… but that focus… is centered on the white working class,” he said.

Bostock challenged Perlstein’s characterization, particularly suggestions that Nixon’s strategy was a cynical exploitation of popular fears. He went so far as to question whether Nixon had as great an impact on the current political space as has been suggested.

“I would say it’s difficult because it’s so different,” he said, when asked to what extent today’s political foundations were the work of Nixon, adding that he was “not sure I can say that there’s anything that comes to mind” in today’s politics that is a direct result of the former president.

“Both parties… spend more time consolidating their base than trying to broaden it… whereas Nixon was always trying to broaden his base,” Bostock continued.

“And today I don’t see that happening… it’s more like, ‘We have to shore up our base and… do a better job of getting them out than everybody else… that’s how we’re going to win…’ And I think that’s the main difference. I don’t think it came from Nixon,” he said.

Bostock also disputed the thesis that Nixon ran an anti-elite campaign, seeing it as a mischaracterization of his position, although he acknowledged his personal dislike of many members of the upper class.

“His coalition was the American middle class. You know, it was the elites who claimed that Nixon was running against the elites,” Bostock said. “But if you look at his speeches, he doesn’t really talk about the elites, you have to dismiss them. I mean, there wasn’t that kind of rhetoric or speech. In the ’68 campaign or the ’72 campaign, and it certainly wasn’t in the ’60 campaign, because he was vice president… you know you don’t get much more elite than that, right?”

Nixon, a proto-Trump

According to Kelley, one inevitable parallel between Nixon and today is that between Nixon and the current Republican presidential candidate.

“Both presidents, there’s clearly a kind of pathos that’s there to make them both feel under siege, that there’s a dangerous group of others who are out to destroy them, to use crude and harsh language to really redouble their efforts to accentuate anti-elitism,” he said.

“For Nixon, it goes back to the days before he entered politics, growing up in abject poverty, feeling like the elites had carved out a place in the country that was exclusive and didn’t let anyone in, no matter how successful they were,” he continued. “Even if Donald Trump doesn’t come from that kind of background, he certainly comes from a background outside of American politics.”

The main difference between them, Kelley said, was Nixon’s belief in American institutions, contrasted with Trump’s skepticism.

Perlstein, a leading critic of Trump and Nixon, also draws parallels. However, he mockingly said in an interview with journalist Dan Rather that Trump was a “tic-tac-toe” player rather than the “chess player” that Nixon was.

Nixon and the Presidency

Nixon’s use of the presidency represented a revolutionary change in the institution, heralding an era of presidency more powerful than the Founding Fathers had ever imagined.

Kelley cited a few presidential precedents that expanded executive powers, including Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. But it was Nixon who ushered in the era of consolidated power in the executive branch, largely as an inevitability of the polarization of the era that made Congress ungovernable.

“It becomes very difficult for presidents to do anything with Congress, consistent with the kind of legislation that presidents have historically been able to do with Congress,” Kelley said. “(Presidents) have four years to try to convince the public to give them a second term, and they have to campaign on something. And if you can’t get Congress to do what you want them to do, then you have to figure out how to really expand executive powers to create policy to protect the institution, knowing that you know Congress is not going to follow you, but you’re going to have to make your case.”

“And as a result, you start to see a real rise, starting with Richard Nixon, of what we call presidential unilateralism, which is implementing policies solely through proclamations, executive orders, directives, etc.,” he continued.

Bostock agreed that Nixon had expanded the power of the presidency and streamlined the personnel process.

Nixon’s major accomplishments are usually presented as his foreign policy victories, such as opening up China and detente with the Soviet Union. These accomplishments were carried out by the White House rather than the State Department, Bostock noted, beginning a trend that shifted power from the State Department to the White House.

Nixon and the Press

Another major change Nixon made was the president’s relationship with the press. He had a particularly negative relationship with the national press, with the two hating each other. To get around this negative coverage, Kelley said, Nixon sidestepped these criticisms by having his staff speak directly to local media outlets.

“The Office of Communications was tasked with reaching out to local and state media to get the president’s story out, knowing that the national media wouldn’t be helpful,” Kelley said. “The Office of Communications, while it has expanded its communications efforts, as our media system has changed, its DNA remains exactly what the Nixon administration intended it to be.”

The Internet era saw this model adapted to the new information sphere.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“One of the transformations that began under the George W. Bush administration was to start reaching out to new media,” Kelley said. “You know, they were the first to invite bloggers to White House press conferences so they could ask questions. And the Biden administration has deliberately tried to connect influencers, new media influencers, to the White House, understanding that it’s not just the news that’s changed, but the new constituencies that are emerging, that’s where they’re getting their information: YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat.”

“If you don’t proactively intervene in this system, it will kill you,” he added.