Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ideologies shape political life
Ideologies shape political life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This book was a good read for me, but I also read book reviews to help me keep track on what I am reading. These book reviews just made a better understanding of what I was reading. Rick Perlstein argues over whether "Nixonland", a country at war with itself, still resides in the heart of America. The book took a in depth look at Nixon’s political career from the beginning up to the outcome of the 1972 election, as well as how America’s political scene went from perceived consensus in the LBJ era to the bitterly divided right versus left, also known as the red state/blue state split. Perlstein’s argument is that we are still living in Nixonland. “Nixonland” is a study of the consensus, it isn’t just about Nixon, he isn’t the protagonist of Nixonland although it does include his rise and fall; instead, the protagonist of Nixonland is the American voter who found themselves voting Democrat in 1964 and then Republican in 1972 for the same reasons. This book covers the American political and cultural terrain from LBJ’s liberal landslide in 1964, through Nixon’s comeback in 1968, and land...
Nixon's reputation went back to his first run for Congress in 1946, when, according to American Heritage, he had call registered Democrats and ask about his opponent, "Did you know that Jerry Voorhis is a up the theme in his 1950 Senate race." The point f this was to show how carrot he really was. (In return, Douglas called Nixon "Tricky Dick," a nickname that stuck.) Year's later, would mentor Bush's Karl Rove.
I found the book to be easy, exciting reading because the story line was very realistic and easily relatable. This book flowed for me to a point when, at times, it was difficult to put down. Several scenes pleasantly caught me off guard and some were extremely hilarious, namely, the visit to Martha Oldcrow. I found myself really fond of the char...
The rise of the new Republican party can be seen through the Presidency of Richard Nixon and more specifically the events chronicled in the documentary film, “The Day the 60’s Died”. This film demonstrates the growth of the antiwar movement on United States college campuses at the height of the Vietnam War .
Both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were elected to Congress in 46, a year in which the New Deal took a serious beating as the Republicans regained control of Congress on the slogan Had Enough? Nixon of course, had campaigned against incumbent Jerry Voorhis on an anti-New Deal platform, but it's often forgotten that when JFK first ran for the House in 1946, he differentiated himself from his Democratic primary opposition by describing himself as a fighting conservative. In private, Kennedy's antipathy to the traditional FDR New Deal was even more extensive. When Kennedy and Nixon were sworn in on the same day, both were already outspoken on the subject of the emerging Cold War. While running for office in 1946, Kennedy proudly told a radio audience of how he had lashed out against a left-wing group of Young Democrats for being naive on the subject of the Soviet Union, and how he had also attacked the emerging radical faction headed by Henry Wallace. Thus, when Kennedy entered the House, he was anything but progressive in his views of either domestic or foreign policy. It didn't take long for these two to form a friendship. Both were Navy men who had served in the South Pacific, and both saw themselves as occupying the vital center of their parties. Just as JFK lashed out against the New Deal and the radical wing of the Democratic party, so too did Richard Nixon distance himself from the right-wing of the Republican party. Nixon's support of Harry Truman's creation of NATO and the aid packages to Greece and Turkey meant rejecting the old guard isolationist bent of the conservative wing that had been embodied in Mr. Republican Senator Robert Taft. Indeed, when it came time for Nixon to back a nominee in 1948, his support went to the more centrist Thomas E. Dewey, and not to the conservative Taft. Kennedy decided to go into politics mainly because of the influence of his father. Joe Kennedy, Jr. had been killed in the European arena of World War II and so the political ambitions of the family got placed on the shoulders of John. Nixon, however, got involved in politics by chance. While celebrating the end of the war in New York, he received a telegram from an old family friend indicating that they needed someone to run against the Democrat Jerry Voorhis.
My overall opinion of this book is good I really liked it and recommend it to anyone. It is a good book to read and it keep you interested throughout the whole book.
This book was very confusing and disorganized. It was very hard to follow and the author
On April 30, 1970, when Nixon gave a speech announcing his invasion of Cambodia, anti-war factions rose up across the United States. In the speech he stated that, “If, when the chips are down…the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and institutions around the world. I would rather be a one term president and do what I believe is right than to be a two term president at the cost of seeing America become a second rate power.” Students did not agree with Nixon and protests cropped up on university campuses in the days that followed his speech. Amongst these protesters were students of Kent State University, “The Cambodian invasion defined a watershed in the attitude of Kent students toward American policy in the Indochina War.” At this point, the first two days of May, the students were protesting Nixon’s actions. While the cou...
... it was nice to not feel overwhelmed by the language used in the book. Overall, this book was insightful, entertaining and extremely helpful. I loved this book and highly recommend it.
Did you like the book? would you recommend this book to others? Why or why
[1] Watching Oliver Stone’s Nixon (1995) and the director’s earlier film JFK (1991), it is difficult to have kind thoughts about Richard Nixon. Stone’s investment in the figure of the president manifests itself in two ways: first, in the director’s fixation on Nixon as a symbol of the corrupt political landscape after President John Kennedy’s assassination, and, second, his fixation on Nixon as a symbol of a failed patriarch or an ineffective father figure who led the country into further turmoil. Stone has argued that he hoped to elicit sympathy for Nixon, but I will show that the director’s emphasis on Nixon as an epic tragedy, especially in conjunction with the Beast thesis, does not allow for sympathy or understanding of the man or his politics.
Hunter S. Thompson writes about the Election of 1972 from December 1971, before any primaries, to December 1972 after Nixon has won the election. It is a truthful first person account of what happened during the presidential race that year with much personal, side talk about Thompson’s life, experiences, and his coverage four years ago about the 1968 election. Thompson writes this book in a unique style that he has made called Gonzo Journalism. This style of writing is a deeply personal style of writing and is very opinionated. He does not give the facts on the election straight but instead gives his opinions on the people involved. It is a very subjective point of view and shows Thompson’s very liberal perspective. He is a strong supporter and is an enthusiast of the democratic candidate McGovern and shows time and time again how much he despises Nixon. Along with a very opinionated, subjective narrative, Thompson talks a lot about drug use. His point of view is from that from the drug underculture. Thompson is a very big drug us...
Ehrlichman, John. Witness to Power: The Nixon Years. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982. Print.
Richard Nixon begins off his memoir by explaining the times of his most, greatest failure in life. It describes the writings of his most important comings with Chou En-lai. His worst failure was having no source of communications, whatsoever with the country of China for at least 25 to 26 years. Nixon talks about both of the sides of his feelings with the significance of his greatest triumph. (Richard Nixon, pg 13, 343) He also goes through his life, previous to the Watergate event, in San Clemente and the other sites near the end of his time as president when he did large amounts of writing and traveling. (Richard Nixon, pg 27) Then writes about the political issues that landed between the years of 1989 and 1990. Richard was raised as a Quaker, but showed no resemblance or sign, towards the beginning of his adult years. He recalls all the lessons he had remembered during his school years. They helped him become the person he was, and how his wealth after his presidency was fare more fortunate. Primarily this book shows his struggles and happiness, throughout the many years of his hard life. The promotion of peace and decisions to make it made him want to create it even more, towards the end of his political career. (Richard Nixon, pg 335-337, 353)
The election of 1972 was one of the largest landslide victories by a presidential candidate in United States history. President Nixon was reelected to the presidency by beating Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in an impressive victory. The Nixon landslide victory tied FDR’s 60.8 percent of the popular vote in 1936 for the second largest popular vote get in American history. Nixon’s 60.8 percent of the vote compared to McGovern’s 37.6 percent, a difference of 23.2 percent, was also the fourth largest margin of victory in a presidential election in United States History. Nixon not only won with an impressive popular vote margin, but he also won 49 of the 50 states’ electoral votes amounting to 520, while McGovern only received 17 electoral votes. He only won Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. The Nixon landslide victory cannot necceasarily be attributed to Nixon’s policy beliefs, but there are a number of factors which gave Nixon his impressive win. A possible realignment among the American electorate, McGovern being seen as having few leadership capabilities, along with McGovern’s possible failure to get his political message out to the American electorate, and a divide within the Democratic Party are all possible explanations for the Nixon landslide win.
Political leaders of the United States were, at one time, thought of as crucial members of our society. Ideally, their main goal was to represent and satisfy the needs of the American people. Unfortunately, over the last fifty years, our trust in our administrative representatives has drastically declined. Beginning with the great conspiracy theory that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 was actually planned by political leaders, America had, for the first time in history, begun to question its faith in its very own government. Consequently, the American people became extremely hesitant when it came to electing officials into office. Despite his loss to JFK in the 1960 presidential election, in 1968, Richard M. Nixon was elected as the thirty-seventh president of the United States. He was praised by many for his comeback after previously losing an election and seemed to be an admirable man. While in office, Nixon made many achievements and followed through with all of his promises made during his campaign. For the first time in what seemed like forever, the American people had finally elected a leader who seemed unquestionably trustworthy – or so they thought. Unfortunately, shortly after Nixon was elected to his second term of presidency in 1972, the Watergate Scandal changed America forever by creating a sense of mistrust toward the government for the American people because of The Nixon Administration’s actions.