Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
The Confessions of @dick_nixon (vox.com)
62 points by seventyhorses on Oct 17, 2015 | hide | past | favorite | 12 comments


The introductory quote comes from Hunter S. Thompson's eulogy of Nixon in the Atlantic Monthly.[0] It is very enjoyable read (though not balanced in any sense of the word).

> Nixon had the unique ability to make his enemies seem honorable, and we developed a keen sense of fraternity. Some of my best friends have hated Nixon all their lives. My mother hates Nixon, my son hates Nixon, I hate Nixon, and this hatred has brought us together.

> Nixon laughed when I told him this. "Don't worry," he said, "I, too, am a family man, and we feel the same way about you."

[0]: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a...


I wish I could remember who said it, but apparently at one time somebody cheered up a depressed or suicidal Hunter S. Thompson by reminding him that he hadn't written Nixon's obituary yet: Nixon was still alive. Apparently it had never even occurred to Thompson and the thought really warmed him.

If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.


Immediate response:

> President Clinton — young, smart, dynamic, the first president whom I understood politically (one of us, I thought) — demanded that Nixon be judged on nothing "less than his entire life and career."

Notice how this is neither a commendation nor an exoneration, attempted or otherwise. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was saying at any given moment, and what those words meant.

Also, this is golden:

> Remember ... the far-right kooks are just like the nuts on the left ... but they turn out to vote.

Thus we have the Southern Strategy, which leads directly into what the GOP is now.


> Notice how this is neither a commendation nor an exoneration, attempted or otherwise. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was saying at any given moment, and what those words meant.

What those words mean is...precisely nothing. So typical of Clinton. Personal opinion, but I think way less of him for saying it that way than a statement which is at least delicately tilted one way. The simple addition of a positive adjective like 'long' or 'great' might have done that.


Serious question, however stupid, ignorant or offensive it might sound: why is the following anti-semitic? Because it was false in Nixon's times? I'm not that familiar with the history of the United States in the 70s.

You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana are Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists.


I think he might have been drawing a rhetorical knife against Abbie Hoffman.


Um, how could it not be anti-Semitic?


Well, what he said is: 1) he does not like pro-marijuana lobbyists/activists ("bastards" as he calls them), 2) all of the pro-lobbyists (from his times) are Jewish, 3) he does not know why is there such a connection, 4) he provides a crappy explanation (psychiatrists? really?). Now I have no idea whether or not 2) is true (probably not), but correlations between ethnicity and lifestyle preferences can and do exist. Take Chinese approach to parenting - clearly different.

To sum up, the only thing that could possibly be offensive is either 2) or the overall tone of the fragment. Hence my question: is it because it's plain false? Or is it because such language is always xenophobic, regardless of available evidence?


The quote is labeling a broad group of people with a polarizing issue.

That's prejudicial thinking that can't possibly be correct. And when the statement is made by a person who is opposed to the issue (views it as "wrong"), reasonably is taken as offensive whether the listener is for, against, or indifferent to the issue.

This blog post gives even better insight:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...


https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. "

That goes even when it's liberal bashing against a Republican.

The OP's post should be removed or HN's moderators are ignoring the rules in favor of the US Democratic party by showing favoritism and thus reflecting negatively on the YCombinator business.


It's a story about a guy who runs a Twitter account. I think you're taking this way too seriously.


Nixon's endless fascination as an historical and literary character transcends politics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: