Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: It's time to stop kicking around Tricky Dicky

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 January 2009
FROST/NIXON: the title says it all. One was a former president of the United States, the other a busted-flush TV celebrity struggling to relaunch his career; but such is media narcissism, the talking head takes precedence. The film drama chronicling interviews between David Frost and the disgraced Richard Nixon opens in cinemas here this weekend.
So far, after a six-week run in America and release in four other countries, it has recouped only one-third of its $30m production costs. Frost/Nixon is based on the play by Peter Morgan, who recently wrote of "the horrors and betrayals that Nixon vi
sited upon his electorate", from which we can adduce his play is not a hagiography. Since he also referred to "the travesty and illegality of the 2000 American presidential election and the recount in Florida", we can also assess his commitment to historical accuracy vis-à-vis partisan mythology.

The 2000 presidential election was neither a travesty nor illegal. In its aftermath, one liberal east coast newspaper assigned a large budget to conducting an independent audit of the Florida ballot papers, only to desist when it faced an outcome that would have awarded George W Bush a larger majority than the one officially recorded. A man who aspires to write fact-based drama about a US president should be cognisant of such matters.

The travesty Morgan elected to dramatise and Ron Howard to film is the four 90-minute TV interviews conducted by Frost with Nixon in 1977. Nixon had accepted a fee of $600,000 plus 20% of profits to give the interview. That committed him to coming up with something new, if only for his own financial gain.

So far from being broken by Frost, during an interlude in filming it was Nixon's minder Jack Brennan who exasperatedly said: "He knows he has to go further. He's got more to volunteer." Nixon duly obliged, with an apology: "I let down my country." He did not "confess" as the film portrays him doing by admitting to involvement in a cover-up. He did precisely the opposite, insisting: "You're wanting me to say that I participated in a illegal cover-up. No!"

This rewriting of history goes beyond legitimate dramatic licence. A filmed interview with a former US president on so notorious a topic as Watergate is as much an historical document as the Gettysburg Address. It should not be distorted for sensational purposes. If writers want more scope for imaginative development, then the legitimate option is to write allegorically, by inventing a fictitious president.

Nor should such travesties be allowed to distort the public view of historical events and personalities. Authentic history will record there was much more to Nixon than Watergate. Of course it was a sleazy episode, he acted illegally and paid the price. Yet Bill Clinton disgraced the presidential office more abysmally and survived, because he had the liberal media on his side – the same media that have now reached their apogee by imposing an ultra-liberal president upon an unthinking nation.

Nixon would have been few people's choice of dinner companion; but his achievements were real. As a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee he exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy. That earned him the undying hatred of liberal fellow travellers, whose propaganda even today raves of "McCarthyism" and "Reds under the bed".

Although the Venona project, from 1947 onward, only succeeded in decrypting 2,200 out of hundreds of thousands of Soviet espionage messages, those few decodes identified 349 agents, including Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Harry Dexter White, the number two at the Treasury Department, a section head and 20 agents in the Office of Strategic Services and a personal aide to Franklin D Roosevelt. Reds under the bed? The mattresses were heaving.

Nixon ensured the passing of the 1957 Civil Rights Bill and proposed a new relationship with China even before he became president. Under his presidency the number of children in blacks-only schools fell from 70% to 18%. His "ping-pong diplomacy" and ground-breaking visit to China in 1972 in turn forced the Soviet Union to embrace détente. That year the supposedly unpopular, blue-jowled Nixon won a second term, carrying 49 of the 50 states.

Even after his disgrace, he quickly won rehabilitation. On his return from his influential visit to the Soviet Union in 1986, Gallup ranked him one of the 10 most admired men in the world. He may not have been an attractive personality and, as a conservative, he is eternally demonised by the media; but he got things done. The clever money is not on anybody being able to say that about the latest incumbent of the Oval Office in 35 years' time.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 02:33:54
He starts off with the ''disgraced Richard Nixon''. No, I think history has been pretty quick to catch up, and he ain't as disgraced as he used to be. The same will NOT be said about Bush.
2

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 02:44:04
I've seen the film it doesn't have the effect of making me want to kick Tricky Dicky, not at all. It's sad.
3

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 25/01/2009 11:04:21
Well, the author makes no bones about it, in his rather low opinion of the new President of the United States!

Richard Milhous Nixon was a son of a ***** from the day he entered politics until the day he was booted out!

In the author's attempt to beatify his "hero" he forgets that Nixon, who was once diagnosed as a sociopath, would go to any lengths to achieve his political aims.

In the 1950 Californian Senate race he smeared the incumbent with claims that she was a Communist and of course at the height of McCathrthyism he was elected!

In 1952, it was learned that his campaign funding came from some very dubious sources and there were claims that his opponents campaign HQ had been forcibly entered and confidential documents stolen! Sound familiar!

Nixon, ever the sociopath, went on television holding a spaniel dog called Checkers, and using the family pet as a pathetic prop, appealed to the American voter that the allegations were untrue and that he was just a "public servant doing his very best for the people"? Of course, he got away with it, yet 3 of his financial backers later ended up in Federal jails!

President Eisenhower was so impressed by "Brutus" Nixon
and he later became his Vice-President.

In the 1960 Presidential Election, one of the narrowest in history, it was ironic that the Kennedy Clan ensured that JFK won the majority of seats in his New England heartland by also employing some very dubious voting practices!

AS for Nixon's international credentials? His remarkable Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger paved the way for rapprochement with red China and winding down the Vitenam War.

After the Watergate scandal, many investigative journalists went through Nixon's political career and found he had used every criminal trick in the book to
climb up the greasy pole!
4

Teemackell the Scribe,

25/01/2009 12:27:49
GW writes: "Even after his disgrace, he quickly won rehabilitation."

Really? When? And how?

The 'how' is relevant because in the correspondence columns of ANOTHER NEWSPAPER I have been wrongly accused of trying to rehabilitate Nixon. All I was doing was disputing the contention of ANOTHER NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST (ring a Bell?) that Nixon was an even worse president than Bush.

Good to have GW onside on that one. Fat lot of good that will do me with my critics.

5

Observer,,

Glasgow 25/01/2009 17:10:32
I have been reliably informed that you forgot about Cambodia and Laos on that one Mr McL. However I came too late to that correspondence to make any contribution. But you are of course completely right on your Nixon/Bush comparison.
6

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 25/01/2009 17:43:41
Anyone who writes in "another newspaper" is condoning the destruction of that newspaper by a particularly evil Yank company, whose greed is matched only by its incompetence. A visit to the "spike" section of the allmedia site will enlighten such civvies as may still be oblivious to what is going on there. Unless you wish the Scottish media, what's left of it, to be Gerry-built in its entirety, you ought to desist from presenting it with any more free gifts.
As for Nixon - he was laid low by a free and persistent press; can you imagine such a story, in a Scottish context, being uncovered by today's sad regional local newspapers?
7

Teemackell the Scribe,

25/01/2009 19:13:08

#6, Observer,Glasgow 25/01/2009 17:10:32 writes:

"I have been reliably informed that you forgot about Cambodia and Laos on that one Mr McL."

I did NOT forget them. I ignored them. Just as I ignored Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Guantanamo and other glories of the Bush years.

They were not irrelevant to the question: "Who was worse, Bush or Nixon?" An attrocity count woiuld have taken us nowhere.

I will deal with Retiarius later.
8

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

25/01/2009 20:31:48
Apart from the fact that time , as the saying goes, 'is a great healer', it's hard to see exactly how Nixon has been rehabilitated. Clearly, he wasn't forced to resign for stealing paper clips out of the oval office.
The only people who would make that claim are those who didn't think he did anything wrong in the first place: in other words- those who think it's ok to lie, cheat and steal providing you're of the correct political persuasion.
Well what else would you expect from Warner whose other political heroes included Franco and Pinochet?
9

Teemackell the Scribe,

25/01/2009 21:30:47

7, Retiarius ,Batavadorum 25/01/2009 17:43:41 writes:

'Anyone who writes in "another newspaper" is condoning the destruction of that newspaper by a particularly evil Yank company, whose greed is matched only by its incompetence.'

The incompetence is visible on this very page. They have wrecked their once wonderful online comments section. Result? Look who's here, Cynicus and Observer. You and I are old "Sunday Gerald" hands but our two friends, along with Donald Donald, Il Penseroso, Hugh V. McLachlan, Los Angeles and many other stalwarts are to be seen on The Hootsmon site on a near daily basis. I suspect that it is because debate can still be conducted there, in "real time", to a limited degree. This is incompetence to a monumental degree -it can only drive online advertising revenue east as the number of "hits" migrates in the same direction.

Your rebuke is noted. But where to go if you have something to say? (Rather than wanting to say something which, with all due respect, motivates 95% + of online comment -Observer and Cynicus excepted).

Besides, I am not best pleased for other reasons. Not only was my midweek reply to two hard-hitting critics unpublished, they actually published a confused letter from a third yesterday. If my right of reply is denied again, then you will have had your wish as far as I am concerned. But tell me: to whom should I then offer my pen?
10

Retiarius,

Batavodrum 26/01/2009 00:36:21
Ye hae the richts o' it, tee macell; we are what the Japanese (Japs) would call "ronin" - leaderless samurai, with no obvious or natural focus. I apologise for my strident tone, but the ba' is very much on the slates ... tonight I had a very enlightening conversation with Tom Lawrie and Michael Ferguson in the 3J. I retract, rescind and recall my hasty words -because the answer to your question is "I don't know."
Perhaps we should ask (shudder) john Macleod.....?
11

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 26/01/2009 00:49:21
ps the journalist in me has to observe that if "los Angeles" (an opprobrious little tick) were to go east, north, or anywhere except here, that would be not a bad result. The others you mention are "good guys" - regardless of their opinions - and I look forward to reading much more from them in future ...
12

Teemackell the Scribe,

26/01/2009 00:55:59
#11, Retiarius,Batavodrum 26/01/2009 00:36:21 writes:"tonight I had a very enlightening conversation with Tom Lawrie and Michael Ferguson in the 3J"

No need to rescind etc. You obviously enjoyed a guid Burns Nicht! Next Thursday, 3J? Maybe Observer will turn up and introduce herself. Maybe even a certain columnist -if I assure him that Jacobite songs will be sung. (Obviously not MacLeod -in case Observer is confused I thocht I'sed better warn'er).
13

Teemackell the Scribe,

26/01/2009 00:57:22
#12: "an opprobrious little tick"

Agreed.

Guid Nicht tae ye.
14

Retiarius,

Batavadorum 26/01/2009 01:48:25
As for that ursine, whisky-guzzling, wannabe social-climbing serial (Ayrshire!)sh*gger (ie, Burns) he has had his day; as for a certain columnist - although he doggedly declines to submit to the munificent aegis of the Emperor, ie Napoleon 1er- we can all agree that ... "the right belongs to Cherlie"!
Let us all, in our own humble ways, recall the gallantry of the Royal Ecossais, who surrendered under terms at Nairn - a full day after the rout of the Jacobite host in 1746 - without whose sterling efforts the butcher's bill on Drumossie Moor would have been so very much higher. Vive la France!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.