Nixon Era

Although there is quite a lot to be said about the upbringing of Richard Nixon, it is my opinion that very little of it has any influence on his attitudes towards the Vietnam War and provides very little insight into the decisions that he made in its regard. That being said, as a Quaker myself, I do believe that his participation in the faith as a youth may have had some impact on his presidency. In the very least, it provides some acumen into some of the priorities that he made in his life. I am specifically references his decision to enlist in the Navy during WWII. Many historians that do not look favorably upon this Nixon administration often cite this as a testament of his character . However, there are many members of the Quaker community that provide a great amount of understanding for those who chose to fight in World War II given the nature of the enemy . It is often noted that Nixon could have sought an exemption from service as both a Quaker and as a public servant. However, not only would Nixon earned five medals during his service but would remain enlisted until the mid-1960’s . I mention this case of ambiguity as means to explore the nuances that was the cornerstone of the Nixon presidency. Many have argued on both sides of Nixon, using his religious background both for and against him. His relationship with war as a raised passivist can also be represented in the rhetoric that he used regarding the Vietnam conflict.

Nixon’s relationship with Vietnam actually predated his presidency. I do not mean during his commission as vice-president (though that does have some standing), I am speaking in regard to his communications with the Vietnam government during the 1968 election. There is a stark distinction between the rhetoric used by Nixon in private and to his constituents. Since Nixon kept a scrupulous record of his interactions, we are given an insight to his administration that cannot be provided for nearly any other president. That being said, much of the private content involving the communications of Richard Nixon and his aids and advisors are often released sporadically, so it has taken nearly 45 years to orchestrate a complete picture of his administration. Bringing us to the recently revealed collusion between Nixon and the Vietnamese government in an attempt to weaken the democratic campaign. In his notes, Nixon is cited as reaching out to the president of Vietnam promising him a better peace deal than the one being offered by President Johnson. Consequently, this caused the peace talks between the U.S. and Vietnam to fall through, making the Democratic party look ineffective . I cite this because it is emblematic of the nature of Richard Nixon. It will be quite difficult to evaluate his rhetoric regarding the Vietnam war and his relationship with the American people simply because of his complex nature. Not many historians have been able to deconstruct ass a president, let alone as a man. His rhetoric may have been indicative of his sentiments towards the war. They may have been reflective of his upbringing as a Quaker. Or was everything he said a carefully constructed image of what he wanted the public to see? Well, the best way to avoid speculation is through concrete text.

In November of 1969, Nixon addressed the American public in regard to the nation’s much opposed continued involvement in the Vietnam War. Much like his presidential campaign rival nine years earlier, Nixon references history to help explain the point that he is trying to get across. The difference this time, however, there is less room for hope in his speech. I do not think that this was a consequence of poor writing or execution but a byproduct of context. Following over a decade of involvement in the broken nation, rhetoric of hope cannot resonate below a superficial level. Nixon states,

“I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate in Paris. Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that. Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He said: “This is the war to end war.” His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson died a broken man. Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end war. But I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated—the goal of a just and lasting peace.”

There is quite a lot to unpack in just a paragraph of rhetoric. With each sentence comes the culmination of all the civil unrest from the Johnson administration. Every protester, every contentious observer, every young life lost. And I belief that Nixon is acutely aware of this. It is for this reason that he cites an era in American history that is before the lives of most and a distant and fading memory for others. One line that particularly stands out in many ways serves as an homage to the rhetoric of Kennedy and his commencement address at American University. The notion of a long-term peace was far more resonate on a nation that had witnessed nothing but war for so many years.