Reviews for Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power

The average rating for Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-10-23 00:00:00 Wendy Fowler-conner "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." - Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for President Nixon "[P]eople have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook." - President Richard M. Nixon Has there ever been a duo in American political life to compare with Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States, and Henry Kissinger, who served Nixon as National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State? If you like complicated figures, where greatness is in eternal struggle with venality, where vision is foreshortened by ambition, where just about any action can be justified as done for "the good of the country," then either Nixon or Kissinger is worth a lifetime of study. Trying to tackle them at once, parsing their successes, their failures, and their codependency, is a herculean task. Robert Dallek gives this task his best shot in Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power. He succeeds admirably, even though all the twists and turns, the ins and outs, the endless debates and analysis, is far too much for one book, even one that stretches to a relatively robust 623 pages of text. There is a density to this volume that makes it feel longer than it is, a density that comes from trying to pack a lot of information into limited pages, as though this book is carry-on luggage, and Dallek wanted to avoid a checked bag fee. While enjoyable, it can also be exhausting, and left me - similar to Nixon during Watergate - in need of a drink. Dallek begins Nixon and Kissinger with brief biographical chapters devoted to each of his principal subjects. He also has a chapter on the 1968 election, which gives you a lot of the context for the actions taken in Nixon's presidency. These opening chapters are helpful if you are unfamiliar with these men, though I would stop short of saying this is popular history. While accessible, it does not have room for background amplification. Thus, if you aren't already familiar with the contours of Nixon's presidency, you might feel like you're missing something. From page 89 till the end, Dallek focuses on Nixon and Kissinger's interplay in the White House. Because Nixon made foreign policy the centerpiece of his presidency, and because foreign policy was Kissinger's job, Dallek tethers the narrative to this topic. If you want to know about Nixon's domestic policy, sorry, you ain't going to find it here. While understandable, it's a bit like viewing the Nixon presidency with one eye closed. Foreign policy was Nixon's top priority, but domestic issues affected the execution of his goals. Even a brief primer on these matters would have given a fuller picture of Nixon's administration. Regardless, there are plenty of matters to chew on. Dallek covers the opening of China, détente with the Soviet Union, the endless friction in the Middle East, the India-Pakistani War, and the overthrow of Allende's government in Chile. And that's just for starters. Vietnam hovers over everything, with Nixon and Kissinger trading blood and coin for the nebulous concept of "peace with honor." Also, there's that little item about the burglars and the hotel and some hush money and it's all on tape. What's it called again? Nipplegate? Deflategate? Gamergate? I'm sure it'll come to me. Dallek covers these potentially explosive incidents with a certain amount of restrained criticism. He comes across as an old school, centrist historian, careful in his research, methodical in his presentation, and even-keeled with his judgments. It would be very easy to go off the rails, either delivering an adjective-fueled tirade against Nixon's duplicity, or going the other way, and making an impassioned revisionist argument for Nixon's unrealized legacy. Dallek does neither. He sort of just lays things out. He scolds Nixon, but does so gently, an academic critique that lacks energy. Nevertheless, Dallek does take a definite position on these power partners. He sees both men as essentially torn in two. They were visionaries, seeing relationships and stability where others saw only fear and distrust; but they were also cynics, embarking on diplomatic crusades in order to distract the public from Watergate. Always Dallek has to measure deed verses intent. China, for instance, has burnished Nixon's legacy. His opening of relations is now seen as a tremendous success. Of course, as Dallek reminds us, Nixon bucked his own reputation as an anti-red, anti-communist pit-fighter in bringing about this coup. (One imagines the hell he would've raised, had a Democrat tried to normalize relations with Red China). Dallek is most critical of Nixon when it comes to Vietnam. He tends to support the view that the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 got Nixon exactly what he could have achieved in 1968, with the exception of the further loss of 20,000 American soldiers and untold thousands of Vietnamese troops and civilians. Overall, Dallek has more negative than positive things to say about the Nixon-Kissinger Administration (with the caveat that he is really only looking at Nixon's international dealings). For me, the real draw of Nixon and Kissinger is the interplay between the two protagonists of this story. Due to the fact that Nixon recorded so many conversations, we really get a detailed and intimate look at how Nixon and Kissinger interacted. It's something! You have to read it to believe it. Here is a sampling of their partnership, occurring just before Nixon resigned, which just scratches the surface of the pathologies involved: After some unhappy reflections from Nixon on the possibility that he would face criminal prosecutions, Kissinger promised to resign "if they harass you." Henry became so emotional at the thought of Nixon in the dock or perhaps himself forced to leave office to rescue the president and the country from a public nightmare, he began to cry. Nixon broke down as well and between sobs insisted that Henry not resign…After an hour and a half of this emotional rollercoaster, Henry started to leave. But on their way to the elevator that would liberate Henry from Nixon's embarrassing display of self-pity, the president asked him to kneel with him in prayer. As they prayed, Nixon began sobbing again amid cries of anguish at the misery his enemies had inflicted on him. The President and his Secretary of State, weeping together in the White House. Democracy in action! That's quite the end-scene for a relationship that Dallek notes "partly rested on deception and hostility." The more you think of the presidency, the more you have to wonder about what type of person wants this job in the first place, much less thinks they can do it. Presidents make hard decisions, and those decisions affect people's lives. A lot of times, those decisions end people's lives. That is a tremendous, near-unimaginable amount of power to possess. You cannot fairly blame a president for everything that goes wrong - since he (or someday, hopefully, she) - is only human, and therefore of limited ability to foresee all ends. I can blame a president for a faulty decision-making process. For taking serious actions for unserious reasons. For trading blood for political gain. For disrupting the real for the sake of the theoretical. For putting yourself above the country you swore to lead and defend. That's the Nixon that Dallek presents, a Nixon abetted by Kissinger. It's a story worth reading and pondering, because Nixon's presidency should be viewed as a warning, not an aberration.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-06-20 00:00:00 Cheryl Johnson Nixon: "Our hand doesn't show on this one though." Kissinger: "We didn't do it . . . " Nixon: "That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played . . . " This one wound up being grueling, especially on holiday, especially on holiday during the World Cup. There is considerable stomach turning detail. The idea that both men were thin-skinned and manipulative percolated my own internal inventory. It makes one wonder. This book is strictly an account of the foreign policy of the Nixon Administration and the role Kissinger played in executing such. This continues until Watergate at which point the narrative delineates the relative madness of the White House until Nixon's resignation. The above quote is about Chile, not domestic dirty tricks. The sections detailing the "handling" of the Vietnam War were brilliant history though one larded with excessive detail and too many full quotes of both men being vulgar and unreasonably optimistic, given the circumstances on the ground. I made a conscious effort to avoid politics this week and perhaps for the entire World Cup. Certain images and political retreats were still able to grab me, but I will stop here before making any parallels with the infamous personalities detailed in Dallek's book.