Why Was Nixon Nominated in '68 Despite Losing in '60 and '62?

Actually Nixon's unattractiveness wasn't so important as the perception that he was an unprincipled, ruthless opportunist. This perception long predated Watergate. The nickname "Tricky Dick" originated in 1950 when Nixon used a cruel smear campaign to win election to the US Senate. This negative perception of Nixon, which turned out to be largely correct, haunted him in 1960, 1962, and 1968.

In terms of PR trumping substance, this was true to a certain extent in 1960. But ultimately Nixon's critics were proved right by his handling of Vietnam and of course the Watergate scandal. In terms of actual substance, Nixon is far from impressive as an American President.

In other words, he was a politician! From what I read, the 1950 campaign was particularly dirty on all sides with Tricky Dick having been coined by one of Nixon's opponents; let's face it...it's good and catchy!

As for substance, he is seen as having ended the Vietnam War and splitting China from the USSR. Of course, these are foreign policy results but they are the ones which count for other countries.
 
Sought to end it by expanding it into other Southeast Asian countries and stepping up bombings every too? I know the war was pretty hopeless by then and Nixon’s successor would put an end to it, but come on, he wasn’t for peace, he was trying to optimize his re-election chances.

It's worth noting that the 1973 Peace Deal was practically the exact same agreement the US would have gotten in 1968 or 1969 had Nixon not expanded the war.
 
Sought to end it by expanding it into other Southeast Asian countries and stepping up bombings every too? I know the war was pretty hopeless by then and Nixon’s successor would put an end to it, but come on, he wasn’t for peace, he was trying to optimize his re-election chances.
No, I don't think he was for "peace"; he was for trying to get into a position of not losing and then withdrawing. To do so the supply chains through those other countries had to be disrupted. How else would it be done?

And yes of course he sought to optimise his re-election chances. They all do, by achieving something popular....such as ending an unpopular war; that's the way politics works.
 
It's worth noting that the 1973 Peace Deal was practically the exact same agreement the US would have gotten in 1968 or 1969 had Nixon not expanded the war.
But would it have been acceptable to the American public in 1968/69?
 
In other words, he was a politician! From what I read, the 1950 campaign was particularly dirty on all sides with Tricky Dick having been coined by one of Nixon's opponents; let's face it...it's good and catchy!

As for substance, he is seen as having ended the Vietnam War and splitting China from the USSR. Of course, these are foreign policy results but they are the ones which count for other countries.

A) No it wasn't. Douglas didn't use the same type of dishonest and sexually charged accusations that Nixon used against her. He famously called Douglas "pink right down to her underwear." I challenge you to find a similar statement from Douglas.

B) Nixon is generally seen as having unnecessarily expanded the Vietnam War and escalating it to new levels of illegality and violence, only to end it with the same sort of agreement he could have gotten in 1969 without pointless bloodshed.

C) Nixon is rightly credited for the China outreach. But as for the results "which count to other countries," I expect that most Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians don't much like Richard Nixon. Further, what should matter most to an American President is what happens to their country. And Nixon contributed to the 60,000 US soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. A conflict that on his watch - and as an indirect result of his own actions - lead to the Kent State shootings and the further erosion of trust in government that is so essential to democracy. Nixon didn't start that, but he did make it so much worse and this is important to consider when evaluating his legacy.
 
But would it have been acceptable to the American public in 1968/69?

In 1968 56% of Americans favored withdrawing from Vietnam according to Gallup. If the public would accept an agreement in Nixon's second term, they would most likely do so in his first term.
 
After he lost the Presidency in 1960 and the California Governorship in 1962, most assumed that Richard Nixon's political career was over. But in 1968 he was renominated by the GOP and he defeated Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in November. After two ignominious defeats, it's hard to see why Republicans didn't dismiss Nixon as a loser and nominate someone else in 1968. Why was Nixon popular enough to be renominated in 1968 despite his losing streak?
To quote the Cinema Snob, "Fucking 'Nam!"
 
A) No it wasn't. Douglas didn't use the same type of dishonest and sexually charged accusations that Nixon used against her. He famously called Douglas "pink right down to her underwear." I challenge you to find a similar statement from Douglas.

B) Nixon is generally seen as having unnecessarily expanded the Vietnam War and escalating it to new levels of illegality and violence, only to end it with the same sort of agreement he could have gotten in 1969 without pointless bloodshed.

C) Nixon is rightly credited for the China outreach. But as for the results "which count to other countries," I expect that most Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians don't much like Richard Nixon. Further, what should matter most to an American President is what happens to their country. And Nixon contributed to the 60,000 US soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. A conflict that on his watch - and as an indirect result of his own actions - lead to the Kent State shootings and the further erosion of trust in government that is so essential to democracy. Nixon didn't start that, but he did make it so much worse and this is important to consider when evaluating his legacy.
A) I don't know enough to make detailed comment...just the broad outline on the net. But a reference to the colour of underwear doesn't strike me as particularly vicious...even for that era!

B) Not necessary to disrupt supply chains? Surely his military advice would be to do so? As for illegality, the whole damn thing was illegal! But not started illegally by Nixon....and yes, wars are violent. Truman actually considered using nuclear weapons in Korea....

C) No, of course those countries won't like Nixon...and yes a country's leaders should look after their own country. But the USA had assumed leadership of the non Communist world; it could hardly just abdicate that self assumed responsibility. Being the premier world power (in fact, an Empire) brings responsibility and liability. Those cost both blood and treasure; not pleasant, but the reality.

For my own part, I have an awful feeling the whole Cold War was unnecessary; the USSR was always bust and probably posed little threat to the West. But that's hindsight, of course...
 
Top