[I. M. Trenchant]

I wasn't sure what you meant by "Don't know" not being a big factor in Nixon's case. Are you suggesting that judgements about Nixon are now fixed and will never change? In this context, and in the context of Kuklick's thesis, it seems noteworthy that there have been many quite positive 'takes' about Nixon in just this past year: Margaret MacMillan's 'Nixon In China', Conrad Black's 'The Invincible Quest' and the Broadway play (to be made into a movie), starring Frank Langella, who won a Tony Award for his performance in Frost/Nixon, to name just three. In the latter instance, even the inveterate Nixon-hater Frank Rich was moved to admit that he was led to have a measure of sympathy for the dreaded Nixon -- something he thought would never be possible.

In addition, I'd make a point that Kuklick seems to overlook, namely that, in the case of Nixon, it has become increasingly clear that there was an important 'Saddam 911' factor at work in public opinion in 1973 and 1974. According to Gallup polls throughout that period, and up to the day he resigned, nearly 50% of those who saw Watergate as a serious matter (almost the same percentage saw Watergate as "just politics"), believed Nixon had advance knowledge and took part in the planning of the breakin (much as a large block of the U.S. public believes Saddam had a direct role in planning 911). Even avowed Nixon critics such as Stanley Kutler and John Dean now concede that Nixon had no foreknowledge whatever of the DNC breakin.

Nixon aside, Truman, fewer than five years ago, was widely thought to have been an awful president, but he is now widely seen in a favourable light. It would have seemed almost unimaginable 5 years ago that Truman would approach Ike in a 'popularity contest'. Of course Truman's approval rating when he left office was lower than Nixon's was when he resigned. Nixon is the U.S. president in which most Americans currently have greatest interest and his 'popularity' is still a fluid commodity. I'm not saying there isn't merit in what Kuklick writes (there certainly is), but only that what he is writing about is a 'popularity contest' in 'real time' as opposed to a 'popularity contest' many years later. He is NOT dealing with duly considered judgements that are based on the best available sifting of fact from fiction, which is the proper role of historians.

The Roper use of 'Job Performance' as an index of presidential performance deserves to be respected, and indeed, Black, in his book, makes a strong and cogent case for his view that Nixon accomplished more than any U.S. president since Lincoln. I guess it boils down to what Mortimer Adler once referred to as 'expert judgement'. Whereas experts are as prone as others to making mistakes, their 'work product' is forced to undergo re-examination ad infinitum, and it is the strength of such a process -- so manifestly at work in the sciences -- that major breakthroughs in our understanding emerge. To be sure, the people have the political right to make the practical judgements, as to whether or not to impeach, but they are not necessarily right.

As self-proclaimed, onetime Nixon-hater, Stephen Ambrose, military historian and Ike's biographer, wrote in the last line of his trilogy of Nixon biography: "the country lost more than it gained when Richard Nixon resigned."

[x]

I wasn't presenting Kuklick as someone I agreed with, but as someone who had a unique take on history. A lot of Presidents who were "failures" had to cope with more troubles and showed more grit than a show horse like John Kennedy. Right there, the problems with his theory are obvious.

Nixon's reputation improved a lot in the years after he left office. I don't think it's going to go any higher though. Sooner or later a reaction is going to set in. In spite of his foreign policy achievements, he was awful on the economy, and let political conflict get way out of hand.

I don't say this as someone who disliked Nixon when he was in office. In fact, I stuck up for him when I was very young. And I understand the difficulties of his era. But the bar has been raised for politicians since then, and I don't think he quite makes the cut.

I don't think you're right about Truman. He was horribly unpopular when he was in office, but by the time he died he was regarded as near great by historians. More here. Certainly, historians thought much of him when they were still denigrating Eisenhower.

There's much to be said for Truman as a Cold War president. But I have to wonder whether his reputation isn't going to decline as the Cold War recedes into history. Historians who are dissatisfied with Bush may take it out on his model, Harry Truman. Also, a lot of the headaches of the Truman years -- the economy, corruption, stumbling over the Communism issue -- are probably going to count for something.

So I thought Kuklick has a valid point about the Truman years. Anyway, it was a bit funny to read Newsweek's "Wanted: A New Harry Truman" cover story after reading Kuklick on all of the dissatisfaction people had with Truman when he was in office. I suspect American needs more of an Eisenhower -- maybe even more of a Nixon -- than a Truman right now.