Nixon ethics?

Question

Recently I posted a question, asking about Joseph McCarthey. I asked about the ethics of his actions, whether or not he was a misguided man trying to do the right thing, a fringe lunatic, totally right, whatever. I wanted to know what people thought about one of the most controversial figures the Senate has ever seen. Now I'm wondering about Richard Millhouse Nixon.

Nixon resigned from office in disgrace, after the Watergate break-in and resultant scandal. What do you think about the scandal? Was it blown out of proportion? Was Nixon a good president? Did he make the right decisions? Was the Washington Post in the wrong to dig as far as they did? Should the Presidency carry with it some kind of immunity for this kind of investigation, or is that an essential part of the democratic process? Should impeachment be more accessible? Should the press dig that deep? Is it unethical to let power rest unmolested, or should we constantly question and investigate our leaders?

Answer 1

My, this is like a history essay test. Nixon was good in foreign relations like China. He was the president that ended Vietnam. His downfall as you know was from within his own people that lead to disclosure of Watergate. It was wrong to break in absolutely, but Nixon always had fear of the democrats and loosing his power. I for one never liked nor trusted him prior to his election of president and my gut feelings were true. He had the honor to leave office, while Clinton lied as he did and was impeached and remained in office. I wonder how they can get away with that? Yes, the press has the right to dig deep, but in Roosevelt's case, they were denied to reveal he was a cripple for a long time, as it was explained for national security. The president is an elected official that is to have the full trust of the citizens, yes there should be no immunity.

Answer 2

Nixon as president was, to the nation, like bad gums are to overall dental health. His corruption was insidious and, to throw in another metaphor, like the 90% of the iceberg below the water line. He needed to leave office, by whatever legal means.

And on another note, quite the opposite of deserving immunity from criminal investigation, a president is in the same position a priest is in terms of morals, or should be. His superior knowledge of the utter and total rectity his position demands makes any infraction many times worse than it would be for those who do not understand or have the power in their hands to abuse.

I had a soft spot for Nixon, because I was open to the genuine awkward charm he had. He was very socially stiff, didn't gesture naturally, seemed very ill at ease in his own skin, as various people have observed. There was no arrogance to the man, as is often charged. He had been beaten too many times and was too insecure for that. It was, more, a sneaking, craven, bad little boy impulse to do the big illegal things he did, like Watergate, and the little, possibly legal, but still terribly paranoid and ugly stuff, like the famous enemies list.

I would rate Nixon a 75 on a scale of 100, to Bush's 50 and Clinton's 85.

Answer 3

Why are you dragging up the past that cant be changed? we got the object lesson for what didint work, now start looking forward and instigating to do "what works". walk the talk dont just bleet it!

Answer 4

What ethics?