This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: We're All Nixonians Now
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,
"People have got to know whether their President is a crook"
Richard M. Nixon
I often wonder who is worse: George W. Bush — the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history, who bailed out the profligate Wall Street algos and arbitrageurs, who proceeded with two needless, pointless and absurdly costly military occupations (even though he had initially campaigned on the promise of a humble foreign policy), who ignored Michael Scheuer’s warnings about al-Qaeda previous to 9/11, who signed the Constitution-trashing PATRIOT Act (etc etc ad infinitum) or his successor Barack Obama, the man who retained and expanded the PATRIOT Act powers under the NDAA (2011), who claimed the right to extrajudicially kill American citizens using predator drones, who expanded Bush’s expensive and pointless occupations (all the while having run on a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and reverse Bush’s civil liberties incursions), who proceeded with Paulson’s Wall Street bailouts, authorised the NSA to record all phone calls and internet activity, and continued the destructive War on Drugs (even though he had in the past been a drug user).
The answer, by the way, is Richard Nixon. For almost forty years after that man’s resignation, it is arguable that almost every single administration (with the possible exception of Carter as well as Reagan’s first year in office) — but especially that of Bush and Obama — has been cut from his cloth. It was Richard Nixon who inaugurated the War on Drugs — that despicable policy that has empowered the drug gangs and obliterated much of Latin America. It was Richard Nixon who so brazenly corrupted the White House and tarnished the office of the Presidency through the Watergate wiretapping scandal. It was Nixon’s administration that created the culture of government surveillance that led directly to the PATRIOT Act. It was Nixon who internationalised the fiat dollar, so trampling George Washington’s warnings about not entangling alliances, and of course setting the stage for the gradual destruction of American industry that continued apace under NAFTA and into the present day, where America runs the greatest trade deficits in human history. It was Richard Nixon who set the precedent of pointless, stupid, blowback-inducing militarism, by continuing and expanding the Vietnam war. It was Richard Nixon whose administration authorised the use of chemical weapons (or as George W. Bush might have put it, “weapons of mass destruction”) against the Vietcong.
Presidents since have followed — to a greater or lesser extent — in his mould. This is particularly acute this election cycle; you vote for Obama and you get Richard Nixon, or you vote for Romney and you get Richard Nixon. Nixon’s words: “we’re all Keynesians now” have a powerful resonance; not only has every administration since Nixon retained the petrodollar standard and spent like a drunken sailor in pursuit of Keynesian multipliers, but every President since has followed in the Nixonian tradition on civil liberties, on trade, on foreign policy. Henry Kissinger — the true architect of many Nixonian policies, and Obama’s only real competition for most bizarre Nobel Peace Prize recipient — has to some degree counselled each and every President since.
It is hard to overstate the magnitude of Nixon’s actions. The demonetisation of gold ended a 5,000 year long tradition. It was a moment of conjuring, a moment of trickery; that instead of producing the goods, and giving up her gold hoard to pay for her consumption habits (specifically, her consumption of foreign energy), America would give the finger to the world, and print money to pay her debts, while retaining her (substantial) gold hoard. The obvious result of this policy has been that America now prints more and more money, and produces less and less of her consumption. She has printed so much that $5 trillion floats around Asia, while the American industrial belt rusts. Industrial production in America is where it was ten years ago, yet America’s debt exposure has ballooned.
America has had not one but two Vietnams in the past ten years.
First, Afghanistan, in the pursuit of the elusive Osama bin Laden (or, “in the name of liberating women”, presumably via blowing their legs off in drone strikes), where young Western soldiers continue to die (for what?), even after bin Laden’s supposed death in a Pakistani compound last year.
Then, Iraq, presumably in the interests of preventing Saddam Hussein from using non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, or liberating more women by blowing their legs off (or as Tom Friedman put it: “SUCK! ON! THIS!”).
Like Nixon’s Presidency, the Nixonian political system is highly fragile. Debt is fragility, because it enforces the inflexibility of repayment, and the Nixonian political system has created staggering debt, much of it now offshore. The Nixonian economic policy has gutted American industry, leaving America uncompetitive and dependent on foreign productivity and resources. The Nixonian foreign policy has created a world that is deeply antipathetic to America and American interests, which has meant that America has become less and less capable of achieving imperatives via diplomacy.
Future historians may finger George W. Bush as the worst President in history, and the one who broke the American empire. But smarter scholars will pinpoint Nixon. True, the seeds of destruction were sown much earlier with the institution of permanent limited liability corporations. This allowed for the evolution of a permanent corporate aristocracy which eventually bought out the political echelon, and turned the Federal government into an instrument of crony capitalism, military Keynesianism and corporate welfare. Nixonianism has been the corporate aristocracy’s crowning achievement. And to some extent, this period of free lunch economics was a banquet, even for middle class Americans. The masses were kept fat and happy. But now the game is up — like Nixon’s Presidency — its days are numbered.
- 12104 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Junk x 1,000. Most are members of satanic secret societies. If you think that they "start out sincerely wanting to make a change for the good," you've got a lot more reading to do.
Most start out intending to do exactly what they do: belong to an inner circle that fucks kids, fucks people, kills people, praises satan. Period.
What about LBJ? He started the excessive spending, excessive debt and money printing that was already out of control when Nixon took office. Ditto for Nam.
LBJ didn't start the war on drugs. He didn't demonetise gold. Yeah he was a big spender, so he deserves to be apportioned some blame. But he's no Richard Nixon.
Give BHO another term and he should outdo GWB,RMN,and LBJ combined.
These Presidents certainly had a free hand and to think the 22nd Amendment has been law since 1951. The fact that Congress had no say over the Budget must have been a serious constitutional concern to Voters who were probably held prisoner by their TV sets while the Super Slick Presidents just force fed public funds into subsidising Tuition, Universities, Corporations, Defence Industries, Wars, and huge piggy banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Hell, noone would have guessed the Americans spent their time demanding Reagan cut Defence Spending and raise Taxes - I don't recall it. I do recall being in meetings with USAF Officers from the Pentagon boasting about Star Wars SDI Projects and spending money like water - and Procurement Scandals such as $6000 coffee machines for B-52s and gems like the Valkyrie bomber.
Oh and not to forget the huge deficits run up in those years and the Debt rising from 26% GDP to 41% GDP. I do not recall Voters objecting to a strong Dollar sustained by importing 10% global savings to fund trade and budget deficits.
Making out it was all down to the President going rogue is a bit lazy intellectually - it was simply that the USA had discovered Argentina's Little Secret and used its Reserve Currency Status to keep going a little longer than Buenos Aires.......but they got to the same finish line !
On economics sir you have my attention, however I believe that 100,000 plus Kurds in northern Iraq would disagree with you that chemical weapons are indeed a weapon of mass destruction. Attack Bush all you want, I will probably agree with you, but leave the conjecture out of it and accept gracefully that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to WMD's. I spent 8 years as an EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) tech in the Army and was my unit NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) non commissioned officer. Don't let ideology over come critical thinking by laying claim that George Bush would call something a WMD that most people would not.
You, then, with 8 years in the Army, are too close to the subject to analyze the politics. Yes, Saddam Hussein murdered a bunch of Kurds, but he did so using weapons acquired from the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Military has also committed atrocity piled on top of atrocity in the name of the almight petrodollar. Do you think that makes the actions taken in our name okay?
Finally, George W. Bush wouldn't know a WMD from a cheerleader pom pom. Remember, when warned of "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." in the PDA while he was "cutting brush" on his "ranch", Bush the cowboy told the bearer of the news "Okay, you've covered your ass, you can go now".
He was afraid of horses, that should give you a clue about what kind of person he was.
As I stated to the writer of this post I would agree with him on most of his criticism of George Bush. I am unsure as to the use of your red herring, would you like to talk about George Bush, the military, the government or the fact that I know that chemical weapons are WMD's and the original author doesn't.
I wouldn't vote and still don't. Your real votes are with your words, actions, and in today's world, your money. Votes aren't once every few years, they're every few moments.
When you vote at the polls, you vote for continuing to be led by someone who is likely corrupt and/or stupid and/or doesn't give a damn about your problems.
Refusing to vote is the only honest answer in this shitstorm. If we all did that, it would send the world a clear message about the magnanimity of the corruption here.
Although I disagree w/some of his Libertarian platform, I would actually bother to vote for RP if he would tell the truth about 911. But he won't, so I just lump him in w/all the rest. And setting the stage for his son is audacious at best--that guy's a creep. Mountaintop removal needs to stop.
Blame it all on the residents of Caracas. Someone should have taught them the proper method of how to roll over a limo and set it on fire.
"Well, if the President does it, then it's not illegal"-Dick Nixon
The Woodward and Bernsteins of today are rotting in a gulag somewhere, or have been "suicided".
Yes, Nixon was driven from office, but the band plays on.
Who is Obama?
Carter II?
Nixon II?
Bush III?
very long waiting lines at Nixon's funeral. leftist media types unable to fathom it.
Watergate? haven't seen that hinted here at all...
I think that future historians will focus their analysis on the decline of America on Nixon but also on the combined effect of Clinton/Bush/Obama. The 1990's and 2000's were the height of US power but also started the implacable decline.
Bush family, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Duponts, Morgans, Harrimans, et al.
Focusing on presidents is fairly dumb to begin with. Do people actually think the "leaders" act on their own accord?
How many assassination attempts did Jackson survive?
The Kennedy brothers were clearly killed by the CIA.
How about McKinley? Reagan? RR sure was different after Bush's family friend and others took a few shots at him.
Not to mention the MKULTRA type programming (see SRA) that most or all of these presidents endure all of their lives.
Get real. This piece is pretty silly. It makes some good points, I'll grant, but it leads us to focus on presidents as makers of policy, and that's misguided. Take a look at who made Nixon president--or VP, actually--folks like Prescott Bush. Take a look at the actual power structure. It's Luciferian. Its goal is a NWO, the destruction of America (or of America as the world understands it). The banksters are but a functional part of all of this.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Prescott+Bush+Richard+Nixon+photo&vi...
sorry, tried to paste the pic into the post window, but I'm too dumb to figure it out.
Nixon also ended the Vietnam War and "opened" China to the world. I think the author is choosing to overlook some things in an attempt to make the world black and white.
WTF, JID? He ran in 68 on ending the war, and ran again on it in 72?
I'llbombya "ended" the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Libyan one, by those standards.
Total bs, dude.
Nixon was Ike's VP. He was as much of a warmonger as the rest of them, in on the JFK hit, and on and on. Nixon was a super creep.
ya know, as a kid my father never gave me good advise - as a matter of fact, the advise he had given me, was, for the most part always wrong. ironically it was my dearest mother that always proved correct. i'll never forget some ~40 years ago when she said out of the blue, that Nixon was a communist. and to this day i believe that she [she loathed the man and could read people like a dime novel - her instinct were uncanny, and beyond fault] was spot-on!
jmo
excellent post, thankyou
The MAD BOMBER -- Created the present American Health Care for Profit System, Put the Space Program on the road to doom by choosing the Space Shuttle concept, Set the precedent for ALL plutocrats to be immune from the 'just us' System....NIXON'S THE ONE - "Well, if the President does it, then it isn't illegal"...Why do you think I chose Jerry anyway?
"Cambodia is the Nixon doctrine in its purest form."
I think LBJ paved the way with unfulfillable promises. From there it was straight forward to stick to the Dead Parrot defense (covering up lies with bigger lies).