Seize The Moment

Seize The Moment
By Richard M. Nixon

I got this book some time ago largely to just put on my bookshelf. After years sitting there, I read it because I have read a lot about Richard Nixon, but never anything by him. So sum up the book, it provides a prescription with statistical and analytical supporting argument for the way forward in world politics as the one remaining superpower. I did not realize what I was going to read about until I started reading and now must place it right next to Kissinger’s book on the same subject. While both men are despised by many from the political left, I believe their worldviews are required reading to formulate balanced views. When I contrast both books I find Nixon focused on the world of finance and business and Kissenger focused on politics and power. Both have a common denominator, which is national security.

Nixon begins his worldviews much like Kissenger with Europe. But Nixon brings Russia into the mix much more prominently. In doing so he provides a lot of data to support his argument that Gorbechov was a half-wit when measured up for the job he undertook. He paints a picture with numeric data on economics to demonstrate Gorbechov’s basic misunderstanding of fundamental economics. With regard to the oppressive measures he imposed upon his people and his neighbors while at the same time promoting glastnost, and prestroika shows the conflicted side of Gorbechov. Gorbechov’s policy and actions are painted as a contradiction in terms on both economic and human liberties fronts. After reading the chapter on Russia, I came away with yet another example of the Nobel Peace prize being a Swedish lark.

Nixon saw the rest of Europe with a few minor concerns. He shares a fear of Empire Europe and a Eastern Block that would be subject to civil war. His fear of an EU albeit muted seems to have come to fruition just as he visualized. In my opinion, today’s EU has many national conflicts that leave the idea of Fortress Europe unlikely and at the same time an EU, lead by the power hungry French and Germans, that is prone to tell the United States to go home. That is until some civil conflict requires us to return and help resolve the conflict militarily, as in Yugoslavia. Keep in mind the French and Germans have yet to prove themselves as a prime mover to mediate an international dispute to a peaceful end.

As Nixon moves to Asia, he leads with Japan. Here you discover his propensity to lead the world through economic policy and sound business practice. As opposed to the impression he left in his role of the inherited Viet Nam fiasco. He recognizes Japan’s entanglement of government and business, but is clearly critical of those in the united States who seek protectionism. In moving to China you get a glimpse of Nixon’s 1968 vision on China. The reader gets though only a glimpse of the details of the 1972 “opening of the door” Having read Kissinger’s memoirs years ago, it is refreshing to hear the views of the protagonist who actually signed off on three years of back channel diplomacy. In reading Nixon’s motives I come away with a much deeper appreciation for this accomplishment and its consequence. The billions of people in China and the millions of Americans that now experience prosperity as a result have not thanked Nixon enough for his vision and persistence to get an important job done.

As Nixon moved to the Middle East I reminded myself to compare his prescription to peace to all that I have read on the subject (11 books to date and many periodicals and essays) Keeping in mind that Nixon wrote this in 1991, and in retrospect from the book I found his advice worth it’s salt to which both Clinton and Bush ignored. He provided a formula for which he picked four countries to “turn up the volume” in terms of diplomatic and economic relations. The four countries he chose had to meet the same criteria for which Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq.

The idea in mind for Nixon was to advocate Democracy and Free (fair) Trade on numerous fronts to gain enough momentum that it would take hold through out the Middle East. It is fair to say that the public would criticize Clinton for doing too little and Bush having done too much. I would critique Clinton for being too focused and way too late on Israel. The obvious critique of Bush is he is too narrowly focused on Iraq.

Where both leaders failed is they turned a blind eye to Israel’s blatant reneging on peace agreements that the United States brokered through numerous administrations with little if any repercussions. Nixon, the economist that he was by trade and education, does a nice job presenting statistics that show an alarming rate of economic support to Israel that pales its support to the rest of the world in total. Ironically though Nixon made it clear that no American President has or ever will turn its back on Israel. Metaphorically we have a spoiled rotten kid and the rest of the family violently complaining. Nixon’s plan was to spread the wealth. Clinton ignored this all together. Bush’s focus on Iraq has burdened efforts with the four countries included in Nixon’s formula.

It’s too bad that our news media since Watergate has such an overwhelming influence on our public opinion. It seems to take time for history to bear out the fruits of our leaders efforts. When you look at the results of opening the door with China, a simultaneous adversary, you must applaud his accomplishment. He did close out the war in Viet Nam, and freed us from the gold standard. Yet was tarnished by a break-in of which now the Deep Throat finally comes clean. Sure he was a paranoid leader, and you may criticize him on any of his methods as your reading causes you to choose. But to not read his well formulated thoughts would be a huge mistake. You do not have to like a man or his deeds to learn from him. In Nixon there is a brilliant mind and this book gives the reader only a glimpse.