Scan barcode
srash's review against another edition
4.0
When I was in 3rd grade, my class had to do a report on a president. We were put in small groups and told to pick from a list of names. Of course, my group had to pick last, so by then, all the Presidents we recognized were gone. We picked Richard Nixon on a whim.
We also quickly realized that we were really in over our heads trying to explain Watergate and impeachment. In fact, we never quite figured out what it was. Questioning adults about it didn't yield any better information.
My solution to this problem was that we just cram as many trivia facts into our project as possible and then conclude abruptly with "And then he quit" without much explanation. Nobody else had any better ideas, and even as an 8-year-old I had, ahem, a forceful personality when I thought the occasion called for it, so my classmates didn't argue with me. I have no idea what grade we made on that project, but I shudder to think of how incoherent it was.
The experience left me with an abiding horror of group projects and picking research topics last and a residual retention of inane trivia about Nixon. I can't tell you on most days what I had for dinner the day before, but I can still reel off Nixon's birthdate, birthplace, alma maters, religious affiliation, and all other manner of other facts about him instantly.
As I got old enough to understand the more complex aspects of Nixon's personality, I also started to find him personally fascinating. But I haven't read anything about him in a long time. Since Nixon has been getting mentioned a lot in the press lately in comparison to the current resident of the White House, I figured I'd rekindle my interest in "Tricky Dick." (For the record, I don't think comparing Nixon to Trump is a particularly apt parallel. Some of Trump's actions reflect Nixon's and may lead down the same road, but I think Trump and LBJ are a lot more similar in personality.)
Evan Thomas is more interested in delving into Nixon's personality and getting to know his human side than providing a comprehensive sketch of his life, and he manages to do so without devolving into psychobabble.
Thomas was more sympathetic to Nixon that I had assumed he'd be, but he's also remarkably even-handed in his depiction, shying away from neither Nixon's massive flaws nor his substantial strengths. I didn't necessarily agree with all of Thomas's conclusions, but they were rooted in research and well-reasoned.
Perhaps by necessity, a large part of the book focuses on Nixon's presidency, as well as his time as Vice President under Eisenhower, but I sometimes wanted more information on Nixon's early years, which were marred by family tragedy, and early political career as a California congressman. Other than his involvement in the Hiss case, that's dealt with fairly perfunctorily.
I might be biased as the daughter of two naval supply petty officers, but I also wanted more information on his service as a supply officer during WWII. (I told my dad that Nixon had spent over a year working as Navy supply officer, and he instantly asked, "Did he order his men to steal as much stuff as our officers did?" Well, the book is sadly uninformative on that point.)
Nonetheless, it's an interesting and thought-provoking read that I had a hard time putting down. I'd definitely read another Evan Thomas bio. (After I finish my Nixon research binge.)
We also quickly realized that we were really in over our heads trying to explain Watergate and impeachment. In fact, we never quite figured out what it was. Questioning adults about it didn't yield any better information.
My solution to this problem was that we just cram as many trivia facts into our project as possible and then conclude abruptly with "And then he quit" without much explanation. Nobody else had any better ideas, and even as an 8-year-old I had, ahem, a forceful personality when I thought the occasion called for it, so my classmates didn't argue with me. I have no idea what grade we made on that project, but I shudder to think of how incoherent it was.
The experience left me with an abiding horror of group projects and picking research topics last and a residual retention of inane trivia about Nixon. I can't tell you on most days what I had for dinner the day before, but I can still reel off Nixon's birthdate, birthplace, alma maters, religious affiliation, and all other manner of other facts about him instantly.
As I got old enough to understand the more complex aspects of Nixon's personality, I also started to find him personally fascinating. But I haven't read anything about him in a long time. Since Nixon has been getting mentioned a lot in the press lately in comparison to the current resident of the White House, I figured I'd rekindle my interest in "Tricky Dick." (For the record, I don't think comparing Nixon to Trump is a particularly apt parallel. Some of Trump's actions reflect Nixon's and may lead down the same road, but I think Trump and LBJ are a lot more similar in personality.)
Evan Thomas is more interested in delving into Nixon's personality and getting to know his human side than providing a comprehensive sketch of his life, and he manages to do so without devolving into psychobabble.
Thomas was more sympathetic to Nixon that I had assumed he'd be, but he's also remarkably even-handed in his depiction, shying away from neither Nixon's massive flaws nor his substantial strengths. I didn't necessarily agree with all of Thomas's conclusions, but they were rooted in research and well-reasoned.
Perhaps by necessity, a large part of the book focuses on Nixon's presidency, as well as his time as Vice President under Eisenhower, but I sometimes wanted more information on Nixon's early years, which were marred by family tragedy, and early political career as a California congressman. Other than his involvement in the Hiss case, that's dealt with fairly perfunctorily.
I might be biased as the daughter of two naval supply petty officers, but I also wanted more information on his service as a supply officer during WWII. (I told my dad that Nixon had spent over a year working as Navy supply officer, and he instantly asked, "Did he order his men to steal as much stuff as our officers did?" Well, the book is sadly uninformative on that point.)
Nonetheless, it's an interesting and thought-provoking read that I had a hard time putting down. I'd definitely read another Evan Thomas bio. (After I finish my Nixon research binge.)
spinnerroweok's review against another edition
5.0
Wow! Just wow! What a roller coaster ride this one was. Nixon's biography is the first presidential biography where the time of his presidency was the most interesting part of the story (Maybe Abe Lincoln is the exception.) Thomas writes a great psychological biography of our 37th president and the first president. The time in the White House which is at least half the book, if not more, is just nuts. Nixon comes across not as the evil jerk many believe him to be, but as a fish out of water. He is that poor kid who is constantly looked down upon and made fun of by the rich kids. If you don't feel sympathy for Nixon after reading this, you have no soul. This story is a classic tragedy right off the pages of Shakespeare. (Bucket List Note to self: Write William Shakespeare's Nixon). I recommend.
kristy_k's review against another edition
4.0
Recommended by Bill Gates, I picked up a copy of this book a few years ago in the bargain section at Barnes and Noble. Its length and most assuredly what would be dense content made me hesitant to start reading it. But Thomas does a great job of laying out the life and presidency of Richard Nixon in a way that is informative and engaging.
I wasn't born during the Nixon era, but I was too old for it to have been taught in school when I went, so my knowledge of Nixon was admittedly narrow. After reading this, I find myself fascinated by his character and time as president. I believe there is no apter a description than what Thomas uses: Nixon was indeed a man divided.
I wasn't born during the Nixon era, but I was too old for it to have been taught in school when I went, so my knowledge of Nixon was admittedly narrow. After reading this, I find myself fascinated by his character and time as president. I believe there is no apter a description than what Thomas uses: Nixon was indeed a man divided.
bkish's review against another edition
4.0
My father hated Nixon as do I so it is a challenge to read this very well done book. I do not know if I will finish it. I think Evan Thomas tries to be objective and yet he likes Nixon admires him.
I am now at the period where he was elected President. A man who had absolutely no conscience he intentionally prevented an end to the Vietnam War so that he could be elected. He was capable of anything and was filled with anger and hatred.
Anyway even writing this is a challenge so I will complete this review for now...
SO I did read Being Nixon: A Man Divided - which I think is erroneous and reflects the views of the author Evan Thomas. He was Not Not Not divided schizophrenic paranoid... He was a con man and people saw whatever they saw which reflected more their own psychology than his.
I know that the author did much research for this book and he worked many years at the Newsweek. His grandfather was one of the original Socialists. He does not clearly see Richard M Nixon. He does report much conversation and actions and things that happened then and language from various books including Nixon's books and his diary.
When you get involved with a sociopath a con man you are at great risk. I think one of the few who got away with less damage was Henry Kissinger.
If you are interested in the career of the former President Nixon this book is good to read.
I am now at the period where he was elected President. A man who had absolutely no conscience he intentionally prevented an end to the Vietnam War so that he could be elected. He was capable of anything and was filled with anger and hatred.
Anyway even writing this is a challenge so I will complete this review for now...
SO I did read Being Nixon: A Man Divided - which I think is erroneous and reflects the views of the author Evan Thomas. He was Not Not Not divided schizophrenic paranoid... He was a con man and people saw whatever they saw which reflected more their own psychology than his.
I know that the author did much research for this book and he worked many years at the Newsweek. His grandfather was one of the original Socialists. He does not clearly see Richard M Nixon. He does report much conversation and actions and things that happened then and language from various books including Nixon's books and his diary.
When you get involved with a sociopath a con man you are at great risk. I think one of the few who got away with less damage was Henry Kissinger.
If you are interested in the career of the former President Nixon this book is good to read.
logantmartin's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
Definitely one of the better biographies I've read. They don't teach a whole lot about Watergate in school beyond the tidy story that there was a break-in at the DNC and Nixon was responsible, so Thomas's perspective was completely new to me. If the goal of history is to learn from the past, it makes no sense to have an incomplete set of facts, and the biggest scandal in US history is no exception.
Nixon's life, at least the way Thomas tells it, was Sophoclean in its tragedy. The book is even divided into three acts: the rise, the climax, and the fall. Nixon's fatal flaw is his hunger for approval, and his jealousy of those who get it so easily from others. It makes him desperate, willing to bend the rules to get and retain power. Nixon surrounds himself with equally desperate people: lackeys, men who rely on his approval. That, and the fact that they were all fucking idiots, was Nixon's downfall.
Sometimes, however, I found Thomas to be a bit overly sympathetic to Nixon, especially in the preface and epilogue. I haven't read many presidential biographies so I can't say whether this is typical, but at times it feels like Thomas is trying to convince me that, deep down, Nixon was the good guy in all of this. Thomas presents a man who is consumed by his flaws, but also one who correctly perceives that everyone is out to get him. That may be true, but the same can probably be said of every president. In any case, if there were some conniving dark forces lurking in the shadows to bring Nixon down, Thomas doesn't do a great job of showing us that. Instead, we see fairly reasonable people responding to Nixon's own provocations, which of course makes him seem like the antagonist of the story.
Still, the book is well-narrated and informative, and it's clear the author isn't just trying to teach history, but also the lessons we can learn from history.
Nixon's life, at least the way Thomas tells it, was Sophoclean in its tragedy. The book is even divided into three acts: the rise, the climax, and the fall. Nixon's fatal flaw is his hunger for approval, and his jealousy of those who get it so easily from others. It makes him desperate, willing to bend the rules to get and retain power. Nixon surrounds himself with equally desperate people: lackeys, men who rely on his approval. That, and the fact that they were all fucking idiots, was Nixon's downfall.
Sometimes, however, I found Thomas to be a bit overly sympathetic to Nixon, especially in the preface and epilogue. I haven't read many presidential biographies so I can't say whether this is typical, but at times it feels like Thomas is trying to convince me that, deep down, Nixon was the good guy in all of this. Thomas presents a man who is consumed by his flaws, but also one who correctly perceives that everyone is out to get him. That may be true, but the same can probably be said of every president. In any case, if there were some conniving dark forces lurking in the shadows to bring Nixon down, Thomas doesn't do a great job of showing us that. Instead, we see fairly reasonable people responding to Nixon's own provocations, which of course makes him seem like the antagonist of the story.
Still, the book is well-narrated and informative, and it's clear the author isn't just trying to teach history, but also the lessons we can learn from history.
katymvt's review against another edition
4.0
It felt a little long, but it was very informative and in-depth.
toml72's review against another edition
5.0
A complicated man full of demons and his own worst enemy times one hundred. One of the best books on the subject I've read so far.
This is a long, detailed work which requires the reader to SLOW DOWN and PAY ATTENTION. If you can't manage that, read something else.
This is a long, detailed work which requires the reader to SLOW DOWN and PAY ATTENTION. If you can't manage that, read something else.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
4.0
A sympathetic, but not hagiographic bio, and a good one.
Thomas gets a few early-Nixon things right that most people don't know are the case.
1. Helen Gahagan Douglas' Democratic primary opponent first came out with the "pink lady" and comparing her record to Vito Marcantonio, Socialist Congresscritter from New York City. Murray Chotiner just has the idea of printing their records side-by-side and on pink paper.
2. Adlai Stevenson had a slush fund bigger than Nixon's in 1952, and it was used for a lot more ethically edgy purposes. For that matter, Ike, though not already an elected politician and thus technically not having a "slush fund," was getting a fair degree of personal aid from campaign funding. (Thomas doesn't mention that one.)
3. On the 1960 campaign, he doesn't go into detail (would be hard to prove) whether either candidate cheated. That said, in Illinois, the state GOP was known for its own shenanigans downstate. But, it's clear that he thinks studied neutrality is best.
4. He gets all parts of the 1968 backdoor from Nixon to Thieu correct, as well as noting that, post-election, Hoover incorrectly claimed LBJ had bugged Nixon's plane.
Watergate? I agree with him that Nixon didn't order the original burglary. That said, if John Mitchell had some idea about it ... Nixon couldn't have been surprised by it. After all, he had mentioned breaking into Ellsburg's psych himself.
Thomas is also right that Nixon sometimes WAS unfairly treated by the media, as well as the Georgetown-area "smart set."
And, I had not read before that a Special Forces unit ordered to go from South Vietnam into Cambodia to do "clean-up" after Nixon's first bombing of Cambodia mutinied. Interesting.
==
Book is not perfect, though. Allende and ITT, among other things, get short shrift. It's probably 4.5 stars, so I went downward.
Thomas gets a few early-Nixon things right that most people don't know are the case.
1. Helen Gahagan Douglas' Democratic primary opponent first came out with the "pink lady" and comparing her record to Vito Marcantonio, Socialist Congresscritter from New York City. Murray Chotiner just has the idea of printing their records side-by-side and on pink paper.
2. Adlai Stevenson had a slush fund bigger than Nixon's in 1952, and it was used for a lot more ethically edgy purposes. For that matter, Ike, though not already an elected politician and thus technically not having a "slush fund," was getting a fair degree of personal aid from campaign funding. (Thomas doesn't mention that one.)
3. On the 1960 campaign, he doesn't go into detail (would be hard to prove) whether either candidate cheated. That said, in Illinois, the state GOP was known for its own shenanigans downstate. But, it's clear that he thinks studied neutrality is best.
4. He gets all parts of the 1968 backdoor from Nixon to Thieu correct, as well as noting that, post-election, Hoover incorrectly claimed LBJ had bugged Nixon's plane.
Watergate? I agree with him that Nixon didn't order the original burglary. That said, if John Mitchell had some idea about it ... Nixon couldn't have been surprised by it. After all, he had mentioned breaking into Ellsburg's psych himself.
Thomas is also right that Nixon sometimes WAS unfairly treated by the media, as well as the Georgetown-area "smart set."
And, I had not read before that a Special Forces unit ordered to go from South Vietnam into Cambodia to do "clean-up" after Nixon's first bombing of Cambodia mutinied. Interesting.
==
Book is not perfect, though. Allende and ITT, among other things, get short shrift. It's probably 4.5 stars, so I went downward.
alina_lindgren's review against another edition
5.0
Before reading this my exposure to Nixon was limited to having heard he was a paranoid and disgraced former president. Watergate happened before I was born. My parents never talked about it nor did school devote any real time to the topic. I've been making a concerted effort to shore up my American history knowledge and this seemed like a good topic to dig deeper.
This book is well-paced and appears to be a balanced account of both the good things Nixon did and characteristics he had, as well as his weaknesses and missteps. It is humanizing but does not make apologies for a man who wanted to be remembered by history - just not in the way that it happened.
I can't speak to the historical accuracy or biases due to limited knowledge and lack of first-hand experience, but I'm looking forward to becoming more educated on the subject moving forward!
This book is well-paced and appears to be a balanced account of both the good things Nixon did and characteristics he had, as well as his weaknesses and missteps. It is humanizing but does not make apologies for a man who wanted to be remembered by history - just not in the way that it happened.
I can't speak to the historical accuracy or biases due to limited knowledge and lack of first-hand experience, but I'm looking forward to becoming more educated on the subject moving forward!