Lion of the Blogosphere

Nixon 1968: Let’s win this one for Ike

The talking heads on CNN brought up Nixon’s 1968 convention speech. I was curious. I watched it.

With 20/20 hindsight, I couldn’t help but snicker when Spirew Agnew was praised as a “statesman of the first rank,” and especially not when Nixon said that “the time has come for honest government in the United States of America.”

It was also weird when Nixon named three people: Reagan, Romney and Rockefeller. Two of those names are still big names 48 years later, but one has been completely forgotten.

That stuff aside, indeed the main theme of Nixon’s speech was law and order and out-of-control crime. The thing is, Nixon was right that it was a big deal.

From 1960 to 1968 (according to statistics found here ), the violent crime rate increased by 85%, and from 1968 to 1991 (the year of peak crime) it increased another 154%.

Unfortunately for the nation, even though Nixon was completely right about the problem, his administration was a complete failure in doing anything about it. Now it’s my very strong belief that the increase in crime was not because the wrong people were working for the federal government, but because of a tide of permissive liberalism sweeping over society. But still, Nixon did nothing to reverse the tide of permissive liberalism.

Even though crime has been going down since 1991 (except for the current year in which it has turned around and is rising again) the violent crime rate never returned to the level of 1960, and in fact never even went back down to the level of 1968 when it was considered high enough to be a big problem. We’ve just gotten used to a much higher level of crime and bad behavior and we now think it’s normal and nothing to be concerned about.

As I wrote in April:

During the last two years, I have watched as we have lost the political will to not tolerate crime. We are definitely at the beginning of a new crime wave. The reason why it doesn’t happen overnight is because of HABIT. Once people get into the habit of behaving lawfully, the habit stays with them. It takes a while for habits to change. But the current message the criminal element is receiving is that society is no longer going to be tough on them, and we will see more and more people break their habit of law abiding behavior in favor of a new habit of criminal behavior.

Based on Trump’s speech last night, I think that Trump understands my point. Whether or not he can do anything about it as President has yet to be seen, but first he has to win. But we can be sure that with Hillary as president, the new crime wave will grow.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 22, 2016 at EST pm

Posted in Uncategorized

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Permissive liberalism can work. For certain populations. And not others. It’s a bit like the 2nd Amendment that way.

    Jesse

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

    • “Permissive liberalism can work. For certain populations. And not others.”

      It works for the testosterone-deficient. And it doesn’t work for anybody else.

      Lewis Medlock

      July 25, 2016 at EST am

  2. It was also weird when Nixon named three people: Reagan, Romney and Rockefeller. Two of those names are still big names 48 years later, but one has been completely forgotten.

    Gregory Clark strikes again.

    JayMan

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  3. “Two of those names are still big names 48 years later, but one has been completely forgotten.”

    Which is the parallel that strikes me about Trump. He is a spur line that leads to nowhere, much the Nelson Rockefeller, and the NY values Republicans.

    “That stuff aside, indeed the main theme of Nixon’s speech was law and order and out-of-control crime. The thing is, Nixon was right that it was a big deal.”

    Nixon was right about most things but is one of the tragic figure out of the 20th century. He was born poor and uncool. He spent his life scrambling and trying to monitize his position and then getting caught trying and made to be embarrassed about it. If his family wasnt poor he probably would have been one of the top Presidents in US history.

    His administrations famous paranoia was caused by people really being out to get him. There were a series of dirty tricks against him by Dick Tuck and other dyspeptic leftist operatives. Things that were acceptable for other candidate, or even actively covered up for like with the Kennedys, were decried in him.

    And it wasnt just his anti-commie work. Dick Tuck began attacking him in 1950. And the reason is just the crime of uncoolness.

    Lion of the Turambar

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

    • Dick Tuck was a political prankster. While working for a Democratic Senate candidate, he somehow got hired as an advance man to setup a Nixon campaign stop. He screwed the stop all up, rented a huge hall, only invited a handful of people. Nixon fired him as an advance man.

      Tuck did admit in later years that some of his stories of pranks against Nixon had been made up. None of his pranks come close to the level of hiring ex-CIA and FBI people to break into offices, steal documents and plant illegal bugs and wiretaps.

      mikeca

      July 22, 2016 at EST pm

      • The point is that Nixon was driven to paranoia and self protection because they *were* out to get him. Thats why he had an enemies list and his staff broken into oppo research for a campaign they already had in the bag.

        The advance man sabotage of Dick Tuck was in the 1950 senate campaign when he was actually working as an advance man for the socialist.

        Lion of the Turambar

        July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  4. Rockefeller hasn’t been forgotten by Jay-Z and his fans.

    DFG

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

    • I was just about to comment that all of the three names Reagan, Romney, and Rockefeller are all still well-known names today.

      Ava Lon

      July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  5. There was a lot more going on in 1968 than just a crime wave. We were in the middle of the Vietnam war. There were anti-war protests. Martin Luther King was assassinated in April 1968. There were riots in many cities following the assassination. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968. There were anit-war riots at the Democratic Convention in August 1968.

    mikeca

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  6. I recall the 68 election clearly. I was 9 years old. At the time, there was a palpable sense that things were spinning out of control and people did blame the Democrats. The election wasn’t as close as popular voting statistics seem to indicate. Note that Wallace took a good number of votes and if he had not been in the race the vast majority of these votes would have gone to Nixon.

    A sense of chaos did really start germinating around 1964. White flight from the cities started in earnest in 64 and within 6 years or so it was complete in many cities (Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Newark, etc) New York included. White flight never affected the hip areas of New York, but entire swaths of Queens (most of South West Queens, and central Queens along Roosevelt avenue), Brooklyn (East New York, Brownsville, Flatbush, Crown Heights) and the Bronx were largely cleared of whites. Noteworthy also, 65 was the year when 3rd world immigration started in earnest. Prior to 65 the only Latinos in New York were Puerto Ricans, and they lived up in the Bronx and in Manhattan. There were few Chinese – restricted pretty much to Chinatown, Flushing was 100% white – and ZERO Hindus and Pakistanis. Fear and alienation are good motivators.

    Daniel

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

    • “White flight never affected the hip areas of New York”

      My mother lived in Williamsburg back when it was white and Jewish. Then it became all black. Then it became hip.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 22, 2016 at EST pm

      • You’re right. Williamsburg was not hip back then. Neither was Greenpoint (though, Greenpoint never went black),Prospect Heights or Fort Green. The hip areas were Brooklyn heights and the core of Park Slope. Other areas like Bay Ridge, Marine Park, Orthodox Jewish neighbrohoods and the Guido neighborhoods were in their own world. This may sound hard to believe, but up untill the early 1960s Bushwick was considered a nice, attractive middle class neighborhood. By the 1970s it had sunk as low as a neighborhood could sink – it was the South Bronx of Brooklyn – but of course it is now being hipsterized like all of Brooklyn that is accessible to Manhattan.

        Daniel

        July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  7. Lion, Trump’s speech received millions less viewers than Romney’s.

    Thoughts?

    DFG

    July 22, 2016 at EST pm

  8. “It was also weird when Nixon named three people: Reagan, Romney and Rockefeller. Two of those names are still big names 48 years later, but one has been completely forgotten.”

    No, I don’t think that’s true. First of all, he was speaking of George Romney, not Mitt (who was 21 in 1968). Secondly, Nelson Rockefeller did get to be vice-president briefly when he was appointed by Gerald Ford. Nixon appointed Ford VP when Spiro Agnew resigned, and when Ford acceded to the White House he had to fill the VP position himself.

    sestamibi

    July 23, 2016 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: