Rivalry and Friendship
A Review of Kennedy and Nixon:
The Rivalry that Shaped Postwar America by Christopher
Matthews
Author Biography
Christopher Matthews worked as a print
journalist for 15 years, 13 years for the “San Francisco
Examiner” and two years for the “San Francisco Chronicle.”
He has worked as a presidential speechwriter for Jimmy
Carter, an aide to House Speaker Tip O’Neill and as a staff
for Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie in the U.S.
Senate. He is the author of Hardball.
A friendship that once crossed partisan barriers in “one of
those curious incidences of history” was what Richard
Milhous Nixon and John Fitzgerald Kennedy shared during the
post-WWII era.1 The two men stood on opposite
poles of the partisan built, but similar political
ideologies. Nixon once commented on his queer friendship with
Kennedy: “He and I shared the dubious distinction of sitting
at the opposite ends of the committee table like a pair of
unmatched bookends.”2
In the section of the book titled “Students,” the author
illustrated the diverse personalities and social status of
Kennedy and Nixon which shaped them to be the later
distinguishing politicians. Nixon spent most of his
childhood around
his parents’ grocery store. Not able to go to Harvard
because of financial difficulties, the middle-class
representative
used his class resentment of the elitist and talented as the
fuel for his career in politics and as the basis upon which
he gained support. At Whittier College in California, Nixon
established himself as the leader of the Orthogonians, a
term he coined as the name of a new campus club representing
a social status opposite to that of the “Franklins,” who
were the better-dressed, and more sophisticated students.
On the other hand, Kennedy, the oldest son of former U.S.
ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, grew up with an undeniably
wealthy background that supported him through out his life,
from the exclusive Choate School to Harvard and to the
political battlefields. In high school, Kennedy was the head of
the pranksters, and the President of the club of the
“Muckers,” students who aimed at destroying the old Choate
school
order by conducting hoaxes. However, while his actions were
detested by the school authorities, the Choate headmaster,
St. John, who had been irritated by Kennedy’s jaunt that
interrupted a major school social event, admitted that “in any
school he would have gotten away with things just on his
smile. He was…very lovable.”3 The enchanting charm
and thus the gifted leadership of the young Kennedy had
helped him to win a Choate contest of the senior who was “most
likely to succeed.”4 The divergent class status
represented by Nixon and Kennedy at school and in the society
would lead them onto the same path of vocation.
The first chapter of the book exhibits how the emotional
impact World War II had on the Americans assisted Nixon and
Kennedy, helping them succeed in their earliest campaign
into the House. Both of the young politicians entered into
Congress in 1946 and in reaction to the American fears from
the Second Great War, they advocated the same policy of
containment of communism—the disease that affected both
Germany and Soviet Union. Nixon raged against Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s New Deal, coming from one of the millions of
families that did not benefit from its programs, and flamed
with the public’s fear of the spreading of communism from
the dreaded Soviet Union. Upon Herman Perry’s invitation to
run for Congress on the 1946 Republican Ticket, Nixon,
exultant and determined, hired a Beverly Hills Public Relations
man, Murray Chotiner, to scheme for his political success
through the media. The first step Nixon took was an attack on
the Democratic Congressman Jerry Voorhis, accusing him of
being supported by the Congress of Industrial Organizations
(CIO), which had communist affiliations. Nixon’s articulate
debate with Voorhis won him his seat in the Congress of
California. Kennedy, calling himself a “fighting
conservative,” secreted “private contempt for the social and
economic
policies of the New Deal,” which had ended capitalism in the
U.S., and, as the Californian candidate, he brought forth
awareness of the ruthlessness of Soviet Russia and his wish
to alienate it.5 One Republican and the other
Democratic with diverse backgrounds but similar policies,
the two men strangely developed a friendship of admiration and
considerable trusts as new members of Congress.
Chapters two to eight describe the development of the
Kennedy-Nixon friendship from 1947 to 1960. Although they
were a
strange match—since they belonged to different backgrounds,
political parties, and social esteems among their
peers—Kennedy and Nixon maintained their close tie until
their first campaign for presidency. Their first encounter took
place after the swearing-in ceremony at the National Press
Club that held a reception for Congressmen who had served in
the war. Kennedy was impressed by Nixon’s victory over the
previously widely approved Voorhis. Nixon was charmed by the
twenty-nine-year-old Kennedy’s natural friendliness that had
the magic “to convince someone he liked him.”6
As only a freshman in Congress, Nixon successfully gained
prestige and influence for himself by winning a second posting
on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Kennedy’s most famous effort during the time was most likely to
test out a communism advocate, Russ Nixon, who had once been
Kennedy’s Harvard professor in economics. Later, Addison
disease robbed Kennedy of a great amount of physical
strength, and while he rested, Nixon worked toward catching a
big-time politician who hid his communist identity—Alger
Hiss, the man who had been at the Yalta Conference and had
taken the position of Secretary-General of the founding
United Nations (UN) conference in San Francisco. To the
surprise
of many, Nixon’s charge of the star politician of committing
espionage was proven true by a series of HUAC hearings.
In the next decades, their precious connection would be
altered by the era when public opinion became extremely
dependent on the media, one factor that unfairly benefited
the strikingly handsome Kennedy. In their identical struggle
to power, soaked by feelings of fear and jealousy shared by
both, the two would use any method— many infamous dirty
tricks involved, to reach their dreams. Both campaigned for
the election 1960, trying to maintain respect for each other
at the same time. Starting in chapter nine, the story of the
Kennedy-Nixon friendship becomes an account of intense
competitions and enmity between the two. The elder Kennedy
confided to Nixon that: “Dick, if my boy can’t make it, I’m
for you.”7 On several social occasions, Kennedy
refused to join in with the popular mockery of Nixon. He
called Nixon the “victim of the worst press that ever hit a
politician in this country.”8 In addition, Nixon
refused to attack Kennedy at the start of the campaign,
attempting to focus his attack on the Democratic left. Chapter
ten illustrates the first Great Debate the two presidential
candidates participated on September 26, 1960, a historical
landmark of technological accomplishment and impact on
politics. It was the first televised debate for political
campaigning in America. The outcome of the debate for the
Republican candidate proved to be a disaster. In 1960, nine in
ten American families had a television set, so the majority
of the Americans watched the televised debates between the
two. Hospitalized while Kennedy was physically well and
actively campaigning from town to town, Nixon looked like a
bleak contrast of the lean, tanned and confident Kennedy,
especially without the blend of shades specified for his
televised appearance. Nixon’s ambitions “had become the
sharpest possible prod to Kennedy’s own, for he had shown the
country and Kennedy what a person of their generation could
achieve.”9 The power and wealth of the Kennedy
family and his own telegenic attractions won Kennedy
widespread public admiration which led to his victory in 1960.
After Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on November 22,
1963, Nixon was able to win the next election. Ironically,
Nixon’s second term was marked by his Watergate burglary
scandal that eventually led to his resignation. The man who had
waited and endured embittering battles—including a shameful
loss of the 1962 race for Governor of California, now
carried a greater shame to be the first U.S. president to
resign, a choice he made before he was impeached. Nixon
officially left the White House on August 8, 1976.
The author’s thesis states that the American society usually
spots the glamour instead of foreign or domestic
accomplishments of a politician. Kennedy’s political works
included his partial commitment in the Bay of Pigs raid and
the murder of the Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem;
however, except for his Civil Rights Acts of 1964, he didn’t
become a great influence in the condition of the American
domestics. The illegal tapping system set up by Nixon in the
Oval Office and his Executive Office Building hideaway
tapping were incomparable to the actions of other
politicians. As
Nixon said, his administration “reduced the number of
wiretaps by fifty percent”; “Robert Kennedy tapped the most
when
he was Attorney General.”10 Facing a determined
Edward “Teddy” Kennedy, who was ready to take on the
Republican president that had been an old rival of his
brothers for a long period, Nixon was trapped and was found
guilty of scheming the Watergate raid, during his campaign
for a second term. He was elected based on the universal
exultance of the Americans from the Declaration of Peace
with Vietnam during the election. Even after Nixon had been
elected, however, the charismatic air of the Kennedy family
swirled the White House. John Kennedy’s elegance mesmerized
the public and altered the people’s expectation of a leader.
His glamour was effectively transferred to the public and
lasted forever in the minds of the citizen. Consequently,
having none of Kennedy’s original charms, Nixon felt hunted by
the people’s slain “hero and presidential role model” who
had “graced the White House and the city.”11
The author’s point of view on the relationship between
Kennedy and Nixon is that an amiable friendship was challenged
and eventually ruined by competitions in politics. The two
men’s concurrent pursuit for presidency in 1960 symbolizes
the effect craving of power can have upon men, which is well
summarized by the famous Italian historian and political
critic Machiavelli: “The end justifies the means.” In his
campaign, Kennedy questioned the deeds of the Eisenhower
administration which drew in Nixon, gained public appeal
through television debates with his good looks and charms, and
changed his campaigning ideologies from addressing the
desires of the conservative whites to advocating the rights of
the blacks by publicly supporting Martin Luther King Jr.
with which “black America was being moved overnight to the
Democratic side of the ballot, from the party of Lincoln to
that of the Kennedy’s.”12 Nixon, lacking the good
looks, charm, money and the allowed flexibility to alter
policies due to concerns regarding established partisan stance,
lost, and was embittered and furious at Kennedy for
performing sneaky tasks such as conducting a meeting with
Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Allen Dules to get
information on Eisenhower’s actions in Cuba. The glamorous
Kennedy
family left a “spellbound nation”; the favor the American
citizens bestowed upon John F. Kennedy and his brothers’
political involvement after his assassination, made Nixon
fear a “Kennedy ‘restoration.’”13
Matthews’s historiography has been given sufficient
authentic sources that are evident in the various names
cited in the
book and, with an objective point of view, he reveals both
positive and negative opinions given by his resources. The
author was an aide to Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, a House
speaker and a friend of Kennedy’s. The author’s many traces of
Kennedy’s personality could have been provided by O’Neill.
However, the author’s point of view is not biased based on
one of his primary source’s information. He often mentions
Nixon’s committed loyalty to his friendship with Kennedy and
emphasizes the Nixon’s victimized sentiments because of his
less vicious performance, compared to Kennedy, during their
campaign. The author reveals equally the strengths and
weaknesses and both the positive and negative sides to both
politicians’ personalities. As one of his quotes in the book
indicates, he could not believe Kennedy, the “skinny,
pasty-faced kid was a candidate for anything!”14
He also knew of Kennedy’s infiltration with money of local
people earlier in his campaign to enter the House of
Representatives. The author’s view is thus unbiased.
According to Paul E. Lambert from “The Historian,” Matthew’s
book is worthwhile to read because of its focus on the two
young leaders of the Sixties. The friendship between Nixon
and Kennedy lasted until “1956, when Kennedy’s White House
ambitions led him to begin publicly criticizing
Nixon.”15 Lambert praises Matthews’s use of
dichotomy in the
book. Though noting that Matthews, a “former press aid to
Tip O’Neill and Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco
Examiner, is no professional historian,” the book should be
noted because it “takes existing information and presents it
in a thought-provoking comparison.”16
In “Presidential Studies Quarterly,” writer Dean J.
Kotlowski criticizes that Matthews “concentrates on both of the
men’s political careers rather than their youths or personal
lives.”17 Matthews is best “at describing the
early years of the Kennedy-Nixon relationship,” providing
documents such as letters and notes corresponded between the
two.18 However, the author’s biggest flaw lays
when he tries to “prove that the Kennedy Nixon rivalry ‘marked
and drove the era.'”19 Matthews utilizes
exaggeration to describe the effectiveness of the Kennedy-Nixon
debates about Cold War. Also, he oversimplifies history as
he traces American military intervention in Vietnam to the
Kennedy-Nixon rivalry. The critic states that, while
“Kennedy occupied the White House, Nixon was hardly a threat
to his
foreign policy initiatives,” as opposed to the view Matthews
provides in the book that Nixon had always been the
sharpest prove to Kennedy.20
The author oversimplifies in his conclusion that the Sixties
was shaped by the rivalry of the two men. Stating in the
introduction of the book that, “More than either man, it was
the rivalry itself that marked and drove the era,” Matthews
establishes the primary purpose of the book, as indicated by
its title, to show how the Kennedy-Nixon “shaped postwar
America.”21 However, this is the part the book
that lacks the most information. Overly concentrated on the
changes of the two men’s relations, their policies, and the
ironies of both of their lives, the book reads as a
historical review of politicians that artfully observes the
parallel ironic endings of both men’s political career,
mysteriously, almost with satirical sentiments on life
itself. Though beautifully written about the legacy of the two
political giants, one died as he wished—quick—at the peak of
his career and the other failed at his imitation of the
previously successful opponents’ skills to protect his own
administration by monitoring others illegally. This mistake
of forgetting to address the main purpose of the book
creates a notion that the work is truly just about the
friendship
and paralleling incidents in the lives of Kennedy and Nixon.
review by Eileen Mao
- Matthews, Christopher. Kennedy & Nixon: The Rivalry
that Shaped Postwar America. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1996. 45.
- Matthews, Christopher 45.
- Matthews, Christopher 23.
- Matthews, Christopher 23.
- Matthews, Christopher 40.
- Matthews, Christopher 45.
- Matthews, Christopher 133.
- Matthews, Christopher 123.
- Matthews, Christopher 139.
- Matthews, Christopher 316.
- Matthews, Christopher 271.
- Matthews, Christopher 173.
- Matthews, Christopher 19.
- Matthews, Christopher 31.
- Lambert, Paul E. The Historian v60, n4,1998. 867
- Lambert, Paul E. 868.
- Kotlowski, Dean J. Presidential Studies Quarterly v27,
n2,1997. 380
- Kotlowski, Dean J. 380.
- Kotlowski, Dean J. 381.
- Kotlowski, Dean J. 381.
- Matthews, Christopher 21.
|