The truth according to whom?

First of all- Happy Birthday to me!

I went to dinner and a movie last night with a friend to celebrate. Dinner was great, but the movie was even better. We saw Frost/Nixon. The acting was tight and very good from everyone in the cast. The story kept moving with great momentum and managed to take what could have been very dry and studious and made it human with moments of humor and candor. Even though he was not exactly a dead ringer, Langella nailed Nixon and gave me some very interesting insight into who he was. My friend and I left the theater in the throws of a great conversation inspired by the movie; something that really doesn't happen after a film much anymore.

My personal feelings about what Nixon did aside, I was struck by the fact that the American public seemed to be waiting for a confession that would never happen. It is not that Nixon did not want to admit he was wrong, or that he was incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions and the dishonor they showed. It is that he simply did not believe he did anything wrong and was shocked that the American people reacted the way they did.

Listening to what was said during the interviews in the filmn, I saw that he was an extremely pragmatic man, which was one of the qualities that allowed him to form the relationships he did with Mao and Brezhnev. He believed that the ends justified the means. I believe that he truly was, in his heart, a true public servant; on who was not able to relinquish control to others because he believed that in order for the necessary result to occur, he had to do as much as possible himself. He was an extremely intelligent, shrewd, and practical man of conviction who had a vision for what he wanted to accomplish. His goal was to see to the higher good of the American people. Because of this, he believed that as long as it was done in hisview of the perceived best interest of the American people, anything he did was right. That was his greatest strength. It was also his greatest weakness and the source of his downfall.

Nixon could never apologize for the break in and subsequent cover up because he believed he was right for doing whatever it took to be reelected; not for personal power, but because I believe he truly believed he was the only man who could do the job and do it right. To him, it was unthinkable that anyone else, especially a liberal, could be President and lead as he saw the situation needed. We will never have the chance to see if he was right. I would not be surprised if he even saw himself as a sort of martyr; one who was uniquely capable to give all in service to his country. This would make him noble in his own eyes, which would make the controversy even less understandable to him and an apology impossible. Once the break in was discovered, he would feel compelled to protect those that helped him; the "unsung heroes" who were being "fed to the lions". This would be the sort of thought pattern he would use to justify his loyalty to men like Haldeman and Ehrlichman and his lack of diligence in bringing them to justice. You have to think; anyone who he trusted enough to act in his behalf would have had to show themselves worthy and able to complete the task as well as Nixon would. This would have been a high hurdle to jump; Nixon would have known that and valued that knowledge with his loyalty.

I don't agree with what he did. I do not believe the ends justify the means, no matter how great or positive the ends. When that happens, you take away the moral authority of the result and taint anything the ends may achieve. I would rather fail with honor and integrity than succeed without it. That said, I do see what Nixon was trying to do and why. I understand why he was unable to give people the confession they so desperately wanted and why he withdrew from the public rather than give it. For him to confess to something he perceived was just would go against everything he personally stood for. I will not call him a bad man, because I don't believe he was. I think he was a man with a lot of admirable and good qualities who utilized them from a faulty sense of perspective. He should not be vilified, but should be a cautionary tale to us all of how even the best of us can be easily led astray to become the which we desire least to be.