Customer Reviews

The Contender: Richard Nixon: The Congress Years, 1946 to 1952

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Very informative and particullarly interesting to Californians. The disinformation about the Nixon campaigns is unbelievable. A good read that goes along way towards informing all of us about what RN was really like.

I have never been very knowledgable about Richard Nixon. When I picked up this book, I was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. This book is an honest and factual portrayal of a man who served his country, and not the poobah of Watergate scandals.It is so refreshing to learn about the man and not just read criticism after criticism. Nixon's great character and accomplishments are in this book, and I recommend it to any student of political science or just fans of the genre.

I disagree with the gentleman above. I have read over 40 books on Nixon and found 'the Contender' a cracking read.

It covers in depth the period between 1946-52, from his legal and military days right up to his days as a Senator. Most other books gloss over this period but this author has delved deep into many archives to reveal the story as it was. Again other books tend to distort the facts of Nixon's early political years her you will fins the msot accurate read I have found!

In "The Contender, Richard Nixon, The Congress Years" historian Irwin F. Gellman sets for himself a difficult, yet needed correction of mythology posing as history: that Richard Nixon's political career was founded on smears and lies.

Using actual campaign literature, contemporary newspaper accounts, letters, and government documents, Gellman methodically demolishes three Big Lies perpetrated by Nixon's loudest critics.

The first lie is that Nixon used dirty tricks to win his first race for U.S. Congress in 1946. Carefully examining the record, Gellman shows that incumbent New Deal congressman Jerry Voorhis neither took Nixon seriously, nor did he realize the extent to which public opinion was shifting after the war. Gellman writes of Cong. Voorhis campaign manager father observing to his son 11 months before the General election:

"On December 1, Charles informed his son that the Candidate and Fact Finding Committee (Reviewer's note: the GOP committee that recruited Nixon), in contradistinction to the spirit of the primary laws, had endorsed a Quaker named Richard Nixon, Charles optimistically predicted that his son would retain a large Quaker block because of his record. Nixon was `not very well known' and was being discharged from the navy a lieutenant commander: `It is just another campaign that we have to go through but I am quite sanguine as to the outcome. In any event, we have nothing to worry about now.' Jerry's reply was as cavalier as his father's: `I am not worried about the matter and we will just go ahead like we have before.'

"Jerry and his father had badly miscalculated Nixon's success, the extent of his support, and his unifying effect on the Republican Party..."

As the nation was swinging away from New Deal socialism, Voorhis hewed to the old party line in his voting. Yet even Voorhis understood the danger involved in what had become widely known: that some labor unions had been penetrated by Communists. In considering whether to accept the endorsement of the UAW-CIO labor PAC, Voorhis wrote the union leadership that he was, "deeply concerned over the degree to which Communists have succeeded in getting hold of some of the organizations, and I definitely do not want their support..." So, Cong. Voorhis rejected the state UAW-CIO labor PAC's endorsement and they obliged, listing him as not endorsed. Yet Voorhis accepted the local labor PAC's support, an inconsistent decision, given his concern for the impression that would leave. Nixon's campaign started to use the labor endorsement to its advantage - even newspapers took note of it in their endorsements of Nixon. While Cong. Voorhis stayed in Washington, D.C. through most of the campaign, not taking Nixon seriously, Nixon simply out hustled him and out organized him, winning against the incumbent by 56.1 percent to 42.7 percent.

The second lie involves the Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. In 1948, the freshman Congressman from California was on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). HUAC was investigating Communist penetration in the government and in organizations including espionage activities. Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist, came before the committee and eventually named Alger Hiss, a former well-placed aide in the State Department, as a Communist. Hiss denied it. Eventually, Hiss was proven to have committed perjury and served time in prison. In an attempt to diminish Nixon's role in the Hiss investigation, Nixon's detractors claim Nixon had advance knowledge of Hiss's guilt. This lie was perpetuated for a couple of decades by Father John Cronin, an anti-Communist priest, who was otherwise a Nixon admirer, in an attempt to bolster his own credentials. Cronin eventually recanted his claims. Given that the FBI had its own mole on the HUAC staff and given that there is no record of the FBI, or any other agency knowing of Hiss's Communist involvement, it appears Nixon honestly and methodically broke the case on his own. Interestingly, Hiss was a key aide at the Yalta Conference in 1945, the meeting between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill confirmed the Soviet domination of much of Europe. Nixon's careful and fair handling of the HUAC investigations are in stark contrast with the reckless and flamboyant actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who cast accusations both Communist and non-Communist alike. That Nixon is linked to McCarthy by critics completely misses the mark on how assiduously Nixon worked to keep distant from McCarthy in both word and deed.

The final big lie deals with Nixon's successful 1950 U.S. Senate race against Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. Douglas, a former stage actor and, like Cong. Voorhis, an unreconstructed New Dealer, took on an incumbent moderate Democrat senator and beat him in the primary. It was in this primary that the Democrat senator, not Nixon, first called Douglas the "Pink Lady" in reference to her extreme leftwing voting record. In a highly disciplined campaign, in contrast to the sloppy and poorly funded effort by Douglas, Nixon prevailed. Douglas even ill-advisedly tried to run to Nixon's right on Communism - this only served to highlight Nixon's own record while reducing her own credibility with the voters.

Irwin Gellman's "The Contender" is well worth reading for any Presidential historian or admirer of the first President from California.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."

When you read this book, you should be prepare to be challenged on what you have heard about Nixon before. This book undoes--or purports to--all of the early Nixon myths. It appears to be exhaustingly researched, and Nixon haters can take comfort in the notion that Nixon became the Nixon they hated after the 1960 Presidential Election.

Still, Gellman does sugarcoat some things Nixon does, and appears to draw some charitable conclusions without any backup. It is an interesting read, and a portrayal of what by any accounts is a remarkable journey from unknown to Vice President.

This book, written by an FDR fan and historian, gives us the details of Nixons early career without the liberal bias. I cannot wait for the next edition. Bravo Mr. Gellman.

For the record, this is an excellent book, and I too have read almost countless books on Nixon the last 25 years. The research is excellent, and perhaps for one of the first times we get to see Richard Nixon in the early years, without the baggage he is saddled with by people looking back.

Still, there are problems with that: while Gellman can claim the early campaigns were nothing compared to later years, for their time they were shocking. It was a departure from the standards, and he was forever recognized as a campaigner that would go as far as necessary to win. The personal notes Gellman quotes from in the early years are insightful. Unfortunately, personal insights are missing by the end of the book: one wonders if Mr. Nixon stopped writing notes, or just stopped writing such personal ones.

There are a surprising number of grammatical errors in the book (at least 5, perhaps more) but the surprise is due to Mr. Gellman's diligence in his research. Do not let these small errors prevent you from reading one of the few books on Nixon that attempts to provide a fresh look without apology, and without anger.

Though there were shades of the later Nixon in the young man, he was not nearly as visceral, vulgar or mean-spirited as he was to become as President. There were tinges of guilt in his make-up when he stepped over the line of decency, and such signs were utterly absent in President Nixon. Gellman is a fluid writer who is painstaking in being fair to Nixon and presenting him as a fairly likeable, though monstrously aggressive Congressman. He maintains that the young Nixon was a good father and attentive husband, thought he evidence for this is grossly lacking. He was the quintessential absentee father who spent almost no time with his daughters. Gellman conveniently ignores this.

More troubling is that Gellman almost seeks to exonerate Nixon from two of the most mudslinging and tawdry campaigns of all time: his 1946 run for Congress against the hapless, though decent Jerry Voorhis, and his inhumane hatchet job against Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950. Nixon's brutal character assassination of Douglas in conveniently skirted, or excuses are made for RN. Because Gellman frequently falls into the habit of glossing over Nixon's destructive impulses, the book never reaches any grandiose literary heights.

Nixon has been the subject of much nonsense, particularly of the psycho-babble genre. Gellman thankfully doesn't attempt any of this and the book is a better product for it. Ultimately, this is a readable, balanced (overly balanced!) portrait of a young man driven by demons and a lust for power. For anyone wishing to understand Nixon in his 30's, this is an essential study.

The book is well-written, it is effective in presenting details of Nixon's early career, and it bends over backward to be fair toward him. It does not bend over backward to be fair to everyone else: Gellman finds it too easy to lump New Deal liberals with Socialists and Communists - making it seem the only difference that he sees between them is shades of pink. That makes it hard to accept his arguments about red-baiting - arguments that are important to Gellman's treatment of Nixon as an honorable, ethical lawmaker ... Still, this is a stimulating work and one that taught me a lot about one of America's most fascinating political characters.

In "The Contender, Richard Nixon, The Congress Years" historian Irwin F. Gellman sets for himself a difficult, yet needed correction of mythology posing as history: that Richard Nixon's political career was founded on smears and lies.

Using actual campaign literature, contemporary newspaper accounts, letters, and government documents, Gellman methodically demolishes three Big Lies perpetrated by Nixon's loudest critics.

The first lie is that Nixon used dirty tricks to win his first race for U.S. Congress in 1946. Carefully examining the record, Gellman shows that incumbent New Deal congressman Jerry Voorhis neither took Nixon seriously, nor did he realize the extent to which public opinion was shifting after the war. Gellman writes of Cong. Voorhis campaign manager father observing to his son 11 months before the General election:

"On December 1, Charles informed his son that the Candidate and Fact Finding Committee (Reviewer's note: the GOP committee that recruited Nixon), in contradistinction to the spirit of the primary laws, had endorsed a Quaker named Richard Nixon, Charles optimistically predicted that his son would retain a large Quaker block because of his record. Nixon was `not very well known' and was being discharged from the navy a lieutenant commander: `It is just another campaign that we have to go through but I am quite sanguine as to the outcome. In any event, we have nothing to worry about now.' Jerry's reply was as cavalier as his father's: `I am not worried about the matter and we will just go ahead like we have before.'

"Jerry and his father had badly miscalculated Nixon's success, the extent of his support, and his unifying effect on the Republican Party..."

As the nation was swinging away from New Deal socialism, Voorhis hewed to the old party line in his voting. Yet even Voorhis understood the danger involved in what had become widely known: that some labor unions had been penetrated by Communists. In considering whether to accept the endorsement of the UAW-CIO labor PAC, Voorhis wrote the union leadership that he was, "deeply concerned over the degree to which Communists have succeeded in getting hold of some of the organizations, and I definitely do not want their support..." So, Cong. Voorhis rejected the state UAW-CIO labor PAC's endorsement and they obliged, listing him as not endorsed. Yet Voorhis accepted the local labor PAC's support, an inconsistent decision, given his concern for the impression that would leave. Nixon's campaign started to use the labor endorsement to its advantage - even newspapers took note of it in their endorsements of Nixon. While Cong. Voorhis stayed in Washington, D.C. through most of the campaign, not taking Nixon seriously, Nixon simply out hustled him and out organized him, winning against the incumbent by 56.1 percent to 42.7 percent.

The second lie involves the Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. In 1948, the freshman Congressman from California was on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). HUAC was investigating Communist penetration in the government and in organizations including espionage activities. Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist, came before the committee and eventually named Alger Hiss, a former well-placed aide in the State Department, as a Communist. Hiss denied it. Eventually, Hiss was proven to have committed perjury and served time in prison. In an attempt to diminish Nixon's role in the Hiss investigation, Nixon's detractors claim Nixon had advance knowledge of Hiss's guilt. This lie was perpetuated for a couple of decades by Father John Cronin, an anti-Communist priest, who was otherwise a Nixon admirer, in an attempt to bolster his own credentials. Cronin eventually recanted his claims. Given that the FBI had its own mole on the HUAC staff and given that there is no record of the FBI, or any other agency knowing of Hiss's Communist involvement, it appears Nixon honestly and methodically broke the case on his own. Interestingly, Hiss was a key aide at the Yalta Conference in 1945, the meeting between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill confirmed the Soviet domination of much of Europe. Nixon's careful and fair handling of the HUAC investigations are in stark contrast with the reckless and flamboyant actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who cast accusations both Communist and non-Communist alike. That Nixon is linked to McCarthy by critics completely misses the mark on how assiduously Nixon worked to keep distant from McCarthy in both word and deed.

The final big lie deals with Nixon's successful 1950 U.S. Senate race against Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. Douglas, a former stage actor and, like Cong. Voorhis, an unreconstructed New Dealer, took on an incumbent moderate Democrat senator and beat him in the primary. It was in this primary that the Democrat senator, not Nixon, first called Douglas the "Pink Lady" in reference to her extreme leftwing voting record. In a highly disciplined campaign, in contrast to the sloppy and poorly funded effort by Douglas, Nixon prevailed. Douglas even ill-advisedly tried to run to Nixon's right on Communism - this only served to highlight Nixon's own record while reducing her own credibility with the voters.

Irwin Gellman's "The Contender" is well worth reading for any Presidential historian or admirer of the first President from California.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."