May
14
Blog #50 – Frost / Nixon blog
During all of the Vietnam protests, President Nixon became convinced that there was a foreign power/country/enterprise directing these American kids, so he wanted to find out who and how these directives were getting done. He signed an Executive Order that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests and other crazy things. The FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants. These powers were later curtailed by Congress in the mid 70s, but then expanded again recently in the name of securing the nation from another terrorist attack called the Patriot Act.
“Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, ‘Go right ahead’” – Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office.
The movie takes some liberties with the truth in order to make it more dramatic – Nixon’s drunk dialing Frost the night before the final interview and Frost being inspired to meet Nixon’s challenge; the tough portrayal of Jack Brennan; he knew and had been dating Carol Cushing for five years before the interviews; why does there have to be a winner in the interviews? Did all of the flaws of the first three interviews get forgotten after the triumphant 4th interview? Was Nixon really that funny or likeable despite many reports to the contrary? Also, the script changed Nixon’s line near the end – see the difference:
“Then, through a sleight of hand, the script simply changes what Nixon actually said: the script of the play has Nixon admitting that he “…was involved in a ‘cover-up,’ as you call it.” The ellipsis is of course unknown to the audience, and is crucial: What Nixon actually said was, “You’re wanting to me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No!”So, give me your comments on Nixon’s statements. (choose both questions).
1. Would you approve the idea that the president can do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war? Why or why not? Do you agree with Nixon’s reasoning? Why or why not?
2. Do you think the Frost / Nixon filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Nixon? Why or why not? Do you think that you might feel sympathy for Nixon despite not having lived through Watergate, whereas an older audience member might be angry with the portrayal?
The president does not have the power to do whatever he wants. His first interest should be the American people and their needs. This purpose has been placed on the shoulders of all presidents since GW, even in times of war. Lincoln was even irrational at the removal of Habeas Corpus during the civil war, but even then each man who was convicted deserved a fair trial. The president should focus on the problems of American people, and if it becomes out of hand, logic must be used in the process of determining the best method for containment. These methods, however, do not include the removal of natural rights. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning, because spying is never justified, especially to dig up information on your opponents. I find it difficult to sympathize with people who don’t respect other’s privacy, so Nixon, whose career was torched by being caught taping others, is no person I feel bad for.
I do think it was slightly in the filmmaker’s interest to have the viewer sympathize with Nixon, by including a drunken phone call scene, the writer uses a method of Pathos, in which he makes the president look more vulnerable and human-like through something as common as a drunken phone call. Although I am younger, and did not live through Watergate itself, I still have no sympathy for Nixon. Although he was a strong leader, he was a brash, abrasive, rude man who used lying and bribery in order to get ahead of his opponents. I do in fact; understand the amount of strain he is under. Although I myself have never felt the limelight beat upon my back, I have read many a book about spotlight stress, both fiction and nonfiction. The most important part of being in the public eye is preserving image. So it is logical that Nixon would need to keep track of what his opponents were doing, and if something goes wrong that could spoil it, you must do everything you can to cover your tracks.
1. In my opinion, the president should at least be required to come to an agreement with the Secretary of Defense, Agencies such as the Pentagon and the C.I.A., and members of his administration when making such a decision as doing something for the defense of the United States during wartime. Although I believe that any possible action that could be taken to protect the safety of the American people should be executed, one man (the president) shouldn’t have so much power at his disposal. When making such a serious decision, a number of intelligent and defense-savvy individuals need to come to the best solution possible, rather than leaving the decision-making to the president alone. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning, as various wiretapping and spying violates the right of privacy that every individual should hold. Although wiretapping and other various methods of spying by the government could prove to be effective, it is unethical to exploit the privacy of various innocent (individuals that have no background in criminal activity) individuals.
2. I think that the filmmaker of Frost/Nixon had intended to create a fair and balanced portrayal of Richard Nixon, as he had illustrated Nixon’s sly nature during the interviews (his ability to answer with broad responses, avoiding the questions Frost had asked that the public had such a desire to get an answer to) and his very competitive and somewhat greedy nature, whilst depicting the empathetic nature of Nixon (when he had made the drunk phone call to Frost discussing their comparisons of wanting to prove themselves to the “well-borns” of society) along with showcasing the great intelligence and talent (his superb piano playing) of Nixon. Despite having not lived through Watergate, I feel (and would have felt if I had grown up during the time of the Watergate scandal) no sympathy towards Nixon, as he had abused the powers he held as president and had violated the trust of the American people.
1. 1. No. I do not approve of this idea that the president can do anything in a time of war. The president doesn’t know everything. He can’t possibly know the one singular thing that would help protect the country in this time of need. If anything this is a time when the president should be working with others to determine the best solution for such a serious matter. The president’s foremost interest should be in the American people. The president should come to an agreement with others before he acts it out. When making an important decision such as this many intelligent people and the president should come together, not just one man alone making a lasting decision for all of America. I also do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning. It doesn’t make sense to me that in the most important time everyone should just follow one leader, and follow just his ideas even if you don’t agree. To me that is too much power for just one man.
2. 2. I don’t think that the filmmaker intend for people to sympathize more with Nixon, I just think that he made Nixon to be more human than many people saw him. With all Nixon has done, people seem to look at him as an evil horrible monster who ruined many things. But what people forget is the Nixon was a human being, with only human feelings. That’s what the filmmaker showed. He showed a humanized Nixon. From just watching the movie and not living through that actual time period I found that throughout the movie I did have sympathy for Nixon. I saw his potential to be a better man. I did feel bad for him in a sense that he wasn’t a horrible man, but everyone hated him just the same. And, I can’t image what it would feel like for all of America to despise you. On the other hand, I can see how people who lived through this time may be mad with the portrayal of Nixon. But I think it could also open their eyes to a more human version of Nixon that many looked over.
1. I one hundred percent disagree with the idea that every President should be able to do whatever he/she pleases during any crucial war. As President, he/she should only be focused on the well-being and protection of the country, prospering life and liberty, and obeying the statements made in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Amendments. With this said, if the President’s decisions during the war could result in the crippling of our country, I without a doubt believe the privilege to make decisions should be taken away.
“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
This is the sorriest excuse I have possibly ever heard. As President, your decisions might not be illegal, but they affect the country tremendously; therefore, you should not only contemplate whether or not your choices are “Illegal,” but you should also consider the lives of all Americans; who in which are counting on you to lead them into the right direction. If his only concern was the illegality and legality of his actions instead of the Americans themselves, than what was the point of him being the President?
2. I believe the film-makers intent was to create both sympathy and anger. I think most of the individuals that witnessed the scandal were full of hatred towards Nixon because of the way he basically destroyed us and didn’t seem to show much remorse afterwards. While watching the movie, however, it’s extremely difficult to not feel some sort of empathy for Nixon. I felt more sympathy than anger partially, I think, because I wasn’t around to actually witness the affects up close and personal; consequently I don’t really understand the scandal and its reactions completely, and probably never will. Older viewers, on the other hand, probably at some points in the movie felt compassion, but then, once they reminisced on their real life experiences and difficulties, they probably went right back to hating Nixon’s guts.
I do not approve of the idea that the president can do just about anything in defense of the United States during the time of war. I believe in the American system of checks and balances, and that to stay a trustworthy and non-corrupt country a country must keep its policies at all times. This includes the system of checks and balances and free speech. Both of those rights often get taken away during wartime because of desperate measures, but I believe they should not be. Although Nixon may think this is best for the American public and that America needs a main leader to control the country during wartime, I believe this power could be overused if the leader is corrupt. Nixon’s idea may have stemmed from a good idea, but can be too easily abused.
I believe that the director of Frost Nixon did not intently mean to make the viewer sympathize with Nixon, but to humanize the hated president. Many history books of America regard Nixon as a corrupted president, and even when I talk to my grandpa he speaks about his despise of the resigned president. This movie shows Nixon not only as a ruthless liar and corrupted politician, but as an old man that believed he did nothing wrong. I did feel sympathy for Nixon in this movie, especially during the scene where Nixon coddles the puppy in the way out of the last interview. Nixon had just been defeated in the Watergate interview and ruined his political career, and you sympathize with the human Nixon instead of the monster that has just been crushed. I also believe that people who lived during the Watergate scandal would have been angry at the portrayal of Nixon in the movie, because the movie seemed to excuse the actions of his abuse of power. This movie was very good because of the new way it portrayed Nixon, by showing him both as the politician and a human being.
The president under no circumstances should be allowed to do whatever he wants. This defeats the point of a democracy. We, the American people, should at all times be notified of the president’s actions, no matter what for. Secrets are not meant to be kept from the people, especially from the people. Who is the president to single handedly decide what is best for the nation. No matter how great the person, they cannot begin to make this decision wisely with no faults. Nixon’s reasoning is a selfish one. It is clearly was trying to win the election in a dirty manner and it backfired, so he tried to shrug it off as protecting the people had having their best interest in mind. It was his get out of jail free card, literally.
The filmmakers broke down Nixon in this film. They made him out to be human, just like the rest of us. Some see this as trying to show sympathy, but I think that they were just reminding everybody that he was human just like them. Normal people lie and deceive everyday and don’t get caught. He was in the limelight and should have known better. He was doomed from the start, I say. The older generation who lived through Watergate often shows little to no mercy to Nixon. They lived through a devastating time when it seemed like they couldn’t trust the president. My generation tends to see him with more sympathy. I think this is because they are learning about him after the fact and are seeing both sides to the story and his presidency. We learn about the good he did, not just the bad. I personally don’t show Nixon sympathy for Watergate, but I certainly don’t squash his accomplishments either. I just feel like you should remember for the good, but not necessarily just forget about the bad.
1. I do not agree with Nixon’s idea the president can do just about anything in the defense of the United states during a time of war. Because quite frankly whether its during a war or not, laws are laws and they should not be broken. Just because when Nixon was president he was one of the most powerful men in the country does not mean he can make bad decisions and call them “legal”. The President’s first objective should be to help the people and I believe by spying on American kids, tapping into people’s phones, and breaking into homes/offices is not okay. I think this actually hurts the country because the American people lose their respect for the President and also their trust. The President should try to do as much as he can for the defense of the U.S. without making it illegal. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning at all. Nixon should have worked with other people to try to come up with solutions to the problems the U.S. was facing. I think he was abusing his power as well. He gave himself too much power as President, which at times got him into trouble. I think that claiming something isn’t illegal just because you’re president is a horrible excuse and statement.
2. I think the Frost/Nixon filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for Nixon, but also to make him seem more “human”. I think they were trying to explain that yes, Nixon made mistakes, but he’s human and isn’t perfect. The film was able to capture Nixon’s facial expressions as Frost recited all the horrible things he did in office. Nixon finally came to a moment of realization that what he did was horrible and he “let America down”. For example in the scene with the drunken phone call it shows a different side of Nixon because he is trying to compare his life to Frost. He talks about how society tries to bring them down and how they both want to prove them wrong. Although I did not live through Watergate I feel a tiny amount of sympathy for Nixon after watching this movie. In textbooks and literature they only show the angry, terrible, brash and rude man that he was. But in this movie I was able to hear answers from Nixon that surprised me. Nixon tried all these years to deny what he did, but after having these interviews with Frost, Nixon was able to realize his mistakes. I feel bad that Nixon had to live the rest of his life with this regret, and not be able to have friendly relations with the people of America.
Not in any shape or form do I think that the president should be allowed to do just about anything he or she wants to, in the defense of the United States during a time of war. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights is there for a reason, it’s to protect the rights of citizens against what the president or even the government may do to a person. If the president were to be allowed to do anything he or she wants during a time of war, it would be like undermining these basic principles that the States were founded upon. In addition, it makes the population uneasy in the fact that now the law doesn’t protect them and many may feel violated. Wire-tapping, opening mail, and breaking into homes and offices without warrants is totally inexcusable. Nixon’s reasoning for why a president should be allowed to do what they consider right, even if this means going to illegal measures, is total fluff. Like I said earlier, the president does not have the right to do anything he or she wants and I again place this upon the basis that this undermines the rights of others and makes the public by and large uncomfortable with how pure the intentions of the government actually are.
I think that the intent of the movie makers of Frost/Nixon was not to create more sympathy for the former President Nixon but rather to embody him. The movie really tried to reach out and relay the character of the man that the nation hated and show how his character influenced his motives. For example, the phone call scene in the movie which didn’t happen in real life was in part to make the movie more dramatic but at the same time it was to show the character of Nixon and how his background influenced who he was in that he thought he always had to win. After the end of the film, I did feel a certain pang of sympathy for Nixon despite having not living through Watergate, all he wanted was to be loved by people. In that regard I guess I really do sympathize for him. However, when really truly thinking about Nixon, I realize that he kind of brought this upon himself and that I shouldn’t feel all that bad for him. Although, an older audience might have been angered by the portrayal because the initial betrayal of Nixon against the whole country made individuals internally hate him for what he did and for degrading the prestige of the Presidency.
1. I do not think it is ok for a president to do what he or she wants, especially during a time of war. I don’t believe you can justify these kinds of actions by saying they benefit the country. Having the title “President”, does not mean that the laws do not apply to that person. If there is something you want to do to benefit the country, then there is a way to do it legally. Nixon is almost contradicting himself in a way when he says that he broke the law in order to benefit the country. He took an oath saying “I solemnly swear… and will to the best of my ability, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Nixon clearly did not keep his promise. He broke the law, and for some reason thought he had every right to do so.
2. I do not know if the filmmakers attempt was too create sympathy for Nixon. But it very well may have been his attempt because after watching the movie I did feel sympathetic for Nixon. In the movie, Nixon seemed sad and lonely and depressed. You could really tell that he felt bad about the things he has done and the mistakes he has made. Whenever he stared out into the distance, thinking about how his career is over for good and how no one likes him, I just wanted to reach out and give him a hug. I’m sure that the fact I did not live through this time is part of the reason why I can feel sympathy for him. My grandparents lived through this time and think Nixon is a real joke. Learning about the Watergate scandal, I understand why people don’t like him, but I can’t exactly relate to them because I didn’t live through it.
1. When a country goes to war, it requires a very well organized president who is capable of taking charge of his country’s actions and knowing the right things to do. Yet still he is the leader of a country who has chosen him for a reason, being that they trust him and they see a good leader in him. This means they don’t see he would abuse power. Therefore the president should never abuse power. Her/His primary concerns should also remain the individuals in his society and their safety and well-being and if the president seems to not know how to react to something some other country did, he is not the only one who lives in Washington DC. and its not like we have amazing means of transportation or communication. This is the 21st century. There will always be an option to consult with at the very least several people. With whom they might be able to draw a proper conclusion. Lets say the president is unable to do something like that, maybe they shouldn’t be president, and if they were and didn’t understand thekr principles of being the president and choose to take away certain constitutional rights or even those of the Deceleration of Independence, like the natural rights and unalienable rights. In such a case, the people of America and other individuals of America must take action to either have him take a step back figuratively, or many steps forward literally out the door. Nixon’s so called excuse that since he is the president it is not illegal, is not acceptable. He made a pledge to something when he accepted his position, and if this was not him standing up there, but someone else who would have said that, Nixon probably too would be very mad.
2. Learning of the past we mostly just look at facts, and not the itty-bitty detail of everyone. And learning of Nixon, most of the time is spent on the bad stuff like Watergate and the broken “putting an end to the Vietnam War promise”. Therefore, especially in our case, as we did not experience Watergate and all we know from is pretty much what we did in class, it tends to happen that we might forget he was just as much a human as we are. No one is perfect, and not to let that excuse anything he did, but I feel like with the phone call the director was trying to sort of show that. It is not directly sympathy he was trying to create, but rather recognition, recognition of him being just as much a person as Frost and others and to mitigate his failures which the movie and the interviews especially focused on.
I believe that in war time the president has the power to take certain measures, if a direct threat to our national security is at stake. During the Civil War, I thought how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to ensure America’s safety was a necessary measure. However, in the case of Richard Nixon his reasoning for the things he did wasn’t justified by us being in wartime. Him ordering the “plumbers” to break-in to the Watergate Hotel and find info about the Democrats didn’t deal with National Security. Then his actions of getting the CIA and FBI involved in his cover-up wasn’t justified either. Nixon’s reasoning that the president can do whatever he wants I disagree with. His reasoning goes against the principles that America was founded on. The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances to make sure that one branch didn’t have too much power. And Nixon ignored the system for his own personal interests. Secondly, I don’t think it was the director’s intentions to create sympathy for Nixon, because the film portrays as not a likeable person. As you said Mr. Wickersham, when Nixon admits that he was involved in a cover-up, the director changed the line, Nixon actually denies being involved in an illegal cover-up. But drunk phone call scene and the ending scene both make me feel sympathetic towards Nixon, because in both he talks about how he was never accepted and well like by everyone. I think if I would’ve lived through Watergate I would feel differently about Nixon, I probably wouldn’t feel sympathetic because I know that he can’t be trusted. Overall, I felt Frost/Nixon was an entertaining movie, but I think it should portray exactly what happened and not change anything.
As soon as President Richard Nixon said that he could do illegal things because he was the president I wrinkled my nose. I think that was a very pig headed thing to say and I do not approve of the idea that the president can do anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. The president shouldn’t be exempt from the law; he’s just another ordinary person. I don’t agree with Nixon’s reasoning because the whole reason that the government was created the way it was with checks and balances and separation of powers and things was to make sure one person didn’t have too much power and their wouldn’t be a monarchy or someone who makes the ultimate decisions.
I think the filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Richard Nixon. I think he took this aim because he wanted to show all of the sides of the Nixon story, a lot of people only remember Nixon for the bad things he did and the filmmaker made sure to exemplify the other parts of Nixon’s presidency and his good qualities. An example I can think of that portrayed the respect for Nixon that the filmmaker had was when the researcher swore up and down that he wouldn’t shake Nixon’s hand, but then when faced with shaking the president’s hand he did. Of course he did because even though we may not like what Nixon did, he was still the President of the United States and deserved respect for that. Nixon often gets written off for just the Watergate Scandal but the filmmaker kept letting the fact that he wasn’t all bad show. The strategy that I just described is why I did have some sympathy for Nixon because the filmmaker made him seem likable. However, people who lived through this scandal might be upset by this portrayal because they were affected by it and they were actually personally betrayed by Nixon and they have hard feelings toward him.
1) I think that while the president cannot do anything he wants during war time, he does have a significant amount of freedom to do what he thinks is best. During war, the president’s first job is to protect the country, and he needs to be able to do that without being completely ensnarled in red tape sent from people who don’t have 100% of the information he has. Some of the acts undertaken during war time maybe seen as unnecessary in peacetime, but the country in a state of war is different than the country in peace. He has a certain amount of leeway but despite this leeway he cannot do anything he wants. He needs to have a specific reasoning and good cause. Because of this view point, I disagree with Nixon’s quote; not every action the president takes is legal. However, should he have good cause and a specific plan, his actions should be allowed.
2) I think Nixon was portrayed in Frost/Nixon as deliberately sympathetic. He’s shown as human and regretful, and fully aware of what he did. It makes the movie more dynamic, as the viewer can choose to sympathise either with Nixon or Frost, and each are equally viable. This dual sympathy play gives a greater depth to the movie. As a member of a generation that never had to live through Watergate or its immediate after effects, it would be far easier to convince me to grant Nixon my sympathy card over the course of the movie than a member of the generations that still remembers Watergate and its repercussions. A member of the latter generation could possibly be made angry over Nixon’s portrayal, as Nixon was his era’s ultimate evil and deemed unforgivable by the majority of the citizens that elected him.
1. No, I do not agree with the president being able to do whatever he wants for national security. America is founded on the principal of checks and balances. When we broke free from England, we decided against ever having a monarch or any spry of one person leader. I think that there are cases, like Lincoln suspending habeus corpus, where a president should be able to do things under emergency conditions; however, it is a sad but true fact that one person cannot be trusted with that much power. Power can easily be abused. I think that something along the lines of the War Powers act, where the president can act under emergencies but needs senatorial approval after a certain amount of time, would be appropriate.
2. I think that the liberties that the movie took did leave a more sympathetic impression of Nixon on viewers. When we saw him call Frost drunk, this was the only time we got to see him showing how sad he was. These feelings, however accurate, are just a guess. Many may disagree and say that this is, in fact, not how Nixon should be portrayed, which I understand. People should recognize that those parts are just an interpretation. This addenda reminded me of the portrait and made me feel bad for Nixon, because he feel like the loser.
I would not approve of the idea that an American president can do just about anything for the defense of the United States during a time of war because the President’s doings could affect citizens’ inalienable and civil rights. In the case of Nixon, he allowed his peeps to peep (and tap) into private conversations and offices for “the defense of the U.S.” during the time of the Vietnam War. His actions were going against citizens’ privacy rights. Nixon’s reasoning sounds legitimate and innocent, but this idea would give too much widespread power to one person only to potentially do unnecessary and immoral actions – and this person is the only one who can make the judgment calls. This could potentially be tragic if the president was mentally ill or these doings got the U.S. involved in unwanted war or crisis. Nixon’s idea sounded okay, but the intentions and priorities of a President may conflict with standard American beliefs and principles and the President may not realize this fact during a time of war.
I think that the Frost/Nixon filmmakers intended to create sympathy for Nixon to create more pathos from the audience in anticipation for the “battle” at the Frost/Nixon interviews. In reality, people hated Nixon, but the movie makes him seem like a common man who made a common mistake, and it put Frost and Nixon on the same level to have a more intense and momentous “battle”. I definitely felt sympathy for Nixon, mostly because of the actor’s portrayal of his character. If I had lived through Watergate, heavily depended on having a righteous and truthful President during the rough time, and kept up-to-date with the scandal and events afterword, including the real interviews, I probably would have felt angry with Nixon’s portrayal like older audience members. Older members would want the story to be told how it was with the same emotion embedded in the movie; however, the moviemakers changed the script to make it a more intense and inspirational story.
1. I do not approve of the idea that the president can have essentially unlimited power in the defense of the Unites States during a time of war. I believe that this gives the president too much power, especially when the president can declare war on things such as an economic depression or terrorism and thus gain almost unlimited power. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning that “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal” and believe that decisions made during times of war should not be made by just one person, even if he or she believes it to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. This puts too much power in one person’s hands and could lead to a dictatorship or corrupt government. Instead, I think that decisions made during wartime should be made within the government, but with the approval of members in all three branches of government. If more than once person is consulted, it would be harder for America to fall into a dictatorship.
2. I think that the Frost/Nixon’s filmmaker’s intent was to create some sympathy for President Nixon because he displayed Nixon in an almost positive light and diverted attention away from the actual watergate scandal and instead focused on more of Nixon’s personal life and humanized him, thus creating sympathy for him. I feel some sympathy towards Nixon because of the movie, but I can see why an older audience member might be angry with Nixon’s portrayal in the movie. Because I did not live through watergate and do not know the details of it, I cannot imagine what Nixon put the American people through. In fact, I almost like Nixon based on his portrayal in the movie, which I think was most likely too generous towards him.
1.) I have mixed feelings over the topic of the president feeling that he can do anything that he wants because on one hand, the people of America have elected him to lead them at any given time. He was elected to make the decisions about what the country should do in a time of crisis. On the other hand, I think that the president should have discussions with the different agencies that surround him (FBI and the Pentagon) to make sure that it is the right decision. I don’t think that the president would have the best frame of mind during a war because of all the stress that he is put under so I definitely think that he should consult with other people. Overall, I don’t agree with what Nixon said because he never justified his reasons for spying. He wasn’t respectful towards the people whom he was spying on so he doesn’t deserve the respect that he thinks that he deserves.
2.) I don’t think that the filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for Nixon because he showed was a fool Nixon really was. In the first scene, Nixon’s face wasn’t shown while he was presenting his resignation speech because he was embarrassed. He also didn’t say anything about admitting to the Watergate scandal. Another thing from the film is his drunken phone call to David Frost. It shows that he had a big fault. Even though Nixon wasn’t considered an alcoholic, he consumed alcohol to keep his sanity with the amount of stress that he was under. My opinion of Nixon is that he is a rude, brash, and stubborn man who can’t admit that he is a liar. Even though as human beings we all have faults, he could have just admitted to the American public that the whole Watergate scandal was his fault.
1. During a time of war, the President cannot do anything he wants in the defense of the United States. This country was founded on the ideal of a Democratic Government that never abused power and used checks and balances. There is a Legislative and Judicial Branch along with the Executive Branch, and they all work together and monitor each other to get things done. Not only would this power make the Executive branch much stronger, but it would make the other two branches much weaker. This would completely throw off this ideal and encourage the President to do other unjust things. In other words, getting more power can quickly lead to greed and corruption as you search for even more power. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning. He is trying to justify his acts of spying on the American people. But spying cannot be justified, especially when you are the President of the United States. This spying violated the rights to privacy that all people should and do have.
2. I think that the filmmakers did try to create sympathy for Richard Nixon, in an attempt to add dramatic effect to the movie. People almost always cast Nixon in a bad light, and seeing him cast in a new light that created an interesting perspective on his character. This was an attempt to make more people want to see the movie. I do feel sympathy for Nixon, while those of an older generation tend not to. This is because I was not alive when it actually happened, so I did not feel any of the anger and resentment a lot of people felt when Watergate actually happened. I only see peoples opinions on what happened, so I hear the story in different ways that portray Nixon as both good and bad.
1. I wouldn’t agree with Nixon that US Presidents have the power to do whatever the want. However, I do think that Presidents have the ability to bend the law, within reason, when it is in the best interest of the country. I do NOT think that this was the case in the Watergate scandal; no matter how many times Nixon said that it was “for the good of the American people.” I think that Watergate was a crime committed solely for the political gain of the President at the time, and in situations like these, I don’t think that what he did was legal. Presidents should have this power in times of REAL danger to the country, like war or terrorist attacks, but not just so that the President could spy on his opponents. Although there is significant power held in the Presidential position, elected politicians have limits, and Nixon abused these limits.
2. Yes, I think that the movie meant to garner sympathy for Nixon. Maybe that wasn’t the sole intent of the film, but it is definitely something that is achieved. By changing the quote at the end and having Nixon admit to being involved in the cover up instead of denying it, the viewer sees Nixon “crack,” and it’d hard not to feel sorry for him at that point. The movie portrays him as a lonely, generally friendly although somewhat socially inept old man, who although has a hard time admitting it, is sorry and recognizes the severity of his actions. I think that it’s definitely likely that I, as a child of the 90’s, would be more likely to show sympathy for Nixon as opposed to someone who lived through Watergate. As someone who didn’t experience the scandal, and was not alive when Nixon was, I only have movies and readings to “get to know” Nixon and his character. Someone who lived through Watergate is probably more likely to hold resentment towards him, because of all the pain and suffering that he caused to Americans in his time as president.
1. In a time of war, the President does have the right – and in some cases the responsibility – to do whatever s/he can to protect the nation. Lincoln exercised this wartime reserve during the Civil War by suspending habeas corpus. If we’re at war, the law almost becomes secondary: keeping the country safe is the first priority. Under Nixon, however, the nation was (Vietnam aside) not at war. He may have seen the protesting as a war, but it wasn’t. these kids had the right to protest, and a lot of the violence (as we saw in the video about the riots) were caused by police brutality. No war, therefore the nation didn’t need to be protected. Furthermore, in what way does bugging the Democrats protect our country, even if there’s war on? There was no suspicion towards them – if anything they were being negatively affected by the “war,” again seen in the Chicago Riots video – and then how do you explain the cover up? Defending the operation by saying it was to protect the nation, I’m sorry, is BS.
2. I think it’s possible that the filmmaker wanted to make the audience feel sympathy for Nixon. He’s kind of a Greek tragedy, really: he did some great things, he had a lot of potential, but he got messed up, maybe a little conceited, and it turned on him and ended his career. I personally don’t feel any sympathy for him. Not even so much because of what he did, really. I dislike him first because he lied about what he did, second because he showed no remorse about it, third because he thought he was so above the law that he could get away with it, and fourth, honestly, because of all of his self-serving monologues when trying to divert the conversation when talking to Frost. All four of these traits I dislike in all people, no matter what their status is: lying about one’s wrongdoing, not regretting it even though it was wrong and it hurt people, believing yourself to be above everyone else, and trying to talk highly of yourself even when you know you should be apologizing for something. So even if the director’s intent was to create sympathy, it really didn’t accomplish the desired affect for me.
1. I do believe that during wartime the president should have the power to take measures into his own hands. If and only if a quick decisive decision is necessary to protect the well being of our nation. Let me clarify, if the United States was threatened and there wasn’t enough time to fix the problem, without going around the law, I think the president should do what he feels will best protect the people of our nation, and our nation itself. Saying that, I also need to point this out, I do not think the President should do illegal things if there is enough time to go about a situation (like a threat) the legally safe way. I think Nixon did what he though was best for the nation, but I don’t support his decision. He wasn’t under a time limit and could have and should have done things the legal way.
2. I don’t know if the filmmakers of Frost/Nixon goal was to make viewers feel sympathetic for President Nixon, but if it was their goal they were successful. I couldn’t help but feel pity for Nixon while watching this film. He was displayed as a lonely, older man who (especially at the end of the flick) had realized his wrongdoing. I kind of just wanted to give Nixon a hug and tell him we forgive him while I was watching the movie. He just seemed so alone and hated. I know he made a terrible mistake and he will have to live with that weight on his shoulders for his whole life. Isn’t that enough punishment for the guy? Instead he has the whole nation hating on him, and he becomes the punch line of jokes. I do think that the fact that I wasn’t around during Watergate is why I feel this way. If I had lived during those horrendous years I probably would have felt the hatred that the nation was feeling towards him during the time.
1. I don’t believe that the President should be able to do just about anything during war time. However it would make sense for their powers to be slightly expanded during the wartime. For example, during WWI Wilson took appropriate actions to boost the public opinion for the war, and to get people to help out with the war at home. He got George Creel to head the Committee on Public Information to help get Americans to support the war. He also chose Herbert Hoover to start the Food Administration to increase the farmers’ output and decrease consumption of food at home. He also asked Harry Garfield to run the Fuel Administration to regulate the nation’s usage of fuel. It is important for the president to take into consideration what will best benefit not solely the people in war, but the nation producing for the war. I think Wilson is a great example of this. Things that I would disagree with during wartime would be sedition acts. I don’t believe that taking away the first amendment, freedom of speech, is necessary. Not everyone is going to be 100% supportive of the war. I don’t agree with Nixon’s reasoning. Why should what the president does, be any less legal than what the rest of us do? If anything, the president should be watching his actions more closely, since his actions affect the nation.
2. I do believe that the intent of the filmmaker was to create sympathy for Nixon. Most people classified Nixon by his greatest mistake- Watergate. However, the film seems to portray Nixon in a more humane way than this perceived conniving character. In the film, we see Nixon joking around and telling stories, much like one of the most admired presidents of all time, Abraham Lincoln. To further our sympathy, we see Nixon break down the day during his drunken phone call to Frost before the Watergate interview. Markedly, this phone call does not actually happen, which clearly shows us the writer’s intent of sympathy. I understand how people who have lived through this might be angered by the portrayal of Nixon in the movie. His inability to tell the truth, or even to get involved Watergate in the first place angered many people. His way of winning was not the right and honest way. Having the plumbers sneak around the democrat headquarters was a horrible plot and was indeed worthy of impeachment. Since I have not lived through that time, I don’t feel strong opposition to Nixon, especially after watching the movie.
It is not acceptable for anyone, including the president, to violate a citizen’s rights concerning privacy, or any other right for that matter. I understand Nixon’s obligation to the citizens, placing the interest of America as a nation first but unless I am mistaken, I also understand that there was a reason behind the creation of warrants, and a very important one at that. It is a valued practice in America’s court system to issue a warrant only when a person has been suspected of being guilty of a crime, and it is then, and only then, that the law allows for the conduction of a search upon that person or that person’s belongings to an appropriate extent. Warrants must be issued by a judge, upon finding reasonable cause that any suspected persons are, or will be, involved in illegal matters. The fact that Nixon produced no such warrants leads to the assumptions that he either; didn’t care and refused to authorize one, or that the warrant may not have been issued in the first place for lack of proper evidence if he had asked.
I do think that the filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Nixon, but not to focus on it, but rather even out the scale of emotions and fact. The movie seemed to focus more on the actions of both Nixon and Frost and their goals and motivations, rather than their personal emotions and feelings though, of course, their emotions and feeling have a role in their motivations. The portrayal of Nixon and how the movie almost strives to show him as more of a human and not just a political figure doesn’t seem like it was an accident, or an unexpected result. I do feel sympathy for Nixon, most likely because I did not live to see the effects of Nixon’s actions first hand, and therefore cannot feel the full impact of Watergate. If a person who has lived through Watergate, I would assume that the reaction to the movie could move many ways; changing their views entirely and forgiving Nixon, new-found sympathy towards Nixon while still feeling traces of anger and betrayal, or an explosion of anger towards the portrayal of Nixon and the sympathy the movie seems to desire. Learning about Watergate and Nixon from a third person’s views are completely different from that of either a secondhand or firsthand experience.
1) I do not approve of a president doing “just about anything” in a time of war; however, I do believe that the president can do more than usual during this time. For example, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which he believed was necessary to the war effort. He did not abuse executive power; he expanded his power past its normal means for the country. If Lincoln had restricted speech in a more extreme way, then it could have been seen as an abuse of power. All in all, there is a fine line between exceptable uses of executive power and unexceptable uses of executive power. I do not agree with President Nixon’s reasoning, because he believes that he can do anything and that it is okay to do anything in a time of war, which should not justify a suspension of rights. He uses power because he wants to use power, rather than taking action because it is necessary.
2) I think the filmmaker was trying to make the movie more interesting by making Nixon more likable than he otherwise would have been. The filmmaker wanted the audience to feel some sympathy for President Nixon, because it is more difficult to get an audience involved in the story when they have little to no interest in the main character. I feel no sympathy whatsoever toward Nixon. If one educates themselves enough, then one might be able to feel close to the same emotions of those who live through Watergate. I do not believe that one should feel sympathy for a lying, self-serving, bitter man. He worked for himself, not for the interests of others, which is not a preferable quality in a president. I understand why the filmmaker attempted to make Nixon more likable, and I respect that decision, but I feel no sympathy for Richard Nixon.
Yes I do think the President has the right because if something awful happened the first person to be blamed would be the president. For example Bengasi the place people got killed and on some channels they immediately blamed The President automatically because he is in charge and in their eyes he could have done something to prevent it. When Nixon was doing the tapes all he was trying to do was avoid something awful happening. He was doing something wrong but he was doing what he thought was right. And when Nixon was doing those taping those phone calls and he would have found something of importance than everyone would have been like OOOhhh you’re a hero but because nothing super important was found in the calls or the mail then it just makes him look bad. Also if you have nothing to hide then why are you getting mad that someone is taping your phone call. What are you saying that so secretive. Are you cheating on your wife/Husband? Are you telling secret information about the United States to Russia or something? if you wanted to be a secret that bad then you would say it in person not over the phone. Only people who have something to hide would have an issue with that. But I do understand wanting privacy no one wants to feel like someone is looking over shoulder at everything they are doing so I would say to the president don’t do it all willy nilly but be intelligent about who you spy on. and also i would say you are lying if you have never snooped or spyed on someone. I agree with the president being able to do anything because he’s the president to a certain degree I think it certain things like anything that he feels that is extremely important to the welfare of the country as a whole then its ok to do something illegal for example but as for like drunk driving or killing people then no I do not think he is above law when it comes to that.
No I don’t think he tried to create a sympathy for Nixon because I think that would be to hard also in the movie they talked about the ways Nixon messed up so much that if that if you had some feelings about him even being One- fourth right when it came to certain events then it was washed away. The Movie made him seem like liar even more then he was, the drunk phone call he made also made him seem like a sloppy individual also because they showed him having money .So that made really him look bad if the goal was to make you feel even sorry they would have focused on how bad his life was not him being rich or having a loyal friend like Jack that tried to help him out so much. So I don’t think they were trying to make you feel bad for Nixon. Yes I think me not living through Watergate made me have more sympathy for him I honestly can’t image what it would feel like to know the president was taping things and just being a lying criminal. I have sympathy for the call taping because he felt it was right but not the lying. feeling like you were being watched or this could happen or that some one that is supposed to be honorable and isn’t and you voted for someone because you thought they were gonging to do a good job but all they do is get in there and act like a criminal. But I look at it with different ideas because I wasn’t there to see it unfold and I don’t know all the invents that happened.
1. I think that the president should have the authority to do anything to help with the war effort. I don’t think war really needs the moral compass of the public messing with it. I don’t think half the people who have an opinion about it actually have the right information to create an opinion. I do agree with Nixon’s reasoning because even though I know that without the public’s power we are no better than a tyrannical dictatorship, but on some subjects such as war, I don’t think the public should have a say on the strategy used, because as I said earlier most people aren’t educated on all the facts when they formulate an opinion.
2. I don’t think that the intent was to create sympathy for President Nixon, but nevertheless I think it did. I personally just felt bad for Nixon at the end of the movie, he just seemed to me like a beaten down old grandfather who would just always talk endlessly about old memories and stories. I think that the fact that we never felt the outrage over Watergate may have had a big impact on our views on how President Nixon was perceived. I feel like in hindsight, what President Nixon did wasn’t as bad as it could’ve been, I bet that other administrations had done way worse things in the past, but those things just never saw the light of day. So I think it does make a difference about what age group you are from. If I had personally felt the outrage that people during that time period I think I would’ve hoped that Nixon would be ridiculed and made to look like a villain instead of being shown in a light that could make many viewers feel sympathy towards him.
1. The president cannot do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. Although the president has a significant amount of power, the president’s opinion isn’t necessarily the wisest course of action. That’s why the system of checks and balances was put in place. The president can do anything he wants to, but Congress and the Supreme Court can stop him if they want to. Although wartime is always a risky time, certain rights need to be protected in order for America to truly be a democracy. Nixon ordered the CIA, a foreign intelligence agency, to spy on America citizens, in a blatant infringement on Americans’ rights. Nixon’s statement that, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal,” is particularly ridiculous. The president leads the executive branch of government, which was designed to enforce the law. If the president doesn’t enforce the law for himself, how can we expect him to enforce it for anyone else? Laws were written for everyone, including the president.
2. I don’t think the Frost/Nixon filmmaker was trying to create sympathy for President Nixon. Throughout the film, Frost was portrayed as the likable protagonist and the unlikely hero, whereas Nixon was the tough adversary. The filmmaker also chose to add the fictional scene involving Nixon’s drunk telephone call, which obviously doesn’t show Nixon in a positive light. Based on this scene, Nixon looks foolish, bitter, and downright ridiculous. I do think that the filmmaker was trying to show that there’s more to Nixon than just the Watergate scandal. Seeing Nixon trying to move past Watergate did create sympathy for him. An older person would definitely have an easier time sympathizing with Nixon. Decades after Nixon, all people remember now about Nixon is Watergate. Someone who lived through the Nixon presidency would also remember détente and the other successful aspects of Nixon’s presidency.
1. No, I absolutely do not think that the president should be entitled to ultimate power, even during a time of war. The United States government is set up in such a way that the Executive branch should never be able to gain more power than the other two branches. Especially in a time of war, the president’s decision should be made with the interest of the population in mind. Any slight alteration to normalcy, could completely destroy the American people. The country has placed all of their faith within the president, and it would be extremely detrimental for him to abuse his power during a time of war. Although he should be able to make decisions with the security of the nation in mind, the president should also have constant reminders of the people. I don’t agree with Nixon’s reasoning at all, because it makes him seem extremely selfish. In stating this, he feels as though he holds the entire nation in his hands. In reality, Nixon was no more than a regular man who happened to stumble upon the presidency. He has no right to place the U.S. in jeopardy purely because he feels as if it’s the right thing to do.
2. Yes, I believe that it was the producer’s intention to produce sympathy for Nixon throughout this film. I found myself saying “oh that’s so sad” more than once in the film. By the time I had finished, Nixon was portrayed as a kind, grandfather figure. They tried to turn the scandal upon the reporters, making them seem like the bad guys. Nixon was seemingly ignorant during this film, acting as though he had no clue what was going on. I felt bad for the guy, because all of these reporters were coming at him. I would definitely give Nixon my sympathy after watching this film. Grant it, I didn’t live through Watergate and do not know the true horrors of the scandal. Frost seemed much too relentless for my liking, while Nixon was portrayed as a down-to-earth character. He seemed to strive himself upon American morals, and his self-destruction made sympathy even easier to give. It seemed as though Nixon truly did not intend to let down the American people, and once he did, he knew that his life would never be the same. I feel as though many older people would be angry with the portrayal of a “grandfather Nixon,” but I found that it made the production much more entertaining.
1. Checks and Balances were created to make sure that no branch of government was to powerful, and during wartime the President has the power to do anything he pleases– to a point. The President should have the ability to do what he wants to do. We elected him for a reason and that was to protect us in any way possible. If that includes breaking a law to serve the greater good than I totally approve. I agree with Nixon’s idea because if the President is committing an illegal act to benefit the American people as a whole and not some selfish reason/abusing his power then I agree. But, even to the people that disagree, checks and balances can and would set him straight.
2. I do believe that they were trying to create some sympathy for the former president, because America changed their mind about him in such a negative way in such little time about one screw up, as big as it is, I think overall Nixon was still a very good President. But, all people remember about Nixon is the Watergate scandal which took a toll on him and I think caused his heart attack right after he resigned. I do believe that because I did not live through Watergate that I might feel more sympathetic towards Nixon whereas people who lived through it might not feel as sympathetic. I also think that it depended on a number of variables, my Grandmother who is conservative did like Nixon as a President because he did accomplish good deeds and pull us out of Vietnam, but she made a good point when saying that “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” and Nixon’s weakest link was his covering-up of Watergate, which at least the people who lived through it, believed that he needed to be stripped from office.
1. There was once a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln. This man is supposedly one of the best presidents in the history of the United States. This man, however, suspended habeas corpus in order to save the Union. I approve the idea that a president can do just about anything during war in the defense of the United States. Nixon is not Lincoln because he stole information that would not help the United States what-so-ever. Nixon was being a greedy scum bag, while Lincoln was being a sly cool cat. Every president lies. What matters is what they lie about and if they are caught. If the president does it, it IS illegal, most of the time. The reason Nixon is wrong is because the president is still a citizen of the United States, which means they should go through everything as a regular person goes through. For example, if the president robs a bank, he should go to jail. If the president has specific people killed, he does not go to jail. When people with power do go to jail, they tend to receive a different treatment than others. My good friends, Kwame and Michael, enjoyed their stay in the pen and cannot wait to go back. It’s very confusing and does not always make sense, but that’s politics. For presidents, lies are like mistresses. As long as no one finds out about them, they’re in the clear. Just imagine what Kim Jong Ill and Clinton did on all their trips through Korea. Or Barry-O and Netanyahu hitting up all the clubs in down town Tel Aviv. My point is that presidents are great at lying, telling BS, and picking up women. Why do you think so many presidents love campaigning? The president should be able to do anything in defense of the United States, as long as it is the best option for the country.
2. Frost/Nixon did create some sympathy for Nixon, whether it was intentional or not. It may be because I was not alive when this all happened, but the movie made me think Nixon was a good man on the outside and a major butt-head on the inside. Hollywood also tends to make bad people seem better. This can be seen in the movies, “The King’s Speech”, “42” , and any movie with Mel Gibson. “The King’s Speech” made Edward VIII look like a much nicer person than he really was. Ed not only was not only going to fire Churchill if made king, but also side England with Nazi Germany. “42” made Branch Rickey seen like a nice old man. Even though he brought up the first black baseball player, Branch was still super racist. Mel Gibson is just a jerk face and you should never watch any of his movies. Our textbook and Hollywood made me feel more sympathy for Nixon than most people who lived through it. Nixon is still a bad person, but I do not see him as our worst president ever. In fact, if Watergate never happened we might see Nixon in a completely different eye. TV shows like “Futurama” make Nixon look like the worst president of the past and future.
Frost/Nixon was a good movie, but it may have been better if it stuck to the truth. Just like most movies, Frost/Nixon did not stick to the facts. It wasn’t anything important, unlike in Django where dynamite would not be invented for another 9 years, the director put in Nixon’s drunk phone call to make the movie more exciting. Hollywood does not always care about facts. They only fact they care about is the fact that their movie will make bank. Overall, I give the move 8/10.
No. I do not agree with that statement that Nixon gave regarding the power of the president, in the interviews with David Frost. The President is a human being; therefor he can be corrupt, un-truthful, and driven by pride. If the president was to use the power of the presidency, to take vengeance on old enemies, etc., with out any restrictions, then the results could be deadly. Presidents in the past have used their status as an excuse to commit questionable acts, such as Bill Clinton having an affair IN the white house. Nixon’s statement shows how full of himself he was, and he believed that the “hip” of the presidency. Nixon said this statement during the final interview, and until that point the interviews had gone in his favor. He was cocky and righteous, was carving the power that he had once had.
I do believe that the directors of Frost Nixon meant to create sympathy for Nixon, at the very end. The final interview was the most passionate, and most embarrassing to Nixon. He finally admitted the Watergate scandal, and at that moment he knew that he would never be able to enter into politics again. This made him very upset and you could clearly see it on the face of Nixon. The directors choose to make the viewers feel sympathy at the end of the movie, so that it gave listeners the victory for Frost and defeat for Nixon, which had been switched leading up to this point. Older audiences might be upset about the portrayal of Nixon, because of the terrible years that he put them through. For example, the Watergate crisis, Vietnam War, slush funds, etc. I am sure if I asked my grandfather about the years that Nixon was president, he would give me the full run down on all the scandals.
1. I personally think the president can do anything he wants in the defense of the US during a war. I think that as president you need to be responsible and make all actions according to what would benefit your country and its people first. You can put yourself before others and you can do anything you want unless theres a logical reason and it would benefit our country. As in the movie Frost/Nixon, Nixon stated that if the president did it, its wasn’t illegal. This is incorrect reasoning and i do not agree with it. I think its just politically and socially incorrect. If the president murdered someone then it was bypassed because the president did it. Does that sound right to you?
As a leader you have to put your country first and base your decisions off of things that are important. You can’t decide to do things on your very own terms.
2. I think the movie Frost/Nixon itself may of for a small portion at the very end, made people feel sympathetic towards President Nixon. But many americans (mostly older adults) feel no sympathy for him and feel that he made many horrible mistakes while in office. I on the other hand do feel somewhat sympathetic for him. Personally i don’t know to much detail about the whole Watergate scandal and wasn’t even alive when it happened. And when i thought about myself, i think its very sad to be unliked by basically the entire world, and in the end he’s alone. I think his other accomplishments he made in his life and partly while in the presidency, were far overlooked because all anyone really cares about is Watergate. I think that what he did truly was a mistake, however i think he should not be so harshly shunned from society and have his other efforts in life be completely forgotten.
I can understand the idea that in the defense of the U.S. at times of war, a president can break the law. In situations such as Lincoln was in, situations where in order to stay the U.S., laws must be broken. But in Nixon’s situation breaking the law wasn’t necessary, and therefore he did not have the right to break the law. I agree with Nixon’s reasoning I just don’t believe the it was a situation of significant magnitude. It’s not as if the nation would fall apart and the government would no longer exist, and that is what I believe a situation of significant magnitude is.
I don’t think the filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Nixon, I think they just wanted to honestly portray him. They didn’t want to portray him in an evil, Nixon was a person and they tried to show that. It wasn’t Watergate that defined his personality. You do feel a little sympathy for him, but honestly it was his own fault and he had it coming, for that reason he doesn’t deserve any sympathy. I can’t say you can’t feel bad for him, I mean you kind of half to a little, he messed up on the world’s biggest stage and became the first president to resign but when you are on such a big stage you just can’t make mistakes like he did. I’m not sure if an older audience would be angry with the portrayal but I can see them not agreeing with it. They judge Nixon based on his time in office, and so the idea of Nixon being this terrible person all round probably sticks more to the older crowd. People pay attention to what a president does in his presidency, to most a president isn’t a person, but just a president.
1. The idea that the president can do just about anything in the defense of the United Stated during a time of war is not something that I approve of. It seems to be a monarch-like quality that our nation has been trying to avoid since the beginning of its civilization. If a president were allowed to over rule our laws and amendments through corrupt reasoning, what would they do next? Logic must be used in determining the best process for wartime decisions. Nixon’s reasoning is completely unjustified. His decision that the FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants; and the executive orders that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests, pushed boundaries. It gives too much power to one man to allow him to push boundaries such as these.
2. I don’t believe that the Frost / Nixon filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Nixon. I do think that it made for a more heroic story line in favor of David Frost though. I haven’t seen the true Frost/Nixon interview, but maybe the way that the filmmaker portrayed the interviews, was the way that they actually took place. Maybe Frost was extremely preoccupied the first three interviews, which allowed Nixon to swoop in as the hero that was just doing what was right for his country. Honestly, I couldn’t care less whether the film portrayed Nixon in a sympathetic light. I thought it was an interesting movie, but I can see where you’re coming from with the whole angry older generation view. They had faith that their president would do what was right for their county and not stab them in the back. I personally was not alive to have these feelings so I suppose I feel differently about the sympathetic portrayal of Nixon.
I disagree with Nixon’s statement regarding presidential power; a president cannot do whatever he wants during a time of war or crisis. Despite what the President may wish, America is still a democracy, and his power is still limited. If Nixon had been the ruler of almost any other country, be it Russia or China or whatever, his reasoning would have been solid. In any of those countries, what the government wants to do, it can do without any cause. The reason that the US is so great is that we have restrictions on the power of those who rule us. The president simply can’t do whatever he feels is necessary for the safety of the nation. As seen with Nixon most presidents simply can’t judge what is right for all of us from what is right for them. Nixon thought breaking into the opposition would be good for all; it just ended up being bad for all instead. No single man should ever have to make that decision, let alone want to make that decision.
I believe that the director was trying to fairly portray Nixon as both a horrible man but a man pitiable by a later generation. He shows Nixon’s confidence when dealing with Frost in the early interviews, and he shows Nixon’s breakdown during the drunken phone call to Frost’s room that night. The director wants to inspire people who may never have heard or cared about Watergate into learning more, and so he works to balance the movie to achieve that effect. If the director had leaned too far in bias against Nixon, it would have just looked like a movie designed to bash him. On the other hand, if the director had been too kind it would have caused an uproar amongst the people who actually lived through the events mentioned.
1. I don’t agree with the idea that a president can do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war. The sound of protecting the country sounds good, but I feel further examination would be needed to determine if the president could do what they are doing. What is seen as good for the country by the president could be different from the people themselves or could be downright unconstitutional. I think judicial review should be enacted just as with any other presidential action. I think allowing the president to do anything in the defense of the nation during time of war could become abusive and give the president too much power. Other views and the constitution should be used to determine if it’s really for the defense or helping the country. I disagree with Nixon’s reasoning that he thought he was helping the country and he thought what he was doing was right. If he thought it was right why was he so secretive about it, and if it’s really a just action why hide it? I don’t think anyone should be able to make decisions for a greater population all on their own because their decision may not be good for everyone and be self-serving.
2. I don’t think the Frost/Nixon filmmaker was trying to create sympathy for Nixon. Sympathy was maybe the last thing I felt for the former president. I think the film actually painted him and his advisers as real pricks, slick and conniving. I didn’t feel sympathy for Nixon and I didn’t live through Watergate. I’m actually not sure why an older audience member would be angry with the portrayal; I thought the film made Nixon look weak, stupid, and deceitful.
I don’t really approve the idea that the President can do just about anything in the defense of the United States in the time of war. The people elected the President to govern them and to enact laws that would help them and the economy, and so that means that the majority of people agree with most of the President’s ideas. If they agree with most of the ideas, then the President should have to ask the people whether they like something the President wants to do or not. The people should decide if a law is good or not, because they’re the ones that are going to be affected by it. The President cannot make the decisions of millions of people by himself, especially if the decision is not really legal. I do not agree with Nixon’s reasoning because one person cannot always be right, and decisions should not be made by one person if it affects a whole group of people. The President should be able to create laws that might not be legal, but only with the consent of the people.
I don’t think the filmmaker’s intent was to create sympathy for former President Nixon. I think that Nixon was portrayed as the filmmaker viewed him. Sometimes Nixon was stubborn and other times viewers felt bad for Nixon and saw that he was struggling with the hatred of many in the nation and loneliness. I felt bad for Nixon after the movie because it seemed that he was sorry for what he did and he apologized. An older audience might by angry with the portrayal because they might feel that Nixon did not deserve to have sympathy and that his decision was bad and he shouldn’t have tried to cover up Watergate. They lived through Watergate and were there when the news of the scandal came out, and they were probably angry, and they stayed angry because Nixon didn’t apologize until the interview.
As seen by Lincoln during the Civil War and Wilson during World War I, war can lead to leaders going against the constitution. While some of the actions that are taken are undoubtedly important for the United States, this does not mean that war is a thumbs up for the president to do anything he/she desires in the “defense of the nation”. First off, the President can not be the only one making decisions in the interest of America’s defense during wartime; the rest of the federal government also needs to be involved, for it is impossible for one person to be correct 100 percent of the time. With his election into the presidency, Nixon was faced with the protests of many Americans against the Vietnam War. These protests did not directly obstruct the war effort and were, for the most part, peaceful in nature. Nixon, believing there to be some sort of conspiracy, violated the Constitution and committed illegal activities to spy on the American public. Such an overreaction is only proof that the President should not be able to do anything in the interests of “defense” during times of war.
In the film Frost/Nixon, the filmmaker portrays Nixon in an angle contrary to the way many Americans look back at Nixon’s presidency. While most people would think of Nixon and think about Watergate and other illegal activities that occurred during his administration, the film also focuses on Nixon’s motivations and his reasons for doing what he did. The filmmaker’s intent was to portray Nixon as a human being – with flaws, but not without redeeming qualities as well. When watching Frost/Nixon, it is difficult at first to assess what the viewer’s perspective of Nixon is; however, by the end of the film, with Nixon’s political career over, it is difficult not to sympathize with him and his hard background and the work it took for him to rise up in the world. While older viewers might be angry at a sympathetic portrayal of Nixon, an audience that has not lived through Watergate has the advantage of not being clouded with a black and white idea of what occurred. The film’s portrayal of Nixon brings to light the humanity of him as a president.
1. The idea of the President of the United States being able to do whatever he wants during time of war is absurd. We have three branches of government for a reason, and the reason wasn’t to let the executive branch take the wheel of everything and anything when there is a major traffic jam in another country. I suppose there could possibly be some miniscule justifiable scenarios, but Nixon’s however, was not one of these scenarios. Thinking that some unknown foreign force is influencing the protesting young people of the country, is a pretty ridiculous thought as is. Deciding that this allows the FBI to indulge in unrestricted search and seizure on top of that is just all caps REDICULOUS. The fourth amendment restricts search and seizure of private property without a warrant. And if the FBI can’t find anything incriminating to get a warrant, then maybe they shouldn’t be snooping around in the first place. Nixon also has all of his Watergate baggage. Which was pretty stupid on his part if you ask me. It is also relatively pathetic. I mean if you are so worried about being reelected that you have to go and spy on your opponent, then you are probably not the best candidate. I completely disagree with Nixon’s reasoning because I don’t think ANYONE should be above the law.
2. I do think that the filmmakers were trying to create sympathy for Nixon for a few reasons. One being, I felt sympathy for him myself. The movie portrayed him as an old man full of stories and wisdom who just happened to make a major mistake. If they wanted to make him out to be the bad guy they probably would not have made him so fascinated with Frost’s Italian shoes. Because I remember watching and being all “aww that’s so cute, he likes his shoes and is apprehensive about wearing them.” Also, they filmmakers were tugging at the heartstrings when they changed that last line. Instead of having Nixon completely deny Watergate, which he did in the real interviews, they had him confess to it. That was a real emotional part of the movie because they probably and some of that soft dramatic music in the background, and the expression of guilt and regret on Nixon’s face was easy to read. I’m sure some people of that generation may be angry with that portrait and maybe others would be satisfied because they got that admitting (almost) apology they hadn’t gotten before. My mom recollected that the country wasn’t all elated when he resigned, because he had done some good things for the nation. What the president did in Watergate sent shockwaves throughout the nation and seeing him step down was an upsetting awkward what-just-happened farewell.
1. With the idea of allowing the president to have a free reign on what he should do in times of war, for the defense of the united states is somewhat justified but I feel should have some sort of political backing whether it be congress, or members of cabinet. The issue with allowing the president to do whatever he sees fit to do during times of war is that it gives him the entitlement to undermine not only the law, but also the social right of information the public deserves. Although that is true, The justification and the reasons for why the president should be exposed to such power is that when he was elected the citizens of the united states elected him to have the authority and leadership of the people, but in collateral would lie the underlying responsibility of protecting the safety of the United states and ensuring national security in almost all aspects. He should have the right to do this as he is doing it to “protect” the American people. Especially during times of war the president should have the right to do as he sees fit as he is the sole head of the executive branch which essential is the highest power in office one man can reach in the country, and when the country is in peril, the one who has the responsibility to take action whether it be confidential or non-confidential actions given to the public, it still lies with him to take action AS LONG AS THESE ACTIONS CORRESPOND TO THE SECURIT Y OF THE PUBLIC. I do agree with Nixon’s reasoning as I realize his intentions of secrecy with the Vietnam war, was to protect the integrity of the nation, as still being the superpower they are, and that losing the war does not consequence in much other than squandered money, lives, and loss of morale and confidence of the federal government. These questions would have arose anyway even if Nixon had not have been so secret about it, but his intentions were trying to lessen the severity of what had happen in Vietnam to the public.
2. I don’t think that the intent of the movie was to express and advocate for sympathy of Richard Nixon but rather provide a social commentary on what had occurred during this interview and his personal responses. So this took more of a biographical take on Nixon and his personal responses to his actions in office. Although that that’s true I still feel sympathetic towards Nixon because he did accomplish other things in office, such as reconstruct diplomatic relations with China, and also lower tensions with the soviets through his weapons agreement. And it shows how his whole presidency is labeled off of deceit of Watergate and shadiness with the Vietnam war. It relates to kind of what happened to Chris Webber after he called the timeout/got caught for receiving illegal benefits from U of M booster Ed martin. Regardless of the actual talent of Chris Webber and his basketball skill, college and pro career and practically his life is labeled off of that one Time out called against North Carolina in the national championship game of 1993. So there is in a sense a parallelism between that as he is labeled by a mistake/action. But specifically as a younger audience I feel sympathetic because I feel as though If I lived through that it would have been tremendously infuriating knowing that the highest official in government is deceitful and not properly addressing the citizens of the country AND is breaking the law to ensure his time as president. I feel as though that during that time period had living through that would be significantly more hard to overcome, as you experienced being lied to and perplexed at the fact of what just happened in terms of the executive government. But rather just hearing about it is significantly less harsh.
1. I do not think that the president should have ultimate power even during times of crisis, for America is a democracy and power shouldn’t be centralized so much in one figure. Although the president is the executive officer, even a president can make mistakes and abolishing the checks-and-balances system we have set in place could lead to chaos. America is still a country led by the people, and the president is not above the law. If America is in a defensive state, the major decisions should be made by experts in the field rather than a popular politician. I disagree with Nixon’s statement because the president is not immune to corruption and he does not make the laws, Congress does. If we let our leaders run wild, what’s to stop a power-hungry dictator from abusing this power?
2. I believe that the filmmakers did try to create sympathy for Richard Nixon, for this added a new level of analysis to the situation and made for a more dramatic movie. Nixon is seen as a mistake and his accomplishments are often forgotten, but seeing him as a vulnerable man shed a new light on his character. This is especially shown in the fictitious drunk phone call scene, which portrays Nixon as a suffering man who’s lost all he had. Because I never experience the anger or fear that came with Watergate, I do think it is easier for me to sympathize with Nixon than it would be for people from older generations. Without emotion getting involved, I can analyze Nixon’s presidency as a whole and think it’s a shame that his accomplishments are rarely heard of, where someone from before my time will probably think only “Watergate” when they hear the name Nixon. After seeing this movie, I will never see Nixon through only the lens of Watergate again.
1. During a time of war, the President of the United States cannot essentially do whatever he wants or abuse his power. It is just simply unconstitutional and goes against every belief of our democratic country. Being a democratic country, the people have a say and every idea that the President has must be passed before it is put in place. The Government system does not allow the President to come up with an idea at the top of his head and take action right away with it. Nixon’s reasoning is completely non-legitimate and just a flat out excuse. His reasoning was that if the President did it, it is not illegal. If that was true then President Nixon wouldn’t have been on the verge of being impeached.
2. I believe that the film Frost/Nixon had a mixed impact on how people feel about President Nixon and his scandals. At points in the film, it shows President NIxon being very money oriented and lying about certain situations he faced during his presidency. But at other points in the film, it shows President Nixon as a man that knew what he did was wrong and that he let himself and the people of America down. Throughout the film Nixon was portrayed as both a bad guy and a good guy. Not being alive during the time of Watergate I believe that I have more sympathy for President Nixon than an older person that lived during Watergate would. I don’t think that I witnessed enough to not have a little sympathy for President Nixon. Older people living at the time got a feel for what it is like to have the leader of your country lie to you. I couldn’t imagine having the unknown feeling of whether to trust the most powerful person in my country or not and I am glad I was not alive to experience it.
I don’t believe that the President has unlimited power during times of war. Nixon’s belief that “if the President does it, it’s not illegal” does not hold true. The President’s duty is to protect the people by doing what they believe is right, IN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION. By going outside of those boundaries, even if it is for the good of the people, it is illegal and maybe harmful. Nixon believed that because kids publicly disagreed with him, there must be some foreign power directing them to protest, and so he investigated with illegal methods with not one smidgen of proof. I also disagree with this in a logical way, because even if Nixon had the proof, it was illegally gotten and would not be easily accepted by most educated Americans.
I don’t think the director’s intent was to create sympathy for Nixon, rather it was to lay out the facts including the ones people most often overlook when speaking of Reagan. For example, during the interviews, both Nixon’s accomplishments and disgraces were laid out, nothing seemed to have been merely glanced at to act as if it was fair. I believe that it is easier for me to look at Nixon’s presidency overall and think that his Presidency was a success. When I look at the facts, it looks like Nixon did some good things such as, pulling out of Vietnam and the peace talks with China and Russia, and then a domestic problem with secrecy. Those who lived in the time might feel that the portrayal should have been more in line with the “Tricky Dick” nickname and would have had Nixon be a static character.
P.S – Mr. Wickersham, I am appalled that you would expect anyone to write with sense after the mental endurance we were just put through.
1.I do not approve of the idea that the president can do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war because they need to only make decisions they think will benefit the country and the American population overall, not just ones that would fix the one problem or conflict at hand. Just because we are at war doesn’t mean that is a free pass to do whatever you see fit. As we saw from Nixon’s Watergate scandal, president’s make mistakes and sometimes aren’t as trustworthy as originally thought, so that’s why the president needs to consult his cabinet and other advisors to steer him toward making good decisions, beneficial for the US. Though I don’t agree with this concept, Nixon made a good argument for why he thinks that this is right. He claims that this overruling would only happen is there was a significant threat to internal peace, which makes it easy to see why a snap decision would have to be made by the president which sometimes conflicts with the laws. Though the president is occasionally put in these situations that need an alternative solution I don’t think it’s fair for the president to be able to do something illegal.
2.I don’t think that the filmmaker’s of Frost/Nixon intent was to create sympathy for Nixon but rather show another side to the former president that everyone only remembered as corrupt and unjust. The movie went further into how Nixon’s personal life was effected by the scandal and by doing so showed the audience that is was very hard on him and he knew that he had let the people of America down. I think that people my own age who haven’t lived through Watergate or the Nixon era are more open to see this different side of the president and express sympathy for him ,where as people of an older generation who experienced firsthand the effects Watergate and other Nixon mistakes hold a grudge with him.
I agree with the idea that the president should have the ability to take away certain liberties in a time of war to protect the interests of the nation. During the defense of the nation during a time of war, the president has to act quickly. If the opportunity arises in which to gain a strategic advantage but would break the law, it should be done. The president can’t be restricted by congressional or judicial approval. The president’s job is to protect the citizens of the nation at any cost. If the president can’t do that, then it would be pointless.
While I believe that the president should have the power to take away certain liberties during the defense of the nation, I don’t believe that president Nixon’s situation was it. We were at war with Vietnam, IN Vietnam. Since there was no open sabotage or rebellion in the country, president Nixon’s use of wire-tapping was an abuse of power.
I don’t think that the director/filmmaker’s intention was to create sympathy for Nixon, but it sure did seem like it because they added many things that did not happen in real life. But in the movie, it made Nixon seem more human and vulnerable. The movie’s portrays a man who it appears made a grave mistake and was extremely disappointed in himself. I realize that many people from the Nixon generation feel differently. Since I wasn’t around, it seems difficult for me maybe to fully understand the ramifications that Watergate and Nixon’s resignation had on the country. What is shown in the movie is more of the human side of Nixon, not the political one that many older viewers remember. The last scene were Nixon stares out across the ocean sort of made me feel bad for him because he was so ostracized for his mistake, even though he deserved it. I bet many people who viewed the movie and lived through his presidency were angry at the movie.
I do not approve of the president having the power to do anything he wants even during wartime. Even if he thinks he is doing it for the better of the country, he might in fact be hurting it. That’s why we have the system of checks and balances. It ensures that no one branch of government becomes too powerful. There needs to be restrictions, even on the president himself. Nixon was wrong to do what he did. He violated citizen’s privacy rights. Then he goes on to say, “When the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” That shows that he really did think that it was okay for him to justify his actions just because he was in a position of power. But that’s not how it works, as he too realized.He thinks that he should be able to get away with it because he was doing it for the American people. He might of been doing it for the American people, but his approach was wrong.
I think the filmmaker’s intent was to create some sympathy for Nixon. You can tell by the way Nixon is portrayed at the end and in the drunken phone call scene. The phone call didn’t even happen in real life, so it was there to humanize Nixon. And when Nixon finally breaks during the interview, it shows how pitiful he feels. At the end he is standing there thinking to himself at his house looking at the shoes Frost gave him. All these things humanize Nixon. I feel sympathy for Nixon, having not lived through his presidency. He was the only President to resign and he took the full blow of Watergate. But most importantly he is remembered for his mistake not anything he did to help the country. An older audience might be angry with the portrayal because they witnessed it first hand. Maybe Nixon wasn’t like the movie Nixon. The older audience feels betrayed by him whereas a younger one just understands that he did something wrong. They know he isn’t perfect but they have no personal connection to him to really dislike him.
If the president could do anything he wanted to, even during the emergence of war, then he would become nothing less than a dictator: he and he alone, after all, would dictate the fate of the country. Can one person know what is best for a whole country? Maybe; but even provided that the President is a highly intellectual and thoughtful person, probably not. Even Lincoln, after all, did not overstep his bounds so much that he believed that he was simply allowed to do anything.
There is a difference between doing something and excusing it and doing the same thing and understanding that it was wrong, but also that it needed to be done. A war-hardened mind is more at ease, perhaps; however, someone who knows what they are at every moment and is as fluid as the situations they get in—this person will be the one who leads others towards a better future.
One person—no matter how strong, or intelligent, or wise—could never be the perfect ruler. In the end, even the president doesn’t have enough power to change the laws of morality: the president is just one other person who has to make decisions; he is nothing more.
Yet despite Nixon’s misguided approach to power, he was a lot more than this decision or that one. Can someone be judged on how fast they run if they only run once in their lives? Can they be judged on one test if they received a dramatically lower score on the chosen test than the rest of them? Why shouldn’t Nixon have sympathy or, at the very least, pity?
Even though presidents are just people, the general public doesn’t like to think of him that way. Their conflicting personalities are not something people seek to know often, because they prefer to remain comfortable with what they know for sure. Generalizations are at fault for escalating the few things the people know about a president into a portrait of their lives, whether or not this is true.
The filmmaker’s intent was probably to show as many aspects of Nixon’s personality as possible, so the audience could decide for itself whether it could feel sympathy for him. Based on the movie I felt equally sympathetic as I did not sympathetic. In all, I believe it is more likely that I would feel sympathetic to him than someone who lived through Watergate, because that person would likely feel more betrayed by him than I do.
There is a zero percent chance that i believe the president should be able to do what ever he wants in a time of war. Yes Lincoln did that but times were different back then. if Nixon were able to do whatever he wants during war time then he watergate would be legal and so on. The American people should come first and last in the presidents mind and nothing in between. Checks and balances was created to prevent one branch of government from having to much or to little power. If the president had that right then whats next. Supreme Court can do whatever in a case if they are in a bad mood? NO because it just simply is not fair. George Washington was dealing with harder stuff and did not have to abuse the power of the presidency. I feel bad for Nixon because i generally feel bad for old people. I personally think that something was mentally wrong with him because he could simply not take responsibility for his actions. Everything that went wrong was LBJs or Eisenhowers fault. The film maker could have easily been a huge supporter of Nixon and wanted the people to remember him for the good he did suppose to that one bad thing. Take out Cambodia and Watergate and he was a pretty decent president. Since i was clearly not alive at the time during watergate I do not know how the American people reacted and how they were effected by it but it does not really effect me. Yes i see people have distrust in their government but I do not see Watergate today, as a huge issue. The way Nixon acted throughout the movie indicates that he had a rough childhood and that there could possible be something mentally wrong with him so it shows a different outlook suppose to the tough, rough bad guy that we all think he is.
1) I believe that a president cannot do “anything,” in a time of war. The president is subject to the same rules and laws that we are subject to. Once you let one abuse of power slide, there become two, then three, then suddenly, instead of a democracy, the people are in a dictatorship or tyranny, where the leader can do what he wants without being reprimanded. I do not agree with Nixon, that the president can do whatever he wants, I think that, when the president does it, it is still illegal, because as I mentioned before, everyone is equally subject to the same laws as another, even the president. When Nixon said “You’re wanting to me to say that I participated in an illegal cover-up. No!” Nixon truly believed what he said, because he still had the mindset that the president could do whatever he wanted. To Nixon, he participated in a cover-up, but not an illegal one because he was the president.
2) I do not think the intent of the Frost/Nixon filmmaker was to try and sympathize with Nixon. Nixon was portrayed maliciously, but in a subtle way. He was shown as greedy because he tried to suck out all the money he could from David Frost, even when he had already offered $500,000, Nixon asked whether he might give $600,000 dollars. Nixon was also portrayed as wrathful because Nixon never knew how to control his temper, for example, after Nixon gave his anecdote about China, and went into the back room, he started ranting and yelling that he was sick of being reduced from the president to giving anecdotes. I believe that a younger audience might try to feel sympathy for Nixon, but only because they did not know what it was really like, having a president actively cover up something.
Chris Coburn
5/16/13
Apush 5th Hour
Frost/Nixon Blog
1. I don’t approve of Nixon’s statement that the President can do anything he or she wants to protect the country because it’s un-democratic. The Constitution makes provisions and powers to the President during war, and the role has been expanded by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Some of these powers, such as Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus or FDR’s peacetime draft, can be justified to protect the country and are not illegal. But some of these actions, such as Wilson’s Espionage and Sedition Acts and FDR’s internment of Japanese citizens, are illegal and should not have happened. The unfortunate reality is that they did happen, and this could be Nixon’s justification to why he can do anything to protect the country. I disagree with Nixon’s reasoning that protecting the country is important because it attacks freedom of speech set forth by the document Nixon is sworn to uphold. The President is the leader of the country but can’t order the government around to do what he or she wants.
2. I think the goal of Frost/Nixon was not to show sympathy towards Nixon, but to humanize him. After Nixon resigned in 1974, he became more of a symbol than a person. I think the goal of Frost/Nixon was to remind the older audience that Nixon was a human and genuinely sorry for what he did but adamant that he did what he thought was right. I think the other goal of Frost/Nixon was to show the younger audience learning about Nixon’s presidency that he isn’t a symbol of a failed presidency or tyrannical power; he’s a person who has to live with his mistakes. I think an older audience would accept the movie two ways: 1) they dislike the portrayal because they see him as a symbol of a troubled generation or 2) they overcome this belief and see him as the defeated man he was. This movie might show the older generation to stop kicking a man when he’s down. I think a younger audience would accept the movie multiple ways as well 1) find sympathy for him 2) see him as a human who did both good and bad for the presidency and must live with his mistakes, or 3) have already learnt too much about his scandals and sunk to the level of symbolism. After watching the movie, I see Nixon as a human who did both good and bad for the presidency and must live with his mistakes.