Time Essay: Richard Nixon: An American Disraeli?

(4 of 4)

If Nixon is serious about becoming a second Disraeli, however, he still has a way to go. Disraeli was not only a supreme political operator but considerably more. He thought deeply about politics and acted on his precepts. He wrote a number of political novels that, for all their playfulness and cynicism, come to grips with flesh-and-blood people. In the manner of the best European conservatives, Disraeli felt a strong attachment to his fellow countrymen even when he mocked them or they reviled him. Nixon may feel the same way, but Disraeli displayed a passion that is generally lacking in American conservatives, including Nixon. It was Disraeli, after all, who coined the phrase "two nations" when he wrote about rich and poor in his novel Sybil. No British government of the 19th century produced more social reform than Disraeli's, which improved the laboring man's working conditions, recognized trade unions, provided health and sanitation services and undertook slum clearance.

In domestic matters, Nixon's leadership has combined a shrewd understanding of what most of the country wanted—or feared—with constant reminders of the old verities and only occasional flashes of innovation—so far. Even in his reform proposals, Nixon sometimes comes across only as a leaner, meaner liberal. The shortcoming is not his alone. American conservatism has long been inconstant, uncertain and divided in its aims, trying to combine belief in authority with a belief in individualism and little government. A rich tradition of conservative thought on the European model has never taken root in America; perhaps Americans are too much on the go, too future-oriented. Confronted with liberalism, U.S. conservatives have often offered something less rather than something different.

Nixon won his mandate by siding with the majority in a national division. He has not yet shown that he can make one nation out of two. It is true that in Disraeli's day the members of the other nation, the poor, were a majority while today they are not; the difference is vast. Nevertheless, a Disraeli could supply a profound corrective to conservative thought in America: a sense that everyone is in it together, that no one class or group can function properly unless all do. Until Richard Nixon does that, he remains only half a Disraeli. The historical portrait deserves to be completed.

∎ Edwin Warner