Nixon’s Nomination Addresses: Strategic Employment of Dichotomous Personality

In both 1960 and 1968, Richard Nixon delivered speeches to accept his nomination at the

Republican National Convention. While the manifest content of his speeches expectedly varies, the

true differences in his speeches are latent. As the turbulent historical landscape unfolded behind

Nixon’s career, he strategically employed different personas to meet contemporary demands. Nixon

was frequently criticized, specifically cited in Herblock political cartoons, for his lack of a consistent

identity. Nixon developed a “fighter” persona in his early career, as seen in his Hiss Case work, his

ascension through the political ranks, and his nickname of “Hatchet Man.” However, it is important

to distinguish Nixon’s fighter and Hatchet Man personalities. His fighter persona embodied his

pursuits as an underdog and his confidence in tackling adversity, whereas Hatchet Man Nixon was

more malicious and divisive. While the two identities often intersected, the more immature Hatchet

Man identity largely remained confined to Nixon’s early years, while his fighter identity stayed in his

toolbox throughout his career. Upon accusations of being too aggressive as Eisenhower’s fight man,

Nixon reinvented himself to become the “New Nixon.” His 1960 election against Kennedy

highlighted his new statesman-like character that could compete with Kennedy’s polished charm.

While Nixon’s core personality underlies both speeches, Nixon’s decision to juggle his fighter and

New Nixon personas to meet the demands of the historical climate ultimately produces drastically

distinct speeches regarding tone and treatment of similar subject matter.

Nixon’s political career developed during an extremely turbulent period of American history,

and likely influenced his decision to employ different personas. Nixon’s 1960 campaign coincided

with a post WWII economic boom. He was the Vice President of the previous Eisenhower

administration, and was trying to jump to higher office. The country was primarily concerned with

the fight against Communism and the Cold War, an issue that did not directly disrupt many American

lives. While the Civil Rights Movement had its early beginnings, actions were limited to peaceful

protests and sit ins. Kennedy was his primary political opponent, who was polished and generally
well-liked. Consequently, Nixon likely molded his persona to both match Kennedy’s softer

leadership style, and to address the relatively calm political climate of the 1960s.

When Nixon returned to politics in 1968, the country was in the throes of a more active Civil

Rights Movement, anti-Vietnam War sentiment was rapidly increasing, and the movements turned

violent in many major cities. Dynamic characters like Martin Luther King Jr. had emerged as

political leaders, likely influencing Nixon’s return to his fighter roots to meet the heightened chaos in

the political and historical climate. The country needed someone with charisma and confidence to

guide them, and the monitored, soft spoken Nixon of his 1960 address would not have fit the bill. It

was also easier for Nixon to emphasize the negative political actions of the Democratic party in the

previous eight years because they were not made by his administration.

The speeches open with extremely different tones. Nixon is gracious in the first several

paragraphs of his 1960 address, thanking those who helped along his political journey, and

sentimentally recalling his previous political experiences. His attitude is very “New Nixon.” He

arguably overcompensates in humility to combat previous accusations of excessive hostility. Nixon

avoids asserting that he is right for the job, saying “I do not say tonight that I am alone the man who

can furnish that leadership.” In 1968, however, it is clear by the fourth paragraph that Nixon

approaches the podium with an extreme confidence, arguably arrogance, that differentiates his

address from his 1960 speech. He boldly states, “this time we are going to win.” While the 1960

speech sounds like a gentle appeal to voters, the 1968 speech tone is that of a rally address. He

employs theatrical language through repetition of dramatic phrases, anecdotes, and descriptive

language that is not in his 1960 speech. For example, he repeats “I pledge to you” four times in

succession. The 1968 speech reverts to the aggressive and confident fighter Nixon. It is possible that

Nixon returned to his old ways because he had seen the strategy work successfully, whereas the

statesman version of himself in 1960 was not victorious.

 Rather than discussing concrete issues in 1968 as much as he does in 1960, 1968 Nixon relies

heavily on overarching themes of unity and legacy to incorporate contemporary problems. In talking

about legacy, Nixon tackles racism and civil rights, the Vietnam war, and anti-Communism under

one umbrella. Subsequently, he creates more space in his speech for the emotional and theatrical

appeal that is absent in the 1960 address. In tying several polarizing issues to the abstract idea of

legacy, Nixon is still able to maintain a connection to a broad audience. Citizens do not need to get

caught up in the fine print of policy, and instead can rally around relatable and accessible larger

themes that are not particularly partisan at face value.

In alignment with his changing tone, Nixon’s discussion of the Democrats becomes far more

hostile in 1968. In 1960, Nixon repeatedly mentions that he and the Democrats have the same goals

for the country, but different means of achieving those goals. In 1968, however, Nixon accuses the

Democratic Party of making empty promises, and harshly criticizes the administration’s decisions of

the previous eight years. Unlike his admission in 1960 that the tough choice for President is in the

hands of the voters, in 1968, he repeatedly says that the “choice is clear,” and that it is time for

change. It seems natural that Nixon would be more hostile toward the Democrats in 1968, because he

could point his finger at tangible policy decisions of a Democratic administration. In 1960, on the

other hand, the past eight years had been under his control. Criticizing the past would have been

criticizing himself. In addition, division within the Democratic party surrounding the nomination of

Humphrey made it easier for Nixon to express hostility toward the Democratic party, as not even

Humphrey’s whole base supported him. Had Nixon spoken the same way about Kennedy, a

candidate who was highly respected across both parties and close to Nixon in the polls, he likely

would have received more pushback.

Nixon’s treatment of Communism and national reputation also shifts between the speeches

and parallels both his use strategic personality, and the changing historical climate. In his 1960

speech, Nixon is hesitant to criticize America as he does not want the country to seem internally
troubled to Communist powers. Yes, he was also wary to criticize the country in 1960 because his

administration was responsible for its current state. In his speech, he shames the Democrats for

pointing out America’s flaws, and instead emphasizes the importance of flaunting America’s

superiority to other nations. For example, he says “today America is the strongest nation militarily,

economically, and ideologically in the world.” He adheres to a “New Nixon” motif of spreading

freedom through ideas rather than military pursuit. Nixon’s 1968 address, however, aggressively

criticizes America. Although he was also highlighting flaws of the previous Democratic

administration, he is nevertheless hypocritical of his 1960 assertion that negativity toward the US

weakens its role on the global stage. He even admits in 1968 that “it is time we started to act like a

great nation around the world.” In openly critiquing the US, he also disrespects the previous

administration, and instead tries to make the clear case as to why he would be better. He abandons

the need to please everyone and to work on the defensive as a statesman would, and instead,

offensively fights for his cause.

While Nixon’s 1960 address is uniformly statesmanlike, his 1968 fighter address is not

homogeneous, and reveals elements of his New Nixon persona in its conclusion. Nixon delivers a

theatrical section about a small underprivileged child in America, and compares that child’s journey

to his own as a working-class boy who climbed through the ranks amidst adversity. While his passion

for the underdog fueling his fighter identity remains at the roots of the passage, the dramatic shift in

tone at the end of a primarily rallying speech pays homage to the New Nixon of his 1960 address. He

steps back from aggressive rhetoric and concludes on a somber, emotional note. Such a change in

tone and theme indicates a developed maturity as a politician, in his ability to wear several different

identities at once to build a multi-faceted identity that is essential for effective communication with a

broad audience. He is careful to include the elements of his New Nixon personality that worked, and

to abandon those that had previously painted him as weak or pretentious. Years down the line, this
portion of his speech grew a legacy for its remarkable ability to capture a humanizing side of Nixon

amidst an otherwise aggressive address.

Despite Nixon’s fluctuation between his “New Nixon” and fighter personas in his 1960 and

1968 speeches, core elements of his authentic personality remain constant. Both speeches clearly

showcase Nixon’s lawyer-like tendencies of his early education and career. Even within his

impassioned and theatrical 1968 address, he meticulously organizes his speech to be effective and

thorough. He speaks in an orderly and logical fashion, never skipping around to incomplete thoughts.

Like his Hiss Speech where his lawyer-like tendencies were clearly displayed, both addresses follow

a clear, argumentative structure, regardless of the differing overarching tones and themes.

Additionally, his mastery in switching between New Nixon and fighter personas demonstrates his

understanding of persuasive logic that he gained through years as a lawyer.

From Nixon’s early days on the Herter Committee, he was always well regarded for his

prowess in foreign policy and historical knowledge. Both speeches contain passages about his

experience traveling around the world, and showcasing his knowledge of both American and global

history. He strategically chooses which realm of knowledge to highlight. In his 1960 speech, one of

his final talking points references the diverse cultures in Bogota, Siberia, and Warsaw. He was

strategic in highlighting his foreign policy expertise in 1960 because many Americans were

concerned with the global threat of Communism and Kennedy’s relative inexperience. In 1968,

Nixon instead showcases his intelligence through discussion of the American Revolution. While he

mentions his trip to Latin America in the beginning of his speech, and while he references the

American Revolution in his 1960 speech, the Revolution is a focal point of his 1968 address, as it

both highlights his intelligence and ties into the themes of unity and legacy. Again, Nixon

demonstrates strong understanding of the audience and the contemporary demands.

Lastly, both speeches feature Abraham Lincoln, Nixon’s lifelong role model. Nixon’s

grandmother gave him a portrait of Lincoln at a young age that he hung above his bed throughout his
childhood. Even against starkly different historical backdrops, Nixon’s appreciation of Lincoln is

obvious in both the 1960 and 1968 speeches. In both cases, Nixon uses Lincoln as a model of

leadership, a point that very few Americans would likely refute. While Nixon’s inclusion of Lincoln

serves as a unifying element in both of his speeches, his use of Lincoln is nuanced in both speeches

to accomplish unique contemporary goals. In his 1960 address, Nixon ties the controversial issue of

segregation back to Lincoln and slavery. He ends his speech with a quote from Lincoln regarding the

country being on God’s side that follows up a statement about America being the hope of the world.

He uses Lincoln’s quote to justify America’s key position on the global stage and his satisfaction

with the state of the country. His use of Lincoln aligns with the New Nixon ideal of being

appreciative of the current state of the country and only modifying what is already good. In 1968,

Nixon uses a quote taken from Lincoln’s decision to pursue the presidency. Nixon’s quote selection

fits with the theme of his speech as a search for proper leadership. While Nixon’s Lincoln quote in

1960 concludes the speech with an appreciation for his role model, Nixon asserts in 1968 that the

challenges facing the current nation are greater than those faced by Lincoln, and continues to say that

he is the man for the job. Despite the intricacies of Nixon’s use of Lincoln, a constant between two

dramatically different speeches exists in Nixon’s unwavering appreciation for his lifelong role model,

ultimately revealing that Nixon’s true personality had not completely changed.

While Nixon had been accused of changing personalities on a whim, consistency of the true

Nixon beneath varying personality facades demonstrates that Nixon was likely consciously shifting

his identity to meet the needs of his historical landscape as a deliberate political strategy. Nixon’s

New Nixon is extremely effective in appealing to his 1960 audience against Kennedy. He packages

himself as an experienced and humble individual who is an equal match for his opponent and the

right man for the fight against Communism. The 1968 fighter Nixon, while very different from his

persona in 1960, is exactly what the country demanded amidst turmoil. People were searching for a

strong, confident, and charismatic leader who could guide the nation through chaos. Nixon’s ability
to adapt to the rapidly evolving political and historical landscapes is not a demonstration of the

manipulative and malicious character of which many critics accused him. Instead, he demonstrates

skills of a masterful politician who understands the needs of his audience and knows how to play the

proper role in the political theater of the period.