Pride and prudence.

• Author: Heilbrunn, Jacob
• Position: Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full; Richard M. Nixon; George H. W. Bush; The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews; The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate; Henry Kissinger and the American Century - Book review

Conrad Black, Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full (New York: PublicAffairs, 2007), 1,152 pp., $40.00.

Elizabeth Drew, Richard M. Nixon (New York: Times Books, 2007), 192 pp., $22.00.

Timothy Naftali, George H. W. Bush (New York: Times Books, 2007), 224 pp., $22.00.

James Reston, Jr., The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews (New York: Harmony Books, 2007), 208 pp., $22.00.

James Rosen, The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 640 pp., $35.00.

Jeremi Suri, Henry Kissinger and the American Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 368 pp., $27.95.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, one of the fathers of American realism, observed in 1787 that the United States should seek "to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interests may dictate." Hamilton concluded, "Our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs." His admonition did not go unheeded. In the nineteenth century, as Fareed Zakaria, David Calleo, Walter A. McDougall and a host of other historians have observed, the United States, in its conduct of foreign affairs, adhered to realist principles to expand its influence and power.

This was especially so for the Republican Party, which went on to frame the views of Woodrow Wilson and his successors in the Democratic Party as utopian dreams. Thus Theodore Roosevelt--along with his own vigorous assertions of America's interests on the global stage--inveighed in 1918 against the "sorry crew" of "professional internationalists" who wished to substitute peace organizations for robust American attempts at military self-defense. Then, in the 1930s, realism curdled into isolationism. And after World War II, the GOP, led by Robert Taft (widely known as "Mr. Republican"), recoiled at membership in the United Nations and NATO.

But the "loss" of China, the explosion of the Soviet atomic bomb and the revelations of Red traitors inside the American government prompted the Republican Right to go on the offensive and call for the rollback of Communism. The Right, you might say, embraced unilateralist internationalism. America had to define and defend its interests wherever and whenever they might be threatened. One of the chief proponents of ramping up the fight against the Reds, at home and abroad, was a young congressman and senator named Richard M. Nixon. But as vice president of the United States and later president, Nixon endorsed a far more cautious course based in realpolitik. So did Dwight D. Eisenhower. Whatever rhetorical excesses the Far Right might indulge in, the GOP's national leaders pursued a far more flexible course that dismissed utopian notions of rolling back Soviet gains during and after World War II. Cooler heads, in sum, prevailed.

No longer. Were either Eisenhower or Nixon to survey the current state of the GOP, they would most likely be astonished at the vehemence with which a crusading foreign policy, marrying Wilsonian idealism with military force, has become de rigeur for any serious presidential candidate.

And thus Republican candidates are attempting to claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, as the argument goes, single-handedly won the cold war by spending the Soviet Union into the ground and proclaiming a crusade against Communism. That Reagan was extremely cautious about actually deploying military force, however, goes unsaid--as well as Reagan's focus on changing Soviet policies rather than the regime itself. The idea of retrenchment or prudence in foreign affairs seems no more appealing to many politicians in the GOP than it did in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, when George H. W. Bush was chastised by an array of conservative outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, for failing to go to Baghdad. Indeed, while some foreign-policy thinkers associated with the Democrats have begun to make the case for prudence and realism in foreign affairs, the term remains, by contrast, a synonym for immorality and pusillanimity among Republicans.

What explains this state of affairs? How could the GOP go from espousing realist principles to yielding to the crusading instincts it once looked upon with suspicion? Is a return to realism in the cards for the Republicans, or is this a hopeless ambition?

PERHAPS NO career and legacy may offer more illuminating answers than Richard M. Nixon's. Like no other Republican, Nixon straddled the divide inside the GOP between liberal and conservative Republicans. Nixon exploited the Red Scare, but he was also a staunch internationalist who traveled widely. As president, he jettisoned much of his harsh rhetoric, with his final years devoted to improving U.S.-Soviet relations. In retrospect, Nixon stood for three vital foreign-policy principles that have been willfully flouted in recent years. The first is the recognition that there are limits to American power. The second is a refusal to demonize America's adversaries as evil incarnate. The third is a keen interest in diplomacy and strong alliances abroad.

Despite his numerous accomplishments, Nixon commands scant interest in today's GOP. Instead, it's liberals who are taking a fresh look at Nixon. A telling moment came in November 2007 when Sam Tanenhaus, an editor at the New York Times, delivered a Bradley Lecture at the citadel of neoconservatism, the American Enterprise Institute. After...