Many political insiders hail HBO’s hit television show Veep as the most accurate television show about American politics. Veep’s protagonist, Selina Meyer, starts in season one as the Vice President of the United States — a position that never satisfied her. After being promoted to commander in chief following the former President’s resignation, she goes on to lose the following presidential election but regains the presidency in the final episode. Meyer’s political journey mirrors that of another former vice president turned commander in chief: Richard M. Nixon. Throughout the series, despite differences between their superficial characteristics like their upbringing and sex, Veep includes a surprising amount of Nixonian overtones, parallels, and allusions that suggest an intense similarity between Meyer and Nixon.
The strongest evidence supporting Meyer’s resemblance to Nixon is that she attributes the impetus for her desire to become President to her experience at Nixon’s inaugural ball. In season five, episode nine, Meyer’s daughter Catherine interviews her for a documentary. Catherine asks Meyer when she first knew that she wanted to be President, to which Meyer responds: “It was 1973… Daddy asked me to be his date for President Nixon’s inaugural ball… Daddy leaned into me and he said, ‘You know, a lot of people don’t like Nixon, but by God, they respect him. And that’s you, peanut.’” Thus, Meyer’s father telling her that she, like Nixon, may be disliked by many but will earn respect is what prompted Meyer to run for President. Meyer smiles after telling this story, but then her grin fades, and she looks off to the side, conveying sad contemplation. Perhaps in this moment, Meyer comes to understand that her political success cost her dearly. Like Nixon, Meyer is a ruthless political operator — she did whatever it took to win the presidency, even breaking the law. While this path led to success, it resulted in her being remembered unfavorably by the public, a fate Nixon shared. Furthermore, Meyer’s connection to Nixon is subsequently strengthened when she proclaims in the next scene that “I don’t want to jinx things, guys, but I think maybe we should start making our list of who I’m going to punish when I win [this election].” Considering that the show explicitly mentioned Nixon shortly before Meyer says this and that Nixon was known for his vindictiveness, this statement is likely a Nixonian allusion.
Veep includes many more instances in which Meyer’s character and political career are likened to Nixon’s, the most obvious of which relates to the infamous Watergate scandal. In season five, episode six, a scandal — dubbed “C**tgate” — emerges in which the media reports that one of Meyer’s staffers called her a “c**t.” Furious, Meyer demands that her staffer Amy launch an investigation. When it does not yield timely results, she fires members of the communications department. During a discussion about this decision, Amy exclaims that “She’s becoming seriously unhinged. She has gone full-metal Nixon.” This phrase indicates that Meyer was exhibiting Nixonian behavior with full force. In particular, Amy is likely referring to Nixon’s desire for absolute loyalty from White House staff. Thus, in addition to “C**tgate” referencing Watergate, the show explicitly states that Meyer resembles Nixon once again.
Another more subtle Nixonian allusion occurs in the ninth episode of season four. During a congressional hearing on the topic of alleged misconduct by the Meyer administration, the President’s personal secretary Sue reveals the existence of incriminating voice memos sent via iPhone. The way this political scandal emerged is similar to how the White House tapes were revealed to the public. Alexander Butterfield, who served as Nixon’s deputy assistant, was the first to tell Americans about the White House tapes. While Sue and Butterfield do not share the exact same role, they are similar in their status as relatively obscure staffers. Yet, both had information that had the potential to bring down the President. Thus, this plot line in Veep likely serves as a twenty-first century version of the scandal surrounding the White House tapes, which furthers Meyer’s connection to Nixon.
Veep includes many more situations in which Meyer’s behavior and political career resemble Nixon’s. For example, in episode eight of season three, Meyer experiences a visually problematic eye twitch during a debate. This mirrors the challenge Nixon faced during his first debate against JFK, in which Nixon looked uncomfortable because of his knee injury. Additionally, like Nixon, Meyer committed election interference to secure the presidency by working with a foreign government. But isolated examples such as these are not where the similarities stop: Meyer also possesses key Nixonian qualities.
One of Nixon’s characteristics that Meyer embodies is described best by historian Joan Hoff. Hoff describes Nixon using a term he coined: “aprincipled.” In his book Nixon Reconsidered, Hoff explains the distinction between an aprincipled and unprincipled person:
An unprincipled person is one who consciously lacks moral scruples and is presumably
aware that standards are being violated. In contrast, the aprincipled person, seldom
reforms his behavior or expresses remorse for transgressions against societal norms
because there is no conscious admission of wrongdoing — no apparent awareness of
conventional moral or ethical standards. (Hoff 3)
Meyer displays this attribute throughout the series and exemplifies it toward the end when she betrays her daughter to win the presidency. At this point in the show, Catherine has told her mother she is dating a woman. Yet, when choosing between gaining a governor’s support that would ensure her political survival and banning same-sex marriage, Meyer does not hesitate to make the politically expedient choice: “In exchange for your support, I will raw-dog a plank right up our party’s platform, and I will outlaw same-sex marriage.” Notably, Meyer mentions this position goes against her party’s platform. Like Meyer, Nixon had no problem betraying his party’s ideology if it was a politically wise decision, which left conservatives feeling betrayed. As Hoff observes, as an aprincipled person, Nixon did not view his tendency to go against his party’s domestic policies — which ostensibly reflected his ideology — as immoral. Rather, Nixon’s ideological flexibility was a cornerstone of his political strategy. When Catherine angrily confronts her mother for agreeing to overturn same-sex marriage, Meyer demonstrates a lack of remorse and infidelity to her party’s ideology: “Can you believe I’m having to deal with this right now? … It is just the party platform. It’s like a to-do list of things we’re not gonna do.” This interaction shows that Meyer is aprincipled, which is a key Nixonian quality.
Nixon’s refusal to conform his policy proposals to conservative ideology exemplifies one of his political strategies known as “triangulation,” which Meyer also uses. The term was coined by political commentator Dick Morris, who explained that triangulation means “[taking] the best from each party’s agenda, and [coming] to a solution somewhere above the positions of each party.” Meyer demonstrates triangulation in the second episode of season three when she contemplates her stance on a cutoff date for women seeking abortions: “We [just can’t go] over 40… I can’t stick to 24 weeks now because that’s gonna make me the most liberal … [compared to my opponents].” Here, Meyer uses triangulation by trying to find a middle ground between a liberal and conservative abortion policy. This instance shows that Meyer bases her domestic policy on political considerations rather than personal convictions — a well-known Nixonian tendency.
While Meyer gained the power and influence she desired, like Nixon, she left a terrible legacy. Although Nixon had significantly more achievements than Meyer, he is nonetheless remembered similarly by many Americans as corrupt and unsuccessful. Nixon and Meyer’s story should cause Machiavellian political thinkers to reconsider a critical question: do the ends always justify the means?