I wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone.
"I wouldn’t trust Nixon from here to that phone." So spoke Barry Goldwater, a man of fierce independence and sharp tongue, about the president who had once commanded the confidence of a nation. This saying, though simple and almost casual in its phrasing, carries the weight of a great truth about trust: that it is the foundation of leadership, and once broken, even the smallest distance becomes too far to bridge.
In these words we hear the echo of the ancients, who taught that a king without trust is no king at all. The armies may obey, the people may bow, the empire may seem unshaken, but if the heart of the people no longer believes in the word of their leader, then the throne already trembles. Goldwater’s judgment upon Richard Nixon was not merely about politics; it was about character, and the eternal law that deceit corrodes authority until nothing remains but suspicion.
The origin of this quote lies in the time of the Watergate scandal, when the truth of deception and abuse of power by Nixon’s administration came crashing down upon the world. Once, Nixon had been entrusted with the highest office, the keeper of the republic’s honor. Yet his actions unraveled that sacred bond. Goldwater’s sharp remark captured what millions felt: that even a man who sat in the highest chair could not be trusted to cross the distance to a single telephone without suspicion of betrayal.
History offers other such examples. Think of Julius Caesar, who trusted in the loyalty of his senators, only to be struck down by those closest to him. And yet, the reverse is also true: his own ambition had eroded trust among his peers, who came to believe he would make himself king. In both the betrayal of Caesar and the fall of Nixon, the lesson is the same: when trust is broken, even the mightiest are vulnerable, and even the smallest gesture becomes suspect.
Goldwater’s words also hold power for our private lives. How many friendships, marriages, or partnerships crumble not from great disasters, but from the quiet erosion of trust? A lie here, a betrayal there, and soon the distance between two souls feels greater than oceans. Without trust, no relationship—whether between nations or between lovers—can endure. And without the courage to live truthfully, we all risk finding ourselves distrusted, even in the smallest of matters.
Therefore, O listeners, learn this wisdom: trust is sacred currency. It cannot be bought with gold, nor restored once squandered. Guard it as you would guard your life. Speak truth, even when it costs you. Keep your promises, even when they are hard. For the one who is trusted is richer than kings, and the one who is distrusted is poorer than beggars.
And let this be the clear action: if you lead, lead with integrity; if you follow, follow with discernment. Do not give your faith to those who betray it, and do not betray the faith of those who give it to you. For, as Goldwater’s words remind us, a man who cannot be trusted to reach even the telephone without suspicion is a man already undone, no matter how high his station.
Thus, the teaching stands: trust is the pillar of power, the thread of friendship, the bond of all human order. Guard it, honor it, live by it—and you shall never fear the judgment spoken over Nixon, that damning verdict of a man once great, now reduced to a shadow of disbelief.
HTMinh Hoang Thi
What stands out to me here is how casually brutal the comment is. It’s not just about distrust — it’s about total rejection of character. It makes me wonder how history might view such moments of open skepticism. Was this statement prophetic, or just political posturing? Either way, it highlights how essential trust is in governance — once lost, even the smallest distance becomes too far to bridge.
TNNguyen Thi Nham
This remark reflects the moral disillusionment that often follows political scandals. It’s easy to sense frustration behind the words — perhaps even betrayal. It makes me think about how personal relationships among political figures influence national decisions. When trust collapses at the top, how far down does the damage go? Maybe the real tragedy isn’t one leader’s dishonesty, but the erosion of public faith that follows.
KNPhan Thi Kim Ngan
I find this quote fascinating for its emotional economy. It says so much with so little. There’s sarcasm, disappointment, and moral judgment all packed into one sentence. It raises the broader question: what should loyalty look like in politics? Should it be unwavering, even in the face of wrongdoing, or should honesty take precedence, even if it means turning against one’s own party or peers?
VALuyen Viet Anh
This statement feels almost cinematic — short, biting, and full of implication. It makes me reflect on how trust functions in politics. Once a leader loses it, words alone can’t rebuild it. I wonder if this kind of blunt honesty is rare today because politicians fear alienating allies. Would more transparency about distrust make politics healthier, or would it simply expose how fractured political relationships really are?
ATBui thi anh tuyet
The tone here feels both cutting and weary, like someone who’s seen too much dishonesty in politics. It makes me think about how difficult it must be to maintain faith in leadership when deception becomes normalized. What fascinates me is how one politician openly distrusting another can erode public confidence as well. Does expressing distrust publicly serve as a moral stand — or just deepen division within a political system?