Vice President JD Vance's recent praise of former President Richard Nixon has drawn sharp rebukes from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and economist Peter Schiff. Clinton says today's Republican Party rolls over for President Donald Trump, while Schiff believes Vance wants to take the party back to the Nixon era—but that the GOP has already changed beyond recognition.

Schiff Says Vance Wants a Return to the Nixon Era

Schiff, in a post on X Sunday, laid out a quick history lesson: the Republican Party was once dominated by liberal "Rockefeller Republicans," while conservative "Goldwater Republicans" were a minority until "Reagan led a successful conservative revolution." Then he dropped the punchline: "JD Vance wants to return the party to the Nixon era."

Vance's remarks came Thursday at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, where he was promoting his new book, Communion. He said the Watergate scandal that forced Nixon's resignation would have been "like a 12-hour news story" in today's media environment, and argued that the "deep state" targeted Nixon in much the same way it later targeted Trump's first administration. Vance also noted that Nixon's legacy is "enjoying a bit of a renaissance" and that he has "always liked Richard Nixon."

Clinton, never one to let a historical comparison slide, responded on Saturday: "The difference between Watergate and now is that back then, Republicans actually did something about a law-breaking president. Today, they only roll over for their cult leader." She added a dig about book bans, suggesting Vance might not know the history because "it's in one of the books his administration banned."

Schiff on the GOP's Ideological Shift

When an X user asked Schiff whether today's Republican Party is still a Goldwater Republican party, Schiff replied, "No, it's already been changed." He added that the shift began under former President George W. Bush before Trump "pushed it further in that direction."

So where does that leave Vance? If Schiff is right, Vance isn't trying to resurrect some golden age of Nixon-era Republicanism—he's trying to put a Nixonian spin on a party that has already morphed into something else entirely. Nixon, after all, was a complicated figure: he created the Environmental Protection Agency and pursued détente with China, but he also resigned in disgrace over Watergate. Vance seems to admire the combative, anti-establishment side of Nixon, the one who raged against the "deep state" long before Trump made it a rallying cry.

But Clinton's point is sharper: during Watergate, Republicans like Sen. Howard Baker and Rep. Peter Rodino—both members of the party—played key roles in investigating Nixon and ultimately forcing his resignation. Today, she argues, the party's loyalty to Trump is absolute, with few willing to cross him even when he's been impeached twice and convicted in court. The contrast is stark, and Vance's nostalgia for Nixon might be missing the forest for the trees.

For retail investors, this political drama might seem distant from the markets, but it's worth paying attention to. The Republican Party's ideological direction—whether it leans toward Nixonian pragmatism, Reaganite conservatism, or Trumpian populism—has real implications for fiscal policy, regulation, and trade. Schiff, a longtime gold bug and critic of government spending, is essentially warning that the party has already abandoned its small-government roots. If that's true, investors should expect continued deficits, loose monetary policy, and a government that's more interventionist than the GOP of old.

Vance's book tour and his musings on Nixon might be just political theater, but the reactions from Clinton and Schiff highlight a deeper divide: what does the Republican Party stand for in 2026? And can a vice president who praises Nixon really lead a party that has already moved past him?