Jejudo, South Korea
It was much later that I discovered blue jays don't eat peanuts, at least not when live insects are readily available. It was nice that a blue jay visited my yard shortly after putting out peanuts, a coincidence likely spurred simply because I was looking more closely for him, but it had nothing at all to do with the peanuts. Not surprisingly, putting out more peanuts didn't result in more coincidences.
It motivated you to look more closely at what you are doing. It motivated you to realize that crickets are more tasty than peanuts.
I don't think it's such a bad analogy for the initial phase. Nor do I think its bad for the second phase under Nixon.
Now, let's say you have a neighbor that derides your peanut experiment, not because he knows that peanuts aren't as tasty as crickets but because he thinks Jays are going to eat up all your peanuts when you aren't looking and then come screaming for more. In his stranger moments, he has memory flashes from a Hitchcock movie.
But he notices that your experiment worked. Nobody has worked out why yet, but he decides that if a little thing is a good thing than a lot has to be better. He buys a lot of peanuts, gives them to neighbors who don't care about Jays, spends a lot of time placing peanuts in places that didn't need them in the first place, and what happens?
Nothing much except that everybody starts screaming about peanuts.
So, you're watchful neighbor starts saying that he had been right all along. It just doesn't work.
And it was your fault all along.
But you, you're doing just fine, because you've already graduated to crickets.
That doesn't cover everything of course, but it's pretty much why I don't think Nixon's actions are paradoxical.