Watergate 40 Years Later
Posted on June 9th, 2012 in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
In what is apparently their first co-bylined piece since 1976, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ask the question, “What was Watergate?”
Their answer?
“Five successive and overlapping wars — against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.”
It’s a fascinating piece and essential reading to counter those historical revisionists out there who would downplay the scandal. Even today, 40 years later, Watergate retains the power to shock.
4 Responses
6/9/2024 12:11 pm
against the anti-Vietnam War movement, the news media, the Democrats, the justice system and, finally, against history itself. All reflected a mind-set and a pattern of behavior that were uniquely and pervasively Nixon’s: a willingness to disregard the law for political advantage, and a quest for dirt and secrets about his opponents as an organizing principle of his presidency.”
The first three on their list were the political opposition. Of course Richard Nixon was ‘at war’ with them, in a metaphorical sense, and they with him. The notion that he and his confederates were at war against ‘the justice system’ and ‘history itself’ [!] cannot be taken seriously. (Just what does it mean to be at war with ‘history itself’? Do these two buffoons have any internal editor or sense checker?).
Given that his predecessors included Lyndon Johnson and Joseph Kennedy’s son, the notion that Richard Nixon was ‘uniquely’ unscrupulous will be amusing to many.
6/10/2024 6:49 am
You should probably read the rest of the article, AD. If it’s not convincing to you that there was indeed something unique about Nixon’s venality, you probably don’t want to be convinced.
6/10/2024 9:11 am
I read the newspapers at the time and John Dean’s memoirs. For reasons irrelevant to this discussion, I do not take Robert U. Woodward particularly seriously.
If it’s not convincing to you that there was indeed something unique about Nixon’s venality,
Please recall Margaret Mead’s remark: “Just remember you are absolutely unique, just like everyone else”. Of course Mr. Nixon’s vices had a signature pattern of expression. So do mine, and so, indubitably, do yours. The question at hand would be whether Mr. Nixon was demonstrably the most troublesome character who had occupied the White House to date. That thesis was given a spirited debunking by Nicholas von Hoffman thirty years ago in the The New Republic. You read it then, no? Why not read it again.
1. Nixon was mendacious and hypocritical in a manner and degree which offended other politicians (e.g. Gerald Ford and Barry Goldwater); so was B. Clinton.
2. Nixon cheated on his taxes (regrettably common among the self-employed, among others); I do not think LBJ’s business affairs would survive much scrutiny, but we can check Robert Caro’s oeuvre on this question.
3. Nixon harassed his political opponents. Please see von Hoffman on this point: “Nixon’s civil liberties record compares favorably to any wartime president other than Wm. McKinley”. Much of what John Dean reports is almost comical: madcap schemes to firebomb the Brookings Institution, auditing the tax returns of the yo-yo’s who published Scanlan’s Monthly, Gordon Liddy’s “Operation Gemstone”. Von Hoffman’s point is as follows: a) the FBI had been doing black-bag jobs for years, b) they refused to do them for Nixon, c) the Nixon Administration hired a pick-up team to do them composed of tyros (Krogh, Colson), rogues (Hunt, Liddy, Ulaszewicz), Howard Hunt’s Keystone Cubans (Barker et al), and the very reluctant (Caulfield, McCord).
Please recall Nixon’s domestic life was among the more unblemished of any post-Edwardian president. Five of the last 16 presidents were serial adulterers. Kennedy was by far the worst, but at least two others were routinely banging tramps while in office. Nixon’s daughters managed to be very public personalities without being highly embarrassing. (Remember the Reagan brood?) He had a small circle of friends, but those friendships (what is known of them) were deep and strong (Contrast that with Ronald Reagan). There were a number of crudniks around him, but also a number of reasonable people who were both fond and loyal (Rose Woods, Pat Buchanan &c). No man is a hero to his valet? Nixon was to Manolo Sanchez. You gotta look at all of it.
6/10/2024 11:41 am
I have looked at the article. When you prune away the rhetorical thrusts, there is nothing there that was not a matter of public record 35 years ago.
Now, consider this howler:
For reasons that have never been made clear, the break-in [fo the Brookings Institution] apparently was not carried out.
John Dean discusses this episode at length in his memoir, delineating the conversations that occurred between Charles Colson and John Caulfield (as related by the Caulfield), Caulfield and himself, and John Ehrlichman and himself. John Caulfield (and, presumably, Anthony Ulaszewicz) thought the whole scheme unworkable and the risks stupefying (“this guy Colson is crazy”). Dean flew to California and had a face-to-face meeting with John Ehrlichman to persuade him to put the kibosh on it. Ehrlichman called Colson in Dean’s presence and did just that.
The ‘war on justice’ turns out to have been the efforts to pay off Messrs. McCord et al. in return for their silence. My local county court was uncorrupted by these acts.
The ‘war on history’ turns out to be Mr. Nixon’s arguments on his own behalf, and the arguments of those who questioned and criticized the Woodstein narrative.
Stick a fork in these guys.