“We’re up against an enemy, a conspiracy. They’re using any means. We are going to use any means. Is that clear?”
— Richard Nixon to H.R. Haldeman and Henry Kissinger on July 1, 1971, transcript of Oval Office tapes.
*
“The sad residue of Watergate was so many people saw that their president had lied for 15 months, and saw it so vividly and directly, that a basic cynicism started in this country … I don’t believe anything that comes out of Washington. It seems to me that both political parties are in a conspiracy, for some reason, not to tell us the truth.”
— Henry Ruth, Deputy Special Prosecutor, Watergate
The House Judiciary Committee indulged in some bizarre (and lame) theatrics in bringing Watergate co-conspirator-turned-star-witness John Dean to “testify” on the “historical context” of the Mueller Report. The sad residue of Watergate, indeed.
The mere fact that — 47 years after the break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC — we reflexively attach the suffix “gate” to scandals of every stripe is sufficient evidence that we are living in the long shadow of the events of 1972–74.
Dean’s appearance was a bit of personal synchronicity for me, because I had spent about six hours of travel time on a deep dive into Watergate with a variety of podcasts and documentaries. Why? Can’t really say — except that I was nagged by a sense that the faultlines have become a chasm in our political culture were first ripped open by the interrelated calamities of the Vietnam War and Watergate. And I didn’t feel like I knew enough about it.
Watergate loomed like a toxic grey shadow in my childhood. I was too young to have any grasp of the events, but I remember Nixon’s resignation, which happened when I was eight years old. I remember my parents — particularly my mother — being utterly dismayed. My mom had a variety of esoteric spiritual beliefs, an above-average helping of artistic talent — and an authoritarian streak that gravitated to Richard Nixon’s brand of big-government conservatism. For about a decade after Watergate, she insisted that Lyndon Johnson had done worse (probably true) and that Nixon had been persecuted by “the liberals” and the press.
She would have vomited at the sight of John Dean testifying last week. She hated that guy; thought he was a slimy rat that was only out for himself. Which is hard to disagree with. I can’t stand to listen to him pontificate either. Nevertheless, he did tell the truth in 1973 about the wrongdoing in the Oval Office. The fatal tapes proved him out.
It wasn’t until a tranche of those tapes were released in 1987 that showed Nixon to be foul-mouthed, petty, anti-semitic, a crook and a liar, that she acknowledged that he really did have to go.
The tragedy is that Nixon was probably the best-prepared and most qualified man to ever hold the office. He’d served in the military, had practiced law, served as a congressman, a Senator, (almost) governor of a major state and as Vice President of the United States. He was, by all accounts, truly brilliant in his ability to suss out geopolitical and strategic trends, and his “opening to China” and détente with the Soviet Union were significant and lasting triumphs.
He also carried around a super-sized chip on his shoulder because he wasn’t cool like Kennedy, was mean as a rick of rattlesnakes and had a paranoid streak as wide as a California interstate. His morose self-pity wasn’t just grotesque — it was a major character flaw and it helped to bring him down.
At every turn in the Watergate scandal, he chose to do the wrong thing. Character is fate.
The Watergate paradigm is all over the current circus in Washington, DC. Trumpster Roger Stone has a tattoo of Nixon’s face on his back. Seriously.
The President himself has Twitter instead of tapes, and a Nixonian tangle of character flaws without compensating brilliance. The Democratic Party wanted so badly for the Mueller Report to set the table for a Watergate-style takedown of Donald Trump that they were gobsmacked when they discovered that the special counsel wasn’t going to hand them a “smoking gun.” Many in the media would love nothing more to be in on the kill, but they lack the journalistic chops of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — and they don’t understand that bloviating in cable TV panel discussions isn’t the same thing as the careful, unglamorous work Woodward and Bernstein and other reporters did back in the ’70s.
The spectacle gives credence to Karl Marx’s old saw that history repeats itself “first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Thing is, Watergate looms gigantic — yet it is little understood. It’s well worth taking some time to dig into the story, because we’re living in the blast crater of that third-rate burglary and shabby coverup right now, and will likely be for decades to come.
*
(Note: The original version of this post stated that Nixon was governor of a major state. That is incorrect. He ran for governor of California in 1962 and lost, leading to his famous statement to the press that “you don’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”(
*
Slate’s Slow Burn podcast won all kinds of kudos and deservedly so.
I got a lot out of Watergate + 30.
Watergate: The Secret Story was worthy, too.
Probably the best piece was this one:
Bill Valenti says
I had an interesting perch (Chinese translator in the Army, stationed in SE Asia) from which to observe both Nixon’s historic trip to China in 1972, and the beginning of the end as the Watergate scandal consumed his presidency. In both cases, it was fascinating to eavesdrop on Chinese radio chatter about “Ni Ke Sun Dzung Tung”. Of course, Mao and his successors would never have allowed such a small matter to upend their regimes. Nixon is still highly regarded in China.
You have had a ringside seat to a few interesting aspects of the American Century.
David A. Woodbury says
Bill, when were you in Vietnam? I assume with the ASA.
Bill Valenti says
David, I was not in Vietnam, but at a small NSA listening post on the Thai/Laos border (Nong Kai ) in 1972–1973. I was a Chinese (and French) linguist with ASA. Were you also in ASA?
David A. Woodbury says
I was with ASA in Germany 1972–73 as a cryptanalyst after a year in Monterey in the Russian language course. I took Russian for a year in college prior to that. I’ve nearly completed a new novel which follows a character placed in Vietnam (I have others on Amazon). The character in the new one is kidnapped and removed from Tan Son Nhut air base by Chinese infiltrators into the South Vietnamese army. I own damnyankee.com as a personal web site but have migrated my work from there to damnyankee.us. I was not in SE Asia myself, so I have been hoping to find a person to critique part of this book for authenticity. I first read about you somewhere else (I forget where) and it sounds as though you’ve had a fascinating career and life, as a musician as well as linguist and activist. Thanks for getting back to me.
Bill Valenti says
We must have been in Monterey/DLI at the same time (1971). I recall that the Russian consulate in San Francisco liked to show its savvy by congratulating all the Russian language grads at DLI with an ad in the local Monterey newspaper (and the Russkies are still at it!).
Sorry I can’t provide authenticity input on the Vietnam scene. I do know quite a few Vietnam vets from my involvement with SoldierSongs. Would it be helpful if I contacted one of those folks?
I’m keen to read your novel!
David Woodbury says
Bill — You said you are keen to read my novel. Will you send me an email address? You can reach me at woodburymaine@roadrunner.com. I would like to send you a PDF draft of the novel that I mentioned above. If you don’t get around to perusing it that’s OK. In the novel, besides what takes place at Davis Station in Vietnam, much of the latter half of it takes place in Tientsin (Tianjin) in 1969–1970, and I have presumed to delve into the language a bit — not my area of expertise! I’m a Russian linguist. I would just like to have someone say whether it sounds authentic, the settings and the language. I will soon pursue publishing it, and as I may have mentioned, I have four other books on various topics available at Amazon in paperback and for Kindle. The easiest way to find me there is to search Amazon books for Fire, Wind & Yesterday, and that will bring up a link to the author profile and titles, or see my personal web site, damnyankee.us. Oh, and incidentally, one of my characters, a girl whose brother goes missing in Vietnam and is spirited off to Tientsin, becomes a “penpal” (in her opinion anyway) with President Nixon while he is in office. He’s in it only briefly, but the book treats him in a more kindly light than history now affords him. Again, my question to you is whether the elements in China sound authentic as well as the Mandarin used now and then. I think the book is good and, I hope, funny in its own way. Thank you!
Traven Torsvan says
I literally could not follow any of the russiagate stuff or the creepy cult of personality that formed around Murller. The MSNBC brand of the capital R Resistance is just the liberal version of Glenn Beck conspiracy mongering.
https://theoutline.com/post/7402/towards-a-unified-theory-of-resistance-lit?zd=2&zi=omuvx746
Saddle Tramp says
Still trying to be hopeful, but not delusional. That is a very thin strip of real estate to occupy these days. I have been by Nixon’s Library & Museum in Yorba Linda but never went inside. The helicopter is out on the lawn on static display. I guess I should go check it out. I have been to Reagan’s Library out in Simi Valley though. He got the plane. As far as a characters goes, LBJ is far more interesting. I watched the exhaustive interviews with biographer Robert Caro who I take very seriously as an accredited choice. By the way Nixon was never a governor of a major state. Perhaps that was an oversight. It still does not take away from his vast governmental experience to your point. If we had a lineup of presidents who would come out as being the most corrupt is a little tricky. Perfection scares me. It’s sort of a sliding scale. Thanks for the video suggestions Jim. I have seen some but will be rewatching all tonight. My take now is we are in uncharted waters and I am well aware of all those other past discretions and out right abuses. Nixon at the time was the culmination of a long brewing reckoning. Well, maybe I will see what the Nixon Library is up to this weekend. Seems to be a proper pilgrimage for these times. Oh, and regarding Roger Stone, even if time has been somewhat kinder to Nixon you really have to be whacked to have Nixon riding on your back forever and much deserving of some gallows humor…
Correct on the governor faux pas. He ran for governor of California in 1962 and lost, leading to his famous statement to the press that “you don’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”
lane batot says
Even as a kid(at the time), I wondered–what was the Big Deal about Watergate? I understood the President had LIED about it all, which was bad, of course, but even at that young an age, I was already rather cynical and distrusting of politicians generally–I mean, they ALL lie all the time, don’t they? And everybody getting up in arms because someone spied on campaign plans? That seems absolutely laughable compared to the accusations and par-for-the-course mendacity these days! At least politicians used to TRY to have good images of morality and decency, even if in reality, they often did not live up to them. Nowadays, they don’t even try!
Saddle Tramp says
That would be:
“As far as characters go, LBJ …”
And
“past indiscretions…”
I would also add that this [should] be a lesson against apathy. Democracy is like a lawn that needs continuous mowing as it will always grow back. I say that cautiously and to the extent it is possible. The papers may burn, but the words still get out as another great American has said…