Forgetting about history: Watergate and the Nixonian mind
In my last post, I wrote that David Brooks just didn't get it. Well, David Broder reminds us that he's hardly alone.
In an excellent column in Sunday's Post, Broder reviews recent remarks by Pat Buchanan, a Nixon speechwriter, and Chuck Colson, Nixon's special counsel, both of whom have taken shots at Mark Felt. Where Brooks suggested that the major life lesson of Watergate has to do with Bob Woodward's youthful "frenzy," more or less ignoring Watergate itself, Broder is right on the mark in assessing Watergate's lasting significance:
Exactly. The main lesson of Watergate involves "the values that infected the Nixon White House," not Woodward's shameless vanity. But Brooks at least had a point -- and one with which I do not necessarily disagree -- and I even suspect that Brooks would agree that those Nixonian "values" were, well, bad. But the Nixonian apologists (and Watergate revisionists) who have emerged to try to discredit Felt, some way out on the conservative fringes, are clearly desperate to undermine Felt's credibility and to do so without addressing Watergate itself. Buchanan's lunacy was the most vivid: "There's nothing heroic about breaking faith with your people, breaking the law, sneaking around in garages, putting stuff from an investigation out to a Nixon-hating Washington Post." And then this: "[W]hat he did was help destroy an enormously popular president and, partly as a consequence of that, what 58,000 Americans died for in Vietnam was poured down the sewer."
What the hell is he talking about? The insane Vietnam comment simply doesn't deserve a response, but I would say that, whatever Felt's motivations, it is heroic to side with truth and justice against the lies and injustice of even "an enormously popular president". After all, lest the Buchanans of the world forget, it was that "enormously popular president" and those who worked for him who are to blame for Watergate, both the burglary and the cover-up, not a couple of diligent reporters who brought the story to light (even when no one believed them), and certainly not the man who pointed them in the right direction along the way. And it was that "enormously popular president" and those who worked for him who so cavalierly brought American democracy to a point of crisis from which it has still not fully recovered. Broder puts it brilliantly:
What is it they say about not learning the lessons of history?
In an excellent column in Sunday's Post, Broder reviews recent remarks by Pat Buchanan, a Nixon speechwriter, and Chuck Colson, Nixon's special counsel, both of whom have taken shots at Mark Felt. Where Brooks suggested that the major life lesson of Watergate has to do with Bob Woodward's youthful "frenzy," more or less ignoring Watergate itself, Broder is right on the mark in assessing Watergate's lasting significance:
The great benefit of W. Mark Felt's decision to identify himself as "Deep Throat," the famous Watergate secret source, is that a whole new generation of Americans now has a chance to learn just how perverse were the values that infected the Nixon White House.
Exactly. The main lesson of Watergate involves "the values that infected the Nixon White House," not Woodward's shameless vanity. But Brooks at least had a point -- and one with which I do not necessarily disagree -- and I even suspect that Brooks would agree that those Nixonian "values" were, well, bad. But the Nixonian apologists (and Watergate revisionists) who have emerged to try to discredit Felt, some way out on the conservative fringes, are clearly desperate to undermine Felt's credibility and to do so without addressing Watergate itself. Buchanan's lunacy was the most vivid: "There's nothing heroic about breaking faith with your people, breaking the law, sneaking around in garages, putting stuff from an investigation out to a Nixon-hating Washington Post." And then this: "[W]hat he did was help destroy an enormously popular president and, partly as a consequence of that, what 58,000 Americans died for in Vietnam was poured down the sewer."
What the hell is he talking about? The insane Vietnam comment simply doesn't deserve a response, but I would say that, whatever Felt's motivations, it is heroic to side with truth and justice against the lies and injustice of even "an enormously popular president". After all, lest the Buchanans of the world forget, it was that "enormously popular president" and those who worked for him who are to blame for Watergate, both the burglary and the cover-up, not a couple of diligent reporters who brought the story to light (even when no one believed them), and certainly not the man who pointed them in the right direction along the way. And it was that "enormously popular president" and those who worked for him who so cavalierly brought American democracy to a point of crisis from which it has still not fully recovered. Broder puts it brilliantly:
In these comments, Americans born in the 1970s, '80s and '90s can learn everything they need to know about the dangerous delusions of the Nixon era. The mind-set that created enemies lists, the blind loyalty to a deeply flawed individual, the twisting of historical fact to turn villains into heroes and heroes into villains -- they are all there.
Such tendencies are not unique to one White House; they go with the territory. They must be consciously resisted by men and women of conscience working within an administration and checked by those on the outside -- notably journalists -- whose job it is to monitor the presidency.
That is why excessive official secrecy is always suspect and why the isolation of a president behind a closed circle of advisers can lead to abuse of power.
Mark Felt did what whistle-blowers need to do. He took his information to reporters who diligently dug up the evidence to support his well-founded suspicions. The republic was saved and the public well served. That Colson and Buchanan still don't get it speaks volumes about them.
What is it they say about not learning the lessons of history?
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:09 AM
8 Comments:
Buchanan's comments don't really surprise me given their source. But they are really bizaar and ahistorical for a number of reasons. First, Watergate had no effect on Viet Nam. The war was over long before Nixon resigned and it's really hard to argue that the scandal had any effect on Nixon's ability to negotiate with North Viet Nam. The war was largely over (in terms of American participation) by the end of 1972, long before Watergate had any resonance in American politics.
Second, Buchanan apparently thinks that Nixon's policies were going to help South Viet Nam survive. But it's pretty clear that Nixon and Kissinger saw the Paris Accords as simply a face saving waya for the US to get out. They knew that it was unlikely that South Viet Nam could survive without US troops. Kissinger talked about the settlement providing "a decent interval" between the US leaving and South Viet Nam falling. If you think, as Buchanan presumably does, that South Viet Nam was worth fighting for, Nixon had already sold it down the river. Of course, Buchanan would probably blame Kissinger (being Jewish) for that.
And, finally, although not directly related, it's interesting to note that Buchanan had consistently stated that the US should not have become involved in the European war against the Nazis. Yet he apparently thinks we should have kept fighting in Viet Nam. What does that say about his priorities?
By
Anonymous, at 10:07 AM
Hi Michael -- I like your blog. And I agree with this post -- it really is very strange when an event of 30 years ago generates such heat in the right-wing blogosphere -- well, hmmm. . . maybe not so strange, I guess. Maybe they were afraid of having the swiftboaters on their ass if they didn't spin it.
What I also don't understand is why the right wingers try to turn EVERYTHING "their way" -- Terry Schiavo was the most blatant example of this, of course, but it seems like every bit of news that comes up has to have some kind of right-wing spin or talking point about it. Tiresome, isn't it.
By
Cathie from Canada, at 3:32 PM
What's amazing is that Buchanan is still so visible. I realize that he's one of the leading paleocons out there, but does he have to be all over MSNBC all the time? Even as guest host for Scarborough? Thanks for pointing out, Marc, that he's completely wrong on the relationship between Watergate and Vietnam. And, yes, I sense that his own priority is to fight communism at all costs but to let fascism go unchallenged. Nice.
Thanks for the kind words, Cathie. It's good to see you here. Far be it from me to comment on the right-wing blogosphere, which more and more seems to be some sort of grotesque echo chamber. It's hardly surprising that they've turned their sights on Mark Felt (who, let's face it, is hardly some bleeding-heart liberal!). You make an excellent point, though: The right is doing what the left used to do: politicize everything. It's awfully tiresome, but it may also end up harming them. Partian over-reach might be a good term for it.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:43 PM
I agree totally with Nate. A lot of the cynicism is simply mindless, but I think it reflects an American attitude that things are either perfect or awful. Prior to Viet Nam and Watergate, there was a lot of sanctimony (as there is today on the right) about the greatness of our system. When it turned out that it was actual flawed human beings running the system, people reacted in shock and began looking at the system as if it were original sin.
Of course, today, as Nate said, you see an enormous amount of apathy and cynicism. Both the left and the right have adopted this cynicism and it is corrosive and, I believe for the most part, unreasonable. But you have to have reasonable expectations; these are human institutions and will naturally be flawed. You have to remain skeptical and willing to question. That's different from being cynical and always assuming the worst about government.
By
Anonymous, at 9:32 AM
Yes, well put, Nate (it's nice to have someone thoughtful from the center-right here!). What I can add is that the cynicism isn't limited to the U.S. I haven't lived in Europe since the late-'80s, but there is certainly an extraordinary amount of cynicism in Canada at the moment. Some of that might have to do with the fact that the Liberals have been in power virtually unopposed since 1993 and with the scandals that have recently come to light. I work for the Govt. of Ontario, and whenever I tell people that I do, they fail to make a distinction between government and essentially suppose that all government is somehow corrupt, government employees simply useless. This is purely anecdotal, but it seems that cynicism is now a reality throughout the Western world, perhaps a by-product of liberal democracy itself.
It's true, too, that the lessons of Watergate -- especially the tangible corruption of power that brought down a presidency -- have not entirely been good for the left. They exposed a nasty truth about the "Establishment": that it's made up of fallible human beings, not gods. I'm not saying that there was reverence for our political leaders before Watergate. The U.S. has always had a healthy tradition of skepticism and anti-authoritarianism. But Watergate contributed to a deepening of that tradition, turning skepticism into cynicism.
Once again, too, I'm awfully impressed with the high level of comments here. And Nate makes an excellent point about the teaching of history. I hadn't necessarily thought about it in that Hegelian way, but it makes sense. Instead of a linear understanding (this happened, then this happened, then this happened...), it might indeed be a good idea to teach history in terms of Hegelian oppositions, with various syntheses propelling it forward.
What we need, I think -- and this is implicit in Marc's comment -- is a reinvigorated center that believes in government but doesn't expect it to be able to do too much. The left is skeptical of power generally, while the right is skeptical of certain loci of power. Either way, our public institutions are worse off for the bipolar bipartisanship that has come to dominate much of our political discourse.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 10:00 AM
Ah, yes, Fukuyama. A Straussian, of sorts.
It's hard to say that there's a French-like cynicism here in Canada. Generally, Canadians are quite well-disposed towards their governments, which is why the Liberal Party (the party of the major entitlement programs like health care) keeps getting re-elected federally and why all major parties at the provincial level have more or less accepted the dominant liberal consensus. There's nothing up here like the rabid anti-government rhetoric down there. There's a right-wing taxpayer federation that supports tax cuts, but, generally, that's as far as it goes. If anything, Canada is plagued by federal-provincial tensions (Canada is far more decentralized than the U.S. -- we have perhaps the envy of the American federalist movement to enhance states' rights) and regional fragmentation. On this latter point, it's generally a matter of Western alienation and Quebecois separatism, problems specific to Canada. There is certainly a good deal of cynicism at the moment, but, again, I think this has more to do with the fact that there hasn't been an effective opposition to the federal Liberals since 1993, and those Liberals have grown ever more arrogant and corrupt. And I would say, ironically, that it also reflects success. Many Canadians simply take their governments for granted -- happy to benefit from all the entitlement programs, but knee-jerkingly cynical when it comes to politicians and their motivations. It's an anti-politics that comes, I think, when a liberal democracy is successful.
I used to live in Germany and I've spent a good deal of time in the U.K. (where my family lives), and so I have some understanding of where the French are coming from. To me, they're like the spoiled child that pouts and whines just to get some attention. They want to be a major player, but, really, they're not. But I do think that France is actually a fairly complex place, and the E.U. vote does reflect real disaffection among the electorate. It's a country run hierarchically by a technocratic elite, and the vote was as much against that elite (and Chirac himself) as against Europe.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:43 PM
The level of cynicism throughout the West is disturbing, especially as we hope to promote democracy in other places.
There obviously are specific reasons for the cynicism in the US, such as Watergate and Viet Nam, but it seems to me that much of the source (at least here) comes from the kind of extreme individualism that we see. People assume that, because government doesn't deliver perfect solutions on demand that politicians are inherently corrupt or stupid. There is no appreciation for the complexity of issues and how difficult it is to formulate effective public policy. IMO, this stems, in part, from a culture in which instant gratification is considered a birthright. And problems are solved on TV and movies in a an hour or two no matter how difficult. There is a certain self-absorbtion running through the electorate which, on the one hand decries porkbarrel politics, but on the other expects their officials to get what they can for their home districts.
But the intelligentsia has contributed as well, with its theories of alientation. One would expect intellectuals to be more attuned to the gray areas of public policy and to have more empathy for politicians. But they don't; instead they simply assume that they system (wherever it is) sucks, in large part because they are not running it.
In America, we have grown up with the idea that we are entitled to whatever we want--cheap gasoline, low inflation, imported goods yet lots of jobs. There is no appreciation that the rest of the world exists. China, for example, is competing with the US for gasoline and causing our prices to rise. IMO, Americans simply have no recognition that we are a part of the world and that other countries don't exist simply for our benefit. So, when things go wrong, we blame the government.
By
Anonymous, at 3:56 PM
Marc, your commments actually go back to Nate's point that the left deserves some of the blame for all the post-Watergate cynicism, insofar as the left has generally encouraged anti-establishmentarianism, that is, a skepticism towards all forms of authority. And certainly this has been partly the work of the left-wing intelligentsia (and left-wing academia).
But your broader point about America's me-culture (Christopher Lasch's culture of narcissism) is well-taken. As someone who works in government (I'm a policy analyst), I know first-hand how difficult it is to develop public policy. And even when you do, it's bound to displease someone. What I've found here is that there is immense concern for the public welfare, even if the public isn't aware of, let alone appreciate the work we do.
But the problem is ultimately much larger than government. What we're talking about is a long-term cultural-philosophical development rooted in liberal democracy itself. It's the dark side, if you will, of the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Jefferson) or property (Locke). And I'm just not sure what can be done about it, except to encourage those institutions (such as the family, religion, the military, and so forth) that offer some sort of counterweight to what has become a grasping, unabashed individualism.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home