(Ed) 30... make that 35 Years Ago: Nixon Resigned

[Brown]

Today, 9 August 2004, is the 30th anniversary of the resignation of Richard M. Nixon from the office of President of the United States.

It is unfortunate that the historical reasons for the resignation have been clouded in the national consciousness. Few people know why Nixon got caught up in the Watergate scandal. Even fewer understand why Watergate was a scandal. Still fewer know why he resigned. Nixon himself asserted that the reason for his resignation was not any wrongdoing on his part; rather, he blamed Congress for his resignation, as the members of Congress no longer provided him with political support to achieve any of his goals:

Quote:

In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.

But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served, and there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.
...
From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

What had Nixon done? He had put into operation a secret system of spying and sabotaging his enemies. His enemies were not foreign enemies, but domestic enemies, Americans who shared political views that differed from his own. The Watergate burglary was one of many covert operations carried out by Nixon's supporters.

After the burglars got caught, they basically put the squeeze on the White House for money. Nixon realized (as he had been explicitly told by his chief of staff) that the money used to fund many of these covert operations, including the Watergate burglary, could be traced to his own reelection committee.

As recordings of his conversations showed, Nixon was fully aware of code names for the covert operations, and the fact that covert operations existed was no surprise to him. There is little evidence that Nixon participated in planning the Watergate burglary, or authorizing it in advance. There is considerably more evidence that top-ranking members of Nixon's staff authorized the operation.

One of the recordings of Nixon's White House conversations included something very serious: Nixon directed his people to tell the FBI and the Justice Department not to investigate any further into the Watergate matter. The reason? Good old "National Security." It was a completely bogus reason, and it did not withstand examination.

There was much more to the story, but in the end, Nixon had been caught in several very public lies. Many in Congress had supported the president in his public announcements, only to find that recordings of his White House conversations showed that the president's public pronouncements had been false. Some of these supporters, who understandably felt betrayed, withdrew their support. In his resignation speech, Nixon said they, not him, were responsible for his decision to resign.

Nixon was never impeached. Had he not resigned, he surely would have been.

The Nixon presidency has been likened to a Shakespearean tragedy. The analogy is apt. Nixon had the potential to be one of the greatest presidents in the history of the country, but his mistrust of people and the political process doomed his chances for success. His many accomplishments have been overshadowed by a sequence of events that were politically unnecessary: a sequence of events that Nixon could have easily avoided.

[Charlie Monoxide]

C-Span ran an interview with Nixon (from 1992) after he wrote a book, whose title I'm blanking on. He displayed a lot of candor in the interview and never played down the Watergate debacle. He also never 'fessed up to any wrong doing as well. He seemed especially proud of the fact he opened up China to the western world.

I must admit he came across as a damn charming fellow. I never really noticed his charisma before.

Charlie ("I am no criminal") Monoxide

[c0rbin]

Good stuff.

Nice post.

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin
Good stuff.

Nice post.

Ditto. Completely unbiased assessment.

[Brown]

Bumped in anticipation of the 35th Anniversary of Nixon's downfall.

Additional threads discussing Nixon's resignation appear here and here.

[Tricky]

I was twenty-one years old in 1974 when Nixon resigned. At the time, I thought he was the most evil man in the world. In retrospect, I realize that this was highly politicized and I was very naive. He was a nasty, smutty, bigoted, paranoid, hateful man, but as for evil, many people have outdone him. In truth, he taught me a lot about politics and what a dirty business it is. He made me more skeptical and more cynical. Maybe he deserves some thanks for being the bad example that opened my eyes.

He still deserved to go to prison for a long time. Better people than him did time, including his subordinates that he threw under the bus.

[Brown]

I have bumped the thread because I have noticed a sad decline in the understanding of the so-called "Watergate" events, and how they led to Nixon's downfall. There are very few who know the players and the dynamics and the interests and the twists and the back-stabbings and heroics.

It will not surprise me one bit if one or more self-proclaimed news organizations run stories that: (1) are overly simplistic if not factually wrong; (2) show that the public has largely forgotten what Watergate is about--and that many members of the public never knew in the first place.

I wonder whether the experience might be comparable to that of a witness to the US Civil War, who, near the turn of the century, saw that his fellows had forgotten why the war was fought--and that many of his fellows never really knew what the war was about in the first place. It may have been that at around 1900, it was "common knowledge" that "The Civil War was fought to end slavery." Many say such a thing even today. And though there is truth in it, the causes and dynamics of the war were far more complicated.

How am I supposed to feel when someone suggests that Nixon resigned because he helped plot a break-in at a hotel? (See this thread, in which Penn Jillette erroneously--and apparently seriously--says that Watergate involved people had breaking into a psychiatrist's office in a hotel.) There is some truth in it, but it misses the key facts and interreactions among the players... as well as the historical lessons. In the coming days, I am almost dreading listening to people discuss the following questions.

Why did Nixon resign?

What did Nixon do wrong?

Was the whole thing just a charade trumped up by the Democratic party to force Nixon from power?

[Brown]

Here is a link to a thread about the resignation of Richard Nixon and what his offense was.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I was twenty-one years old in 1974 when Nixon resigned.

I'm surprised they let you have interwebs access in the nursing home Tricky.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by corplinx

I'm surprised they let you have interwebs access in the nursing home Tricky.

They don't. I reprogrammed the heart monitor.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Brown

I have bumped the thread because I have noticed a sad decline in the understanding of the so-called "Watergate" events, and how they led to Nixon's downfall. There are very few who know the players and the dynamics and the interests and the twists and the back-stabbings and heroics.

My all-time favorite Watergate (non-scoundrel) was Martha Mitchell and her drunken (maybe) phone calls to reporters regarding her insider information regarding Watergate. She was villified by Nixon but it turned out a lot of what she said was correct.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

My all-time favorite Watergate (non-scoundrel) was Martha Mitchell and her drunken (maybe) phone calls to reporters regarding her insider information regarding Watergate. She was villified by Nixon but it turned out a lot of what she said was correct.

Drunk Dial for Justice!

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Brown

Here is a link to a thread about the resignation of Richard Nixon and what his offense was.

I had just come back from a chemistry lab when I heard the news. Nobody was surprised. Nixon's web of lies had been tightening around him for weeks. Several of his co-conspirators were already charged with crimes. The so-called "smoking gun" tape and the 18½ minute gap in another one of the recordings were the nails in the coffin.

What I will never understand though is why Nixon recorded everything. As paranoid a person as he was, I would think that he would realize that such a record could be used against him. Maybe he wasn't very techno-savvy, I dunno. It certainly taught a lesson to future presidents, and by the time the Iran-Contra scandal was big news, no recordings of anything were to be found, and the term "plausible deniability" became popular.

It was a time that changed the nation, some for better some for worse. Presidents have more accountability than they once did, but now, every little mistake results in a cry for impeachment. Also it created the practice of tacking "gate" to almost every scandal. Maybe that was the worst effect.

[tomwaits]

Alan Greenspan has a fascinating section in his autobiography about Nixon. As you may know, Greenspan worked as an economic advisor for Nixon and Ford. He tells a story about how he went to a meeting that Nixon had called. Greenspan came in with all his economic figures and was prepared to talk fiscal policy, but was unexpectedly treated to a diatribe about how they needed to defeat the opposition and how the Dems were the enemy, etc.

He said Nixon and Clinton were "by far the smartest presidents [he] worked with", but Nixon had an angry, bitter side to him that would eventually be his downfall. Greenspan writes this:

Quote:

A member of the Clinton administration once was accusing Nixon of anti-Semitism, and I said "You don't understand. He wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro. He hated everybody. He would say awful things about Henry Kissinger, yet he appointed him secretary of state."

[coalesce]

I heard an interesting observation on NPR not too long ago about Nixon. By today's standards, Nixon would be considered too liberal for some hard-core conservatives. Nixon started the EPA, opened the door to China and almost pulled off a National healthcare program with the help of Ted Kennedy. How do you think some of the conservative radio talk show hosts would react to all that?

Michael

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by coalesce

I heard an interesting observation on NPR not too long ago about Nixon. By today's standards, Nixon would be considered too liberal for some hard-core conservatives. Nixon started the EPA, opened the door to China and almost pulled off a National healthcare program with the help of Ted Kennedy. How do you think some of the conservative radio talk show hosts would react to all that?

Well, I've also heard some liberals take issue with that assessment. I've heard it argued that he was pretty much concerned mostly with foreign policy, and basically signed whatever bill was put in front of him because he wasn't interested in putting up a fight on domestic issues.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And what happened to Checkers afterwards?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by coalesce

I heard an interesting observation on NPR not too long ago about Nixon. By today's standards, Nixon would be considered too liberal for some hard-core conservatives. Nixon started the EPA, opened the door to China and almost pulled off a National healthcare program with the help of Ted Kennedy. How do you think some of the conservative radio talk show hosts would react to all that?

Michael

Not to mention wage and price controls and food stamps. Nixon was always a moderate, but because he was hated on the Vietnam War issue by the left they blew him up into this awful bogeyman (I was on the left at the time and bought it). His presidency was in many ways more liberal than Clinton's but not for their respective times. Clinton was about as liberal as he could be and still get elected; Nixon was about as conservative as he could be and still get elected.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide

...I never really noticed his charisma before....

That makes two of us, only I still haven't.

I'm older than Tricky, and I remember Dick Nixon from waaaay back. People didn't loathe him (few really hated the man; hatred is like ammunition, you save it for a worthwhile target) on ideological grounds but rather for the way he made them feel.

How did it feel to have Nixon to kick around? Dirty, disgusting, and embarassing. You felt half-foolish; how could you endure a guy like that in public life?

People say he was intelligent? Really? How does an intelligent man get himself into such a sordid hole? Maybe I define "intelligence" too broadly, but I don't see anything in the life and times of Nichard Rixon that rises higher than low cunning. Hell, any fool can tell lies.

We've all known small-statured men who give the impression of being taller than they are; self-respect can account for that, and of course respect for others. Betcha didn't know that Nixie stood 5'11". I've talked to people who met him, and plenty of others who saw him on public occasions, and they all remember him as short and hunched -- about 5'6". How often do you encounter a man like that? How do you explain him when you do?

Long before his downfall, I made myself a little promise: someday, I'm going to whizz on R. Nixon's grave. I expect I'll have to stand in line.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by sackett

That makes two of us, only I still haven't.

I'm older than Tricky, and I remember Dick Nixon from waaaay back. People didn't loathe him (few really hated the man; hatred is like ammunition, you save it for a worthwhile target) on ideological grounds but rather for the way he made them feel.

How did it feel to have Nixon to kick around? Dirty, disgusting, and embarassing. You felt half-foolish; how could you endure a guy like that in public life?

People say he was intelligent? Really? How does an intelligent man get himself into such a sordid hole? Maybe I define "intelligence" too broadly, but I don't see anything in the life and times of Nichard Rixon that rises higher than low cunning. Hell, any fool can tell lies.

You think there is a good connection between inteligence and wisdom? Isn't woo very common at Mensa meetings?

[sackett]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You think there is a good connection between inteligence and wisdom? Isn't woo very common at Mensa meetings?

Well, I suggested that maybe I define "intelligence" too loosely. I'm no psychologist; I see dirtbag skullduggery and heartless cynicism as failures of intelligence.

But maybe I should call them failures of imagination. A guy who can't see where he's heading any better than Tricky Dick did is neither very smart nor very wise.

I used to joke (sourly) that Nixon was assembled out of body parts by the advanced beings on Neptune. Then they set him loose on Earth to see what he'd do, and what we'd do about him. I would opine that they must be holding their bellies laughing.

Eventually I quit joking about the cog subber. He wasn't really funny, and his wierdnesses got monotonous in the end. He was dangerous to the weak and helpless, but no man with a backbone ever had cause to fear him. Let the dead bury him.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally Posted by sackett

We've all known small-statured men who give the impression of being taller than they are; self-respect can account for that, and of course respect for others. Betcha didn't know that Nixie stood 5'11". I've talked to people who met him, and plenty of others who saw him on public occasions, and they all remember him as short and hunched -- about 5'6". How often do you encounter a man like that? How do you explain him when you do?

Long before his downfall, I made myself a little promise: someday, I'm going to whizz on R. Nixon's grave. I expect I'll have to stand in line.

I met him in 1960 at school and shook his hand, and he looked shorter than the 5'11" the books say. I'm 6' 2.5" and the top of his head was about my eye level.

A number of years later, I attempted to urinate on his place in San Clemente and was chased away by a security guard.

[Almo]

While I'm sure it's not entirely factual, I recommend watching Frost/Nixon. Good movie with an excellent performance (as usual) from Frank Langella as Nixon.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

I attempted to urinate on his place in San Clemente

Sounds like your as classy as he was.

[Darth Rotor]

Like all presidents, Nixon had his strengths and weaknesses. He ended up with a better record on the external matters, though Watergate was going to get his internal report card slammed no matter how you slice it.

I recall the wage and price controls. I felt more keenly the floating of the dollar that dropped it against foreign currencies like a runaway elevator. I was outside of the country when he resigned, so I didn't get the full facial of the press coverage.

His problem, it seems, was the he didn't realize how unmatched McGovern was in the race, and so he was happy to have CREEP (a bit of a gang who could not shoot straight) burgle the Watergate. But then the cover it up.

Is that where the phrase comes from?

It's not the crime, it's the cover up that gets you?

Not sure how long that saw has been around.

PS: I knew an Army specialist, when I was a teenager, who was a draftee serving in some sort of surveillance center. He was the first guy who pointed out to me that Nixon had run on "stop the war" as part of his platform ... twice.

DR

[Brown]

I have not yet seen any news reports about the events of 35 years ago. The most recent Watergate-related stories appear to be related to the death of Mark Felt and whether the events of 1974 weigh in favor or against prosecution of the members of the George W. Bush White House.

There have also been stories about whether the material erased from the Nixon tape--the famed eighteen-and-a-half-minute-gap of June 20, 1972--can be recovered using modern technology. Chances are that, even if the information could be recovered, it might not be as damaging as the recording of June 23, 1972.

Nixon might have erased the wrong recording.

He might have intended to erase the recording of June 23, but he mistakenly erased a recording made earlier.

The notes of Nixon's Chief of Staff, Bob Haldeman, indicated that the conversation of June 20 pertained to Watergate. Those notes, however, did not indicate any decisions being made, nor did they indicate the extent of the problem as Haldeman would later see it. It was on June 23 that Haldeman sounded the alarm, and he and Nixon decided on a plan to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

[Brown]

The 35th anniversary of Nixon's resignation has come and gone. So little was said. I hope the historical dynamic has not been forgotten.

At least one writer, Stanley Kutler, has discussed the Nixon downfall in light of lesser-known or recently released Oval Office recordings. Nixon asserted that his recordings would exonerate him (an assertion eerily paralled when Little Bush asserted that history would exonerate the 43rd president's turn at the helm), but in fact, the Nixon recordings show things were actually worse than they were thought to be in the early 1970s.

The malfeasance, the bungling, the paranoia, the criminality, the abuse of power... it all went up to the top. Many of Nixon's men received criminal records, but Nixon himself got off scot-free. Even so, Nixon was as dirty as--if not dirtier than--any of them.

Newsman Daniel Schorr did a short remembrance for NPR, but his piece had little depth. A report in the Desert Sun (Palm Springs), discussing John Dean, inaccurately (and ironically) says: "Watergate — named for the hotel where the incident took place — was a scandal that led to the resignation of former President Richard M. Nixon, a Republican. On June 17, 1972, burglars broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee inside the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C." (The burglary took place in the office building section of the Watergate complex, not in the hotel.) The Desert Sun story does emphasize, however, that most people today do not remember the significance of the events, and that young people are not learning about them. A story in the Palm Beach Post, discussing Al Haig, quotes Haig as saying that "So much of Watergate was misunderstood and misread," but the report adds, "Haig failed to explain how exactly Watergate was misunderstood." Haig, understandably, preferred to focus upon Nixon's accomplishments.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by me

The notes of Nixon's Chief of Staff, Bob Haldeman, indicated that the conversation of June 20 pertained to Watergate. Those notes, however, did not indicate any decisions being made, nor did they indicate the extent of the problem as Haldeman would later see it. It was on June 23 that Haldeman sounded the alarm, and he and Nixon decided on a plan to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

A story making the rounds (here is a link to ABC News (US)) says that the Haldeman notes are incomplete, according to an "amateur historian":

Quote:

But amateur historian Phil Mellinger, who spent five years constructing an elaborate Watergate timeline, believes a large chunk of Haldeman's notes taken during that 18 1/2 minutes are missing. Now, he's proposing a high-tech way to make the few pages that do still exist give up their scandal-cloaked secrets.
...
Haldeman," Mellinger said, "destroyed the first 17 minutes of his notes and left the conclusion of his notes, which was not incriminating."
...
The two remaining pages of notes from the meeting -- written by Haldeman on yellow, lined pads -- are stored at the National Archives facility in College Park, Md. Mellinger, who has examined the documents, says there are faint impressions on the pages, made by a ballpoint pen writing on the pages above them.

Those indentations, Mellinger believes, could be deciphered with a forensic technique called electrostatic detection analysis.

This is not quite as weird as it may sound at first. The notion of recovering writing from impressions made on earlier sheets is long-known, and has been an effective tool in actual investigations (as well as many Hollywood dramas).

Even so, Haldeman's notes tended to be cryptic even when he WASN'T trying to hide wrongdoing, and so recovery of the missing notes might not shed much light. It is unlikely there will be any notations like, "Informd P of potential tracing of $ from Wgate ops to CRP. P said we'll deal w/ it whn we have to."

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Brown

This is not quite as weird as it may sound at first. The notion of recovering writing from impressions made on earlier sheets is long-known, and has been an effective tool in actual investigations (as well as many Hollywood dramas).

Recently the National Archives announced that it would try to recover information from Haldeman's notes in this (or a similar) fashion.