My generation has been left a whole herd of sacred cows to sort through by the baby boomers, and none smells quite like Watergate. It is, we are ritually reminded, a singularity — the very worst of Presidential mischief, and the very best of American journalism. As it celebrates its 40th anniversary this month has enough time passed to think about it clearly?
Like any very durable collective delusion, it serves the purposes of the powerful. It reshaped our political landscape in a way that the far-right, which was pounding on the doors of the GOP already in the Nixon years, could effectively bury the center-right. For the left, it did the opposite job: handing the center and the right of the party a convenient Republican bogeyman to remind the faithful what happens if the party strays too left. But perhaps the worst of the hangover is with the media. Watergate, and in particular the roles of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, is a very comforting narrative American journalists have told themselves at times of great stress and strain.
I'll admit that my thoughts on the subject are perhaps a bit shaggy — I write this blog for fun in my spare time, don't forget. But I remember the way that when I was in high school the clock of history stopped right at Watergate. I was aware even then the real electric thrill that comes with writing history, which is something you can never forget.
So here are a few ideas, that I hope are food for thought.
WOODSTEIN
Unfortunately for Woodward and Bernstein, their party was spoiled last spring when Jeff Himmelman's account of some lingering doubts about the story appeared in New York magazine. The specific nuances of the controversy are the stuff of J-school panel discussions. Basically, it seems that they actually did get information from a grand juror, which they had previously lied about (because, reasonably, they'd have gone to jail). It's just enough to poke some ugly shadows on the awesome 70s detective story, and the event that sparked a revival of the already moribund newspaper industry.
The legend of Woodward and Bernstein, like any self-flattering fantasy, says a lot about American journalism. In particular, its incredible self-righteousness and obsession with the details of the digging over the big picture. All this is for another post. But what about the results, did they "bring down a president"? Probably not: the wheels of history were grinding along fine on their own.
Here's the blunt truth about how things were going, according to Max Holland:
And for the record, they were helped greatly by "Deep Throat," just another career bureaucrat with an ax to grind. Don't look too closely at how the sausage is made.
John Cook at Gawker provides a more thorough brief about their work. "It represents the Platonic ideal of what journalism-with-a-capital-J ought to be, at least according to its high priesthood — sober, careful young men doggedly following the story wherever it leads and holding power to account, without fear or favor," Cook writes. "It was also a sloppy, ethically dubious project the details of which would mortify any of the smug high priests of journalism that flourished in its wake. The actual Watergate investigation could never have survived the legacy it helped create."
But isn't it convenient there are so many photographs of them while they worked?
NIXON IN CONTEXT
Now let's take a look at Richard M. Nixon, a man who became a cartoon villain in the eyes of baby boomers. This month, Woodward and Bernstein teamed up again (for the first time in decades! what an event!) to rehash what he meant. They argue that saying "the coverup was worse than the crime" — a bit of lazy thinking that's become common — disregards what a bastard he was. That makes them look, again, like crusading superheroes.
Watergate ensures that we are unable to see Nixon clearly, which is a shame. His domestic policy was ruthlessly pragmatic, which meant a certain degree of pandering to the South, but also a lot of things worth cheering about. OSHA and the EPA were created under his watch.
On foreign policy, he and that miserable, fatuous toad Kissinger came up with some real Hague-worthy evils. No doubt about that. He was desperate to finish on his terms a war which, let it never be forgotten, was started by his Democratic predecessors. But on other fronts, the easing of the Cold War is going to remembered centuries from now. Much is made of his China moment, but less acclaimed is the spirit of detente with the Soviet Union, which brought us a full decade of peace and enabled the wretched old system to collapse under its own inefficiency and nastiness. Look at this campaign ad from 1972 — a Republican, a man who made his name hounding FDR loyalists for being Reds, made that! It's almost, please excuse me, human.
Which brings us to the other fact: Nixon was dark and bitter and twisted, and anyone who has read a novel or glanced through Shakespeare can understand that there was something very complicated and very familiar about him.
THE SCARECROW
The great tragedy of Watergate was the opportunity it presented to seal for another generation the victories of moderate liberalism of Roosevelt and Johnson.
No matter what anyone tells you, George McGovern is the man the Founding Fathers dreamed about. Modest, dedicated to public service, intelligent. His like simply don't exist in American politics today. But in the wretched aftermath of the loss, Democrats managed to ask all the wrong questions. They were so worked up with the evil of the other guys, that didn't bother to think about themselves. In 1976, a free pass if ever there was one, they were still freaked out about appearing too far to the left.
That left the door open for an unctuous, self-righteous con man who couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Jesus and how bloody fucking honest he was and how don't you dare call him a "liberal" (I've gone at length into the truth about the Carter "legacy" here).
Everything Nixon and his gang of clowns couldn't accomplish with their college pranks, Jimmy Carter did for them.
THE BOTTOM LINE
In terms of scandals, Watergate is a lark compared to Iran-Contra, which we will never conclusively get to the bottom of. In terms of politics, Nixon was was responsible for nothing as bad as the pollution that has streamed into our civic life since 1994. The Plumbers were ridiculous, evil, and shitty (Colson, in his afterlife, proved he was a bigger fuck than we could have imagined, Magruder deserves a heavy dose of honest respect and forgiveness), but they were mere pranksters compared to what Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzalez could accomplish.
And in terms of the real structural damage Nixon accomplished to the United States and the constitution, again, nothing compared to what George W. Bush pulled off. A wholesale redistribution of the nation's wealth to the rich, wars launched on false pretences, half-wits installed all over the federal branch that will take a generation to shit out. And with the Roberts Court, its a gift that could keep on giving for decades more.
There is a lot to talk about on the occasion of this anniversary. But at some point, we have to start asking the right questions about this third-rate burglary.
Like any very durable collective delusion, it serves the purposes of the powerful. It reshaped our political landscape in a way that the far-right, which was pounding on the doors of the GOP already in the Nixon years, could effectively bury the center-right. For the left, it did the opposite job: handing the center and the right of the party a convenient Republican bogeyman to remind the faithful what happens if the party strays too left. But perhaps the worst of the hangover is with the media. Watergate, and in particular the roles of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, is a very comforting narrative American journalists have told themselves at times of great stress and strain.
I'll admit that my thoughts on the subject are perhaps a bit shaggy — I write this blog for fun in my spare time, don't forget. But I remember the way that when I was in high school the clock of history stopped right at Watergate. I was aware even then the real electric thrill that comes with writing history, which is something you can never forget.
So here are a few ideas, that I hope are food for thought.
WOODSTEIN
Unfortunately for Woodward and Bernstein, their party was spoiled last spring when Jeff Himmelman's account of some lingering doubts about the story appeared in New York magazine. The specific nuances of the controversy are the stuff of J-school panel discussions. Basically, it seems that they actually did get information from a grand juror, which they had previously lied about (because, reasonably, they'd have gone to jail). It's just enough to poke some ugly shadows on the awesome 70s detective story, and the event that sparked a revival of the already moribund newspaper industry.
The legend of Woodward and Bernstein, like any self-flattering fantasy, says a lot about American journalism. In particular, its incredible self-righteousness and obsession with the details of the digging over the big picture. All this is for another post. But what about the results, did they "bring down a president"? Probably not: the wheels of history were grinding along fine on their own.
Here's the blunt truth about how things were going, according to Max Holland:
"Federal prosecutors and agents never truly learned anything germane from the Washington Post’s stories—although they were certainly mortified to see the fruits of their investigation appear in print. The FBI’s documents on Watergate, released as early as 1992, bear this out. The government was always ahead of the press in its investigation of Watergate; it just wasn’t publishing its findings."
And for the record, they were helped greatly by "Deep Throat," just another career bureaucrat with an ax to grind. Don't look too closely at how the sausage is made.
John Cook at Gawker provides a more thorough brief about their work. "It represents the Platonic ideal of what journalism-with-a-capital-J ought to be, at least according to its high priesthood — sober, careful young men doggedly following the story wherever it leads and holding power to account, without fear or favor," Cook writes. "It was also a sloppy, ethically dubious project the details of which would mortify any of the smug high priests of journalism that flourished in its wake. The actual Watergate investigation could never have survived the legacy it helped create."
But isn't it convenient there are so many photographs of them while they worked?
NIXON IN CONTEXT
Now let's take a look at Richard M. Nixon, a man who became a cartoon villain in the eyes of baby boomers. This month, Woodward and Bernstein teamed up again (for the first time in decades! what an event!) to rehash what he meant. They argue that saying "the coverup was worse than the crime" — a bit of lazy thinking that's become common — disregards what a bastard he was. That makes them look, again, like crusading superheroes.
Watergate ensures that we are unable to see Nixon clearly, which is a shame. His domestic policy was ruthlessly pragmatic, which meant a certain degree of pandering to the South, but also a lot of things worth cheering about. OSHA and the EPA were created under his watch.
On foreign policy, he and that miserable, fatuous toad Kissinger came up with some real Hague-worthy evils. No doubt about that. He was desperate to finish on his terms a war which, let it never be forgotten, was started by his Democratic predecessors. But on other fronts, the easing of the Cold War is going to remembered centuries from now. Much is made of his China moment, but less acclaimed is the spirit of detente with the Soviet Union, which brought us a full decade of peace and enabled the wretched old system to collapse under its own inefficiency and nastiness. Look at this campaign ad from 1972 — a Republican, a man who made his name hounding FDR loyalists for being Reds, made that! It's almost, please excuse me, human.
Which brings us to the other fact: Nixon was dark and bitter and twisted, and anyone who has read a novel or glanced through Shakespeare can understand that there was something very complicated and very familiar about him.
THE SCARECROW
The great tragedy of Watergate was the opportunity it presented to seal for another generation the victories of moderate liberalism of Roosevelt and Johnson.
No matter what anyone tells you, George McGovern is the man the Founding Fathers dreamed about. Modest, dedicated to public service, intelligent. His like simply don't exist in American politics today. But in the wretched aftermath of the loss, Democrats managed to ask all the wrong questions. They were so worked up with the evil of the other guys, that didn't bother to think about themselves. In 1976, a free pass if ever there was one, they were still freaked out about appearing too far to the left.
That left the door open for an unctuous, self-righteous con man who couldn't stop talking about how much he loved Jesus and how bloody fucking honest he was and how don't you dare call him a "liberal" (I've gone at length into the truth about the Carter "legacy" here).
Everything Nixon and his gang of clowns couldn't accomplish with their college pranks, Jimmy Carter did for them.
THE BOTTOM LINE
In terms of scandals, Watergate is a lark compared to Iran-Contra, which we will never conclusively get to the bottom of. In terms of politics, Nixon was was responsible for nothing as bad as the pollution that has streamed into our civic life since 1994. The Plumbers were ridiculous, evil, and shitty (Colson, in his afterlife, proved he was a bigger fuck than we could have imagined, Magruder deserves a heavy dose of honest respect and forgiveness), but they were mere pranksters compared to what Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzalez could accomplish.
And in terms of the real structural damage Nixon accomplished to the United States and the constitution, again, nothing compared to what George W. Bush pulled off. A wholesale redistribution of the nation's wealth to the rich, wars launched on false pretences, half-wits installed all over the federal branch that will take a generation to shit out. And with the Roberts Court, its a gift that could keep on giving for decades more.
There is a lot to talk about on the occasion of this anniversary. But at some point, we have to start asking the right questions about this third-rate burglary.
