In 1972 President Nixon won re-election with 60.7% of the vote. George McGovern got 37.5%. The electoral college was 520-17. Less than two years later 66% of the electorate wanted him impeached and 56% wanted him removed from office. So he quit.
The collapse in Nixon’s numbers occurred only after the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing went live on television. Prior to that the Nixon administration had succeeded in demonizing the committee as partisan and a Harris Poll indicated it had a 48-36 disapproval rating.
The psychic impact was devastating to Mr. Nixon’s cause-a contagion of impeachment fever that coursed over the Hill and threatened the disintegration of his support. NEWSWEEK’s 50-state House survey counted 276 votes committed to or tilting toward impeachment, with 59 more “persuadable” either way; even a 50-50 split of the neutrals would send the case to the Senate with more than 300 votes—and a momentum that could well prove irresistible. Other head counts, including the Nixonians’ own, were at least equally discouraging for the President. Some Republicans congressmen sent back word that he would be lucky to command 100 votes on the floor. Majority Leader Thomas (Tip) O’Neill took Jerry Ford golfing in Sutton, Mass., and presumably passed on his own latest tally: 116 or 117 for Mr. Nixon—and a near 3-to-1 avalanche against him.
It might seem amazing today that there was not more support for removing Nixon from power.
Nixon resigned on August 8th, 1974. The August 12th issue of Newsweek was written before the resignation. Even that late in the game it was uncertain that Nixon would actually be convicted in the Senate.
A heavy House vote to impeach could in turn ravage the President’s tenuous claim to the magic one-third-plus-one he needs to survive in the Senate. He needs 34 votes there; his liaison men count only 36 or 37, six of them “soft,” and a close reading suggest that even that census is dangerously optimistic.
So, even in the last days of Nixon’s administration only 56% of Americans wanted him impeached and convicted. And Nixon still had the tenuous support of about a third of the Senate.
A recent Zogby poll showed that 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge’s approval.
Those poll numbers are startling considering the solidarity of the Republican party, their media dominance, and their message discipline. There has been one televised hearing which revealed nothing because it was a sham.
If John Conyers were the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee rather than the Ranking Member it would not be long before high profile kleig light hearings took place on the Hill, and the 52% of Americans that already support impeaching Bush over the NSA leaks would balloon to significantly higher numbers. More importantly, many new facts, lies, and crimes would be exposed, just as they were in 1974. And the Republicans would start to run for cover.
Helping make this dream a reality is what, for me, the 2006 midterm elections are all about.
Mark Schmitt, in the American Prospect, talks about 1974:
That year brought 75 new Democrats to Washington. More than just a partisan shift, it brought a change in the style and approach of Democratic candidates and representatives. It is still easy to spot the politician who got his start in 1974 or shortly after — some were liberal, some less so, but most were very serious about policy. They had a national perspective but were diligent to a fault about constituent service, parades, local mayors, local problems. They understood that with a large and complicated federal government, a member’s role is not just to deliver pork but also to maneuver the system for people’s good. They were ready for C-SPAN, which arrived in the House four years after they did. They put out a press release a day. And they were generally reformist, although that impulse has waned over time. Above all, they got it — got that Congress was becoming a transparent institution, that reform was a core theme, that the executive branch was out of control.
You should read the whole article as a supplement to what I am saying. Schmitt argues against making the 2006 elections national and about Bush. But he does so by arguing that the 1974 class was won on local issues. I disagree. Watergate, Vietnam, and reform were big, national issues in 1974 in exactly the same way that Illegal domestic surveillance, Iraq, and reform are giant national issues today.
The big mistake the Democrats are making is in not encouraging primaries. Both the Democratic landslide of 1974 and the Republican landslide of 1994 involved surprises. As Schmitt puts it:
…good candidates may not come from obvious places. Like Paul Hackett in Ohio’s special election last August, they may not be the names that appear first when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee looks for popular state legislators or local millionaires who can finance their own campaigns. Like Richard Morrison running against DeLay last year or like Clinton in 1974, they may appear in districts that would never be targeted by standard electoral math but where a great candidate can at the very least soften up the incumbent for the next fight.
The Democrats have done a mixed job of candidate recruitment. They’ve certainly outperformed the Republicans, but they have also taken a top down approach that discourages renegade politicians that could burst in out of the blue with a true zeal for reform. Yet, there are many small time candidates out there that could win surprising victories if the cards fall right. And they’ll be right along side old John Conyers when the kleig lights come on.