Rutgers Professor David Greenberg has a nice review of John Dean’s new book The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It in The New Republic. The impressive thing about Dean’s book is the exhaustive amount of research he’s done of the Nixon audio tapes, including a tremendous amount of new transcribing. Historians will be grateful for this resource.
I want to explore just one piece of this review, and it only touches on Watergate by way of comparison with the administration of George W. Bush. Prof. Greenberg sees Dean as being irrationally opposed to the Bush administration, at least in terms of the seriousness with which Dean compared its misdeeds to those of the Nixon administration.
Dean’s quest for absolution has also taken the form of calling out abuses of political power, as he did in a string of Bush-era polemics: Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (2004); Conservatives Without Conscience (2006); and Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches (2007). These books confirmed that Dean had grown more liberal in his politics, and like many liberals during the Bush era, he couldn’t help venting his outrage toward the president’s Nixonian abuses of power. Though Bush’s misdeeds certainly deserved censure, the newly fashionable genre of the political attack book is not an ennobling one for anyone. Especially regrettable was Worse than Watergate, if only because its title implied that Dean endorsed the then-fashionable (but profoundly mistaken) idea that Bush somehow did more harm to the republic than Nixon. Although Dean later explained that he meant to suggest only that Bush’s secrecy outstripped Nixon’s—though that claim too is debatable—it was plain that he had inhaled the contentious partisan ether of the new century.
I don’t want to minimize the harm that Nixon did to the republic, but much of what Nixon did was also done by previous administrations, going back to at least Woodrow Wilson. One of the injustices of Watergate was that the Nixon administration took the full brunt of the blame for actions that had been routine under J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI for decades, and for domestic intelligence operations and other dirty tricks that traced back through the Johnson, Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations. Nixon didn’t invent COINTELPRO, for example, nor did he initiate the CIA’s secret mail opening program. What Watergate and the subsequent investigations revealed was that American’s First and Fourth Amendment rights had been largely mythological in the post-war era. The great triumph of the era was that America rose up and demanded that reality match the myth we were taught in our public schools. Congress enacted the FISA law, gave teeth to the Freedom of Information Act, passed campaign finance reform laws, created intelligence oversight committees, passed the Sunshine Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and the Presidential Records Act. Our country’s dirty laundry was fairly thoroughly aired through multiple congressional investigations, and the media became more combative and confrontational.
The Bush administration attacked all these reforms in a fairly methodical fashion. I won’t list their sins here, as the archives of this blog offer one of the most comprehensive records of that history that you could hope to find. But the harm done to the country by the Bush administration was largely in eviscerating the Watergate reforms and heaping disdain and scorn on the values Americans had risen up to insist upon in the immediate aftermath of that scandal.
We can argue about whether the decision to invade Iraq was worse than the decision to bomb Cambodia, or whether the warrantless surveillance of the Nixon administration was more egregious than the warrantless surveillance of the Bush administration, or whether Operation Phoenix was more grotesque than Bush’s torture programs. But the great sin of the Bush administration was to attack and corrode that noble values that were defended in the face of the revelations of Watergate. He made the Republican Party defend the exact kinds of things that the nation had insisted were indefensible in the 1970’s.
And, for that, his administration was worse than Nixon’s and did much more to harm the country. Look at the GOP today, and compare it to the GOP of the late 1970’s. Which is a greater shame to the republic?
Which legacy would you choose?
The moral comparison of politicians is always a risky business. In many respects President Obama’s actions in the area of national security policy and civil liberties have been as bad or worse that Nixon’s or Bushes (to the extent that one can personalize the origin of a policy or an action, which is Dean’s current argument).
The institutional malfeasance runs back a long time. What has changed is that instead of being run through informal networks of people pre-Wilson, it has been institutionalized in the operations of bureaucracies that then develop their own agendas and strategies relative to a President.
What most analyses of Watergate, which ballooned out into all sorts of abuses of government power and civil liberties is one fundamental fact. The name Watergate comes from the office building in which the Democratic National Committee had its offices in 1972, a era in which the DNC was more powerful in setting the strategies and actions of candidates. The Committee to Re-elect the President (aptly with the acronym CREEP) used assets of the US Government to burglarize that office in search of (no one ever has said) in order to offensive or defensively win a political campaign for the presidency.
At the time, the very announcement of the burglary was taken by most Democrats to show that Nixon was desperate to retain power and that it was clearly done by the Nixon campaign as a shenanigan. And we expected that the DC police would quickly unravel the scandal, and would start to get some real issues being argued in the campaign. The media covered it up until after the election. It took a judge in Florida to uncork it.
What Nixon and the conservatives around him did (especially G. Gordon Liddy) is treat an American campaign as a act of war in which the opposition party became the enemy and the enemy was to be given no quarter. That came of of the growing false equivalence of Democrat=communist that pervaded the conservative movement. The Lewis Powell memo extended that sense of total war.
The spirit of that hardnosed attitude came from Nixon, who was that way from 1946 onward. It is from Nixon’s attitude that the five justices of the conservative side of the Supreme Court get the idea that swinging elections is an appropriate use of judicial authority.
It is easy to minimize Nixon’s culpability through isolation all of the ruses of plausible denial, which is what John Dean’s argument amounts to: the system of plausible denial that the Nixon White House set up, no doubt under Dean’s leadership as White House Counsel, worked.
The Bush documents have not become public yet. Not doubt there are many Bush was out of the loop excuses already written. And it is interesting how much interference Dick Cheney is running for undetermined motives.
In terms of the national security state and civil liberties, we are worse off today than under Nixon. The inadvertent transparency of the Obama administration has just allowed us to know it in more detail and to know that a lot of it originated in the Bush administration.
Short version. We are still living in the world that Richard Nixon had a huge hand in building.
Yes, and Kissinger is still skulking around the WH and Hillary Clinton considers him a valuable friend and adviser.
Yes, and Kissinger is still skulking around the WH and Hillary Clinton considers him a valuable friend and adviser.
Don’t forget that Samantha Power thinks Kissinger is honky dory too.
Doubt we’ll see a Samantha Power in President Hillary Clinton’s administration. She finds ways to overlook or forgive deep pocketed or powerful former enemies such as Scaife and Murdoch, but not others that crossed a Clinton in any way.
what’s the story there, how did she cross the Clintons? on Rwanda?
2008 interview
She did resign from the Obama campaign for that comment and apologized. She seems to be touting Hillary for POTUS these days; so, maybe they’ve made up and I’m wrong.
To prove your point…Obama Could Reaffirm a Bush-Era Reading of a Treaty on Torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/politics/obama-could-reaffirm-a-bush-era-reading-of-a-treaty-on
-torture.html
(Maximum) John Sirica was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Not a Florida judge.
Before Watergate, within the ranks of defense attorneys, Sirica was known for handing out maximum sentences. And some of those attorneys fully expected that Sirica’s style would lead to a break in the Watergate fuller story that up until then was more or less dead.
Memory lapse. A bunch of the burglars were from Florida. Sirica was the judge. But the important fact was that one of the burglars disclosed the connection.
Thanks for the correction.
I thought it was McCord who broke first, but I could have this wrong.
and it doesn’t change by having a “nice guy” president – one reason Obama pushes the limits on this, imo; structural change is required.
“… burglarize that office in search of (no one ever has said) …”
I seem to recall the claim that they hoped to find papers proving McGovern was getting orders from Moscow, laughable as that is. But maybe in their addled brains they thought that. I remember during the Ford Administration that I was having breakfast on a Sunday morning in a restaurant in Charlottesville VA. I was there on Navy business with Sperry. Some nicely dressed ladies in the next booth were opining that Nixon was driven out of office by “Communists”. Probably the same mentality that calls Obama the most Socialist President ever.
Let’s not forget that Dean pled guilty to obstruction of justice, surrendered and was placed in a “safe house” detention where he cooperated with prosecutors who convicted the highest level, except for Nixon, Watergate actors/conspiracists, and disbarred for life.
Is torture/murder or rape/murder considered worse than murder? IMHO, Bush/Cheney belongs in the first category and Nixon/Kissinger in the second. But once on the dark side, quibbling over how dark is like debating “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
Not to be overlooked is that the restrictions on PEPFAR funding, increased the number of preventable HIV infections in South Africa. But, also overlooked is that the US-Cambodian policy extended far further than the bombing: Who Supported the Khmer Rouge.
So, Bush was less liberal than Nixon.
And Nixon was more liberal than Obama. We all know this — progressive web sites are full of it.
So how does Obama get to be worse than Bush?
I’m confused.
Does the transitive property not apply to politicians?
Does Arrow’s paradox apply instead?
I think the only correct answer to your queries is Leadership. Actually, LeadershipTM.
brilliant, Davis, brilliant
Are politicians open sets? closed sets? may have something to do with countability of the sets whether or not transitive property applies
Yes, just how does a moral calculus work?
Does it involve triangulation?
Just realized why I trust Dean more than Chomsky or, say, Daniel Ellsberg: because he has had the experience of being terribly, fatally wrong, and having rebuilt all his moral and intellectual foundations in adult life.
To me the Bush administration was more deeply corrupt than the Nixons, the evidence being how hard it’s been to imagine reform this time around. Everybody likes to blame this on Obama and “Don’t look back, look forward” (except when prosecuting John Kiriakou and Steven Kim), but you must also think about the deep corruption of the press (imagine how Fred Hiatt and Cokie Roberts would respond to lustrations and truth commissions) and the Bush-era burrowers in the Justice Department and Homeland Security and the National Science Foundation and who knows where else, and the bureaucratic powers they hold over Obama, and Holder (I’d love to know who leaked that idiocy about the administration changing its views on the International Convention against Torture, but I’ll bet it was somebody in favor of it, trying to force the issue against the president’s reluctance), and probably even Brennan (who was assigned to reduce the CIA’s warmaking capacity in favor of intelligence gathering but stopped by Congress from doing so).
Tarheel is right about the importance of the bureaucracies as opposed to the Leaders, and I believe the Bush-Cheney political appointees changed the government culture more profoundly than Nixon’s did.
Also Nixon and Kissinger really believed they were ending a war (though they could have ended it faster by not stealing an election) and making the economy better, and there’s no way you could say that for Bush’s advisers, whose bad faith was just Nero-level extreme.
Ellsberg was a gung-ho anti-communist and pro-Vietnam War guy. Participant in writing the Pentagon Papers. So, he had to confront being profoundly wrong and rebuilding his whole world view. Am unaware of any comparable experience that Dean had. Even flubbing on NAFTA, he’s still a fairly conservative on economic issues.
Don’t know that Kissinger believes in anything other than Kissinger, but Nixon didn’t believe he was ending a war. He continued to look for other ways to win it after the Paris Peace Agreement.
Forgot that the topic is John Dean.
Still, Dean’s “transformation” is only partial. He supported the Iraq War because he couldn’t believe that Bush/Cheney would lie about such a serious matter as WMD in Iraq. Naive for any half-way decent observer of US politicians/government over the past fifty years. But for a Nixon Admin insider who saw lies first hand? GMAFB.
He also still tends to minimize slightly his role in all the criminality. Also not seeing any effort to learn or disclose if he knows why the Watergate break-in was ordered. Not curious as to why Nixon was desperate to cover-up the break-in from day one.
The oops is all mine. You’re quite right.
Cokie Roberts built her career on PBS’s coverage of the Watergate hearings.
That was when PBS became more than “educational television”.
NPR 😉 She wasn’t on PBS till 1981. (I was a classical music announcer on an NPR affiliate during Watergate, which preempted all the programming. Goodbye Bartok, hello Sam Ervin. She did seem way cool in those days though.)
On thing missing here, unless I missed it, is that there are MANY members of the Bush Administration that trace their political roots to the Nixon WH.
Chief among these are the Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the two most damaging sociopaths to ever hold power in this country.
Not to mention George H. W. Bush’s connection.
Didn’t G. Gordon Liddy also come back under W?