Last week I wrote about how the turmoil of the 1960’s has resurfaced. The protests, the vile language, and the in-your-face partisanship have returned with a vengeance. So far the bombings have not occurred, but they may yet be in our future.
Today I wish to discuss echoes from the 1970’s. Those troubled times also have eerie parallels to the current scene. The Watergate era was one of the ugliest periods in our history, but we may have entered an even uglier one.
For many years, liberals have encouraged us to believe that Richard Nixon was an ogre who endangered our democratic institutions. He has been put forward as the epitome of conservative villainy. The idea is to present him as a warning of the risks of a Republican presidency.
But let’s take a closer look. Although Nixon is associated with the Watergate break-in, he did not initiate it. The plan to burglarize the Democratic campaign headquarters was concocted by his underlings. He did not get involved until the fiasco became public.
Some of Nixon’s handlers apparently felt that they needed an edge to defeat George McGovern. It was so important that their boss continue to preside over public policy that any dirty trick was acceptable. As they saw it, the fate of the nation hung in the balance.
Fast forward to a couple of years ago. Now it was Hillary Clinton’s supporters who were convinced that they had to protect the country from a Republican victory. Donald Trump was clearly an unhinged clown, and besides, preserving the progressive agenda was essential for our collective well-being.
Operatives in the FBI, the Department of Justice, and probably the CIA therefore decided that Hillary could not be indicted for sending sensitive messages from a private server. Acknowledging that she did so might prevent her from being a viable candidate and that was unthinkable.
This required them to manipulate procedures, misinterpret the law, and suppress embarrassing materials, but that was small price to pay for our shared welfare. That a former secretary of state destroyed thousands of subpoenaed emails was trivial in the light of this greater good.
Nixon’s missing eighteen minutes of oval office tapes had, of course, been a different matter. They were a national disgrace that required someone to be sacrificed. Nixon’s scatological language was likewise evidence of his unworthiness for office.
An even bigger parallel between Watergate and now, however, is how slowly the evidence of misconduct trickled out. Nowadays people are demanding an instant smoking gun. Even the IG report documenting unremitting bias has not triggered a consensus on the nature of the malfeasance.
Back in the day, had it not been for Judge Sirica’s dogged determination to get to the bottom of the affair, it would not have moved to the front burner. Only after his revelations did a senate committee take up the cudgels. Eventually, this body tore the scab off of the cover-up and exposed the unseemly details.
Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between then and now. It is the current lack of cooperation of the political party at risk. In the 70’s, most Republicans were initially reluctant to attack one of their own. It was not until the evidence mounted that they stopped defending Nixon.
These days the Democrats are still firmly on the side of denying any wrongdoing. Unlike yesteryears Republicans, they have not yet decided that anti-democratic shenanigans are against our joint interests. Perhaps this is because the potential scope of the misconduct is so broad.
In any event, the biggest discrepancy between Watergate and FBIgate is the role of the media. Back then journalists were in the forefront of investigating what happened. Woodward and Bernstein became national heroes for their scoops. So did their anonymous source—Deep Throat.
Today most reporters and editors are in the tank for anything anti-Trump. They continuously play up whatever embarrasses him and underplay the transgressions of his critics. As a consequence, uncomfortable news is suppressed and/or reinterpreted.
Sadly, never before has such a large slice of the media been implicated in so massive a cover-up. Most of those involved are, no doubt, hoping this effort succeeds. The goal is plainly to make certain the Democrats do not suffer the loss of reputation that befell the Republicans.
But I am not so sure. Given how long it takes for the details of a massive scandal to emerge, it might be impossible to sweep everything under the rug. If so, today’s cover-up artists will be unmasked. Should this occur, their fall could be worse than Nixon’s.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment