Well, yes and no.
Scott Stantis poses a question that feels like it assumes part of the answer.
I'm old enough to remember Watergate with some clarity, having been in my 20s, but I'll defer to my mother, who was that age during World War II and, as I have often quoted her, once admonished me by pointing out that "at the time, we didn't know who was going to win."
Ditto with the first solid revelations of Watergate: At the time, we didn't know who was going to win.
And I was cynical enough to suspect that Nixon would survive it all, even after John Dean had laid the whole thing out, which is more than we've had from Manafort's indictment and even from the more interesting guilty plea of George Papadopoulus.
It wasn't until Alexander Butterfield dropped the bomb, testifying that the damn fool had put it all on tape, that I began to feel things were genuinely going to happen, and, even then, we had to wade through the Supreme Court's unanimous verdict requiring Nixon to surrender the tapes before it really became clear how it was going to end.
So, yes, this is what Watergate felt like: We got proof that we weren't all insane, that the guy was just as big a crook as we thought he was.
But, at this stage, that was about it.
I like Kirk Walters' take, because I think cautious optimism is an appropriate response, but the partisans are divided in their unwarranted confidence, the one in complete denial, the other already declaring victory in a game that has barely begun.
What can be remembered, but is hard to communicate, is the resistance on the part of Nixon loyalists to the Watergate revelations, right down to the point when Butterfield testified, and even after.
It was a witch hunt, they said. It was just more posturing by those Nixon-hating Democrats.
Obviously, after the tapes were revealed, the defenses boiled down to "They all do it," and you still hear that: Nixon got caught doing what everyone has always done.
Which is bullshit. It's like excusing Bonnie and Clyde because we have shoplifters.
And, of course, we always hear "They all do it," and "They're all corrupt," not from partisans and loyalists but from people who can't figure it out but feel they sound intelligent by condemning "the system" and who hope it will stop anyone from trying to pin them down on specifics.
Those self-appointed geniuses pop up in any serious discussion.
In any case, here is how Watergate felt:
The major media, for the most part, turned against Nixon at the point of the Saturday Night Massacre. He still had, and would always have, his defenders, but they no longer got significant attention and had little remaining influence.
Nor was Congress much divided after his downfall. Laws were passed, regulations were imposed, in an attempt to keep anything like that from happening again.
And, at roughly the same time, the Church Committee revealed the abuses of the intelligence community, which became part of this national will to reform.
The reform movement didn't last, and a lot of its moves were later overturned or watered down. But, while the nation was united, it made it possible to debate Ford's pardon of Nixon, not over innocence vs guilt, but, rather, over whether there was any benefit in locking up a man already so damaged by his own excesses and flaws.
That is, we were arguing over whether the flogging had been sufficient or whether we should hang him, too.
What is different now is that we have no media gatekeepers, that the flow of information and misinformation and good intentions and hatred are all pretty much part of the river in which we float or drown.
As a consequence, it's hard to know how this will come out, whatever happens to Trump and his allies.
But I don't think we'll have another "hang him, or just flog him?" argument.
The next argument, which will never end, will be over his guilt, even if Alexander Butterfield comes forward with a video of him shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
I did like Jeff Danziger's take, not simply because it captures the grim comfort in seeing something finally happen, but also because he joins a distinct minority who don't mistake the opening lines of "Richard III" for the title of a John Steinbeck novel.
I'm not sure the indictments genuinely turn winter into summer, but they certainly do bring a touch of spring, and the question is whether it is only a January thaw, soon to turn back to cold and snow, or truly the first hints of a summer yet to come.
Danziger is more optimistic than I am, but, yes, grandson, this is what Watergate felt like.
Now, for Gilbert and Sullivan fans, here's a little ditty I wrote, between the testimony of Dean and that of Butterfield. (For non-G&S fans, here are the original lyrics, and here's how it was performed).
Whatever else Butterfield did, the sonofabitch ruined one of my best parodies ever. Sigh. Well, I guess I'd rather have a happy ending than a great parody.
I hope there's another Butterfield in this current imbroglio, but we haven't seen him yet.
While we wait, here's your moment of zen
On a seat in the Senate, ex-Counsel John Dean sang
"Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon"
And Senator Ervin asked "What do you mean by
Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon?
"If you have information that leads to the man
You must tell us the whole of the Watergate plan,
And we will protect you the best that we can, from
Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon."
He sat like an iceberg amid all the lights, singing
"Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon"
While the Washington press corps fussed over his wife, not
Nixon, Pat Nixon, Pat Nixon.
He testified heedless of cameras and lights,
of the spies who stole 'round in the Washington nights,
And he said that the spy at the height of all heights, was
Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon.
Now I feel just as sure as I'm sure that my name isn't
Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon,
That the chief will find some way to shrug off the blame. He's
Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon.
For he'll go on TV, shake his jowls and he'll boast.
How he rescued our boys from the Communist host,
"So go stick Watergate up your Washington Post:
I'm Nixon, Dick Nixon, Dick Nixon."
Comments