As I listened to testimony on Public Radio during Monday’s House Intelligence Committee hearings on efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, I was struck by a number of things, all of which precipitated thoughts that were something akin to, for lack of a better term, free-association.
I’m not into psychoanalysis or Freud, but it was borderline eerie how the testimony carried me back through this country’s darkest moments, culminating with the traumatic years of Watergate and Richard Nixon.
Three similarities struck me all at once, similarities that are not so much striking as chilling.
First, the indignant shock of having an adversary interfere with our elections is nothing more than what the old folks back in Ruston used to call the chickens coming home to roost.
This is in no way meant to apologize for Donald Trump because, quite frankly, he scares me to death. Nor am I justifying meddling in our electoral process by Vladimir Putin. If he did corrupt our democratic process—and all evidence certainly points to that—it is reprehensible on his part and treasonous on the part of any American, including Trump, who might have had a hand in that scheme.
But I would suggest it might be a bit disingenuous to beat our breasts about interference in free elections when one considers our own track record in that dark little chapter of American history that they don’t teach in schools.
Political scientist DOV LEVIN, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University, has conducted independent research that shows that the U.S. attempted to influence the elections of foreign countries at least 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Those efforts, often covert in their execution, included everything from CIA operatives running successful presidential campaigns in the Philippines during the 1950s to leaking damaging information on Marxist Sandinistas in order to sway Nicaraguan voters in 1990. Altogether, the U.S. likely targeted elections in 45 sovereign nations around the world during this period.
The second thing that struck me was the concern over leaks expressed by committee members during the questioning of FBI Director James B. Comey and National Security Administration Director Admiral Michael S. Rogers. Some seemed far more concerned with leaks of classified information about surveillance of American citizens than with the accuracy of what has been going on with the Trump administration and its close ties with Russia. U.S. Rep. Trey GOWDY (R-S.C.) used most of his time trying to establish that there was no exception for reporters who published classified material. He hinted that those reporters should be prosecuted for publishing classified information.
He’s a poor student of history—and of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of free speech and a free press via the First Amendment.
He also must have a short memory, or perhaps he’s just a lot younger than I.
In the dustup to Watergate, the Nixon administration in 1971 did its dead-level best to squelch the publication by The New York Times of a highly classified document that came to be known as THE PENTAGON PAPERS.
Officially entitled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, it was a U.S. Department of Defense history of the U.S. political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.
So dull was most of its narrative that it could have served as a cure for insomnia. But other parts literally crackled with insights into how Lyndon Johnson “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress,” wrote The Times. The papers also revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scale of the war by bombing nearby Cambodia and Laos and conducted coastal raids on North Vietnam, none of which were reported in the mainstream media.
The papers were leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study.
And before there was a Watergate break-in of the Democratic Party headquarters on June 17, 1972, there was the September 1971 break-in of the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist by Nixon’s White House Plumbers, so called because of their attempts to stop leaks.
Now, nearly half-a-century later, Trump advisor Stephen Bannon says the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and admonishes them to “keep its (sic) mouth shut and just listen for a while.” He is followed by Rep. Gowdy who suggested on Monday that reporters should be prosecuted for publishing classified information.
Well, looking back some 46 years, the publishing of the Pentagon Papers was probably the best thing that ever happened to this country because it revealed just how duplicitous our Vietnam policy was and just how badly—and often—our leaders lied to us. So I can’t help but wonder if the leaks of classified information today may be yet another informational breakthrough that will ultimately expose even more lies and deceit.
Which brings me to my third point.
So, perhaps Gowdy and his colleagues should not wax so indignant about leaks. Perhaps they should tone down their rhetoric a bit because there were some other stories, editorials and essays which appeared in The Nation magazine over a period of six decades as layer after layer was peeled off the rotting onion that was Watergate—and beyond—which turned out to be eerily prophetic in their characterization of Nixon and what might follow if we as a responsible electorate did not remain vigilant and informed.
Those essays, editorials and stories have been compiled into a fascinating book entitled Smoking Gun: The Nation on Watergate, 1952-2010. Following are excerpts from that book.
Robbins Burling, on Dec. 10, 1973, wrote an article headlined “Impeachment—or Else: The Future of the Presidency.” Here are a few highlights from that article:
- “Our most serious danger is not the tyranny of the next few years. It is that if we fail to root out the tendencies toward tyranny shown by the present (Nixon) administration, we shall set precedents that will lead inexorably to more vicious tyrannies in the future. How do we prevent, not just in the years but in the decades to come, a repetition of the horrors that we have recently endured?”
- “Would-be tyrants will always aspire to the Presidency, and an occasional rascal is certain to gain the office. What we need is to remake the Presidency so that such men cannot do irreparable damage.”
- “If the President escapes punishment this time, every future President will know himself to be immune from punishment. It will not be long before another man with tyrannical inclinations turns his own band of henchmen loose upon the nation. The next time we may not have a Congress controlled by the opposition party. The next group of burglars may be less clumsy than the bunch that bungled the Watergate job. If future Presidents know they are safe from punishment, we can be certain that they will abuse their powers. They will subvert the system that put then into office.”
Nearly nine months later and only three weeks after Nixon’s Aug. 8, 1974, resignation, Mark Harris on Aug. 31 wrote a scathing article entitled “Nixon: A Type to Remember.” In it, he listed some of Nixon’s characteristic traits:
- He asserts that poor people are dishonest (“welfare chiselers”) but he lines his own pockets.
- He prefers capital punishment, prisons and other forms of punishment to rehabilitation and education.
- He favors legislation assisting the rich, the powerful, the corporate and the military.
- He is always discussing himself, even when he hopes you will think he is talking about, say, international relations.
- He suddenly reverses himself.
- He denies that he will reverse himself.
- He presents himself as a “manly” man.
- He commands young men to go to war, but he does not wish to pay his taxes.
- He employs the media to publicize himself; he condemns the media when they displease him.
- He calls for “unity” while dividing.
- He advocates economy but he spends lavishly, especially for such products as military machinery.
- He speaks often of bargaining from strength (but) when he traveled to Russia his situation was weaker than any President’s had ever been.
But it was Gene Marine, writing “What’s Wrong With Nixon?: Public Life of a Cardboard Hero” way back on the Aug. 18, 1956, when Nixon was still Eisenhower’s Vice President, who said it best:
- “Among Nixon’s critics the idea is widespread that he is quite without convictions (and) that the cardboard figure he presents is in fact all there is to him: the face turned ever toward personal gain, the back turned always on scruple or principle—no more to him than that.”
And now, as the House Intelligence Committee plows through information on leaked documents—then and now—interference in democratic elections—then and now—and shadowy deals by a paranoid, self-absorbed, President—then and now—does any of this bring on a faint sense of déjà vu?
Louisiana Voice 
Excellent, just excellent, Tom!!
Interestingly, I got up this morning with fire in my belly to write a guest column on this same subject, but mine would not have achieved the true depth of yours.
I was going to begin mine with the statement that up to 37% of the readers would dismiss everything I had to say outright depending on how readers of LouisianaVoice compare to approval of President Trump nationally.
I simply cannot imagine how people cannot see what you, I, and up to 63% of the U. S. population see.
I thought Rep. Adam Schiff’s opening statement was the best I have ever heard. It should, along with your column, be required reading for everybody.
In addition to what you point out, it seemed to me the best the Trump supporters on the committee could come up with was that the ACTUAL votes were not manipulated, but isn’t it interesting that Trump actually tried to bring that into the realm of possibility if only to undermine Hillary Clinton’s presidency should she actually be elected.
I hope I beat Robert to the punch and I am confident he will be in that 37%, but let me say this: As of this very moment, I don’t care how big a sleaze Hillary Clinton might or might not be and I don’t care how anybody views Obama. Not because my mind is closed – Because, quite simply, neither of them is POTUS. Trump is and he is very rapidly destroying this country.
You did beat me, Stephen, but I tend to focus on state-level government operations and corruption. I gave up a long time ago thinking any of us has much impact on the national level.
I do hope things get less inconsistent and chaotic. The market dropped 237 points today. I would hate for Ron to take my advice on GE and him be able to say, “I must have been out of my mind to listen to you.”😀
Thank LBJ for establishing NPR, though. Its people have the wisdom and perspective to realize the import of that testimony and broadcast it relatively unfiltered. That’s why Trump and company want to kill NPR.
What little I can say about American politics, which have always tried to extend their pliers to the weakest states with their favorite phrase, we want to help, one of the most agressive and immoral political fallacies, because they have been locating to disassociate that nation and to do them See how an antisocual, cruel, etc. nation, have gotten them into civil wars and between nations … I really disgust the American politicians, and to be honest my nation also, the world political system must change radically .. In a few words the philosophy of humanity, but not with theological bases because it is another policy disguised as “love of God and that God loves us” I do not doubt in the love of that energy that is called God, I doubt the hungry men To power, is not bad power, what is bad is how that power is taken, to personal conveniences.
While reading from the list of Nixon characteristics in “Nixon: A Type to Remember”, it seems that many of these traits could easily apply to former President Obama. And where was the outrage when Mr. Obama blatantly tried to manipulate the Israel elections? Where is the outrage when the Clintons dealt uranium for donations to their bogus foundation? Alas, they are all a sewer plant and I don’t like having to swim in it. But the allegations about Russian involvement in the election have not been substantiated yet. Should we not wait until they are or are not?
Sidwit: Benghazi.
That’s right, Sidwit, hang on to that “not substantiated” thread as long as you can because in that case, it applies to your boy Trump. That’s what fascinates me about his supporters: you’re blind to his faults while chomping at the bit to pounce on Democrats.
Go back and read what was written. Never once did Mr. Aswell exonerate ANY administration, Republican or Democrat, from transgressions carried out by this country. We interfered in other countries’ elections down through the years in both Democratic and Republican administrations.
What a load of crap to point to Democrats while saying allegations about Russian involvement in the election “have not been substantiated.”
Perhaps not but plenty other allegations against Trump have been “substantiated,” including allegations about Trump University, payoffs to the Florida attorney general who was investigating fraud at the university but who then conveniently dropped the investigation after the payoffs; “unsubstantiated” claims that Obama wiretapped him (where’s the proof of that absurd allegation?).
Final question, Sidwit: What have you learned about your boy Trump that you’d rather not have known?
It appears that you prefer mob rule to the rule of law? By pass the courts and let public opinion determine the outcome? I’m not defending your President chief, I’m only commenting on why there was no public outcry when the former President and Presidential candidates did all the things they did. You should tone down your rhetoric. And do you agree that Nixon and Obama have a lot of similarities based on the article?
Buck Turgidson. I hear all the talk and accusations about Trump. I agree there are some relevant accusations. I am not a Democrat or Republican, but I find it ridiculous to blame a foreign country for “interference” with our election process when I remember the Democratic National Committee railroading Bernie Sanders. In my opinion,there is no difference between the two; the possible Russian interference or the “backdoor” deal to railroad Bernie Sanders. In fact what happened to Bernie Sanders bothers me more because these were “American Citizens” doing the dirty work.
I couldn’t agree more. I was only addressing the issue of Russian interference but of course what was done within the Democratic Party to Bernie Sanders was nothing short of sabotage and should be dealt with accordingly.
Has anyone considered that Trump, who has benefited from his boyfriend’s interference with our elections (yes, the FBI CONFIRMED interference!!) is so dumb he doesn’t realize that he’s being baited like a Russian bear by the same boyfriend who helped him? Could it be that the White House leaks that so infuriate Trump & the Republicans are very likely coming from Putin’s new war machine (information manipulation)? If I were Putin, my goal would be to completely disrupt the US government’s oversight while I put other nefarious plans in action. It appears the disruption part is succeeding very well, not only with US government, but with the free press also.
The only reason that you see 63% of the population on your side is because of the LIBERAL State of California. .I thought your main objections were to keep the people of Louisiana informed as to what is going on with OUR politicians .You are nothing more then a LEFT WING LIBERAL which I do not care to here anymore of your bias outlooks. Remove me from your site.
Oh, where to start? First of all, do the math. Not even California, with its huge population, would be capable of accounting for 63 percent of the national opinion polls. That 63 percent is spread across the entire nation whether you care to admit it or not.
Second, I pay for this site and I can cover any area of politics I damn well please, your misconceptions notwithstanding.
Third, I believe you meant to say you didn’t want to READ any more of my posts. You don’t “hear” them (or in your case “here” them). You probably need to brush up on grammar, syntax, spelling and putting together a coherent sentence.
I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, neither Democrat nor Republican. I am conservative on some issues, neutral on some and liberal on others. You, on the other hand, are obviously quite thin-skinned when it comes to someone being critical of your orange-haired Trump and you have a mind like a steel trap—closed tight but still dangerous.
Finally, since you obviously subscribed to LouisianaVoice in the first place, it is incumbent upon you to “unsubscribe.” I cannot do it on my end.
Normally, I welcome all opinions—from those who agree and disagree. You do not, so goodbye.
P. S. I’m not sure Tom mentioned the 63%, but I did and it was based on Trump’s approval rating as of March 20, 2017 of 37% according to the Gallup organization, perhaps the most respected polling organization in America.
Thanks Buck. I agree!
Wow! great minds all on track, I just finished 3rd redraft of letter to editor, same subject, it is all about communication, found the GOP/PutinTrumpBannon plan in John Tolands “Adolph Hitler,. Vol 1, which I studied ( I think) not scholarly like yours TOM, but a great release to get it out. I am not afraid of Trump, actually proud that we are civilization where we can use business rather than bullets. It will work as long as we keep learning. Mr. Burns, thanks for the concern. I spent my spare money on another tip, a good cigar soaked in Jack. love always ron thompson