August 14, 1974

The Real Lessons Of Watergate

The agony is over!

But, what lessons remain from the Watergate experience?

There has been much pious talk in the last week that "the system works" - when it has been demonstrated only that sustained publicity can beat the system.

Supposedly we have reaffirmed that "no man is above the law" -when it is apparent instead that there are different standards of law for liberals and conservatives.

It is said that the courts operated within the "best traditions" of the nation - when they resorted to long discredited techniques of the Inquisition.

Congressmen pat each other on the back and assure each other they have "reasserted their independence" over the Executive branch - when, as usual, they have been saved by administrative decisions.

If Watergate is to be reduced to these vacuous platitudes, then the trauma of the last two years will have been only a cynical exercise in partisan politics.

What happened?

A penny-ante eavesdropping caper was ballooned by over communication - whether by malice or zeal - into a moral crusade against a controversial Republican president.

This by critics who were strangely indulgent of President John Kennedy's escalation of war in Asia, and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's use of wire taps to jail a union leader, and President Lyndon Johnson's sale of political favors through Majority Clerk Bobby Baker.

The "system" failed to work in protecting a citizen's reputation against slander, guilt by association, and innocence until proven guilty.  It failed to prevent overturn of the ballot box by popular frenzy.

The foremost lesson of Watergate is that the press has become the fourth branch of government along with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  Big press takes its place with big government, big business and big labor as a primary force in America.  It no longer just reports news, it now creates it.

Though a host of individual daily and weekly newspapers serve their readers independently, three television networks and five giant newspaper chains control 90 percent of public information.  Such control intimidated the Nixon crew which tried to cover up a minor escapade certain to be used as a club against them.

It can be expected that Big Press - having tested its publicity weapon successfully - will use it against any future president it dislikes.  Brain washing will be a way of life in the United States unless we can restrain the near-monopoly of news by breaking up the powerful networks and chains as we do in other anti-trust cases.

We have applied the law with severity to a president and his associates.  Though it has been amply proven that President Richard Nixon did not have any prior knowledge of the Watergate capers, it has been successfully argued that he should be responsible for the actions of his subordinates.

And so he should.

And so should all future presidents.

The "new morality" of Watergate will be a positive conclusion if it applies in the future to both Republicans and Democrats equally.  So far, the outlook is not sanguine.

The milk lobby gave illegal contributions to Republican John Connally and Democrats Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern.  Only Connally has been indicted.

The House Judiciary Committee looked askance at a $100,000 contribution to the Nixon campaign by IT&T but ignored a $250,000 corporate contribution to Senator Henry Jackson.

Watergate will be a black page in U.S. history unless from this time on we demand the same, high degree of integrity of ALL our elected representatives.

Personally, I find the performance of the courts in the Watergate affair the most distressing.

Judge John Sirica is the darling of the liberals at the moment because as squeezed "confessions" from Nixon's hapless associates.  Also he refused to permit Watergate defendants to move their trials out of Washington, D.  C., where liberal blacks dominate juries and where political rumor dominates daily life.

In Russia they do it with more finesse.

Sirica "broke the case" by giving the original participants in the break in "provisional" sentences of 35 years with the promise to reduce them if they "cooperated," that is, accused higher ups.  Howard Hunt succumbed to the judicial bribe-threat, and every man from him to the president was in jeopardy.

Repeatedly, the Justice Department plea-bargained with defendants for lower sentences in return for damaging evidence against the next man in the chain.  From Presidential Counselor John Dean on up, the cruel pressure produced sought-for evidence.

The rack is more honest.

It is significant that lawyers wove the tangled web of cover-up, and other lawyers negotiated around the edges of law to nail them.

We have too many lawyers in politics.

It is their training to find loop holes in the law to protect their clients on whatever side of a legal suit they find themselves.  This is a valuable service in the courts, but it is dangerous attitude in politics.

Above all else, Watergate should focus public attention on the evils of provisional sentences and plea bargaining.

Finally, we should recognize that Congress is just as weak and indecisive as it ever was.

Congress gave up its prerogatives to the Chief Executive 40 years ago during the Great Depression.  It has steadfastly shunned its Constitutional role in the face of three wars, inflation and Watergate.  Only a decision of President Nixon to resign saved Congress from the disastrous consequence of an impeachment decision it was afraid to make.

Thus we see the impotence of Congress in dealing with special interest demands.  We can realize the importance of electing representatives with the courage to put the national good ahead of the minority pressures.

There are several good lessons in Watergate, but all has been in vain unless we face up to them and act accordingly.

Author: Lindsey Williams