The World Without Watergate
- Thread starter Realpolitik
- Start date
How about Lewinsky Contra?
You know, the XYZ Affair kind of sums up the Clinton Presidency.
usertron2020
Donor
Frankly, IMO, getting a turncoat Dem as POTUS, or even nominated, in 1976 was a Nixonian wet dream. The USA is a republican, not a parliamentary system. A prime minister can potentially have tremendous influence in determining who gets to be his successor. Not so in a country with primaries, the caucus, national conventions, and the two-party system.
Outstanding analysis, outstanding TL. Subscribed.
And you're right to be undecided. Unless your goal is a Republican-wank, and that doesn't seem to be the case (Bill Clinton isn't at the bottom of Chesapeake Bay
), essentially whoever/whatever party wins in 1976 will lose in 1980. Period. There are few maxims in history, but that's one of them.Nixon will still have the 1973 Energy Crisis and he will have to drink the political poisons that the subsequent gas lines, heating oil costs, and inflation that come with them. Whoever wins in 1976 will face a resurgent USSR on its runaway military spending while the USA is still winding down from Vietnam and facing Energy Crisis 2.0 following the Fall of the Shah (pretty much unstoppable with the on schedule coming of the Shah's pancreatic cancer).
So if Carter (I agree with the sentiments that his brilliant 1976 campaign (1) at the very least is going to curbstomp his Democratic opponents) wins in 1976 he faces an OTL 1980.
1) As brilliant as his 1980 campaign was incompetent.
But if the Republican-to-be-named-later wins in 1976, then the collective memory of Vietnam, Energy Crisis I & II, Inflation I & II, Gas Lines I & II, and THE HOSTAGE CRISIS (you're really wanking if you want to handwave that, as no organized government this side of the Tripolitan Wars had ever committed diplomatic crimes on the scale of those committed by the mullahs) means an epic pulverizing of the GOP, even if its Ronald Reagan facing Jimmy Carter!
Good choice for 1976. If Bush does as good a job as he did as Veep OTL, Nixon may find the rug pulled out from under "his guy". Nelson Rockefeller had all kinds of bones in his closet, preventing any real disquiet at Ford dumping him for Dole in 1976. But as the reigning Veep in a wide open field, well. Even Edna didn't and wouldn't go so far as to manipulate the selection of presidential candidates. That would have the potential of blowing his beloved FBI out of the water.
2) Why not? He did OTL.
3) Rocky is damaged goods by this time.
4) TOO decent.
White House Ho!5) I voted for GHWB in 1988, Clinton in 1992. Bush I clearly lacked the domestic policy "vision thing".
6) You should check out the various Clinton Wars books and the movie done by his supporters. As much of an indictment of the Clinton's enemies as they are, they absolutely savage the (willing?) gullibility of the so-called liberal media of the time.
7) Clean sailing so far.
8) Agreed. The economy alone between 1973 and 1976 should have sunk any incumbent. Only Carter's pie-in-the-sky foreign policy proposals even gave Ford a shot that year. I mean, withdrawing from South Korea within the first year of his presidency? He really thought that Pyong-yang = Hanoi? Come to think of it, with the issue of the Boat People, they did. But not the way Carter was thinking.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
He divorced his wife!
I think that was the problem.
Attica. Look up Blood n' Guts Rockefeller's handling of that tragedy.
Realpolitik
Banned
I have the next chapter at work. I will fix the footnotes later, sorry about that. Again, I'm figuring out this site, and I just figured out how to quote people.
THE OBSERVER:
Yes. I have a special irony for the resignation date. Two of them, actually.
usertron2020:
I agree with what you say about Connolly-I always never thought that it would realistically work out. Nixon probably knows this, but is going to try anyway. And this is no Republican-wank. This is also not a Nixon-wank. I think he is a complicated figure, for both good and ill. Remember, I said that if I were forced to identify with a certain party, it would be the Democrats. I might try and quote Rick Perlstein ATL, in the next edition, actually. This might mean that this is more a reaction against what the GOP has become, really. My views are complex and do not lend themselves well to ideologues and pundits of right or left. I sometimes think Nixon suffered from a similar issue. He really kept confounding pundits, and that's one thing I will admit to liking.
Nixon will have some great accomplishments next year that will keep his ratings pretty high though 1974 and definitely improve his legacy, but there is still the bread and butter issues like inflation that will cause dissatisfaction when these successes fade and are replaced by controversy.
I do think that, sold and publicized the right way, Project Independence could become a huge patriotic pride that helps people get through some of the tough times with their chin held high, so that's why I kept it alive. It will come under attack, but plow on through. I'm a total Manhattan project geek, so I couldn't resist. As another note, the oil embargo had a huge impact on the minds of people. Gone was the age of limitless opportunity and optimism. People started thinking about their own security more.
My theory on why Rocky was the GOP VP was the state of the Party at the time. The liberal/moderate wing of it was melting in 1976 due to the fallout from Watergate, and they were desperately trying to keep the Reaganites from taking power. Ford BARELY got the nomination in 1976 as the incumbent President! So Ford and Rocky "did their duties". Fat lot of good it did in the end. Nixon might not be a saint, but he did keep the far right muzzled pretty well-using it when it suited him, but not actually going for their policies-like no one else could. At any rate, Rocky and Nixon privately despised each other, and he was NOT going to be VP for a man he viewed as his social inferior and a upstart. Nor would Nixon want him as one.
I do have some plans for Iran, depending on who wins. If it isn't Carter, Iran might happen differently-and it's probably not going to be as a spoiler, assuming that Nixon gets through until '76 OK. If it sounds like I'm giving mixed signals, I am-I don't want to reveal more than I have. The CIA's intelligence is incompetent, but that doesn't mean the President is still naive like Carter was. I can't give away too much, though...
I agree that Carter's campaign in 1976 was smart, but it was based off of something that isn't happening in this TL-Nixon's impeachment and resignation. Without Watergate and the pardon that Ford issued(very important), there just isn't the same anti-establishment mentality, and Carter's outsider charm doesn't work to the same effect. Reagan faces the same challenge. Neither are going away-as I said before, the anti-establishment revolt was exacerbated, but not fully caused, by Watergate-but both don't have the boost that Watergate gave them.
It all depends. It will be a tough job to win in 1980 after winning in 1976, but it isn't impossible either, if one does foreign policy a little differently from Carter, if one runs a more competent campaign, and projects a different image. The economy is going to flat out suck, no matter who is in office, I will agree with that. It can be alleviated, but not cured. Volcker's reforms will only bear fruit in the 80s. If someone who knows more about economics think differently, tell me.
So true here. This is a post-Vietnam, younger generation, post-counterculture thing, exacerbated but not caused by Watergate. The national security state will eventually blow up and the chickens come home to roost. Part of the reason Nixon fell like he did was timing-post Vietnam, pre-Reagan. Nixon, fair or not, is the President who is around the when the bill on executive abuse, growing since FDR, needed to paid. There would have been something-it didn't have to be impeachment and self destruction, but something had to give. He thought during Watergate he could just act like his predecessors did and get away with it. Even if there were a different President, who attracted less trouble and was a better personality, there would probably be a reckoning and revelations.
With Hoover around and Watergate not really a threat anymore, the Presidency and its power is still safe from serious threats, but who says he will be around forever? And even Hoover could not prevent Agnew from going down-that should say something to Hoover's aging and the different times.
Next chapter-Nixon is coming home from Japan on AF I in December 1974, where he recounts the year and all the people in it, from Hizzoner to Hafez to Faisal to Pak-Chung Hee, and states his future plans. He is honored for his accomplishments over the past few years. He also shows what "good Nixon" can do. This might be split into several parts, we'll see. Need to keep people interested.
Mary McGrory, Scotty Reston, Arthur Schlesinger, and the usual suspects in the "East Coast Establishment" are not so happy with Nixon's success, regardless of how much they'd like his policies should they come from someone different. Part of it is they want someone with a better "attitude", someone more "them"-LBJ suffered from a similar problem. There is just too much bitterness, going back to the beginning to forgive a man that had been anathema to them. Liberals will go along with Nixon's plans throughout 1974, but they won't accept him. Neither are-shockingly enough-many on the bubbling conservative movement. Agnew's dumping has alienated them, and Bush Sr would not be their choice of replacement. Both the Goldwaterites and the more socially conservative people are tired of getting the rhetoric, and not the policies. So, Nixon, as in OTL, has made enemies all over the place even if he is doing well with the "Silent Majority". And when push comes to shove however, the conservatives will come around, regardless of Nixon's overall agenda.
For you see, Hanoi is even less pleased than either of the previous groups, and they have an army...
THE OBSERVER:
Yes. I have a special irony for the resignation date. Two of them, actually.
usertron2020:
I agree with what you say about Connolly-I always never thought that it would realistically work out. Nixon probably knows this, but is going to try anyway. And this is no Republican-wank. This is also not a Nixon-wank. I think he is a complicated figure, for both good and ill. Remember, I said that if I were forced to identify with a certain party, it would be the Democrats. I might try and quote Rick Perlstein ATL, in the next edition, actually. This might mean that this is more a reaction against what the GOP has become, really. My views are complex and do not lend themselves well to ideologues and pundits of right or left. I sometimes think Nixon suffered from a similar issue. He really kept confounding pundits, and that's one thing I will admit to liking.
Nixon will have some great accomplishments next year that will keep his ratings pretty high though 1974 and definitely improve his legacy, but there is still the bread and butter issues like inflation that will cause dissatisfaction when these successes fade and are replaced by controversy.
I do think that, sold and publicized the right way, Project Independence could become a huge patriotic pride that helps people get through some of the tough times with their chin held high, so that's why I kept it alive. It will come under attack, but plow on through. I'm a total Manhattan project geek, so I couldn't resist.
As another note, the oil embargo had a huge impact on the minds of people. Gone was the age of limitless opportunity and optimism. People started thinking about their own security more.My theory on why Rocky was the GOP VP was the state of the Party at the time. The liberal/moderate wing of it was melting in 1976 due to the fallout from Watergate, and they were desperately trying to keep the Reaganites from taking power. Ford BARELY got the nomination in 1976 as the incumbent President! So Ford and Rocky "did their duties". Fat lot of good it did in the end. Nixon might not be a saint, but he did keep the far right muzzled pretty well-using it when it suited him, but not actually going for their policies-like no one else could. At any rate, Rocky and Nixon privately despised each other, and he was NOT going to be VP for a man he viewed as his social inferior and a upstart. Nor would Nixon want him as one.
I do have some plans for Iran, depending on who wins. If it isn't Carter, Iran might happen differently-and it's probably not going to be as a spoiler, assuming that Nixon gets through until '76 OK. If it sounds like I'm giving mixed signals, I am-I don't want to reveal more than I have. The CIA's intelligence is incompetent, but that doesn't mean the President is still naive like Carter was. I can't give away too much, though...
I agree that Carter's campaign in 1976 was smart, but it was based off of something that isn't happening in this TL-Nixon's impeachment and resignation. Without Watergate and the pardon that Ford issued(very important), there just isn't the same anti-establishment mentality, and Carter's outsider charm doesn't work to the same effect. Reagan faces the same challenge. Neither are going away-as I said before, the anti-establishment revolt was exacerbated, but not fully caused, by Watergate-but both don't have the boost that Watergate gave them.
It all depends. It will be a tough job to win in 1980 after winning in 1976, but it isn't impossible either, if one does foreign policy a little differently from Carter, if one runs a more competent campaign, and projects a different image. The economy is going to flat out suck, no matter who is in office, I will agree with that. It can be alleviated, but not cured. Volcker's reforms will only bear fruit in the 80s. If someone who knows more about economics think differently, tell me.
So true here. This is a post-Vietnam, younger generation, post-counterculture thing, exacerbated but not caused by Watergate. The national security state will eventually blow up and the chickens come home to roost. Part of the reason Nixon fell like he did was timing-post Vietnam, pre-Reagan. Nixon, fair or not, is the President who is around the when the bill on executive abuse, growing since FDR, needed to paid. There would have been something-it didn't have to be impeachment and self destruction, but something had to give. He thought during Watergate he could just act like his predecessors did and get away with it. Even if there were a different President, who attracted less trouble and was a better personality, there would probably be a reckoning and revelations.
With Hoover around and Watergate not really a threat anymore, the Presidency and its power is still safe from serious threats, but who says he will be around forever? And even Hoover could not prevent Agnew from going down-that should say something to Hoover's aging and the different times.
Next chapter-Nixon is coming home from Japan on AF I in December 1974, where he recounts the year and all the people in it, from Hizzoner to Hafez to Faisal to Pak-Chung Hee, and states his future plans. He is honored for his accomplishments over the past few years. He also shows what "good Nixon" can do. This might be split into several parts, we'll see. Need to keep people interested.
Mary McGrory, Scotty Reston, Arthur Schlesinger, and the usual suspects in the "East Coast Establishment" are not so happy with Nixon's success, regardless of how much they'd like his policies should they come from someone different. Part of it is they want someone with a better "attitude", someone more "them"-LBJ suffered from a similar problem. There is just too much bitterness, going back to the beginning to forgive a man that had been anathema to them. Liberals will go along with Nixon's plans throughout 1974, but they won't accept him. Neither are-shockingly enough-many on the bubbling conservative movement. Agnew's dumping has alienated them, and Bush Sr would not be their choice of replacement. Both the Goldwaterites and the more socially conservative people are tired of getting the rhetoric, and not the policies. So, Nixon, as in OTL, has made enemies all over the place even if he is doing well with the "Silent Majority". And when push comes to shove however, the conservatives will come around, regardless of Nixon's overall agenda.
For you see, Hanoi is even less pleased than either of the previous groups, and they have an army...
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
Actually, without Watergate and impeachment becoming a political football, it's up in the air whether Monica-gate(oops!) still happens.
Realpolitik
Banned
1974-Prelude
December 1974, Somewhere over the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. President! Mr. President! You've had quite a year, huh, Mr. President?
The reporters on the plane kept shouting and shouting. Richard Nixon rarely smiled-he was a rather morose man at the best of times, and never did see the point to constant smiling.
But on this occasion, he couldn't help it.
Next to him lay a cover of Time Magazine-on the cover, a picture of Nixon in a Superman style costume, complete with emblazoned "N" on his chest.
He thought 1973 worked out well with reorganizing the government and renewing alliance ties with the "Year of Europe"-the continued detente with the Soviets, the agreement on mutual reduction as well as the 1971 agreement over Berlin was deftly balanced with Europe and their needs. However, that was a mere prelude for this.
What a year. Project Independence and the Department of Energy was getting off the ground, his health care plan got through, official relations with China, the great Arab-Israeli detente initiative(coming to fruition in the upcoming year at the Camp David summit. Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, and even the SYRIANS were coming!), a new and improved FAP[1], and SALT II to cap it all off. Oh, all right, there were still some issues. That godamnned inflation. Having to really get tough on that busing issue-thank goodness for what's her face, Louise Day Hicks. And while the right wing of the party wasn't so crude as to say so out loud, they didn't exactly like the fact that the President was "selling out the principles of the Grand Old Party with socialist medicine". Had to tread carefully-he had had a hand in the conservative polarization of America, true. That didn't mean he was immune to its bite.
And Congress not liking the fact that he... maneuvered them into getting the FAP through. He was never as good as Lyndon was at these types of things, he couldn't bear direct confrontation, but he knew when he saw a chance, and he had key people who could do the dirty work for him. Turn down a President's plan a third time, and the public might think you are being obstructive. Hey, it wasn't HIS fault that he happened to leak to the press what was going on.
But he couldn't let petty stuff get him down. Just imagine the look on Ben Bradlee's face when his approval rating was surpassing JFK during most of his term!
Dr. Dixy Lee Rae, his choice to head the atomic commission and a key player in Project Independence, kept trying to get his eye. What did she want?[2] Hoover often ribbed him for appointing a woman to a position like that before he died, but hey, the world was changing.
Later-he needed to answer some questions.
"Mr. President!, Mr. President! You have just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize[3] for your work in the Middle East and for the SALT II treaty! What is next for you?"
Son of a bitch. He wondered how his enemies in the media would treat THIS one!
[1]-Nixon's annual guaranteed income idea gets revived from the dead thanks to Pat Moynihan and his momentum after the Middle East trip in June. In its original manifestations, it got shot down by both liberals and conservatives. Too many foes-the bureaucracy, the labor unions, and too many Congressmen who had social workers as constituents. So Nixon decided to take it to the ordinary people-who by and large approved of it in 1969. I need to get the source for that, but I remember that. Nixon added some improvements for the liberals, and the conservatives... got some tough rhetoric on busing in the autumn. Granted, don't forget Nixon's New Federalism initiative is essentially conservative and in term with the instincts of the Silent Majority, so they aren't totally alienated from him-can't completely complain. It's actually more a good conservative idea than you think-direct cash payments cut out the bureaucracy and the middle man, which is part of why it got killed. There was a reason Milton Friedman approved of the idea, and Reagan's beef is more health care based than FAP based.
[2]-Not THAT, you perverts. He is NIXON. Something to do with an Equal Rights Amendment, after the interview is over. Thankfully, Pat Nixon will play a little role in helping out.
[3]-Hey, Henry and Le Duc Tho were awarded one for Southeast Asia of all places. Why not? The Middle East alone, looking from a 2014 perspective, is worth several Prizes. Makes what happens the next year all the more shocking.
So, this is a prelude piece to 1974. I'll be going back through the year through various people, and then come back to this scene. Nixon will take questions, think about ambitions for the next couple years, especially in building his "New Majority".
Of course, certain parties might have something to say-or more accurately, something to do in 1975 to the new laureate. It wouldn't look very good for the world if the laureate was reverting back to his reactionary ways of violence.
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
Good questions.
For the first, I'm going to say that Nixon takes the necessary drugs which he neglects to do in his depressed and near suicidal state during his Middle East tour in June 1974. He's in pain, but being the tough bastard that he is-100 degree heat in Cairo, phlebitis, and he orders Ziegler, in response to accusations about his health to DOUBLE his schedule-he'll be plugging on through.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...Watergate Files/73-07 Health 6-64/Item 58.pdf
For the second, that's a little ASB, in my opinion. Like in 1972, Nixon personally is popular-but the working class parts of the New Majority is still voting for the same Dems that always did until the 80s in lieu of the GOP. It takes time to change things. While the Democrats don't get a sheer landslide that Watergate would cause, they do retain control of Congress. Governship remains static. This isn't my specialty area, so if I'm wrong, correct me.
For the first, I'm going to say that Nixon takes the necessary drugs which he neglects to do in his depressed and near suicidal state during his Middle East tour in June 1974. He's in pain, but being the tough bastard that he is-100 degree heat in Cairo, phlebitis, and he orders Ziegler, in response to accusations about his health to DOUBLE his schedule-he'll be plugging on through.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...Watergate Files/73-07 Health 6-64/Item 58.pdf
For the second, that's a little ASB, in my opinion. Like in 1972, Nixon personally is popular-but the working class parts of the New Majority is still voting for the same Dems that always did until the 80s in lieu of the GOP. It takes time to change things. While the Democrats don't get a sheer landslide that Watergate would cause, they do retain control of Congress. Governship remains static. This isn't my specialty area, so if I'm wrong, correct me.
Not gain control, I mean gain seats. For example, going from say, 150 seats to 192 is still a great gain, but would leave control to the Democrats. It would still be seen as a miracle, as the party of the President always loses seats in the midterm elections, with 1998 and 2002 being the exception.
Realpolitik
Banned
Tough to say. I really considered it, and thought of the sheer polarization and possible fun it would cause given my plans for early 75... but I'd still say no, due the economic situation-which is overall, the most important thing for your average voter-and the overall distance between Nixon and his party. While Nixon is irritated by the Democrats sometimes, he has managed to do some important things with them domestically, cares more about SALT II and the upcoming Camp David summit, and has shown he has the confidence of the people. The GOP, as mentioned before, has reservations about Nixon and his health care plan, among other things. So, he isn't going to be putting his heart into campaigning for them-in 1972, the theme of the Nixon campaign was very "New American majority" instead of "New Republican majority", trying to get the Daley/LBJ/Wallace types to support him against the "true enemies"-the McGovern wing of the party-while implying that you didn't have to abandon the party of the New Deal and your economic interests. Besides, I think I've given Nixon enough for the year.
It's quite shocking, the dissonance that a lot of people can show between different levels of politics. Certain things matter more on different levels.
So, we'll say very moderate gains for the Democrats. And the Democrats as a whole will be less McGovernite/Watergate baby in nature. This will be crucial later.
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
CHIP ENACTED BY PRESIDENT NIXON
"One of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life.In the last quarter century, we have made remarkable progress toward that goal, opening the doors to millions of our fellow countrymen who were seeking equal opportunities in education, jobs and voting.Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job."
Today, the CHIP health care plan was signed into law by President Nixon. Illustrated by Mr. Nixon earlier this month in a candid address to Congress and having been under discussion for many months in intense Congressional debate, the CHIP health care plan will afford every American an opportunity for a balanced health care coverage, shared between employee and employer, among other changes. President Nixon stated that he wished for no family to suffer like his did as a youth, when he watched two of his brothers succumb to tuberculosis.[1] Senator Kennedy, a key broker of the plan between President Nixon and the Congressional leadership, had this to say-
"While this is far from a perfect plan, this is a very important step in the right direction. I will continue to work with the President in further advancing the US health care system, and making it the best in the world, a beacon to all those who wish to come here".
February 28th, 1974-New York Times
"As 1974 passed onward and the Israelis withdrew from the Sinai peninsula, Nixon and Kissinger contacted leaders via back channel around the Middle East. Anwar Sadat was in a good position following his "victory" over the Israelis[2], and having restored relations with the USA, had an interest in thinking about the long term future of Egypt. A change was clearly needed from the days of Nasser, and the conflict with the Israelis just couldn't go on forever. However, the administration began to consider the potential of other Arab states. What about the Saudis, the Jordanians? Nixon wished to while giving the US primer inter pares power in the Middle East, forge a more durable framework for the region.
Nixon, during a parade in Chicago on April 6th with the Mayor and one time nemesis, Richard Daley, asked Hizzoner what his constituents were most concerned about. (Nixon noted the irony of being on friendly terms with Daley-but then again, he was on friendly terms with Mao, right? They finally had relations, with all the cultural exchanges and intelligence exchanges that this implied...-while alienated his segments of his own party with CHIP.)The response was about their own economic security, and while the health care plan did help blue collar workers in the battle of living standards in stagflation, it was also clear that with the economy on a dive, it was clear that the US couldn't go through an oil embargo again.
"Da working man feels like he iz losing his ground, Mr. Prezzident, and dat at any time a bunch a ragheads will cause everything to shut down. Above all, he feels uncared fuh. Da thing you've done right so far isn't so much da fancy policy, all dese people supporting you, but nod da Republicans. It's da masculinity, da bold strokes, and after 'Nam... people were hella sore last October, but they saw that speech and decided dat you were doing more than dose who constantly harped about "brutality" and "fascism". "[3]
"I agree, Mayor. You know, back in 60, no matter what happened, we could trust that the opposition in the end, would do what is best for the country. These bums whom we've both dealt with on the streets, you can't say that for. I remember 68... We must remember the greater goal, to improve the life of the people, no matter what happens with party. We've won that battle against the rioters-now we must win the peace, especially with those in the upper classes that like to challenge them and who still lurk in the media."
"Dat is agreed. We mus continue duh fight against da insinuendos and preserve dis order!"[4]
Nixon thought in more worldwide terms, but agreed with the Mayor in sentiment. It was this sentiment to which he turned to the American people on the night of May 14th one month before his Middle East tour. He and Henry had a largely free hand in regards to the opaque back channel, with Congress warily watching on.[5] And John Connolly happily kept "the impossible fags" of Foggy Bottom out of interfering with such things. The American people approved. Who could argue with the results? To the people, it worked.[6] Nixon announced announced what he and the leaders of the Middle East were discussing via back channel, with the intent that Americans would not retreat from the world, least of all from a region that they were only just trying to gain some measure of economic independence from.
Richard Reeves-"Nixon-White House Years"
[1]-Nixon didn't care about domestic policy as much as foreign policy, but there were certain things he did care about. Health care was one of them possibly for personal reasons-the first bill he voted for in 1947 was for universal health care. If you wish to see the details of his plan, look here:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4337.
There you go hippies, Nixon was, in terms of economics or social programs at least, more liberal than Clinton, let alone Obama.
Operating in a different context, sure, but still, you look at it...Without Watergate, I believe that the Democrats would decide to compromise with a powerful President, and decide they can work for more later. Ted Kennedy wanted single-payer ala Canada or the UK as opposed to Nixon's more France/Germany like system.
[2] Well... it did shatter the myth of invincibility. It gave Sadat the name "Hero of the Crossing" in Egypt for a while.
[3]-Daley was a lot smarter than people ever gave him credit for-people think just a machine politician, but very wily, if again not known for being PC or fashionable. But I will confess to making fun of the malapropisms at times as much anyone.
[4]-As a reminder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_PQaT-I0zc
[5]-One consequence of Watergate is Congress is not as powerful as it would become during the 70s, especially when it comes to foreign policy outside of Indochina. New Federalism-very popular with the people and their votes, but not with Congress-enhances this.
[6]-Daniel Ellsberg might disagree with that. I forgot to mention that without Watergate, he's having a rougher time with the President's Vietnam policy seemingly vindicated.
Last edited: