If Nixon had done a mea culpa regarding Watergate...

Two part question, one-part poll (poll question relates to 1974);

If Nixon had done a mea culpa regarding Watergate, similar to what Reagan did when he took full responsibility over Iran-Contra, and given the political mindset of the country at that time, would the country and Congress have let him slide and avoid potential/likely impeachment? Or, were his crimes too bad to overlook?

Now, fast-forward to today and today's political climate. Suppose Nixon and Watergate happened today. How would Nixon be handled? Possible forgiveness, or no mercy?

I think he would have been forgiven in 1974, but nailed to the cross (so to speak) today. I think our's has always been a forgiving society if you just ask, but today and recent years has turned away from that.

Keep in mind that the questions are as much about changing (or not) societal political mindsets as they are about the specific events.

Note: I'm presently reading a book about Gerald Ford, hence all my Nixon and Ford threads of late.

The problem is, Nixon never would take responsibility. In Dean's new book, he writes about talking to Nixon, explaining what he did was wrong, and Nixon continued his cognitive dissonance, he never believed he was doing wrong. Nixon was like that, it was a psycological flaw he had, he was paranoid and kept enemy lists, and felt the ends justified the means.

beefheart said:

The problem is, Nixon never would take responsibility. In Dean's new book, he writes about talking to Nixon, explaining what he did was wrong, and Nixon continued his cognitive dissonance, he never believed he was doing wrong. Nixon was like that, it was a psycological flaw he had, he was paranoid and kept enemy lists, and felt the ends justified the means.

Click to expand...

I agree. Nixon never would have. The question is also about changing societal political mindsets, as well.

radcen said:

Two part question, one-part poll (poll question relates to 1974);

If Nixon had done a mea culpa regarding Watergate, similar to what Reagan did when he took full responsibility over Iran-Contra, and given the political mindset of the country at that time, would the country and Congress have let him slide and avoid potential/likely impeachment? Or, were his crimes too bad to overlook?

Now, fast-forward to today and today's political climate. Suppose Nixon and Watergate happened today. How would Nixon be handled? Possible forgiveness, or no mercy?

I think he would have been forgiven in 1974, but nailed to the cross (so to speak) today. I think our's has always been a forgiving society if you just ask, but today and recent years has turned away from that.

Note: I'm presently reading a book about Gerald Ford, hence all my Nixon and Ford threads of late.

Click to expand...

If you want my honest opinion, in today's climate would that have been considered as serious as it was in the early 1970s? No. The crime was primarily against the other political party. It's not like we aren't used to it today, and I'm sorry, but abuse of power is hardly something that isn't going on now.

He was gone mo matter what.

radcen said:

I agree. Nixon never would have. The question is also about changing societal political mindsets, as well.

Click to expand...

I find Nixon fascinating as a human being, but don't take that as liking and admiring him. He had some serious psychological problems.

If Nixon knew little and did not engage in cover-up activities, it is possible to imagine that the GOP would have sided with him. Anything less than that, not only would have public opinion soured to a significant degree, but his support within the GOP would have gradually eroded just as it had.

Lastly, this is an important part of the puzzle. Not a single impeachment proceeding has occurred in the United States without political malice driving the opposition. In the case of Nixon, Nixon actually proceeded in a manner that rapidly closed in on the criminality that the process was designed to protect against. That being said, impeachment is mostly a partisan political tool. American citizens shouldn't have any illusions about it.

Nixon had a lot more than just Watergate to apologize for.

Fiddytree said:

If Nixon knew little and did not engage in cover-up activities, it is possible to imagine that the GOP would have sided with him. Anything less than that, not only would have public opinion soured to a significant degree, but his support within the GOP would have gradually eroded just as it had.

Lastly, this is an important part of the puzzle. Not a single impeachment proceeding has occurred in the United States without political malice driving the opposition. In the case of Nixon, Nixon actually proceeded in a manner that rapidly closed in on the criminality that the process was designed to protect against. That being said, impeachment is mostly a partisan political tool. American citizens shouldn't have any illusions about it.

Click to expand...

It wasn't intended to be, but it sure has evolved to be so.

radcen said:

It wasn't intended to be, but it sure has evolved to be so.

Click to expand...

Correct. It was something that was designed to secure the integrity of the system. However, when the first President faced the likelihood of being removed from office, he was guilty of violating terms of a law that was an overstep in Congressional authority in regulating the actions of the President. It was such an overstep that the law in which the President was guilty of violating, was removed entirely one year later--but not before they could effectively oust Johnson from power. Both the law and the impeachment proceedings functioned as a partisan tool to remove a President from power.

The issue is should he have been forgiven if he had owned up to his crimes.

Why would the US public have had to accept someone who committed crimes while in office. If he had known nothing about the break in he should have come clean and then he should not only have been forgiven, he would have been the victim of criminals outside of his knowledge who would have damaged his chances of getting elected.

But he did not do that. He should have done nothing to cover it up and he would have been able to come out a hero for integrity.