(Politico) Watergate? What's that?

politico ^ | 8/9/14 2:00 PM EDT Updated: 8/9/14 10:48 PM EDT Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08 | By NICHOLAS P. FANDOS

[a fool in paradise]

At the time, it must have all seemed unforgettable: the endless revelations of wrongdoing, the painful congressional investigation and, finally, the soft black-and-white image of Richard Nixon resigning the presidency.

But ask today’s students about the events of Watergate 40 years ago and odds are that many have never heard of the scandal, or, at best, are vaguely aware that something happened once that lives on in a suffix attached to the occasional controversy.

major reason is that in U.S. classrooms and textbooks, the discussion of Watergate is going the way of the Teapot Dome Scandal and the Petticoat Affair: increasingly simplified and shortened.

(Also on POLITICO: Nixon's newspaper war)

“Watergate is just slowly being condensed, as is the entire time period,” said Kyle Ward, a professor at St. Cloud University in Minnesota who has studied the evolution of American history textbooks. “We are not spending as much time as they did in the late ’70s and early ’80s dwelling on Watergate.”

Lesson plans and textbooks don’t have the space for nuanced discussions about the House Judiciary Committee’s political motives or the legality of forcing Nixon to release his Oval Office recordings. And demanding national and state testing standards only add to the pressure on teachers to move through events such as Watergate faster, they say.

That can make for some interesting moments with students.

“Usually they are pretty surprised to find out that Watergate was a hotel, that it was a standing building that had office spaces in it,” said Matt Moore, who teaches at Mankato West High School in Mankato, Minnesota.

(Also on POLITICO: Watergate scandal: 10 legacies)

Francis Couvares, a history professor at Amherst College, said his students know “almost nothing” about the scandal. “Why would they?” he adds.

Ryan Moran, who just graduated from Warren Hills High School in New Jersey, said that although Watergate attracted better-than-average interest from his classmates, they were generally more intrigued by subjects such as Vietnam or World War II.

“I think people know the word, but they don’t know what it means — most high schoolers, anyway,” he said.

Historiographers (those who study the study of history) say the case of Watergate is really nothing new. History is always under revision, after all, becoming more compact over time as the event recedes. Blow-by-blow details are slowly replaced by an assessment of impact and legacy.

(Also on POLITICO: When Nixon Met the Press)

Watergate is somewhat unusual in that its impact still lingers in the public realm, even as knowledge of its details become less ubiquitous. The same students who know nothing about the scandal’s finer points live in a culture shaped by everything from open-records laws to hyperpartisanship in Washington.

Several teachers interviewed said they tend to budget two or three class periods for Nixon’s entire presidency. After discussing Nixon’s rise, his foreign policy and the Vietnam War, that leaves just half a class or less for Watergate.

“It is painful to have to teach a topic like Watergate in a half an hour or 45 minutes, but it’s reality,” said Eric Hahn, who has taught high school history for more than 20 years in a wealthy suburb outside of St. Louis.

What remains, then, tends to get taught as a “broad morality play,” according to Michael Schudson, a professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and author of “Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget and Reconstruct the Past.”

(PHOTOS: Is this like Watergate?)

“There was dirty politics, but the system worked. We eliminated the corrupt leader from the system. We got a new president, and Gerald Ford gets a brief mention — you need him to get on to the next president — and the continuity of American history is preserved,” Schudson said.

Moore said he tends to present Watergate as the centerpiece of a broader crisis of confidence in the early 1970s. Couvares explained that he connects Watergate to Nixon’s foreign policy and relationship with the intelligence community. But most educators said they ultimately follow their textbooks and stick to the apolitical approach to Watergate.

Ward says this is unsurprising. The textbook industry is highly politicized, and most big publishers try to minimize historical interpretation so as not to alienate conservative or liberal customers.

For instance, one way to teach about Watergate is to make the case that “the system almost didn’t work, and that there were some maybe lucky coincidences and one clear coincidence — that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats, and they were of course happy to investigate a Republican president,” Schudson said. He added, however, that such a political approach is not really practical for high school curricula.

Hahn said he worried that cramming the tale of the Watergate scandal into a single class period and a neutral frame puts students at risk of missing the point.

“If … we as a nation are not held responsible for the kinds of data and the kinds of experiences that Watergate has to teach us as a lesson to not repeat, then I think we are going to repeat that kind of activity,” he said.

[DoughtyOne]

Which ranks right up there with over 60,000 dead U. S. kids, selling nuclear weapons secrets, missile gyro, and MIRV technology to the Chinese, and helping terrorists to take over the Middle-East. Right?

Even with what you say, the guy was a piker compared to the others.

[Carry_Okie]

Which ranks right up there with over 60,000 dead U. S. kids, selling nuclear weapons secrets, missile gyro, and MIRV technology to the Chinese, and helping terrorists to take over the Middle-East. Right?

We have yet to learn whether all of those pale compared to "opening up China" in the first place. They just may.

[Carry_Okie]

Oh, and while you’re there, remember, “Watch What We Do, Not What We Say.”

[RedMDer]

All contributions are for the current quarter expenses.



FReepathon day 40.

Two percent a day keeps the 404 away.

[DoughtyOne]

You’re old enough to know better than that. You know what the cold war was like and how China counter-balanced the U.S.S.R. Why would you even say that?

Nixon opened the door on a closed society enigma. He didn’t institute trade agreements to gift our complete patent database to China, and ship off tens of millions of job to it. He didn’t finance the rise of China to become our main adversary for decades to come?

Clinton, Bush II, and Obama did these things. Nixon wasn’t responsible for them.

He didn’t give China our top level nuclear and missile technology secrets.

You know that.

[Carry_Okie]

You’re old enough to know better than that. You know what the cold war was like and how China counter-balanced the U.S.S.R. Why would you even say that?

That was the pitch all righty; I just don't think it was true (especially coming from Kissinger). China and the USSR were already on the outs, even without us.

He didn’t institute trade agreements to gift our complete patent database to China, and ship off tens of millions of job to it. He didn’t finance the rise of China to become our main adversary for decades to come?

If you think those goodies weren't discussed early on, then you are more callow than I think you are. We had finished rebuilding Japan and Korea into sinks for fiat money to the point that they were becoming competitors. We needed another "cheap labor pool" to which to export technology, cash in, keep said competitors lean, and go on to the next fiat money sink. Bush tried it in Iraq and failed (if you're wondering what I mean, do a little Googling on "George Herbert Walker"). Africa is next on the list.

Clinton, Bush II, and Obama did these things. Nixon wasn’t responsible for them.

I think he was. Once it had started there was no stopping it. Whether they were given the secrets or they were stolen is only a difference of timing considering how we handle foreign industrial espionage here.

[Unknowing]

I remember the evening when Mr. Nixon addressed the nation on television and stated that he would “resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.” Wow, that was the biggest news story since I watched Neil Armstrong step foot onto the surface of the moon.

Time passes, long decades pass, and it’s interesting to see how the historical importance of Watergate diminishes from what it meant in the mid-1970’s to something much less weighty.

[a fool in paradise]

Nixon also stepped down rather than take the nation through an impeachment trial just as he passed on an investigation into ballot stuffing in the 1960 presidential election to save the nation a long drawn out political fight.

I’m told how wrong it is to pursue impeachment proceedings against Obama because he was popularly re-elected (so was Nixon), it would be devestating for the following election cycle (Republicans were box office poison in 1976).

The impeachment of Bill Clinton brought out truths (that he lied under oath, that he paid others to lie under oath for him, that he intimidated witnesses into silence, etc.) that the low information public rejected right up to the moment that President Clinton admitted them on television.

In the absence of such proceedings, the facts will not be on record in a manner to cause the defenders of Obama to admit some basic truths.

[kearnyirish2]

Clinton;s biggest coup (or rather, the media’s) was that to this day BJ Clinton is remembered for those things you mention (that he lied under oath, that he paid others to lie under oath for him, that he intimidated witnesses into silence) while overlooking the whole reason Monica Lewinsky was dragged into the spotlight to begin with (via subpoena): He was being sued by Paula Jones (not a girlfriend) for sexual harassment (pulling out his penis and such - which she described), he settled the suit for $890,000 and was disbarred for five years), and people still think the real story was that he was simply unfaithful.

[a fool in paradise]

True, however the same efforts to silence the witnesses and destroy evidence in a case “just about sex” were true of the other Clinton scandals.

Just because no one will go on record with what they know (when their pets and kids and cars are being threatened and vandalized) does not mean that the accused was “innocent”.

One “Snowden/Manning/DeepThroat” spilling the goods on Obama/Holder would sink a bunch of Rats.

Thing is, they don’t even need to produce emails to show proof of contempt and willful destruction of evidence. And it’s come out that they lied to Congress.

Holder, Lerner, Sebelius, Hillary and others should be in lock up.

[kearnyirish2]

It is very creepy that there have been no serious prosecutions, especially in the political IRS case; there is something very Stalinesque when that story is just ignored.

[Verginius Rufus]

When I was in high school, we got as far as the 1930s. We didn't cover Watergate because it hadn't happened yet.

George Will had a column a few days ago arguing that what Nixon was really afraid of was that it would come out that he had contacts with the South Vietnamese government just before the 1968 election discouraging them from doing anything that would help Humphrey's chances of winning the election. That could be considered a violation of the Logan Act. That fear of discovery is what led to the creation of the so-called Plumbers.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Nixon was a crook…

Bill Clinton was simply charming…

Barack Obama has brought us change... mostly dimes and nickles, and pennies…

Folks, Richard Nixon deserves the nation’s apology. For him to be treated like that for what he did, and the other two louts to have been completely ignored for what they did?

Nixon was a saint compared to these two.

I caught a C-Span show of Woodward, Bernstein, and other WaPo people talking about Nixon/Watergate. And one thing Bernstein referred to was Nixon expressing resentment over the hostility he faced over the Alger Hiss case. And Bernstein actually pointed out that Nixon knew that Hiss was guilty, and “we didn’t know that and only found out with the release of the Venona transcripts.”

Well, Karl, a lot of people who didn’t have access to the Venona Secret, as it then was, knew that Hiss was guilty. You didn’t know that because you didn’t want to know it. And that is on you. You proclaimed, or insinuated, that it was on me for wanting to believe what in fact was true. It is on you. It is your failing, there is no excuse. You, and everyone else in your newsroom, who “didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon.” You all owed Nixon an apology for that, but since he is long gone you all owe an apology to me, and everyone else who understood which way the wind was blowing.

Not that there is any chance that any of you will ever admit it - that would entail compromising your ability to run political interference, ever so objectively, for the next lying Democrat.

[Foundahardheadedwoman]

Nixon’s crimes, whatever they were, do not and never will rise to the level of treason Obama has done, regardless of the left’s rewriting of history.

The reason the left is trying to play down Watergate is because they do not want the younger generations,(proper name, ignorant ill-educated half wits), to realize that Nixon was forced out office for doing far less than Obama has done. In my opinion, Clinton should have been run out of D.C. on a rail for treason, sorry, I meant hung, instead of touring the world as a rehabbed statesman, while I’m at it.

[a fool in paradise]

Nixon’s crimes, whatever they were, do not and never will rise to the level of treason Obama has done, regardless of the left’s rewriting of history.

That's another thing I've raised on articles about "impeachment".

Was the Watergate break-in more serious than gun running to narco-terrorists to raise the issue of "gun violence"?

Was the Watergate break-in or even Nixon's "enemies list" more serious than the Obama administration's use of the IRS (and EPA) to target opposition groups for abuse and denial of service?

Every step of the way the administration has lied to Congress, stonewalled the release of documents, and criticized the critics.

The partisan witchhunt of which Obama speaks was actually perpetrated by his administration against the TEA party, patriot/constitution groups, and pro-Israel groups.

[a fool in paradise]

When I was in jr. high and high school in the early 80s, we didn’t cover much past the Kennedy assassination and the 64 civil rights legislation.

End of the semester, figure it out yourself...

[DoughtyOne]

You’re old enough to know better than that. You know what the cold war was like and how China counter-balanced the U.S.S.R. Why would you even say that?

That was the pitch all righty; I just don't think it was true (especially coming from Kissinger). China and the USSR were already on the outs, even without us.

Okay China was on the outs with Russia.  So you do agree that it was an oportune time to tap into the angst between the two.  Can you please explain to me how a Rockerfeller Republican "Kissinger" supposedly screwed that up?

No matter what you think of Kissinger, I don't see a downside to him helping to open up China.  I doubt seriously that you see anything tangible either.

He didn’t institute trade agreements to gift our complete patent database to China, and ship off tens of millions of job to it. He didn’t finance the rise of China to become our main adversary for decades to come?

If you think those goodies weren't discussed early on, then you are more callow than I think you are. We had finished rebuilding Japan and Korea into sinks for fiat money to the point that they were becoming competitors. We needed another "cheap labor pool" to which to export technology, cash in, keep said competitors lean, and go on to the next fiat money sink. Bush tried it in Iraq and failed (if you're wondering what I mean, do a little Googling on "George Herbert Walker"). Africa is next on the list.

So let me get this straight.  Kissinger the supposed evil bastard child of Rockerfeller opened up China and laid the groundwork for what followed, then it wasn't acted on for over twenty years?  What a great plot.  This wouldn't be fodder for a grade "E" movie.

Clinton, Bush II, and Obama did these things. Nixon wasn’t responsible for them.

I think he was. Once it had started there was no stopping it. Whether they were given the secrets or they were stolen is only a difference of timing considering how we handle foreign industrial espionage here.

Trade with China in earnest didn't take place until the 1990s.  I'm sorry but this is almost like blaming our Founding Fathers for Obama.  Well, they did set up the framework.

There was nothing wrong with opening up China.  Who in their right mind in 1972 could forsee Bill Clinton facilitating the handoff of our top secret military technology to China?  Look at what you're accusing Nixon of here.  There isn't a shred of evidence to prove he foresaw what was coming, due to him opening up China.  The idea he was a traitor to our nation on the order of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, it's just preposterous.

I agree that Nixon did some things that were terrible.  This sure doesn't fit into that.  Say what you want about the man, he did seek any way possible to counter the U. S. S. R. threat at the height of the Cold War.  Those are not the actions of a traitor.

I sure can't say that about Clinton or Obama.  And quite frankly, I'm not a real big fan of Bush either for what he allowed to take place on his watch.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I hear ya...

[DoughtyOne]

You’re right.

In addition, I saw Woodward in a round table around 1998. The issue of Nixon vs Clinton was raised, the idea being Clinton had so many scandals on the plate. He responded by saying nothing Clinton had done came anywhere close to being the type of criminality Nixon exhibited.

In Nixon’s day he said he had to do it for the nation.

The fraud sure proved himself a nasty vicious liar didn’t he.

[Foundahardheadedwoman]

You are right on the money. I have heard Watergate called a 2nd rate burglary, some of Obama’s crimes have directly lead to 1st degree murder. I am holding my breath for the MSM to stumble over this fact. Border agent murdered is a direct result of the Obama/Holder gun running to promote confiscation ploy. That is a fact, even they don’t dispute it.