Ask Auntie Pinko
June 9, 2005
By Auntie Pinko
I'm not old enough to remember Watergate and the Nixon impeachment,
resignation, etc. All I understand about it is that Nixon hired
people to break into Watergate and spy on the Democratic campaign
headquarters, and when it was discovered he tried to cover it up.
I'm not sure what, exactly, Mark Felt did to blow the cover-up,
or why some people are calling him a traitor and others hailing
him as a patriot.
It doesn't sound to me like Nixon did anything worse than what
the Bushies have been doing to Democrats for the last six years.
How come Nixon got impeached for it and had to resign, but no one
seems to care what Bush and Rove, etc., are doing? Do we need a
"Deep Throat?" Would it help?
The simple version is that the Committee to Re-Elect the President
(not-so-fondly called "CREEP" back then) did indeed hire people
to break into Democratic campaign headquarters and gather information
they hoped they could use to damage the Democrats' campaign and/or
discredit Democratic candidates and staff. When it was discovered,
it caused a scandal, but Mr. Nixon denied all knowledge of the incident.
It was portrayed as the criminal actions of lower-level people without
any real connection to Mr. Nixon's staff or himself. This was (apparently)
confirmed when the men who broke in were prosecuted for burglary
and claimed it was all their own idea, that they had no connection
to the President.
After the election, it became clear that there was more to it
than had come out in the early stages of the investigation and prosecution
of the burglars. Reporters followed up rumors that some of the burglars
were connected to people on Mr. Nixon's staff. Enough corroborative
evidence emerged to force the White House to authorize an investigation.
The FBI had been involved from the beginning, and they were initially
in charge of the investigation. Over several months it became clear
that although the White House had authorized an investigation and
appointed a special prosecutor, they were being less than cooperative.
And there was still no solid evidence tying the organizers of the
burglary to Mr. Nixon's top-level staff.
It was only when an anonymous source, "Deep Throat"
(Mr. Felt, as we now know) guided reporters from the Washington
Post to "follow the money" that it became clear Mr.
Nixon's senior staff - and probably he, himself - had to have been
aware of, and involved in, planning the burglary and other illegal
and unethical campaign activities. "Following the money"
led the reporters to identify who provided the funds for the illegal
activities, which implicated the highest level White House staff
in soliciting and dispensing those funds.
As this evidence began to surface, Mr. Nixon involved himself
personally, as well as top administration officials, in attempting
to cover up the criminal activity and prevent the investigation
from proceeding, while continuing to deny all knowledge and involvement.
But as the facts emerged, these actions, along with suspicion that
he'd been involved from the beginning, were sufficient to lose Mr.
Nixon the support of his own party members in Congress and the Senate.
He resigned rather than face the inevitability of impeachment.
Auntie Pinko does not regard Mr. Felt as a shining hero of devotion
to Truth, Justice, and the American Way. His involvement in domestic
spying on American citizens, authorizing illegal surveillance and
other operations under the COINTELPRO project are hardly meritorious,
and probably should have resulted in his own prosecution at some
point. His actions as Deep Throat may have been motivated as much
by personal pique and internal power politics between the FBI and
the White House as by any noble desire to ensure that Right Would
However, even if, in that instance, Mr. Felt may have done the
right thing for the wrong reason, the fact remains that he did,
indeed, do the right thing. Those who are criticizing him for "disloyalty"
have forgotten one essential fact: all the institutions of American
government are finally responsible, not to other institutions or
leaders in government, but to the American people. We, the people,
were Mr. Felt's "ultimate boss." We own the FBI, we own the White
House, we own the Justice Department. We own the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
Now, it is never a good management principle to encourage employees
to make end runs around their immediate boss to someone above that
boss in the chain of command. Indeed, if such behavior were common,
institutions could not function effectively at all. There is a good
reason why we establish who reports to whom, and expect people to
follow those rules. In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases,
things work better when those procedures are followed, and get badly
messed up when they are ignored.
But when the chain of command goes bad, it is the responsibility
of any conscientious, ethical employee to move up the line and alert
someone in higher authority to the problem. "Whistleblowing" is
problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that it
can be abused for the whistleblower's own personal agenda. But if
someone has been bent, it is required of their subordinates
to take the risk and blow the whistle. Mr. Felt assured that his
ultimate boss, the American people, would get the information about
his immediate boss's (the White House) unethical, criminal, and
damaging activities. In doing so - regardless of any pleasure he
may have taken in getting back at the White House for what he thought
was improper interference or attempts to control the FBI's activities
- he acted rightly.
As to the activities of Mr. Bush's administration and its supporters,
there do appear to be some eerie parallels, don't there? However,
we must keep several things in mind, the most important being the
cultural differences between the America of 1973 and the America
of 2005. The America of 2005 is much closer, culturally, to the
America at the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries.
We are cynical, and accustomed to high levels of corruption and
unethical, even questionably legal, activity among our public servants.
Stories of bribery, suspected bribery, improprieties and ethical
lapses from both sides of the political aisle are a dime a dozen.
New ones appear virtually every day at some level of government
- local, state, or federal. Our cynical pragmatism seems to accept
anything up to and even on the line of legality with a sort of "all's
fair in war and politics" dismissal. We try to work up vast public
indignation about the lapses of those other people, the ones
on their side of the aisle, while excusing those on our side
as "necessary retaliation," or "having to play the game."
This was not the case in the early seventies. Once Prohibition
was repealed and the corruption scandals associated with it had
subsided, America's attention was occupied elsewhere. Whether the
levels of corruption actually decreased or not, much less attention
was focused upon it in the crises of the Depression, World War II,
and the Cold War. The occasional scandals that did erupt (military
procurement in the 30s, the Alger Hiss/Whittaker Chambers matter,
the bribery scandals that brought about Mr. Nixon's own famous "Checkers"
speech) were regarded as shocking exceptions, rather than routine
By the early 1970s, Americans did not necessarily trust their
government any more than they ever had. Certainly there was much
public distrust engendered by the McCarthy hearings, the FBI's attempts
to contain domestic dissent, disagreement over the Civil Rights
movement, and government lies about America's actions in Vietnam.
But their distrust was related more to disagreement with policies
and how the government pursued them, than to the individual corruption
of particular officials. The revelations of Watergate began an escalating
spiral of scrutiny, accusation, and retaliation that have become
part of our routine news fare for thirty years.
In this atmosphere, offenses that would have shocked America thirty
years ago are "ho-hum, what can you expect from those sleazy politicians."
That attitude creates a higher (or I guess it would be lower - much
lower) standard for behavior that will actually galvanize the American
people into hollering "enough!" And our elected officials
know it. They are, after all, the ones who benefit from it.
Auntie wishes I could be more optimistic about what it will take
to clean up the mess, Kim. But unfortunately, I think it will need
to get worse before it gets better. And both parties will
have to take responsibility and hold themselves (rather than
each other) accountable for changing the standard operating procedure.
It will happen, that I firmly believe - cynical as we may be, Americans
do not have a limitless tolerance for sleaze and criminality among
our public servants.
It's possible that Mr. Bush and his associates have already crossed
that line. If so, perhaps a Deep Throat would indeed help. I'll
be keeping my fingers crossed, anyway, and I hope you will, too.
Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Kim!
View Auntie's Archive
Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?
Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at
a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking
points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those
pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for
Just send e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org,
and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in
the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.