Watergate and the Gathering Storm
But as the noose tightens I recall the deep sense of anxiety we felt at the time, right up to the resignation. We knew Nixon was in trouble, and we knew the rest of the country was coming around to what we had known all along; what we didn't know was how far he would go to hang on to power. We knew he would go pretty goddamn far; the Saturday Night Massacre gave us a solid basis for wild speculation about Nixon declaring martial law. We could hope, but we just didn't know.
I'm feeling a similar anxiety today...and judging by these posts, I'm not the only one. Lurking beneath the pony boom is the unsettling question: how far will they go to hang on to power?
Because these people aren't the Nixon administration--they're far more ruthless. Because the first lesson they took away from Watergate is that Nixon didn't cover up enough, and it's no stretch to speculate that they second lesson they took away is that Nixon fell because he lacked the will to hang on. Because we're at war, because 9/11 changed everything, because we are led by a man who combines an aristocrat's sense of entitlement with the disposition of a petulant bully with messianic delusions about being the savior of his nation.
The first phase, the war against the prosecutor, has already started...and it's going to get really vicious when (and if) indictments are issued. What happens if it gets closer to the top, though--if it threatens Cheney or Bush? These people have carefully laid down the ideological groundwork for an executive branch above the law, immune to oversight from any quarter; they have demonized the judiciary and neutered Congress; what are the odds that, when push comes to shove, they will fail to fall back on that?
I am not immune to the giddy optimism; I've been hoping for the best just like everybody else. It's just that whatever optimism I feel is tempered by the knowledge that it will get ugly, and that the ugliness will be in direct proportion to how justified we are in our optimism.
[cross-posted at If I Ran the Zoo]
The one calming thing about 1974 was that Agnew was gone, and Ford was in place to take over. And Ford was a decent kind of pol. Who the hell can be considered 'decent' in the Republican ranks, and is in line to take over? NOBODY. That is what is most frightening to me.
But it does feel like a gathering storm ala Nixon '74.
October 19, 2005 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough. Ford was considered a lightweight (I remember the 'played football too many times without his helmet' crack), but decent enough by Republican standards. Agnew was widely seen as Nixon's insurance policy (kind of like Cheney, now that I think of it)--as long as Agnew was vice-president, nobody would want to get rid of Nixon.
If Cheney goes, his replacement isn't limited by any formal rules of succession; Bush can nominate anyone he wants. Given his history, though, it'll be based on loyalty, and that pretty much guarantees it won't be anybody with even a shred of decency.
October 19, 2005 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suppose they don't try at all. A Cheney resignation? What does that mean for 2008?
October 19, 2005 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If things really fall apart for the administration, I think the moderate Repubs will move in quickly. McCain would be vindicated and probably be the nominee.
October 19, 2005 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on who the Veep is, though, and whether that person is tarred by the scandal, or strengthened by incumbency. Will they bring in a Ford figure (or even a McCain) to lessen the heat, or will they be brazen and appoint someone cut from their own cloth? I'd bet the latter. Hard to say how it would play, though.
October 20, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope that Bush would want to help unite the country and choose McCain as someone who can command a lot of respect on both sides of the aisle, apart from the religious right ideologues who have swallowed hook line and sinker the smear campaigns against McCain.
Otherwise, he might nominate Condi Rice, but I doubt she'd have the stomach to run for office. She might reinstate Colin Powell.
dlw
October 19, 2005 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would bet large sums of money that if Cheney is cut loose Bush will not nominate McCain to replace him. McCain may be Bush's bitch in practice, but in the eyes of the administration he's been far too independent for them to stomach. They would likely accept him in the 2008 primaries, but they would never put him in a position within the Bush administration.
Whoever gets it (if it happens at all), it'll be a reward for loyalty.
October 20, 2005 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it depends on what model they are using for deciding who would take over for Bush.
I agree that loyalty has been their main frame for decision-making in the past. I was more thinking of someone who could help unite our country that is torn with partisan acrimony.
dlw
October 20, 2005 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, again, Tom, for this thoughtful look at those other heady days. I was thinking this morning about what you said about the concentration of power, and how in some ways the most important aspect of this is their analysis of executive authority under the law. This may be key, if things go unthinkable like you imagine.
The most striking thing that this government has done to upset the checks and balances in our system probably concern the challenges to indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. In response, the government has claimed that it is within the President's authority as Commander and Chief to determine policies in war - effectively, that the government can suspend the writ of habeas corpus that is intended to make it impossible for the government to imprison individuals without good cause. This is true of foreign nationals and Americans alike - the argument was the same in the case of Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, American citizens detained without charge or access to an attorney. The issue has yet to be fully resolved.
More than anything, the government arguments resemble that of the Nixon Administration in U.S. v. U.S. District Court. In that case, Nixon's attorneys argued that the president had the inherent power to suspend the constitution in times of national emergency, and specifically, that it was therefore not bound by the 4th Amendment restrictions on searches. They lost, eventually, in the Supreme Court. Had they won, given their penchant for using their power for revenge against Nixon's perceived foes, 1974 might have been a much rockier year.
My guess, though, is that the degree to which Bush has managed to take the fetters off the Presidency is much more limited than what Nixon sought. Today's battle has mainly been fought over the authority of the President in the role of Commander-in-Chief, which is to say, in a wartime context. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), Nixon sought unfettered powers as President simpliciter - in his capacity to respond to a domestic 'national emergency' (as defined by the President), he argued that the President could pick and choose among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Further, the powers Bush seeks have probably been limited by the decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court held that American 'unlawful combatants' had to be afforded a chance to defend themselves in court.
It seems to me that the two tools that this White House has tried to develop, in terms of powers it could use to quash dissent, are fairly limited, and would probably wouldn't stand up in court even if they had been more successful in the indefinite detention cases where the argument was made. Though the president has been fairly successful in its use of the label 'enemy combatant' to detain Americans without charge (Padilla is still in the brig somewhere), in the case of a Watergate-style crisis, I can't imagine this tactic standing up to the scrutiny it would provoke. Perhaps martial law could be declared to expand Commander-in-Chief authority, but not without a very compelling context.
In sum, I don't think they've hardened their legal authority enough to get away with much. But then again, the entire discussion above is grounded in attempts by the Bush Administration to disregard the law, to take extraordinary authority upon the President, and brazen it out in the courts. So I guess there's still room for a worst-case scenario.
But for my part, I'm sticking to giddiness for the time being.
October 20, 2005 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Devon, and thank you for a very thoughtful analysis of the possibilities. Your knowledge of Nixon's court challenge, a good deal more detailed than my own, is particularly welcome.
Yes, I was thinking of that as well. I forget which Justice Department lackey wrote the memo (it might have been Gonzales, but I'm not sure) arguing that the president's wartime powers are literally unlimited, but when I first saw it I was absolutely astounded.Further, the powers Bush seeks have probably been limited by the decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court held that American 'unlawful combatants' had to be afforded a chance to defend themselves in court.
Yes, and that was a heartening decision. What I wonder, though, is to what degree the administration has complied with it. My impression is that compliance has been minimal--that the decision has done little to change the facts on the ground (just my impression, though, and I could be wrong). Which leads into another troubling possibility: while we could likely count on the courts to step in and slap down Bush (despite Harriet Miers' fondness for Article II), what happens if they simply defy the courts? Keep in mind that we have seen an escalating ideological war against judicial authority; when I see the wingnuts approvingly quoting Andrew Jackson ("Mr. Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it"), my blood runs cold.
A friend of a friend of mine suggested one: avian flu. Which Bush suggested the military might be best equipped to handle.
Am I too paranoid, or not paranoid enough? I don't know. We're in uncharted waters.
Don't get me wrong--as I said, I am optimistic. I'm just a little uneasy about not knowing just how bad it's really going to get.
October 20, 2005 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
How paranoid should is it rational to be is a tough question to answer! But here are a couple things on more small-bore topics:
What I wonder, though, is to what degree the administration has complied with it. My impression is that compliance has been minimal
I think that's right, but there are two strands in operation here.
In response to Rasul v. Bush, the case concerning Guantanamo and foreign nationals detained without charge, the Court ruled that detainees are entitled to due process, a chance to argue their case, but left it somewhat vague what this meant. That is (if I recall correctly), they didn't specify that they should be afforded an opportunity to bring their case into federal court, if some other equivalent was put up. The Administration promptly began scheduling something much like parole hearings, with no legal representation for detainees, and allowing secret evidence to be used against them. A couple or so have been let go as a result. So, as to foreign nationals, right now, in theory they have habeas corpus rights, but in practice, not so much.
This may change if a case goes to the Court to clarify the issue, but it's hard to say which way they would come down.
As to American citizens, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that American citizens must have the opportunity to challenge their detentions in the courts. But Hamdi was released soon after, so no such cases have actually gone to court (it was possible, after the Supreme Court ruling, that a lower court might have found his detention justified). However, as far as I know, another case (Padilla v. Rumsfeld) is currently making its way through the courts, and presumably the outcome will be the same as Hamdi. At present, it seems as though the government has to go to court and defend itself if it detains any American as an enemy combatant.
This doesn't really answer any questions, but I hope it clarifies the issues a bit. My sense is that the Admin. is willing to flaunt the courts openly when it's dealing with foreign nationals, but is stepping more gingerly with American citizens, and ultimately thinks it will lose if the issue goes to court. Further, I think they know that they don't have the troops at their back to push it too far with citizens. And that, I suspect, is also an indication on how far they'll push if things get downright Nixonian next week.
October 20, 2005 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This discussion is interesting (and I've linked to it on my weblog, here), but I think ultimately the question being asked is not framed correctly. In point of fact, Bush doesn't have to do anything to "hang on to power", because there's one and only one available mechanism to remove him from office, and that's impeachment and conviction -- and that chances of that happening as long as the GOP controls the Congress is so close to zero that you couldn't see the gap with an electron microscope.
Even if, in a political miracle, the Dems retake the Congress in 2006, it's far from a slam-dunk that Bush or Cheney would be impeached, and, if impeached, convicted -- there are just too many conservative Democrats, too many folks with deep reservations about the damage done to the country by the (bogus) impeachment of Clinton, and too much chance that the GOP, however fractured it is by the events were specualating about, will stay together and vote as a bloc. That adds up to a pretty low probability of anything happening.
So, absent impeachment and conviction, Bush stays in the White House, and as long as he's got the reigns of office there, he's got the power to do a lot of stuff by fiat and directive, without Congressional backing if necessary. We can only drive him out if he's got a conscience and is subject to feeling shame -- I've seen no particular indication that that is the case.
October 20, 2005 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
BushCo will not admit mistakes, nor will rogues be slowed by rules. Anything is possible in the first ten days of November, because the pressures are converging. To wit:
October 21, 2005 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with the anxiety expressed here. Still I have questions and no answers:
Legal - is there any basis for the public or Congress to get information that Fitzgerald collected (and verified) but which did not end up in indictments? Civil suit? FOIA? Congressional oversight? Precedent?
Overt Political within the Legal Realm - Who "protects" the prosecuter when the slash and burn starts? In normal political fights there is an apparatus to help defend the person in the cross-hairs?
Party Role - Was the party involved in the leak and/or attacks? Can they be brought into the investigation? If so, are party members/party vulnerable to indictment? [I ask because Rove's tentacles are everwhere and this could be another mechanism of deniability.]
October 21, 2005 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink