The Watergate Scandal and Its Aftermath Essay Example for Free

The Watergate Scandal and Its Aftermath Essay On January 21, 1969, Richard Milhous Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th President of the United States and re-elected in January 3, 1973. On August 8, 1974, Nixon became the first US President to resign after impeachment proceedings were initiated against him over what has become known as â€Å"The Watergate Scandal.† (Watergate Chronology) The term Watergate has become synonymous with political cover-up, lies, crime skullduggery and scandal in the United States and worldwide.   The fact that a simple botched burglary opened a prodigious can of worms makes it all the more mind-boggling. As people began to realize that they were in the midst of a conspiracy that reached all the way to the top, they began to wonder just how deep, and how widespread, the rot went. Nixon himself has denied any complicity in the matter, until evidence that this was not so become too compelling to ignore, hence the subsequent impeachment articles and resignation. However, his motivations, aside from the mandatory â€Å"for the good of the nation†, was never satisfactorily explained. Regardless of the why, the effect of Watergate on the political status of Nixon is unexpected. It, of course, killed his Presidency, and although successor President Gerald Ford extended him a full pardon and he did not go to jail, many believed that he embodied the essence of all that was wrong in American politics of that era. Watergate colors any good he may have done during his term of office. However, he was far from quietly fading into the good night. After his resignation and pardon, Nixon proceeded to quietly regain respectability in the eye of the American public.   By the time of his death, he had managed to author nine books and served as adviser to US Presidents Bush Senior and Reagan. Whenever he spoke about American foreign policy before a crowd, people listened because he had made it his business to travel and get a political feel of the various countries he toured and the mindset of the political leaders he visited. In fact, his last book, Beyond Peace, was a less than flattering summation of American foreign policy that was timely in the face of the political crises such as in Bosnia and Korea after the Cold War. (Stacks, 1994) Nixon failed in the midst of his success, and succeeded in the midst of his failure. Ruthless in his pursuit and determined in his endeavors, he managed to rise above the ashes of the Watergate Scandal that destroyed the careers of at least 30 of the most prominent men of his time and died in 1997 regarded by many as an elderly statesman. What of the country he had, as many people still firmly believe, betrayed to further his own interests and control? What has his abuse of power done to affect American policy? The Watergate incident succeeded in opening an Aegean stables of graft and corruption, throwing into sharp relief the special interest groups that had bought their way into favor and prompted a US President to stake all.   The cleansing tide of public opinion and media criticism enabled the disheveled American government to rally around and expose the core of the problem. But the aftermath was more complicated than what was anticipated. People started to lose confidence in their political leaders, seeing them as untrustworthy and vulnerable to large corporations with deep pockets. Conspiracy theories cropped up that seemed increasingly probable, and suspicion of the â€Å"men in black† such as the FBI, CIA etc., agencies that served the will of people in power and not the American people increased. This may have been due to the fact of the FBI’s involvement in the attempted cover-up. (Watergate) The belt was tightening around campaign finance, and at first the measures were stringent. Campaign contributions could neither be from questionable sources nor more than $1,000.00. A federal commission on elections was formed to watch over the general election between Ford and Jimmy Carter. However, these measures could not last with clever politicians and court interpretations of the law backing the claim that campaign contributions were covered under the First Amendment. (Jackson, 1999) Soon, the amount of contributions from special interest groups and large corporations to both the Democratic and Republican parties reached epic proportions, undreamed off during Nixon’s time. Tighter media vigilance also succeeded in promoting transparency and accountability among the politicians. However, the unfailing skepticism of the spoken and written word became an integral part of this vigilance, lending material for many a stand-up comedy act that nevertheless undermine the efforts of politicians and statesmen to effect positive and progressive change in American policies, never mind if they be honest and morally upright. The media coverage of the Watergate hearings became the focal point of interest for at least 85% of the population at any given time in the initial proceedings, at one time dominating airtime with 13 hours of coverage in the six days following the first hearing on July 24, 1974. (Garay) While this kept people informed of what was happening, a change in the American psyche also resulted. The people post-Watergate lost their confidence in their elected officials and had adopted a passive, if not overtly hostile, attitude towards the whole process. This has filtered down to later generations and now less than 50% of the voting population actually bothers to vote. The general opinion is that all politicians and people in power are liars, or are not telling the whole truth, in pursuit of their own advancement and self-interests. This belief has translated into an overzealous, almost paranoid, eye for political corruption. Ethics committees and procedures, independent counsel law, public integrity sections and other such agencies are devoted solely to having a weather eye cocked for the smallest misstep. What was once acceptable political give-and-take, such as free football tickets, is looked at askance as a symptom of much bigger largesse. (Jackson, 1999) This has not stopped any chicanery, however. There are many ways around a committee, and around the law, if one has enough resources to pull it off. Many use this vigilance to discredit a rival or to gain favor in the public eye, most probably while doing the same thing or something else equally or more unethical or even illegal. The important thing is, from a political point of view, is not to get caught, as Nixon so very openly was. All this reform, disclosure and transparency has given way to two very significant results: One, those in politics bent on serving their own interests has become very good at fooling the watch dogs down paths that they want to expose while covering their own tracks; and two, those who have the nation’s interest at heart has an uphill climb in gaining the trust and confidence of the people. And what of the media? Many forget that the media is also a special interest group, but instead of currying favor from politicians to get special treatment by giving campaign contributions and other donations, the media uses politics and politicians to exploit whatever the issue of the moment is and sell. While many are legitimate publications with reliable sources or well-formed opinions, the great influence they have on public opinion are not always used judiciously. Their motivation is to sell. The bigger the scandal, the better, never mind if it is not always in the public interest to know all. Bad news sells better than good news, and many times the public focuses only on who’s doing what to whom rather than what good some have been doing, or trying to do. In the case of Watergate, media fed on the thirst of the public to know, but failed to provide a complete picture of what actually happened that 30 years down the line has provided to some extent. The damage has been done, the people no longer trust government, and are ready to believe the worst without giving benefit to doubt. What was most interesting to those who analyze the raison d’etre of the scandal was that it seemed almost pointless, as Nixon at the time was at the top of his form, having just been re-elected with a landslide victory, and popular with the nation. Many asked what could be his reason for wanting to bug the offices of the Democratic Party’s National Committee, housed then at the plush Watergate Hotel. Political spying and sabotage seemed to be the most obvious reason, as FBI investigators established in 1972, and it appeared reasonable what with the coming elections. However, the popularity he had gathered with his delivery of the â€Å"Silent Majority† speech on the Vietnam War seemed to make these efforts superfluous. (Watergate.info) To this day there has been no satisfactory answer as to the why as many closely involved with the scandal have died, and have taken the mystery with them. What is not a mystery today is the ripple-effect of Watergate on American politics and policy, and the establishment of Richard Nixon as a public figure. Political bashing and mud-slinging has become the order of the day, and the media has run true to form in exploiting the dollar value of a good scandal. Campaign financing has become big business, reaching astronomic levels, with the added bonus of being legitimate, thanks to slick interpretation and manipulation of the law by clever legal counsels. Political ingenuity has plotted an indictment-free zone so that money can talk in government policy. And despite skepticism, the American public relies heavily on the media to form their opinion regarding whom and what to believe, especially since Watergate when there were no holds barred as to what the media could put out.   People believe that the printed and televised words is inviolate, but more often than not the voices of the ones who have truly pure motives get drowned out with all the noise the ones with the deep pockets make. And where is Nixon in all this, that focus of Watergate? He lives on in the memory of the Americans as the President who authored the mother of all scandals (and was unfortunate enough to get caught) and the man who afterwards stood back up and brushed himself off to exert his influence in the political arena in spite of it. As he reportedly put to Russian Vice President Alexander Rutskoi following Rutskoi’s release from prison after his failed takeover against Boris Yeltsin, â€Å"that, for some, there can be life after hell.† (Stacks, 1994) References Watergate Chronology Washington Post retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/chronology.htm Watergate: The Scandal That Brought Down Richard Nixon Watergate.info retrieved December 28, 2006 from   http://www.watergate.info/ Garay, R. WATERGATE   The Museum of Broadcast Communications retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watergate/watergate.htm Jackson, B. 1999. A Watergate Legacy: More Public Skepticism, Ambivalence All Politics: CNN Time retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/watergate.jackson/index.alt.html Stacks, J. 1994. Victory in Defeat All Politics: CNN Time retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/watergate.stacks/index.alt.html Watergate Case Closed retrieved December 28, 2006 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/watergate.shtml