POINTS AFTER
It
is not clear how much more of the Watergate story will come out,
as Congress and the press seem to have called a moratorium on further infor–
mation. But one thing is already clear: Nixon can't claim sole credit for the
cover-up, for his resignation slowed rather than speeded up the investigation.
The Republicans, of course, would like nothing better than to pretend that
amnesia is in the " national interest," while the Democrats, and mos.t of the
press, seem to feel that it is in bad taste-or bad politics-to keep the question
of Watergate alive.
The trouble is we still don't know
what
happened at Watergate, but, even
more important, we don't know
why
it happened. For we don't know why
Nixon either ordered or permitted all those foolhardy activities which he
didn 't need and couldn't contain; surely neither his election nor prestige were
helped by Watergate. But if we don't know Nixon's aims or motives, then
Watergate has no political meaning, and our speculations become mystifica–
tions. So far, most of the explanations of Watergate have been metaphors for
our ignorance and our prej udices, ranging all the way from the notion of
Nixon as bungler to that of a tragic figure, destroyed by greed and small–
mindedness, that is, by his character. In between are all sorts of ruminations
about Nixon's mind and psyche, as pretentious as they are simple-minded.
Perhaps we'll soon learn enough to end the guessing game, but up to now
the explanations of the inexplicable can be boiled down to a few theories,
which cancel each other out.
• The simplest view is that Nixon and his lieutenants were stupid and
petty schemers. In other words, they acted out their retrograde morals and
politics. But this explanation is little more than a tautology, fo(.all it says is
that they did the only thing they were able to do. Besides, it ignores Nixon 's
native cunning, the kind which all except the dumbest politicians are en–
dowed with and which is at least sufficient for survival, if for nothing else.
If
you accept this view, you are committed to the idea that Nixon's politics were
totally aimless which means they can't be explained.
• At the other pole is the theory that far from being stupid, Nixon and his
inner circle were shrewdly and doggedly tightening their hold on governmen–
tal power, and were preparing to stage a coup, or to call off the next election.
At the very least, so this scenario goes, they were out to gain control of govern–
ment agencies like the CIA and the FBI, and to intimidate the press and broad–
casting media, to increase the power of the White House and .undermine the
opposition. At the moment there is no direct evidence to prove or disprove this
version of Watergate. But though some politically sophisticated people have
held this view, I do not find it
convincin~,
for a number of reasons. To begin
with, in the present state of the country it
IS
not that simple to seize the govern–
ment without the army and some mass support, neither of which Nixon had.
And one must assume that Nixon was at least as aware of this as we are. Had
he had such support, it would not have been so easy to get him to resign, with
his rhetoric strong, but actually meek, like someone playing according to the
rules.
If
Nixon was really trying to entrench himself in the White House, then
his failure to resist the process of impeachment by more than a few delaying
tactics becomes totally inexplicable. Why did he not at the outset destroy all
the tapes? And why did he finally hand over some incriminating ones, however
