Am I the only one whose nape hairs stiffen when hearing a pundit say, "Clinton's scandals are not as serious as Watergate," or "Clinton's wrongs are not as onerous as Nixon's?" Surely it takes a special kind of arrogance to say such a thing, but then most pundits were not participants or witnesses to the unfolding of Watergate. They only know what they have been taught after the fact - that Nixon was evil, and I guess you can't fault people for not knowing what they have not been taught.
Nixon had people on the payroll who did some goofy illicit things. They broke into a psychiatrist's office and the offices of the Democrat National Committee. They even got their hands on the "personal file" of ONE person critical of the administration. Nixon became active in covering up those wrongs with schemes, lies, and abuses of power by using the full muscle of the federal government to aide and abet the cover-up, and he excoriated his enemies.
Clinton began his tenure by illegally firing protected personnel in the White House Travel Office, using the power of the government to investigate and harass the people who had been unfairly fired so he could hire his cousin. Clinton used the FBI to gather more than 1,000 personal and secret files on potential enemies and abused his power by using the information in those files to demean innocent people. Clinton critics were subjected to a "scorched earth" policy led by "spinners" on the federal payroll. He abused his power by engaging his taxpayer paid cabinet and governmental officials to promote blatant personal lies for seven months, interfering with a federal criminal investigation and prolonging it unnecessarily.
Morality came into play in Watergate as a result of the salty language used by Nixon on the infamous Oval Office tapes and the "nation was shocked." We now know that an extreme absence of morality was at the heart of Clinton's admissions. He said his own conduct was "indefensible."
Campaign finance played a role in the downfall of both Nixon and Clinton. Nixon's interpretation of the Federal Election Campaign Act that took effect on April 7, 1971 differed from the definitions used by his accusers. We've all seen Clinton on video tape explaining to his contributors how he was "getting around" the law. Again Nixon's 1972 Committee was the piker in comparison to what took place in 1996.
When I add up the complete "scandelabra" - the number of investigations into shady activities of presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members and high level aides, along with people demeaned, the despicable kind of things done, the cover-ups deployed, lies told, the powerful abuse of governmental employees to support those lies - I conclude that I am fully justified in taking offense at those pundits who arrogantly claim that Clinton's wrongs are not as serious as Nixon's.
Gordon K. Durnil
Author of: IS AMERICA BEYOND REFORM?, Sligo Press www.sligopress.com and THE MAKING OF A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST, Indiana University Press
