This could be a corollary to the "truth is a slippery thing". An adjunct to that is that people do not think for themselves. It all comes down to mental laziness---the failure to think a thing through to its conclusion. It's best to remember that things aren't necessarily the way they appear to be. This is so because it may come back to haunt you if you don't remember it.
I started reading about Nixon this afternoon. About the Watergate scandal and so forth. Nixon did make a critical mistake that cost him the Presidency. It was on the "smoking gun" tape. Instead of ordering an investigation of the break-in, he agreed with the proposition that it should not be investigated. That's what nailed him, for it could be claimed that this was an obstruction of justice. But could that be seen differently? It's possible, I think. Maybe Nixon didn't know how deep the scandal went into his administration. Or maybe he did---but that wasn't proven. Those who are critical of Nixon probably believe he knew all about it. But to me, that doesn't make sense. If he had a vague sense of a rogue element in his administration, he probably thought that was necessary because it was a tough world out there. He felt he needed the rogue element. So, he looked for a way to protect the rogues and it cost him his Presidency.
At the time, I was a teenager, so I was pretty impressionable. I was influenced by the culture. I wanted Nixon's hide. In retrospect, that seems a youthful mistake. For Nixon made a mistake alright, but was it enough of one to result in impeachment and removal from office? Probably not, if it were based upon the evidence known at the time of the act in question. It seemed more serious at the time because more about the break-in was known at the time of the resignation than shortly after the break-in. That's the point in the previous paragraph. By the time Nixon resigned, the story had been in the news for two years non stop. Could Nixon had really known as much about it just a few days after the burglary as the investigation had dug up in two years? I think not. It seemed worse than it really was. What had started out as an error in judgment ( diverting an investigation) ended up as being a criminal act ( obstruction of justice). Partisanship would get Nixon's hide.
There's a lot of talk about how partisan politics is hurting this country. But the partisanship is more on the Democrat side. This pretty much proves it to me. Nixon was to be drawn and quartered. Clinton was to be forgiven---so saith the culture. Both were wrong, but the issues involved were not of the magnitude that was claimed. Yet it is interesting to note that Nixon was forced to leave, while Clinton was not. The cultural power lies with the Democrats.
The GOP knows this and so they don't fight it. I just wonder if that's the best idea. But if Nixon had folded up early, he may have suffered a political setback, but not a political Armageddon. Sometimes fighting may enhance the appetites for revenge. If you fight, you may win. But if you lose, you may lose big time.
Things get pretty crazy sometimes. It seemed so during the Clinton years. Reading about Nixon showed it to me again. Remembering the Bush years, the craziness seem to be super hyper. So, the reaction to Obama may be overdone. Not to go soft here, but history seems to indicate it. The GOP is more reasonable, I suspect. Is it a strength or weakness? A reasonable man doesn't hang out with the the crazy man, as Nixon did. I suspect that there are more crazies on the Democrat side. Yet, there may be an advantage to at least appearing irrational in order to check the opponent. It was said that Nixon employed this tactic successfully during the Vietnam War, but in the end, it may have come back to bite him. Protecting the rogues kept Nixon's crazy into play when he needed to appear reasonable and contrite.
How do you go against the grain and not have it bite you as it did Nixon? As long as the Democrats have this power, the GOP has to tread lightly. That's what Bill Whittle seemed to be getting at. Or so it seems to me now. Reagan was able to do it, which is what should be remembered. You can be successful even in this environment.
You can't change people. They don't necessarily think things through. But you can change your approach. That's what the GOP needs to do. We'd better hope that they can, or otherwise, we will have a one party dictatorship on our hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment