...is based upon an inapposite analogy.
The good that came from Watergate, reaffirmation that the judicial branch of government is a check on executive power and a renewed civic commitment to truth and decency, only came about because Nixon lost. He submitted to the power of the courts and, by resigning, acknowledged the authority of the legislative branch to remove him in impeachment proceedings.
For an analogy to be guide, cause for optimism or pessimism, the conditions must be as nearly the same as it is possible for two events at two different times to be.
Trump is not going to resign. He is not going to be impeached; this is a different country today, one far more polarized than it was even under the unprecedentedly polarizing Nixon. Back then there were Republicans like Senator Howard Baker willing to ask the questions "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Today's Republicans would not impeach Trump if he "shot a man on Fifth Avenue.
Merely to ask the following questions is to give the answer and reveal the analogy to be false comfort:
What if Watergate had occurred at the beginning of Nixon's first term rather than the end?
What if Watergate had been, not a "third rate burglary" committed by Americans, covered up by an American president but an "attack," Comey's word, by a hostile foreign power on the United States, an attack with three objectives, as Comey also says, to subvert the American democracy, to defeat Nixon's opponent Humphrey, and to aid the election of Nixon?
What if Nixon and his campaign collaborated with the foreign attack?
What if Nixon repeatedly excused and spoke admiringly of the foreign leader who directed the attack?
What if the hostile foreign power continued its attack on the mid-term Congressional elections?
What if Nixon had fought Watergate to the end, destroyed the tapes, and "won?" Not resigned because there was no threat of impeachment. No threat of impeachment because "Not enough Republicans spoke up." Not enough Republicans spoke up because Nixon had a messianic hold on his followers, his "base," and theirs.
What if being a "loser" had been Nixon's obsessive horror? His greatest epithet?
What if Nixon ignored the authority of the judiciary over the executive branch? According to his HHS secretary and former campaign opponent Ben Carson it was "an open question" if the Supreme Court's orders were binding on the executive branch.
What if Nixon would rather have fought and taken the country down with him than become a "loser"?
What if Nixon had won Watergate and his presidency continued not for a "short time," two years, but for four? Eight? That is the Watergate analogy made to fit better the present. Would Comey still be "optimistic?" Still believe "America is going to be fine"?
A plurality of people voted for Nixon before Watergate happened. When the scandal unraveled Nixon lost critical mass support among the American people and among Republicans in Congress. Trump was elected after much of the scandals--plural--were already known to the American people. They didn't buy a pig in a poke, "they got exactly what they voted for" (Rubio).
Why restrict ourselves to one analogy? How about another couple. One: let's make analogy to another former president of the U.S., whose portrait this president hangs in the Oval Office, Andrew Jackson. Who said of a Supreme Court ruling, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"? A president who was not a "loser," who WON. Jackson is considered one of the most impactful of all former presidents of the U.S. in part because the populist fire that Jackson ignited left a legacy of a PERMANENT, MORE POWERFUL chief executive.
Can James Comey point to one reassuring example where a president expanded presidential power, won reelection and then his successors gave back the power the winner had won? No, there aren't any such examples.
Two: let's make analogy to the short-lived presidency and lie-filled campaign of Benjamin Harrison. He too WON the presidency because the gullible, garbage American people bought the lies. Did Harrison's winning lies "ignite a focus on truth and ethics" in politics? The opposite. Harrison's campaign of lies became the template for future WINNING candidates, "creating a new norm where lying is widely accepted."
Is Comey "optimistic" of America regaining its standing in the world after even two years of Trump, who has now torn up three American foreign agreements, on climate change, TPP, and the JCPOA.
Does Comey agree with Chancellor Merkel that Europe can no longer count on America? If so, does Comey believe that after two, four or eight years, that America's allies and its foes will accept subsequent American explanations that the Trump years were merely an unfortunate interregnum, in fact a regenerative "forest fire;" that "America is going to be fine?"
Does Comey think that friends and foes alike will say, "Sure, we trust you as before the forest fire; we'll enter into agreements with you again, we don't believe you will have a forest fire again, we believe that one is not a fool who touches a hot stove twice?"
No, this is far different from Watergate. This is a different country altogether. The United States of America ceased to exist on 11/08/16. This is America 2.0 and that is not going to be fine.
The good that came from Watergate, reaffirmation that the judicial branch of government is a check on executive power and a renewed civic commitment to truth and decency, only came about because Nixon lost. He submitted to the power of the courts and, by resigning, acknowledged the authority of the legislative branch to remove him in impeachment proceedings.
For an analogy to be guide, cause for optimism or pessimism, the conditions must be as nearly the same as it is possible for two events at two different times to be.
Trump is not going to resign. He is not going to be impeached; this is a different country today, one far more polarized than it was even under the unprecedentedly polarizing Nixon. Back then there were Republicans like Senator Howard Baker willing to ask the questions "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Today's Republicans would not impeach Trump if he "shot a man on Fifth Avenue.
Merely to ask the following questions is to give the answer and reveal the analogy to be false comfort:
What if Watergate had occurred at the beginning of Nixon's first term rather than the end?
What if Watergate had been, not a "third rate burglary" committed by Americans, covered up by an American president but an "attack," Comey's word, by a hostile foreign power on the United States, an attack with three objectives, as Comey also says, to subvert the American democracy, to defeat Nixon's opponent Humphrey, and to aid the election of Nixon?
What if Nixon and his campaign collaborated with the foreign attack?
What if Nixon repeatedly excused and spoke admiringly of the foreign leader who directed the attack?
What if the hostile foreign power continued its attack on the mid-term Congressional elections?
What if Nixon had fought Watergate to the end, destroyed the tapes, and "won?" Not resigned because there was no threat of impeachment. No threat of impeachment because "Not enough Republicans spoke up." Not enough Republicans spoke up because Nixon had a messianic hold on his followers, his "base," and theirs.
What if being a "loser" had been Nixon's obsessive horror? His greatest epithet?
What if Nixon ignored the authority of the judiciary over the executive branch? According to his HHS secretary and former campaign opponent Ben Carson it was "an open question" if the Supreme Court's orders were binding on the executive branch.
What if Nixon would rather have fought and taken the country down with him than become a "loser"?
What if Nixon had won Watergate and his presidency continued not for a "short time," two years, but for four? Eight? That is the Watergate analogy made to fit better the present. Would Comey still be "optimistic?" Still believe "America is going to be fine"?
A plurality of people voted for Nixon before Watergate happened. When the scandal unraveled Nixon lost critical mass support among the American people and among Republicans in Congress. Trump was elected after much of the scandals--plural--were already known to the American people. They didn't buy a pig in a poke, "they got exactly what they voted for" (Rubio).
Why restrict ourselves to one analogy? How about another couple. One: let's make analogy to another former president of the U.S., whose portrait this president hangs in the Oval Office, Andrew Jackson. Who said of a Supreme Court ruling, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"? A president who was not a "loser," who WON. Jackson is considered one of the most impactful of all former presidents of the U.S. in part because the populist fire that Jackson ignited left a legacy of a PERMANENT, MORE POWERFUL chief executive.
Can James Comey point to one reassuring example where a president expanded presidential power, won reelection and then his successors gave back the power the winner had won? No, there aren't any such examples.
Two: let's make analogy to the short-lived presidency and lie-filled campaign of Benjamin Harrison. He too WON the presidency because the gullible, garbage American people bought the lies. Did Harrison's winning lies "ignite a focus on truth and ethics" in politics? The opposite. Harrison's campaign of lies became the template for future WINNING candidates, "creating a new norm where lying is widely accepted."
Is Comey "optimistic" of America regaining its standing in the world after even two years of Trump, who has now torn up three American foreign agreements, on climate change, TPP, and the JCPOA.
Does Comey agree with Chancellor Merkel that Europe can no longer count on America? If so, does Comey believe that after two, four or eight years, that America's allies and its foes will accept subsequent American explanations that the Trump years were merely an unfortunate interregnum, in fact a regenerative "forest fire;" that "America is going to be fine?"
Does Comey think that friends and foes alike will say, "Sure, we trust you as before the forest fire; we'll enter into agreements with you again, we don't believe you will have a forest fire again, we believe that one is not a fool who touches a hot stove twice?"
No, this is far different from Watergate. This is a different country altogether. The United States of America ceased to exist on 11/08/16. This is America 2.0 and that is not going to be fine.
