The Crisis of
the 1970's and Watergate
The loss of America's absolute
ascendancy of the world economic scene brought a degree of dynamism and
instability. Germany, and Western Europe were becoming economically powerful
and in Asia, Japan had recovered. South Korea would soon follow. They were in
many ways (and still are) US satellites. The US militarily occupies these
nations and controls both their military and foreign policy. But what to do
about their economic competitiveness? Some believed they needed to be
subjugated, limited and controlled. How to do this? There was no consensus.
Others believed they needed to be incorporated and managed. This could be done
in part through cross investment, collaboration and through such an agenda it
was possible to strengthen both their interests and that of the United States.
Unilateralists believed these nations through their
burgeoning economic power were becoming competitors and needed to be
subjugated. But how to do it? Free Markets had the potential to grant US
corporations tremendous global power but at the expense of American workers and
its domestic industrial sector. Some viewed this as inevitable and embraced it.
Others believed this was (and is) a strategic error. Globalists viewed world
capitalism as a mechanism for peace. Others believed it set the stage for
future war.
This is all further complicated by the fact that figures rise
and fall, factions form, disappear and reorganise. But clearly by the 1960s,
the Containment faction if we can call it that, was in trouble, there were
growing economic challenges to the American dominated order and there was a
genuine fear of social upheaval. The youth and working class were astir. The
media was being exposed as a tool of the regime. Trust in institutions was
rapidly being eroded by the exposure of numerous lies, assassinations and
endless war. The latter of which always erodes trust due to the secretive and
deceptive nature of waging a military conflict. If it goes on too long, the
lies become too numerous and even the non-attentive and compliant begin to grow
weary and question the nature of the conflict.
As a brief aside, the post-2001 paradigm of endless warfare
has survived through a cycle of reincarnation. Should it continue, which is
clearly the plan, then we must expect another roll-over and a new phase to
appear in a few years if not sooner.
For me the critical moment for the American Deep State and in
many ways the one most troubling, centres on Watergate. It is the great
catalyst for a transformation that began to take place in the 1970s.
Clearly we could point to earlier episodes and occasions of
Deep State machinations and in no way do I mean to downplay those. The notion
that the Deep State would remove a president is not new. But why Nixon? Was
Nixon a challenge to the Establishment? Was he of the same order as John Kennedy
who by late 1962 was clearly a threat?
Was the Watergate scandal an accident, an unfortunate mistake
that spun out of control? Maybe, but I think the incident points to a division.
I believe Mark Felt was the only Deep Throat and in general I
do not question the Woodward and Bernstein narrative. They were clearly moving
against not the power but a faction of power. They would not have
succeeded if they too were not backed. Their subsequent very
Establishment-oriented careers appear more as reward. It could be argued their
celebrity sustained them but it goes beyond that. Woodward especially moved
from being a reporter challenging the Establishment to one very much integrated
within it. Ironically he has become something of a court historian and defender
of the Establishment. His comments in recent years with regard to Snowden and
The Intercept make him look corrupt and foolish.
The troubling aspect of the Watergate reporting has always
been the role of Katherine Graham and the Washington Post. Graham and her
newspaper have long been intimately wed to the US Establishment. The Post now
under Amazon's Jeff Bezos still is. Bezos has (at least at this point) deep
connections to the CIA, to the point that many opposed his purchase of the Post
which is the Beltway newspaper and
along with the New York Times one of the newspapers of record.
Why did the Post allow Woodward and Bernstein to proceed? The
scoop factor always plays a part in journalism and that can get the tidal wave
going. If everyone else is reporting on it, you have to as well, even if your
reporting functions as damage control. Was Watergate a case of unstoppable
momentum? Eventually, but not in the months after the break-in which took place
in June of 1972. Watergate was fading away and would have died if it were not
for Felt's leaks to Woodward and the Post allowing them to be published. Nixon
sailed through the November election but by the Spring of 1973 the story had
forced the White House into crisis mode. The Post and secondarily the New York Times
made this happen.
Why did the Post proceed and allow the initial Watergate
stories to run? Again it's admitted that eventually they developed a life of
their own and the Post's role became secondary. But even considering that point
it's clear Woodward and Bernstein had an edge in Felt's 'Deep Throat'
revelations. The Post could have easily suppressed it. There were occasions in
which they could have refused to stand by their reporters when the pressure was
great. The story could have collapsed.
What is clear is that there were some strong actors at work
in allowing the Post to run the stories during the crucial six-month period,
the latter half of 1972. They, an element or faction within the Establishment
including Katherine Graham orchestrated and played a part in the downfall of
Richard Nixon. But why?
The Ben Bradlee/Kennedy revenge angle is satisfying to some,
but I cannot believe the Establishment (of which Bradlee was but an operative)
would shake the very foundations of the Deep State and risk its implosion just
to bring down Nixon... a friend? The Kennedy revenge narrative also lacks in
the fact that though the Kennedy family had connections to power, JFK was
despised, especially by 1963.
While Nixon was never a part of the Eastern Establishment
which he so clearly despised, the question of his downfall is vexing. In some
ways he was a very pleasing figure to the Establishment. He stood solidly
behind the imperial ambitions of the United States. Clearly with Kissinger he
had powerful figures (such as David Rockefeller) embracing his vision of
diplomacy. He certainly had no intention of expanding Johnson's Great Society
programmes and if anything was beginning the process of undermining them.
In terms of geopolitics and the Cold War, Containment was a
failed policy by the late 1960s. Kennedy had failed to be properly aggressive
as some would have it and clearly near the end of his life was in a process of
turning away from the Cold War. Johnson had been aggressive enough but in
adhering to Containment he with McNamara had exercised a level of restraint
that ended up trapping the United States in a no-win situation. Refusing to
conquer North Vietnam the US was restricted to counter-insurgency and bombing.
They decimated a region, killed and tortured millions but it was all futility.
The Vietnam policy had failed and clearly Containment as a doctrinal option was
in full retreat.
What options were left? It now came down to Rollback, an
aggressive escalation of the Cold War and the possible risk of nuclear
conflict, or Detente, coming to the public with a different message,
acknowledging the legitimacy of the Eastern Bloc and coming to some kind of modus vivendi.
What we might call the Mainline of the Establishment, again
represented by Rockefeller and his proxies such as Kissinger, clearly supported
Detente and the path Nixon would undertake. They were eager to exploit the
Sino-Soviet split and open up the potentially massive Chinese market.
The Rollback faction of the Establishment, strongly
represented within the Deep State sectors of the Pentagon and Langley were (at
first) encouraged by Nixon's escalation in Indochina. Maybe he was going to get
serious they thought, take the gloves off? But Nixon's plan was to use extreme
measures to bring a much weakened North Vietnam to the negotiating table. The
US could negotiate from a position of strength he hoped.
It was not to be.
By 1971 it was clear Nixon was getting out of Vietnam,
embracing Detente with the Soviets and making a move toward China. Only Nixon
can go to China. Well from the standpoint of some within the American Deep
State, Nixon, the old red-baiter and communist hunter had turned all but
traitor.
A number of other factors contributed to his downfall. Nixon
had made many enemies over the years. Many have forgotten the part he played
during the McCarthy era and even before. He had double-crossed people including
Johnson and had effectively sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks in 1968. These
kinds of dirty tricks would be repeated by Reagan a little over a decade later.
Nixon was also reckoned out of control. J Edgar Hoover had
long dismissed any Constitutional or legal concerns and was happy for the FBI
to engage in all kinds of illegal behaviour, from propaganda, violation of
rights, murder and of course most famously... black bag jobs. The FBI would
break into 'suspects' homes and offices, steal information, and bug their
communications. Hoover didn't worry too much about warrants or what the law
actually said.
Nixon utilised Hoover but was so reckless that Hoover, at
that point in his final days, became concerned that Nixon was putting the
integrity of the Bureau at risk and pulled back. Nixon formed The Plumbers and
continued the clandestine and illegal operations, one of which was the series
of Watergate break-ins.
The Establishment was hardly concerned about illegality but they're
always concerned about recklessness, creating unnecessary friction, inflicting
unnecessary damage and bringing exposure.
We have to conclude that in some sense the Rollback faction
(as I'm calling it here) led the way when it came to bringing down Nixon. They
were upset with his actions, didn't trust him and viewed him as erratic and
possibly dangerous. His rapprochement with China made them livid. Remember not
only was Jiang Jieshi (Chang-Kai-Shek) still alive, there were many within the
Deep State that had forged very close ties with him. And though he had slowly
faded from public awareness, the Kuomintang (KMT) had long collaborated with
the American Deep State, indeed in many of its black operations and as recently
as the late 1960s. The story of the KMT is long and fascinating and deals with
the preludes to the Indochina War and the CIA's long story with heroin.
While the opening of China pleased the Rockefeller faction,
to the Rollback clique in the Deep State, Nixon's moves were treacherous and
catastrophic.
Other factors can be considered and some will categorise
these factors as primary considerations. I don't think so but it's possible
they play a part in the story.
One oft mentioned issue is with regard to Nixon's fiscal
policy and his removal of the United States from the Gold Standard. This was
another reason de Gaulle had fostered a great deal of US anger. His exchange of
dollars for gold, rooted partly in his outrage at US dominance of the world
financial system, was weakening the United States. Nixon ended the ability to
convert dollars into gold and (whether intended or not) fully established the
fiat system of today.
While this pleased many in the finance community there were
many on the Right who were appalled by Nixon's actions and viewed it as a grave
mistake that would ultimately weaken US economic dominance. Whether it weakened
US power or not is debatable but it certainly changed the nature of the financial
system and ultimately the way nations would relate to one another.
There are other complications and theories. Nixon was a Deep
State figure himself. Sponsored by the Dulles Brothers, by some reckonings he
was their creature. But of course by the 1970s they were no longer on the
scene. There are additional theories regarding Nixon's connections to the Mafia
and of course the ubiquitous questions regarding Dallas in November 1963. Few
have suggested Nixon was involved but one can make a plausible case that he
knew something and may have been trying to wield the information. The many
theories all contain degrees of plausibility and doubt but the Rollback-faction
theory still (to me) provides the most likely explanation.
Watergate was effectively a Deep State operation, one faction
moving against another. It was certainly a coup d'état but one quite different
than the well known volume that suggests the same in the title. That book, Silent Coup is deeply flawed and clearly
erroneous.
Like the JFK assassination there are elements within
Watergate that remain mysterious and unresolved. In the end maybe it was a
situation that spun out of control and his removal was an unintended
consequence. Nixon certainly self-destructed and by fall of 1973 the world order
was in danger. The Yom Kippur War had generated a nuclear crisis, one of the
most dangerous moments in the Cold War era. The subsequent oil embargo tore
apart the world economy and shook Establishment power. Throughout this period
Nixon was largely incapacitated. Haig and Kissinger were almost running the
White House as Nixon (often inebriated) obsessed over Watergate. It was clear
he could not recover and had to go. Certainly by 1974 the entire Establishment
was against him. Whatever the motivations behind the scandal of Watergate in
1972, by 1974 Nixon had dug his own grave.
The period after Nixon was one of crisis and uncertainty. The
various factions seemed to split and reorganise. This is complicated by figures
that don't quite fit any category. Someone like Arizona senator Barry Goldwater
certainly represented the Rollback position and wielded a level of power within
the Congress... but he was never really connected to the Deep State. Aware of
it, he often functioned as a critic.
Curtis LeMay was certainly part of the Pentagon Establishment
and was probably something of Deep State operative but in his frustration he
foolishly joined forces with George Wallace as a vice-presidential candidate in
1968 which forever destroyed not only his credibility but his political
viability.
I cite these examples merely to point out that these
relationships are complicated and sometimes there are figures who wield power,
influence and respect who may or may not be actual Deep State operatives. In
addition there are those that may have been 'in' for a time but fade away.
The 1970s was largely a period of the Mainstream
Establishment and elements of the Deep State cleaning house. The CIA was being
probed and debated within Congress. The imperial presidency born of the National
Security Act of 1947 was also being reconsidered.
If Watergate was a result of the Rollback faction seeking to
break the agenda of the Detente group, they failed. The might have brought the
house down on their own heads. Regardless of their moves by early 1973 Nixon
had all but finished the military withdrawal from Vietnam and the resulting
chaos set the stage for total US divestment. By that summer Congress blocked
any further attempts on the part of the US to intervene by bombing or
otherwise. Nixon's days were numbered, his power broken. Establishment operator
Henry Kissinger survived the carnage of Vietnam and the Nixon downfall but
these events unleashed such chaos within the Establishment that Detente was the
only option under Ford and Carter. The Rollback agenda in bringing down Nixon
had effectively cut off its nose to spite its face.
The US was now greatly weakened on the international stage.
By the end of 1975 the fall of Saigon, the victory of the Khmer Rouge and
Ford's pardon of Nixon had cast US power under a dark shadow. Detente would now
be conducted not from a position of strength but of weakness.
Continue reading part 3
Continue reading part 3