Watergate Revisited With More Than the Expletives Deleted

When foreign terrorists are beheading hostages and flying airplanes into American buildings, Watergate almost seems like a pleasant diversion--the political equivalent of baseball fans discussing some ancient World Series.

Invoking the names of Nixon, Mitchell, Liddy and Dean--not to mention Deep Throat--has the same cocktail-party levity to it as would dropping the names of Mantle, Berra, Reese and Campanella.

“Hey, remember when Liddy told his handlers he’d stand on the street corner if they wanted to whack him?”

“Sure. Or, when Dean said Nixon knew about the break-in?”

Believe it or not, young people (those of you under 30), that kind of talk is comforting nostalgia for many of your elders.

Come Monday, don’t be surprised to see lots of it on TV when we celebrate (is there any other word?) the 30th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, from which the countdown began to the end of the Richard Nixon presidency in August 1974.

Given the state of the world today, it’ll be hard to remember that Watergate was a pulse-pounding saga that at times had many Americans worrying about the state of the Republic. That sounds like a comic statement today, except to those who remember coming home late on a Saturday night in 1973 and hearing about the “Saturday Night Massacre,” when the U.S. attorney general and his No. 2 man quit, instead of following Nixon’s orders to fire the Watergate special prosecutor.

Library’s Perspective

That Watergate has become cultural shtick is nowhere more evident than at the Nixon Library in Orange County, which will never be confused with the Smithsonian. At the library in Yorba Linda, officials decided last week to get a jump on the upcoming festivities by alerting the news media to a group of people who would talk about Watergate.

The intent was to put Watergate in perspective, says John Taylor, the executive director of the Nixon Foundation that runs the library.

Taylor says the Watergate scandal, which began when political operatives broke into Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C., should be seen in the context of anti-Vietnam War elements that were leaking information to the press.

“President Nixon was trying to end the war he had inherited as well as transform the balance of power in the world through his visionary foreign policy,” says Taylor, who once served as Nixon’s personal assistant. “Then, as now, a president fighting a war can’t do his job with maximum effectiveness if his government can’t keep secrets.”

That virtually nobody--not even most of Nixon’s political allies--eventually bought that version in 1974 doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

Even many Nixon supporters who recite the statement about the poisonous atmosphere in the Vietnam War era came to realize back then that Nixon was protecting himself, not the presidency, as he orchestrated his downfall.

But, hey, who cares?

Revising History

Nobody died at Watergate, and 30 years is a long, long time. With our attention focused on the real dangers in the world, what better time to slip in a little historical revisionism?

That seems to be the thinking at the Nixon Library, which was pretty much designed from the get-go to polish the old man’s reputation.

I will give them this: Watergate is a big party compared with threats of nuclear attack and wars of civilizations. Compared to Osama bin Laden, Richard Nixon is one of the most sympathetic and misunderstood figures America has ever produced.

So, to the Nixon Library folks, I say: Have at it. Tell it like it is.

Nixon himself always said history depends on who’s writing it.

And when you’re through with Watergate, how about branching out with a documentary on how Custer led his troops to a resounding victory at Little Bighorn?

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons at (714) 966-7821, at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or at dana.parsons@latimes.com.