Karl Marx wrote that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. With the echo of 1973’s so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” ringing loudly in our ears, we Americans should wonder if history is not repeating itself in our politics. The echoes were caused by the astounding news, reported just a few days ago by the New York Times first, and then corroborated by the Washington Post (from separate sources), that President Trump, when he learned in late June 2017 that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating his firing of FBI Director James Comey, ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller.
According to these reports, McGahn refused to carry out the order, and said he would resign rather than do so. The President, at that point, backed off the order. I suppose he either accepted McGahn’s argument that it was a bad idea, or he couldn’t find (or think of) anyone else in the chain of command who could, or would, carry out the order.
Why is this reminiscent of the act that in November 1973, led inexorably to Richard Nixon’s resignation from office in mid-1974 in the face of the almost certain impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate? Because it was Nixon’s dismissal of the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, that set that train in motion. It had come out in testimony by one of Nixon’s aides that the Oval Office was bugged, i.e. there were tapes that recorded every word spoken there. The Special Prosecutor wanted those tapes to see if Nixon had been involved in planning the break-in of the Democratic Party Headquarters (in the Watergate Office Building) or in the cover-up that followed its discovery. And Nixon naturally didn’t want to hand them over. He ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Mr. Cox. Richardson (an honorable man) refused, so he was fired. He then ordered the Deputy Attorney General to fire Cox, and he refused and resigned. Nixon finally found someone who would fire Cox—the Solicitor General, Robert Bork.
The public reaction, however, was very strong condemnation of Nixon’s acts. I think part of that reaction was the realization that the Executive Branch, especially the Presidency, had for decades been accumulating power from Congress, culminating in an unpopular war in Vietnam that had been entered into without any act of Congress, and Nixon’s act of firing the Special Prosecutor brought this home with force.
In the face of strong public outcries and a push back from his own Party, Nixon had to back off. He appointed a new Special Prosecutor who immediately went to court to get the tapes. The case went quickly up to the Supreme Court which ruled against Nixon, saying that in a country based on the rule of law, no one, even the President, is above the law. Based on the tapes, and other incriminating testimony, Nixon’s own Republican Party turned on him, and a selected group of its Congressional leaders told Mr. Nixon that he was certain to be found guilty of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the qualifiers for impeachment.
What is it about Trump’s (aborted) order that reminds us so vividly of Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre?” One could argue that this is different: nobody got fired, including importantly the Special Counsel. A trivial argument that I have heard is that Trump is always spouting off without thinking (e.g. his constant and often irrational tweeting), so why should we take him seriously on this. But there are at least two things that make it important in the current circumstances.
First, one of the things the Special Counsel is looking into is whether Trump is possibly liable for obstruction of justice. That is the charge that brought Nixon down. Trump did fire James Comey, the head of the FBI, when he oversaw the investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election. But obstruction of justice requires more that just an act that could be intended to obstruct but could be also motivated by any number of other things. (Maybe he fired the 6’ 8” Comey just because he doesn’t like people so much taller than him.) One must prove intent, and the fact that he ordered the Special Counsel fired rather than just shouting or tweeting the thought would be a good start on building a case of intent to obstruct justice.
The second reason it is important is that it brings Americans again to the realization, that while we relaxed our vigilance in the past 40 years, the Executive Branch and the Office of the President have again accumulated extraordinary power for which there is no constitutional or, at times like this, political constraint. The extreme partisan nature of our political system in this century as made the public outcry somewhat more muted that that of 1973, but as the import of this news sinks in, I suspect it will increase in volume as well as sharpen in tone.
The Watergate crisis showed clearly that the problem was the Presidency as much as Nixon himself. For most of the 20th century, both parties had worked, when in power in the Executive Branch, to increase the President’s authority and power to make it easier to enact their agenda. Suddenly with a President of an authoritarian mindset, the folly of a Presidency as powerful as it had become was clear. An authoritarian-minded President would simply go around the law to achieve objectives he saw as important. Vietnam was a good (and burning) example—a war that another President had dragged the US into with minimal oversight from Congress. After Nixon had gone, Congress, with the President’s approval, pulled back much of its authority in an effort to rein in the President. A War Powers Act to bring back Congress’s power to on war issues, a Budget Act to give Congress more authority in budget decisions, and an Ethics Act against corruption in government were among the more important bipartisan efforts to prevent another Nixon.
But politics is politics, and after 1980, both parties returned to the habit formed in the early 20th century of increasing the powers of the Presidency when it was in office and acquiescing when not. This was exacerbated, of course, by 9/11, and the acceleration of the “security state” (a nation that values security over everything else) that we are now well on our way of becoming. The Presidency has vastly expanded its power since 9/11, and the power of Congress to constrain the President has been weakened, not least by the congress itself.
The compelling memory of “The Saturday Night Massacre” might lead us back away from an unconstrained Presidency, but it will depend on whether our politicians are so frightened by the thought of an unfettered Donald Trump that they do something about it. That means not only acting on whatever the Special Counsel investigation finds to be the truth of the investigation into Russian hacking of the US election in 2016, and to the implication that much in the press gives us that President Trump’s campaign was, in some way, complicit, even if he wasn’t personally.
Moreover, if he has broken the law by trying to obstruct justice, he should be held to account, as any other citizen would be. The onus here, will be on the Congressional Republicans to see if they will observe their oath to protect the Constitution rather than protect their party. It also means, whether Trump remains in office or not, that frustrating as it may be sometimes, Congress must act to reduce the power and increase constraint on the Presidency. One synonym for farce is “absurdity,” and American politics these days is certainly the theater of the absurd.
The author is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, and a former US diplomat who was Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
According to these reports, McGahn refused to carry out the order, and said he would resign rather than do so. The President, at that point, backed off the order. I suppose he either accepted McGahn’s argument that it was a bad idea, or he couldn’t find (or think of) anyone else in the chain of command who could, or would, carry out the order.
Why is this reminiscent of the act that in November 1973, led inexorably to Richard Nixon’s resignation from office in mid-1974 in the face of the almost certain impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate? Because it was Nixon’s dismissal of the Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, that set that train in motion. It had come out in testimony by one of Nixon’s aides that the Oval Office was bugged, i.e. there were tapes that recorded every word spoken there. The Special Prosecutor wanted those tapes to see if Nixon had been involved in planning the break-in of the Democratic Party Headquarters (in the Watergate Office Building) or in the cover-up that followed its discovery. And Nixon naturally didn’t want to hand them over. He ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Mr. Cox. Richardson (an honorable man) refused, so he was fired. He then ordered the Deputy Attorney General to fire Cox, and he refused and resigned. Nixon finally found someone who would fire Cox—the Solicitor General, Robert Bork.
The public reaction, however, was very strong condemnation of Nixon’s acts. I think part of that reaction was the realization that the Executive Branch, especially the Presidency, had for decades been accumulating power from Congress, culminating in an unpopular war in Vietnam that had been entered into without any act of Congress, and Nixon’s act of firing the Special Prosecutor brought this home with force.
After 1980, both parties returned to the habit formed in the early 20th century of increasing the powers of the Presidency when it was in office and acquiescing when not
In the face of strong public outcries and a push back from his own Party, Nixon had to back off. He appointed a new Special Prosecutor who immediately went to court to get the tapes. The case went quickly up to the Supreme Court which ruled against Nixon, saying that in a country based on the rule of law, no one, even the President, is above the law. Based on the tapes, and other incriminating testimony, Nixon’s own Republican Party turned on him, and a selected group of its Congressional leaders told Mr. Nixon that he was certain to be found guilty of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the qualifiers for impeachment.
What is it about Trump’s (aborted) order that reminds us so vividly of Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre?” One could argue that this is different: nobody got fired, including importantly the Special Counsel. A trivial argument that I have heard is that Trump is always spouting off without thinking (e.g. his constant and often irrational tweeting), so why should we take him seriously on this. But there are at least two things that make it important in the current circumstances.
First, one of the things the Special Counsel is looking into is whether Trump is possibly liable for obstruction of justice. That is the charge that brought Nixon down. Trump did fire James Comey, the head of the FBI, when he oversaw the investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election. But obstruction of justice requires more that just an act that could be intended to obstruct but could be also motivated by any number of other things. (Maybe he fired the 6’ 8” Comey just because he doesn’t like people so much taller than him.) One must prove intent, and the fact that he ordered the Special Counsel fired rather than just shouting or tweeting the thought would be a good start on building a case of intent to obstruct justice.
The second reason it is important is that it brings Americans again to the realization, that while we relaxed our vigilance in the past 40 years, the Executive Branch and the Office of the President have again accumulated extraordinary power for which there is no constitutional or, at times like this, political constraint. The extreme partisan nature of our political system in this century as made the public outcry somewhat more muted that that of 1973, but as the import of this news sinks in, I suspect it will increase in volume as well as sharpen in tone.
The Watergate crisis showed clearly that the problem was the Presidency as much as Nixon himself. For most of the 20th century, both parties had worked, when in power in the Executive Branch, to increase the President’s authority and power to make it easier to enact their agenda. Suddenly with a President of an authoritarian mindset, the folly of a Presidency as powerful as it had become was clear. An authoritarian-minded President would simply go around the law to achieve objectives he saw as important. Vietnam was a good (and burning) example—a war that another President had dragged the US into with minimal oversight from Congress. After Nixon had gone, Congress, with the President’s approval, pulled back much of its authority in an effort to rein in the President. A War Powers Act to bring back Congress’s power to on war issues, a Budget Act to give Congress more authority in budget decisions, and an Ethics Act against corruption in government were among the more important bipartisan efforts to prevent another Nixon.
But politics is politics, and after 1980, both parties returned to the habit formed in the early 20th century of increasing the powers of the Presidency when it was in office and acquiescing when not. This was exacerbated, of course, by 9/11, and the acceleration of the “security state” (a nation that values security over everything else) that we are now well on our way of becoming. The Presidency has vastly expanded its power since 9/11, and the power of Congress to constrain the President has been weakened, not least by the congress itself.
The compelling memory of “The Saturday Night Massacre” might lead us back away from an unconstrained Presidency, but it will depend on whether our politicians are so frightened by the thought of an unfettered Donald Trump that they do something about it. That means not only acting on whatever the Special Counsel investigation finds to be the truth of the investigation into Russian hacking of the US election in 2016, and to the implication that much in the press gives us that President Trump’s campaign was, in some way, complicit, even if he wasn’t personally.
Moreover, if he has broken the law by trying to obstruct justice, he should be held to account, as any other citizen would be. The onus here, will be on the Congressional Republicans to see if they will observe their oath to protect the Constitution rather than protect their party. It also means, whether Trump remains in office or not, that frustrating as it may be sometimes, Congress must act to reduce the power and increase constraint on the Presidency. One synonym for farce is “absurdity,” and American politics these days is certainly the theater of the absurd.
The author is a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, and a former US diplomat who was Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh