History is getting a software update.
Speaking at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, Vice President J.D. Vance suggested that Richard Nixon’s reputation is enjoying a renaissance and implied that Americans have been too hard on the 37th president. Fair enough—history often reevaluates leaders. Nixon opened relations with China. He created the EPA. He signed significant environmental legislation.
But somewhere between acknowledging Nixon’s accomplishments and casually waving away Watergate lies a canyon of historical reality.
Watergate wasn’t a media misunderstanding. It wasn’t “cancel culture.” It wasn’t partisan lawfare. It was a sprawling abuse of presidential power that ended with the only resignation in American presidential history.
Let’s review exactly what Nixon’s White House was caught doing before we start polishing his halo.
The break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters was carried out by operatives connected to Nixon’s reelection campaign. The administration then participated in a cover-up involving hush money, misleading investigators, and attempts to derail the FBI’s investigation. Senior administration officials were convicted. People went to jail. White House Counsel John Dean pleaded guilty. Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman went to prison. Domestic Affairs Adviser John Ehrlichman went to prison. Attorney General John Mitchell—the nation’s chief law enforcement officer—went to prison. Several members of Nixon’s campaign organization were also convicted.
The White House maintained an “Enemies List” targeting political opponents. The administration misused federal agencies for political purposes. The infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” saw Nixon order the firing of the special prosecutor investigating Watergate after officials refused his demand. Eventually, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon to surrender the White House tapes and those tapes destroyed his presidency.
Republican senators visited the White House and essentially informed Nixon that his support had collapsed. He resigned before the House could impeach and the Senate could remove him. That’s not ancient mythology. That’s American history.
If Vance wants to argue Nixon has been judged too harshly, he actually invites a comparison that may not help his own administration. Because by comparison, Nixon almost seems quaint.
Nixon’s abuses centered largely on covering up a burglary, obstructing justice, and weaponizing government against political enemies. Serious enough to force a resignation.
Yet today’s political climate has dramatically expanded public tolerance for conduct that once would have ended careers overnight. If Fox News was around in 1973/74, Nixon never would have had to resign.
The Trump era has featured multiple criminal convictions of associates and advisers during both administrations, criminal convictions of the president himself in New York state court, repeated investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, classified-document litigation, and a steady stream of ethics controversies that would have dominated headlines for months in previous generations.
Whether one believes those prosecutions were entirely justified or politically motivated, the sheer volume of legal controversy surrounding Trump far exceeds anything Americans associated with Nixon while Watergate was unfolding. That alone is remarkable.
In 1974, Republicans ultimately concluded that preserving the Constitution mattered more than preserving one politician.
Today? A much different contrast. Too often the instinct is to attack prosecutors, judges, juries, investigators, journalists, and anyone else who asks uncomfortable questions. That’s a profound shift. Perhaps that’s why some politicians seem eager to rehabilitate Nixon. Not because Nixon suddenly became innocent. But because redefining Watergate as “not that bad” makes today’s controversies appear less extraordinary.
Nixon wasn’t driven from office because Americans disliked his personality. He resigned because overwhelming evidence—including his own recorded conversations—demonstrated his participation in obstructing justice.
Republicans accepted that conclusion. Democrats accepted that conclusion. Federal judges accepted that conclusion. The Supreme Court accepted that conclusion unanimously. History accepted that conclusion. Attempting to minimize Watergate doesn’t elevate Nixon. It lowers the standards by which we judge presidential conduct. And that’s a dangerous bargain. America doesn’t need to pretend Richard Nixon was either a monster or a saint. He was a gifted strategist who accomplished significant things while simultaneously presiding over one of the worst abuses of executive power in U.S. history. Both statements are true. Acknowledging one doesn’t erase the other.
So if politicians want to celebrate Nixon’s diplomatic achievements, that’s a debate worth having. But pretending Watergate was some kind of historical footnote? That’s like touring the Titanic museum and saying, “Sure, there was that little iceberg incident, but let’s focus on the quality of the dining room.” Some events define a presidency. For Richard Nixon, Watergate wasn’t the footnote.
It was the headline.
Leave a Reply