IOW, how would an unspecified, but probably moderate-liberal, Republican administration have handled differently the revolution in Iran and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?
In hindsight, it’s hard to see how either situation could have been handled differently without war. Unless the Admin had the foresight to evacuate the Tehran embassy immediately after the revolution and forestall the whole hostage crisis. As for Afghanistan – what could anyone do?
I can’t see a Pub playing the role Carter did in brokering peace between Israel and Egypt, but it’s just possible. The Camp David Accords could only happen because both sides were ready for peace, after all. They just needed a third party to nudge them towards each other. But it would have had to be a third party who really wanted peace.
Actually, humorous as this was intended to be, it points up another interesting and debatably valuable result of “Watergate” as a sociopolitical event. It was the work of Woodward and Bernstein, and Ben Bradlee backing them, that turned “investigative reporting” from a rather fringey journalistic practice into a mainstream element of good journalism. And in doing so, it exposed anyone in the political eye to enormous invasion of their personal space.
I frankly could care less if the third-place aspirant for the Republican nomination was caught stealing candy in third grade, or got a girl pregnant when he was 16, panicked, and his family paid for her abortion. What I’m interested in is the sort of person he is now, as evidenced by his votes, speeches, policy statements, and how he’s behaved in offices he’s held by election or appointment as an adult.
Or we could assume that when the story broke, there was no coverup. Instead, heads rolled in CREEP and inside the White House. Nixon went on TV with a dog and a cloth coat and apologized profusely. A forgiving nation re-elected him overwhelmingly.
“It was never suggested that there not be a coverup.”
Well, lessee. Reagan wins the Republican nod. I don’t think Carter gets the Democratic one though. A large part of his appeal was his innate niceness, which is irrelevant without the recent legacy of Tricky Dick. I don’t think Reagan wins the general election, no matter who the Dem was. Reagan was still viewed as a bit too extreme in 76, and he didn’t have the hostage crisis to run against.
Nixon got away with a lot of criminal and possibly unconstitutional acts, such as the secret bombing of Cambodia. What Watergate was all about, was that he (or his supporters) cheated at the game of electoral politics, and that was one line that could not be crossed without consequences. Is it any different in the UK? (For that matter, I once heard a Brit say that if Watergate had happened there, with the parliamentary system, there would have been no hearings; Nixon would have resigned the moment the story broke. Not resigning would have been unthinkable and Not Done. Besides, he would have immediately faced a vote of no confidence.)
The really tragic – in the classical sense – thing about Watergate was that it was from Nixon’s and the Pubs’ POV completely unnecessary. Nixon would have defeated McGovern in a landslide anyway; by that time the voters were sick of the war, but they were also sick of the lefty counterculture with which McGovern was identified. But Nixon’s tragic flaw, his paranoia and persecution complex, could not allow him to tolerate even the bare possibility of defeat in 1972, and his subordinates were infected by that attitude.
Neither Ford nor Carter was spectacularly incompetent. Ford was simply negligible. Carter was brilliant – look at his handling of Israel/Egypt – but unlucky. He just had a lot of bad things happen on his watch; but it’s hard to see how anybody else could have handled them better, and it’s very easy to imagine how somebody else could have handled them worse. Why, we might have bombed Iran in 1979!
OKay. Then the results would have been pretty much what we’re seeing in the *current * administration, which largely shares both the overarching mindset, and even many of the same persons in senior posts, as Nixon’s. The set of attitudes about responsibility and power that created Watergate wasn’t just Nixon’s, it was Rumsfeld’s, Cheney’s, Kissinger’s, and Fred Fielding’s, too. But Nixon was far more skillful, and had far more sense of place in history, than the current guy, who spent that period getting drunk instead of learning from the Master.
Those who *can * remember the past can *still * be condemned to repeat it.
I don’t deny that Carter had a lot of bad things happen on his watch. However, the man had a worldview that made him incapable of responding to these events in any kind of effective way.
Take, for example, the gasoline crisis. Carter continued policies such as price controls that ensured continued scarcity, gas lines, and even gas rationing. When the Reagan Administration allowed gas prices to float, the gas lines ended.
Also, it is no secret that the hostages were freed when they were solely because the Iranians feared a more vigorous response from the new administration. So perhaps a credible threat of bombing earlier on would have ended the crisis sooner.
I’ve never denied Carter’s brilliance, merely his competence, which is a different measurement entirely.
I think the Dems might still have won the Presidency in '76. The White House tends to change hands after eight years of any party holding it, and several of those Dems who ran or who might have run in some alternative 1976 (Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall, Ed Muskie, even Hubert Humphrey) had a decent shot at winning the whole enchilada.
Second terms tend to be difficult, and even without Watergate, Nixon would have had a lot on his plate. The economy would probably still have been limping in '76, which would favor the Democrats. I doubt that Nixon would have left office while riding high in the polls, and his incumbency probably wouldn’t have helped whoever won the GOP nomination that year.
Plus, without Watergate, every political scandal since then wouldn’t have “-gate” attached to it.
Fascinating. Translated: the gas crisis was caused by petroleum companies not making enough money, so they withheld their product. When Reagan surrendered to their game, and they could set prices however they wanted, they started releasing gas again.
Nice libertarian policy move. But are you sure that’s something you want to hold up as good government?
Gosh, what a good thing it was that Nixon did not follow that policy in 1973. We might have had scarcity, gas lines, and rationing then.
You know, this may surprise you, but I agree with this. Carter bumbled the hostage situation big time. The response should have been similar to the response to Afghanistan after 9/11, without - one hopes - a distracting invasion of Iraq afterwards.
An invasion of Iran in 1979 would have been an even greater disaster than the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Afghanistan is (in term of population) a much smaller country than either. There really was no option open to Carter, other than the path he followed, that would not have resulted in the deaths of all the hostages and a great many more Iranians and Americans.
:dubious: Do you honestly think a full-scale American invasion of Iran in 1979 would have resulted in anything but quagmire and tragedy?!
Pretty much the same way it was played out in the actual historical timeline. The Shah died during the crisis; after that, there was no point of contention other than his personal money. Whether the U.S. government gave that money to the revolutionary Iranian government or preserved it for the Shah’s family was an utterly trivial matter in geopolitical terms. After all, the new government still controlled the oil revenue, and that’s what really mattered, then and now.
A number of people have presented some evidence that promises were made by people connected with the Reagan campaign that if Iran held the hostages until the end of Carter’s presidency, the incoming Reagan administration would secretly sell them military weapons. Some parts of this are indisuputable - the hostages were held until the end of Carter’s administration and the Reagan administration did sell weapons to Iran. So the only question is whether or not promises had been made before the election.
Yes, of course I do. Khomeini was still consolidating his power, against not-inconsequential resistance. He would have - as he did! a year later! - cave to a serious threat, and war would not have been necessary. And am I wrong on that point, we would have won a war. Not everyone is as incompetent at running a war as Bush is.
Oh dear. We don’t seem to have a goggle-eyed smiley. The hostages would have been on their way home even as Carter was being inaugurated for his second term? Nonsense.
I want to make it clear here that I like Carter. I think he is a wonderful and decent human being. But on the hostage crisis, he screwed the pooch.
Of course we would have won. Just like we won the Iraq War within five weeks. But the effects on the ground would have turned out the same, only worse (Iran having four or five times the population of Iraq, and every bit as divided and turbulent).