By David A. Graham
Monday, June 29, 2026
Back in 2016, before he converted to the MAGA cause, J.
D. Vance was deeply wary of Donald Trump. He wrote
to a law-school classmate that he went “back and forth between thinking
Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even
prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.”
For most people, “cynical asshole” would seem pejorative,
but perhaps Vance meant it as something to aspire to. Late last week, the vice
president visited the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, in Yorba
Linda, California, and quipped,
“Young senator, vice president, writes some best-selling books, is hated by the
media. It kind of sounds like J.D. Vance. I’ve always liked Richard Nixon.”
Vance went on to suggest that the scandal that toppled
Nixon was no big deal, and that the 37th president was a victim of nefarious
forces. “If Watergate happened tomorrow, it would be, like, a 12-hour news
story,” he said. “The idea that it would have taken down a presidency is
crazy.”
Vance
is correct about how Watergate would’ve landed today, but the lesson is not
what he claims. Since 1974, Americans have become pessimistic about their
leaders, deeply polarized in their partisanship, and distrustful of the
media—all of which means that Watergate very well might pass quickly in today’s
environment. The best evidence is that the Trump administration weathers
scandals on the Watergate level routinely. As Representative Jim McGovern, a
Massachusetts Democrat, wrote of
Vance’s remark, “‘We do a Watergate twice a day’ is a crazy way to confess
your own corruption.”
Vance, who has previously admitted to making
up stories for political purposes, also offered a bogus history of what
happened in Watergate: “If you look at the story of how the deep state took
down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same groups of
people, the same institutions, tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump
administration.” (As the journalist
Ed Kilgore notes, the same revisionism has been peddled by the Vance-allied
propagandist Christopher Rufo.)
Once again, Vance is right to draw a comparison but takes
the wrong lesson. Trump’s first impeachment, for soliciting foreign
interference from Ukraine in the 2020 election, and Nixon’s downfall share two
important things: First, both men did what they were accused of, though both
insisted that their actions had been fine. (Trump:
“a perfect conversation.” Nixon:
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”) Second, the
most damning evidence against both of them came not from “deep state”
bureaucrats but from their own appointed political aides. The question of
accountability is where the stories start to differ: Nixon was forced to resign
by Republicans dismayed by his behavior; today, lockstep partisanship means
that many GOP members of Congress pulled their punches in Trump’s two
impeachment trials. Now Trump, like Nixon before him, is using the muscle of
the federal government to bully and persecute his political adversaries.
More than one year ago, my colleague Anne Applebaum
described the Trump administration as the
most corrupt in American history, and the headlines routinely provide
attestation. Over the weekend, for example, The New York Times reported
on how Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick struck a deal with the
Kazakh government to give an American company access to Kazakh tungsten
deposits, and to provide $1.6 billion in financing; the sons of both Trump and
Lutnick now stand to profit from business arrangements based on the deal. A
week before this, the Times reported
that the administration killed an investigation into how a convicted fraudster
had obtained clemency from the president—only one of many cases of what look
like pay-to-play commutations and pardons.
The Wall Street Journal recently delved
into how the billionaire Larry Ellison’s roughly $45 million donation to a
Trump-supporting nonprofit in the 2024 election helped facilitate his son
David’s acquisition of Paramount, the corporate parent of CBS News, which he
has moved to make a media ally of the White House, and pending acquisition of
CNN. (A Paramount spokesperson told the Journal that the company had
made no commitments to any government body about coverage.) The Washington
Post reported earlier this month that more than half of the publicly
identified donors to Trump’s intended White House ballroom have won new or
larger federal contracts in recent months—totaling
more than $50 billion. The president is aiming to host a major
international conference at his own property—a step scandalous
enough that he was forced to back down by Republicans when he tried it
during his first term. No wonder the FBI has dissolved
its public-corruption unit.
This is not an exhaustive list, even for the past few
weeks, which is part of the point: Watergate shocked the conscience because it
was so rare to have such a fetid scandal break into view. But by following
Steve Bannon’s maxim to “flood
the zone with shit,” Trump has avoided the monthslong drip-drip of
Watergate revelations, overwhelmed the press, and desensitized the public.
Hardly anyone can maintain a mental list of all the improprieties.
Ironically, Watergate paved the way for this. It was not
the first instance of awful behavior by a president, but it led to a new era of
close scrutiny of politicians, which turned up many scandals. This in turn
numbed the public to any individual example, even as it deepened their dim
impression of politicians as a whole. If it’s true that Watergate wouldn’t make
a dent today, that is a reason to lament the fallen state of politics, not to
conclude that Watergate was just fine.
This would be a powerful argument coming from the vice
president, who has worried about what he sees as insufficient morality in
American society and has said
that his role is “to try to apply moral principles in ways that get the
best outcomes.” Instead, Vance has concluded that his best chance at political
advancement is to hitch himself to the corrupt and unethical Trump. Such
cynicism would do Nixon proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment