Assignment Description
There’s an old adage that says that history is always written by the winners. Although this is not
always the case, it is true that people's sense of historical events is often influenced by the
viewpoints of the historians who write about them.
During the Watergate scandal in 1974, many policy pundits wrote columns demanding that
President Richard Nixon resign from the presidency because he was, in their view, clearly
culpable for the Watergate break-ins. Not all pundits felt this way, however. ***Read articles
that offer differing views of President Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Use the attached template to complete the following for this assignment:
•
•
•
Two Approaches to Watergate: Summarize the arguments made in each of the two
articles regarding the conduct of President Nixon. How might each of the author’s views
impact the reader’s understanding of the Watergate crisis?
Changing Views: Describe how the Watergate events changed American views toward
politics and politicians. In your view, how did these events change the press coverage of
politicians?
Impact of Technology: Speculate about how the Watergate event coverage might have
been different (better or worse) in the age of social media and smartphones. Would it
have lasted as long? Why or why not? Are these innovations in technology helpful or
harmful to the way that people understand current events?
At least 2 credible sources are required for this assignment, in addition to the 2 articles offered
for a total of 4 sources. Your sources should be cited using APA format; both in-text citations
and references. Please use the CTU Undergraduate Writing Style Guide for assistance on APA
formatting.
References
Burch, D. (1974, May 14). In defense of Richard Nixon. Retrieved from The Harvard Crimson
Web site: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/14/in-defense-of-richard-nixonpithe/
The Washington Post. (1973, May 1). Editorial: Watergate: The unfinished business. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-2.htm
Article # 1
Editorial: Watergate: The Unfinished Business
Tuesday, May 1, 1973; Page A18
Mr. Nixon's speech and actions yesterday, far-reaching as they were in impact and effect, leave a
lot yet to be done if he means to repair the damage of 10 months of temporizing, evasion and
deceit where the Watergate scandals are concerned. Plainly, the President would like to turn the
whole ugly matter over to the courts. And plainly took that is where the prosecution of specific
criminal violations should be. But almost from the beginning, the test of "wrong-doing" has been
neither exclusively nor overridingly whether men the President put in high office had violated
criminal laws. An equally important test has been whether these men met certain minimum
standards of decency, propriety and honor, to borrow a word much invoked by the President.
When one speaks about public confidence and trust, that is the heart of the matter: people are
entitled to something more than confidence that their highest public officials do not break the
law; they are also entitled to know that these officials do not lie and cheat and corrupt the
institutions of government. Mr. Nixon acknowledged as much. But it is precisely in this area of
earning (or restoring) public trust that Mr. Nixon's remedies fall short.
What has the President in fact done? The answer is that he as met only the minimum public and
political requirements of the situation -- rather as he did on April 17, when he finally
acknowledged for the first time his serious concern over the Watergate corruption.
Now as then, it has been as if the President were determined to do no more than the least that is
required by the pressures of each new spasm of revelations; it is as if he were continuing to probe
to find that level of public tolerance which would oblige him to concede the least.
To see why this is so, one need only examine those positive and welcome actions the President
actually has taken. He has, first, accepted the resignations of H.R. Haldeman and John
Erhlichman, his two top White House aides. These two resignations go a long way toward
fulfilling the imperatives created by the disclosures of scandals. Second, he has accepted the
wisdom of Attorney General Kleindienst's argument for removing himself from a position which
necessarily involves him in investigating and prosecuting friends and former colleagues. He has
appointed Defense Secretary Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General and -- pending
confirmation by the Senate -- directed him to involve himself in the Watergate investigation and
prosecution. Finally, the president has dismissed his White House Counsel John Dean and
assigned Mr. Dean's duties to White House aide Leonard Garment temporarily, until a permanent
replacement is selected.
Commendable as all these actions may be, their common denominator is that none of them
guarantees the introduction into the investigative process of a detached and wholly independent
party, a party with no previous connection with the administration and one unburdened by prior
professional relationships -- of a friendly or hostile nature -- with those persons under
investigation. It is not to question in any respect the integrity of Mr. Ricahrdson and Mr.
Garment to observe that it is long past the time when an in-housecleaning can meet the test of
public credibility. That is not the fault of either of these men; it is the natural consequence of the
character of the administration's self-investigation to date.
The clear solution, forcefully advanced by the prestigious New York City Bar Association,
members of Congress and others, is for the criminal aspects of these cases to be put under the
direction of a special prosecutor.
Mr. Nixon left open in his speech last night the possibility that something of this nature -- a
special "supervisory" prosecutor -- may be created by Mr. Richardson. To his credit, he has
finally accepted ultimate, personal responsibility for the activities of his subordinates and
acknowledged the crisis in public confidence that lies at the heart of what we have come to call
Watergate.
In what could not have been a particularly easy gesture for him to make, he also acknowledged
the role of the press as well as the courts in rooting out information his own investigators had
sought to suppress. What remains to be seen -- the unfinished business, as it were -- is, first of
all, the scope and integrity of the investigatory process which he has set in motion. But the
remaking of the Nixon presidency will also depend on his willingness and capacity to bring not
just new men, or even new approaches, but a whole new environment to the executive branch of
the government.
© Copyright 1973 The Washington Post Co.
Article #2
In Defense of Richard Nixon
By DEAN BURCH, May 14, 1974
The Chicago Tribune, a long-time supporter of Richard Nixon, called for Nixon's
resignation last week after the release of the White House transcripts. After the Tribune's
editorial appeared, Dean Burch, a special assistant to the president, sent the following
statement to the Tribune's editors.
The Chicago Tribune's editorial calling for the president to leave office is a most regrettable
result of the Watergate affair.
It is regrettable, in major part, because it comes from a newspaper respected by the nation
and by its readers--among them, Richard M. Nixon. It was clearly a "painful decision" for
the Tribune's editors, most of whom know the president personally.
There can be no argument with the Tribune's right to its conclusions--but there is wide
berth to contest the Tribune's reasoning in arriving at these conclusions.
The Tribune says the Richard Nixon revealed in the transcripts is not the man they believed
him to be. They maintain the newly-emerged "private Nixon" of the Watergate discussions is
somehow less of a man than the "public Nixon," the leader of a great American nation.
Here, I must differ forcefully. What emerges from these transcripts is a president searching
diligently for the truth in Watergate--attempting to balance the enduring interests of the
Republic, the commands of the law, and the lives and reputations of his friends and loyal
deputies.
Here was a president faced with getting to the bottom of an emerging scandal that he
realized might shake the foundations of the Republic. Yet, on the other hand, he was faced
with preserving the presidency and, indeed, the nation itself.
But the key question remains: Did Richard Nixon do wrong?
The transcripts--read with an open mind and a practical knowledge of decision-making at
the highest levels of the private sector of government--make the case for the President's
actions. What Richard Nixon did was right. Not simply and unequivocally right, perhaps,
but right in context and right on balance.
The president responded to emerging internal crisis in the manner of any man at the
pinnacle of leadership.
What emerges from the transcript is life as it is. It is life in government and politics, life in
industry and business--and, yes, life in the editorial offices of every newspaper. It is how
things actually are, warts and all.
Of course, the reality of the transcripts grates against the revered American ideal of the
presidency. The salty language, the exploration of alternatives that took place in the Oval
Office of the White House may be shocking to some but certainly not to those who have
known the men who have occupied the office of President.
The Chicago Tribune editors know well that every presidential word and phrase is not to be
etched in marble. It is not the case at the White House, nor in the corporate suites of
Manhattan, nor even in the editorial offices on Michigan Avenue.
The president lives in the real world of tough, practical decisions that affect the future of
every American--the survival of a nation, the existence of life on this planet.
The president is a man chosen by his fellow citizens from their own ranks. He is the
electoral survivor of a process unique and uniquely successful among world governments--a
process designed to place at the head of this great nation a man of the people--one who
knows and shares everyday problems of all Americans, yet has the qualities of leadership to
meet the complex challenges of world problems.
President Nixon is such a man. Regrettably, the Chicago Tribune's editorial decision is
based on about 33 hours of conversation, part of an estimated 15,000 hours of presidential
deliberation on foreign and domestic policy as well as hundreds of other topics affecting the
lives of Americans.
I wonder if the Chicago Tribune would be so ready to desert an old friend if it could also
read transcripts of conversations involving:
1 --Ending with honor U.S. involvement in a war that had plagued this country for a decade.
2 --Bringing home our fighting men and our prisoners of war from Southeast Asia againt
incessant pressure simply to bug out.
3 --Building peace in a world that for generations has known little peace.
4 --Directing negotiations for peace in the Middle East, for centuries a cockpit of conflict.
5 --Establishing a new candor in relations with the Soviet Union, whose leaders vowed to bury
us, and opening dialogue with China, whose millions posed a growing threat to world peace.
6 --Returning government to the people--letting those who pay the taxes decide where the tax
dollar will be spent.
The man who accomplished these things and much more is a great leader, a moral man, and
a courageous American president.
Like all great presidents, he is not perfect. But he is not thus to be impeached. He is
determined to pursue the policies that have changed the face of the world dramatically in
five short years until the end of his elected term in office.
Type Your Title Here
Student’s Name
Instructor and Course
Colorado Technical University
SHORTENED VERSION OF TITLE HERE
1
Abstract
1 paragraph of no more than 250 words summarizing the main points of your paper. This
Abstract must include items from all three steps of the assignment in 1-2 sentences for
introduction, each step and conclusion.
SHORTENED VERSION OF TITLE HERE
2
Introduction
Introduce the topic in 5-6 good sentences; this MUST be different than the abstract. This
is not a summary but an introduction to the topic in your own words.
Two Approaches to Watergate:
In 1 to 1.5 pages examine the Burch and Post Articles linked in the assignment
description and comment on how each author approaches the issues of Nixon, his character, his
position of president and the punishment he should face for his actions. Summarize each article’s
primary arguments and react to each of them and how it changes your view of Nixon and
Watergate. Be sure to use at least three citations (paraphrasing preferable to direct quotation)
from each article to support your response and comments.
Changing Views:
In 2-3 paragraphs, describe how the Watergate events changed American views toward
politics and politicians. In your view, how did these events change the press coverage of
politicians? Use two examples from before and after Watergate. Include the following items for
depth: Examine relations to politicians before Nixon IE: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson,
Grover Cleveland and then consider the lampooning of Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, George W.
Bush, Barack Obama after Watergate. Use 1-2 academic sources for this step.
Impact of Technology:
Use your own experience, learning, and perspective to comment on how the Watergate
event coverage might have been different (better or worse) in the age of social media and
smartphones.
SHORTENED VERSION OF TITLE HERE
3
A. Consider the speed at which we receive news IE: We heard about OBL on
social media before the US Government announced, or saw the Hudson River Plain crash
on social media before the news.
B. Would it have lasted as long? Why or why not? Consider the use of twitter or
other forms of social media as we see it today.
C. Are these innovations in technology helpful or harmful to the way that people
understand current events? Use at least two examples for each component, one must be
academic in nature, the other can be reflective or anecdotal. Must use a minimum1
academic source for this step
Conclusion
Restate your thesis/introduction and make sure to remind us, in your own words, of your
main points. Wrap up your reflection with a personal thought.
SHORTENED VERSION OF TITLE HERE
4
References (SAMPLE)
Encyclopedia, S. E. (1993). Article. In The new encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 38, pp. 745-758).
Chicago: Publisher.
Lastname, F. (2003). Book title: Subtitle. Sterling, VA: Publisher Name.
Newspaper article without an author. (1993, July 15). The Washington Post, p. A12.
Wittkopf, B., & Shaw, M. E. (2003, fall). Article title from the journal. Journal Name, 43(2), 1822. doi: 10:109.0932.9385.09
The Following Sources Must Be Included in Reference List
Burch, D. (1974, May 14). In defense of Richard Nixon. Retrieved from The Harvard Crimson
Web site: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/5/14/in-defense-of-richard-nixonpithe/
The Washington Post. (1973, May 1). Editorial: Watergate: The unfinished business. Retrieved
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/050173-2.htm
Purchase answer to see full
attachment