Mercury Rising 鳯女

Politics, life, and other things that matter

The One Party State: the True History of Watergate

Posted by Charles II on May 22, 2012

Bob Parry has a good, if somewhat long read on what really happened at Watergate up at Consortium News.

The gist of it was that the Watergate break-in of 1972 had as its main goal ensuring that McGovern was nominated despite the efforts of the Democratic regulars to prevent that from happening. After McGovern was in fact nominated, the regulars disloyally refused to support him, guaranteeing the re-election of Richard Nixon. When Watergate broke, the regulars did everything they could to sabotage the civil suit filed by the DNC against Nixon’s Re-elect Committee and ultimately installed uber-fixer Robert Strauss as party leader, from which position Strauss led the Democratic Party into decline. It is difficult to read Parry’s narration of the story without concluding that the Democratic Party was destroyed from within.

As an aside, the Democratic regulars believed–wrongly–that somehow the RFK/McGovern insurgent wing of the party had foiled Hubert Humphrey’s election. In reality, Hubert Humphrey was his own worst enemy. Even Nixon’s treason–and I use the word in its strict constitutional sense–in conducting unauthorized negotiations with the Vietnamese to block a settlement of the war did not have as much impact on the election as the clubbing of anti-war protesters on the streets of Chicago. Yes, many RFK supporters sat out the election, but they did not do so at the request of the Kennedy family or George McGovern. They were just exercising their right to vote or not vote for the person of their choice.

So was the fall of the Democratic Party a tragedy, the result of a misunderstanding by the regulars that they had to win the loyalty of their voters? Or did it represent the rise of the one-party state, in which neither conservatives nor liberals have any real representation in government?

Whatever one believes the goal of Watergate was, its effect was to greatly narrow the differences between the parties as they sought corporate money instead of people power to win elections.

About these ads

3 Responses to “The One Party State: the True History of Watergate”

  1. jo6pac said

    Or did it represent the rise of the one-party state, in which neither conservatives nor liberals have any real representation in government?

    This something you and I have tossed around a few times. Thanks for the link and very interesting indeed. I think the one thing I got out of this the demodogs have for the most part been taken over and we only have to look at today’s at the so called demos. If you just look around the present white house occupant and see how many former bush the lesser operatives are still in power amazing of course obots can’t see it at all. The laws from the 70s have been rewritten to, as pointed out in the story. Hell during the S&L criminal act people went to jail so what did bankers learn, buy the govt. and rewrite the laws it’s a time old strategy. I remember having discussions with members of the left back in the day and they already were on to the next thing thinking they had won. My late father (a lifelong R) asked me one night over drinks if the left thought they won I said yes but they have no clue of what coming was my comment. His answer was yes only this time it will be by stealth then when you finally see what’s happening it might be too late and he truly believed they would destroy the middle class and the nation.

    Now 1968 make more sense.

    I wish this story would get more light, like the one Ives had about 0 true background in the Windy City.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: