And the Winner of the Deep Throat Historical Sweepstakes Is…
J. Edgar Hoover, who is somehow emerging from the Deep Throat revelations as the principled G-man in relation to the perfidious Nixon.
Bob Woodward in today's Wash Post has a long and interesting tell-all about how he came to know and develop Mark Felt as a source (invaluable advice for all cub reporters: always be nice to FBI agents you meet in White House waiting rooms). One of the odd themes in the coverage so far has been the semi-lionization of Felt for his allegiance to good old J. Edgar Hoover's way of doing things. From Woodward's account:
It was only later after Nixon resigned that I began to wonder why Felt had talked when doing so carried substantial risks for him and the FBI. Had he been exposed early on, Felt would have been no hero. Technically, it was illegal to talk about grand jury information or FBI files--or it could have been made to look illegal.
Felt believed he was protecting the bureau by finding a way, clandestine as it was, to push some of the information from the FBI interviews and files out to the public, to help build public and political pressure to make Nixon and his people answerable. He had nothing but contempt for the Nixon White House and their efforts to manipulate the bureau for political reasons. The young eager-beaver patrol of White House underlings, best exemplified by John W. Dean III, was odious to him.
His reverence for Hoover and strict bureau procedure made [L. Patrick] Gray's appointment as director all the more shocking. Felt obviously concluded he was Hoover's logical successor.
Whole thing here.
There's no question that Nixon's secret machinations (both here and abroad) were odious. Then again, so were his all-too-visible public policies, ranging from double-daylight-savings time to wage-and-price controls to the creation of a slew of rotten regulatory bureaucracies.
But it's odd how Hoover or, same thing, his FBI, seems to be getting a pass in the Watergate nostalgia--as if Hoover and his crew were a moral counterweight to Nixon and his pals. This was an agency that routinely overstepped its boundaries in terms of legally sanctioned surveillance when it wasn't researching the lyrics to "Louie, Louie" and other threats to the republic. And that's not even mentioning Hoover's legendary private files that contained dirt on everyone from JFK to MLK. I should point out that Woodward doesn't quite say this--and he and others have suggested Felt's motivations were far from pure. But the anti-Nixon sentiment seems to inoculate everyone who helped to bring him down, no matter what. (In a similar way, it was probably the best thing for LBJ's legacy to be followed by Nixon, who helps a lot of GOP-hating hippies forget who really got us neck deep into Vietnam and lied repeatedly to the American public.)
Can't we, at least this one time, have it all and note that Felt's beloved Hoover was scummy, just like Nixon?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can't we, at least this one time, have it all and note that Felt's beloved Hoover was scummy, just like Nixon?
What, and ruin the passion play aspect of the drama? Common sense is so boring, better to have a constantly rotating cast of heroes and villains. Someday Nixon will be lionized in response to somebody else's villainy....
On a related note, I was fascinated this morning to hear Pacifica interviewing alleged victims of FBI spying and harrassment supposedly ordered by Felt, with the clear unstated point that Felt was himself just another scummy G-man and no hero....
I feel like I'm the only one who just doesn't care. This is sort of interesting, like a tiny bit of trivia, but in the end, it doesn't warrant the massive media masturbation it's been getting.
What Andy said. The media is going NUTS.
You'd think Felt was a white woman who skipped out on her wedding, or something.
There's no question that Nixon's secret machinations (both here and abroad) were odious. Then again, so were his all-too-visible public policies, ranging from double-daylight-savings time to wage-and-price controls to the creation of a slew of rotten regulatory bureaucracies.
Didn't you get the memo, Nick? Nixon was a prince, and Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward killed the Cambodians.
Lesson #27 in the continuing series, "Why Ben Stein Should Stick With Light Comedy."
Phil, that is quite possibly the crappiest piece of writing I have ever seen.
thoreau must have won the guy's sanity, too.
You don't often see somebody lauding Richard Nixon for "ending the Vietnam War" and chastising people who ended the war for imposing Communism on the South Vietnamese in the same single page column.
Regarding the reporting media's attention, don't forget that this is a story that involves the reporting media!
I keep hearing about thoreau being on Ben Stein's show. Every time I see it now, I look for "thoreau."
Who should I be looking for? Any details would be appreciated.
Well, there was this bit in today's Woodward article:
At the time, pre-Watergate, there was little or no public knowledge of the vast pushing, shoving and outright acrimony between the Nixon White House and Hoover's FBI. The Watergate investigations later revealed that in 1970 a young White House aide named Tom Charles Huston had come up with a plan to authorize the CIA, the FBI and military intelligence units to intensify electronic surveillance of "domestic security threats," authorize illegal opening of mail, and lift the restrictions on surreptitious entries or break-ins to gather intelligence.
Huston warned in a top-secret memo that the plan was "clearly illegal." Nixon initially approved the plan anyway. Hoover strenuously objected, because eavesdropping, opening mail and breaking into homes and offices of domestic security threats were basically the FBI bailiwick and the bureau didn't want competition. Four days later, Nixon rescinded the Huston plan.
Oops, goofed up somewhere. If it isn't clear, both paragraphs are from the article.
"Regarding the reporting media's attention,"
Huh? Is this the latest semantics twist to loft online babblers into the realm of "media"?
Plain old "media" works just fine when talking about the, well, media. It already has a meaning. It doesn't need to be qualified. If you want to describe something else, then come up with a new word.
Has anyone seen what, if anything, G. Gordon Liddy is saying about this? I ask merely for information...I haven't followed this much.
Trey-
Look for a physicist who misses the math question in the final round.
Someday Nixon will be lionized in response to somebody else's villainy....
During the FL recount of 2000, I seem to recall one side or the other lauding Nixon's magnanimity in not challenging the 1960 election. However deserved or undeserved the praise might have been, it's a clear example of Nixon behind held up as the good guy. And before the FL recount hijacks this thread, how about we all just slowly back away from the FL recount and agree that it was a fucked up situation. OK? Everybody cool?
thoreau,
Actually, I think those who held up Nixon's example of electoral magnamity for contrast may have been using Nixon's odious rep for effect. As in, EVEN Nixon didn't do what Gore is doing. It's a little different from painting him as the good guy who did or would have saved the day among villains.
That said, no one's all good or all bad, so it's really not contradictory to say Nixon or Hoover or anyone was scummy in some respects but still did something good in a particular circumstance.
Oh and Tomas,
Is that a good gig you got there with the Semantics Police? 🙂
the thing i find most ironic about the condemn-felt game is that he is being decried in many places by (mostly) republicans for his supposed selfish motivation in leaking.
isn't the basic tenet of freemarket ideology that man's awful impulses can be turned by the market to good ends? and isn't this really an example of the information market drawing out important information for transparency -- precisely the role the media is supposed to play in watchdogging government in our conception of the first amendment? does it matter if he did it for spite or greed?
as far as the ethical considerations put forward by liddy and others -- higher hypocrisy is neither imaginable nor more laughable. the position reflexively being put forward by the fascist right on this thing is even more bankrupt than the defense mounted for clinton after being exposed as obstructing justice.
gaius,
Your post raises some interesting questions. Do you believe there is ever a circumstance for legally enforced secrecy? You reasoning would seem to imply not, and maybe you're right. But if there's set of circumstances that do justify secrecy, and if Felt's circumstance rightly falls into that set, then Felt's intention in breaking that secrecy (and normal protocol for his position) may play into judging the rightness or wrongness of his action.
All that said, it's obvious that the right is attacking Felt because he is being seen as a hero of the left. Yawn.
Nixon & Vietnam - Joe
So how many American combat troops were in Vietnam and Cambodia at the beginning of 1973???
Gaius,
Your basic point regarding transparency is right on. I'm one of the people who really do believe that taking Nixon down led to the slaughter in Indochina and that Ben Stein wasn't far off the mark but the fact is that you can't have Presidents engaging in efforts to obstruct justice and unless you know that the impact will lead to slaughter you have to investigate and follow the law.
That said, Felt didn't have to leak and violate the rules. He could have gone to Congress if he thought that it was impossible to conduct an investigation. He and Clinton are more like Nixon than anyone in the traditional media would ever care to admit.
There were numerous court challenges filed by the Republicans in 1960, in Illinois and in other close states. Another perfectly good myth shot to hell.
Do you believe there is ever a circumstance for legally enforced secrecy? You reasoning would seem to imply not
oh, i wouldn't be a no-holds-barred freemarketeer, mr fyodor. i'm only enjoying the hypocrisy of some who would claim to be. i agree with you: Yawn.
He could have gone to Congress if he thought that it was impossible to conduct an investigation. He and Clinton are more like Nixon than anyone in the traditional media would ever care to admit.
i agree with the latter point, mr jeff -- they're all politicians, aren't they? but to the former, we should admit that congress wasn't then and isn't now an institution where his information would reliably get a public hearing. the tentacles of the imperial presidency have grown quite long and insidious since fdr first sprouted them.
Some Cointelpro reminiscences here
Anon
phil
that's an interesting take by Ben Steyn. He is always an interesting individual.
I wonder what thoreau thought of him.
kwais-
I didn't really form much of an impression of him. I saw very little of him off-camera. Game shows are heavily monitored affairs, and I was allowed very little contact with him. He came out and shook hands and said hello before it started, then the camera rolled. When they stopped filming for what would be the commercial break when it aired, Ben was busy doing retakes and whatnot. Before the final round, he went off to rest, and I almost got in trouble for giving my friend in the audience a thumbs-up. (No communicating with outsiders. The stage was at an angle to the audience and the lights were in our faces, to make it as difficult as possible to communicate with the audience via gestures.) After it was over he shook my hand and then I was ushered out while he went off to get ready for the next taping.
FWIW, he seemed like a smart and friendly guy.
Oh, and even innocuous things, like asking whether I wanted to go first or second, were first done off-camera in the presence of multiple witnesses from an accounting firm. Not to mention buzzer tests and whatnot.
db:
I saw Liddy on TV calling Felt a pathetic old man who broke the law 30 years ago to advance a political agenda.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.
All that over $5000? That sucks that it was so impersonal, it seems like a much more informal atmosphere on tv. Ben Steyn comes across as quick thinking on his feet from other shows that I have seen him on. I have seen his articles in 'The American Spectator' and in 'Penthouse'. So he is quite diverse.
Did you win any of his money?
"I saw Liddy on TV calling Felt a pathetic old man who broke the law 30 years ago to advance a political agenda."
Specifically, Liddy said he "violated the ethics of the law enforcement community."
Apparently, shooting out streetlights so a B&E won't be easily seen doesn't violate those ethics.
kwais-
I got $850. He beat me 5-4 in the final round. I missed the math question, and I made a few other dumb answers, but with 10 questions in 60 seconds you have zero time to think. If the question is about luxury cars, you just spit out the first car brand that comes to mind and hope you didn't say Yugo. If the question is about clothing you say the first article of clothing and hope you didn't say "t-shirt" when the question is about formal attire.
Ben Stein has that amazing gift for making me laugh when he's trying to be serious and making me not laugh when he's trying to be funny. Sort of like a Jerry Lewis of the right...