tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post1265603263529199457..comments2024-01-12T15:32:22.236-08:00Comments on The Episconixonian: Hissing And MoaningFr. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09974142521713230215noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post-9666639368492210382011-04-08T18:26:48.646-07:002011-04-08T18:26:48.646-07:00Sorry, looks as if my link was bad. The site I ha...Sorry, looks as if my link was bad. The site I had in mind for the discussion of regulated professions was this one:<br />http://www.auditskills.com/archives/200904.htmlMKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post-65089212834437559302011-04-07T17:51:39.841-07:002011-04-07T17:51:39.841-07:00Some of this is a bit tough for me to assess becau...Some of this is a bit tough for me to assess because <br />(1) I uncovered most of the abuses in the records with which I worked at NARA (I was Fred Graboske’s Watergate expert);<br />and<br />(2) I then became subject to certain behaviors which seemed to stem from the same acculturation that had led to some of the AOGP behaviors. <br /><br />OK, having stated the “impairment,” I’ll put in my 2 cents worth!<br /><br />Is it possible that the Hastings-era NLNP archivists met the fate they did for the same reason that Goldstein was replaced at BLS in the Malek Jew counting episode? Don’t like an outcome? Take out the people who stand in your way. (I certainly thought of that as I watched Naftali prepare his exhibit.) <br /><br />There do seem to be some well worn grooves, at least to my eye. Easier to identify individuals (Goldstein at BLS, us at NLNP, maybe Naftali) as obstacles, personalize the problem, and to neutralize the individuals, one way or another, than to examine the root causes of a problem or to work through the situation in another way. Act that way, and feel it's justified, and some qualities you might have developed in a different profession, start to atrophy. Especially if there's no one around who can say, no we shouldn't rid you of Thomas Becket! So there's a lot in the mix.<br /><br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.auditskills.com/archives/200904.html/" rel="nofollow"> this article </a>. Some professions have clear codes of conduct. (John, you know why I am drawing on this; others don’t. Let’s not elaborate on that, if you don’t mind. I sent you an email explaining why.) The presidency doesn’t. Not to the extent codified at the link. Sure, you’re supposed to obey the law of the land. But it’s just like jaywalking – some people think they can get away with more than others. Moreover, you have to fake your way into office to some extent. I mean pander to some voting blocs, exaggerate your opponents’ weaknesses, demagogue, if that’s your style. None of that really helps prepare you to pivot and develop a mindset that enables you to avoid the impulse to send Malek to count Jews or whatever--because you sure do have the power to demand it. It's much easier to justify your conduct in such a situation than in a profession with a clearly defined code of conduct. And peer review.<br /><br />Impeachment certainly may have some political overtones. But if what you did wasn’t that bad, you may face the threat of impeachment, but you won’t face a guilty verdict. They may go through the show but fail to get the votes to find you guilty. (Ken Gormley’s book, The Death of American Virtue, provides a fascinating examination of mistakes made by many of the players in the Clinton case.) <br /><br />On a tiny scale, I’ll use the example of what happened to me in 1995. The person who tried to get me in trouble with the IG complaint didn’t understand my professional acculturation or workplace environment. That acculturation turned out to be a sturdy shield for me—I had signed for annual leave and was easily cleared. Someone else might have cut some corners, either due to a different workplace culture or personal qualities, and been trapped. <br /><br />You really do have to have heightened situational awareness, especially when you are battling people who are acting politically on the other side, and not waste your capital on stuff like the BLS thing or trying to get Schultz to use the IRS against opponents. Proportionality definitely becomes a a factor in responding to situations. Some of what trapped Nixon was pretty petty and not worth taking the risk, by him or in many of the cases, by his subordinates. Judged by ROI, the risks for some of it (like the Fielding break in) far outweighed the benefits.MKhttp://nixonara.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post-24800679061506076982011-04-05T10:30:30.447-07:002011-04-05T10:30:30.447-07:00Of the three presidents you mentioned, Andrew John...Of the three presidents you mentioned, Andrew Johnson was most "qualified" for removal, Clinton the least. <br /><br />De facto, Johnson betrayed the purpose for which the Civil War came to be fought---emancipation. Apparently, he really was too drunk on March 4, 1865, to have comprehended Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. <br /><br />And, yet for a century after his trial, the outcome was hailed as a Constitutional triumph (see "Profiles in Courage".) <br /><br />Today, historians tend to agree that he was charged with the wrong offense (firing Stanton as Sec. of War without Senatorial consent) and should have been charged and removed for blocking a meaningful Reconstruction policy. <br /><br />So, certainties are subject to reexamination. Best for museum exhibits to leave a little wiggle room in all but the most clear-cut cases.J.C. Marreronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post-77697542214975119922011-04-05T09:45:40.009-07:002011-04-05T09:45:40.009-07:00Nicely said, Juan. Each in their ways, the impeach...Nicely said, Juan. Each in their ways, the impeachment or near-impeachment of Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton all show that it's an essentially political act. Whether there's much flavor of that in the new exhibit, I'll tell you when I've read it. If there's not, whether a different, less confrontational process could have resulted in a different exhibit -- just as complete but with, as you suggest, rounder corners -- we'll probably never know.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09974142521713230215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5668712602334003954.post-21534169711982502232011-04-05T05:24:15.183-07:002011-04-05T05:24:15.183-07:00I haven't seen the exhibit, but agree with wha...I haven't seen the exhibit, but agree with what Kissinger said in his memoir he told Nixon at the outset of Watergate, "what must be done sooner or later, do sooner." <br /><br />My only cavil would be that, while admittedly Nixon did wrong, his crtics did not always proceed with snow white love for the constitution as their sole impetus. <br /><br />Many--still today--rejoice at the humiliation visited upon Richard Nixon and at his broken legacy. Whether because of the Hiss matter, the 1950 senatorial election, the irony of Nixon finally getting the big prize while two sainted Kennedys rested at Arlington, the poison of Vietnam, the counter-culture's ascendance, there was a visceral need to get Nixon by many. <br /><br />I hope that the Watergate exhibit takes a look at the context of Watergate from both sides. I would argue that Watergate produced no heroes. <br /><br />Nixon came pretty close to the truth when he said Watergate was one part wrong-doing, one part stupidity and one part political vendetta.<br /><br />The key question that one hopes is addressed by a Watergate exhibit is the ultimate one, should Nixon have been forced to resign? <br /><br />And the core of that issue is whether undue violence is done to the American body politic when a constitutionally elected president is forced to leave office before the second half of his second term, short of having been convicted of treason or bribery. <br /><br />My view is that Congress has a moral obligation out of respect to the electorate to help the president save himself--to have compromised on the release of the tapes wherein the president admitted wrongdoing but was able to preserve his dignity and that of his office. <br /><br />But the heated (oil-deprived) atmosphere of 1973-74 would not allow for such a via media. I think our country would have been better off without a truncated presidency. "Other crimes and misdemeanors", really means 2/3's of the Senate and half the House really, really dislike you.J.C. Marreronoreply@blogger.com