Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
This is from AP history and bear with me because some of the stuff got a little screwed up in transit. :- Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signified, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold but not clothed." There was never a war that this idea can be more correct applied to than the Cold War. According to noted author and Cold War historian Walter Lippman, the Cold War can be defined as a state of tension between states, which behave with great distrust and hostility towards each other, but do not resort to violence. The Cold War encompasses a period from the end of the Second World War WWII, in 1945, to the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1989. It also encompassed the Korean and Vietnam Wars and other armed conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, that, essentially, were not wars for people but instead for territories and ideologies. "Nevertheless, like its predecessors, the Cold War has been a worldwide power contest in which one expanding power has threatened to make itself predominant, and in which other powers have banded together in a defensive coalition to frustrate it---as was the case before 1815, as was the case in 1914-1918 as was the case from 1939-1945" Halle 9. From this power contest, the Cold War erupted. In April 1945, Russian forces that had been triumphant at Stalingrad had pushed the German forces back into Germany and American and British forces that had been victorious in their invasion of Normandy did the same; they met at the Elbe River in central Germany Lukacs 17. Europe was separated into two independent halves, one Russian occupied and the other American; from this division, the Cold War emerged. "When a power vacuum separates great powers, as one did the United States and the Soviet Union at the end of World War II, they are unlikely to fill it without bumping up against and bruising each other" Gaddis. This 'bumping' and 'bruising' caused the tensions and hostilities that surfaced in the years following WWII. There are three doctrines examining the origins of the Cold War: Orthodox, the belief that "the intransigence of Leninist ideology, the sinister dynamics of a totalitarian society, and the madness of Stalin" McCauley 88 caused the Cold War; Revisionist, the idea that "American policy offered the Russians no real choice"¦either acquiesce to American proposals or be confronted with American power or hostility" McCauley 90 and thus, America caused the war; and the Post-Revisionist view, a combination of the two, citing both American and Soviet Russian policy as causes. The fact that both the Orthodox and Revisionist views have convincing evidence is confirmation that the Post-Revisionist viewpoint is the correct assessment of 'blame.' Beyond the evidence that the other two viewpoints provide in support of the Post-Revisionist outlook, there were deep-seated fundamental differences such as the dissimilar attitudes, aims and ideologies that Moscow and Washington subscribed to. One of the fundamental differences between the attitudes of Washington and Moscow originates from the happenings in each nation during and before WWII. "The basic factor in producing this national sense of insecurity has been geographical. Throughout its history Russia has been without natural frontiers to serve for its defense" Halle 13. The Soviet outlook was one of paranoia and insecurity because Soviets had been massacred from their western border several times in their history. In Asian and European historian Elizabeth Seeger's chronicle The Pageant of Russian History, there are numerous examples of Russians being devastated by attacks from their western border such as the Napoleonic attack of 1812 and the especially brutal attack by Germany during WWII. These humiliating attacks left a permanent impression on Russian mentality that can be observed through their national sentiment. Because of this mindset, Stalin sought to secure a friendly and neutralized western border and the Soviet occupation of half of Europe after WWII presented itself as the perfect time to act on these aspirations. "'The war is not as in the past,' Stalin himself explained to the Yugoslav communist Milovian Djilas in 1945, 'whosoever occupies a territory also imposes his own social system"¦.It cannot be otherwise'" Gaddis. As demonstrated by this quotation, Stalin planned to install friendly satellite governments in all Soviet subjugated nations, which, as he knew, threatened the western powers' presence and authority. Therefore it could be said that the Soviet plan caused the Cold War, which would defend the Orthodox view. The United States, conversely, had an attitude of greatness and an outlook of omnipresence. This outlook differed from the Soviet attitude mainly because the United States stood apart from Europe and its problems, had never been attacked on its native soil and because: When [WWII] was done there rested spirits of most Americans the belief that they had saved China, rescued the beleaguered European democracies and enabled the Russians to withstand, and presently conquer, the German invaders. They expected appreciation and cooperation in the service of their ideals which the war had deemed to have proved were best. Feis 3These two bipolar positions sharply differed and therefore anxieties arose when the Soviet Union was forced, by Washington's overconfident actions, to be defensive. "The cultural gap between American and Soviet leaders contributed to the emerging Cold War. American negotiators acted as if the mere recitation of their legal and moral rights ought to produce the results they desired" Kissinger 438. These points support the Revisionist view. Both in diplomatic historian Herbert Feis' From Trust to Terror: The Onset of the Cold War 1945-1950 and Hungarian professor of history John Lukacs' A History of the Cold War, there is ample evidence that these divergent attitudes exhibited by each country prevented the other from establishing what they perceived as a secure position in Europe. In short, they forced the other country to be on the defensive and thus, they lashed out at each other. These tantrums can be seen in Europe, the Middle East and other places. There is plenty of sound support for both the Revisionist and Orthodox views and therefore, because of this evidence, the Post-Revisionist standpoint is the historically correct assessment of 'blame.' Each country, not just one or the other, caused the tensions that arose from the differing attitudes. Another fundamental difference between the Soviet Union and the United States was the bipolar aims of each nation. Because of these differing attitudes, both the Soviet Union and the United States had several objectives to achieve after the Central Powers were neutralized during WWII and when the two agendas conflicted, tensions arose: The collapse of Nazi Germany and the need to fill the resulting power vacuum led to the disintegration of the wartime partnership [between the United States and the Soviet Union]. The purposes of the allies were simply too divergent. Churchill sought to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating Central Europe. Stalin wanted to be paid in territorial coin for Soviet military victories and heroic suffering of the Russian people. The new President, Harry S. Truman, initially strove to continue Roosevelt's legacy of holding the alliance together. Kissinger 424 As demonstrated above, the ambitions of the two prominent world powers after WWII were extremely different. Soviet Russia wanted to achieve security because of repeated attacks and the only way that Stalin saw to do this was to acquire territory: "The behaviour of Russia under the Communists had been Russian behaviour rather than communist behaviour"¦.There has been the same effort to achieve security by expanding the Russia space, by constantly pushing back the menacing presence of the foreigners across the Russian borders" Halle 11. Because of the Soviet feelings of insecurity and paranoia, Stalin wanted one thing: the acquisition of territory with Communists-friendly governments in each 'acquired' nation. Another thing that complicated relations was Stalin's mistrustful nature. "National security had come to mean personal security, and [Stalin] saw so many threats to it that he had already resorted to murder on a mass scale in order to remove all conceivable challengers to his regime" Gaddis. Both Stalin and the Russian people felt vulnerable and especially weak on their western front from repeated surprise invasions launched against them. As a result, Stalin wanted to secure his country, to establish a 'buffer zone' against the poisonous capitalist countries to the west a crawl back into the sheltered nook that the Kremlin was. Therefore, one could deduce that Russian intensions caused the Cold War because Stalin was acting while well aware that his actions would contrast with those of America, which supports the Orthodox viewpoint. However, the United States and other western countries also had their own aims. These aims can be observed by analyzing 'The Atlantic Charter' and 'The Truman Doctrine.' Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt signed 'The Atlantic Charter' on August 14,1941. While still early in the war, it was later adopted by the United Nations and remains, to this day, a cornerstone of civilization. The western powers would "seek no aggrandizement"¦. respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live"¦.bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations"¦.[and seek] the abandonment of the use of force" Avalon. The Charter was basically a statement that unified the Western democracies against any right-wing fascist government. It was a precursor to Truman's policy of containment because it set democracy liberty against fascist domination and this turned out to be a central theme during the Cold War. The Cold War resulted from the western countries accepting and embracing these principles and the Soviets and eastern bloc countries not doing this. Truman's speech, called his doctrine because it outlined his plan, addressed Congress on March 12, 1947. "One way of life is based upon the will of the majority"¦guarantees of individual liberty"¦and freedom from political oppression. The second way of life is based upon terror and oppression"¦fixed elections"¦and the suppression of personal freedom" Halsall. Truman went on to ask for hundreds of millions of dollars to be sent to Greece, Turkey and other countries in danger of falling to Communism. Truman, in a roundabout way, declared that the United States vowed to contain the spread of Communism all over the world he also piercingly contrasts Communism with Democracy to intensify the hatred and recoil that he wants his audience to feel towards Communism in order to attain the affirming public opinion that he needs to carry out his plan. Through the signing and recitation of these documents it was as if the United States government was drawing a line in the sand and forcing the Soviets into a corner. If they should exceed their dictated borders, as they did in Korea and more so in the Middle East, then they would be punished. Through these threats and confining measures, one could make a worthy argument supporting the Revisionist viewpoint. The divergent attitudes brought about divergent aims after WWII. When examining these aims, there is ample evidence supporting both the Revisionist and Orthodox views and thus, the Post- Revisionist view is the most appropriate one. Both the United States and Soviet Russia acted on these aims and outlooks in different ways. The Soviet Union was in a perfect position to act on its aims to secure Europe because its troops occupied half of it. The German attack forced the Soviet Union into a tactical alliance with the Western Powers but Stalin always sought to expand his influence by using indigenous communists and the Red Army. Not content with eastern and south-eastern Europe, the USSR attempted to draw the whole of Germany into Soviet orbit and by fomenting strikes and social unrest in western and southern Europe and Asia sought to expand communist influence in those regions as well. McCauley 9 Moscow's foremost aim after WWII was securing its western border and in order to do this Stalin needed to ensure that friendly governments, and only authority truly friendly to communists, governed all countries adjacent to the Soviet Union. Thus, he required that all neighboring nations had communist, or extremely left wing, governments installed in them. The Soviet troops in eastern Europe only needed to lightly influence the war-torn governments for them to show communist allegiance. The security-driven aims of the Soviet Union are not only present in Europe but also in Asia and the Pacific. Examples of Soviet expansion include Soviet support of Communists in China and also in North Korea. Their involvement in the Chinese Civil War is a clear example of them setting themselves against the American's because the Soviets funded the Communist movement in full knowledge that the Americans were similarly supporting the Nationalists. The Soviets, if not directly but in a roundabout way, also supported the North Korean forces as they launched their offensive against the South Koreans and sparked the Korean War, that candidly positioned Communist forces against those supporting Democracy. The Soviets supported these movements fully knowing that it would disturb the western objectives there and, although later in the 'war,' these events, and others, were responsible for escalating the Cold War to a near nuclear WWIII in some cases. These points support the Orthodox view. The United States also acted upon its ambitions and overall attitude. The clearest act on the objectives of the United States was 'The Marshall Plan.' This proposal was issued on June 5, 1947 and stated that "it is logical to expect that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economical health in the world" Halsall, and as a result millions of dollars were sent to Germany and other central and south- eastern European countries to 'encourage' them to adopt democracy and avoid communism. This taunting and economical war for people waged by the United States against the Soviet Union is support for the Revisionist view. Each country committed these acts in full knowledge that the other was doing the opposite, and thus the tensions that arose from the incompatibility of these actions are the fault of neither the United States nor Soviet Russia alone, as the supporters of the Revisionist and Orthodox viewpoints believe, but instead, the United States and the Soviet Union were at fault for beginning the Cold War. The final fundamental difference that existed between Washington and Moscow was the immensely different ideologies that each of the powers subscribed to. Based solely on the fact that the Soviet Union and the United States had different forms of governments many tensions arose. The Western democracies sought a form of security that would reject violence or the threat of it: security was to be a collective good, not a benefit denied to some in order to provide it to others. Stalin saw things very differently: security came only by intimidating or eliminating potential challengers"¦.The events of 1917-18 created a symbolic basis for conflict between communism and capitalism by setting the self-proclaimed objectives of the United States and Soviet Russia against one another in a most fundamental way. GaddisThe most evident dogmatic divergence is the forms of government that each country was administered by. The Soviet Union was a communist republic and an autocracy, ruled by a man who had killed more of his own countrymen than Hitler. "While mistrust and hostility of Western capitalism had been subdued during the war, the basic belief that by nature it must be rapacious and aggressive lingered deep in Soviet thought---ready to sprout and grow into hideous accusations when quarrels arose" Feis 5. Conversely, the United States was directed by a capitalist democracy and was recently governed by one of the most liberal Presidents in the history of the nation. As demonstrated informer Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy, there are a myriad of examples of conflicts that arose between these two powers based solely or mostly on ideological differences such as the tensions that developed at the Potsdam Conference. The strict adherence to their respective doctrines in the knowledge that the other abhorred it is further evidence that both nations caused the diplomatic tensions, supporting the Post-Revisionist viewpoint. When examining the pre-WWII and WWII circumstances of both the United States and the Soviet Union, it becomes evident that the elemental canon of each country conflicted. The three most prominent fundamental differences are bipolar outlooks, aspirations and dogmas. When examining documents, there is a plethora of evidence supporting both the Revisionist and the Orthodox viewpoints, and because of this evidence the Post-Revisionist position is the accurate assessment of blame. Both the Soviet Union and the United States purposely aggravated each other and prevented each other from obtaining any sort of secure standing both in the international and domestic sense. When examining these activities years after they happened, it is easy to conclude that both the United States and Soviet Russia were culpable for starting the Cold War. However, during the tense years, such as the Korean and Vietnam Wars, this inference was not as easily made. Thus, those belonging to the Revisionist and Orthodox tenets only need to look at the Cold War overall to gain the perspective necessary to gage an educated proposal for blame and not just focus on isolated events. Again referring back to the quotation by Eisenhower, we must always remember those immortal words and learn from past mistakes and realize that communication and diplomacy are the supreme exemplars of brotherhood and unity, more so that paranoia and arms races will ever be. We must never repeat the mistakes of the past and never again utter Churchill's famous words of the 'iron curtain' to report on international events: From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent"¦.If the western democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering these principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they become divided or falter in their duty, and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away, then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all. Halsall
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 3057 Views: 656 Comments: 0
This is from AP history and bear with me because some of the stuff got a little screwed up in transit. :- Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signified, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold but not clothed." There was never a war that this idea can be more correct applied to than the Cold War. According to noted author and Cold War historian Walter Lippman, the Cold War can be defined as a state of tension between...
mistakes of the past and never again utter Churchill's famous words of the 'iron curtain' to report on international events: From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent….If the western democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering these principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If, however, they become divided or falter in their duty, and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away, then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all. Halsall
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The formation of the First Triumvirate...The formation of the First Triumvirate took place because of the political motives and the personal motives of the three ruthlessly ambitious power brokers in Rome. These men required the co-operation of the other two in order to further their political careers. During the time of the First Triumvirate many extraordinary powers where obtained and in some cases these where unprecedented. There are some key factors that have to be considered towards the break down of the Triumvirate. The most powerful and influential people, the Optimates became increasingly dis empowered, and a sense of desperation to regain power is felt with the use of Pompey in an a final attempt to restore power to the Senate. "By uncompromising refusal to meet the demands of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus the senate naturally drove them into each others arms. The three men agreed to form a political amicitia "¦.." Pompey upon return from his successful campaign in the East, disbanded his army probably to diffuse tension in Rome and prove to the Optimates in Rome he had no intention of over throwing the Government. This suggests Pompey's political naivety and the fact that Pompey thought he had done enough in order to get recognition and acceptance from the Optimates to gain land for his veterans and to have his innumerable arrangements in the East ratified. Cato also refused Pompey's offer of marriage to one of his nieces. According to Bradley "Cato was a staunch conservative, and distrusted Pompey's motives" Crassus had a problem with his supporters. He supported a request from a company of tax gatherers Equites, that after realizing Asia had been economically raped, and virtually un-taxable due to the Mithradatic campaign, could not possibly make money from taxes, so the request he supported is that the Senate should adjust the bad bargain to on a third rebate which they had made in contracting for the taxes of Asia. This request according to Scullard was rejected under Cato's leadership which had led to the stagnation of Crassus' political career. Thus Crassus needed some support of Pompey and Caesar to kick start his career and eventually lead to the formation of the First Triumvirate. Caesar, who had been Propraetor in Spain during, 61BC, hoped to return to Rome in 60BC and stand for the consulship for the following year. On his return he wanted a triumph and the consulship, but since he could not as a commander enter the city to stand for election, he asked the senate for permission to stand in absentia. The senate refused, Caesar's political career for future glory and fame had ended. According to Bradley " Caesar now saw the possibilities for exploiting the difficulties that Pompey and Crassus where having with the Optimates." Caesar needed powerful supporters in order to be elected, particularly since Cato and his associates, "Put all their resources behind one of his competitors, Biblus Cato's son-in-law." A sense of desperation to fight Caesar politically is shown here by the Optimate faction. Upon formation many laws where passed, Lex Argaria land for Pompey's veterans . Pompey's eastern settlement was confirmed, secured rebate on Asiatic tax, Lex Vatinia gave Caesar provinces of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyreium for 5 years, laws against extortion and Clodius transferred to the Plebeians to qualify as a tribune and to act on Caesar's behalf, and to safe guard the interests of the Triumvirs. Caesar's actions must be seriously considered towards the breakdown and the increase of violence in Rome. Desperation by the Optimates is constantly shown against him. Caesar's actions where unconstitutional. He applied force using Pompey's veterans to scare the assembly and ignored the obstruction of the tribunes and of his fellow consuls. With the employment of Clodius as Caesar's agent and to manage Caesar's affairs in Rome, Clodius who hated Cicero kicked Cicero out of Rome, Cicero seeked helped from Pompey the Great, but he too could not help Cicero nor could the most influential people the Optimates against Clodius' mere street gang. So Cicero went on voluntary exile, many people believed this to be the death of the Republic. Clodius the thug paid to become Tribune by Caesar also giving Pompey a hard time, halted in a stale mate against Pompey's newly paid for gang under the leadership of Milo. Pompey thinking Crassus played a part in this thought Crassus wanted Pompey dead, thus creating friction in the Triumvirate. Caesar who does not want total instability in Rome, as it is inconvenient for him to due the face that he is not in Rome, tries to patch up rifts in the Triumvirate, hence the renewal. This was done at a meeting at Luca in Gaul, in March 56Bc. It was successful, "Some 120 senators then toiled all the weary way to Luca to wait their masters" 1 The man they wanted to see was Caesar the Power Broker. Pompey and Crassus entered on their second joint consulship, and Pompey received consulship in Spain for 5 years and Crassus 5 years in Syria, both wealthy provinces. Caesar's procunsular command in both Gaul and Illyricum for 5 years until late in 50BC according to Scullard. Crassus went of to Syria to seek his ultimate glory, "military success" in the Parthian war. Apart from the increase in the political uncertainty and the escalating violence in Rome and war being predicted as a matter of 'when' not 'if'. "Two events soon destroyed the Triumvirate" 2 In 53 one of the chief bonds between Pompey and Caesar snapped when Pompey's wife, Julia died. When Caesar offered to renew the marriage alliance, Pompey declined and in 53BC married Cornelia member of an Optimate clan. In this same year the death of Crassus', another "Bridge, or buffer, between the two remaining Triumvirs was gone." 1 Dictatorship of Anarchy seemed evident. The Gang warfare culminated in the murder of Clodius by Milo. Thus these events lead to the break down of the First triumvirate. The Senate declared martial law and gave Pompey as procunsul charge of a special levy. Thus ending the official alliance and heading for civil war shortly. The short term advantages for each man ending in a halt, further ambition was yet to come, with only a sole victor. It can also be suggested that a reason for the formation and breakdown of the First Triumvirate is the denial by the Optimates of the individual requests of the 3 men, is thought to be that, experience from the past taught the Optimates that able and popular generals with client armies were a great dancer to the Senate's power. Yet by denying the requests brought the three men into each others arms and formed the ' Three Headed Monster'   

The formation of the First Triumvirate took place because of the political motives and the personal motives of the three ruthlessly ambitious power brokers in Rome. These men required the co-operation of the other two in order to further their political careers. During the time of the First Triumvirate many...

Words: 1125 View(s): 228 Comment(s): 0
Merriam-Webster defines morality as "conformity to...Merriam-Webster defines morality as "conformity to ideals of right human conduct""”so what could have raised eyebrows thirty years ago may very well be commonly acceptable today. Scandals are framed in the context of what is socially acceptable behavior. The majority of presidents of the United States have endured or faced some sort of scandal during their terms of office. One recent wrongdoing, however, stands out in the minds of many Americans. William Jefferson Clinton faced what is probably the most notorious presidential offense in recent history. His presidential campaign was tainted when Gennifer Flowers came forward and confessed to having an affair with the then governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to have sexual relations with women on a regular basis during his term as governor of Arkansas. In December of 1993, these escapades became public in Troopergate, the scandal that surfaced when "a group of Arkansas state troopers told stories about soliciting women and facilitating extramarital trysts for Clinton while he was governor." Isikoff p.4 One of the women involved in the Troopergate scandal was Paula Corbin Jones, a woman whose persistence and persecution later proved vital to the impeachment of President Clinton. Jones worked at the registration desk in the Excelsior Hotel"”the location of her first encounter with Clinton. He asked her to accompany him to his room and exposed himself to her. When she went public with these allegations against Clinton, he vehemently denied ever meeting with Jones. Clinton's denial infuriated Jones, causing her to pursue a civil case against him, but after his denial, her case lost public interest. Perhaps the most infamous of all Clinton's affairs was his relationship with the young intern, Monica Lewinsky. Her repeated encounters with the President probably would have never surfaced if it weren't for Linda Tripp. Tripp had become a motherly figure to Lewinsky, consoling her and becoming her confidant. Tripp recorded several phone conversations between the two regarding her relationship with Clinton. These conversations were some of the strongest evidence against Clinton's denial of his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. On January 20, 1998 "news [broke] that President Clinton may have had a sexual relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky" presidential. Clinton had denied these accusations under oath in the Paula Jones trials, but Tripp had evidence that could be used against him. Kenneth Starr, an independent counsel, "sent a report to Congress in which he charged Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of authority in the Paula Jones lawsuit." whitewater On December 11, 1998 "The House Judiciary Committee approve[d] three articles of impeachment on a 21-16 party line vote, passing them to the full House of Representatives. The three articles accuse[d] Clinton of lying to a grand jury, committing perjury by denying he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and obstructing justice. Clinton declare[d] himself "profoundly sorry" and willing to accept censure." Clinton Clinton's impeachment shocked many Americans. His denials and attempts to have other people lie for him caused him to lose much respect in our world. Unfortunately, we have seen deception such as Clinton's in the face of another president"”Richard Nixon. Richard Milhous Nixon served two terms as vice president under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon ran for the presidency in 1960 only to lose to John F. Kennedy. In 1962, he lost the election for Governor of California to Pat Brown. Nixon defeated Hubert H. Humphrey in the 1968 presidential election. Americans believed Nixon would end the fighting in Vietnam because he promised "peace with honor" Richard. During his first presidential term, Nixon ended American involvement in the Vietnam War and began withdrawing troops. Although we had withdrawn involvement in the war, Nixon's administration began secretly bombing Cambodia"”the area believed to host the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam. Nixon overexerted his executive powers by never asking Congress's permission to bomb Cambodia. The unauthorized bombings "were considered as an article of impeachment, but the charge was dropped" Richard. In 1972, Nixon was very popular to Americans. He won the presidential election by a landslide, carrying 49 of the 50 states. The voters had no idea that Nixon was a liar and a scoundrel. What the public didn't know at the time of his election would eventually be the grounds for his resignation. A scandal named for the Washington, D.C. hotel where it took place, Watergate was an event that tarnished several people in the Nixon administration and caused the American public to become much more interested in morality in politics. Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Hotel noticed a piece of tape keeping the basement door unlocked. He removed it, only to find the tape replaced a few hours later. This prompted Wills to contact the D.C. police. Five men were discovered in the hotel"”Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales, James W. McCord, Frank Sturgis, and Eugenio Martinez. They had broken into the office of the Democratic National Convention. It was later discovered that the men were breaking in to photograph documents and fix wiretaps they had installed three weeks earlier. A link was established between this burglary and the President when it was discovered that McCord was the Chief of Security at the Committee to Re-elect the President CRP. The phone number of E. Howard Hunt, a former White House employee, was found in Barker's notebook, creating an even stronger suspicion that Nixon had something to do with this burglary. When questioned about it, Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, dismissed the link between the burglary and the President. No one ever knew exactly who all was involved in Watergate. It is unclear how high the level of involvement was, but one thing is certain"”quite a bit of the Nixon administration knew what was going on. Nixon's campaign manager, Jeb Stuart Magruder, alleged overhearing Nixon ordering Attorney General John Mitchell to conduct the break-in. Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy were to direct the attempt to retrieve documents from the office of the Democratic Campaign Committee. In January of 1973, Hunt, Liddy, and the original five burglars were tried for and convicted of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping. Senate investigators for the Watergate hearings discovered from Alexandar Butterfield, the deputy assistant to the President, that there was a tape recorder in the Oval Office. These recordings could tell whether or not Nixon was telling the truth about meetings there. However, when the Senate subpoenaed these tapes, Nixon refused, claiming his executive privilege theory. When the Senate pressed for the tapes, Nixon continued to refuse, but released edited transcripts of most of them. The edited tapes confirmed John Dean's account of what had happened in the Oval Office, but a vital 18½ minute portion of one of the tapes was erased. Nixon's issue of holding the tapes went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that Nixon must hand over all of the tapes in their original form. The Watergate grand jury was noticing how much Nixon seemed to be involved in much of their investigation. Several people extremely close to him in his administration were being indicted for association with Watergate. The House of Representatives chose to begin formal investigations on the possible impeachment of the president. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend an article of impeachment of obstruction of justice on the president. Two days later, the second article, abuse of power, was passed, and the next day contempt of Congress was passed. Once Nixon knew impeachment was unavoidable, he publicly announced his resignation. His successor, Gerald Ford, issued a controversial pardon that protected him from any crimes he committed as president. Many people believe Clinton was an inadequate leader because of his continuous extramarital affairs. Given proof that many presidents have affairs and it doesn't affect their ability to lead our country, I disagree with this belief. President Clinton's downfall was his lies and attempted cover-ups, much like Nixon. Clinton and Nixon both had very twisted ideas of their power. They both had a "because I can" attitude towards their actions. Both presidents would have caused much less controversy if they had just admitted and apologized for their mistakes and asked for the country's forgiveness. Clinton's biggest mistake was lying under oath and convincing other people to lie for him. It was never proven whether or not Nixon lied or asked for anyone to lie for him, but his evasive actions led to his resignation. Neither Clinton nor Nixon had an unsatisfactory ability to lead our country. Clinton had a fairly uneventful presidency, and he probably wouldn't be remembered if it weren't for his impeachment trials. Nixon was faced with controversy in his first term that he handled with grace and intelligence, but his paranoia and involvement in the Watergate scandal caused the public to suddenly change its idea of him. Being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has its price. A lack of privacy and extreme scrutiny by members of the press could reveal weaknesses among even the most pristine leaders. While both Clinton and Nixon had positive traits as presidents, their indiscretions and inability to come clean tainted most Americans' perceptions of their leadership abilities.   

Merriam-Webster defines morality as "conformity to ideals of right human conduct"—so what could have raised eyebrows thirty years ago may very well be commonly acceptable today. Scandals are framed in the context of what is socially acceptable behavior. The majority of presidents of the United States have endured or faced...

Words: 1544 View(s): 161 Comment(s): 0