A Tale of Two Election Scandals

3,874 words

After the contested results of the recent election, this is a good opportunity to consider a prior one — that of 1972. What are the similarities? It’s pretty simple. In 1972, Nixon’s campaign cheated. In 2020, Biden’s campaign cheated. Here are the specifics, and then the reasons why.

Cheating in the 1972 election

The Nixon campaign’s cheating involved several conspiratorial elements collectively called “ratfucking,” the President’s potty-mouthed and evocative term for such matters. The aftermath would unfold into the Watergate scandal, much prolonged because of attempts to cover it up. I’ll recap the highlights for young’uns who weren’t around for all that.

Other government figures took the lead and carried this out, FBI agents most notably. There were efforts to shut up critics, particularly journalists. They failed an attempt to steal Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatric file to obtain embarrassing personal details, basically to get revenge for leaking top-secret information in the Pentagon Papers. There was discussion about possibly using far dirtier tricks. It’s hard to say how much of that was merely idle tough talk among TLA figures mulling over the possibilities, and how much actually might’ve been on the table, but nothing came of it. In the investigation of the following cover-up, much ado was made about eighteen missing minutes of a taped Nixon-Haldeman conversation, but that plausibly was operator error. The item with the greatest potential effect on the election’s outcome was bugging a couple of hotel rooms in the attempt to obtain details on the Democratic campaign strategy.

Nixon also had the IRS audit certain critics. This would’ve been used against him as an abuse of power in the impeachment that was about to get underway, part of the high crimes and misdemeanors. When the Obama administration used the IRS to punish critics, there was some middling brouhaha about it, two or three IRS officials quit, some others stonewalled their way through the investigation, but it never got all the way to the top. Another subject was illegal wiretapping; lately, that’s small potatoes since everyone has been under illegal wiretapping since Bush the Younger’s administration. At the time, Leonid Brezhnev thought it didn’t add up — don’t all governments spy on their citizens? Nixon shouldn’t have done all that, but even so, maybe it’s time to let Tricky Dick off the hook for those things now that Obama got a free pass and Comrade Brezhnev’s domestic spying standards are normal procedure.

When the story first broke, it was merely a blip; a minor news item termed as “the Watergate caper” and a “third rate burglary.” (I bet the administration could’ve called it a “conspiracy theory” and it would’ve gone away. That works like magic these days: “Nothing to see here; move along!”) Unwisely, Nixon chose to stonewall and lie his way out of it, worsening things tremendously; much like Clinton’s “Fornigate” scandal. This encouraged further digging for dirt, evasion led to new obstruction of justice charges, and support eroded tremendously in Congress and among the public. His potty-mouthed private conversations, although hardly unique among modern Presidents, worsened his image when the tapes were released.

There’s some dispute about how much Nixon personally knew and approved, but it’s certain he tried to have the conspiracy covered up. For argument’s sake, we’ll say that he bore full responsibility. So he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and should’ve faced the music in one way or another. Early on, a heartfelt public apology might’ve been enough to smooth things over. Perhaps a Congressional censure could’ve delivered a final scolding, and they would’ve been done with it. However, after all the stonewalling and evasion, that was no longer an option. Faced with an impeachment about to unfold, Nixon bit the bullet. He wrote a terse letter of resignation, not one of his most eloquent moments. Later, he explained that he could’ve tried to fight it in the impeachment, but decided that going further would tear apart the country.

Among further aftermath, his successor Gerald Ford was left in a weak position. There’s a decent case to be made that if this never happened, the future Fall of Saigon could’ve been avoided. That led to a major loss of American prestige, and the inability to prevent further Marxist chaos in Southeast Asia. Ford lost the next election to Jimmy Carter, the wimpy Apostle of Mediocrity. Last but certainly not least was a major missed opportunity. Nixon, remarkably Red Pilled by today’s standards, once had contemplated going after MSM monopolization. The Lügenpresse might’ve come under the crosshairs, but they were saved by the bell ultimately because of the Watergate feeding frenzy. Moreover, they ran their usual victory lap as defenders of democracy, restoring their shaky credibility to the rubes.

The cost-benefit analysis of cheating in the 1972 election is pretty bad. Tactically, ratfucking yielded little actual advantage. Strategically, it blew up in Nixon’s face. He went down in history as the guy who got caught.

Cheating in the 2020 election

On Election Day, much of the public went to sleep with Trump in a comfortable lead, victory near certain. The next day, the results reversed. On closer examination, a flurry of stories about telltale factors started emerging over the next few days. (I doubt we’ve seen the end of it.) These included anomalously large Biden spikes around 4:00 AM in certain swing states just enough to get in the lead, large loads of ballots magically found usually with every single one for Biden (even the most liberal cities have a fraction of Republicans), observers blocked from witnessing tabulation, mysterious “glitches” favoring Biden until corrected, boasts about destroying Trump ballots (and then explaining “just kidding”), mail-in ballot games (acceptance after the deadline, orders to falsify postmarks, etc.), areas with voter turnout higher than 100%, and some nerdy mathematical stuff too complex to explain briefly.

If it were just one state, some of that could arguably be written off as a misinterpretation, an innocuous statistical anomaly, or mudslinging. With lots of hinky stuff in several states, that dog don’t hunt. They really overplayed their hand with this one. Was something that massive planned ahead of time and orchestrated centrally? I’d have to wonder if anyone who sincerely believes otherwise might also believe in the Easter Bunny.

Where are all those intrepid journalists now, unbiased truth-tellers, brave defenders of our democracy? Since 2016, the MSM attempted to pump up a story, also ballyhooed by the Deep State, about the Russians stealing the election for Trump. It was a nothingburger from beginning to end, with no more evidence at the bottom of it than the speculation, “Boy howdy, that’s exactly what those Russkies would do!” After hunting that emaciated phantom for years, the press now turns its back on a banquet. There’s a treasure trove of potential stories to cover about cheating in the 2020 election, and the MSM would be all over that if they were real journalists instead of professional bullshit peddlers.

For that matter, where was our esteemed free press in 2016 when Cupcake’s campaign was inciting “bird dogging” disturbances at Trump rallies? Why does Project Veritas have to uncover these things?

Following the recent election, the MSM has been busy spin-doctoring, pretending that there were no irregularities, and otherwise muddying the waters as usual. It’s sort of the Leftist “make believe until it comes true” shtick. To those with that mindset, The Narrative is more real than reality, or at least more important. Actually, the MSM doesn’t even need to do all that, because the True Believers already dismiss anything that doesn’t fit The Narrative. Like Yuri Bezmenov said:

They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

Much of the Lügenpresse acts as if Biden already won, despite the ongoing dispute, presenting it as a fait accompli. It bears similarities to the “assume the sale” trick, or as the Romans would put it, petitio principi. Even LOX News joined the chorus, outing themselves once and for all as the controlled opposition network. (Can we start calling them CON now?) All this premature celebration will do is embitter soft-headed liberals, told by the TV that Biden already won, if the outcome in court disagrees.

At this particular moment, the final chapter has yet to be written. Presently, some states haven’t declared; hopefully, their officials are just taking precautions to get accurate results because they don’t want fallout from irregularities. Much will depend on this legal action now ongoing. The Electoral College is another wildcard, of course.

Why did the Nixon campaign cheat?

The Watergate scandal concluded when Nixon stood down. Although drawn out too long, he did so for the good of the country. Well, he cheated, and ultimately there was no getting around it. The odd thing is that in the 1960 election, he’d stood down for the good of the country, but Kennedy’s campaign cheated. It may be that this is the point he decided that elections are hardball and that’s just how it’s played.

Obviously it would’ve been better to avoid ratfucking tactics. It’s hard to calculate how many electoral votes — if any — might’ve been gained by a third-rate burglary, vexatious tax audits, and the other half-baked measures, but it wasn’t even necessary. He still would’ve won in 1972 if the campaign had played it squeaky clean, though at the time the results seemed uncertain. There was much at stake in the outcome of the election, of course, but when is there not?

The October 1980 edition of Playboy has some further answers giving insights into motivations. I double pinky-swear that I only read it for the articles, and this has a great one. There’s a long interview with former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy. The beginning is located about halfway before the cute blonde centerfold Mardi Jacquet, looking mighty fine in the signature Playboy soft lens. Other enlightening TLA news in that edition is the article “Did the FBI kill Viola Liuzzo?” By the way, that was the same agent provocateur who did the Montgomery church bombing, one of those COINTELPRO false flag attacks — your tax dollars at work! That article is right before the scrumptious buff brunette Lisa Lyon in all her glorious glory.

Liddy was one of the Watergate burglars, sometimes described as the mastermind of the conspiracy. Afterward, he became notable for being the only one who didn’t sing like a canary. Everyone else who got busted cracked under pressure, a good object lesson that people should keep their activities above-board. He was a very colorful character, certainly one of the most memorable personalities from all that. His classical, lawyerly, and Jesuitical education really stands out, and surprisingly, he’s a real hoot too. In later times, he became the most controversial American talk radio figure since Ezra Pound.

The interview opens briefly discussing his autobiography Will (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980). I’ll add that it’s certainly worth a read. After that, it discusses plans to kill certain journalists. Liddy points out that the ones potentially on target didn’t get that way because of criticism of the President, but because of specific treasonous acts harming national security. During the lengthy discussion, he throws out a great one-liner here:

If we’d tried to whack out every Washington reporter who had it in for Nixon, the National Press Club would’ve held nothing but wall-to-wall memorial plaques.

Score one for the G-Man! Did I mention that this guy is a hoot? Another part of the interview goes approximately like this, to paraphrase briefly:

PLAYBOY: Are you a Nazi?

LIDDY: No.

PLAYBOY: Really, are you a Nazi?

LIDDY: No.

PLAYBOY: Aren’t you kind of a Nazi?

LIDDY: No.

PLAYBOY: Are you a Mafioso?

LIDDY: No.

PLAYBOY: Really, are you a Mafioso?

LIDDY: No.

PLAYBOY: Aren’t you kind of a Mafioso?

LIDDY: No.

Then there’s much discussion of Watergate, as one might expect. Why cheat in the election? Liddy gives his reasons, and it’s rather likely these things were on the minds of others participating in this unfortunate bungle, perhaps even Nixon himself. There’s one thing about which he’d agree with Saul Alinsky:

When the issues are significant enough, the ends do justify the means. And, in fact, most people in this society operate on just that assumption, though a lot of them gloss it over with a shimmering veil of hypocrisy, like John Sirica. Didn’t the New York Times believe that the end justified the means in the Pentagon papers case, when it published purloined top-secret Government documents? And didn’t the civil rights and antiwar demonstrators believe that the ends justified the means when they broke the law in sit-ins at lunch counters or burning their draft cards? Sure they did, and at least in the civil rights movement, they were prepared to go to jail for their convictions. It was only when we countered the illegal actions of the antiwar movement with some of our own that they tore their hair and rent their raiments and screamed, “Police state!” And the whole thing turned into a morality play. All a question of whose political ox is gelling gored, of course. When I’m in a war, I can respect my opponent, no matter how strongly I detest his convictions. What I cannot stand is hypocrisy.

Utilitarian arguments for breaking the rules can get remarkably slippery, of course. Liddy’s position is essentially that since Leftists routinely were doing that already, they had no reason to complain about “no holds barred” tactics. Shortly after, he goes on to say:

Everybody today knows that in the late Sixties and early Seventies, we were involved in an exterior war in Vietnam, but they tend to forget that we were also embroiled in an undeclared civil war at home. And unless one can understand the nature of that struggle and the issues it posed for the Administration in Washington, you’ll never be able to understand my motives or the motives of my associates in undertaking the actions and running the risks we did. We were up against a formidable constellation of forces in those days, an alliance of influential elements of the media with a so-called counterculture that represented a Weltanschauung and lifestyle that were utterly repugnant to me. It was as unthinkable to me to let the country succumb to those values as it would have been to a Japanese officer reared on the code of Bushido to contemplate surrender in 1945.

I’ll note that as an FBI agent, he obviously had been in a position to get a close-up look at the subversive radicalism of the time in ways that the general public only could imagine. The interviewer asks if the situation with the civil unrest really was that bad — wasn’t he overestimating? Liddy replies:

In my opinion, you’re seriously underestimating the threat. We didn’t have a crystal ball at our disposal in those days that would inform us that mass student opposition to the war would peter out after the end of the draft, or that the racial cauldron in the big cities would eventually simmer down. We had to act on our best intelligence assessment of the forces arrayed against us, and that assessment was far from encouraging, particularly when you consider the revolutionaries.

The revolutionaries these days aren’t too encouraging either, but all that’s another matter. The general Leftist opinion about G. Gordon Liddy is pretty unfavorable, to say the least, and was far worse when Watergate was fresh.

Why did the Biden campaign cheat?

They haven’t admitted to anything for obvious reasons, other than the “just kidding” guy, but I can make some pretty good speculations. To begin, Biden’s major strong point to gain the nomination is name recognition as former Vice President. Surely it helps that he’s a Council on Foreign Relations member. He has the favor of The Establishment, unlike Sanders. (That’s their Charlie Brown who repeatedly had the football snatched away from him.) Still, a strong candidate has to bring other qualities to the table too.

The problem is that Biden is pretty bland even on a good day, with little more charisma than Walter Mondale. Worse, his mind clearly is slipping a few cogs, and this won’t get better with age. The poor fellow should be enjoying a comfortable retirement, not being put up to a highly stressful and demanding job with tremendous responsibility. His wayward son doesn’t help matters; it’s hardly uncommon for politicians to have embarrassing relatives, but Joe himself came away pretty dirty from his entanglement with all that.

Biden’s running mate, poised to succeed him if he has to resign for health reasons or just loses his remaining wits, got picked because she checks three intersectionality boxes. That’s pretty important to them; almost as qualified for the Vice Presidency as a genderfluid Chinese Muslim lesbian. However, nobody else cares. The problem is that although Kamala Harris could make a splash as a new cast member on Sesame Street, either as an actress or a Muppet, she would be over her head in high office.

The Democratic Party really needed a decent nominee. The head honchos in the smoke-filled room probably figured anyone would do — even a boring minion not running on all four cylinders — because it was impossible for Trump to win. (It’s the same mistake in 2016 when Cupcake got the nomination.) Surely their talent scouts could’ve found some better liberal politicians, persuading them to run in the primary. Don’t they have focus groups that can determine traits for mass appeal like charisma, substance, and moderate views? An opponent with the right kind of charm — someone similar to Bill Clinton at his best, Carter if he grew a pair, or JFK — could’ve been a much better contender.

When the tires met the trail, it turns out that victory wasn’t as certain as expected. With a lineup having little popular appeal outside of their entrenched base, the Biden campaign was at a serious disadvantage. What to do about it then? Some liberal pundits suggested that it would be great to crash the economy to influence the election, an indication of the willingness of some to play hardball to the country’s general disadvantage. Democrats in Congress blocked efforts at sending a second round of stimulus checks, obviously wanting to deprive the administration an accomplishment, spitefully prioritizing the election’s outcome above the public’s wellbeing. Still, they needed a backup plan to be certain of getting the Presidency, no matter what the public decided.

To the Deep State types in particular, it’s very important. Trump is the only major party candidate who hasn’t been vetted by The Establishment for a very long time. If reelected, he would continue to be a fly in their ointment, even if not much else. Therefore, ratfucking 2.0 it was.

If one could convince a diehard Biden supporter that their side cheated, the answer would be that it doesn’t matter. Orange Man Bad, so anything to get him out of the way is justifiable. Why, he’s “literally Hitler!” We all know that’s ridiculous; he ain’t even Barry freaking Goldwater. Still, some Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers really do think he’s the next Hitler. Narrative is more real than reality, and who needs facts? Therefore, anything to end Reichsführer Drumpf’s reign of terror is legitimate to them, including stuffing the ballot box. Well, here we have the utilitarian argument again — sounds familiar?

This brings us to one question they can’t answer. (“Orange Man Bad!” doesn’t count as an acceptable answer.) If it’s is OK to cheat in the name of stopping Trump, then why were the actions of G. Gordon Liddy and his co-conspirators wrong? He only wanted to fight back against the growing tide of revolutionary ferment spinning out of control and wrecking the country, right? There indeed had been a large-scale bombing campaign during the late 1960s by radical leftists, as well as terrorism in general and waves of race riots the likes of which we haven’t seen until recently; those ones already were fighting dirty. Although I still say Watergate was a terrible idea, Liddy made a better case for why he did it than anything I’ve heard from Leftists about why Trump must be stopped by any means possible. Ultimately, if it’s OK for the Biden campaign to rig the election for utilitarian reasons, then this means anyone can do the same thing, and therefore Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy, and the other Watergate conspirators did nothing wrong.

Everybody cheats, or nobody cheats — take your pick

Officially, everyone should play by the rules. In practice, cheating can happen. There should be ironclad safeguards in place to prevent this as best as possible. When it does occur, it must be suitably penalized. If corruption is tolerated, or used as a contingency to get rid of someone who the Deep State doesn’t like, it opens up a can of worms. Eventually, ratfucking becomes standard procedure for both sides. That’s not how elections are supposed to work. The outcome of any of them will be questionable. Soon the parties are competing to outdo each other in ratfucking, and the end stage of this is a banana republic.

After the dust settles, these things must be fixed. For starters, all voters need to prove the minimum requirements of being citizens and being alive. The mail-in ballot system needs an overhaul. There must be transparency about the tabulation process. Moreover, ideological bias and censorship on social media has to go, whether the Left Coast bugmen like it or not, to ensure a level playing field in the free marketplace of ideas. The “they’re private companies and can do anything they want” argument doesn’t work for monopolies, for one matter.

For now, if Trump had let the Biden campaign’s cheating slide, the Democrats and Deep State types would’ve gotten away with bad behavior, emboldening them to do so whenever they like in the future, which probably would mean always. Challenging it sends the message that it’s not OK to rig an election and they’ll get called out on it. If the challenge is successful, whichever bad actors there are will get a painful lesson that crime doesn’t pay. Other than that, I really hope that there are at least some high-functioning liberals out there who might say something similar to: “I don’t like Trump, but a rigged election isn’t worth it.”

Finally, historical legacy is important, and corruption is a red flag that doesn’t go away. Watergate’s lessons for politicians are pretty clear: cheating is wrong. Those who are caught doing that will have to take their medicine, and the sooner the better.

If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.

Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.