Monday, June 7, 2021
The rise and fall of the Liberal Democrats
The Liberal Democrats, or ‘Lib Dems’ as they’re commonly referred to, have arguably suffered the most in recent years compared to any other mainstream party. However progressive their policies may be, voters seem reluctant to put their futures in the party’s hands. A party that once held as many as 62 MPs has slowly distanced themselves from one of Britain’s main three political parties to somewhere in the top 6, and have made Conservative victories arguably far more likely.
When researching this topic, I decided to search very simply, ‘UK Liberal Democrats’ into Google, and the first article to appear was entitled “What do the Liberal Democrats believe?’ I would argue this is the root of all their problems.
Positioned in the centre to centre-left of British politics, the Liberal Democrats ideology applies both liberalism and social democracy, and different factions have dominated the party at different times. Like any other party, the Lib Dems do seem to know where they stand in British politics but have failed to show the public what they stand for. On their official party website, they state the “Liberal Democrats demand better for Britain. We want to give all our children a brighter future in a fairer Britain where people are decent to each other, with good schools and hospitals, a clean environment and an innovative economy.” Now, compare that to the Conservative party’s statement on their official website of “Unleash Britain’s potential. The Conservatives offer a future after Brexit where we move on to focus on our priorities – which are also your priorities.” Technically, there isn’t a big difference there in terms of the strength of the message, so why have they continued to fall in the polls?
The UK have always had a ‘liberal’ party for the best part of 300 years. The Liberal Democrat party was officially launched in early 1988 and was formally named The Social and Liberal Democrats, with David Steel and Bob Maclennan as joint interim leaders. At the start, the party gained 100,000 members, 19 MPs and over 3,000 local councillors. The first leadership contest in 1988 saw Paddy Ashdown defeat Alan Beith, Paddy then remained leader until 1999. In the same year, the party officially shortened their name to ‘Liberal Democrats’.
The Lib Dems’ policy platform is arguably one of the most progressive. They support institutional reform in the UK, including decentralisation of state power, reform of Parliament and electoral reform. They have long incorporated a commitment to proportional representation in their manifestos, which according to the New Statesmen, was “the one policy which the Liberal Democrats are identified in the minds of the public.” The party have largely been in favour of social welfare spending and have made many pledges for major investment in health, education and public services.
In terms of Foreign policy, the Lib Dems have been committed to the UK’s membership of the EU and the party was also the only one of Britain’s three major parties to oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They have generally supported the law that binds the UK government to spend at least 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development assistance and have proposed a main foreign policy agenda that puts gender equality at its heart, with a focus on the economic inclusion, education and reproductive rights. They also place greater emphasis on human rights and individual freedoms than the Conservatives or Labour.
So, where has it all gone wrong? And why are people still wondering what they stand for after all these years? If we rewind back to 2005, the electoral map would look very different to anything in recent memory. The party managed a 5% overall swing with a few seats in the South and East, mid-Wales, Scotland and Cornwall. Five years later, they formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. But therein lay the roots of their downfall.
The party made headlines with their proposal to ‘scrap’ university tuition fees, leading many younger voters to the polls. However, instead of living out that promise, they tripled the fees instead. Despite opposing the Iraq war, they agreed to the bombing of Libya, which facilitated subsequently a broken state on the shores of the Mediterranean in the process. Due to the unkept promises to voters, naivety and ill-judged decisions in the job, this prompted a wipe-out result of the Liberal Democrats in the 2015 election, with 49 seats lost. Since this, they have failed to make a lasting political comeback.
Although the Liberal Democrats have never been the leading party within the UK, they have been a political weapon used to split voters. Although it is hard for conservative-minded voters to cross their x for a labour candidate, and equally liberal-minded voters to make the opposite trip, the Liberal Democrats typically arise. This has been demonstrated on various elections; when Labour won in 1997, the Lib Dems increased their seats by 26, whilst the Conservatives under John Major lost 19, enabling Labour to rise to power. However, this hasn’t happened in quite some time, with Nick Clegg overpromising with tuition fees and failing to trumpet the Lib Dem’s few successes, and David Cameron misjudging the Brexit referendum, the Lib Dems have suffered hugely, whereas the Conservatives haven’t. So, is the leadership at fault?
The Lib Dems, on paper, have had many potential leaders. Paddy Ashdown of course set the bar and since it has swayed slightly. The latest Lib Dem leader to fall was Jo Swinson, who was constantly labelled ‘woke’ and ‘too left’ by many political commentators and the public, phrases that we have David Cameron to thank for after the divisions left behind from the Brexit vote. That ended her political leadership. Now they have Sir Ed Davey, an experienced politician, hired by Ashdown in the late nineties, who worked within the government during the coalition. Taking his experience, professional demeanour and impressive resume into account, he appears to be a safe bet for the Lib Dems. However, as the latest Labour leader Sir Kier Starmer has proven, a calm demeanour and educated background certainly won’t be the ticket to win.
With the UK slowly easing itself out of lockdown, an economy eager to recover, and an uncertain future of being outside of the European Union, the country could do well with a progressive party like the Liberal Democrats. However, as their party slogan of ‘Build a Brighter Future’ states, they will need to be looking inwards with that line and rebuilding the foundations of the Liberal Democrat values before starting a rebuild for the country.
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
51 for 51
One of the obvious questions for this topic is why wasn’t the nation’s capital made a state in the first place? Washington, District of Columbia, not to be confused with the state of Washington, on the west coast, has been America’s capital since 1800 when it replaced Philadelphia and was named after Christopher Columbus. It has a vast history and is unique among any other American city as it was established by the constitution to serve as the nation’s capital. It was established after 7 long years of negotiation by members of Congress as they tried to define the concept of a “federal enclave” and was finally agreed upon by a compromise in the discussions. America’s first president, George Washington, chose the location accommodating oceangoing ships on the Potomac River’s navigation head and close to deep-rooted colonial port cities of George Town and Alexandria. Washington himself called it “the gateway to the interior” as he anticipated that it would also aid economically to link the Western territories to the Eastern Seaboard, therefore securing the allegiance of the frontier to the new country.
Essentially, Washington DC was never made a state in order to provide a federal district under the select jurisdiction of the U.S congress. The founders also worried that if the capital were to be made a state, that members of the government would be unduly indebted to it and the voting members, according to James Madison the country’s 4th president, could possibly “insult” or “interrupt” the proceedings of the government in order to influence political decisions.
To this day, D.C does not have voting representation in Congress, they have no senators and just one non-voting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton who has held the position for 30 years. Up until 1964, the residents of D.C were not permitted to vote in presidential elections and not until 1974 were they permitted to elect their own metropolitan government and are still restricted in passing laws or an annual budget without congressional support, so it’s no wonder their residents are tired of the arrangement.
Like the majority of US states, voting rights were very much restricted for those who were African American. Washington DC however was arguably ahead of its time outlawing slavery over eight months before Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and gave African American men voting rights in 1867, three years before the 15th amendment extended that right nationwide. Nevertheless, this freedom was brief as Congress stole DC’s voting rights to constrain what they thought was the mounting political muscle of African American residents in DC in the 1870s, something they were undoubtedly threatened by. They are now rightfully back to full voting rights, however it is an important part of DC’s history which shouldn’t be overlooked.
So, why has the conversation and desire for statehood emerged? There have been numerous attempts which have failed before, but recent events have triggered momentum for a vote. Most recently, the city’s lack of authority saw it struggle on two momentous occasions in American politics. At the height of protests in June 2020, Donald Trump ordered federal forces to intervene and disperse Black Lives Matter protestors, in contradiction of the wishes of DC’s mayor. Ms Norton said of the matter that it “was the physical manifestation of the District’s disenfranchisement.” The second event was the insurrection on Capitol Hill on January 6th of this year which saw multiple police injuries and one death of a protestor. The city lacked authority over the national guard which meant it was slow to act and respond.
So, what are the hurdles DC faces in the Senate? Firstly, this will not be a bipartisan agreement. Although certain progressive Republicans could vote in favour of statehood, many see the addition as a danger to the party. Since those in the city have been able to vote in presidential elections, no Republican nominee has won the city’s three electoral votes, and not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat received less than 75% of the vote. Washington DC becoming a state would therefore threaten the Republican party as two extra Senate seats held by individuals in DC would undoubtedly, going on the voting records, be held by Democrats. Republicans are also hostile at the thought of momentum increasing for other territories to become states, for example Puerto Rico, which could increase the weight of the Democrat’s potential power. Prominent and popular Republicans have made their distaste for the statehood publicly with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stating the efforts as “full-bore socialism on the March.”
The potential for statehood could also be met with something unique to American politics, the filibuster. The filibuster is a rule which requires a supermajority of 60 Senators to approve critical legislation, so the Republicans could take advantage of this in the process of trying to block the bill continuing. Moreover, even with the possibility of both Congress and the sitting president allowing the bill to materialise, the termination of the city would only happen when the 23rd Amendment is repealed which is a formidable political risk as at least 38 states would need to approve the action.
Overall, there are mixed intentions for resisting the statehood and it will be a hard task for any party to pass. It is unlikely the Democrats will achieve a filibuster-proof majority with the Senate split 50-50, but as DC was made in a compromise, potentially the future of DC’s say in matters will be made in one too.
Thursday, March 25, 2021
Book review: A promised land - Barack Obama
A Promised Land is the third novel by Barack Hussein Obama, a memoir touching on his childhood, college years, introduction to politics and of course, the start of his presidency.
During his three terms as a United States Senator for Illinois from 1997 to 2005, and his presidency from 2008 to 2017, many saw Obama as an academic and charismatic leader. A potential peacemaker. But history and presidencies don’t run in a straight line, they zigzag in lefts and rights. Obama had many highs to liberals, and questionably many lows to conservatives. Many Democrats saw him as a bridge for America’s internal struggles, although he could be seen as a temporary plaster for a very deep wound, and many Republicans saw him as a threat to traditional values. With the rise of social media influence, and right-wing media power, Obama and his team ultimately became a gift to those who didn’t share their vision for America. They exploited liberal ideals and his administration’s weaknesses and found a way to regain power. This memoir provides answers for those who questioned his decisions, and nostalgia for those who miss his character.
There is never an election where everyone is happy or feels represented, but certain qualities are essential to a leader, especially those who lead the ‘free world.’ In 2008 when Obama became president, I remember my mum saying, “This is history in the making.” And she wasn’t wrong. Obama was the first African American president, a president to succeed in passing a healthcare bill and successfully oversaw the finding and killing of the world’s most wanted man, and a leader who saw America out of its worst economic disaster in decades. In just his first term.
Apart from being a hefty memoir, this is one of the few books I would not only read but like to listen to. This memoir was arguably the most anticipated book of 2020. Usually, presidents don’t waste any time with releasing a presidential memoir after their departure from the White House, but Obama was patient. Some argue this was a political move, releasing it the year of the re-election campaign of Donald Trump, but you cannot argue with its stature. Over 750 pages long, Obama delves deep into the behind the scenes of his journey to the White House and the challenges that met him and his family along the way.
Obama is a great writer, and the prose proves that throughout the book. His perspective is more political than personal, but occasionally he shines a light on the difficulties on persuading his family to enter into politics. His style of writing shows an essence of nostalgia when speaking of his daughters’ early lives and life at home with his mother and grandparents in Hawaii and in Chicago with Michelle. It is clear that Obama is a storyteller, and that echoes in the vast number speeches when he was president; from his Cairo speech in his early years in office, to how America can move forward in light of divisions. When describing places and people his language is very vivid. Describing a trip to the Great Wall of China, he writes “The day was cold, the wind cutting, the sun a dim watermark on the grey sky, and no one said as much as we trudged up the steep stone ramparts that snaked the mountain’s spine.” But Americans do not vote for a president based on their writing skills, as Andrew Jackson’s campaign pushed in 1828 “vote for Jackson who can fight, not John Quincy Adams who can write.” But, after four years of Trumpisms through various divisive tweets, and a source as to which he could freely devalue the Democrats, I think many appreciated a former president’s wisdom on the page. Trump exploited Twitter to gain momentum for his thinking, whereas the Democrats at this point were only just starting to see the benefit of it.
The book starts, naturally, going over elements of his childhood which he thought shaped him into the man who won and occupied the White House. His mother, a care-free and intelligent single mother, saw the importance of seeing different cultures and purposes and introducing her children to them. America has the distinction of being one of the most populous multi-cultured countries in the world, but that territory comes with challenges. America (along with many other western countries) historically treated those who weren’t white with different privileges and rights than those who are. Living in America will not introduce you to and show you the cultures of the world it seemed to Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, so she wanted to take her children with her to experience and explore those cultures which America typically didn’t celebrate.
Obama writes of his very loving childhood in Hawaii, spending much of his time with his grandparents. He describes Hawaii as a place where “slicing through turquois waves is a birth right.” It is sometimes hard to relate to politicians anywhere in the world, especially in terms of their family or personal life, but Obama is honest in his tender but sometimes tense relationship with his wife in the early years of his career. He writes of his personal life in a somewhat melancholy way – his literacy vision is not romanticised.
Throughout the novel, he is very thoughtful. Whether that’s reminiscing of the economic crisis and meeting G20 leaders or reacting to his supreme court nomination, Sonia Sotomayor. His thoughtfulness goes as far to be highly critical of his decision making and capabilities, “the fear came from the realisation that I could win.” And his turbulent relationship with the GOP. Mitch McConnell, the now senate minority leader for the United States senate, made headlines when he expressed his wish to make Obama a “one term president” when he was the senate majority leader. This created a very divisive atmosphere throughout the Obama administration with the rivalry we now see between the republican party and the democrats, arguably one of the most non-bipartisan eras in American history, something the Biden administration has been met with recently with the passing of his COVID stimulus package, with no votes from the GOP.
When Obama speaks of various policies, his inner academic comes alive. Every challenge or problem he ran into during office he described with a vast context and gave the reader a mini history lesson. For example, the evolution and history of the senate filibuster, the involvement of Theodore Roosevelt in healthcare and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Each problem was met with a long explanation of his decision making and the ultimate outcome. When going down the policy rabbit hole, he manages to keep readers engaged and still turning pages. In terms of foreign policy, he entered office under the expectation that he would be a peacemaker, due to his speech in 2003 condemning the Iraq war. But Obama found himself torn between idealism and pragmatism, “turns out avoiding war is harder than getting into one.” He was prepared to withdraw American soldiers in Iraq but needed to do something about Afghanistan. He had names around him persuading and swaying his decision making from one side to the other, most notably Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. His administration was a mix of individuals who favoured military requests, and those who saw the importance of reducing American involvement in overseas crisis’.
He speaks of those in his administration with most admiration. An individual who was an opponent, and then a colleague, Hillary Clinton makes many appearances during the memoir. He describes in detail their quiet, but respected rivalry during the 2008 presidential primary in the Democratic party, but then their close working relationship when Hillary was appointed his Secretary of State. He described her as having “hawkish instincts” when it came to military decisions, but never shied away from praising her political skills. He speaks of his close relationship with Reggie Love, a political aid to Obama and former basketball player. He touched on their many moments of playing cards on air force one as a chance of down time in-between important meetings and the significance of having friendship and informal moments within the administration.
Although many people will look at Obama’s time in office as historic and worthy of praise in certain areas, he verges on a self-deprecating tone, not always acknowledging his hard work. When receiving the Nobel Peace Prize he said “for what?” but he never had his moments of introspection, he viewed his decisions and challenges from the vantage point of the present, allowing readers to be securely in the moments he is describing.
When reading multiple reviews of the memoir, the line that resonates with me the most was Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie for the New York Times when she described Obama as a “man who was watching himself watch himself.” He seemed dissatisfied with many decisions, a sceptic of his own roles and achievements. But it is a trait that many leaders need. The ability to question and challenge yourself, even holding the highest of powers, and seeking the possibility of creating perfection when serving your country and serving others is hard. Many leaders have flaws, and as Obama spoke of Michelle’s various reactions to his ideas “it’s like you have a hole to fill. That’s why you can’t slow down.” Everyone has flaws. But Obama has a gracious way of describing and accepting his.
The story will continue in the second addition of his memoir, where I expect him to be reflecting on the 2016 election, and the events that have followed. Obama was undoubtedly a strong political heavyweight, but a piece of propaganda the idealogue’s of the Republican party used that arguably gave America the results of the 2016 election.
Obama had his imperfections, but also his gifts. Like many, I miss his decency and charisma but also his urge to give diplomacy the chance to succeed.
Saturday, February 27, 2021
The US Election: will the EU win or lose?
The implications of a Joe Biden victory versus a second term for Donald Trump on the US-EU relationship will become clearer after this week. In its September report, UBS stated: “Most national elections are not global events, but the US election is one exception.”
“The less multilateral approach adopted by the US to tackling the world’s problems, from trade to geopolitics, has left Europe somewhat isolated,” UBS said. “Whatever path the US decides to take in the future will likely have important ramifications for US-Europe relations and their respective economic progress.”
The world’s largest wealth manager noted that the US election will have an effect on eurozone trade, since the US is the euro area’s single most important trading partner and accounts for 14% of all its exports.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to set punitive tariffs on European car exports, something deeply concerning especially for Germany’s powerful automotive sector. In 2018, he slapped duties of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminium.
If Trump were to win, “US-EU trade tensions will likely remain, but increased tariffs are unlikely in the near term,” UBS says, and he “is likely to keep pressure on the EU to support NATO” and be “less willing to work with Europe to engage with China.” Ultimately, it could lead to “increased fragmentation in global trade” the bank said.
If Biden wins, UBS believes it could lead to the easing of trade tensions, with steel tariffs potentially being overturned and threats towards the EU auto industry dwindling.
“However, the positive economic benefit of this [a Biden win] would be marginal, in our view,” UBS said. “Swift progress toward a US-EU trade deal appears unlikely.”
Donald Trump has fostered a confrontational relationship with many EU countries since his victory in 2016, with much of his aggression focussed upon Germany and its chancellor Angela Merkel, criticising her decisions to accept refugees fleeing the Syrian war, and Germany’s insufficient NATO contributions. Many German politicians have been vocal about the fact that under Trump, the transatlantic relationship has deteriated.
Another Trump victory could see more protectionism which would seriously harm EU companies — the European Union ran a €153bn surplus with the US in 2019.
Biden is the more appealing candidate for European companies. He (Biden) said that he would sign the US up to the Paris Climate Agreement again, after Trump withdrew from it in 2019. He has also indicated he would reverse Trump’s move to cut US funding to the World Health Organisation, stating in June this year that “it is essential to coordinating the global response during a pandemic, and the United States should be leading that response as we had in the past.”
But even if the Democratic candidate were to win, the transatlantic relationship may never be what it once was. "Everyone who thinks everything in the transatlantic partnership will be as it once was with a Democratic president underestimates the structural changes,” German foreign minister Heiko Maas told the German Press Agency in the Summer.
Hans Kundnani, a senior research fellow in the Europe Programme at Chatham House, likewise argues that the relationship between the US and Europe was faulty even before Trump came along. “The tendency among Atlanticists to idealise US policy towards Europe before Trump entered the White House obscures the pressures on the transatlantic relationship that were already evident prior to his run for the presidency in 2016,” Kundnani says in his analysis.
He suggests that the US’s increasing focus on China has meant European nations have come under pressure to take more responsibility for their own security. Kundnani says that even if Trump gets re-elected, “Europeans are unlikely to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’ but could in fact be more splintered, with France and like-minded member states pushing to create defence initiatives within the EU “while others such as Poland look to further bilateralise their security relationship with the US.”
Of course a victory for Europe may not play so well with No. 10, the Democrats have already said they will not look kindly upon a UK-US deal that negatively impacts the Good Friday Agreement. Biden stated that he wouldn’t allow peace in Northern Ireland to become a “casualty of Brexit”. Ultimately if there is a win for the EU, that doesn’t mean there will be a win for the UK. If the EU prevails after this election, it is safe to assume they will not be sharing their good fortune with the UK. Then again, that also goes both ways.
Whatever the outcome, a ‘new world’ will be upon us this week. Good luck America.
Book Review: A higher loyalty - James Comey
*Note from author: this blog was written on July 28th 2020*
Decency, ethics, morals, credibility and a sense of fairness (of what is legally right and morally right) are at the core of this book. James Comey, former Director of the FBI, delves deep into his experience and time witnessing leadership and talks about what being a great leader means for him. He draws sharp sketches of key players in three US administrations during his time as the country’s senior law enforcement officer and with his exposure to other great figures explains the different but captivating styles of leading. Of course, his detailed pictures of leaders allow us to draw our own conclusions about the last person he describes in the book (Trump) - someone he doesn’t consider to be a leader.
Well written and detailed, he gives those of us who have less understanding of the structure of either the FBI or the control the president has, a better, deeper and broader understanding of it and its key personnel. For example, the Director of the FBI does not answer to the president, but to the Attorney General. FBI Directors usually have a tenure of 10 years in office, ensuring no political bias between parties goes on. One of Comey’s overriding missions is the long-term safeguarding of the FBI’s independence from being caught up in the middle of the Washington cross-fire and to rebuild public trust in it. But there’s also an implicit hope that Trump, whom he describes as a “forest fire”, will finally pay the penalty for obstructing justice.
Comey’s memoir of his tenure as the shortest-serving of the FBI’s six directors was an international, headline-grabbing event. In the book he is methodical in his approach in describing the events leading up to and after the 2016 election: the story of the intertwined mess of Hillary Clinton’s email investigation, Russia’s unprecedented attack on the election and his firing by President Trump.
The only reason anyone is able to read Comey’s book is because of the shock election of Donald Trump, a character who is mentioned only late in the book but whose presence looms on nearly every page. “We are experiencing a dangerous time in our country, with a political environment where basic facts are disputed, fundamental truth is questioned, lying is normalised, and unethical behaviour is ignored, excused or rewarded,” Comey writes on the book’s opening page.
Comey is a man who has profound respect for law and justice, and has a loathing of bullies. He is a student and practitioner of ethical leadership. He is a deeply reflective person. The New York Times said “He is what Saul Bellow would call a first-class noticer”. Yes, he tries to make himself look good by talking about his noble motives, but he is using himself as a template for good leadership, and when he compares Trump against this, he found Trump didn’t measure up.
He may have lost his position, but he has gained a long-lasting legacy of decency and fairness. My biggest takeaways from the book were; firstly, the undeniable need for fair and trustworthy leadership, in any role. If you are a manager of a small village store or the representative for a major political office, if you do not have the trust or the ability to connect with your staff, you will not succeed in helping yourself or them. Secondly, it is to trust your own instincts and to not give in. Comey was put in many situations where his beliefs and morals would be compromised in the shadow of those more powerful. They would have undoubtedly made his life easier if he had ‘gone along’ with them, but, it proved the importance of ethical leadership and inevitably a Higher Loyalty to the values of his institution which he held so strong.
My favourite quotation from the book was, “Ethical leaders do not run from criticism, especially self-criticism, and they don’t hide from uncomfortable questions. They welcome them."
I have no hesitation in giving this book five out of five stars. As lockdown continues to grant me the extra time to read into subjects I couldn’t squeeze in before, I thought I would share my thoughts on it and hope you have enjoyed it or found it useful.
From Watergate to COVIDgate – how my weekends have changed my perception of certain key events.
*Note from author: this blog was written on the 6th May 2020.*
This pandemic has brought about changes to all aspects of our lives – not least how we use our time. My weekends are no longer a time to meet friends or go to events but have become, courtesy of my uncle who is a Doctor of History, a series of history lessons.
One of my biggest hobbies is learning about American political history and why certain events in the US continue to shape the modern world.
This weekend's 'history lesson' was about the Presidency of Richard Nixon. He has the distinction of being the first president to resign and the first to attempt to ignore the first amendment’s ‘freedom of speech’ by trying to 'take down' publications which were publishing the Pentagon Papers in the 70's and investigating the Watergate scandal.
Nixon's failures were the stuff of dark tragedy: uneven judgement and a deeply suspicious character verging on delusional, combined with great political gifts and considerable vision for the Republican party. He not only opened up U.S. relations with China but also reached an important arms-limitation agreement with the Soviet Union. He supported a number of progressive domestic policies, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He also ordered the important desegregation of schools. But the drama of Nixon concludes with his resignation under a cloud of wrongdoing. For obstructing the investigation of a petty crime committed by some of his own campaign operatives—an attempt to break into the Democratic National Headquarters. Nixon's name and reputation will forever be linked with one word: Watergate. Yet even before this scandal, he tried to abuse his power and operate above the law. He attempted to discredit the leakers of the Pentagon Papers, taking The Washington Post, The New York Times and other newspapers to the supreme court, completely undermining the First Amendment. The courts sided with the publishers and held that the government had no right to invoke the newspapers for publishing excerpts of the papers.
It seems Nixon was always fighting an ‘invisible enemy’, something Donald Trump said of this pandemic. What they both exhibit is a leadership that falls short during a crisis and a reluctance to hold their hands up when they have made mistakes. In Nixon's case, he blamed the press for uncovering his own administration's political secrets about the Vietnam war. Trump on the other hand has blamed The World Health Organisation among many others instead of openly admitting he didn't prepare America for a Pandemic.
One of these presidents was undone by mishandling a situation, the other most likely will be. As historian Tariq Ali said, “History rarely repeats itself, but its echoes never go away.”
Spectacle
