Watergate

Few political scandals of the modern age have rivaled the complexity and, to some extent, the theatricality of those events that have collectively become known as simply “Watergate.” In fact, so far-reaching were the consequences of both the initial events and their protracted cover-up that the scandal effectively became the model by which future political and public relations catastrophes were to be defined—not only in America, but also globally. The now common trend of branding a well-publicized cover-up with the seemingly requisite “gate” suffix speaks to the apparent timelessness of the Watergate scandal and how it remains seared into the collective memory, retaining the ability even decades later to connect all acts of political or public disgrace with Watergate as their common progenitor.

While history has largely focused on the political circumstances of Watergate and its legal and legislative aftermaths, the events that led to the historically unprecedented resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974 remain a matter of interdisciplinary interest with respect to the group dynamics of deception and collusion among both elected and appointed officials. In most cases involving criminal acts of deception, the office held by a perpetrator is often considered an aggravating factor at sentencing, especially with respect to breaches of the public trust. Watergate is a remarkable exception, however, in terms of public trust apparently being a mitigating rather than aggravating circumstance, in turn raising questions about the psychopathology of group lying and condoning of antisocial behavior by senior elected officials.

Another reason for the ongoing intrigue surrounding the Watergate scandal is the apparent lack of a concrete motive for the crimes that set the president's downfall in motion and ruined countless careers. The scandal also lacked what might be described as a central or prevailing incentive when considering how quickly it seems to have lured in so many conspirators of such differing backgrounds, many of whom had little to gain during the plotting, commission, and eventual unraveling of the convoluted affair.

Burglarizing Democratic Headquarters

Having punctuated an era that remains defined by allegations of clandestine political pacts and far-reaching deceptions and conspiracies, Watergate essentially began as an unexceptional commercial burglary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters located in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., on the Memorial Day weekend in 1972. The initial burglary, as with the second attempt in June 1972, was unquestionably an intelligence-gathering mission either ordered or condoned by senior Republican Party principals, including President Nixon, yet the precise nature of the information being sought remains unclear. Some involved in the burglary's planning and commission have cited the official objective as having been the identification and collection of evidence confirming [Page 931]that the Cuban government was providing the DNC with covert funding; others have speculated that it might have been as simple as an overzealous attempt to gather dirt on senior DNC officials through the installation of illegal wiretaps and pilferage of sensitive documents, but with no specific endgame.

Members of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities consult during a hearing on Watergate In 1973. From left: Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin (chair), chief counsel Sam Dash, and minority counsel Arthur Miller (rear). The 435 members of the 93rd Congress (right) were charged with considering the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974, including Texas Congresswoman Barbara C. Jordan (center), who delivered an impassioned rationale for impeachment.

...