Arguably the greatest political scandal of twentieth-century America, the Watergate affair rocked an already divided nation to its very core, severely challenged our cherished notions about democracy, and further eroded public trust in its political leaders.
The 1972 break-in at Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel—by five men acting under the direction of a Republican president's closest aides and his staff—created a constitutional crisis second only to the Civil War and ultimately toppled the Nixon presidency. With its sordid trail of illegal wiretapping, illicit fundraising, orchestrated cover-up, and destruction of evidence, it was the scandal that made every subsequent national political scandal a "gate" as well.
A disturbing tale made famous by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in All the President's Men , the Watergate scandal has been extensively dissected and vigorously debated. Keith Olson, however, offers for the first time a "layman's guide to Watergate," a concise and readable one-volume history that highlights the key actors, events, and implications in this dark drama. John Dean, John Ehrlichman, H. R. Haldeman, G. Gordon Liddy, John Mitchell, Judge John Sirica, Senator Sam Ervin, Archibald Cox, and the ghostly "Deep Throat" reappear here—in a volume designed especially for a new generation of readers who know of Watergate only by name and for teachers looking for a straightforward summary for the classroom.
Olson first recaps the events and attitudes that precipitated the break-in itself. He then analyzes the unmasking of the cover-up from both the president's and the public's perspective, showing how the skepticism of politicians and media alike gradually intensified into a full-blown challenge to Nixon's increasingly suspicious actions and explanations.
Olson fully documents for the first time the key role played by Republicans in this unmasking, putting to rest charges that the "liberal establishment" drove Nixon from the White House. He also chronicles the snowballing public outcry (even among Nixon's supporters) for the president's removal. In a remarkable display of nonpartisan unity, leading public and private voices in Congress and the media demanded the president's resignation or impeachment. In a final chapter, Olson explores the Cold War contexts that encouraged an American president to convince himself that the pursuit of "national security" trumped even the Constitution.
As America approaches the thirtieth anniversary of the infamous Watergate hearings and the overreach of presidential power is again at issue, Olson's book offers a quick course on the scandal itself, a sobering reminder of the dangers of presidential arrogance, and a tribute to the ultimate triumph of government by the people.
good read, indubitably the only concern I have is regarding last chapter which should have focused on the influence of Watergate on Cold War, yet it just summarizes the book and states the obvious: “During the Cold War presidents were more likely to concern illegal activity because of the situation of the state, Nixon just did too much.” Furthermore, the author implies that Watergate was nothing but a mistake of Nixon and his advisees, although clearly the leaks of Watergate were made to replace the president. It was obviously beneficial for some. If we see what course Kissinger shaped after Nixon’s resignation, we can witness a complete destruction of the US on foreign arena during the presidency of Ford. Author mentions nothing of it. Indubitably, Ford pardoned Nixon. Indubitably, Nixon committed crimes. But what defined the presidency of Nixon? Multiple successes in domestic and foreign affairs, which the author TIES together. Moreover, the “Watergate affair” seems to cross out everything else Nixon did, in opinion of Olson. I severely disagree with many statements of the book, but I cannot disagree with the fact that the timeline of the Watergate is offered very clearly and thoroughly here, despite the book being severely biased
An excellent book. Well sourced and articulate. If you have trouble remembering all the names and titles of the players, this author makes a point of fully listing name and job title with relation to their activity in the saga of Watergate. Nixon and other personnel based occurrences are repeatedly cited in chronological order.
This book is on the same level as All The President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein. It's a labor of love with regard to writing history. It's like you were transported to Washington D.C. from '72-'74.
Quite an interesting read, however, it is extremely detailed - which can be both regarded as good and bad but depends on the viewpoint; I think it was quite useful in understanding the series of events BUT the issue is I started this book with little to no knowledge about the period which made it difficult to understand certain areas. The usage of the chronology and bibliographical essay at the became were quite useful, and I do recommend it for those who are revising the period and need some quick information/dates.
Looking for a concise introduction to Watergate? At under 200 pages, with thorough end notes, a timeline to help keep track of events, and an interesting afterward about Watergate events since 2003, this title fits the bill perfectly. Some information was repeated throughout the book, but maybe Professor Olson was just making sure we got the point!
Olson does a good job of demonstrating how the impeachment process was not a partisan attack, but a consensus. He also does a good job describing the post cold war patterns that made Watergate not only possible, but within the historic context, almost normal from the Nixon administration's point of view.
As someone with a working, but by no means deep, knowledge of Watergate, Olson's book is indispensable, and one I'll use for reference again and again.
While the events of Watergate were fascinating to read about, the book suffered from scholarly rather than engaging writing. I wished, often, for a list of important people because the author [a history professor] often brought up minor characters without reminding us who they were once again.