What do you think?
Rate this book
Washington Journal: Reporting Watergate and Richard Nixon's Downfall
Unfolding over the course of a single year, from September 1973 to August 1974, Washington Journal is the record of the near-dissolution of a nation's political conscience-told from within. In this book, we see corruption in its most prosaic and grandest forms, along with occasional flashes of decency, ethics, and humanity, and other sights rarely witnessed in the wilds of the capital. Cool and understated-and all the more devastating for its understatement-Washington Journal was hailed upon its publication as a landmark work of journalism. With an introduction that brings this all too relevant book squarely into the present, Washington Journal is ready for its place in the pantheon of great writing about American politics.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 1975
107 people are currently reading
540 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
March 11, 2022
“Let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth, to see it like it is and tell it like it is, to find the truth, to speak the truth, and to live the truth." – Richard M. Nixon
Elizabeth Drew had been writing for the New Yorker for only a few months when she went to the office of the editor, Wallace Shawn. He asked her what she was thinking about writing. She wrote in the foreword to Washington Journal:
I told him that I had an intuition that within a year this country would change vice president and president …. I began with the vice president because the nearly – or not so nearly – forgotten Spiro Agnew, formerly governor of Maryland, was under criminal investigation on suspicion that he’d been accepting post-facto bribes right in his vice-presidential office.
The Watergate scandal hadn’t yet caught up with Nixon, but there was already plenty of evidence that serious wrongdoings had taken place in the White House and that Nixon had surrounded himself with rudderless aides willing to carry out most anything against the President’s various real and imagined ‘enemies.’
The decision was made that Drew should write a journal not only reporting the events but also offering insight into how they developed and played out. These entries would be written in the present tense and would appear in each edition of the magazine. After the President’s resignation in August 1974, the journal entries were gathered and published as a book. After being out of print for some years, it was re-published in 2014.
“You must pursue the investigation of Watergate even if it leads to the president. You’ve got to believe I’m innocent. If you don’t, take my job.” – Richard M. Nixon
Drew began her series about fifteen months after the Watergate burglary occurred and when the Ervin Committee (officially named the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities) was already into its fourth month of hearings. One of the President’s men, Alexander Butterfield, had already matter-of-factly mentioned in his testimony before the committee that the Oval Office had a taping system, which set off a struggle between the President on one hand and the committee and the Special Prosecutor on the other, for the release of certain tapes.
“People have got to know whether or not the president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” – Richard M. Nixon
The turning point was the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” in which the president ordered his attorney general to fire Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor (Attorney General Elliott Richardson refused and resigned; Assistant Attorney General William Ruckleshaus refused and resigned; Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox and sometime later appointed Leon Jaworski to the position and the investigation continued.).
It was after the firing of Cox that Watergate “rumbled from a tremor into an earthquake.” For the first time impeachment began to be seriously discussed.
“Don’t get the impression that you [the press] arouse my anger. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects.” – Richard M. Nixon
“The press is the enemy.” – Richard M. Nixon
On a piecemeal basis the White House tapes were released to the Ervin Committee, the Special Prosecutor, and the House Judiciary Committee. The House committee, chaired by Peter Rodino (D-NJ) and consisting of twenty-nine Democrats and ten Republicans, was charged with the responsibility of writing articles of impeachment, which it would then vote on and if passed be sent to the full House.
The committee wrote and passed three articles of impeachment.
On August 5, 1974, the White House finally released a tape that it had earlier refused to release despite subpoenas by the two congressional committees and the Special Prosecutor. It turned out to be the “smoking gun.” It was on this tape that the President, six days after the Watergate break-in, was heard directing the C.I.A. to try to stop the F.B.I. investigation.
The President resigned four days later.
It was painful for me to relive what President Gerald Ford called “our national nightmare.” But this is a book that I recommend, especially if you were not old enough to remember these events or if you were, but were not fully engaged in what was occurring. But I recommend it with this caveat: This book is extremely detailed and, furthermore, a tremendous number of people were involved. It is helpful that Drew includes an alphabetized list of people that covers five pages.
But the great strength of the book is its immediacy as the developing story is reported in real time – just as it was on the TV network news shows, on the radio, and in the newspapers and newsmagazines of the day. And I found the most dramatic part of the investigation to be not the hearings held by the Ervin Committee, or the part played by the special prosecutor, but the agonizing, soul-searching process that the thirty-nine members of the House Judiciary Committee endured as they wrote and then passed the articles of impeachment. And it says much about the committee that the articles were not passed by a straight-party vote.
In retrospect, Elizabeth Drew could not help feeling some sympathy for Richard Nixon, a man who viewed opponents as enemies. She wrote, “One can almost sympathize with the man who was a prisoner of his own resentments, suspicions, and hatreds.” She added that “sometimes it seemed that Nixon never had a chance. He was trapped in a character that wouldn’t permit him to be content.”
But she also wrote, “I do not think of myself as a terribly orderly person. The idea that I am more orderly than the people running my country is disconcerting.”
Elizabeth Drew had been writing for the New Yorker for only a few months when she went to the office of the editor, Wallace Shawn. He asked her what she was thinking about writing. She wrote in the foreword to Washington Journal:
I told him that I had an intuition that within a year this country would change vice president and president …. I began with the vice president because the nearly – or not so nearly – forgotten Spiro Agnew, formerly governor of Maryland, was under criminal investigation on suspicion that he’d been accepting post-facto bribes right in his vice-presidential office.
The Watergate scandal hadn’t yet caught up with Nixon, but there was already plenty of evidence that serious wrongdoings had taken place in the White House and that Nixon had surrounded himself with rudderless aides willing to carry out most anything against the President’s various real and imagined ‘enemies.’
The decision was made that Drew should write a journal not only reporting the events but also offering insight into how they developed and played out. These entries would be written in the present tense and would appear in each edition of the magazine. After the President’s resignation in August 1974, the journal entries were gathered and published as a book. After being out of print for some years, it was re-published in 2014.
“You must pursue the investigation of Watergate even if it leads to the president. You’ve got to believe I’m innocent. If you don’t, take my job.” – Richard M. Nixon
Drew began her series about fifteen months after the Watergate burglary occurred and when the Ervin Committee (officially named the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities) was already into its fourth month of hearings. One of the President’s men, Alexander Butterfield, had already matter-of-factly mentioned in his testimony before the committee that the Oval Office had a taping system, which set off a struggle between the President on one hand and the committee and the Special Prosecutor on the other, for the release of certain tapes.
“People have got to know whether or not the president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” – Richard M. Nixon
The turning point was the so-called “Saturday Night Massacre” in which the president ordered his attorney general to fire Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor (Attorney General Elliott Richardson refused and resigned; Assistant Attorney General William Ruckleshaus refused and resigned; Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox and sometime later appointed Leon Jaworski to the position and the investigation continued.).
It was after the firing of Cox that Watergate “rumbled from a tremor into an earthquake.” For the first time impeachment began to be seriously discussed.
“Don’t get the impression that you [the press] arouse my anger. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects.” – Richard M. Nixon
“The press is the enemy.” – Richard M. Nixon
On a piecemeal basis the White House tapes were released to the Ervin Committee, the Special Prosecutor, and the House Judiciary Committee. The House committee, chaired by Peter Rodino (D-NJ) and consisting of twenty-nine Democrats and ten Republicans, was charged with the responsibility of writing articles of impeachment, which it would then vote on and if passed be sent to the full House.
The committee wrote and passed three articles of impeachment.
On August 5, 1974, the White House finally released a tape that it had earlier refused to release despite subpoenas by the two congressional committees and the Special Prosecutor. It turned out to be the “smoking gun.” It was on this tape that the President, six days after the Watergate break-in, was heard directing the C.I.A. to try to stop the F.B.I. investigation.
The President resigned four days later.
It was painful for me to relive what President Gerald Ford called “our national nightmare.” But this is a book that I recommend, especially if you were not old enough to remember these events or if you were, but were not fully engaged in what was occurring. But I recommend it with this caveat: This book is extremely detailed and, furthermore, a tremendous number of people were involved. It is helpful that Drew includes an alphabetized list of people that covers five pages.
But the great strength of the book is its immediacy as the developing story is reported in real time – just as it was on the TV network news shows, on the radio, and in the newspapers and newsmagazines of the day. And I found the most dramatic part of the investigation to be not the hearings held by the Ervin Committee, or the part played by the special prosecutor, but the agonizing, soul-searching process that the thirty-nine members of the House Judiciary Committee endured as they wrote and then passed the articles of impeachment. And it says much about the committee that the articles were not passed by a straight-party vote.
In retrospect, Elizabeth Drew could not help feeling some sympathy for Richard Nixon, a man who viewed opponents as enemies. She wrote, “One can almost sympathize with the man who was a prisoner of his own resentments, suspicions, and hatreds.” She added that “sometimes it seemed that Nixon never had a chance. He was trapped in a character that wouldn’t permit him to be content.”
But she also wrote, “I do not think of myself as a terribly orderly person. The idea that I am more orderly than the people running my country is disconcerting.”
December 10, 2024
October 20th: It is a spectacularly beautiful day, warm and spring like. It’s unfair to have to give it up for a Constitutional crisis. Besides, it is Saturday, and Washington is supposed to stop on Saturdays.
The term Constitutional crisis has been overused in the course of the year. It has been applied to situations better described as Constitutional challenges, or Congressional failures, or institutional confusions. But now this may be the real thing.
Thus Elizabeth Drew introduced “the Saturday Night Massacre,” the pivotal turning point of the Watergate scandal. With her personable, sometimes charming style, she chronicled America’s crisis in real time in her column in The New Yorker. This was a different type of journalism than the investigative reporting that Bernstein and Woodward were doing. It was reactive, capturing the reactions of Congress, the White House, and the public to the scandal’s unfolding revelations and complications. It is a view of America’s great crisis as those who lived through it experienced it.
Drew had excellent access, and interviewed many key figures. While she did not ignore the White House, her concentration was on Congress and how it was reacting to the crisis. She captured the uncertainty, confusion, carefulness, and even the fear of Congress as it tried to figure out just what Watergate meant for the country, for their parties, and for their careers, and just what they should do about it. Nixon was a formidable president, he was vindictive, and known to have an enemies list. And he had just won the presidency by a landslide. He wasn’t to be taken on lightly, even by those naturally opposed to him. Drew captures this feeling brilliantly. Writing in June of 1974, less than two months before Nixon’s resignation, she said:
”The President’s extraordinary durability is making an impression. It appears to have self-fulfilling effects. He is an endurer, therefore he might endure, therefore what side does one want to have been on in this ultimate struggle over power? Nixon is still the president and is still feared.”
Beyond chronicling the details of the unfolding crisis, Drew had a talent for capturing moments — little vignettes that perfectly encapsulate the mood and the color of the situation:
December 18th: Yesterday as part of the campaign for high visibility the President went out to the South lawn of the White House to view a snowman, and today there are pictures of the event. The President doesn’t seem to know quite what to do in relationship to the snowman. In The Washington Star News the President is alone with the snowman and is touching its hat. The snowman is smiling, the President is not.
Shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Drew’s columns were collected and published as Washington Journal. The book was reissued forty years later with an afterwards where the author traced Nixon’s post presidential years when he constantly maneuvered to stay relevant, never, never willing to give up and quit. This book is absolutely essential for anyone interested in Watergate and the Nixon presidency.
The term Constitutional crisis has been overused in the course of the year. It has been applied to situations better described as Constitutional challenges, or Congressional failures, or institutional confusions. But now this may be the real thing.
Thus Elizabeth Drew introduced “the Saturday Night Massacre,” the pivotal turning point of the Watergate scandal. With her personable, sometimes charming style, she chronicled America’s crisis in real time in her column in The New Yorker. This was a different type of journalism than the investigative reporting that Bernstein and Woodward were doing. It was reactive, capturing the reactions of Congress, the White House, and the public to the scandal’s unfolding revelations and complications. It is a view of America’s great crisis as those who lived through it experienced it.
Drew had excellent access, and interviewed many key figures. While she did not ignore the White House, her concentration was on Congress and how it was reacting to the crisis. She captured the uncertainty, confusion, carefulness, and even the fear of Congress as it tried to figure out just what Watergate meant for the country, for their parties, and for their careers, and just what they should do about it. Nixon was a formidable president, he was vindictive, and known to have an enemies list. And he had just won the presidency by a landslide. He wasn’t to be taken on lightly, even by those naturally opposed to him. Drew captures this feeling brilliantly. Writing in June of 1974, less than two months before Nixon’s resignation, she said:
”The President’s extraordinary durability is making an impression. It appears to have self-fulfilling effects. He is an endurer, therefore he might endure, therefore what side does one want to have been on in this ultimate struggle over power? Nixon is still the president and is still feared.”
Beyond chronicling the details of the unfolding crisis, Drew had a talent for capturing moments — little vignettes that perfectly encapsulate the mood and the color of the situation:
December 18th: Yesterday as part of the campaign for high visibility the President went out to the South lawn of the White House to view a snowman, and today there are pictures of the event. The President doesn’t seem to know quite what to do in relationship to the snowman. In The Washington Star News the President is alone with the snowman and is touching its hat. The snowman is smiling, the President is not.
Shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Drew’s columns were collected and published as Washington Journal. The book was reissued forty years later with an afterwards where the author traced Nixon’s post presidential years when he constantly maneuvered to stay relevant, never, never willing to give up and quit. This book is absolutely essential for anyone interested in Watergate and the Nixon presidency.
March 26, 2025
This is the most prescient thing I’ve ever written and I wrote it before the 2016 election cycle. In the last paragraph I identify the danger inherent in our system. That a malignant President could subvert our government. What I got wrong was that I never thought the public would be okay with electing such a person who clearly didn’t believe or understand Constitutional government.
—————————————————————-
Elizabeth Drew's Washington Journal is a contemporaneous account of America's biggest political scandal. Reading this today after Monicagate and Iran-Contragate and all the other `gates' of the past forty years, the size, scope and impact of Watergate stands alone.
There are so many threads to disentangle. There is the break-in itself which was only one of many efforts to subvert the Democratic nomination process. There were many other dirty tricks, efforts by Nixon men to undermine Muskie and Wallace. There was the enemies list, the attempt to use the I.R.S to harass citizens. There were the shakedown of big corporations, threatening to use the power of the government to scrutinize licenses or big mergers unless sizeable contributions were forthcoming. There were Nixon's tax returns in which he used questionable deductions to avoid paying significant taxes. There was the plumbers' burglary of the Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and the discussion about firebombing the Brookings Institute to obtain nonexistent Pentagon Papers-related documentation.
Drew does an excellent job of serving up each revelation as it comes but more than that she captures the dread, fear and growing cynicism of the times. And despite the rapidity of events, she also takes a long view. She is particularly good at explaining how and why Peter Rodino's Judiciary Committee's impeachment investigation was so important constitutionally and in terms of what today we would call 'optics', restored the nation's faith that a Democratic Congress could be fair to a Republican President. The Committee made it clear that the President had violated the Constitution but it allowed vigorous debate that clarified the exact terms of those violations.
In her insightful and useful afterword, Drew asks, `What was Watergate?' I think her answer is the right one. `(It) amounted to an attempt to subvert the democratic process.' I think she over-estimates the strengths of the Constitution to prevent a runaway executive. Nixon's famous statement to Frost, "If the President does it, it's not illegal," was shared by Dick Cheney. Obama has killed U.S. citizens with the drones and without due process. We haven't escaped Nixon's formulation of executive power. And what about the NSA spying? That comes from the executive branch and is shielded from scrutiny by the mantra of executive privilege.
Nixon was bad. There is no question about that. He was a paranoid, vengeful man with a drinking problem. It is clear that his aides had to determine what orders to carry out and which ones to ignore. There were times when he didn't have capacity and shouldn't have been responsible for making critical decisions like invading Cambodia. I believe Watergate grew out of Nixon's fear that people would find out that he sabotaged the peace talks in November 1968 which could have thrown the election to Humphrey. It could be argued that Nixon subverted both his Presidential elections.
That said, he was a man who saw himself as a great historical figure, a man of peace. The next time we could face a President who didn't care even about history but only with his or her own power. If that person is ruthless enough, Watergate shows that such a person could usher in a totalitarian age by defying Congress and the courts. That person could claim constitutionality all the while destroying it. That next person won't be so stupid to provide audio recordings of their criminality. We must still be very afraid of the lessons of Watergate.
—————————————————————-
Elizabeth Drew's Washington Journal is a contemporaneous account of America's biggest political scandal. Reading this today after Monicagate and Iran-Contragate and all the other `gates' of the past forty years, the size, scope and impact of Watergate stands alone.
There are so many threads to disentangle. There is the break-in itself which was only one of many efforts to subvert the Democratic nomination process. There were many other dirty tricks, efforts by Nixon men to undermine Muskie and Wallace. There was the enemies list, the attempt to use the I.R.S to harass citizens. There were the shakedown of big corporations, threatening to use the power of the government to scrutinize licenses or big mergers unless sizeable contributions were forthcoming. There were Nixon's tax returns in which he used questionable deductions to avoid paying significant taxes. There was the plumbers' burglary of the Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and the discussion about firebombing the Brookings Institute to obtain nonexistent Pentagon Papers-related documentation.
Drew does an excellent job of serving up each revelation as it comes but more than that she captures the dread, fear and growing cynicism of the times. And despite the rapidity of events, she also takes a long view. She is particularly good at explaining how and why Peter Rodino's Judiciary Committee's impeachment investigation was so important constitutionally and in terms of what today we would call 'optics', restored the nation's faith that a Democratic Congress could be fair to a Republican President. The Committee made it clear that the President had violated the Constitution but it allowed vigorous debate that clarified the exact terms of those violations.
In her insightful and useful afterword, Drew asks, `What was Watergate?' I think her answer is the right one. `(It) amounted to an attempt to subvert the democratic process.' I think she over-estimates the strengths of the Constitution to prevent a runaway executive. Nixon's famous statement to Frost, "If the President does it, it's not illegal," was shared by Dick Cheney. Obama has killed U.S. citizens with the drones and without due process. We haven't escaped Nixon's formulation of executive power. And what about the NSA spying? That comes from the executive branch and is shielded from scrutiny by the mantra of executive privilege.
Nixon was bad. There is no question about that. He was a paranoid, vengeful man with a drinking problem. It is clear that his aides had to determine what orders to carry out and which ones to ignore. There were times when he didn't have capacity and shouldn't have been responsible for making critical decisions like invading Cambodia. I believe Watergate grew out of Nixon's fear that people would find out that he sabotaged the peace talks in November 1968 which could have thrown the election to Humphrey. It could be argued that Nixon subverted both his Presidential elections.
That said, he was a man who saw himself as a great historical figure, a man of peace. The next time we could face a President who didn't care even about history but only with his or her own power. If that person is ruthless enough, Watergate shows that such a person could usher in a totalitarian age by defying Congress and the courts. That person could claim constitutionality all the while destroying it. That next person won't be so stupid to provide audio recordings of their criminality. We must still be very afraid of the lessons of Watergate.
June 15, 2017
Washington Journal was published the year after Richard Nixon resigned from the US Presidency rather than be impeached and almost certainly convicted for abuse of power and obstruction of justice. The book is long - it is fascinating, but just goes on and on - but that comes across as an almost physical reflection of what it must have been like to live through the year it covers, from August 1973 through Nixon's resignation in 1974. The book is written as contemporaneous entries, and time after time, Drew wonders how much longer the crises can go on - will Nixon be impeached? Will he survive to finish out his term? And either way, what will that mean for American political institutions?
Drew's reportage has a legisative focus. It's been years since I read All the President's Men, but I remember that Spending much more time on the White House, the Administration, and the media. Drew discusses them, but her primary field of view is the US Congress, and the second half of the book is a wonderful close study of how a legislators grope towards making a highly consequential and politically charged decision. Several legislators talk openly with her about their feelings and their calculations; and her account not only charts their journey, but also captures the odd combination of earnest values and finger-in-the-wind pragmatism that our democratic system often selects for in politicians (or at least used to when seats were competitive). She pays particular attention to the House Juiciary Committee, which researched and drew up the articles of impeachment. That's a great focus - legislative leadership is very much in the background - because it means her main characters are ordinary House members, trying to do their jobs well.
To read the book now - June of 2017 - is to read with an extra level of awareness. Throughout, Drew makes the point that American political institutions aren't protected by the words of the Constitution (important as those are), but by the living choices and character of legislators and officials making decisions day by day. Of course, in the time of Watergate, the House and Senate majorities were Democratic, while Nixon was Republican. But it's striking to read Drew's conversations with House Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats, who are genuinely trying to do right by their country and the rule of law. At other points, key liberal Democratic legislators also put what they see as the national interest ahead of party interest. And Nixon's staunchest Republican supporters on the House Judiciary committee seems genuinely surprised and feel utterly betrayed when the final tapes of White House conversations are released, shortly after the committee vote on impeachment, and show that Nixon had lied to everyone the whole time.
Repeatedly, Drew stresses that the fall of Nixon, despite all the corrupt and abusive things he and his top officials did, was far from assured. It gives some comfort to read now, and realize that that situation, so scary at the time, came out all right, even if it took the better part of two years for the endgame to arrive. And then again, one has to wonder where the leaders of integrity of the President's party in Congress are today, to challenge the President when he lies, when he abuses the powers of the office, when he attempts to interfere with the faithful execution of the laws. The personalities of the two Presidents are different, but the strains each place on American government are related. May we get through this time at least as well as they ultimately did then.
Drew's reportage has a legisative focus. It's been years since I read All the President's Men, but I remember that Spending much more time on the White House, the Administration, and the media. Drew discusses them, but her primary field of view is the US Congress, and the second half of the book is a wonderful close study of how a legislators grope towards making a highly consequential and politically charged decision. Several legislators talk openly with her about their feelings and their calculations; and her account not only charts their journey, but also captures the odd combination of earnest values and finger-in-the-wind pragmatism that our democratic system often selects for in politicians (or at least used to when seats were competitive). She pays particular attention to the House Juiciary Committee, which researched and drew up the articles of impeachment. That's a great focus - legislative leadership is very much in the background - because it means her main characters are ordinary House members, trying to do their jobs well.
To read the book now - June of 2017 - is to read with an extra level of awareness. Throughout, Drew makes the point that American political institutions aren't protected by the words of the Constitution (important as those are), but by the living choices and character of legislators and officials making decisions day by day. Of course, in the time of Watergate, the House and Senate majorities were Democratic, while Nixon was Republican. But it's striking to read Drew's conversations with House Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats, who are genuinely trying to do right by their country and the rule of law. At other points, key liberal Democratic legislators also put what they see as the national interest ahead of party interest. And Nixon's staunchest Republican supporters on the House Judiciary committee seems genuinely surprised and feel utterly betrayed when the final tapes of White House conversations are released, shortly after the committee vote on impeachment, and show that Nixon had lied to everyone the whole time.
Repeatedly, Drew stresses that the fall of Nixon, despite all the corrupt and abusive things he and his top officials did, was far from assured. It gives some comfort to read now, and realize that that situation, so scary at the time, came out all right, even if it took the better part of two years for the endgame to arrive. And then again, one has to wonder where the leaders of integrity of the President's party in Congress are today, to challenge the President when he lies, when he abuses the powers of the office, when he attempts to interfere with the faithful execution of the laws. The personalities of the two Presidents are different, but the strains each place on American government are related. May we get through this time at least as well as they ultimately did then.
July 10, 2019
Elizabeth Drew’s Washington Journal is making me wish I had kept a diary about the Trump era to document these last few years. I often talk about how the Trump Era is the “lol nothing matters” times of nihilism and obstinance. Seems like a lot of that was going on in 1973-1974.
Drew covers the last year of Nixon’s presidency from the perspective of an insider journalist living in the hermetically sealed bubble of Washington, DC. She did a great job chronicling the national mood and trying to keep up with the firehose of information that was coming out daily. I once read a headline that said something to the effect of “The Trump Presidency is a stress test our democracy cannot handle.” That’s how drew made the Nixon presidency feel. Small events that I slightly remembered reading about, or buried stories that had been lost to the sands of time, surprised and at times downright shocked me.
I did a deep dive on Watergate last year. This may have been on one of the recommended lists but I don’t recall it getting as much love as others. I think it’s an excellent compendium to Woodward and Bernstein’s The Final Days, which is more of an insider’s account as to what was going on in the Nixon White House. This one shows the perspective of a typical citizen trying to parse the awfulness and palace intrigue.
It gets redundant at times and Drew has far more reverence for congressmen than I do but if you’re into Watergate, this is an absolute must read. I wish I had gotten to it last year.
Drew covers the last year of Nixon’s presidency from the perspective of an insider journalist living in the hermetically sealed bubble of Washington, DC. She did a great job chronicling the national mood and trying to keep up with the firehose of information that was coming out daily. I once read a headline that said something to the effect of “The Trump Presidency is a stress test our democracy cannot handle.” That’s how drew made the Nixon presidency feel. Small events that I slightly remembered reading about, or buried stories that had been lost to the sands of time, surprised and at times downright shocked me.
I did a deep dive on Watergate last year. This may have been on one of the recommended lists but I don’t recall it getting as much love as others. I think it’s an excellent compendium to Woodward and Bernstein’s The Final Days, which is more of an insider’s account as to what was going on in the Nixon White House. This one shows the perspective of a typical citizen trying to parse the awfulness and palace intrigue.
It gets redundant at times and Drew has far more reverence for congressmen than I do but if you’re into Watergate, this is an absolute must read. I wish I had gotten to it last year.
September 3, 2017
This is an astonishingly relevant book. Whether you read it for a peek inside the political process, or for the whodunit quality, or for the Constitutional scholarship, you will leave well-informed. I recommend reading the afterward from the 2014 re-publication as well, in which Drew adds Nixon's history and dogged campaign to keep himself a player. I kept stopping to say "listen to this."
I am going to quote two statements from near the end.
Speaking of the Nixon insiders: "Now we know what the real danger is. Perhaps we actually needed some people to come to power who would test the limits. Fortunately, they were incompetent." She worries about someone who does a good job of being bad.
About future historians: "But I wonder if they will really understand what it was like. Will they know how it felt to go through what we have gone through? Will they know how it felt to be stunned - again and again - as we learned what had been done by people in power? Will they know how it felt to be shocked, ashamed, amused by the revelations - will they understand the difficulty of sorting out the madcap from the macabre?"
I am going to quote two statements from near the end.
Speaking of the Nixon insiders: "Now we know what the real danger is. Perhaps we actually needed some people to come to power who would test the limits. Fortunately, they were incompetent." She worries about someone who does a good job of being bad.
About future historians: "But I wonder if they will really understand what it was like. Will they know how it felt to go through what we have gone through? Will they know how it felt to be stunned - again and again - as we learned what had been done by people in power? Will they know how it felt to be shocked, ashamed, amused by the revelations - will they understand the difficulty of sorting out the madcap from the macabre?"
April 30, 2017
Biggest strength is also its biggest weakness -- namely, that it's written as a diary, rather than being self evidently structured into a narrative afterward. On the one hand, makes it more compelling as a blow-by-blow; on the other hand, has a certain ostinato quality to it that makes it hard to get through 450 pages. In short: good read but hard to read. Also super creepy reading early in 2017 -- large portions, especially in the beginning, could be translated to the present just by changing proper nouns.
June 23, 2017
As we are now dealing with a Nixonian Trump presidency I've decided to read Drew's account of the Watergate coverage in 73-74'. It's really interesting to read what Republicans in the judiciary committee had to say about Nixon as he battled the congress and the Supreme Court to keep his tape or bargain his way out of this mess.
Watergate was long, exhausting and stressful for DC and Drew is really good at characterizing the mood of the key players on the Hill
Watergate was long, exhausting and stressful for DC and Drew is really good at characterizing the mood of the key players on the Hill
May 19, 2017
Not an easy book to read because it does demand a fair amount of background knowledge as to what happened during the Watergate scandal. Where it does shine though is its discussion of the Senate Judiciary Committee's deliberations and vote to impeach.
Currently reading
June 6, 2025Garret Graff (who wrote "Watergate," the single volume) said this was the book that was the most fun to read of all the research material he dug into. I find her (Elizabeth Drew) to be somewhat dry, though her observations are astute.
July 29, 2018
A typically understated title for one searing corker of a book. Clocking in at a bit over 400 pages (and starting only in September 1973, after the existence of the tapes is already well-established, but the Saturday Night Massacre has yet to happen), this book is pure fact and history, told in real time, but with masterful pacing and structure that casts a fictional pall and puts you right there in the middle of that misty what-did-they-do-now? and the fearful where-will-this-end? atmosphere of foggy Washington D.C., listening to the radio reports, and reading (extremely closely) the daily papers. News items are woven with on-the-ground reporting, interviews, research, and a few well-placed observations. The writing bristles with memorable quotes from many central characters and sharp and deeply felt questions from the writer.
I am reading this now because of the preliminary talk and the loathing in current Washington, but it was informative to learn/be reminded that back in Nixon’s day, they tolerated a whole lot of bad acts, way more than I remember them tolerating, before the scales tipped inevitably away from Tricky Dick. He or his minions were manipulating the C.I.A., directing the FBI and arm twisting the IRS, all in the name of political vendettas. Twenty-one persons were indicted, and Nixon’s poll numbers bounced between 25 and 30. And of course there were all those tapes, those damn tapes, which just kept ruining any chance Tricky had to stonewall his way out of it.
Most Republicans, who, it should be noted, were in the minority in both the House and the Senate, were holding out for a smoking gun, a connection between Nixon and what his subordinates had done. And it was damn hard to find. Without it, would the impeachment be deemed valid by the people? They needed the smoking gun because they struggled with the question whether the president is responsible for the actions taken without his knowledge by the people on his campaign. In response to this, one Democratic congressman put it, “The reason we can’t see the smoking gun is because there is so much smoke in the room.”
This is a wonderful, informative, brilliant, living history. Kudos to the author!
I am reading this now because of the preliminary talk and the loathing in current Washington, but it was informative to learn/be reminded that back in Nixon’s day, they tolerated a whole lot of bad acts, way more than I remember them tolerating, before the scales tipped inevitably away from Tricky Dick. He or his minions were manipulating the C.I.A., directing the FBI and arm twisting the IRS, all in the name of political vendettas. Twenty-one persons were indicted, and Nixon’s poll numbers bounced between 25 and 30. And of course there were all those tapes, those damn tapes, which just kept ruining any chance Tricky had to stonewall his way out of it.
Most Republicans, who, it should be noted, were in the minority in both the House and the Senate, were holding out for a smoking gun, a connection between Nixon and what his subordinates had done. And it was damn hard to find. Without it, would the impeachment be deemed valid by the people? They needed the smoking gun because they struggled with the question whether the president is responsible for the actions taken without his knowledge by the people on his campaign. In response to this, one Democratic congressman put it, “The reason we can’t see the smoking gun is because there is so much smoke in the room.”
This is a wonderful, informative, brilliant, living history. Kudos to the author!
January 8, 2018
I cannot recommend Elizabeth Drew's Washington Journal enough. Anyone remotely interested in Watergate and curious about the parallels in today's day to day news cycle should check out this fascinating book (originally published contemporaneously by The New Yorker in serial format).
The diary-like format captures the sense of time and the daily shock, fear, and news burnout in a way no other history book does. You really feel the tension of waking up in the morning, wondering what the hell you'll hear on the radio next (any modern parallels?).
Even better, the historical context is all here, complete with quotes from the Founding Fathers, analysis of some of the legal aspects, and some of the just plain bizarre events that never make it into a textbook (Did you know that casting for All the President's Men was already underway months before impeachment?). Drew also shows us just how many violations and abuses of power went into what is now only summed up in one word as "Watergate". Many of the issues about campaign finance corruption, tax evasion, price fixing, plans for firebombing the Brookings Institute, etc. have since fallen to the wayside given just how pervasive the pattern of corruption was.
"Will they know how it felt to be shocked, ashamed, amused by the revelations-will they understand the difficulty of sorting out the madcap from the macabre? ...Knowing the conclusion, as they will, will they understand how difficult, frightening, and fumbling the struggle really was?"
I don't know if I can ever fully appreciate it, but Drew gets me a little closer. The afterword, written in 2014, is also excellent in putting the events in the perspective of the Nixon presidency as well as Nixon's post-resignation efforts to remake his reputation (Project Wizard).
I highlighted quite a few passages as I read that seemed relevant to 2017, and hope to review them again in a year or two. I just hope that Drew, or someone with her skill and eye, is keeping a similar diary today.
The diary-like format captures the sense of time and the daily shock, fear, and news burnout in a way no other history book does. You really feel the tension of waking up in the morning, wondering what the hell you'll hear on the radio next (any modern parallels?).
Even better, the historical context is all here, complete with quotes from the Founding Fathers, analysis of some of the legal aspects, and some of the just plain bizarre events that never make it into a textbook (Did you know that casting for All the President's Men was already underway months before impeachment?). Drew also shows us just how many violations and abuses of power went into what is now only summed up in one word as "Watergate". Many of the issues about campaign finance corruption, tax evasion, price fixing, plans for firebombing the Brookings Institute, etc. have since fallen to the wayside given just how pervasive the pattern of corruption was.
"Will they know how it felt to be shocked, ashamed, amused by the revelations-will they understand the difficulty of sorting out the madcap from the macabre? ...Knowing the conclusion, as they will, will they understand how difficult, frightening, and fumbling the struggle really was?"
I don't know if I can ever fully appreciate it, but Drew gets me a little closer. The afterword, written in 2014, is also excellent in putting the events in the perspective of the Nixon presidency as well as Nixon's post-resignation efforts to remake his reputation (Project Wizard).
I highlighted quite a few passages as I read that seemed relevant to 2017, and hope to review them again in a year or two. I just hope that Drew, or someone with her skill and eye, is keeping a similar diary today.
August 6, 2018
Good to read. I remember Watergate. What I do remember was mom watching a great deal of the Senate hearing. I know I picked up fear and anger from my parents. They were both fairly liberal, but not the draft card burners, but this whole period was deeply disturbing. It's interesting to read this as an adult. Sadly we seem to hear some of the same arguments that a President is not subject to oversight, nor can be held accountable for their actions. (What the President does is automatically legal, just doesn't seem workable in any free society. Even Kings were given limits under Magna Carta. ) What a sad man. He accomplished so much, and could not move beyond his prejudice. I hope we find members of the House and Senate, whose sense of decency and self preservation lead them to make the right decisions. It's hard to believe that some still can believe that Nixon's demise was a coup, and not self inflicted. I always felt that Iran Contra was a replay of Watergate in many ways, including the security upgrades for Col. North's home, but with a much better job done insulating the President. A very worthwhile read.
May 14, 2025
Watergate is, once again, on my mind.
Watergate is not just about the foiled break-in of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. It was a long-running, multi-faceted illegal, ethical, and nearly-break-our-democracy scandal that started many years before the break-in and lasted many years after it.
It's truly about the abuse of power by one person, Nixon, the president of the United States. He was aided and abetted by his entourage who also abused their power and position, and conveniently justified their illegal and unethical actions due to servile loyalty and plain old hatred of anyone different from themselves (them being male WASPs, for the most part; interestingly enough, Nixon was a Quaker). Nixon was a narcissist, racist, sexist, anti-Semite; a delusional man who clung on to power by sheer will of believing that he could not not be liked. All of this animosity and defensiveness came out in the tapes and their transcripts. After reading them, one senator said to Drew "I don't think anyone was surprised except by one thing: I don't think they knew what a small person he was. Senators, like everybody else, have built the Presidency up, and now they see this and don't know what to make of it. The tone and the language are having an impact — a greater impact, even, than what was actually said. The impression will last. So even if he stays in he won't be able to do anything."
The scandal's outcome reset our country and brought in many reforms, executive oversight, checks and balances, justified skepticism toward the executive branch, and a collective sigh of huge relief that Nixon resigned rather than be impeached by both the House of Representative and Senate. After all, Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, had also recently resigned after the FBI started investigating Agnew on bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and tax fraud. He had been receiving contract kick-backs for years, even allegedly accepting money as Vice President. While Agnew's corruption wasn't related to Watergate, it did create a crisis since if Nixon was impeached and/or forced to resign, without a VP, the Speaker of the House (who happened to be a Democrat) would become president. So, mild-mannered, don't rock the boat Gerald Ford was quickly and easily sworn in as VP. His installation made it easier for Congress to finally come to the conclusion that Nixon had to go -- remember this was after years of obfuscation, denial, media-bashing, Democrat-bashing, disobeying the courts, yelling, drinking, and continual corruption by Nixon and his gang.
All of this and much more is described in Drew's excellent weekly, daily and, sometimes, hourly telling of Watergate from September 1973- August 1974. What is astonishing is that Drew, at that time, the Washington correspondent of The New Yorker, deftly and comprehensively writes as history is unfolding. It's a page turner even though you know how the story is going to end. She knows the players and often has long lunches with them in the Capitol lunch room (now, a reporter is lucky to get a soundbite at an elevator or, they just rely on a 140-word social media blurb). She knows the history, she knows the stakes. She knows her sh*t in the deeply man's world of political Washington DC.
Drew calls out the deeply troubling aspects of the crisis, the fragility of democracy and the Constitution and the nation state, the fragility of American politics and the men that controlled it, and the people who live and believe in it. This is exemplified by a quote Drew received from an unnamed source: "You're dealing with two hundred million people who live by symbols and myths...And a the great national story has to have an ending." If the national spirit "goes sour, we've had it," he said. "The American people is the ballgame on this. Their sense of equity and the dignity of the nation--the dignity of its rulers. How that comes out--that's the big thing."
Right before Nixon officially resigned live on TV, Drew sums up the ramifications of Watergate: "This story has a number of what if's, and we shall never be able to go back through it and find the answers to all of them....Our safety lay in those who saw what the issue was, and who, when it wasn't easy to do, pressed on. Now we know what real danger is. Perhaps we actually needed some people to come to power sho would test the limited. Fortunately, they were incompetent. But we cannot rest easy -- because of that very incompetence, and those obsessive tapes. And even with the incompetence, a great many things happened. They weren't incompetent at raising untold millions of dollars from people who did business with the government. They weren't incompetent at making newspaper publishers and broadcasters uneasy...They weren't incompetent at getting laws passed and taking actions that had the effect of reducing our rights. They weren't incompetent at causing people to think again before marching, signing, or speaking out. We shall never know if was the beginning or the end of something. I keep remembering what Leon Jaworski has said -- how Jaworski, the former Nuremberg prosecutor, has told people he thought there was an analogy between the way it began in Germany and what was happening here. Nixon may have been, as a friend of mine has suggested, our greatest reformer. He showed us the possible consequences of our acquiescence, inattention, cynicism."
Until the morass of social media, the tribalism of the internet, along with the current demolishing of our political way of life and moral compass, Watergate was the defining scandal of our collective American history. It truly tested our democracy. Luckily, democracy won. This was not lost on Drew and so many others in 1974. The thought was that if we, as a collective nation, can survive this, we can survive anything. Now, I'm thinking of Watergate again because I'm not so sure we, as a divided nation, can survive the next four years.
Watergate is not just about the foiled break-in of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. It was a long-running, multi-faceted illegal, ethical, and nearly-break-our-democracy scandal that started many years before the break-in and lasted many years after it.
It's truly about the abuse of power by one person, Nixon, the president of the United States. He was aided and abetted by his entourage who also abused their power and position, and conveniently justified their illegal and unethical actions due to servile loyalty and plain old hatred of anyone different from themselves (them being male WASPs, for the most part; interestingly enough, Nixon was a Quaker). Nixon was a narcissist, racist, sexist, anti-Semite; a delusional man who clung on to power by sheer will of believing that he could not not be liked. All of this animosity and defensiveness came out in the tapes and their transcripts. After reading them, one senator said to Drew "I don't think anyone was surprised except by one thing: I don't think they knew what a small person he was. Senators, like everybody else, have built the Presidency up, and now they see this and don't know what to make of it. The tone and the language are having an impact — a greater impact, even, than what was actually said. The impression will last. So even if he stays in he won't be able to do anything."
The scandal's outcome reset our country and brought in many reforms, executive oversight, checks and balances, justified skepticism toward the executive branch, and a collective sigh of huge relief that Nixon resigned rather than be impeached by both the House of Representative and Senate. After all, Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, had also recently resigned after the FBI started investigating Agnew on bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and tax fraud. He had been receiving contract kick-backs for years, even allegedly accepting money as Vice President. While Agnew's corruption wasn't related to Watergate, it did create a crisis since if Nixon was impeached and/or forced to resign, without a VP, the Speaker of the House (who happened to be a Democrat) would become president. So, mild-mannered, don't rock the boat Gerald Ford was quickly and easily sworn in as VP. His installation made it easier for Congress to finally come to the conclusion that Nixon had to go -- remember this was after years of obfuscation, denial, media-bashing, Democrat-bashing, disobeying the courts, yelling, drinking, and continual corruption by Nixon and his gang.
All of this and much more is described in Drew's excellent weekly, daily and, sometimes, hourly telling of Watergate from September 1973- August 1974. What is astonishing is that Drew, at that time, the Washington correspondent of The New Yorker, deftly and comprehensively writes as history is unfolding. It's a page turner even though you know how the story is going to end. She knows the players and often has long lunches with them in the Capitol lunch room (now, a reporter is lucky to get a soundbite at an elevator or, they just rely on a 140-word social media blurb). She knows the history, she knows the stakes. She knows her sh*t in the deeply man's world of political Washington DC.
Drew calls out the deeply troubling aspects of the crisis, the fragility of democracy and the Constitution and the nation state, the fragility of American politics and the men that controlled it, and the people who live and believe in it. This is exemplified by a quote Drew received from an unnamed source: "You're dealing with two hundred million people who live by symbols and myths...And a the great national story has to have an ending." If the national spirit "goes sour, we've had it," he said. "The American people is the ballgame on this. Their sense of equity and the dignity of the nation--the dignity of its rulers. How that comes out--that's the big thing."
Right before Nixon officially resigned live on TV, Drew sums up the ramifications of Watergate: "This story has a number of what if's, and we shall never be able to go back through it and find the answers to all of them....Our safety lay in those who saw what the issue was, and who, when it wasn't easy to do, pressed on. Now we know what real danger is. Perhaps we actually needed some people to come to power sho would test the limited. Fortunately, they were incompetent. But we cannot rest easy -- because of that very incompetence, and those obsessive tapes. And even with the incompetence, a great many things happened. They weren't incompetent at raising untold millions of dollars from people who did business with the government. They weren't incompetent at making newspaper publishers and broadcasters uneasy...They weren't incompetent at getting laws passed and taking actions that had the effect of reducing our rights. They weren't incompetent at causing people to think again before marching, signing, or speaking out. We shall never know if was the beginning or the end of something. I keep remembering what Leon Jaworski has said -- how Jaworski, the former Nuremberg prosecutor, has told people he thought there was an analogy between the way it began in Germany and what was happening here. Nixon may have been, as a friend of mine has suggested, our greatest reformer. He showed us the possible consequences of our acquiescence, inattention, cynicism."
Until the morass of social media, the tribalism of the internet, along with the current demolishing of our political way of life and moral compass, Watergate was the defining scandal of our collective American history. It truly tested our democracy. Luckily, democracy won. This was not lost on Drew and so many others in 1974. The thought was that if we, as a collective nation, can survive this, we can survive anything. Now, I'm thinking of Watergate again because I'm not so sure we, as a divided nation, can survive the next four years.
August 2, 2017
This is a journal by a Washington journalist of the 11 months immediately preceding the resignation of Richard Nixon in August, 1974. She does a good job of showing how the mood of Congress gradually moved to impeach him. I did think the writing was very dry and this keeps me from giving the book a higher rating. The book is very well thought of and while it does go over all the details of the investigation with good insight on how the details affected the thinking in the capitol, I think it could have been written with a bit more drama or excitement. However, if you do want a good idea of how the story evolved, this is a good source.
December 29, 2019
If I could give this book ten stars, I would.
Written in 1973-74 it captures the daily march that led to President Nixon’s demise.
However I was shocked by the parallels in behavior and intent seen in the 2019 impeachment of the current occupant of the White House. The 1970’s use of the CIA, dark money, and the FBI seem to familiar in 2019.
Chapter 11 stands alone as Drew’s one moment of thoughtful reflection on power and corruption. I will return to her thoughts and perspectives as 2020 presidential politics plays out.
Written in 1973-74 it captures the daily march that led to President Nixon’s demise.
However I was shocked by the parallels in behavior and intent seen in the 2019 impeachment of the current occupant of the White House. The 1970’s use of the CIA, dark money, and the FBI seem to familiar in 2019.
Chapter 11 stands alone as Drew’s one moment of thoughtful reflection on power and corruption. I will return to her thoughts and perspectives as 2020 presidential politics plays out.
July 24, 2017
Fascinating way to relive the year or so before the Nixon resignation. I was 16-17 when this happened, so I remember the times even though I was not that focused. The book gets a bit long, but then it reached the finale. Drew's telling of the story as it happened helped me to understand the process. And, I could feel the fatigue that I feel right now under the Trump tweets and issues.
September 5, 2024
This lady kept a journalist journal about the vibe in washington during the whole watergate thing. Shades of Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail but if written by someone who didn't really get fucked up. Exhaustive and long though. Best part was the afterward where she talks about all the stuff that happened legislatively in reaction to the whole Nixon deal. Checks got extra balanced.
March 14, 2021
Written contemporaneously with the events of Watergate & the events that led to Nixon's resignation, this book now reads as bellwether for what happened in the subsequent impeachments of Clinton and Trump. It also reveals the enormous differences in politics then with the politics of now.
The Watergate impeachment happened before the right wing made its devil's compact with the American evangelical movement and created the great political shift of racist whites becoming Republicans and Democrats solidifying their newish position as the party of urban and progressive voters. In this era, too, members of Congress, whether Democrats or Republicans, looked to the prerogatives assigned to them by the Constitution. Though this period saw the beginning of Congress also assigning more power to the executive branch, it also kept its collective eye on its traditional powers of oversight and review. After the election of 1980, the Republican Party abandoned this approach to governance & instead opted to rule by party dictates and created policy outside of government roles. This big change had many profound effects on governance: legislative work become performative -- especially with Republican presidents in charge. When Democrats controlled the White House, legislative work to Republicans become obstructive. In both instances, governance to Republicans in Congress no longer seemed relevant.
If Nixon had that kind of Republican Party in 1974, he'd have survived impeachment. But that is a very different Republican Party than the one in 1974, and Republican legislators then believed in the serious and separateness of their jobs. With that kind of view, Nixon never really had a chance once the facts came out.
All the same, Drew describes the jaw-dropping events as they happened and conveys the contemporary shock of an administration that believed it owed no accountability to any authority of any of its unlawful and self-serving actions. Whatever Nixon was before he became president (and, let's be fair, he was as opportunistic a swindler as ever crawled through DC before or since), he became an unhinged monster of grievance (sound familiar?) who saw enemies and threats everywhere that had to be neutralized by whatever means he had at his disposal. And he recruited the lowest ilk of chancers & frauds (sound familiar?) to run on auto-pilot to do his bidding without much direct effort from him after January 1969.
By 1974, it was obvious Nixon lied about what he knew & his involvement in the cover-up. As Drew, reports, the shock of the "smoking gun" recording was not that Nixon lied, but that he basically lied the whole time about everything he denied early on (sound familiar?). The Watergate break-in occurred in June 1974, and the tape showed he knew what he heatedly denied just days later.
Nixon was a true American story, for both good & bad. And for all its stress, the Watergate story for decades seemed to have a happy ending: the process worked. But now the Watergate story is different. The process worked THAT time; but the dark forces learned from their mistakes -- and completely de-fanged the power of impeachment in its subsequent uses. That the subsequent impeachments failed -- once by using it for calculated purposes (in the Clinton case) and twice by completely abiding criminal activity by a sitting president -- misses the point. The thwarting of accountability is the real story.
This volume is the history of an American version of government that no longer exists, which is unfortunate.
The Watergate impeachment happened before the right wing made its devil's compact with the American evangelical movement and created the great political shift of racist whites becoming Republicans and Democrats solidifying their newish position as the party of urban and progressive voters. In this era, too, members of Congress, whether Democrats or Republicans, looked to the prerogatives assigned to them by the Constitution. Though this period saw the beginning of Congress also assigning more power to the executive branch, it also kept its collective eye on its traditional powers of oversight and review. After the election of 1980, the Republican Party abandoned this approach to governance & instead opted to rule by party dictates and created policy outside of government roles. This big change had many profound effects on governance: legislative work become performative -- especially with Republican presidents in charge. When Democrats controlled the White House, legislative work to Republicans become obstructive. In both instances, governance to Republicans in Congress no longer seemed relevant.
If Nixon had that kind of Republican Party in 1974, he'd have survived impeachment. But that is a very different Republican Party than the one in 1974, and Republican legislators then believed in the serious and separateness of their jobs. With that kind of view, Nixon never really had a chance once the facts came out.
All the same, Drew describes the jaw-dropping events as they happened and conveys the contemporary shock of an administration that believed it owed no accountability to any authority of any of its unlawful and self-serving actions. Whatever Nixon was before he became president (and, let's be fair, he was as opportunistic a swindler as ever crawled through DC before or since), he became an unhinged monster of grievance (sound familiar?) who saw enemies and threats everywhere that had to be neutralized by whatever means he had at his disposal. And he recruited the lowest ilk of chancers & frauds (sound familiar?) to run on auto-pilot to do his bidding without much direct effort from him after January 1969.
By 1974, it was obvious Nixon lied about what he knew & his involvement in the cover-up. As Drew, reports, the shock of the "smoking gun" recording was not that Nixon lied, but that he basically lied the whole time about everything he denied early on (sound familiar?). The Watergate break-in occurred in June 1974, and the tape showed he knew what he heatedly denied just days later.
Nixon was a true American story, for both good & bad. And for all its stress, the Watergate story for decades seemed to have a happy ending: the process worked. But now the Watergate story is different. The process worked THAT time; but the dark forces learned from their mistakes -- and completely de-fanged the power of impeachment in its subsequent uses. That the subsequent impeachments failed -- once by using it for calculated purposes (in the Clinton case) and twice by completely abiding criminal activity by a sitting president -- misses the point. The thwarting of accountability is the real story.
This volume is the history of an American version of government that no longer exists, which is unfortunate.
August 24, 2017
This is truly an amazing book. I have been going around telling to read it and I've even been citing passages on Facebook (nerd alert) because it's so important to have Drew's perspective right now, during the summer of 2017.
I was just a little too young to remember much about Nixon or Watergate. I do remember the 1970s being pretty awful: gas lines, hostages (I do remember having nightmares about the Munich Olympics masked man looking over the balcony), lots of war on TV. So Drew's day-by-day detail of events is really fascinating. Sure, we know about the Saturday Night Massacre, but do we also know/remember that it was the same day that Saudi Arabia cut off oil to the U.S.? Or that a couple months later, General Motors laid of 137,000 people? Things like that shift all of history into a little clearer focus, especially right now.
What's also helpful is that it feels like what I knew was more the "All the Presidents Men" version--the cover up is the big crime. Drew was clearly very well connected, so you get much more nuance, especially how (she definitely emphasizes this) things were not so clear cut how they would turn out. She also lays out how Nixon was really being investigated along six lines of inquiry, including milk price fixing, using campaign funds to pay for the Watergate break in, using the IRS and the CIA to investigate individuals, etc. And the parallels with Trump's character are eerie. So many passages sound like they were written today. And yet, Nixon was a much smarter and probably more complex man.
Full disclosure, I lived in Washington for many years and still work there, and while I wasn't in the business of politics or the federal government, I probably am more immersed and interested in the topic than most. Still, very well written and I'd highly recommend it.
I was just a little too young to remember much about Nixon or Watergate. I do remember the 1970s being pretty awful: gas lines, hostages (I do remember having nightmares about the Munich Olympics masked man looking over the balcony), lots of war on TV. So Drew's day-by-day detail of events is really fascinating. Sure, we know about the Saturday Night Massacre, but do we also know/remember that it was the same day that Saudi Arabia cut off oil to the U.S.? Or that a couple months later, General Motors laid of 137,000 people? Things like that shift all of history into a little clearer focus, especially right now.
What's also helpful is that it feels like what I knew was more the "All the Presidents Men" version--the cover up is the big crime. Drew was clearly very well connected, so you get much more nuance, especially how (she definitely emphasizes this) things were not so clear cut how they would turn out. She also lays out how Nixon was really being investigated along six lines of inquiry, including milk price fixing, using campaign funds to pay for the Watergate break in, using the IRS and the CIA to investigate individuals, etc. And the parallels with Trump's character are eerie. So many passages sound like they were written today. And yet, Nixon was a much smarter and probably more complex man.
Full disclosure, I lived in Washington for many years and still work there, and while I wasn't in the business of politics or the federal government, I probably am more immersed and interested in the topic than most. Still, very well written and I'd highly recommend it.
July 1, 2017
I first learned about this book a few months ago, when - in the dawning days of the Trump administration - author Elizabeth Drew appeared on Ezra Klein's podcast for an interview, discussing the days of Watergate and comparisons to today's events. Drew was fascinating, and being born in 1978 and having never read anything dedicated to Watergate, I decided to pick up Washington Journal, to learn what living the through the biggest political scandal in American history was like (at least, until now - we'll see how this all shakes out).
I'm very, very glad I did. Drew does an amazing job of putting the reader right there in the thick of things. Since it's written as a journal, instead of a post-event history, you see the events unfold as Drew does. The uncertainty of what would come next is palpable. You feel what it's like riding the roller coaster as Agnew resigns, as Ford is confirmed, as each set of tapes or transcripts is released. Nixon's fortunes rise and fall as the House Judiciary Committee argues the case with each other and in the press. And Drew's ability to get answers from key players and aides is vital to all of this, as you see what major Congressional figures think, as well as background comments from unnamed lawmakers or aides giving a sense of where the events are headed.
I highly, highly recommend this to anyone for whom Watergate is only a vague notion of scandal, or for anyone who wants to know what it felt like to live through the closest previous analogue to today's events. And when Trump is out of office (whenever and however that happens), I'd love to hear Klein and Drew sit down for another conversation.
I'm very, very glad I did. Drew does an amazing job of putting the reader right there in the thick of things. Since it's written as a journal, instead of a post-event history, you see the events unfold as Drew does. The uncertainty of what would come next is palpable. You feel what it's like riding the roller coaster as Agnew resigns, as Ford is confirmed, as each set of tapes or transcripts is released. Nixon's fortunes rise and fall as the House Judiciary Committee argues the case with each other and in the press. And Drew's ability to get answers from key players and aides is vital to all of this, as you see what major Congressional figures think, as well as background comments from unnamed lawmakers or aides giving a sense of where the events are headed.
I highly, highly recommend this to anyone for whom Watergate is only a vague notion of scandal, or for anyone who wants to know what it felt like to live through the closest previous analogue to today's events. And when Trump is out of office (whenever and however that happens), I'd love to hear Klein and Drew sit down for another conversation.
September 15, 2017
I read the intro, skipped around in the entries, and the epilogue, enough to reinforce my memory of the times. Richard Nixon was a very, very sick man. Even after the disgrace of a forced resignation, he was plotting his return to "grace" as an elder statesman for the Republican Party. No understanding that his private thug burglary group was against the law. No understanding that he was NOT above the law. In fact, he believed that if the president did it or said it, it was legal. He tried to arrange meetings with foreign leaders (esp China) and write about it. He met and cultivated younger Republicans who would not directly know about Watergate.
He wanted to use the FBI, CIA, and the IRS for his own political purposes, not dissimilar to the urges of a certain orange menace of our times. We can thank James Garfield and Chester Arthur for a nonpartisan federal bureaucracy, needed more now than ever.
He wanted to use the FBI, CIA, and the IRS for his own political purposes, not dissimilar to the urges of a certain orange menace of our times. We can thank James Garfield and Chester Arthur for a nonpartisan federal bureaucracy, needed more now than ever.
March 15, 2017
with all the talk about our current President being Nixonian, I thought I would try out "Washington Journal" - the "Watergate Diary" compendium by Elizabeth Drew that was first published as individual pieces in The New Yorker and later became a well regarded book of essays on the late Nixon era. It's really a great book on several levels: Because it's a book of diary entries, it's very much "of the present" in late 1973 and 1974. It also has really good analysis and perspective - especially given that Ms. Drew is very much living in the moment. I recommend it highly. It's a long book, too, but worth every word.
February 2, 2018
I learned so much about this insane, fascinating period. This passage from the afterward sums it up well: "Though the Watergate period was alarming, honesty requires an admission that it was also a high -- that for all its deeply worrisome nature, it was an exciting time, a wild ride through history, including several moments of hilarity. But it was essentially nervous laughter, giving cover to the fact that the most of us were frightened, at least some of the time, many for the most part of it. Power was in the hands of people who gave the clear impression that they would do anything to maintain it."
October 26, 2019
Amazing, beautifully reported, terrifyingly current. Her editor told her he wanted her to write about the scandals gripping Washington in the last year of Nixon's presidency in a way that would resonate with readers 40 years later; the book was republished exactly 40 years later. Drew's sources are fabulous, her insights are spot-on, and her conclusion is a whammy: The institutions didn't save the country. Rather, the people in those institutions who operated with a sense of duty, professionalism, and patriotism saved the country.
July 16, 2021
This was a great addition to my voluminous Nixon library. In particular it covers the House Judiciary Committee and their articles of impeachment better than any I have read so far. It probably helped that this was written in real time '73 and '74 as events occurred whereas other books written with the hindsight of history usually significantly condense much of this.
June 4, 2017
Wow!! An absolutely fascinating nostalgic walk through the last year of Nixon's presidency. A reminder of how close we came to disaster. Even more interesting is her afterward, describing Nixon's last campaign to claw his way back to respectability.
July 21, 2017
Fascinating view of how Watergate felt to those who went through it. A bit tedious at times - especially in the middle and in the recitation of various participants - but absolutely gripping in other sections. I feel so much smarter having read this book.
July 6, 2018
One of the reviewers, Sherry, said "This is an astonishingly relevant book." I might echo her and say, "This is a terrifyingly relevant book."
I lived through this in my mid-teens. I watched a lot of the hearings on TV. So many things are only coming into focus for me now, especially how it all tied in to Viet Nam.
Elizabeth Drew has some amazing sources, and she also seemed to recognize the importance of some of the lesser known (to me) characters, like Peter Rodino and John Doar. It really reads like a journal sometimes. Imagine if we'd had the internet back then and she had a blog or podcast.
It dragged in spots. (It dragged in real life too, so I can't really fault Drew on that.)
Highly recommended.
I lived through this in my mid-teens. I watched a lot of the hearings on TV. So many things are only coming into focus for me now, especially how it all tied in to Viet Nam.
Elizabeth Drew has some amazing sources, and she also seemed to recognize the importance of some of the lesser known (to me) characters, like Peter Rodino and John Doar. It really reads like a journal sometimes. Imagine if we'd had the internet back then and she had a blog or podcast.
It dragged in spots. (It dragged in real life too, so I can't really fault Drew on that.)
Highly recommended.
July 25, 2017
Perhaps you had to be there. I remember this as though yesterday. And now, also.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews