What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ends of Power
Haldeman recalls his years as White House Chief of Staff, answers important remaining questions about Watergate, and provides a revealing portrait of the character and motivations of Richard Nixon
Hardcover
First published February 1, 1977
264 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
H.R. Haldeman
3 books13 followersHarry Robbins "Bob" Haldeman better known as H. R. Haldeman was an American political aide and businessman, best known for his service as White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon and his consequent involvement in the Watergate Affair. His intimate role in the Watergate cover-up precipitated his resignation from government; subsequent to which he was tried on counts of perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice; found guilty and imprisoned for 18 months. Upon his release he returned to private life and was a successful businessman until his death from cancer in 1993.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
July 7, 2021
"The original plans, apparently, were aimed toward the Democratic convention wherein the prostitutes and kidnappings would flourish, as well as electronic bugging of candidates' suites."
"Then the rest of the money went to CRP in a bizarre way: a man wearing gloves furtively receiving the briefcase full of cash and handing over no receipt."
"'Let me ask you this, to be quite candid. Is there any way you can use cash."
I recommend H.R. Haldeman's The Ends of Power (1978) to anyone who does not believe that politics is the dirtiest area of human activity. Being an old geezer, I am pretty cynical about humankind, yet I still felt soiled reading this book. The author, a long-term Chief of Staff in Richard Nixon's White House, arguably the closest to Nixon member of his cabinet, shows people in the very highest echelons of government constantly busy lying, cheating, covering-up, bribing, entrapping, and figuring out how to most efficiently destroy other people. How do they find the time to achieve successes in, say, foreign policy, as Mr. Nixon undoubtedly did? How do they find time to think about improving the lives of American citizens? Yeah, right...
The book is focused on the Watergate drama. In the Author's Note, he writes:
I find the later chapters more clear and much more readable than the earlier ones, which intimidate the reader with an abundance of details; the chapter Beginning of the End is most captivating and seems better written than the rest. The Conclusion helps in that it provides a "big picture" overview of the entire scandal.
Recursion is my favorite motif in mathematics, computer programming, and also in art, so I particularly like that at one point in the book the author most likely uses the content of the tape recordings of his conversation with president Nixon, which was about the content of the tape recordings of his much earlier conversation with president Nixon. This could provide a fascinating setup for a thriller.
I recommend this 43-year-old book without hesitation - a worthwhile, if depressing read.
Three-and-a-quarter stars.
"Then the rest of the money went to CRP in a bizarre way: a man wearing gloves furtively receiving the briefcase full of cash and handing over no receipt."
"'Let me ask you this, to be quite candid. Is there any way you can use cash."
I recommend H.R. Haldeman's The Ends of Power (1978) to anyone who does not believe that politics is the dirtiest area of human activity. Being an old geezer, I am pretty cynical about humankind, yet I still felt soiled reading this book. The author, a long-term Chief of Staff in Richard Nixon's White House, arguably the closest to Nixon member of his cabinet, shows people in the very highest echelons of government constantly busy lying, cheating, covering-up, bribing, entrapping, and figuring out how to most efficiently destroy other people. How do they find the time to achieve successes in, say, foreign policy, as Mr. Nixon undoubtedly did? How do they find time to think about improving the lives of American citizens? Yeah, right...
The book is focused on the Watergate drama. In the Author's Note, he writes:
"In my view, all of us at the White House involved in Watergate did a lot of things wrong. Some criminal, some harmless, some willful, some accidental, some shrewdly calculated, some stupidly blundered, but each wrong."The Watergate affair that lasts from June 17, 1972, when burglars are apprehended in the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in Washington, DC, to August 8, 1974, when president Nixon resigns, is such an incredibly complex mesh of events, motivations, causes and effects, human errors, and random happenings that even though I have read several books on Watergate, I still have only the most rudimentary understanding of the affair. Haldeman's book makes some things clear for me, but - at the same time - it brings so many new aspects and factors to light, that I can't say my understanding has increased much.
I find the later chapters more clear and much more readable than the earlier ones, which intimidate the reader with an abundance of details; the chapter Beginning of the End is most captivating and seems better written than the rest. The Conclusion helps in that it provides a "big picture" overview of the entire scandal.
Recursion is my favorite motif in mathematics, computer programming, and also in art, so I particularly like that at one point in the book the author most likely uses the content of the tape recordings of his conversation with president Nixon, which was about the content of the tape recordings of his much earlier conversation with president Nixon. This could provide a fascinating setup for a thriller.
I recommend this 43-year-old book without hesitation - a worthwhile, if depressing read.
Three-and-a-quarter stars.
July 17, 2019
To describe this book as a master class in dissimulation would be too kind. Haldeman engages in active historical revisionism in order to excuse willful perjury on the matter of the March 21st conversation with Dean. He contends that forces conspired to drive a knife into a teetering administration. The wounds were self-inflicted. History is poorly served by prevarication.
July 24, 2017
Understanding Watergate is more important now than ever.
Haldeman accurately and without hesitation dissects the entire saga. From the perspective of someone who served prison time for his complicity, he has no desire to sugarcoat and doesn't. Comparisons will be made to Trump Russia and as far as they relate to process and competence of staff that is fair. But in terms of the actual legal and political issues, blame falls on a self preserving Washington bureaucracy and its biased media. It is an incredibly thoughtful, well written memoir that reveals answers wherever they can be and careful hypotheses where there are only guesses.
Haldeman accurately and without hesitation dissects the entire saga. From the perspective of someone who served prison time for his complicity, he has no desire to sugarcoat and doesn't. Comparisons will be made to Trump Russia and as far as they relate to process and competence of staff that is fair. But in terms of the actual legal and political issues, blame falls on a self preserving Washington bureaucracy and its biased media. It is an incredibly thoughtful, well written memoir that reveals answers wherever they can be and careful hypotheses where there are only guesses.
January 20, 2023
Written in 1978, this is the second book on Watergate that I have read recently. As other reviewers have noted it is a self-serving accounting of one of worst times in American History. I remember the slow growth of news starting June 17, 1972, where Haldeman starts his book. He seems fairly honest in his evaluation of what went wrong, but then I remind myself that Haldeman and his cohorts perpetrated lies (unmatched until recent times) in an effort to save a man who probably didn't deserve it. Haldeman constantly reminds readers about the good things Nixon did, and I don't deny that; but unfortunately for the country, the bad outweighed the good in that accounting of our history. As a result, we were treated to months of investigation by the Ervin Committee and Congressional Committee on Impeachment, not to mention the investigation into Spiro Agnew in 1973. The lawyers must have made a fortune in those years.
It's an interesting book because I remember it all so well. I was sure we would learn from what happened, but we didn't. What people will do for power and to stay in power is staggering. Haldeman thought he had the answers, that he could help Nixon cover it up for the 'good' of the country. He was wrong then, and unfortunately we still have politicians who push the envelope for what they can get away with.
It's an interesting book because I remember it all so well. I was sure we would learn from what happened, but we didn't. What people will do for power and to stay in power is staggering. Haldeman thought he had the answers, that he could help Nixon cover it up for the 'good' of the country. He was wrong then, and unfortunately we still have politicians who push the envelope for what they can get away with.
August 1, 2008
Be familiar with the Watergate timeline before delving into this book. Haldeman's proximity to the action is very different from, say, Woodward & Bernstein's -- this book feels like it is seeing a lot of trees whereas All the President's Men is about the forest. Also, the narrative wobbles often.
February 21, 2020
This is an oldie-but-goody from the perspective of one of the Watergate defendants. Haldeman begins the book by describing what he was doing on the fateful weekend of June 17, 1972, the night of the Watergate break-in. In the first chapter, he seems to blame the CIA for springing the 'Watergate trap on Nixon. I think that's the first I've heard that the CIA was involved to the extent he insists they were.
He speculated on who was Deep Throat, the anonymous liaison between a federal agency and the Washington Post. He insisted that Deep Throat had to be Fred Fielding, then a deputy White House Counsel. (The now-famous Deep Throat was Mark Felt, a former FBI associate director.
I'm fascinated by the introspection in this book. The author talks about juncture points that could have prevented Watergate entirely had they been handled differently. It's always fascinating to read about hindsight from someone who was in the thick of history when it was happening.
This book is divided into miniature books that include chapters. It's an unusual way of structuring a book, but it works. There's a book on the Watergate tapes and the battles involved in getting them released. Kissinger allegedly encouraged Nixon to destroy the tapes; he didn't. There's a book entitled The Beginning of the end which focuses on Haldeman's being fired. They battle over whether the men should be forced to resign or take a leave of absence. Resignation would indicate guilt.
Haldeman alleged that Nixon would have not surrendered the Watergate tapes had the high court not unanimously ordered him to do so—a decision that would have sparked a massive constitutional crisis.
He says the entire story of Watergate will never come to light. He admits that his loyalty to Nixon and his lack of expertise as a lawyer meant he was in worse trouble than he ever realized. He recognized the moral wrongness of his part in the break-in. He insists that had there never been a Watergate, Nixon's second term would have been a smashing success that would have included permanent peace in the Middle East and a solid economy. John Connally would have been named to replace Agnew, and he would have been nominated and elected to the presidency in 1976.
My perspective on the book:
I’m always fascinated to read the justifications and perspectives of these old Watergate participants. Haldeman portrays John Dean as an out-of-control staffer driven by ambition. Indeed, the only men who come out of this looking remotely good are Haldeman and Henry Kissinger. Oh, and of course, Nixon. Haldeman maintains a stubborn sense of loyalty to Nixon throughout the book and insists that if he had to do it all again, even knowing how it would end, he would sign on.
He speculated on who was Deep Throat, the anonymous liaison between a federal agency and the Washington Post. He insisted that Deep Throat had to be Fred Fielding, then a deputy White House Counsel. (The now-famous Deep Throat was Mark Felt, a former FBI associate director.
I'm fascinated by the introspection in this book. The author talks about juncture points that could have prevented Watergate entirely had they been handled differently. It's always fascinating to read about hindsight from someone who was in the thick of history when it was happening.
This book is divided into miniature books that include chapters. It's an unusual way of structuring a book, but it works. There's a book on the Watergate tapes and the battles involved in getting them released. Kissinger allegedly encouraged Nixon to destroy the tapes; he didn't. There's a book entitled The Beginning of the end which focuses on Haldeman's being fired. They battle over whether the men should be forced to resign or take a leave of absence. Resignation would indicate guilt.
Haldeman alleged that Nixon would have not surrendered the Watergate tapes had the high court not unanimously ordered him to do so—a decision that would have sparked a massive constitutional crisis.
He says the entire story of Watergate will never come to light. He admits that his loyalty to Nixon and his lack of expertise as a lawyer meant he was in worse trouble than he ever realized. He recognized the moral wrongness of his part in the break-in. He insists that had there never been a Watergate, Nixon's second term would have been a smashing success that would have included permanent peace in the Middle East and a solid economy. John Connally would have been named to replace Agnew, and he would have been nominated and elected to the presidency in 1976.
My perspective on the book:
I’m always fascinated to read the justifications and perspectives of these old Watergate participants. Haldeman portrays John Dean as an out-of-control staffer driven by ambition. Indeed, the only men who come out of this looking remotely good are Haldeman and Henry Kissinger. Oh, and of course, Nixon. Haldeman maintains a stubborn sense of loyalty to Nixon throughout the book and insists that if he had to do it all again, even knowing how it would end, he would sign on.
July 19, 2016
A challenging and stimulating look into the corridors of power. A reasonably unbiased account of Watergate - as much as you will get, as all the participants were ducking for cover - but also a clear look at Nixon's achievements while in office and how the White house operates. It is a "must read" but probably not on its' own.
January 6, 2013
It is interesting to see the perspective of each different person in the Watergate scandal and what they thought happened. By reading these, you would think that the Nixon administration did nothing but concern themselves with all things Watergate form March 1973 to August 1974.
July 27, 2022
a fair, objective look at the scandal.
March 5, 2021
The unreliable narrator aspects of this administration and this book are often very confusing. Ex: Haldeman claims Colson was getting the Dita Beard memo examined by the FBI but Dean has a whole section in one of his books about how he did it. I guess that’s part of what makes trying to uncover the truth so fascinating. But Haldeman is the only one that explained the Dita Beard ITT scandal so I finally understand what happened. So I forgive him a little for not including an index, which I really needed to keep track of who all of these people were. The internet is necessary for modern readers of this one, looking people up saved me.
The bottom line is that it was surprisingly easy to read and fast-moving and surprisingly interesting. Despite not knowing if much of what he said was true. He really did have some different perspectives and ideas about what went on, unlike some insider WH books where everyone from the same admin begins to sound the same after you’ve read a couple of books. Though maybe not entirely in the way I expected. There isn’t a lot of dirt, he was still protecting himself. Most interesting were small references to Nixon’s behavior and Haldeman’s interpretation of such. Sometimes way more snide that I expected! It’s like with Trump, people are exceedingly loyal in public up to the point when they stop being useful to him/able to expect anything from him. Then they let the contempt fly free. But it was nothing like the scorn he heaped on Dean, whew. Oh yeah, and it's all Colson's fault.
The bottom line is that it was surprisingly easy to read and fast-moving and surprisingly interesting. Despite not knowing if much of what he said was true. He really did have some different perspectives and ideas about what went on, unlike some insider WH books where everyone from the same admin begins to sound the same after you’ve read a couple of books. Though maybe not entirely in the way I expected. There isn’t a lot of dirt, he was still protecting himself. Most interesting were small references to Nixon’s behavior and Haldeman’s interpretation of such. Sometimes way more snide that I expected! It’s like with Trump, people are exceedingly loyal in public up to the point when they stop being useful to him/able to expect anything from him. Then they let the contempt fly free. But it was nothing like the scorn he heaped on Dean, whew. Oh yeah, and it's all Colson's fault.
January 4, 2024
I'll update this when I completely finish the book, but good lord.
One of the reviews says that the beginning is not well-written and I absolutely agree. Some parts scatter and a plethora of names are thrown with minimal or no introduction. As someone with bare minimum knowledge of Watergate, it is just plain confusing.
I also have incredible doubt as to the reason this book was written. Haldeman states it was to be open and honest, but there are several reasons why I doubt that. Firstly, he is very clear about his loyalty to Nixon and he makes sure to remind you every other chapter. Secondly, the moment the actual beginning of Watergate showed up, there was an instant theory thrown out about the entire thing being a plot to ruin Nixon. Thirdly, and this is why I decided to write a review now and finish when I finish the book, Haldeman spends entirely too much time providing evidence to his credibility, most which comes off as really awkward "idk what to do with this" information. It's the worst in chapter one of part two, as the whole chapter is dedicated to how he got to be Nixon's advance man in which he states openly that he "is not modest about [his] credentials as an advance man".
All that being said, I do accept that throughout this reading I have developed a negative opinion of Haldeman, and I never had a great opinion of Nixon to begin with, both of which absolutely affect how you process the events discussed. I'm not against having my mind changed about Watergate, and we'll see what the rest of this book does for me.
One of the reviews says that the beginning is not well-written and I absolutely agree. Some parts scatter and a plethora of names are thrown with minimal or no introduction. As someone with bare minimum knowledge of Watergate, it is just plain confusing.
I also have incredible doubt as to the reason this book was written. Haldeman states it was to be open and honest, but there are several reasons why I doubt that. Firstly, he is very clear about his loyalty to Nixon and he makes sure to remind you every other chapter. Secondly, the moment the actual beginning of Watergate showed up, there was an instant theory thrown out about the entire thing being a plot to ruin Nixon. Thirdly, and this is why I decided to write a review now and finish when I finish the book, Haldeman spends entirely too much time providing evidence to his credibility, most which comes off as really awkward "idk what to do with this" information. It's the worst in chapter one of part two, as the whole chapter is dedicated to how he got to be Nixon's advance man in which he states openly that he "is not modest about [his] credentials as an advance man".
All that being said, I do accept that throughout this reading I have developed a negative opinion of Haldeman, and I never had a great opinion of Nixon to begin with, both of which absolutely affect how you process the events discussed. I'm not against having my mind changed about Watergate, and we'll see what the rest of this book does for me.
October 18, 2023
Haldeman Forgets Burglary Is A Crime, Not A Fraternity Stunt
This book is a reminder of how great power can also corrupt. I don’t believe H.R. Haldeman was inherently evil, but he had a cult-like devotion to Richard Nixon and a flaw that many politicians including most Republicans in the last century seem to gravitate toward: “if you ain’t cheating’ you ain’t tryin.’”
He speaks almost matter-of-factly about the “cover-up” but ignores the fact that no cover-up would have been needed if a burglary and an attempt at an illegal wire tape had not been tried, more than once, at the behest of the president’s campaign and by extension President Nixon himself.
Sometimes self-delusion is the result of errors too painful to admit. There are lessons here, lessons worth remembering.
This book is a reminder of how great power can also corrupt. I don’t believe H.R. Haldeman was inherently evil, but he had a cult-like devotion to Richard Nixon and a flaw that many politicians including most Republicans in the last century seem to gravitate toward: “if you ain’t cheating’ you ain’t tryin.’”
He speaks almost matter-of-factly about the “cover-up” but ignores the fact that no cover-up would have been needed if a burglary and an attempt at an illegal wire tape had not been tried, more than once, at the behest of the president’s campaign and by extension President Nixon himself.
Sometimes self-delusion is the result of errors too painful to admit. There are lessons here, lessons worth remembering.
February 2, 2024
Anyone that wants to know about the Nixon administration and what had happened with Watergate this is just one of the books for you. There is so much that happened during that time and why they did it when I still don’t think they needed to but what do I know? This book gives you a closer look into everything that was going on. Sometimes I think it was out of fear with all of the talk leading up to the break-in and not arrogance but I was a teen at the time trying to figure everything out. Surprising now how we have gone backward with all of the investigations going on and nothing is getting done in D.C. reminds me of that time. This is a good book. This book originally came out in 1978 and has been republished many times so it still has readers. I received this book from Netgalley.com
May 13, 2023
Excellent break down of Watergate from Haldeman. He admits his faults and almost in reference to Dean he had 'Blind Ambition' in doing everything he could to serve the President. Unfortunately to a fault due to Nixon's unnecessary paranoia. It's a shame as he points out the many great accomplishments of Nixon and how much further he could have gone. All tainted and wasted by his insecurity with the Democratic party when it wasn't even a factor due to his landslide victory. To be perfectly clear, Watergate was clearly Nixon's fault right down to the core, a terrible ending to a President on the verge of being one of our best Presidents ever.
August 13, 2017
Interesting insight into the operation of the White House. But too much assumed knowledge of the characters needed which I assume most readers would have had at the time. Reading so many years after the events makes it a bit hard to follow without more background.
August 21, 2023
Interesting and clearly and succinctly written version of Watergate. It's a side a Watergate rarely observed. Haldeman comes across as sharp and articulate, though I don't believe he's being totally truthful or transparent about the whole story
December 17, 2023
Watergate! What a mess you were
Wow! The mistakes were just that simple. Unfortunately the ego and a lack of knowledge was there undoing. Richard Nixon did do some great things, I know that.
Wow! The mistakes were just that simple. Unfortunately the ego and a lack of knowledge was there undoing. Richard Nixon did do some great things, I know that.
July 27, 2018
The most interesting of the Watergate books I have read so far.
May 6, 2021
Interesting
This is an interesting book on one side of the story of a historic event.which happened in the last century
This is an interesting book on one side of the story of a historic event.which happened in the last century
March 18, 2021
"People forget it takes two years to listen to two years' worth of tapes." --H R BOB
July 1, 2020
A Dubious Account of Watergate
Haldeman, who was Nixon's chief of staff and loyal hatchet man, wrote this book while appealing a sentence of 2.5-8 years imprisonment for perjury, which was subsequently reduced to 1-8 years. He eventually served 18 months. Writing an objective account of the crimes you've committed while appealing your sentence isn't the best of circumstances or motivation to telling the truth. There's much in this book that's self-serving. He'd obviously fumed at Nixon's 1977 interview with David Frost where he and Ehrlichman were blamed for much of Watergate. His anger at the "rat" John Dean, and his aide Alexander Butterfield, who revealed Nixon's taping system, is palpable. There's not much condemnation of his own mistakes or crimes, and he's less than honest as to his dictatorial management of the White House that was often counter-productive. There are revelations in the book that are interesting, and others such as Democratic complicity into the break-in of their own Watergate headquarters that are not believable, indeed absurd. It's worth reading, with scepticism.
Haldeman, who was Nixon's chief of staff and loyal hatchet man, wrote this book while appealing a sentence of 2.5-8 years imprisonment for perjury, which was subsequently reduced to 1-8 years. He eventually served 18 months. Writing an objective account of the crimes you've committed while appealing your sentence isn't the best of circumstances or motivation to telling the truth. There's much in this book that's self-serving. He'd obviously fumed at Nixon's 1977 interview with David Frost where he and Ehrlichman were blamed for much of Watergate. His anger at the "rat" John Dean, and his aide Alexander Butterfield, who revealed Nixon's taping system, is palpable. There's not much condemnation of his own mistakes or crimes, and he's less than honest as to his dictatorial management of the White House that was often counter-productive. There are revelations in the book that are interesting, and others such as Democratic complicity into the break-in of their own Watergate headquarters that are not believable, indeed absurd. It's worth reading, with scepticism.
April 3, 2016
I was working in D.C. during this time period and Watergate was main topic of discussion towards the end. It is amazing how so many different ways an event can be seen by those people involved in it. Nothing new for me in this book but it did bring back many memories. well edited.
June 2, 2012
Right hand man, even more right than Nixon.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews