On the anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, a look back at a system that worked

I will never forget August 9, 1974. I was celebrating my birthday while on vacation in Boothbay Harbor, Maine, feasting on a four-pound lobster watching a postcard crimson sunset with the largest martini the harbor-side restaurant could manage.

But the principal reason I remember that evening is the indelible image left in my mind of Richard Nixon boarding Marine One earlier that day to take off from the White House lawn for the last time as president of the United States. After a protracted battle to hang on to power, Nixon ignominiously resigned the presidency, avoiding certain impeachment for obstruction of justice surrounding the Watergate imbroglio. Two years after having been re-elected in a landslide victory while deriding a liberal establishment and media, the unique American governance system of checks and balances had “checkmated” the president from office.

{mosads}Nixon’s undoing unfolded in a fast-moving swirl of activity beginning just three months prior with start of House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings, a July 24 Supreme Court decision mandating that the incriminating White House tapes be released, and the August 5 bombshell release of the so-called “smoking gun” tape. But it was only after Republican Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and conservative icon Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona met with the president to tell him he would surely lose the impeachment and removal from office votes in Congress that Richard Nixon relented.

The system had been severely tested, and it held up under pressure. A dogged and free professional press corps, a bipartisan Congress, independent court system, and, ultimately the locus of American public opinion were able to protect the country from a president who thought he was above the law. And millions of young Baby Boomers like me learned a civics lesson that day, 43 years ago today, which would stay with us for life. The best interests of the governed were safeguarded by three independent branches of government able to exercise checks and balances over each other. America’s founding fathers were vindicated.

In those days the Senate really could legitimately lay claim to the “greatest deliberative body” badge it proudly wore, and it did so not at the expense of ideological differentiation. Patriots like Barry Goldwater from the ideological right wing of the Republican party could make common cause with ideological polar-opposites like George McGovern (D-S.D.). And both parties would claim moderates like Chuck Percy (R-Ill.) and Jake Javits (R-N.Y.), Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) and Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) who would help the Senate find common ground to move the nation’s agenda forward.

Fast forward some four decades from 1974. Once, again, an American president consistently rails against the establishment which he alleges conspires with the “fake news” media to thwart the will of the people who elected him. And, he vacillates between praising and debasing the integrity and fairness of the two other, co-equal branches of government.

But despite the presidential bombast, those who live and work in the Congressional “swamp” (now downgraded by Trump to “cesspool” or “sewer” status) may have begun to find their voice as pressure on the American democratic system builds. An independent Congress was on display in the Senate on July 28 with the dramatic late-night vote to reject the president’s main legislative priority of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

A day before, again contrary to the president’s wishes, Congress sent the White House legislation to increase sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea after overwhelming 98-2 and 419-3 votes in the Senate and House. At the same time, broad bipartisan ranks in the Congress are preparing legislation to bar the president from being able to fire directly any special counsel, putting the White House on notice that Congress will not tolerate interference with the integrity of the special prosecutor probe.

No one knows where all of this will lead, whether to a president who finally begins responsibly to lead all Americans, or to continued turmoil and gridlock, or even to a premature end to the president’s tenure. But regardless of the ultimate outcome, when this tumultuous chapter of American history is written, the dog days of summer 2017 will hopefully be seen as pivotal, a period in time when the American polity restored its sense of balance and purpose, vindicating the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

The stakes are enormous for the country, but also for the generations of young Americans whose views of the American government will be shaped by how this all plays out. Hopefully they will be able to draw the same kind of positive life-forming lessons my peers did 43 years ago when we learned that it is only by engaging and demanding more from government that we can get the quality of government democracy promises.

Paul A. Laudicina is a partner and chairman emeritus of A.T. Kearney, and chairman of the Global Business Policy Council. In addition to more than 40 years of private-sector experience, Paul has served in the public sector, including as legislative director to then-U.S. Senator Joseph Biden from 1977 to 1982.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.