By Spencer Goidel
One of the four criminal trials of Donald Trump was slated to start in the next few days, but has been delayed on procedural grounds. There was a time when it appeared possible all of his trials could happen before the November election. Now it is unclear whether even one will begin in time. As a result, on Election Day, the voting public may not know a key fact about candidate Trump: whether a jury has found him guilty of one or more crimes.
Like Trump, scandal followed Richard Nixon throughout his political career. And, like Trump, Nixon always managed to claw his way back into the political forefront.
As a scholar of American politics and public opinion, I believe the parallels between Trump and Nixon are clear.
Yet there is a telling difference between the two men. Nixon acknowledged the fundamental importance of accountability in a democracy. He went so far as to famously declare – during the height of the Watergate scandal – that “people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.”
Trump, on the other hand, outright rejects the assertion that the American people should be able to find out what the justice system says about whether a prospective president is a crook.
In fact, he has gone so far as to assert that the “president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function.”
Nixon made a similar statement in 1977, telling British journalist David Frost in 1977 that “when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.” But Nixon hastened to add a crucial caveat that he was talking about war powers and national security, and specifically emphasized that he did not “mean to suggest the president is above the law.”
Afterward, Nixon responded to the backlash from the interview, writing a long-winded clarification that reiterated that the president is not above the law.
Similar, but quite different
Superficially, Nixon and Trump’s brands of politics share a lot of similarities.
Both men positioned themselves against allegedly crooked liberal elites and used the fact that they were being investigated as evidence that the people in power were trying to silence them and people like them.
As far back as 1952, Nixon was accused of keeping a secret stash of donor funds when he was a U.S. senator and a candidate for vice president. His fate as Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate in that year’s presidential election looked increasingly uncertain.
His instinct was to go public. On live TV, in what came to be known as the “Checkers speech,” Nixon took his case directly to the American people. He positioned himself – an ordinary American with two mortgages, a bank loan and a loan from his parents – against the political elite. That elite, Nixon said, believed only rich men should be in politics, and Nixon was just a regular guy.
More than two decades later, Nixon, again facing disgrace, took his case to the public. The Watergate scandal, in which Republican operatives sought to secretly listen in on Democratic Party business, broke in the summer of 1972. Even before that year’s election, Nixon’s White House aides and his campaign were linked to the effort. Nixon went on to win every state but Massachusetts in the Electoral College.
His popularity peaked at 67% in late January 1973 following the inauguration for his second term. However, as the Watergate scandal unfolded, Nixon’s personal involvement in the spying and attempts to cover it up became increasingly clear to the public. His popularity plummeted.
One year after a landslide Electoral College victory, only 27% of Americans approved of the job Nixon was doing as president. In that context, Nixon made a public plea of innocence and forthrightness, declaring that the “people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.” And he immediately followed that statement with a lie: “Well, I’m not a crook.”
A contrast in support, and tactics
Nixon’s instinct to make his case to the American people in the face of political peril emphasizes a key difference from Trump.
Throughout his first term, Nixon enjoyed substantially higher approval than Trump. On average, 56% of Americans approved of the job Nixon was doing in his first term, compared with only 41% for Trump. Liberal elites may have decried Nixon’s claim that he had the support of a “silent majority” at the time, but from a historical perspective, his popularity is undeniable.
Trump’s approval tells a different story and illustrates the differences in the breadth and depth of their support. In February 1972, 52% of Americans approved of the job Nixon was doing: 80% of Republicans, 51% of independents and 36% of Democrats. Compare that with Trump’s approval in February 2020: 47% overall approval, 92% approval among Republicans, 42% with independents and 8% with Democrats.
While most recent polls show that Trump is leading in 2024’s apparent rematch of the 2020 election, he rarely eclipses the 50% threshold. Trump is president of a vocal minority, not the silent majority. Trump doesn’t have to appeal to Democrats, or the median voter for that matter, because he has the undying support of his faction. And the U.S. system of electing presidents is biased in a way that means his vocal minority can deliver victory.
Spencer Goidel is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Auburn University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Deborah Coffey says
If this Supreme Court decides that Trump has immunity (on April 22nd…the last day of its session), then Joe Biden should appoint 4 Democrats to the SCOTUS on April 23rd because…immunity! Can we fix the attempt by today’s Republican Party that is trying to destroy our entire federal government by using democratic principles and methods? When they go low, should we go high? I think we’ve passed the point and we need to prove that we can play their game…and win democracy for America.
Jackson says
Fake billionaire, fake casinos, fake university, fake wife, fake property values, fake election fraud (except by Trump), and fake golf trophies.
dave says
Of course Trump is a crook. Come to think of it, are all Congressional members , and presidents actually HONEST individuals. Ex; do they actually represent the voters as promised during their election campaigns or do they do what is necessary to fit in with the Congressional and PARTY ego train. I promise this or that, but how many actually deliver. I hate to use car salesmen’s as an example as my uncle owns a dealership in SC, but these people will do anything to get a sale, just like a politician. Trump will say anything for a vote as will any politician. The old TV game show line, They are all in it to win it, at any cost.
DaleL says
To incessantly lie that the 2020 election was somehow stolen seems pretty crooked to me. To encourage devote followers to Washington D.C., after the election had been decided, in an attempt to stop the Constitutionally mandated Congressional certification of the election, seems very crooked to me. To advocate for total Presidential immunity, seems like something a criminal would want. To try to get a foreign government to manufacture false political dirt on an opponent seems corrupt. The list goes on and on.
Does it matter whether the President of the United States is a corrupt criminal? How will our everyday lives really be affected? If Trump and his cronies gain power, what is the worst that could happen? Wealthy people, who don’t anger the criminal in chief, will be better off, at least for a while. Once the news media has gotten in line, the reported news will reassure us that everything is just fine. “Criminals” will be dealt with swiftly. Even the trains will run on time.
Then again, while we can, we could study history. When did a dictatorship run by a criminally corrupt person ever turn out well? Look at Haiti. The Conversation has a story titled: How Haiti became a failed state. Here is an excerpt:
“Violent gangs are not new to Haiti. Between 1957 and 1986, Haiti was ruled as a dictatorship by the Duvalier family. Following an unsuccessful military coup in 1958, François Duvalier sought to bypass the armed forces by creating a private and personal militia called the “Tonton Macoutes”.
The Macoutes consisted of illiterate fanatics-turned-reckless gunmen acting as a paramiltary force. They were not accountable to any state body or court and were fully empowered to dispose of the paranoid president’s enemies.”
The choice is clear; sadly too many voters may be deceived.
Ray W. says
Thank you, DaleL.
In one of history’s common yet inexplicable oddities, Patrick Henry, the famed orator of the “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech, attempted to grasp all state executive power without popular election in 1781. Thomas Jefferson bitterly resented the attempt and denounced it in his 1981 book: “Notes on the State of Virginia.”
The author of “Thomas Jefferson An Intimate History”, describes Thomas Jefferson’s description of Henry’s attempted grasp of power as follows:
“… [in 1781, he (Jefferson) was bursting with grievances and consumed with a sense of failure. The inner ferment resulted – despite the confining organizational structure, which consisted of answers to the twenty-one queries of Marbois – in a surprisingly personal book. There is one passage written in white heat having to do with the Virginia political scheme of June 1781. The state legislature instead of holding a routine election to replace Jefferson as governor had permitted a near coup by Patrick Henry, who had hoped to take advantage of the military crisis by becoming dictator. Jefferson was appalled by the narrowness of the vote that prevented it, and still more by the realization that at any time in the future Virginians might ‘by a single vote be laid prostate at the feet of one man!”
“‘In God’s name,’ he wrote passionately, ‘from whence have they derived this power? … Necessities which dissolve a government do not convey its authority to an oligarchy or a monarchy. … A leader may offer, but not impose himself, nor be imposed on them. Much less can their necks be submitted to his sword, their breath be held at his will or caprice.’ Though he did not mention Patrick Henry by name, no one in Virginia needed to be told whom he was writing about, and Patrick Henry never forgave Jefferson for his writing that in Virginia government must be ‘kept in a plurality of hands’ so that ‘the corrupt will of no one man might in the future oppress him.'”
The “[n]ecessities”, as described in the above quote by Jefferson, that created the conditions for the coup attempt were the near simultaneous retirement of Jefferson from the office of Governor, the sack of Richmond by a British naval force led by Benedict Arnold and the entry into Virginia from North Carolina of General Cornwallis’ forces. Virginia’s state government fled to Charlottesville, where the legislative vote to install Henry without constitutional authority took place. Jefferson had voluntarily retired from his position as Virginia’s governor immediately prior to the two British thrusts and a statewide election to replace him had not been held. Virginia’s state constitution did not call for the legislature to vote on who should replace Jefferson. Only a state-wide vote by the people was authorized. Virginia’s legislature, nonetheless, decided to take the people’s power to elect the executive into its own hands.
I can only speculate whether there is any significance between this attempted coup in 1781 Charlottesville, at least a significance enough for white nationalists to schedule a “Unite the Right” rally in that city some 235 years later? Only the white nationalists can know of this, but it cannot be disputed that many of today’s insurrectionists firmly believe in Jefferson’s paraphrased quote that a little revolution can be a good thing. Of course, were today’s white nationalist insurrectionists to learn of Jefferson’s firm condemnation of the 1781 attempted overthrow of Virginia’s state constitutional scheme, they wouldn’t put nearly so much emphasis in Jefferson’s “revolution” language.
For those FlaglerLive readers who wonder why I so commonly write that our founding fathers never intended for any one person to ever obtain unlimited power for an indeterminate period of time, here are Thomas Jefferson’s words, written some seven years prior to the members of the various state ratification commissions gathering to vote to adopt our liberal democratic Constitutional republic.
Laurel says
I still see it that the honest and the devious play by two different sets of rules. The honest can only vary from their rules by small increments, using justification that it’s for the better good. The devious have no problem varying from what should be and what they want, piloted by greed and ego. Trump falls in the latter category. He has been clear about that from the get go.
His followers are mostly made up by older white men that have enjoyed being at the apex all their lives. They have enjoyed double standards, and have hidden that double standard with the sheerest of veils. The women who support them want the recognition of “being okay for a girl,” while attempting to be a part of that apex. Both these men and women are scarred to death that they may be treated the way they have treated others all their lives. “Christian” Nationalists are no different. Younger men and women are joining in.
The honest become disgusted and defeated as they cannot play by this second set of rules, and start dropping out. This is a travesty for our country as the devious gain more power from the empty seats.
Then there are lobbyists and talk show hosts. This particular breed is only interested in money.
No Good Choice says
During the Watergate hearings, I was in college and old enough to vote, so I paid very close attention. I remember thinking how despicable Nixon’s behavior was and being shocked that our nation’s leader would be a crook.
Fast forward to 2024 – I would welcome Tricky Dick back in office before trump. Keeping my passport handy.
Jim Brown says
Some probably think they know all there is to know about Trump. They probably think the Mueller report exonerated him. Well, no matter what they think they know, do they know about Trump’s real Russian connections from the seventies/eighties? They had best read a fascinating fact based report primarily about Boris Johnson and several other British Prime Ministers in which Trump is mentioned en passant.
The report, unlike the dirty dossier produced by Christopher Steele (ex MI6), is fact based and much of it has been accepted as fact by several British Prime Ministers. Rest assured, if you read this article your understanding of world politics will never be the same again. See the news for TheBurlingtonFiles website on July 21, 2021, and also read the brief articles referred to therein.
James says
Well, looking at that side-by-side of Nixon and Trump I guess there’s no doubt about it…
Trump has succeeded in making Nixon great again.
Mission accomplished Mr. Stone.
As for Trump… I saw the video of him leaving court yesterday, the one before the decision to reduce his bond… he wasn’t looking well. Kinda disheveled and worn out… his wife almost looked like she was leading him down the street, almost. But then he sorta looked himself a few hours later, after the ruling.
All I can say is I hope he’s not going to show up in a bath robe one day if things don’t ultimately go his way. I don’t recall if that worked for Gigante or not, but perhaps for a former president?
Just an observation.
Pogo says
@The root of all…
As stated
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+role+of+property+rights+in+the+american+revolution
Life in America, after the end of history — how’s it going?