EMAIL DETAILS

Watergate's effect on the 1974 Congressional Elections

Naomi Biden

"In their minds, their scandal will always and forever be bigger than anyone else's; and never again will living be quite so important."[1] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn1>

The quote above refers to the absolute sense of responsibility the newly elected senators and representatives felt to the nation. There is no denying that Watergate and the exposed corruption and abuse of power in the Nixon administration shook America's confidence in democracy. As the scandal was publicized American faith in the men and women that were representing and supposedly protecting their interest in congress was dwindling. Although there is sufficient evidence that even prior to Watergate being exposed there was a growing distrust in the federal government, as the scandal progressed and the American public became increasingly aware whatever doubts they were having were only magnified. The most significant effects of Watergate were therefore short-term. Watergate had both a direct and indirect effect on the Democratic sweep of the 1974 congressional elections, in that although Watergate was not the only determining factor in the outcome of the elections, its effect on almost of the factors that contributed to voter turn out and party affiliation is undeniable. The 4 democratic senators and 49 Democratic representatives elected to congress in this year have been especially keen about their responsibility to be honest and recognize the laws and regulations put in place so that there is not an abuse in power on the scale of that of the Nixon administration. Often referred to as the 'Watergate Class' the senators and representatives elected in the year 1974 that continue to serve today because they were often elected on promises that they would limit federal corruption have not forgotten the dangers of an executive office with no reigns.

The break in at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel, was a only a small part of the enormous abuse of power on the behalf of the Nixon administration during his 5 and half years in office. When the break in was first reported there was almost no speculation that any high-ranking government officials could have been involved, let alone the President himself. As reporters, most well known being Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, uncovered more and more complex connections between the break in and the government it became clear that the corruption was on a scale that know one could have imagined. The Nixon administration had undoubtedly violated the trust of their political constituents and the entire Nation. The amount of people familiar with what happened and what the Watergate scandal really was sky rocketed from fifty-two percent of Americans in 1972 to ninety-eight percent in 1973[2] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn2> . Although as Nixon resigned he claimed that he was not a crook and that anything he did while in office he believed to be in the "best interest of the nation", people no longer trusted President Nixon[3] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn3> . The highly public trials and nationally covered scandal brought corruption in the federal government to the forefront of voters concerns.

The economic state of the nation in 1974 and public discontent with their economic status can't be ignored when considering the reasons that contributed to the outcome of both the house and senate elections. The Yom Kippur war caused a brief but serious oil price shock. The result of that was an inflation level of about 11 percent and an unemployment rate close to 5 percent. Inflation became a forefront concern of the American people. A poll taken prior to elections that year gathered that 50.2 percent of Americans believed that inflation was the most significant economic issue. The decline in disposable income was the largest decline since 1946, when there was a shift in majority from democrats to republicans comparable to that of republicans to democrats in 1974[4] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn4> . Therefore the most common debates occurring between candidates running for election or re-election around the country focused on two main issues: corruption and the economy. Even the Republican National Committee chairman at the time, Mary Louise Smith admitted, "Watergate and the economy have combined to influence voters". What she did not say but was inferred is that these to issues were primarily influencing voters to not vote for republican candidates, particularly conservative ones running for re-election. Republican leaders also downplayed Watergate and lack of trust in the government as a leading issue. A poll taken prior to the election asking "What do you think will be the most important national issues in the coming congressional elections" reported that 71 percent of Republican chairmen cited inflation and high cost of living, 65 percent named fuel shortages and the energy crises, and only 32 percent mentioned Watergate and honesty in government[5] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn5> . In contrast a survey by the Republican National Committee by Market Opinion Research of Detroit showed that 73 percent of the voters did in fact think that Watergate was the number one issue[6] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn6> . However as obvious as the correlation between economic discontent and election outcome may seem surveys and polls have time and time again failed to find any connection between the two[7] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn7> . However numbers and data are not nearly as powerful as having the benefit of looking over our shoulder as opposed to straining our eyes in an attempt to look ahead. With that in mind, conventional wisdom seems to toward believing that the economy lead to even more bitterness on the behalf of voters towards Nixon and the Nixon administration which made voting Republican in the 1974 elections even less appealing.

A less obvious but equally as important question to ask is whether the Democratic candidates running for election in the year following Nixon's resignation were simply stronger running mates than those the Republican's serving faced in 1972 or if the Watergate scandal allowed for a stronger class of Democratic candidates. A correlation between a party with a worse outlook, to weak candidates and therefore fewer funds has time and time again been drawn clearly[8] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn8> . Nixon's administration cast a dark cloud over the heads of the Republican Party. A notable number of Republican retirements can be attributed to recognition of probable defeat due to this 'cloud' and furthermore an awareness that Republican's will remain the minority party and therefore not have the opportunity to become committee chairmen[9] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn9> . Age and an improved pension may also be factors, but that does not explain why the Republican retirement rate was twice that of the Democrat's[10] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn10> . Although people were selective in whom they punished for the corruption in the early 1970's, conservative or loyal republicans did not have an easy time facing their democratic opponent's in 1974[11] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn11> . The party's being in trouble was no secret and it could be argued that for that reason stronger democrats faced weaker republican causing the upturn in republican dominancy in congress. If this were to be true, Watergate would indirectly be the reason for the comparative lack of power behind Republican Party incumbents.

Voter turnout at the 1974 congressional elections was low, while it had been steadily decreasing over the years prior Watergate was a factor in the lack of enthusiasm in electing officials. The youth vote in particular was dwindling as the publics respect in the 'system' reached an all time low. The scandal and corruption undermined voter respect for anybody participating in government affairs. 62 percent of the electorate did not vote during the midterm elections. Many of who claim it was not a disinterest in politics but rather a legitimate form of protest. Furthermore voters were becoming increasingly cynical about the democratic process claiming, "One vote doesn't make any difference"[12] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn12> . Cynical and frustrated voters are just so because of economic despair and a widely criticized dishonest government.

Watergate contributed to the elevated number of 'switch voters' or voters who are affiliated with one party but vote for another, recorded in the 1974 midterm elections. Furthermore independents that voted in those elections primarily voted democratically. Nixon made running as a democrat an advantage in that he momentarily harmed or hurt his own party's reputation. The majority of 'switchers' found themselves partial to Democratic candidates and platforms because of both economic and Watergate grievances directed towards Republican candidates.[13] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn13> Often times votes swinging to the degree in which the halls of congress are overturned occurs during midterm elections as it did in 1946 1958 1966 and than 1974[14] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn14> . That's not to say that it was not because of Watergate, rather that midterm elections made it even more possible. It was because in changes at the margin by voters.

Another tool useful in determining the Watergate scandals effect on the congressional midterm elections in 1974 is the campaign strategies used by the candidates that won and the dilemmas the candidates that lost faced. When Democrats won a difficult victory in Grand Rapid Michigan it became evident to reporters and candidates alike, the failures of the Nixon Administration was the "most powerful current in American Politics"[15] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn15> . Republicans did not have difficult speaking their disapproval of the Watergate Scandal but rather of their President. While a growing majority of the population was discontent with Richard Nixon the person and the Nixon administration as a whole, as Wisconsin Republican representative William A Steiger best put it "Republican's can't be flatly anti Nixon and survive". [16] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn16> The delicacy with which Republicans faced their predicament was one that could be easily seen through by voters. As Republican candidates resentment towards the president was evident, while their fear of speaking out against him remained. The dilemma Republicans faced in 1974 was one with no clear solution, it was "precarious to be associated" with the President, but "suicidal to speak against him."[17] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn17> Democratic opponents used their knowledge of the difficult situation Republican's were in to their advantage. Even Vice President Ford admitted that in private talks with the President "He recognized, as I did, that it could be the way the Democrats skillfully used the issue" the issue being Watergate.[18] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn18> In fact in the opinion of the President and Vice President alike, the Democrats exploited Watergate, blowing it entirely out of proportion to win votes. Blown out of proportions or not, in hindsight not, the Democrats did win votes because of Watergate.[19] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn19>

The newly elected senators and representatives in the year 1974 are called the Watergate babies for more reasons than one. They were referred to as 'Babies' not only because they were new to the Senate and House but also because they were so young. Six of them were under thirty and as a group the brought the average age of House Members down to under fifty for the first time since World War II[20] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn20> . A vast amount of the winning candidates were substantially younger than the officials they ran against. The new congressman and senators elected were like any other new group of electees fresh and excited to demand change from their older more experienced constituents. What made them unique however was their large size, which gave them the unique ability to actually instate the changes. As Rep. John LaFalce put it "Smaller classes can have the same missionary zeal, but not have the same impact we had by our force of numbers"[21] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn21> . As soon as they came to office long time committee chairmen were replaced and their voices were heard, their missions, make Washington more accountable to the ordinary, tax-paying citizens of the United States[22] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn22> . They were able to overthrow old party power partly because the majority of them owed little to party bosses. Remembers Sam M. Gibbons (D-Fla.) ``we didn't expect a lot of the Watergate class to win, we just put them on the ballot to have a Democratic name there.''[23] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn23> They largely fought against war and corruption and pushed environmental and economic reform.

Although some argue that like so many public officials before and after them they were jaded by money and dirty politics their work while in office proves quite the opposite. They are the biggest proof that Watergate influenced who ran in the 1974 elections and why. To an extent they have all kept the careful balance of power and accountability and transparency in all government affairs close to heart as they served their terms.

Even though President Richard Nixon's name was not on the ballot during the 1974-midterm elections he was on the minds of the voters[24] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn24> . Republicans were often equated with Nixon and in turn with Watergate and all of the corruption that is associated with the break in. The Democrats that year won a 2/3 majority in the house and a 3/5 majority in the senate[25] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn25> . There is no question that the voters sent a clear message: the current administration was not acceptable. They wanted change. They wanted economic security and an honest government. There lack of faith in the Republican Party to do so stems from Watergate and the corruption and scandal it represented and continues to represent. The democratic sweep brought a younger, reformist, eager, class of freshman senators and congressman alike. In a nation wide poll at the time Watergate was ranked the worst scandal in American history by 57 percent of the population[26] <http://webmail.sidwell.edu/exchange/NBiden12/Inbox/Drafts/RE:-12.EML/1_text.htm#_ftn26> . To say it had little or no effect on the 1974 elections would be ludicrous.


________________________________

From: Hunter Biden [mailto:hbiden@rosemontseneca.com]
Sent: Mon 4/11/2011 4:05 PM
To: Naomi Biden
Subject: