Political Leaders In The 1970's

Richard Nixon had lost the election against John F Kennedy in 1960. In 1968 Nixon ran again and won on the promise of returning law and order to the country, thus starting the push-back that created the “hangover” of the 70s. Nixon’s definition of “law and order” fell in line with that of the working class or as Nixon had called them “forgotten

Moreover, this paper hopes to justify that the Watergate break in was directly caused by the pressure on Nixon from his advisers in relation to the Pentagon papers and the papers' appearance to the citizens. In addition, this essay hopes to prove that Nixon unknowingly sabotaged his own presidency in response to New York Times's publication and court case, Daniel Ellsberg's trial, and Watergate. Also, this Extended Essay hopes to demonstrate how the Pentagon Papers established a credibility gap between the citizens and the presidency. Furthermore, the credibility gap is a different perception of events between the government and its citizens. Thus meaning that when any national crisis arose it could significantly affect a president's approval ratings and destroy any relationship forming with in the public. Finally, the Pentagon Papers established a credibility gap in the later years of Nixon's presidency specifically with the Watergate break in and his claims of innocence. This research question is worthy of investigation because the effects of the Pentagon Papers are still felt in the United States with the recent events of Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks, and the revelation of the NSA spying on American citizens. That is concurrent to the feelings of the citizens in the 1970s with the government lying to its own

In my opinion, some people who were part of America society decided to kill some charismatic political leaders in the 60s decade probably due to the Kennedys’, MLK, Malcolm X, and Evers talked about implementing profound changes around culture, civil rights, and opportunities for minorities in the United States. In other words, some people wanted to keep the status quo, and the reforms were unwelcome from them.

President Richard M. Nixon’s administration had to face many international and domestic challenges in the United States between 1968 and 1974, some positive and some negative. His achievements in expanding peaceful relationships with both China and the Soviet Union are contrastingly different with his continuation of the Vietnam War. In the end, Nixon’s scandals and abuse of presidential power caught up to him, and his administration did much to corrode America’s faith in the government.

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

(Rudalevige, Preface) This book is about the renewal of power after the scandal of Watergate and how Nixon ruined the

The United States since its adoption of the Constitution in 1787 has accumulated total amount forty-five presidents over two-hundred and thirty years. These forty-five presidents as history and the United States continues, will be the subject of analysts throughout history, who will try to rank them from the best to the worst. The book written by James Taranto and Leonard Leo, ‘Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House’ is one of these analytical books shoving the presidents into a ranking by using a survey of professors of history, law and political science to rate them. This book by Leo and Taranto focus on a handful of prime objectives for the readers to overserve while reading the book. The first is to

As you all know, three years ago I won the popular vote for President, but was denied the office because of a “corrupt bargain” between the dishonorable Henry Clay and President Adams. The people’s choice was disregarded by the elite in power. As a result, I immediately resigned from the Senate and

Even in matters of national security the president has secured new and immense power by way of the USA PATRIOT act, which, remains unfettered to this day. It would be appropriate to compare the process our leaders undertake to the ancient tale of Icarus. We find that often, our presidents simply fly to close to the sun in their quest for power. This is most apparent in their abilities to harness the power of the media, build a co-operative relationship with congressional law makers, or to implement domestic policy. In these areas, one president or another has enjoyed some level of power and success for a time; that success however, would not be absolute. Often, the power they wield, which they have empower to help them lead, would be threatened by a plethora of oppositional actors and stimuli in the political field, some of the oppositional forces would

Conservatism began to dominate American politics in the 1980s because the 1960s had seen America get too liberal socially for most people's comfort. The average American was not comfortable with hippies and the anti-Vietnam war movement and the riots in cities. The 1970s saw economic trouble and liberal economic solutions that had been used since the New Deal were not working. By the end of the 1970s, people wanted something different, something that could make America strong and prosperous again.

The question sparks conspiracists to throw in their two cents right now, go ahead, and argue with a sheet of paper. Unless you’re one to never leave your house and wear hats made out of tin foil, you know that as a Democracy, we elect our own leaders. Now me? I’m here to highlight with a large red sharpie the worst of what three past leaders in particular have done, first with FDR, then JFK and lastly Nixon. While a president could get many things done in their time in office, as previously stated, this paper is focusing on the skeletons of each of the three carefully selected men of office.

Theodore Roosevelt defined the start of the modern presidency, and ever since the American public’s attitude toward their government has shifted. Polarization and divided government have become the new norms of government, especially since the Eisenhower administration, as well as the emergence of a presidential paradox. The paradox is as follows: Americans always complain about the invasion of the government in their lives, while demanding a powerful and ambitious leader that can solve the nations problems. Americans inherently put their political trust in the president over all other divisions of the government, therefore forcing an executive branch that has more power than the others. As for polarization, bipartisanship has essentially disappeared from Congress, making it virtually impossible to get legislation passed. In this new era of politics, executive orders are needed for presidents to get anything done.

Everyday citizens often live unaware of their government’s inner workings. The knowing of political espionage is often too heavy of a subject to be inducted in conversation. True, prima facie, modest twists and turns of information may not be considered substantial, but this inconsideration leaves much to be uncontrolled. It is easy for political leaders to become power crazed, to not realize the massive implications that come of their actions. Only after all is said and done do the people actually realize their government is an opaque mask of deception. The Watergate Scandal substantially impacted Americans’ trust in their government.

Among the similarities of Iran-contra scandal and Watergate we have a concerned likely wrongdoing at the very top of a presidential administration; conducting in the formal splendor of the Senate Caucus Room; fact-finding voyages in which courtroom rules of evidence, comprising of bans on hearsay evidence did not apply, instants of crackling tension and high drama; stretches of plodding, eye-glazing dullness; displayed strong-minded witnesses against strong-minded committee members; staff lawyers did most of the initial questioning, not the members; testimony in both cases was marked by conflict, by faltering memories which Watergate Chairman Sam Ervin called convenient forgetters. And finally, both had star witnesses.

This, amid the growing controversy surrounding the events of Watergate, has deeply affected Nixon’s public image and overall faith in the government. Trust in government has been waning, especially with the rise of public surveillance found in the FBI, CIA, and in some cases, justice department officials. Government trust is at an all time low, and it seems like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel so far. We seem to be on the precipice of a technological transition, with the breakthroughs in computer development coming at faster and faster rates, and public information is at an all time high. This convergence of government distrust and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers is almost fateful. Daniel Ellsberg has given the American people the power and the