Daniel Ellsberg's Willingness to Tell the Truth Began the Unravelling of the Public's Confidence in Government
And thanks to Lewis Powell, the distrust has not unravelled trust in the military-industrial complex that undergirds the economy, it has unravelled the government's safety net.
Readers may note that I often cite Heather Cox Richardson’s columns in my blog, and today will be no exception. Her columns often place events that occurred in my lifetime in a historic perspective and, since she is a left-leaning historian, they often shed a left-leaning light on them. I believe today’s column on the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation, however, overlooks an important point.
She opens her column with a recap of Richard Nixon’s response to Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers with once phrase highlighted:
The road to that resignation began in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, who was at the time an employee of the RAND Corporation and thus had access to a top-secret Pentagon study of the way U.S. leaders had made decisions about the Vietnam War, leaked that study to major U.S. newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The Pentagon Papers showed that every president from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson had lied to the public about events in Vietnam, and Nixon worried that “enemies” would follow the Pentagon Papers with a leak of information about his own decision-making to destroy his administration and hand the 1972 election to a Democrat.
The FBI seemed to Nixon reluctant to believe he was being stalked by enemies. So the president organized his own Special Investigations Unit out of the White House to stop leaks. And who stops leaks? Plumbers.
In retrospect, there was one President from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson who might have lied about the stirrings in Vietnam but also warned the public about the economic impact of the war machine: Dwight Eisenhower. In his valedictory address Eisenhower alerted the American public to the existence of what he called “the military-industrial complex”. Three paragraphs from that address are provided below with highlights added:
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Ellsberg’s release of the Pentagon Papers, which he hoped would put an end to the Vietnam War and lead the public to question the wisdom of nuclear weapons, had the unintended consequence of undercutting the public’s trust in government itself, a distrust that was fanned by the right and ultimately contributed to where we are today.
Heather Cox Richardson’s column cited above offers an excellent recounting of the unravelling of Nixon’s presidency which culminated in his resignation. But as the concluding paragraph of her post indicates, in his resignation speech he took no responsibility for his actions, instead blaming his downfall on the free press that allowed Ellsberg’s photocopies of the governments secret documents to see the light of day:
In his resignation speech, Nixon refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. Instead, he told the American people he had to step down because he no longer had the support he needed in Congress to advance the national interest. He blamed the press, whose “leaks and accusations and innuendo” had been designed to destroy him. His disappointed supporters embraced the idea that there was a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press, to bring down any Republican president.
Three years earlier and two months after the release of the Pentagon Papers, Lewis Powell, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, released a memorandum to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While the memorandum was not widely known by the public, it did foreshadow Nixon’s assertion that his movement was destroyed by “leaks and accusations and innuendo” and that he was the victim of a “liberal” conspiracy, spearheaded by the press”. Here’s an excerpt from the Powell Memorandum that foreshadows this kind of thinking:
No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility…
…The sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.
The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.
Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.
Ellsberg hoped his release of the Pentagon Papers would amplify the public’s awareness of the military-industrial complex’s hold on Washington and undercut the public’s faith in the use of nuclear weapons… but instead it ultimately amplified the public’s distrust of intellectuals, undercut the public’s faith in the mainstream media, and paved the way for Reagan’s declaration that the government was the enemy. Meanwhile, the economic system that Powell and the business community valued- unfettered Capitalism— not only survived the “broad attack” of the “Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries”, it managed to persuade the public that “trickle down” economics would work to their benefit and that any improvement to the government’s safety net would lead to socialism. Instead of listening to and heeding Eisenhower’s warning, the public bought Nixon’s alibi.
My hope is that Harris and Walz will prevail and bring the down-ticket Democrats with them and their actions will restore faith in Democracy and the importance of a free press.