<em>January 6</em> Is a Dangerous Shorthand
January 6 marked the first time an American president incited a lethal attack on another branch of government—but the second attempt to hold on to power through a coordinated and subversive campaign. Watergate was the first.
As the House January 6 Select Committee prepares for its slate of public hearings—coinciding, as it happens, with the 50th anniversary of the break-in—Representative Jamie Raskin, a panel member, has promised something akin to the “Watergate hearings … in terms of explaining to America what actually happened.” But given the failure of the Watergate affair’s true nature to take root in popular memory, perhaps we should hope for better.
Accountability for the crimes we call “Watergate” was in many respects a success. Congressional investigators, law enforcement, and the press revealed what the White House fought to keep hidden; a president resigned; and various officials, including the former attorney general, were prosecuted and jailed for their crimes. But insofar as the purpose of accountability is to prevent a recurrence of misconduct, those efforts were clearly incomplete. At least one.
