Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseWatergate did not end when Nixon left the White House. It changed how Americans saw their leaders and shifted power from the President to Congress.
Americans had heard their President lie to them for two years. Trust in government, already shaken by the Vietnam War, sank further. In 1964 about three-quarters of Americans told pollsters they trusted the government in Washington to do what is right most of the time. By 1972 it was about a half, and by 1974 little more than a third. Many people now assumed that politicians were dishonest.
The Washington Post had helped to bring down a President, and Woodward and Bernstein's book 'All the President's Men' (1974) was a bestseller. Reporters became far more ready to dig for scandal and to doubt official statements. Voters punished Nixon's party: in the elections for Congress in November 1974 the Democrats gained nearly 50 seats in the House of Representatives.
There was a more hopeful side. Nixon had been forced out peacefully by reporters, judges and Congress, with no violence. On taking office Gerald Ford said, 'Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.' The task now was to make sure no President could behave as Nixon had.
Key terms:
Congress passed four laws to put the checks and balances back. Each one answered a way in which the President, and Nixon above all, had gone too far.
The problem: only Congress can declare war, yet Presidents had fought in Vietnam without a declaration, and Nixon had bombed Cambodia in secret.
The law: the President must tell Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into action. They must be brought home after 60 days, with 30 more to withdraw safely, unless Congress agrees to the war. Nixon vetoed the Act, but Congress overrode him on 7 November 1973, less than three weeks after the 'Saturday Night Massacre'. Watergate had left him too weak to stop it.
The problem: CREEP had raised huge sums, some of them illegal and in secret cash, and used the money for dirty tricks and hush money.
The law: one person could give no more than 1,000 dollars to a candidate in an election, and gifts of more than 100 dollars in cash were banned. Campaigns had to report where their money came from. A new Federal Election Commission enforced the rules, and candidates for President could get public money for their campaigns.
The problem: the White House had tried to use government bodies such as the tax office and the FBI against people on its enemies list.
The law: citizens gained the right to see the records that federal government bodies held about them and to have mistakes corrected. Those bodies were also banned, in most cases, from passing a person's records to anyone else without that person's written permission.
The problem: Nixon had impounded billions of dollars that Congress had voted for programmes he disliked, such as clean water projects. In effect he was overruling Congress's decisions.
The law: the President could no longer cancel spending without the agreement of Congress. Congress also set up its own Budget Office and budget committees, so that it no longer had to rely on the President's figures.
So Watergate left two different marks on US politics: new rules for those in power, and a lasting public suspicion of them.
Don't say all four laws were only about Watergate. The War Powers Act grew out of Vietnam and Cambodia, and Watergate made it possible to pass it. Don't mix up the dates: the War Powers Act was 1973, the other three were 1974. And remember that these laws limited the President, not Congress.
'The main effect of the Watergate Scandal was the passing of new laws to limit the power of the President.'
How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [16 marks]
You may use the following in your answer:
You must also use information of your own.
The new laws were an important effect of Watergate, but I only partly agree that they were the main one. I will judge each effect by how many people it reached and how long it lasted.
There is a strong case for the statement. Watergate showed how far a President could abuse his power, so Congress acted to restore checks and balances. The War Powers Act (1973), passed over Nixon's veto, meant a President had to tell Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into action and withdraw them after 60 days unless Congress agreed. In 1974 the Election Campaign Act limited gifts to 1,000 dollars, to stop the secret money CREEP had used, and the Congressional Budget Control Act stopped Presidents refusing to spend money Congress had voted. Together these laws changed the rules for every future President, not just Nixon.
However, Nixon's resignation was the most dramatic effect. On 9 August 1974 he became the only President ever to resign, after the 'smoking gun' tape proved he had joined the cover-up. This showed that not even the President was above the law. Yet it removed only one man, and Ford's pardon a month later meant Nixon never faced trial, which weakened that lesson.
A third effect was the loss of public trust. Americans had heard their President lie for two years. By 1974 little more than a third said they trusted the government to do what is right most of the time, compared with about three-quarters in 1964. Voters punished the Republicans in November 1974, when the Democrats gained nearly 50 seats in the House of Representatives. This effect reached all Americans and could not be repaired by passing a law.
Overall, I agree only to some extent. The resignation was the most dramatic effect, but it concerned one man and was over in a day. The laws lasted, because they bound future Presidents, but they touched only those in power in Washington. The loss of trust also lasted, since no law could repair it, and it reached furthest, because it changed how millions of ordinary Americans saw their leaders. As it passes both tests, the loss of trust, not the new laws, was the main effect of Watergate.
What lifts this to the top level: it covers three effects, one of them not in the bullets, with precise facts, and the judgement uses stated tests (how many people and how long) to weigh them.
An answer that uses only the two bullets cannot reach the top level, so plan a third effect of your own before you start. Here the loss of trust works well. In a 'main effect' question, don't just describe each effect: say which mattered most and give your test for 'most', such as how many people it touched or how long it lasted.