Isn't Watergate far more consequential?
It's problematic that the FBI targets groups for poor reasons, but it doesn't result in much change to the country, it just unfairly harasses members of those powerless groups.
It's problematic that the FBI targets groups for poor reasons, but it doesn't result in much change to the country, it just unfairly harasses members of those powerless groups.
However, Chomsky's argument is that this "perfect experiment" of history, Watergate vs. COINTELPRO, reveals that "on the question of principles", Watergate shows that the press "think[s] that powerful people ought to be able to defend themselves", whereas "one tiny part of the COINTELPRO program was itself far more significant in terms of principle than all of Watergate, and if you look at the whole program, it's not even a discussion".
This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc.
But whom amongst those powerful groups would have had any kind of serious stake in whether Nixon or Ford was president? As opposed to whether the Black Panthers continued with their free breakfast and housing programs?
I guess on the other side of it I'm not convinced that the FBI would be effective at disrupting groups. There's lots of other things at play when you are talking about small groups of people with views outside the mainstream (a major one is that the mainstream will concede ideological ground, which can massively deflate a group, but that's the group succeeding…).
The tautology being that important people are important.[1]
Applying wishful thinking for the moment, what would America look like today if popular movements in the 60’s had never been infiltrated? What would the civic culture of America look like if regular people were “allowed” to participate in the public sphere without such underhanded tactics from the the government’s side?
But I guess all of that is inconsequential, wishful thinking or not.
[1] Infer disclaimers.
> This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc.
You predictably, given the demographics on this board, think that _the point_ is to stick it to The Man, The Press, or some Important Person, in order to embarass or dress them down.[1] And yet that is just a bonus, and was never the point at all. How many small-venue lectures has this man held, how many letters and emails to people-of-no-consequence has he sent, etc.? All in order to support and connect people working in grassroots movements (he explains this in the same interview). Not in order to, once in a blue moon, land a somewhat mainstream interview in order to tell The Press off to their faces or to combat other Important People of Consequence.
[1] Andrew Marr was so “dressed down” that he some years later cheered when GB and the US invaded Iraq—that interview had no impact on his view of the press or his role within it, as the Propaganda Model would have predicted.
Or the question, “Why are these groups powerless?”
I would argue that it deliberately results in no change, which is subtly but meaningfully different. Kinda like how not choosing is still a choice, suppressing change is enforcing a preference for the status quo.
"I just said that the thing was leading into directions that were going to create potential problems because they were exploring leads that led back into areas that would be harmful to the CIA and harmful to the government (unintelligible) didn’t have anything to do unintelligible)."..."Gray called Helms and said I think we’ve run right into the middle of a CIA covert operation."..."the problem is it tracks back to the Bay of Pigs and"..."the Bureau is going on this because they don’t know what they are uncovering" - H. R. Haldeman, Nixons Chief of Staff [1]
"Another leading Watergate burglar was James McCord, a former top official of the CIA Office of Security, the agency bureau which is supposed to maintain contacts with U.S. police agencies in order to facilitate its basic task of providing security for CIA installations and personnel. The Office of Security was thus heavily implicated in the CIA's illegal domestic operations, including cointelpro operations against political dissidents and groups, and was the vehicle for such mind-control experiments as Operations Bluebird, Artichoke, and MK-Ultra. The Office of Security also utilized male and female prostitutes and other sex operatives for purposes of compromising and blackmailing public figures, information gathering, and control. According to Hougan, the Office of Security maintained a "fag file" of some 300,000 U.S. citizens, with heavy stress on homosexuals. The Office of Security also had responsibility for Soviet and other defectors. James McCord was at one time responsible for the physical security of all CIA premises in the U.S. McCord was also a close friend of CIA Counterintelligence Director James Jesus Angleton. McCord was anxious to cover the CIA's role; at one point he wrote to his superior, General Gaynor, urging him to "flood the newspapers with leaks or anonymous letters" to discredit those who wanted to establish the responsibility of "the company."" - George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster Tarpley
Another angle worth considering, especially given his actions the last 4 years, is how Woodward was former naval intelligence and an FBI asset. [2]
1. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9608/...
2. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/19174#efmAMfANh