Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor whom Richard Nixon attempted to fire in the Saturday Night Massacre has died at the age of 92. I use a video about those events in my social theory class, when we read Weber, because it nicely illustrates Weber’s views about authority and bureaucracy.
As the video goes on, you can draw an organizational chart of the official relationships between the main players — Nixon, Agnew and Haig in the White House; Cox, Elliott Richardson, William Ruckleshaus and Robert Bork at the Justice Department — and see how Nixon’s efforts to fire Cox were, in effect, an effort to act like he was the King rather than the President. Nixon didn’t have the authority to fire Cox even though he had the authority to fire Cox’s superiors. After Attorney General Richardson and his deputy Ruckleshaus had refused Nixon’s demands and themselves been fired, Robert Bork — then Solicitor General and third in line at Justice — agreed to do the job. Weber’s analysis of office-holding is nicely illustrated in Richardson’s refusal: “Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfilment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights … When the principle of jurisdictional ‘competency’ is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination — at least in public office — does not mean that the ‘higher’ authority is simply authorized to take over the business of the ‘lower.’ ” In the video, Bork is interviewed about his decision and in his defence says “Cox had done nothing wrong, but the President can’t be faced down in public by a subordinate official.” When paired with Cox’s famous statement that night — “Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people” — you get a perfect articulation of the difference between traditional and legal-rational authority in a democracy.
The interesting thing is that you don’t have to stop there. Because it’s clear from the video that Richardson’s great personal integrity (Nixon called him a “pious son of a bitch”) carried him through Nixon’s efforts to pressure him, and the following day Richardson got a standing ovation from the staff at Justice as he formally announces his resignation. So two other Weberian ideas — that office-holding is a vocation, and that charisma can persist in bureaucracies — are also relevant.
It’s an effective way to teach this bit of Weber, because he isn’t the most charismatic writer in the world himself, and although the students have heard of Watergate, the details of the constitutional crisis that culminated in the Saturday Night Massacre are new to them.
It’s funny, I kind of like Weber. At least, I was very taken with ‘Science as a Vocation’ when I read it a year or two ago. But maybe it was a charismatic translation.
Cox was a civil servant with civil service protection. Now that we are striping civil servants of their civil service protections as was done in the Homeland Security Department and the DoD more recently, the subordinates can be fired if they don’t play ball politically. This in a policeman is bad. But, it is equally bad in the Treasury Department where economic data has been deliberately manipulated across the board.
Our current imperial president has no problem threatening and corrupting our formerly incorruptable civil service members.
Indeed, Nixon did have the authority to fire Cox. He didn’t have the authority to obstruct justice.
How a belief in a unitary executive branch or in the separation of powers translates to a belief in “traditional authority” or a belief that the president is king is left unexplained in this post.
A better example of “the president as king” would be the more recent case in which a president asserted an immunity from civil litigation. That, clearly, is a case in which the president asserted that he was above the law—that ours was a government of men. Thankfully, that view was rejected.
One can reject that view and still hold that a unitary executive is what our constitution provides for, properly interpreted, and hold that the legislative branch cannot control the executive.
But even that may be too abstract. One need only remember the history: Richardson was appointed on the condition he appoint a special prosecutor, and he did. The special prosecutor was needed to chase the elected president from office, using all the means at his disposal. Cox, sworn in in the presence of the president’s political opponents, proceeded to investigate everything the president had every touched. All this happened at a time that the US didn’t have a vice president, and thus the legislative branch would each see one of its own receive the presidency or it would choose a replacement. In other words, a legal coup, with legal doctrines twisted or abandoned as needed to reach the end result. How the perpetrators of that plot could ever claim to be on the side of “law” has yet to be explained.
Thomas, that is utterly astonishing. Your world must be a fascinating place.
Matt, I’m guessing that you’re young enough to not be familiar with the events of Watergate. They are as I set forth in my concluding paragraph. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the legal doctrines I’ve mentioned. I recommend Myers v. United States (1926) and, on the other side, United States v. Nixon and Morrison v. Olson.
Or perhaps you’re just convinced that the fact that Nixon was guilty justified whatever tactics were used in removing him from office. I’d always thought that procedural justice was a liberal shibboleth, but I never knew it was just a shibboleth.
Thomas,
Please do note that what Clinton claimed, right or wrong, was not “immunity from civil litigation” full stop, but immunity while in office. This is, of course, a different thing, and it’s dishonest to slide over this. Now, it might well have been the right answer to say that he should not even have received that immunity, as the courts ruled. I don’t have a firm view on this. But, it’s dishonest to make it look as if he claimed he had full and continuing immunity.
Matt, that’s exactly right. Clinton claimed to be like a king, but only while in office. But even the most uncharitable interpretation of Nixon’s acts—for example, Kieran’s—would be that he claimed to be like a king while he was president. There’s no assertion or suggestion that he intended to claim such rights after his term ended. I’m not sure what the point gains you, since the formulation I offered simply followed Kieran’s; perhaps we both should have offered more specifics, but so much of this is commonly known that it doesn’t seem worth the effort.
Thomas,
As you are no doubt aware, the Constitution sets up a separation of powers, but not isolated branches of government. The executive branch we learn about in 9th grade civics class does not exist in the real world, nor has it ever. All three branches of government are intimately intertwined, so that the executive, through executive orders, makes laws, the legislative routinely enforces them, and the legislative is involved in executing the legislation it writes (courts have limited this bleeding from one branch to another, but not attempted to prevent it altogether).
Under the Constitution, presidents are not given the power to appoint a full branch of government at will. Presidential appointments must be confirmed by Congress, and cabinet secretaries then run their departments with a certain degree of autonomy. If the president does not like the direction a department is taking, he can replace the secretary (a fact not established in the Constitution but rather through Myers v. United States, to which Thomas referred earlier), but he cannot run the department himself, and he cannot fire underlings (who are not, under Myers, “officers of the United States”; see also Buckley v. Valeo).
There are other things I could argue with in Thomas’ post, but I have to work tomorrow.
All this happened at a time that the US didn’t have a vice president
Cox, sworn in in the presence of the president’s political opponents, proceeded to investigate everything the president had every touched.
Now, is this not a wonderful description of Kenneth Starr—except that Starr was actually selected by the President’s political opponents, rather than sworn in in their presence? (What the hell does that mean, anyway?) What astonishes me is not so much that you defend Nixon, but that you defend Nixon while saying that Clinton’s behavior was worse.
On your interpretation of the law, is there any legal way (or was there in the 1970s) for a President’s abuse of his office to be investigated if he does not wish it to be? Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy is not my model of procedural justice.
Since I was in a library last time I posted, I thought I’d page through Stanley Kutler’s The Wars of Watergate in order to assess whether the events of Watergate are as he claims. In Q & A:
Was Richardson appointed on the condition he appoint a special prosecutor?
Of course, Richardson was appointed by Nixon, so the question is ill-phrased. What Thomas seems to mean is that Richardson promised during his confirmation hearings that he would appoint a special prosecutor. Indeed, he brought Cox to his confirmation hearings on May 21.
Who was pressuring Richardson to appoint a special prosecutor?
Democratic lawmakers had been calling for a special prosecutor for a while. On April 30, the Justice Department’s own prosecutors wrote Richardson urging a special prosecutor and saying that to have them reporting to the President would put them in an “impossible position.” On April 29, Nixon himself had told Richardson to “get to the bottom of this,” had conceded the need for a special prosecutor, and had suggested several names.
What was Cox’s political affiliation?
He was a Democrat and Kennedy loyalist; Ted Kennedy did indeed attend his swearing-in. During the hearings Strom Thurmond asked Cox about his affiliation—and thought that it would be good to have a Democratic prosecutor.
Why did Richardson appoint Cox?
His staff prepared a list of potential prosecutors. Many candidates declined; Richardson was ready to announce the selection of Judge Harold Tyler, but Tyler withdrew after Richardson took too long to prepare guidelines for his responsibilities and independence. Richardson then approached Cox, who accepted, insisting on his independence.
Was the selection of Cox a plot on the part of Nixon’s enemies?
Absolutely impossible. Richardson himself had been secretary of HEW and Defense before being picked as Attorney General; the idea that he was a tool of the Democrats is laughable.
Was it improper or illegal for the Senate to bring up the matter of a special prosecutor during Richardson’s confirmation hearings?
Do the words “advise and consent” mean anything? If the idea is that the Nixon Administration could have been trusted with investigating itself, that is laughable. If the idea is that the idea of a Special Prosecutor somehow violates the separation of powers, I am not a lawyer, but that doctrine seems more like what sarek refers to as “isolated branches of government.”
Was “the special prosecutor… needed to chase the elected president from office, using all the means at his disposal”?
Needed by whom? Cox was selected by Richardson, Nixon’s longtime cabinet secretary. The appointment process does not stretch back to anyone who might have wanted to chase Nixon from office. Contrast Starr; the panel that appointed him was headed by the far-right judge David Sentelle, who had been selected by conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist, and who had lunched with North Carolina’s Republican Senators just before Starr’s appointment, etc.
Did “all this happen[] at a time that the US didn’t have a vice president”?
Not if “all this” means what Thomas is talking about: the appointment of the special prosecutor. Agnew resigned Oct. 10, 1973 (the Saturday Night Massacre was Oct. 21). Indeed, Nixon first learned of Agnew’s legal troubles on April 14, and Richardson only learned of them on assuming office; if the President and Attorney General-designate did not know of them, it is safe to assume that most of the alleged coup plotters did not know of them either. The story only seems to have broken in public with a WSJ story August 6.
What does that mean for Thomas’s thesis?
It means that at the time of Cox’s appointment, no one could have anticipated that Cox’s inquiries would result in the replacement of the President with someone from the legislative branch. So Thomas’s main thesis has no basis in fact.
Was this “a legal coup, with legal doctrines twisted or abandoned as needed to reach the end result”?
Only someone absolutely unhinged by partisanship could think so. A criminal conspiracy had been discovered involving some White House staff; Cox’s investigations revealed that the President had participated in that very same conspiracy. That is why the President was removed. The arguments in Nixon’s defense are arguments against any prosecution of political misconduct on the part of the President; either that executive privilege extends to the right to deny access to evidence of criminality, or that, in Nixon’s words, “if the president does it it’s legal.”
The equivalent to Cox in the Clinton years is Robert Fiske. Fiske, a Republican, was appointed by Janet Reno as the Whitewater special counsel, the Independent Counsel Act having lapsed. He investigated Whitewater and discovered what criminality there was to discover—none on the part of the Clintons, although Joe Conason says that he would have indicted Webster Hubbell.
The Clinton-era figure who corresponds to Thomas’s ravings is, of course, Kenneth Starr. Starr was appointed by Clinton’s enemies and did investigate everything to do with Clinton—his office went some way toward shaping the events of the Lewinsky scandal, which bore no relation whatsoever to his original remit (and in fact took place after his appointment). His goal was to use any means whatsoever to depose an elected president.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review