In an era defined by political turbulence and the looming specter of unchecked power, the echoes of Richard Nixon’s presidency reverberate with unsettling clarity. The infamous 1977 interview between David Frost and the disgraced former president serves as a chilling prologue to the age of Donald Trump, a figure who embodies and arguably surpasses Nixon’s disregard for democratic norms. As a nation grapples with the implications of a presidency unbound, it is crucial to revisit the lessons of Watergate and the insights gleaned from Frost’s historic encounter.
This article delves into the Frost/Nixon interviews, now revisited in Sky’s ‘David Frost vs…’ series, exploring the parallels between Nixon’s imperial posture and Trump’s bravado. It examines the warnings they offer for American democracy, focusing on key takeaways such as the psychology of unchecked power, the failure of institutions to hold power accountable, and the critical question of what happens when a president believes he is above the law.
Nixon’s Words: A Warning Echoing Today
In the spring of 1977, Richard Nixon, in a moment of stark candor, declared, ‘Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.’ These words, uttered during his interview with David Frost, encapsulated the pathology of unchecked power that defined his post-Watergate legacy. Now, nearly half a century later, they serve as a haunting premonition in the era of Donald Trump, a leader who has not only embraced Nixon’s imperial style but amplified it with unparalleled audacity.
Wilfred Frost, son of David Frost, reflects on the enduring relevance of these interviews, stating, ‘Modern-day events have made the interviews and the whole episode more relevant than you might think possible.’ This series, David Frost vs…, now streaming on Sky Documentaries, sheds new light on the infamous encounter.
The Frost/Nixon Interviews: A Historic Gamble
Initially dismissed by many, including US networks that declined to purchase them, the Frost/Nixon interviews became a stunning revelation. David Frost, often perceived as lacking the journalistic gravitas to challenge Nixon, masterfully elicited admissions and insights that captivated the world. The interviews, bought for $600,000 by Frost’s production team, were a gamble that paid off, revealing a disgraced president grappling with his legacy.
Wilfred Frost emphasizes the risk his father took: ‘You’ve got to remember that my father really gambled everything on this. He basically mortgaged his life to do the interviews.’ Frost’s strategy was simple yet brilliant: allow Nixon to talk at length, creating an environment where the former president would reveal more than he intended.
‘I’m convinced Nixon would never have said what he said to anybody else.’
Frost’s approach, as Wilfred Frost notes, lulled Nixon into a false sense of security, leading to unprecedented admissions.
Echoes of the Past: Parallels Between Nixon and Trump
From the outset of Donald Trump’s presidency, the comparisons with Richard Nixon were unavoidable. Both men shared a siege mentality, a deep-seated resentment of the press, and a governance style that blurred the lines between public duty and personal gain. However, while Nixon operated in the shadows, Trump’s presidency unfolded in the full glare of social media and cable news theatrics.
Nixon had tapes; Trump has tweets, rants, and rallies. While Nixon built his imperial presidency behind the scenes, Trump flaunts his, branding it with gold letters and cable-news theatrics. These stark differences highlight a crucial evolution in the nature of presidential power and accountability.
Institutions Tested and Found Wanting
The true tragedy of the Trump era lies in the failure of institutions meant to contain the presidency. Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Supreme Court have been repeatedly tested and often found wanting. Impeachment trials devolved into partisan theater, lacking the pursuit of truth and accountability that defined the Frost/Nixon interviews.
In contrast to the public reckoning that Frost facilitated, no such reckoning has arrived for Trump. The absence of a modern-day Frost, coupled with a Nixon unwilling to engage in meaningful introspection, underscores a profound shift in the political landscape.
The Reckoning That Never Came: Deflection and Escalation
What the Frost/Nixon interviews offered in 1977 was a rare act of democratic accountability. Nixon’s admission, as limited and lawyerly as it was, at least acknowledged that something had gone wrong. It was an act of facing the music, however discordant. Trump, by contrast, thrives in the noise. His approach to scandal is not denial but deflection and escalation.
When accused, he accuses back. When investigated, he cries witch hunt. When caught, he doubles down. There is no moment of introspection – only perpetual combat. This perpetual combat makes the idea of a modern Frost/Nixon interview seem implausible.
A Warning Unheeded: The Imperial Presidency Metastasized
The tragedy is not just that Nixon’s worldview lives on – it’s that we have failed to heed its warning. The imperial presidency has metastasized. It is not merely a Nixonian or Trumpian affliction; it is systemic. With executive orders followed through without congressional approval, the presidency increasingly resembles a monarchy in all but name.
The Frost/Nixon interviews are often remembered for their drama – the sweat on Nixon’s top lip, the devastating pauses, the steely-eyed stare of Frost. But their true importance lies in the fact that they occurred at all. They were not a trial, but they were an inquest. They were not therapy, but they were a confrontation. And in that moment, power blinked.
Conclusion: Answering the Unasked Question
The Frost/Nixon interviews were supposed to be the final chapter of a dark period. Instead, they were the first warning. The fact that such a moment seems impossible today is not just a reflection of the men who hold office, but of the public that empowers them. We must remember what Frost forced Nixon to say, and more importantly, what Nixon believed.
Now, more than ever, we must answer a question that Nixon raised, intentionally or not: what happens to democracy when a president believes he is the law? The echoes of Nixon’s era, amplified by the actions of Trump, demand a renewed commitment to accountability, transparency, and the fundamental principles of democratic governance. Only by confronting this question can we hope to safeguard the future of American democracy.
Leave a Reply