Slow Burn – Watergate | Live in New York (May 22, 2018)

Episode Overview

This lively episode of Slow Burn, recorded before an audience at Baruch College in New York City, explores how the Watergate scandal came to shape American cultural memory and collective understanding of presidential misconduct. Through engaging conversations with journalists, first-hand witnesses, and investigators, the show examines how news transforms into history, who controls the narrative, the myth of Watergate-era bipartisanship, and the resonance between the Nixon era and contemporary politics.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How News Becomes History—and Nixon's Fight for His Legacy

• Host Leon Neyfak opens on Nixon's determination to influence his historical legacy after Watergate. Nixon’s attempts at rehabilitation included interviews (notably the 1977 Frost interview), dinners with journalists, political memoranda for the Reagan administration, and a bestselling memoir, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (1978).

• Neyfak’s Reflection: Despite Nixon’s prodigious efforts, the endeavor to recast himself largely failed. Polls and public opinion have cemented the image of Nixon as a symbol of presidential corruption. Neyfak highlights how, over decades, consensus formed organically, despite Nixon’s revisionism.

  “There doesn’t seem to be a very large or at least vocal contingent of people out there in 2018 who love Richard Nixon.” – Leon Neyfak (05:10)

2. Inside the Senate Watergate Investigation

Guests: Mary DiIorio & Mark Lackritz (Senate Watergate Committee investigators, and spouses)

• Investigative Focus: Initially, the committee prioritized "political dirty tricks," but immediately shifted to the Watergate break-in and cover-up as the scandal escalated.

  “On my very first day on the committee staff, Haldeman and Ehrlichman resigned, Dean was fired, and I think Kleindienst was also resigned… At which point we thought, gee, there’s more here than we even thought was possible.” – Mark Lackritz (09:42–10:19)

• Work Culture and Social Life: DiIorio and Lackritz describe an all-consuming work environment, with investigators working almost round-the-clock, their social lives limited to their fellow staffers. Across party lines, relationships were cordial but limited.

  “Social life was an oxymoron. I mean, we literally were working 24/7.” – Mark Lackritz (11:30–11:34)

• Public Obsession: They recognized the hearings’ national obsession only when seeing crowds lining up around the block to enter Senate hearings, and from their friends’ awe at their involvement.

  “There was just palpable energy… I realized that this was not just another congressional hearing, that this had a lot more weight, momentum, gravitas…” – Mark Lackritz (14:11–14:23)

• Aftermath and Doubts: Nixon’s resignation was emotionally stirring for the investigators, who grappled with the weight of having contributed to a profound constitutional crisis, and the unknowns about its impact on democracy.

  “When you see that the President of the United States has now resigned, what have you unleashed?” – Mary DiIorio (16:03)

• Bipartisanship is Complicated: Although Watergate is mythologized as a bipartisan triumph, Lackritz recalls distrust and information barriers even among the staff, emphasizing it was not pure collaboration.

  “There was such a thing in those days as a moderate wing of the Republican Party… There was an overlap of the parties at the time.” – Mark Lackritz (20:53)

• Feminist Anecdote: DiIorio, the only woman on the investigative staff, shares a humorous story about escorting an angry Rosemary Woods (Nixon’s secretary) to a secret Senate office, suggesting how gender dynamics intersected with Watergate’s cast.

  “I most definitely know what I’m doing. I wanted to be sure we weren’t being followed.” – Mary DiIorio, outwitting Rosemary Woods (22:01–23:24)

3. Bob Woodward: The Origins and Power of the Watergate Narrative

Guest: Bob Woodward (Washington Post reporter, co-author All the President’s Men)

• Woodward’s Influence: Woodward reflects on how his and Carl Bernstein’s work, and the subsequent book—published before Nixon resigned—became the dominant Watergate narrative. The reason: it offered a coherent package at a time when the scandal was bewilderingly complex.

  “It packages it in a way that's understandable... And Watergate was complex.” – Bob Woodward (28:25)

• Reporting as Only Part of the Story: Woodward emphasizes that All the President’s Men covers only the press’s perspective—not the crucial roles of the Senate, House, special prosecutors, or the courts.

  “It’s not the whole story... The real issue in Watergate... It was an attempt to destroy the electoral system in the United States...” – Bob Woodward (33:40)

• Nixon’s Downfall as Personal Destruction: He recounts Nixon’s resignation address, underscoring Nixon’s own realization that his presidency was driven by “hate”—using power for revenge, not just the illegal acts.

  “Here, Nixon got it. That hate was what his presidency was about... And that's what is the real sickness of Watergate. It’s not just that it was illegal, but that it was about hate.” – Bob Woodward (29:39)

• Journalism, Time, and the Search for Truth: Woodward warns against the impatience of modern media, contrasting Watergate’s two-year investigation with the desire for swift answers in the Trump era.

  “There needs to be an accumulation of evidence. There needs to be debate… These things take a lot of time.” – Bob Woodward (26:41)

4. How Ordinary Americans Experienced Watergate & the Nixon Mystique

Guests: Gail Sheehy (journalist) & Virginia Heffernan (journalist)

• Blue-collar Nixon Voters: Sheehy’s original New York Magazine reporting chronicled working-class Nixon loyalists at Terry’s Bar in Astoria, Queens. She observes their enduring loyalty, their sense that Nixon “gave them a voice,” and the parallels to the modern populist right.

  “These guys all felt like nobodies until Richard Nixon gave them a voice… and they never gave that up.” – Gail Sheehy (38:53)

• Nixon–Trump Parallels: The panel explores the uncanny resemblance between Nixon’s grassroots supporters and those backing Trump, highlighting persistent themes of economic anxiety, resentment, and “strongman” adulation across decades.

  “There was no daylight between how they sounded when they talked about Nixon and how Trump supporters sound...” – Leon Neyfak (40:04)

  “The people who mystify me are not those voters as much as the many bankers, lawyers, even professors… We haven't seen a really convincing profile of the Goldman Sachs crowd that were behind him…” – Virginia Heffernan (41:21)

• Changing Demographics: Sheehy describes returning to Astoria in 2018, finding a more mixed, integrated scene—Veronica’s Bar, now woman-owned, with a political science grad tending bar and diverse clientele, revealing shifting urban politics.

  “It’s a totally integrated bar… in what used to be Archie Bunker country and now is much, much more polyglot.” – Gail Sheehy (45:48)

5. Watergate & Trump: Time, Memory, and Myth

• Persistent Myths: The idea that Watergate was the last gasp of true bipartisanship is probed by both Lackritz and Woodward, with reminders that the full story is more fraught.

• Danger of Simplification: The panel notes how “Watergate” as a shorthand for political scandal shapes American cultural parsing of any subsequent controversy (e.g., Iran-Contra-gate, Emailgate).

• Media's Modern Role: Woodward cautions about the temptations of instant narrative, especially in the Trump era, urging patience and rigor:

  “There needs to be debate. We run by all kinds of stories because we don't do enough work in the media to really dig out what happened. And it’s hard.” – Bob Woodward (35:21)

6. Quiz: Nixon or Trump? (46:48–50:14)

• Leon closes with a playful quiz, reading quotes about White House scandals and polling panelists whether they refer to Trump or Nixon, highlighting the echoing language and cycle of partisan complaint, media attacks, and scandal fatigue.

• Memorable twist: Donald Trump is the source of one of the most effusive quotes about Nixon.

  “I’ve seen some real killers in my line of work, but [Nixon] makes them look like babies. This man is a rock… even more amazing.” – Donald Trump, about Nixon (50:12)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On Nixon’s rehabilitation efforts:

  “Nixon was tireless as a Watergate revisionist for the final 20 years of his life.” – Leon Neyfak (02:01)

• On Watergate’s personal toll:

  “We burst into tears. You know, it was sort of like, oh, my God, what have we done?” – Mark Lackritz (15:09)

• On the myth of bipartisan purity:

  “Despite the bipartisan front.” – Mark Lackritz (17:31)
  “There was such a thing in those days as a moderate wing of the Republican Party… It wasn't until the 80s... that you really weren't a Republican [without a litmus test].” – Mark Lackritz (20:53)

• On Nixon’s downfall:

  “Others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” – Richard Nixon, quoted by Woodward (29:39)

• On press and time:

  “Watergate took two years, two months… There needs to be an accumulation of evidence. There needs to be debate.” – Bob Woodward (26:41)

• On loyalty and 'nobodies':

  “These guys all felt like nobodies until Richard Nixon gave them a voice…” – Gail Sheehy (38:53)

Memorable Moments & Tone

• The audience laughs warmly at the investigators’ account of their romance under the glare of Watergate’s spotlight.
• A standout moment: Mark Lackritz running into Bill Clinton on the Senate Watergate staff—long before presidential fame (12:41).
• The quiz segment humorously exposes the linguistic and emotional overlap between Nixon and Trump’s defenders.

Timeline of Important Segments

• 00:32 – Introduction, Nixon’s legacy, and revisionism
• 08:57 – Mary DiIorio & Mark Lackritz on Watergate committee staff experience
• 23:29 – Bob Woodward: Owning the Watergate narrative
• 37:12 – Gail Sheehy and Virginia Heffernan: Nixon voters and their echoes in today’s politics
• 46:48 – Nixon or Trump? Quiz segment

This episode vividly demonstrates how history’s meaning is constructed, not just in memoirs and magisterial histories, but through lived experience, journalism, and cultural myth. It’s a rich, often funny, and sometimes sobering meditation on how we remember—and how we repeat—the lessons of Watergate.