The recent four day 15 ballot vote marathon to determine who the next Speaker of the House reminds me of classical music. Classical music has always been a mystery to me, much like the comings and goings of Congress. I know Classical Music did not start out like Willy and the Poor Boys out on the corner, down on the street–“bring a nickel, tap your feet.” It’s developed through several centuries of evolution starting out from monks chanting away in church music to Bach, chamber music, secular operas like The Marriage of Figaro and flying Valkyries in Norse mythology, to today’s atonal compositions that sprang forth in the early 20th Century. It is a musical history spans nearly 400 years.

One term that I associate with classical music is a “variation on a theme.” Take Sergei Rachmanioff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. Here is where it gets confusing. Niccolo Paganini was an Italian violinist and composer born in 1782 and died in 1840. According to Wikipedia he “was the most celebrated violin virtuoso of his time, and left his mark as one of the pillars of modern violin technique.” His 24 Caprices for Solo Violin Op. 1 has “served as an inspiration for many prominent composers.”

Rachmaninoff, on the other hand was Russian/American pianist and composer who died at the age of 69 in 1943. According to utahsymphony.org. Paganini’s 24^th Caprice “has a tonal structure that is ripe for variation.” And from what I can determine many composers through time have created some sort variations and themes off of Paganini’s work.

I am going to stop right there on the music because I feel like I am getting way over my head. It is all beginning to sound like an apple and orange sort of comparison. It is like comparing Tom Brady, a modern day quarterback, and Walter Johnson, a baseball pitcher from the early 1900s. They both threw a ball but they did it at different times and used different balls. Somehow in music it works but I cannot picture Brady on the pitcher’s mound with a football shaking off the catcher’s signals.

Take poor Kevin McCarthy. He is no political virtuoso. In fact some say his skills are suspect. He looks like a weekend kayaker on a Class V rapids. His election to become Speaker of the House will go down in history. For what, I am not sure. At the very least he was played like an historical variation on a theme.

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose

Mrs Robinson by Simon and Garfunkel

This is not the first time the House has had to deal with this sort of legislative mobocracy. Take the 1800 Presidential election between President John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The first time the House had to make an odiferous hold your nose choice. Bipartisan bickering was the theme of the day with partisan newspapers sniping away at anything that crossed onto their side of the street. The framers of the Constitution failed to take into consideration party factions putting up individuals to run specifically for president and vice president. In this election the Jeffersonians, Republicans (later to become Democrats) voted lock step for Jefferson as president and his running mate, Aaron Burr. The problem is that each had 73 electoral votes–a tie. Oops. John Adams, the Federalist nominee, received 65 while his veep choice recieved 64 to avoid the confusion of a tie had they won. The House found themselves with a rat stuck in the plumbing. The Constitution says the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes president and the candidate with the next highest becomes Veep. In some ways this was like the 2000 election in when officials examined hanging chads to determine the president.

The rat in the pipe was Aaron Burr. He was a smarmy guy, a cad known as much for his carnal exploits as his political and business hustlings. He was later tried for treason and acquitted. But in 1800, Burr brought Jefferson New York’s 12 electoral votes and the presidency. It was twofer for Burr because not only did he give Jefferson the presidency but at the same time he gave Federalist Alexander Hamilton a sharp poke in Hamilton’s political eye. Burr being a Republican and Hamilton a Federalist. Hamilton and Burr did not get along in New York politics and the 1800 election did nothing to improve their relationship. It only hasten their meeting on a a New Jersey dueling ground several years later.

So you think we think are divided now. Today, we are just playing a variation on an 1800 theme. This election was the first real game of political cutthroat where ties didn’t go to the runner. A lot of personal animosity played into this election. Hamilton and Burr did not play well with each other; and, Hamilton and Jefferson had been smacking each other around in Washington’s cabinet from the beginning, pulling at the old General’s ear for his soul. They took their personal battles into the fledgling press ripping each other apart like hyenas on carrion rotting away in the Serengeti. Party faithful and stalwarts shared this acrimony. And we haven’t even added the real loser in this mess, President John Adams’, and his cantankerous political and personal outlook as the first one-term president. After the election he shuffled off to Braintree and political exile–sort of like a ticked off unindicted Nixon.

Five members of the far-right libertarian militia group known as the Oath Keepers are being charged with with seditious conspiracy for their suspicious behavior during the January 6th Trump rally at the Capitol to disrupt Congress from certifying the 2020 Presidential election. Some called it a tourist lead coup.

According to CBS News seditious conspiracy is “a Civil War-era crime accusing the defendants (Oath Keepers) of seeking to overthrow, levy war against, or prevent the execution of U.S. law.” Or as the Oath Keepers claim: they “were in Washington, D.C., that day as security personnel for the president’s rally.” Their “primary role was apolitical and meant to provide volunteer disaster relief and security.” They were an amalgam of the Salvation Army and FEMA. One of their main fears, however, was to prevent the ubiquitous Antifa and other left-wing assailants from assaulting the White House.

The Oath Keepers reasoning is straight from Cheech and Chong’s 1971 album of the same name, track three: Trippin’ in Court. A lawyer is trying to defend his client who has been arrested with 24 pounds of marijuana by saying his client merley found the pot and was on his way to the police station to turn the contraband in. To the layman on the street this may seem suspicious–but in today’s conspiracy driven reasoning it’s a valid defense strategy.

The January 6th the stop the steal movement is not the first time Congress has been disrupted and had to hunker down from doing its legislative duty. Way back in June of 1783 about 400 disgruntled Pennsylvania Militiamen were seeking back pay for their years of service during the Revolutionary War. The British had been defeated at the Battle of Yorktown in October of 1781. Preliminary peace negotiation were going on with Great Britain–and the soldiers still had not been paid. Their fear was not from Antifa and far left socialist but that Congress would send them home without pay. Out of sight out of mind. In fact, Robert Morris, who was in charge of finance for the Confederation said it could take years to figure out how much was due individual soldiers. On top of this was a worthless currency. Once furloughed and at home, and with Congress’s financial record of paying off the Confederation’s bills, they felt they would never get paid or receive any bonuses, land patents promised when they had originally enlisted.

Much like the 117th Congress, the Continental Congress of 1783 found itself besieged and crying for militia assistance. On January 6th Congressional leaders sent out calls to Maryland and Virginia governor’s for National Guard help. Calls went out to the Defense Department for help in bolstering the thin blue line that was being stretched beyond the bike-rack defensive perimeter of the Capitol. Capitol and DC Metro Police decided that Capitol Hill literally was the hill to die on. It was their valiant effort that held the citadel of the Republic from what some assumed was an angry mob of tourist without gallery passes.

Congressmen in 1783 also called out to a state for help, Pennsylvania Governor John Dickinson. Congress wanted him to call out the militia to protect what was then the federal government. For some odd reason, Dickinson and his Executive Council sat on Congress’s request for a day. And then just basically said your on your own. Various reasons have been floated around why Dickinson and the state of Pennsylvania did not send help. As a former militia officer, Dickinson may have had sympathy for the soldiers’ position. There is some speculation that the militia being called out may have joined the mutineers. Or maybe it was a state’s right position where they were not going to respond to demands from Congress.

What we do know is that Alexander Hamilton, a Congressional delegate and a former colonel in the Continental Army, convinced the soldiers to let Congress adjourn and meet later to tackle the soldiers demands. Without Pennsylvania’s protection some delegates suggested that the capital should be moved. Given the opportunity to skedaddle Congress “left the building”–and Philadelphia. Without those reassurances of protecting their safety, Congress up and moved the capital out of Pennsylvania.They crossed the Delaware River and set up shop in Princeton, New Jersey.

George Washington did send about 1,500 Continental soldiers to Philadelphia, all for nothing. Once Congress moved across the river the soldiers lost heart in their demands and relinquished the fate of their back pay to a future time. The big consequence of this mutiny was when the Constitutional Convention meet in Philadelphia in 1787. Some of those delegates present remembered their last meeting in Pennsylvania and how the state could not protect the government. The framers of the Constitution felt the need to create a federal district under Congressional control. Hence, the creation of the District of Columbia as the capital of the United States.

epicAdam, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be

Article One Section 8

Creating a federal district under Congressional control sounded like a good idea at the time. But it didn’t appear to play out the way the framers intended. On January 6th it seemed like the 117th Congress was no better off, and subjected to the same lack of power in their pleas for help as the delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia were on June 20th 1783.

As for the Oath Keepers, their service is suspect at best and maybe judged seditious. Congress’s ability “to exercise like authority” over Washington D.C. creates the impression they have no more control of an angry mob at their doorsteps than their predecessors did in 1783.

some suggested links

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783

https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/view/43383/43104

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/early-capitals-united-states

https://washington.org/dc-information/washington-dc-history#

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. _{The Battle of Lexington by William Barnes Wollen National Army Museum Wikimedia Commons}

I was nowhere near Kenosha, Wisconsin on the night of August 25, 2020 when rioters and looters met up with Kyle Rittenhouse and other so-called militiamen. They might feel like modern Minutemen but others might call them, and rightfully so, vigilantes. In either case, I could not begin nor would I try to unravel the mind frame of the individuals, armed or otherwise running through the streets that night. To say that there was any rational thought taking place that night is not really up for debate. The same could be said of the Second Amendment debate following Rittenhouse’s acquittal.

Many are saying that Rittenhouse’s trial is a victory for self-defense and the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” I am not really sure if that it is so. The right to bear arms will always be debated but never be in jeopardy. But probably one of the most ignored phrases or clauses in the Constitution one that gets batted around like a handball; and gets lost in any Second Amendment debate, is the first phrase concerning the necessity of a “well regulated Militia.”

There are many arguments about gun ownership and a militia. The exact legal definition of “well regulated” civilian militia, has not been completely addressed. If a civilian militia cannot be determined what it is, it might be easier to determine what it is not. For instance, well regulated militia is not a Western posse out looking to lynch horse thieves and cattle rustlers. And it is definitely not an ad hoc group of gun owners protecting a used car lot.

A very brief look at the concept of a well regulated militia can be traced back to England’s Glorious Revolution. It made its way across the Atlantic and into the New World basically out of necessity. The way it shapes out in America in the 1700s is that in order to form a militia the individual militiamen needed to arm and equip themselves. Hence, the need to bear arms.

The Militia Act of 1792 required that all able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be enrolled in the militia. (An interesting concept. I wonder how many white males would willing enlist today.) It also stipulated that each militia member “provide himself with a good musket or firelock, (or rifle) a sufficient bayonet and belt,” among other accoutrements. Again, the need to own, and keep a musket or rifle was an essential part of the local “well regulated” militia. In essence, you could not have one without the other.

The act makes some sense when we look at the frontier lifestyle of early Americans and the education of James Madison and others of his time who wrote the Constitution. Their education was steeped in the classics of Rome and Greece. In the beginning of the Roman Republic only a Roman citizen could be a legionnaire. And, as in Greece, it was up to the citizen to provide for his own equipment. The concept of the citizen-farmer leaving his plow and taking up his shield was rooted in the ancient world and grew and nurtured in the English colonies.

For most of our history state militias were an integral part the local and national defense. However, their training and performance in combat was suspect, particularly during the Revolutionary War. Militia units were never the most reliable troops on the field of battle. In the Revolutionary War, British troops could break militia units with one volley of fire and then get them high-tailing it off the battlefield for home with a bayonet charge.

George Washington knew that if the United Colonies were to gain their freedom they would need a “well trained” Regular Army. It was Baron Von Steuben, a Prussian, who Washington looked to whip his tattered army from civilians into soldiers who could stand toe-to-toe with one of the best trained army in the world. This is not to say the militia did not play an important role in defeating the British they did. It was, however, more in the role of irregular troops lead by the likes of “The Swamp Fox” Francis Marion and others: harassing British foraging parties and supply columns. Fighting more like the Native Americans than shoulder to shoulder soldiers.

During the Civil War armies were almost exclusively volunteer. Units were recruited and trained at the state level. They did nearly all of the fighting and dying. At the time the US Army had less than 20,000 soldiers, and those that did not resign to join the Confederacy, were mostly posted across the frontier.

It was not until the Spanish American War did the need for a better well regulated militia become obvious. There was a lack of leadership, training and standardized equipment in state militias. The Militia Act of 1903 aimed to address the discrepancies among state militias. The Act reorganized state militias into what we now know as the National Guard. The Act ensured that there was a basic standard of training, leadership, equipment and organization in Guard units, not an ad hoc group of civilians showing up with a variety of weapons and uniforms on a whim.

Since then, the National Guard has become significant and integral fighting force of the US Army. The term part-time soldier probably does not apply to National Guard units that served multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But despite being well regulated, the Guard has had a few moments where they found themselves in confusing circumstance where their leadership and training was called into question. For instance, on May 4, 1970 Ohio National Guardsmen shot and killed four Kent State students and wounded nine others. This occurred during a demonstration protesting President Richard Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam War by invading Cambodia.

Like Kyle Rittenhouse, some Guardsmen said they feared for their lives. Some felt they were being surrounded, others feared snipers and the general press of the demonstrators. Whatever the fear, it was a breakdown in leadership. Eight Guardsmen were indicted with the intent to deprive students of their civil rights. None was convicted. In the judge’s opinion he said:

“It is vital that state and National Guard officials not regard this decision as authorizing or approving the use of force against demonstrators, whatever the occasion of the issue involved. Such use of force is, and was, deplorable.”

Judge Frank J. Battisti

The Rittenhouse verdict should be viewed in the same manner. His acquittal should not be a decision “authorizing or approving” armed, untrained civilians to use lethal force against fellow citizens. Military tactics and club swinging police with dogs wading into crowds is an ineffective solution as seen at Kent State, during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago or in any city dealing with riots. According to the US Army’s Field Manual on Civil Disturbances:

Crowd control requires its own thought process. Emphasis should be on prevention rather than confrontation. In combat, military forces are taught to fight and eliminate threats. In crowd control, military forces must deal with noncombatants that have internationally (Constitutionally) recognized rights. These rights must be respected while maintaining public order.

Partisan, politically motivated civilian militia, with teenagers armed with long rifles, is an unregulated mob, not a “well regulated militia.” Because of their lack of training and organization they have no business being on the streets. They are not the modern day Minuteman defending public safety or property.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militias-legal

https://everytownresearch.org/report/armed-assembly-guns-demonstrations-and-political-violence-in-america/

 

The ongoing and recent cyber attacks of governments, internet giants and corporate computer systems—and then holding their systems and data hostages—reminds me of pirates from the past. 

Piracy, as a profession has been around for a long time. Today, pirates do not have to physically board a ship to gain riches. Today’s hackers can find a secret password, like “X marks the spot” on company’s website. Hackers marked an X on Colonial Pipeline website. Colonial is a company that transports around 2.5 million barrels of oil a day from the Gulf of Mexico to the states across the  Southeast. Hackers were then able to hold the company’s system hostage and, as Liz Lemon of 30 Rock says: shut ‘er down.”  Just the temporary shut off of oil was able to create shortages and long lines at gas stations throughout the South. 

According to Bloomberg, DarkSide was able to get into Colonial Pipeline’s system through a virtual private network (VPN) designed so employees could remotely access the company’s computer.  The best way that I can describe DarkSide is to compare it to the Death Star in Star Wars.  The Death Star’s superlaser can destroy a planet the DarkSide has the capability to destroy a company–and maybe a country.

According to KrebsonSecurity, DarkSide “is a ransomware-as-a-service platform that vetted cybercriminals can use to infect companies with ransomware to carry out negotiations and payments with victims.”  Somehow DarkSide was able to get Colonial’s leaked password off the “dark web” and plant the Jolly Rogers in their board room to the tune of $4.4 million. 

And here is where they get more like their colleagues of the past. A main source of income for pirates was the ransoming of captured people (slave trading) confiscating and reselling appropriated goods for individual wealth, in particular gold and other precious objects.  It was not necessarily easy money, but it did have certain benefits commensurate with the risks. If pirates did not go down fighting like Blackbeard, who after taking numerous gunshots and saber slashes, was decapitated by a Scotsman wielding a broadsword. Chances are, if they were  captured, they were unlikely to receive any quarter from their captors; and usually faced the short end of a rope. As of yet, I am not sure if any modern-day hackers have had their heads looped off or swung from a yardarm.

The thing is we have an idea of who some of these modern day pirates are.  However, most of what we know about pirates of the past comes to us from fiction or movies like Treasure Island, The Pirates of the Caribbean (Johnny Depp, like Errol Flynn of the 1930s and 40s, made a nice living portraying pirates.); or Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips. 

Piracy, like hacking and “legitimate businesses,” has a simple maxim: follow the money—or follow whatever it may be at the time that will get you rich. The question is the method used to gather those riches.  For pirates it could be following slave traders;  Spanish treasure ships from the Americas; or container ships rounding the Horn of Africa. As global trade increased so did sea going global trade routes. And so did pirates.

The Mediterranean Sea has always been infested with pirates. The ancient Egyptians under Ramses III fought the “Sea People” in the latter era of the Bronze Age, which goes back to around 1000-1100 BCE. (Historians are still not sure who these Sea People actually were.) 

The Romans were constantly battling Cilician pirates, (from the southern coast of what is now Turkey), particularly those taking advantage of the slave trade. When Julius Caesar was 25 years-old he was captured by slave traders in 75 BCE.  He was eventually ransomed back.  While he was in captivity he told the pirates he would come back and crucify them. Not only did Caesar keep his word; he got his ransom money back. It is hard to imagine a CEO of a major company today doing the same. 

Piracy continued after the fall of the Roman Empire.  Mediterranean pirates were fighting a quasi-religious sea war in the classic Christians vs Muslims well after the Crusaders were pushed out of the Holy Land.

Well up into the 1800s these pirates were demanding tribute and still wreaking havoc on trade.  When they captured US merchantmen, Thomas Jefferson sent in the Navy and Marines “to the shores of Tripoli” to battle the Barbary Pirates and recover the captured merchantmen destined to be sold into slavery. The US needed to protect and secure its trade routes for the new country was no longer under the protection of the British navy. 

As Europe came out of the Dark Ages countries and empires grew they fought on land.  Europeans took to the sea and  began to expand and develop lucrative trade routes.  One of the first countries of this era in the maritime global trade was Spain. The Spanish not only found themselves fighting on land but also trying to protect their ocean going trade routes.  As their empire expanded to the Americas and beyond, they now had to fend off the English, Dutch and French pirates attacking them in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Caribbean Sea as well as their long time Muslim nemeses in the Mediterranean Sea. 

 Despite their illegalities and the killings, and in some cases they were pretty gruesome.  For instance, Algiers pirates were known to have fired alive French captives from cannons back at besieging French ships. What made all this possible is that pirates could not operate unless they were in league with somebody on land. Somebody who said: what’s in it for me. People who would look the other way when pirates shot somebody off in a cannon. 

A pirate’s ship at sea needs a port. In most ports they would have been tried and hanged for their seafaring ways. They would need safe harbors for protection; willing merchants to sell their appropriated plunder to; and willing able bodied seamen to man the rigging and board ships. Piracy, for the average seaman, paid a lot better than serving on a merchant vessel or a man-of-war in a navy. (The same case can be made today about some of the international hackers prying on the global economic cyberspace—they need a port.)

By the 1700 and 1800s the Spanish, French and English had well established colonies in the New World that provided valuable resource and wealth.  And as the old adage says: trade follows the flag and so does attacking trade—and the flag. Pirates like Francis Drake, Henry Morgan and John  Hawkins no doubt received a wink and nod from Queen Elizabeth I, while they operated with impunity against the Spanish in a Catholic vs Protestant face-off.  Not only were pirates making themselves rich; but later as privateers they were filling England’s coffers with plundered Spanish riches. Eventually all were knighted for their naval exploits. (I would bet that some of Putin’s geeks have been richly rewarded by Mother Russia for their efforts, too.)

Here is where piracy takes a bit of a turn.  First, there was just plain old greed motivating pirates.  Then came a religious twist.  Not only were pirates making themselves rich, they could intertwine it with religious leaders offering safe harbors for crippling infidels and heretics. 

It did not take long for the landed-ruling elites to realize why should pirates and religious potentates cash in on the riches.  The wars that European countries were waging against each other was done at a considerable cost. Piracy was a double a whammy way to get back at your enemy.  It denied them of colonial resources; and at the same time, filled their treasury to finance the war. It was a way of using your enemy’s wealth against them. 

Soon some of the most successful pirates became privateers.  Privateers were basically government licensed pirates who were given a “Letter of Marque and Reprisal.” A letter of marque was a contract issued to a ship or a captain and outlined who got what and how much from captured enemy shipping. What made privateering attractive to the ruling monarchs and governments of the time was that it privatized the cost of putting a navy out to sea. 

For instance, in 1794 it cost the United States almost $700,000 to build six ships, one the USS Constitution, and then three years to build. A privateer could batten down the hatches, unfurl the mainsail and hit the seas ready for action in the time it took to get supplies onboard and a crew. In fact, Article I Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the right “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

During the War of 1812 the US government issued more than 500 letters of marque as sort of militia of the sea to attack, not so much the British navy, but it’s commerce. In the two years of war US privateers captured 2,000 ships. 

Pirates are still out and about on the the sea today but it’s the ones on land that surf the internet hacking their way on board a corporate website not with blunderbusses, pistols and cutlasses that are causing the trouble. It is a bloodless profession fought in dark cold buildings with special software tools like: Rookits, software that allow cyber attackers to take control of a computer. This is an innocent program designed originally to remotely fix computer problems. That sounds like dropping the Union Jack and then running up the Jolly Rogers. 

Then there is Keyloggers. Software that records a computer’s keystrokes to get to credit card numbers passwords etc. 

And in this era of pandemic who can forget the specially placed malware virus and worms.  Once on board your computer it begins to steal your data and infect other computers. No mask needed here. What is needed is a safe port to launch their attacks from. 

What started out in the 1980s with MIT students goofing around on the newly launched internet, has turned into global trade (and piracy) with organized groups, like REvil and SolarWinds, operating out of countries like Russia, Iran and China—and who knows even the USA.  North Korea has a cyber army of about 7,000 soldiers to carry out cyber terrorism. 

And like those privateers of the past, who fought wars for king and country, they proved to be a handy force when it came to attacking their benefactors enemies. For all we know we could be in the early stages of the next war with these newfangled pirates/privateers. Instead of bombers or a missile strike taking out key infrastructures like a pipeline; several well paid geeks can corrupt and shutdown corporate or government computer systems; launch trojan horses, worms or whatever to bring a country’s commerce, and infrastructure to its knees. And they can do it and never have to climb over a gunwale carry a cutlass and pistols. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml

https://www.upguard.com/blog/biggest-data-breaches

https://thecinemaholic.com/movies-about-pirates/

https://www.worldhistory.org/Piracy/

https://www.worldhistory.org/Sea_Peoples/

https://www.bitidentify.com/blog/hacker-types-tools-and-techniques/

 

https://www.wired.com/2001/03/inside-russias-hacking-culture/

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/march/yes-privateers-mattered

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/militia-sea

 

“Just think how much you’re going to be missing. You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

Oh if that were only true. 

Richard Nixon spoke those words after incumbent California Governor, Edmund Brown, defeated him in the 1962 gubernatorial race. In reality the real kicking would not start until ten years later with the Watergate scandal. 

One of the anomalies about Nixon is that people loved to hate him.  And, despite never really being trusted  “Tricky Dick” completely swamped George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election carrying 49 states, racking up 502 Electoral votes and getting 60 percent of the popular vote. However, he was not so successful in his first run at the presidency in 1960 losing to John Kennedy. 

After that defeat, Nixon would head back to California where he would suffer still another political defeat only to reemerge to win the 1968 presidential election. 

Attaching the word “gate” to some sort of scandal may have never happened if in 1960 Nixon had accepted the urgings of the Major League Baseball players to become the Commissioner of Baseball. The legend of Bowie Kuhn fades in memory but the Nixon legacy is still with us; considering he resigned the presidency in 1974 and died in 1994 at the age of 81. And since that original gate scandal, we have had plenty of “gates” since.  

One of the first gates following Watergate was “Billygate.” Billy Carter was the youngest brother of President Jimmy Carter. If TV networks at the time would have made a 30 minute sitcom starring Billy, TV Guide would have described him as that zany but lovable peanut farmer from Georgia—and how he drives his older brother crazy. But then NBC was already airing Chico and the Man. 

During Jimmy’s presidency, according to RoadsideAmerica.com, Billy could often be found at his filling station attracting reporters on slow news days making “blunt statements about his brother, government oil policies and anything else that came to mind.”

Like many presidential brothers that created Oval Office controversy,  Billy became a presidential pain when he took money from Libya and did not register as a foreign agent, hence the “gate.”  All of this was going at a time when OPEC had already slapped a couple of oil embargoes on the West that created higher gas prices; long lines; and even-and-odd days with 10 gallon limits at the gas pumps. 

Jimmy’s presidency was a rocky one to begin with even if Billy had kept to brewing beer and “barbecuing ribs and catfish behind the gas station.” The big issue brother Jimmy was dealing with was trying to free Americans from Iran after Iranian Revolutionary Guards took over the US Embassy in Tehran. 

Foreign machinations, intrigue and buying influence is nothing new. One of the next gates was a bit more complicated than just pumping some cash into the political process. The Iran-Contra Affair or Contragate  was more of a menage a trois with various trysting places during Ronald Reagan’s administration. A real quid pro quo.

The US was going to sell arms to Iran to help its war effort against Iraq.  Additionally, Iran was supposed to help the US in its efforts to release hostages being held in Lebanon.  The money raised from the arms deal would go to fund anti-communist forces in Niagara in their war with Sandinistas. There was a lot of moving parts in this gate. And it did not take long for this swinging gate to unhinge.

President Reagan denied any knowledge of the scheme, despite his Secretary of Defense being indicted along with 13 other government officials.  Not to worry, though.  President George H.W. Bush later pardon them.  

Some gates are quite simple and not political as Deflategate. In a 2015 playoff game where the New England Patriots trashed the Indianapolis Colts 45-7, the Patriots were accused of of deflating footballs. Patriot coach, Bill Belichick, had a post-Reagan/pre-Trumpian comment said: “I really don’t know what to say or know anything about what we’re talking about here.” 

The latest proposed gate is Obamagate.  Although it has not made it into an official gate yet, there is just enough history flying around to make some of the more shaky claims seem logical. The alleged premise is a deep state conspiracy that has the Obama administration spying on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. 

There is no disputing the fact that the FBI, the CIA and Russia’s Federal Security Service (the FSB which took over the duties of the KGB) snoop and follow important and suspicious individuals. So, when Russians start showing up at Trump Tower, it is a good bet it’s not Alan Arkin as Lt. Rozanov in the 1966 movie “The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming.”  And when the Russians left  Trump Tower I doubt they were walking out of with a  signed lease agreement or adoption papers.

It would be easy to say that you cannot make some of this stuff up because there is just enough history and facts floating around that can be cobbled together to make a gate or a great fiction story.  A little embellishing here and there and it has all the makings of a Tom Clancy novel without high flying action or Harrison Ford.  

But any good story has to have good characters. This cast of characters of deranged mayors, convicted operatives, suspicious Eastern Europeans, family members meeting with slippery generals and foreigners reads more like a day-in-the-life of a Carl Hiaasen novel than Mission Impossible. After all, Mar-a-Lago is in South Florida. Now if we could only choreograph all this to music we might have another Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup.

The real question is what will be the next “gate.”  With the election coming up and legions of lawyers prowling state capitals in search of election irregularities we may well find us in a voting Verdun. An Electoral legal trench warfare that might last four years and not be settled until the next election.

Say what you will about Richard Nixon, he lost the 1960 election, one of the closest presidential elections in history, by 84 Electoral votes, 303-219, and the popular vote by less than 120,000 votes. But he knew enough to realize he lost, no matter what the margin of defeat was. Victory might be projected on Election Night; but as in baseball, they play all nine innings no matter how long it takes to see who wins. 

 

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2017/11/55-years-ago-last-press-conference/

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/19421

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/joe_guzzardi_with_no_baseball_look_back_at_richard_nixon_all_stars_20200712

https://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4782561/timeline-of-events-for-deflategate-tom-brady