Commemorating Watergate

1
Kurt Deion – Commemorating Watergate: Public History and Public Scandal
“What is a presidential library if not a shrine to the memory of a president’s life?” That
sentiment, expressed by Richard Nixon’s younger brother, Edward, in a 2014 interview with the
Orange County Register, epitomizes the contrast in the goals of the National Archives and
Records Administration and the Richard Nixon Foundation. Since they partnered to operate the
Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in 2007, the two organizations have expressed
conflicting ideas about how the 37th president should be commemorated. This has been most
apparent in relation to the Nixon Library’s Watergate Scandal exhibit. The Nixon Foundation
preferred to focus on its namesake’s positive contributions and achievements and gloss over his
shortcomings and misdeeds, so much so that the library was dubbed “Nixonland” by one critic
prior to the partnership.1 The foundation’s actions reflected a pro-Nixon agenda, which aimed to
inspire reverence for the president. This guided its board of directors to repeatedly obstruct
attempts to assemble a substantive narrative about his life. The foundation’s 2011 mission
statement noted that its goal was to “illuminate and protect the legacy” of Richard Nixon.2 This
pro-Nixon agenda was apparent in “The Final Campaign,” a Watergate Scandal gallery that was
criticized for its controversial perspective. By contrast, the National Archives favored a more
comprehensive, interpretive display than the maligned Watergate exhibit that graced the library
for seventeen years. Through the work of Timothy Naftali, the first director of the library after its
rededication, the Archives sought to add credibility to the institution with galleries supported by
sources and evidence in place of an enthusiastic, but misleading shrine. Despite its unique
circumstances, this struggle also embodies many of the larger issues characteristic of the
enterprise of historical commemoration: What is the purpose of commemoration? Who should be
the driving force behind it? How should controversial aspects of a person’s legacy be addressed

2
in a building which bears their name?
The presidential libraries system was established when Congress passed the Presidential
Libraries Act of 1955. This legislation gave the National Archives and Records Administration
leverage to persuade presidents to donate papers and historical materials from their
administrations to be housed in a library under the Archives’ persuasion.3 As stipulated by the
act, although the institutions are controlled by the federal government after completion, they
must be constructed with private funds.4 This money is typically raised by private foundations
that are often comprised of people that are personally connected to the president.
Every president since Herbert Hoover instituted a library operated by the National
Archives. The longtime exception was the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, which was
a privately-run facility for over a decade. The building broke ground in 1988, its construction
funded by $25 million from the Richard Nixon Foundation, which at the time was called the
Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation.5 The foundation’s board of directors has
traditionally been comprised of people with ties to the president, and presently includes Nixon’s
two children, Julie Nixon Eisenhower and Tricia Nixon Cox, and his brother, Edward Nixon.6 Its
current chairman is Ronald H. Walker, whose relationship with Nixon extends back to his 1968
campaign.7 Nixon’s daughters had significant influence over the library, as did the foundation,
which controlled the facility until it became part of the federal presidential libraries system in
2007. The Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace, “the fruition of dreams of the handful of
birthplace foundation members,”8 was dedicated on July 19, 1990, but according to the Los
Angeles Times opened with “a mix of revisionist fanfare.”9 The Times charged that the library
disseminated an altered historical record, and was unable to reach a level of credibility similar to
the federally-managed presidential libraries.10 One reason for this was that the facility did not

3
contain any papers or materials from Nixon’s presidency; in the wake of Watergate, Congress
seized them out of fear that they would disappear. This fear was not so far-fetched, since Nixon
made an agreement with the General Services Administration that would have permitted a
portion of his presidential papers to be destroyed.11 To intercede, Congress moved to pass the
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which gave the National Archives
control of Nixon’s records.12 Nixon’s successor, President Gerald R. Ford, signed it into law in
December 1974.
Scholars also criticized the library for altering the historic record in its galleries.
Presidential libraries are comprised of two parts: the museum, which contains artifacts and
exhibits, and the library archives. Although both are crucial, administrators of several
presidential libraries maintained that less than one percent of visitors utilized their archives
according to a 2010 article in the Orange County Register.13 This emphasizes the importance of
accuracy and balance in the museum exhibits, since that is where most patrons derive
information. Observers consistently derided the Nixon Library for its lack of these traits.
Historian Stanley Katz, who was once a contender to head the National Archives, told the Los
Angeles Times that the foundation “put up a historical exhibit that deliberately falsified the
record.”14 In a similar vein, scholar Stanley Kutler described the facility as “another Southern
California theme park,” and remarked that “[the library’s] level of reality is only slightly better
than Disneyland.”15 Even Ronald Walker of the Nixon Foundation acknowledged that the
original museum galleries skewed parts of Nixon’s political career.16 In the display about the
1970 shooting at Kent State University, there was no mention that the four student protestors
killed were shot by members of the National Guard.17 This omission suggests the forces behind
the library intended to divert any blame from Nixon, since the incident was connected to a wave

4
of protests in reaction to his decision to conduct military operations in Cambodia. It also
signified the willingness of the library to omit unflattering facts and frame those used in its
galleries in a manner that complimented Nixon. The section of the facility where this was most
evident was also the exhibit most besieged by controversy: the original 1990 Watergate Scandal
exhibit, titled “The Final Campaign,” which was what Nixon called the battle to save his
administration.18 In a 2007 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Nixon scholar David
Greenberg noted that “everybody who visited it, who knew the first thing about history, thought
it was a joke. You didn’t know whether to laugh or cry,”19 because the historical record was so
distorted. Sociologist Michael Schudson has identified four leading interpretations of Watergate:
the radical leftist view, in which Nixon is a scapegoat who diverted attention “from fundamental
structural faults in the American system;” the liberal view, where Watergate is regarded as “a
crisis over presidential abuses of power;” the conservative view, which holds that the American
political system worked because the way Watergate was addressed “reasserted the virtues of our
system of constitutional order;” and the radical right view, where the scandal is seen as a witch
hunt orchestrated by Democrats and the liberal media.20 Greenberg’s perspective on Watergate
aligns with the liberal view, but the “Final Campaign” embodied the radical right view. This
controversial viewpoint of the scandal reiterates the question of whether or not a president’s
friends and allies should be permitted to control commemoration.
The content of the exhibit was strongly-worded; the text of one panel stated, “Not one
shred of evidence was ever unearthed which even remotely suggested that the President ordered
the bugging or knew about it in advance.”21 Although there was no evidence that connected the
president to the break-in before it occurred, the writing used exudes a pro-Nixon tone that would
not be used by a scholarly historian. The display also called Democrat George McGovern’s bid

5
for the presidency “hopeless” and implied that he used the break-in at the Watergate Hotel as a
futile effort to win the 1972 election by connecting the president to illegal activities and thereby
discrediting him.22 The exhibit described Nixon’s reaction to the break-in as incredulous, and
claimed that he immediately sought to determine if the White House was involved in any way.23
The loyalty to Nixon is evident in the tone of this statement. For all conduct that could be
construed as dishonorable, the gallery exonerated the president and placed blame on his aides
such as former Attorney General John Mitchell. The text of one section excused any
questionable behavior as politics as usual: “Nixon, a politician in a political year, acted in a
political way.”24 The text argued that Nixon’s post-break-in actions were based on concern that
Democrats would not be diplomatic about the incident during an election year. Though some
Democratic politicians did make statements that implied they had the ability to remove Nixon
from office, the exhibit did not use their remarks in a way that provided context and tone. The
gallery also failed to note that members of Nixon’s own Republican Party were prepared to
impeach him before his resignation in 1974.25 Nonetheless, this fear of a coup by Democrats
spurred the president to discuss different ways to address possible political ramifications,
“certain, at all times, that the White House was not involved,” according to the exhibit.26 This
line from the exhibit was intended to reiterate Nixon’s stance that there was no correlation
between the burglary and his administration, as well as to provide context for the discussion
recorded on the so-called “smoking gun tape” that influenced his resignation after its release.
On June 23, 1972, less than a week after the Watergate break-in, Nixon and White House
Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman conversed about asking the director of the CIA and another
official to request the acting director of the FBI end the bureau’s investigation. When this
“smoking gun” tape became known in July 1974, the exhibit stated that the “simple fact” that the

6
president was thinking about political and national security reasons when he implemented the
short-lived plan was enough to bring down the Nixon Administration.27 However, the gallery did
not provide examples of how national security could have been affected. One exhibit panel also
noted that, unlike the gallery itself, Nixon did not shift any blame for the scandal on to others,
but that unsubstantiated rumors made it difficult for the administration to concentrate and
operate, which led to the resignations of White House officials such as Haldeman.28 Another
statement insinuated that Democrats wanted Nixon’s impeachment or resignation “based only on
their own willingness to believe anything that would justify reversing the overwhelming decision
of the American people in [the election of] November 1972.”29 The likely intent of this
insinuation was to make library visitors feel that liberals had tried to overrule their votes and pit
them emotionally against the Democratic Party. The exhibit also vilified the testimony of White
House Counsel John Dean, stating that his story was contradicted by the other thirty-four
witnesses who testified during the Senate hearings, and that “the record of the hearings ran more
than 7,500 pages, some two million words. Only the words of John Dean were spoken against
the President.”30 Animosity toward Dean was evident in the exhibit, which said, “Dean offered
nothing more than his own impressions – he had no evidence to support his accusations [toward
President Nixon].”31 In addition to its attempts to discredit Dean, the exhibit partially blamed the
weight of his testimony on the media, as it noted “[Dean’s] appearance was the only one to
receive live, continuous coverage on all three major networks simultaneously.”32 This
perspective is consistent with Nixon’s view of the mass media, which he considered an enemy.33
The exhibit’s language targeted other figures who acted unfavorably towards Nixon, such
as U.S. Senator Sam Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee. The display noted
that the North Carolinian tried to suppress the rights of African Americans when he voted against

7
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, given that vote, called into question his elevation “to the lofty
status of guardian of the Constitution.”34 Although Ervin did vote against the Civil Rights Act,
his record on race relations was irrelevant to Watergate and was used to make him seem unfit to
head the committee. In addition to out of context facts, the “Final Campaign” exhibit contained
unfounded comments, including one that stated Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and
Carl Bernstein may have violated ethics and laws “in their zeal to create a Watergate story,”
including by offering bribes.35 The “Final Campaign” exhibit cleared Nixon of almost any
wrongdoing in the Watergate Scandal, while blaming the media, members of the president’s
administration, and those who ruffled Nixon’s feathers. Nixon himself approved the wording of
the museum’s interpretive texts before the Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation opened the
library in 1990.36 This supports the idea that a pro-Nixon slant was inserted into the “Final
Campaign” gallery. Former Nixon aide Bob Bostock wrote the script and sent it to Nixon in
June, one month before the complex opened. In an accompanying memo, Bostock told the
former president, “My ultimate goal in this exhibit is this: That people will walk away from it,
shaking their heads, wondering how the nation ever let such a great president be taken away
from them.”37 Nixon described his former aide’s strategy as “brilliant.”38
Evidence of the Nixon Foundation’s pro-Nixon agenda extended beyond the content of
the Watergate exhibit. The building’s original 1990 brochure remarked that the library was “a
window on America’s system of government, on the Presidency, and on the historic
achievements of a senior statesman who was integrally involved with the most important issues,
events, controversies, and personalities of our time.”39 Although the brochure noted that Nixon
was “integrally involved” with controversies, there was no direct mention of Watergate or the
“Final Campaign” exhibit. Over the subsequent decade and a half, while the library was operated

8
solely by the foundation, the brochure was reduced to two sides, which minimized the already
limited information it contained. The only possible reference to Watergate was the description of
the museum as a “dramatic roller coaster ride through a half century of California, U.S. and
world history.”40 So evident was the library’s pro-Nixon bent that, according to a 1997 article
from the Los Angeles Times, there was concern that if documents from Nixon’s presidency were
transferred from the National Archives, public access would have been restricted by the
foundation.41 This was a reasonable concern, as the library’s first director, Hugh Hewitt,
instituted a policy when the facility first opened that prohibited potentially critical researchers
such as Bob Woodward from using materials.42 The policy was rescinded within two days, but it
demonstrated the length to which the Nixon Foundation was willing to go to prevent historical
research to tarnish the 37th president’s legacy. It also proved how little the foundation cared
about allowing people to access the library’s archives.
The first steps toward reform came in 1996, when Nixon’s daughters lost influence over
the library to director John H. Taylor, after which a board of directors took charge.43 Over time,
Julie Eisenhower and Tricia Cox came to support the decision to incorporate the complex into
the federal presidential libraries system. The aim with this move was to transfer the facility’s
costs to the federal government and to erase the stigma attached to the library.44 Since at least
1997, there was talk about a deal between the Nixon Foundation and the National Archives to
relocate Nixon Administration materials from Maryland to Yorba Linda under the provision that
they remain under supervision of the federal government. Martin Anderson, who helped develop
the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, remarked in 1997 that access to the documents "might
be a problem if the Nixon Library is a completely private organization. But if they turn control
over to the presidential libraries system, then I would think that, more than anything, would

9
guarantee access to the papers.”45 Anderson’s comment suggests a fear that, were the foundation
to have control over Nixon’s papers, access to them would be limited, or they could be destroyed
as the president had intended. For presidential libraries in the NARA system, public access to
presidential materials is a crucial aspect of their mission. Significant progress with the transfer of
Nixon’s materials was made in January 2004, when Congress passed a bill that amended the
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which allowed for a federally-operated
Nixon Library to be established in Yorba Linda.46 The following year, Allen Weinstein, the
archivist of the United States, and John H. Taylor, the director of the Nixon Library and
Birthplace Foundation, exchanged letters of intent which laid the ground work for a merger to
allow the library to enter the NARA presidential libraries system. In his March 15th letter, Taylor
acknowledged that the library “understands NARA’s desire to present a more strictly factual
account in our museum of the events leading to the President’s resignation.”47 Although the term
“factual” is objective, Taylor’s statement suggests that the Archives wished to present a narrative
that relied on primary and secondary sources. He also commented that the library would
“provide the proposed narrative for your colleagues’ review,” and that the institution was
“grateful for the opportunity to work with NARA experts in selecting documents and artifacts to
help tell the story in a compelling and appropriate way.”48 The careful wording of Taylor’s letter
indicates that the foundation was interested in becoming part of the federal presidential libraries
system, but that it suspected that the Archives might present a narrative that did not flatter Nixon.
In 2006, the National Archives issued a press release that announced Timothy Naftali as
the first director of the renamed Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. A Harvard-
educated Cold War historian, Naftali had experience as the director of the Presidential
Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs. Naftali was

10
recommended by John H. Taylor to NARA and was offered the position within several days.49
His experience and training indicates that the Archives wanted to hire someone with his
background to take the Nixon Library in a more scholarly direction. In his announcement, Allen
Weinstein declared that Naftali “will be able to set a new tone for a national center to study the
Nixon era.”50 In 2011, Naftali recalled his arrival as director, stating, “This was a private
institution with a particular point of view. It was accustomed to presenting the president in a
certain light. I was coming in as a professional historian who was committed to making sure the
facts were none.”51 Naftali assumed his role as director the following October, and he set out to
elevate the reputation of what Christopher Goffard of the Los Angeles Times described as “the
most kicked-around of presidential libraries.”52 Naftali stated, “I can’t run a shrine.”53 Five
months after his arrival, the “Final Campaign” exhibit was roped off as its two week demolition
began. He previously described the display as “a good explication of how Nixon viewed
Watergate. The trouble is, it gives the impression it’s history.”54 This statement supports the
notion that the historical record at the library pre-Naftali was revised to be more favorable to
Nixon’s reputation. It also indicates that museum exhibits should adhere to a more objective
historical record. Before the gallery was destroyed, Naftali ordered all of its content to be
photographed so that the photos could be used as artifacts in the future exhibit. It was difficult to
dismantle the gallery; removal of its panels required extensive labor with a crowbar, hammers,
and screw gun, and a Sawzall.”55 Of the Watergate display, curator Olivia Anastasiadis
commented that “it was as permanent as you can build it.”56 The amount of difficulty in
removing the exhibit and the curator’s statement suggest that the Nixon Library and Birthplace
Foundation intended the text Bob Bostock wrote for “The Final Campaign” to be permanent and
the last word about the Watergate Scandal.

11
Removing the original Watergate exhibit was not the only challenge Naftali encountered
during his first few months as director. He discovered that docents at the museum were
unfamiliar with key aspects of the Watergate Scandal, including the name of the group who
perpetrated the break-in.57 They were also unaware of whether or not there was anything
incriminating on the tapes from the Nixon White House.58 This suggests that the foundation
employed other tactics in protecting Nixon’s legacy from the scandal, such as omitting key
factual aspects of the historical record from docents’ training. Unsatisfied with their lack of
Watergate-related knowledge, Naftali opted to remove the leading of student tours from the
docents’ duties. In a 2010 interview that appeared in Los Angeles Magazine, Naftali explained
that he “didn’t want them to say things that would give the impression that we are a legacy
shop.”59 Naftali’s actions with the docents were consistent with the goal of the National Archives
to transform the Nixon Library into a more bipartisan research facility. The docents did not react
kindly being stripped of student tour responsibilities. In the same interview, the director
remarked that, “Some of them quit… It’s been very intense. They have been very upset. They
have written letters to get me fired, things like that.”60 One disgruntled docent called Naftali an
epithet that targeted the director’s homosexuality.61 Ronald Walker did not agree with Naftali’s
strategy and stated, “I could have taken those docents and wrapped them around my finger with
just a little bit of humility. But to push it in their face – taking the school tour away from
them…”62 In a 2015 interview, Walker remarked that Naftali was “not a team player.”63 The
hostility aimed at Naftali, and the reasons behind it, indicates a greater animosity toward the
agenda set forth by him and the National Archives. It also exemplifies the greater battle over
how history is interpreted and commemorated. This “war over Nixon” continued throughout the
development of the modern Watergate exhibit and Naftali’s tenure as director.

12
As the process to create a new Watergate gallery began, Naftali established that he
wanted it to be “an interactive, self-curated experience,”64 which reflected the emerging trends of
public history at the time. He added that it would be up to guests to determine for themselves
what Nixon’s role was in the scandal, and that it was not his decision to make for patrons.65
Naftali emphasized that he did not want the exhibit to provide an artificial closure through
historical analysis, and that he wanted to avoid “replacing one form of didacticism with
another.”66 This suggests that Naftali wished for the new exhibit to be comprehensive, but did
not want to present a narrative that assumed Nixon’s guilt. In July 2007, the Nixon Library
officially became part of the federal presidential libraries system. The reduced role of the Nixon
Library and Birthplace Foundation was to manage the gift shop and to host events at the library
to generate funds for exhibits and programs,67 as well as maintain the president’s birthplace and
the nearby reflecting pool.68 After several years under this arrangement, materials from the
Nixon White House were finally transferred from Maryland to Yorba Linda in 2010.
At this time, Naftali was nearly finished developing the content of the new Watergate
gallery. When the proposed script was unveiled in April 2010, members of the Nixon Library
and Birthplace Foundation, now renamed the Richard Nixon Foundation,69 took umbrage at what
they felt was an anti-Nixon perspective. The foundation, which had been promised it could
consult on the exhibit, asked for and was granted an extended period to compose its response,
which pushed back the scheduled July 1st opening of the Watergate gallery.70 As the Watergate
exhibit area and other sections of the museum remained vacant during the summer, an irritated
Walker stated, “I don’t like to see empty spaces. That’s annoying. I don’t know whether [Naftali]
doesn’t have the ability, or the capability, or what’s going on.”71 Although Naftali was occupied
at this time as he traveled back and forth from coast to coast to oversee the Nixon

13
administration’s materials being transferred,72 Walker failed to acknowledge the Nixon
Foundation’s responsibility in the delay. This demonstrates the failure of the foundation to hold
itself accountable, and how instead Walker attempted to place all blame on the federal side of the
library.
On August 2, Walker sent a 158 page memorandum on behalf of the board of directors
that detailed its issues with Naftali’s draft of the Watergate exhibit. Walker noted that the
foundation “accepts that the new exhibit on Watergate will not take the same advocacy approach
the museum’s original Watergate exhibit took and will instead reflect a more balanced view of
the entire matter.”73 Yet he also argued that, compared to the exhibits that addressed
controversies at the libraries of Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan, the proposed Watergate
gallery would be “substantially more negative” in its tone.74 The proposed exhibit addressed
Watergate and Nixon’s role in the scandal in a way that conflicted with the foundation’s mission,
which was amended six months later, to “protect” the president’s legacy. This spurred numerous
requests for alterations. One of the foundation’s requests was that “something complimentary”
be said about H.R. Haldeman.75 This supports the claim of John H. Taylor, who stated since his
2009 departure the foundation was “enjoying a Haldeman renaissance,” and that it fell under the
control of “Nixon White House operatives… including individuals involved in Watergate or
Watergate-era activities.”76 The memo also described the way the “smoking gun” tape was
addressed as “totally inappropriate,” as there was no mention that the plan H.R. Haldeman
presented to the president originated from John Dean.77 Another alteration the foundation asked
for was the removal of a section titled “Dirty Tricks and Political Espionage.” Although this
language seems to espouse an anti-Nixon perspective, the term “dirty tricks” was used by
presidential advisor John Erlichman, which justified the title in the mind of Naftali.78 The final

14
decision of what the exhibit included rested with David Ferriero, the archivist of the United
States. Ferriero evidently agreed with Naftali’s approach, since he chose to keep the title in the
final product.79
After a nine month delay, the Watergate Scandal exhibit was opened to the public on
March 31, 2011. The display, comprised of sources that included documents and oral histories,
was described as a “searing and often unforgiving account” by the New York Times,80 and no one
on the Nixon Foundation’s board of directors attended the dedication.81 Walker posted a
statement on the foundation’s website in which he said that the new Watergate exhibit
“represents one interpretation of the events that led to President Nixon’s resignation in 1974.”82
This is another demonstration of the board’s displeasure with the direction supported by the
National Archives. Few of the alterations suggested by the foundation were incorporated into the
final exhibit. Naftali explained that “no changes of fact and no changes in perspective” were
made after Walker sent the memo.83 One of the few recommendations that were accepted was
that more of Nixon’s own voice be incorporated. This was addressed by including clips from the
Nixon’s post-presidency interviews with David Frost.84 This is one of the ways by which the
National Archives “was bending over backward to be accommodating and respectful” to the
foundation.85 Although Nixon supporters were not satisfied with the way the new gallery
portrayed the former president, Naftali explained “we used the oral histories and the tapes to
substantiate the claims we express in these panels.”86 Naftali’s statement suggests he wanted to
educate the public and provide assurance that the exhibit was credible, despite the misgivings of
the Nixon Foundation.
After nearly a year of grappling with the foundation, and its board, Naftali told the New
York Times at the opening, “I would actually like the healing to start. I’m sure they are as tired of

15
this fight as I am.”87 However, no apparent healing occurred. Although much of the conflict
between the foundation and Naftali centered on the Watergate exhibit, other factors contributed
to tension over the years. In 2009, Naftali invited former White House Counsel John Dean to
speak at the library on the anniversary of the Watergate break-in. Dean testified at the trials of
several Nixon insiders and is viewed as a traitor by Nixon’s close supporters. In an interview
with the Orange County Register in 2015, Walker recalled his thoughts at the time: “Don’t rub it
in my face by inviting John Dean on the anniversary of Watergate.”88 In a different interview,
Walker described the former White House counsel as “a rat.”89 After the Dean talk occurred, the
Nixon Foundation stopped funding events at the library, and Walker, who was retired by this
point, returned to the foundation as the president on a temporary basis.90 Part of his goal was to
“re-energize Nixon supporters,” but to also smooth relations between the privately-run
foundation and the federal government.91 Walker’s wife, Anne, wrote in a blog post that “It was
time to circle the wagons and fight again.”92 She noted that it was the Dean incident that sparked
the revival of the “February Group,” which the Los Angeles Times described as “a network of
Nixon’s former staffers who have grown increasingly close to the foundation in recent years.”93
This again brings into question the validity of the perspective the foundation wanted to convey,
given that it was so closely connected to Nixon insiders.
Although Walker maintained that a lot of the problems were related to Naftali,94 the rift
between the foundation and the National Archives did not subside after Naftali’s departure in
November 2011. The library continued without a director for over three years. Though the final
hiring decision lied with the National Archives and the Nixon Foundation could not overrule,
NARA was required to closely consult the foundation.95 History professor Jon Wiener of the
University of California-Irvine speculated that the delay was the result of an impasse between the

16
two parties.96 As candidates for the position withdrew one by one, Walker asserted that the
Archives needed to expand its search in order to find someone who would be acceptable to both
institutions,97 a statement that supports Wiener’s suspicion. On the other hand, Naftali worried
that the Nixon Foundation was stalling the selection in order to have control over the $15 million
exhibit renovations that were approaching.98 He remarked that his concern was “if the foundation
ever got the opportunity to write the text for the museum, it would use all those arguments that
have been disproved by declassified documents and tapes over 35 years.”99 He added that it is
“much easier for a foundation to renovate a museum if you don’t have a strong director in place,
and a piece of cake if you don’t have a director at all.”100 At this time, the acting director lived
3,000 miles away from Yorba Linda,101 which suggests the position was weakened, as Naftali
surmised. Historian Stanley Kutler shared Naftali’s concern and called the long absence of a
director “troubling.”102 In 2014, Sandy Quinn, the president of the foundation, declared that the
criticisms of Naftali, Kutler, and others was “absolute nonsense.”103 The extended hiring search
and the comments made by Walker and Quinn suggest that after five years of Naftali, the
foundation wanted to work with a director whose perspective on Nixon aligned with its own. It
also illuminates the battle between the foundation and the Archives over control of the historical
record.
When Naftali was hired in 2006, the Archives’ decision was made without the approval
of the Nixon Foundation’s board of directors, although the head of the foundation at the time,
John H. Taylor, had recommended Naftali to NARA.104 Lack of input from the board, according
to Walker, upset the former president’s daughters.105 That is why, in the search for Naftali’s
replacement, the board played a more crucial advisory role. In the end, the person chosen to be
Naftali’s successor was Michael Ellzey, the assistant city manager of Irvine. His selection sat

17
poorly with many academics, who were unsatisfied with Ellzey’s lack of experience in the
historical and archival fields.106 “I understand where they’re coming from,” Ellzey said of
critics.107 Even he admitted to feeling he was an “unusual candidate” for the job.108 When
decisions were to be made about exhibits, the director said he deferred to his supervisor archivist
and curator since he felt they were better equipped and skilled.109 Given that Ellzey did not
exercise control the content of exhibits and was inexperienced as a historian, his selection
indicates he was picked as an “anti-Naftali.” Similarly to Walker, Ellzey sought to portray an
image of Nixon that is more than the Watergate Scandal. In a 2015 interview with the Orange
County Register, Ellzey stated, “…let’s acknowledge [Watergate], stipulate to that, and move on
to study what other things he’s done.”110 All $15 million for the renovation were generated from
the Nixon Foundation.111 Ellzey felt confident that the circumstances indicated a strengthened
partnership between the library and the foundation. In September 2015, the museum’s galleries,
closed for renovations. Although it was not altered, the Watergate exhibit closed as well, a
development the Nixon Foundation likely did not object to.
The saga of Watergate’s portrayal at the Nixon Library from 1990 to present day is a
unique and complex story. The original gallery exhibited a blatant pro-Nixon perspective that
portrayed him as a martyr, a victim of liberals, the media, and members of his administration.
This was the view supported by Nixon himself, as well as his supporters in the Nixon
Foundation. However, this perspective, which Michael Schudson described as the “radical right”
view, distorted the historic record. When Timothy Naftali and the National Archives intervened
with the goal of presenting a more evidence-based narrative, conflict erupted. The handling of
Watergate at the Nixon Library is just part of a broader topic about commemoration. The
purpose of commemoration should be to perpetuate the historic record to educate the populace.

18
In order to do that in a truthful way, commemorative materials should be created, curated, and
maintained by parties dedicated to vetting sources, so as to avoid slanted views and biases.
Controversial aspects of a person’s legacy should also be included in museums, even if they bear
the person’s name. The public deserves to have access to an accurate representation of the
historical record, whether it be good, bad, or both. Richard Nixon had many accomplishments in
his years of public service, and they should be portrayed accurately and fairly. Yet also, his life
cannot be accurately conveyed without a discussion of his role in one of the most memorable
political developments of the 20th century.
1 Martelle, Scott. “Talk of MovingNixon Archives Raises Concern.” Los Angeles Times, April 9,1997. Accessed April
2, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-09/local/me-47009_1_nixon-library
2 “Mission Statement.” Richard Nixon Foundation,February 3, 2011. Accessed March 6, 2016.
http://nixonfoundation.org/files/2010/06/MISSION-STATEMENT-updated-02032011.pdf
3 "Presidential Libraries Actof 1955." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed March 30,2016.
http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1955-act.html.
4 “Presidential Libraries Actof 1955.”
5 Neumann, Janette. “Nixon library to break ground.” Yorba Linda Star, December 1, 1988.Accessed February 16,
2016.http://www.yorbalindahistory.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library
6 Langhorne, Daniel.“Nixon library leftleaderlessas foundation,federal officials seek common ground.” The
Orange County Register, May 11,2014. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-613792-library-director.html
7 Terrell, Jessica.“He’s still Nixon’s advanceman.” The Orange County Register, February 12,2010. Accessed March
4, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-234168-walker-library.html
8 Neumann, “Nixon library to break ground.”
9 Martelle, “Talk of Moving Nixon Archives Raises Concern.”
13 Weiss,Will.“Nixon papers moving to Yorba Linda.” The Orange County Register, April 23,2010.Accessed March
4, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-245379-library-presidential.html

19
15 Goffard, Christopher.“Nixon’s library to go by the book; An exhibittellinghis version of Watergate is the firstto
go as the National Archives takes over the facility.” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2007.Accessed February 9, 2016.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/08/local/me-watergate8
16 Martelle, Scott. “The War Over Nixon.” Los Angeles Magazine, July 1, 2010.Accessed February
12, 2016.http://www.lamag.com/article/the-war-over-nixon/
17 Terrell, “He’s still Nixon’s advanceman.”
18 "Watergate: The Final Campaign."Nixon Library & Museum. Accessed February 2, 2016.
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/themuseum/exhibits/oldwatergatetour.php
19 Goffard, “Nixon’s library to go by the book.”
20 Schudson,Michael. Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget, and Reconstruct the Past. New
York: BasicBooks,1992.24.Print.
21 “Watergate: The Final Campaign.”
25 Martelle, “The War Over Nixon.”
33 Farber, David."The Silent Majority and Talk aboutRevolution.” The Sixties: From Memory to History. Ed. David
Farber. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press,1994.303.Print.

20
37 Goffard, Christopher.“A fresh take on Watergate; Nixon library’snewexhibitis a detailed look
at the scandal.”LosAngeles Times, April 1,2011.
38 Goffard, “A fresh take on Watergate.”
39 Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace. Yorba Linda,CA: The Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace,[1990].
40 Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace. Yorba Linda,CA: The Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace, [2009].
46 The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.National Archives Names Director of the Richard Nixon
Presidential Library and Museum. 2006. Accessed February 15, 2016.http://www.archives.gov/press/press-
releases/2006/nr06-84.html
47 Taylor,John H. John H. Taylor to Allen Weinstein, March 15,2005. Letter. From Richard Nixon Presidential Library
and Museum. Accessed April 2, 2016. https://nixonlibrary.gov/news/pdf/nixon_foundation_letter_march_15.pdf
48 Taylor,John H. Taylor to Allen Weinstein.
49 Wisckol,Martin.“Not all loyalistsdisapproved of Nixon library’s Naftali.”TheOrange County Register, January
12, 2015.Accessed February 12,2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-647703-naftali-taylor.html
50 The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.National Archives Names Director of the Richard Nixon
Presidential Library and Museum.
51 Nagourney, Adam. “Nixon Library Opens a Door Some Would Prefer Left Closed.” New York
Times, March 31, 2011.Accessed February 12, 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01nixon.html

21
68 “Martelle, “The War Over Nixon.”
69 “Name Change Certificate of Qualification.”Richard Nixon Foundation,December 24, 2009.
70 Wiener, Jon. “Change Comes to Nixonland.” The Nation, July 29, 2010. Accessed February 3, 2016.
http://www.thenation.com/article/change-comes-nixonland/
73 Walker,Ronald H. Response to Draft Watergate Exhibit, August 2, 2010.Memorandum. From National Archives
and Records Administration. 3.Accessed February 12, 2016. https://www.archives.gov/foia/pdf/watergate-
exhbit.pdf
74 Walker,Response to Draft Watergate Exhibit. 6-7.
75 Walker,Response to Draft Watergate Exhibit. 82.
77 Walker,Response to Draft Watergate Exhibit. 88.
78 Whiting,David.“Nixon library director leaves mixed legacy.” The Orange County Register, November 18, 2011.
Accessed March 10, 2016.http://www.ocregister.com/articles/naftali-327486-nixon-watergate.html
79 Naftali,Timothy. “Nixon Library Watergate Exhibit.” C-SPAN video, 59:47. May 26, 2011. http://www.c-
span.org/video/?299926-1/nixon-library-watergate-exhibit.
80 Wisckol,Martin.“Nixon library chief greeted with relief,dismay.” The Orange County Register, January 4, 2015.
Accessed February 12, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/foundation-647019-nixon-library.html
81 Nagourney, “Nixon Library Opens a Door Some Would Prefer Left Closed.”

22
88 Wisckol,“Nixon library chief greeted with relief, dismay.”
94 Wisckol,“Not all loyalists disapproved of Nixon library’sNaftali.”
95 Reid, Tim. “At Nixon library,tension over how to portray a disgraced president.” Reuters, April 29,2014.
Accessed March 13, 2016.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nixon-idUSBREA3S03J20140429
96 Reid, “At Nixon library,tension over how to portray a disgraced president.”
97 Langhorne, “Nixon library leftleaderless asfoundation,federal officialsseek common ground.”
106 Salazar,Denisse.“Nixon library director sees facility as ‘hub’.” The Orange County Register, June 10, 2015.
Accessed March 4, 2016.http://www.ocregister.com/articles/foundation-665616-president-nixon.html

23
109 Salazar,“Nixon library director sees facility as ‘hub’.”
Works Cited
Farber, David. "The Silent Majority and Talk about Revolution.” The Sixties: From Memory to
History. Ed. David Farber. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. 303. Print.

24
Goffard, Christopher. “A fresh take on Watergate; Nixon library’s new exhibit is a detailed look
at the scandal.” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2011.
Goffard, Christopher. “Nixon’s library to go by the book; An exhibit telling his version of
Watergate is the first to go as the National Archives takes over the facility.” Los Angeles Times,
July 9, 2007. Accessed February 9, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/08/local/me-
watergate8
Langhorne, Daniel. “Nixon library left leaderless as foundation, federal officials seek common
ground.” The Orange County Register, May 11, 2014. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-613792-library-director.html
Martelle, Scott. “Talk of Moving Nixon Archives Raises Concern.” Los Angeles Times, April 9,
1997. Accessed April 2, 2016. http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-09/local/me-47009_1_nixon-
library
Martelle, Scott. “The War Over Nixon.” Los Angeles Magazine, July 1, 2010. Accessed February
12, 2016. http://www.lamag.com/article/the-war-over-nixon/
“Mission Statement.” Richard Nixon Foundation, February 3, 2011. Accessed March 6, 2016.
http://nixonfoundation.org/files/2010/06/MISSION-STATEMENT-updated-02032011.pdf
Naftali, Timothy. “Nixon Library Watergate Exhibit.” C-SPAN video, 59:47. May 26,
2011. http://www.c-span.org/video/?299926-1/nixon-library-watergate-exhibit.
Nagourney, Adam. “Nixon Library Opens a Door Some Would Prefer Left Closed.” New York
Times, March 31, 2011. Accessed February 12, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01nixon.html
“Name Change Certificate of Qualification.” Richard Nixon Foundation, December 24, 2009.
Neumann, Janette. “Nixon library to break ground.” Yorba Linda Star, December 1, 1988.
Accessed February 16, 2016. http://www.yorbalindahistory.org/gsdl/cgi-bin/library
"Presidential Libraries Act of 1955." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed
March 30, 2016. http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1955-act.html.
Reid, Tim. “At Nixon library, tension over how to portray a disgraced president.” Reuters, April
29, 2014. Accessed March 13, 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nixon-
idUSBREA3S03J20140429
Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace. Yorba Linda, CA: The Richard Nixon Library &
Birthplace, [1990].
Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace. Yorba Linda, CA: The Richard Nixon Library &
Birthplace, [2009].

25
Salazar, Denisse. “Nixon library director sees facility as ‘hub’.” The Orange County Register,
June 10, 2015. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/foundation-665616-
president-nixon.html
Schudson, Michael. Watergate in American Memory: How We Remember, Forget, and
Reconstruct the Past. New York: BasicBooks, 1992. 24. Print.
Taylor, John H. John H. Taylor to Allen Weinstein, March 15, 2005. Letter. From Richard Nixon
Presidential Library and Museum. Accessed April 2, 2016.
https://nixonlibrary.gov/news/pdf/nixon_foundation_letter_march_15.pdf
Terrell, Jessica. “He’s still Nixon’s advance man.” The Orange County Register, February 12,
2010. Accessed March
4, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-234168-walker-library.html
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives Names Director of
the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. 2006. Accessed February 15, 2016.
http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2006/nr06-84.html
Walker, Ronald H. Response to Draft Watergate Exhibit, August 2, 2010. Memorandum. From
National Archives and Records Administration. 3. Accessed February 12, 2016.
https://www.archives.gov/foia/pdf/watergate-exhbit.pdf
"Watergate: The Final Campaign." Nixon Library & Museum. Accessed February 2, 2016.
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/themuseum/exhibits/oldwatergatetour.php
Weiss, Will. “Nixon papers moving to Yorba Linda.” The Orange County Register, April 23,
2010. Accessed March
4, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-245379-library-presidential.html
Whiting, David. “Nixon library director leaves mixed legacy.” The Orange County Register,
November 18, 2011. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/naftali-
327486-nixon-watergate.html
Wiener, Jon. “Change Comes to Nixonland.” The Nation, July 29, 2010. Accessed February 3,
2016. http://www.thenation.com/article/change-comes-nixonland/
Wisckol, Martin. “Nixon library chief greeted with relief, dismay.” The Orange County Register,
January 4, 2015. Accessed February 12, 2016. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/foundation-
647019-nixon-library.html
Wisckol, Martin. “Not all loyalists disapproved of Nixon library’s Naftali.” The Orange County
Register, January 12, 2015. Accessed February 12, 2016.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/nixon-647703-naftali-taylor.htm

Commemorating Watergate

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (7)

Destaque

Destaque (15)

Semelhante a Commemorating Watergate

Semelhante a Commemorating Watergate (15)

Commemorating Watergate