The Poetry of Politics

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” American writer and humorist Mark Twain is reputed to have said. The notion being that while historic events may differ, their outcomes can be remarkably similar. This is particularly true in politics, where such poetry is often recited.

Last week, for example, PBS correspondent Judy Woodruff apologized after suggesting on air that former President Donald Trump telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding a pending cease fire in Gaza, “urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris.” She based her comment on a story originally reported by Axios and cited by Reuters.

Not surprisingly, spokespersons for both Trump and Netanyahu condemned the remark, calling it fake news and a total lie. Axios subsequently revised its reporting, and Woodruff acknowledged in her apology that “I repeated the story because I hadn’t seen later reporting that both sides denied it.”

Which begs the question, why would a seasoned journalist like Woodruff possibly suppose that a man who had asked Russia to find dirt on his political opponent, paid hush money during a campaign to cover up an illicit sexual affair, and instigated unlawful and violent attempts to overturn a legitimate presidential election, would want to interfere in a delicate transaction to further his own ends?

One answer: history.

The Chennault Affair

Shortly after Woodruff tendered her mea culpa, lawyer and legal analyst Andrew Weissman (who had been on Robert Mueller’s special council team investigating Trump) posted on Threads that the alleged incident “would be entirely reminiscent of what Nixon did in the 1968 election.”

Back then, President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) announced he would halt the bombing of North Vietnam and initiate negotiations to end the Vietnam War. His Republican contender Richard Nixon had other ideas. Fearing that suspending the bombing would swing the election to Johnson’s successor Hubert Humphrey, members of Nixon’s campaign covertly lobbied the South Vietnamese government to delay any discussions, implying they would get better terms if Nixon won the race. In what was named the Chennault Affair — after one of the principal intermediaries, Anna Chennault, a Chinese-born Republican fund raiser — they managed to foil the talks, and Richard Nixon moved into the White House.

But the treachery was no secret to Johnson, who confided to Georgia Senator Richard Russell, in one of a series of recorded telephone conversations, “we have found out that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends, both our allies and the others.” In a separate call to Republican Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, he lamented, “they oughtn’t be doing this. This is treason.”

Having been found out, Nixon feigned indignation, saying to the president, “I just wanted you to know that I feel very, very strongly about this, and any rumblings around about [scoffs] somebody trying to sabotage the Saigon government’s attitude there certainly have no — absolutely no credibility as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the betrayal to both him and the country, Johnson chose not to bring it to light, telling Dirksen “the net of it, and it’s despicable, and if it were made public I think it would rock the nation …” It wasn’t until half a century later, when the LBJ library released some of the recorded exchanges and the Nixon Presidential Library opened notes from then campaign chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, the scheme was publicly exposed.

The October Surprise

“If an idea’s worth having once,” wrote British playwright Tom Stoppard, “it’s worth having twice.” Words to live by for someone looking to become president in 1980.

That year, sitting President Jimmy Carter was seeking a second term amid a national crisis: 52 diplomats and employees were being held hostage in the American embassy in Iran. His only hope of victory was to bring them all home before the election. But his rival Ronald Reagan saw an opening.

In an act of déjà vu, Reagan’s campaign manager William Casey (an alumnus of Nixon’s “dirty tricks” crew) went to Madrid to make a backdoor deal with the Iranians to hold off returning the hostages until after the American polls closed. This was the first of what became a routine election-year ploy known as the October Surprise.

Two decades later, when Gary Sick, Carter’s Iran expert on the National Security Council, revealed the scam in a New York Times editorial, and later a book, other publications like Newsweek and The New Republic ridiculed the charges. For its part, a bipartisan congressional task force investigated and refuted his claims, concluding there was no clear evidence Casey was in the Spanish City at the time.

But in 2011, reporter Robert Parry uncovered a memo from Reagan’s Deputy White House Counsel Paul Beach proving Casey did, in fact, go to Madrid. Twelve years after that, onetime Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes disclosed to the New York Times he traveled to the Middle East with his state’s former governor John Connally to ask Arab leaders to convey to Iranian officials not to release the hostages before Election Day. Upon his return, said Barnes, Connally briefed Casey about the trip.

Three-peat?

Which brings it back to Donald Trump, who is no stranger to electoral malfeasance. His 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared internal party polling data with a Russian operative, creating what the Senate Intelligence Committee deemed “opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.” That same year, Michael Flynn, a campaign consigliere and later National Security Advisor, met with the Russian Ambassador during the presidential transition to manipulate foreign policy during what remained of Barack Obama’s tenure in office.

This time around Trump is struggling to craft a strategy to beat Kamala Harris, whose Achilles Heel may be Gaza. She is attempting to find the means to accommodate both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voters, and a cease fire might be it. But not if Trump has his way. Two months prior to Judy Woodruff’s supposition, three of Trump’s former foreign policy officials met with Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when Joe Biden was proposing a new plan to end the conflict. Though the envoys positioned their visit as a chance to better understand Israel’s complex domestic political situation, doing so during a period of such turmoil was unusual, contends presidential historian Jeremi Suri. He told Reuters that a meeting like that would be especially sensitive since the U.S. government prefers it maintain only one point of contact with a foreign counterpart.

If Trump is hoping to disrupt dialog in Gaza, he has a willing accomplice in Netanyahu, who has consistently hindered the peace process. Representatives of the hostage families have accused him of preventing a deal unless it benefits him politically. Family members asserted they were told by his national security advisor that he will not agree to end the war in return for their relatives unless opinion polls show it is to his advantage. Even Biden has said, in an interview with Time magazine, there is “every reason” to believe Netanyahu is dragging out the war to stay in power.

Is it beyond the pale then to think Donald Trump would reopen the book of political poems to serve his interests at the expense of the hostages, their families, and literally millions of innocent Palestinians? Sadly, given the rhythm of history, it will likely be decades before the truth is known.