Impeachment: "Fear of the Unknown"

The nation's emotions about Richard Nixon and Watergate are almost as complex and contradictory as the testimony in the Senate. In a Gallup poll taken in the wake of John Dean's devastating appearance, fully 71% believe that the President was involved in either the planning or the cover-up of the Watergate breakin. If Nixon was indeed involved, then he is guilty of criminal acts that would presumably be grounds for impeachment. Yet the same survey showed that only 18% think Nixon "should be compelled to leave office."

Last week, in dozens of interviews across the nation, TIME correspondents explored attitudes about possible presidential involvement and what should be done if Nixon is indeed culpable. They found that there is indeed a dominant feeling that the President was involved in one way or another. Yet there is also a deep fear of the national trauma that long and messy impeachment proceedings would probably cause.

Tom Sullivan, a retired J.C. Penney executive in Anaheim, Calif., was especially hard on the President. "I think," he said, "that the whole break-in was discussed and planned with Ehrlichman and Haldeman and that Nixon approved it. But as for impeachment, I just don't know. When other countries overthrow the government, it's chaos. I personally think he should be watched closely for the rest of his term." Paul B. Wynett, a Georgia advertising man, wonders: "How could all those people be doing all those things without his knowing about it? But the best thing to do is forgive and forget. If this had to happen, I think it will enlighten people and let them know that big old red, white and blue balloon can burst."

Bennett Webster, a lawyer and Republican county chairman in Iowa, may have an accurate instinct for popular sentiment: "The majority of people feel impeachment is too drastic, that the country can't stand it. It's more a fear of the unknown than anything else--a deep-seated fear of a radical proceeding." Says Thomas Campbell, a professor of history at Cleveland State University: "An impeachment process would disrupt the country, and we can't afford it. I'm concerned about other problems in the country--the monetary crisis, the food and housing difficulties --and we need leadership. A long impeachment would leave us leaderless."

U.S. Prestige. Many feel that a resignation or impeachment would irreparably damage U.S. interests in the world. Says Kurt Ogg, a Middlesex, N.J., accountant: "I'm sure he knew about the coverup. But resignation or forcing him out would take away from U.S. prestige abroad." He and many others cited Nixon's achievements in ending the war and improving relations with China and Russia.

Many who believe Nixon participated in the cover-up and do not think he should be impeached are fearful of an Agnew presidency. Many Democrats would not want to see Agnew inherit the presidency because that might place him in a strong position for election in 1976. Decision Research Corp., a New England polling organization, explains that "the seriousness of the whole idea of impeachment, and of Agnew taking over, accounts for the large number of people who think the President was involved but are unwilling to advocate impeachment."

Some argue that even if Nixon is guilty of the coverup, it is nothing new. According to Beth Gendusa, a New Orleans housewife: "That sort of thing [Watergate] is done in business and industry every day."

Nixon still has many defenders. Judy Peterson, a teacher in Clinton, N.C., regards Dean as "a slick little liar." She blames Haldeman and Ehrlichman for not telling the President the whole story. "But my God," she adds, "if you'd done something that stupid, wouldn't you hate to tell your boss?"

Some Nixon defenders make a complexity of distinctions. As Morey Spencer, a Kansas City, Mo., millwright, sees it, "Nixon knew at least about the coverup. But I don't think he's done wrong. He's the victim of his assistants. He got caught in a trap." Says Robert Redfearn, the president of a food company and a Georgia Republican: "Watergate has been blown all out of proportion. It has to be looked at in the context of the times. People were doing similar things of a similar nature. Ellsberg was stealing secret papers. People were burning draft cards. Nixon had alienated the liberal press and had a hostile Congress. What I do fault the President for is being so insulated."

While there is a minority defending Nixon, another minority, either in sadness or in anger, strongly believes that he should resign or be impeached. "When one discovers a brothel," says Mrs. Nan Pendergrast, a Georgia housewife who supported George McGovern, "one seldom finds the madam is a virgin." Joe Wilson, a black construction worker in Atlanta, says wearily: "I think Nixon is bad--look at all that money they spent. It could have been given to the poor." Mary Kemmit, an elderly Bostonian with an Irish brogue, fumes: "It's been like this ever since he's been in politics. Look at what he did when he lost out before--'You won't have Nixon to kick around any more,' he says. Well, it's a pity that they don't kick him now while they have him." Says Mrs. Susan Block, a liberal St. Louis housewife: "It seems that a man must commit murder before we think he should be impeached. Well, Nixon may have murdered the political system."

Larry Robinson, owner of a Cleveland jewelry chain, states his case for impeachment emphatically: "If he was not aware of Watergate, then he is an incompetent administrator. If he was aware, then he was breaking the law."

At the moment, however, most Americans clearly agree with Robert Block, a Los Angeles Democrat and investment banker: "I don't believe that impeachment is a workable solution. We have to look at Watergate, perhaps, with the idea of revising our structure so that this can't happen again. My great concern is to keep the country glued together, to make sure the ship doesn't take on so much water that she sinks."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.