That line, spoken by Richard Nixon in an interview with journalist David Frost, ended Nixon’s hopes of escaping blame for Watergate. For years, the disgraced president had plausible deniability on the scandal. Frost nailed Tricky Dick with the help of James Reston, an author and journalist who uncovered the long sought-after proof that Nixon knew beforehand about the illegal activities of his re-election committee, including sabotage, spying, campaign fraud, and wiretapping.
That was in 1977, three years after Nixon resigned over the Watergate conspiracy. Now, America’s president does all sorts of things without worrying about their legality. Maybe that’s why Reston’s account of the Frost/Nixon interviews resonated strongly enough to inspire an award-winning play and a movie adaptation.
In Toronto for Canstage’s premiere of Frost/Nixon, The Varsity grilled the journalist on the parallels between Nixon and Bush, and how to score the goods in a tough interview.
The Varsity: Why did David Frost’s interviews appear so dramatically different than other attempts over three years to push Nixon to admit his guilt?
James Reston: Going into [the interview], there were some real weapons—the surprises that I was able to find for Frost to really lay a trap for Nixon. And he fell into them and it made him look bad, allowing Frost to take charge of the interview. He also used his wit and humour as weapons against the humourless character that Nixon was.
You had two characters squaring off against one another. Nixon would know everything that was in the public domain… I think it was the surprises that really allowed us to break down his defences.
TV: You dug up a crucial piece of evidence near the end of the interview series.
JR: The way it happened, there was a contract with Nixon for about 28 hours of taped broadcast, which [was] boiled down to four 90-minute programs. The important one was the Watergate program. But it was planned to give Nixon the opportunity to talk about his great achievements in foreign policy and domestic policy first.
I had dug up that material, not at the end of the broadcast, but beforehand; moved in total terror that it would be revealed before it surprised Nixon on camera.
TV: What was the evidence?
JR: The new material was conversations between Nixon and his henchman Charles Colton. They had Nixon involved in the cover-up well before the public could ever have known.
TV: What was the atmosphere like working on Frost’s team?
JR: I felt a great sense of obligation because Nixon had resigned from office before ever being brought to trial. After he left office, he wouldn’t be forced to address his demeanour. I felt that it was extremely important that 50 million viewers would leave, saying yes, we did the right thing to drive him out of office. It could have very well been different. Nixon could have collected a big paycheck and rehabilitated his reputation. That would have been a disaster.
There was the little bit of press that came out as the team was working, that Frost had hired a crack investigator.
TV: That must have made you nervous, given your reservations about the information reaching the public too early.
JR: It was a kind of mixed bag. On the one hand, we could worry about that. On the other hand, with that kind of publicity—there were going to be some serious attempts to go after Nixon—people started to talk to me.
TV: There is a movement to impeach Bush after he is out of office. How do you think this relates to Nixon’s legacy?
JR: I don’t think that’s legally possible. An impeachment is a removal from office. It’s really a question of how Bush would ever be brought to account for the disaster that he forced on this nation.
When Nixon did those interviews, he was going to make a hell of a lot of money. Probably the most important thing (to consider) was the fact that he thought that he could walk all over Frost and rehabilitate his reputation. That’s what he was really hoping for.
None of those preconditions actually apply to Bush. I don’t think money will motivate him. Rehabilitating his reputation, maybe, but Bush doesn’t like to be put in a tough spot. He likes to be interviewed by people he’s comfortable with. I doubt that he would allow (an interviewer) who would be really tough on him.
TV: If we were able to look at the Nixon-Frost interviews as a leader made to atone for his crimes, do you think there’s hope that this could be translated to Bush?
JR: I can’t imagine it. He’s certainly going to go back to his Texas farm, and I doubt that any world leader will want his advice on how to handle world affairs. He has close to the lowest approval rating of any president in American history. He is held in very low esteem by the American people.
TV: You argue that the Third Crusade is still relevant to interpreting the modern world. Bush has labelled the Iraq war “a new crusade.” Is there a connection to Bush’s use of political rhetoric and divisive conflict? Does this relate to Nixon?
JR: The word “crusade” has a very specific meaning for the American people. If you’re only talking about the way the word “crusade” has come into the American political program, you can go back to the first president, who used it as a passionate enterprise. General Eisenhower used the term in relation to WW2.
In response to 9/11, when Bush used the word “crusade” four to five days after an attack by Arabs, it had a very different meaning to the Arab world. The resulting dynamic has been much to the disadvantage of America, because it raised Bin Laden’s kind to a grand level that was a struggle between a Western crusade and an Eastern Jihad. What Bin Laden had done was a massive crime against humanity and America. But when Bush used the word “crusade,” it gave him the argument of the Jihad against the Western crusader.
TV: Frost/Nixon has been made into a play and a movie. How do you feel about the transition from your personal research, to a personal memoir to an eventual fictionalized account?
JR: This was a historical event. There was a factual scandal, and three years of that scandal was a very difficult and depressing time for the United States. A skilled playwright comes along and makes entertainment out of these interviews, and out of Watergate. That changes the dynamic immediately from history to literature. The question arises, what do you gain and what do you lose? I think Watergate: The Scandal is very much in the American mind; the Frost/Nixon interviews are forgotten. When you get down to the nitty-gritty of how the history is changed by this playwright, and how it’s diffused, it gets a little more testy and murky. What you have in that play is the breaking down of Richard Nixon and his apologies, and it takes place in a seven-minute period, whereas the actual interview was four hours, and it was a long grind to the end to make an authentic apology possible. When you look at the entertainment for seven minutes of the play, it’s an interaction between the actors and the audience. It depends on how good the actors are.
TV: Would you have liked to see the movie come out before the election?
JR: No, because I’m a consultant to the movie and play. What you find out is that Hollywood doesn’t care about the election. They care about the Academy Award. They think they’re going to get a lot of nominations for Frost/Nixon, so they want to release it as late as possible in the year so it’s as fresh as possible in the minds of the Academy Awards nomination committee.
*Frost/Nixon premiered Wednesday at the London Film Festival and comes to North American cinemas this December. Reston is in Toronto this week for the Canstage premiere of the play of the same name.
Reston will give a talk at the Munk Centre on Friday, Oct. 17, at 10 a.m.*
