These Republican Arizona congressmen stood up to Nixon. Who will stand up to Trump?

The actions of the Trump administration have led a lot of people to make a lot of comparisons to other presidencies, or periods of history.

Robert Robb thoughts go back a little more than 50 years, to the resignation of Richard Nixon, and the actions of members of his party that helped lead to it.

In his Substack, Robb, a longtime Arizona government and political observer, wonders about the behavior of both congressional Republicans and Democrats in the early 1970s and why it seems to be so different than today.

Robb joined The Show to talk more about this.

Robert Robb

Full conversation

MARK BRODIE: And, Bob, was there something specific that got you thinking about this comparison?

ROBERT ROBB: No, there is just such a stark difference among congressional Republicans in their sense of having an institutional loyalty to the Congress that they serve, and the constitutional role the founders gave them as members of Congress with respect to the various challenges being posed to that role by the Trump administration, and particularly the president himself, and that of congressional Republicans, when Nixon was clearly engaged in an attempt to cover up Republican operatives breaking into the Democratic headquarters in Washington, D.C.

It was actually Republicans in Congress, that decided Nixon’s fate. And both parties behaved differently. The Democrats didn’t rush the case against Nixon. Um, they provided the political space and room for Republicans to reach a consensus that this was unacceptable behavior by a president of the United States. And it was the leaders of Republicans in Congress, who ultimately went to Richard Nixon and delivered the message that there were sufficient GOP votes in the House to impeach him, and in the Senate to convict him.

MARK BRODIE: How much of this do you think comes down to a sense of self-preservation among members of Congress and not crossing the current president, as opposed to any of the other factors that might be contributing to the the different behaviors?

ROBERT ROBB: There is a big difference in the political environment in which we currently live compared to what existed in the 1970s. Richard Nixon didn’t have the personal loyalty among a broad segment of primary election Republicans that Donald Trump clearly has. Um, so there’s zero question that asserting constitutional prerogatives on behalf of Congress vis-à-vis the presidency carries a substantially greater political risk today than it did in the 1970s. There were virtually no consequences for Republicans ultimately making the decision that Richard Nixon had to go.

However, I believe there’s two other factors that also are important and more disheartening to me. The first is that there isn’t a sense of a institutional loyalty to the body that they serve, Congress. I think that’s largely missing among congressional Republicans today. And I also think there was a higher value put on personal integrity, um, that there were simply some things, um, that were worth losing in politics.

MARK BRODIE: Well, so I’m curious what you make of the fact that there’s been so much attention paid in, you know, recent days and weeks to those Republicans in Congress who are speaking out a little bit. They’re they’re not doing anything, I don’t think anyone would argue, anywhere near to the to the level of going to the White house and telling the president, "Look, it’s over. You’ve got to step down or we’re going to impeach you."

But, you know, even saying, "You know, I don’t think this policy idea is a great thing," or "I don’t like this thing he said on social media." And there’s been so much attention just to that.

ROBERT ROBB: Well, because it’s such unusual behavior during the Trump era. By and large, congressional Republicans have been prostate irrespective of what the president does, and particularly when the president usurps what are supposed to be roles assigned by the Constitution to Congress. You simply haven’t had it.

MARK BRODIE: I wonder if in some ways we might be comparing apples to oranges in these two situations, because as you point out in your piece, when the Republicans went to Nixon and said, "Look, there are the votes to impeach and and convict," Republicans were in the minority, which is obviously not been the case in the at least the first two years of Trump’s second term.

I wonder if that in some way affects the behavior, because obviously, in neither the House nor the Senate would there right now be the votes to impeach or convict, and one wonders if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate in the early ’70s if there would have been the votes for those things then, either.

ROBERT ROBB: It’s a very good point, Mark, and yes, it is a little bit of apples and oranges. But the numbers of respective control in terms of getting to the two-thirds votes for a conviction aren’t dramatically different.

But again, it was while the Republicans were in the minority that they ultimately made the decision that what Nixon had done was unacceptable for an occupant of the Oval Office. If anything, you would think if a party is in the majority, having a sense of responsibility and personal integrity with respect to the role the Constitution gives Congress, both in deciding a wide range of policy matters that uh Trump is usurping, um, but also to police unethical conduct, in the Oval Office.

I believe that this slush fund settlement and the immunity from tax audits is every bit as offensive to the constitutional order um, as was Nixon’s attempt to cover up and limit the damage uh to the botched attempt to burglar the Democratic headquarters in during the 1972 election.

MARK BRODIE: So what do you are the implications of all this? Not so much necessarily to the individuals involved, but you talked earlier about sort of the institution of the Congress. What do you think are the implications of what you're seeing right now to that body?

ROBERT ROBB: People have called our Congress the "Dumont Congress," that it really isn't playing the separate role that the Constitution contemplates and the founders intended. If anything, in fact, dramatically, Congress was supposed to be the policy-making body. The president was to execute faithfully what Congress decides.

And getting outside the self-dealing and the ethical activities that are going on time and time again, Trump is trying to in essence legislate from the executive branch completely usurping the role of Congress.

MARK BRODIE: All right. We’ll have to leave it there. That is Bob Robb, longtime observer of Arizona government and politics. He also writes a Substack. Bob, good as always to talk to talk to you. Thank you.

ROBERT ROBB: Thanks for having me.