I read Bob Woodward and Car Bernstein’s ‘All the Presidents Men’ some time back, as I have always been fascinated by the Nixon Presidency, with all its drama and dysfunction and ‘dark side of Camelot’ themes, as well as the tortured psychology of Nixon himself. Woodward has chronicled pretty much every President since, and has traced the effects of Watergate through successive Presidencies.
Trump, though, is a new low of dysfunction, a new standard of venality and dysfunction in the White House that makes Nixon look the soul of integrity. How does Woodward tackle him? he uses the ‘deep cover’ that has serviced him well in the past, speaking to senior officials off the record. And it does here make for gripping drama. the book is mainly reconstructed dialogue of various situations in the Trump Presidency as harvested from these interviews, with linking narrative and background there, but kept to a minimum.
It works well in conveying immediacy, drama, the white hot moments of critical events unfolding. Trump’s criminal stupidity is of Godzilla proportions, stomping on any good sense that gets in its way, as his beleaguered officials try to steer him, contain him, and snatch documents from his desk so that he can’t sign his own harmful directives.
That all said, I am left feeling that Bob Woodward used his usual playbook, which is very ‘Washington,’ always slightly dazzled by the culture of the Hill and the language and customs of power. And that play-book can’t do justice to the Trump Presidency. This is a Presidency that is tearing up all the norms of political and human decency. Woodward’s style is more suited to days when they were still ascendant, even when they were tarnished by Nixon. Woodward wrote well about that tarnishing. But here, I feel he needs a tougher approach.
Woodward pretty much buys into the idea that the GOP contains heroes trying to restrain Trump. But he ignores why more of them aren’t being more active in defying this President. It is one thing to whisper to a journalist in deep cover, or sneak a document off a desk. Another to really do something that counts, by taking a public stand. And why does Woodward dismiss Christopher Steele’s dossier on Russian Collusion as trash? This is an essential theme and he does not explain his view, or acknowledge its importance.
All in all this is a compulsive read, but inadequate to the times.
As a postscript, I tried to post this review on Amazon, but was blocked, as Amazon says “reviews are being limited because of unusual reviewing activity.” Go figure.