See Weekend Assignment Listed Below (Starting Under the WEDNESDAY /THURSDAY Assignment)

AP US History

April 24-28-2017

This is the last full week before the AP exam and yet, our schedule will be a disaster yet again! I will not see 1st and 2nd Period on Monday for sure (English testing) and there will be other interruptions. This will definitely impact our coverage of History Period 9 (which luckily has no LEQ/DBQ). We will start Period 9 this week and probably complete it, but who knows???

I will stay for Review Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday after school this week. The week of the exam May 1-5 will be Monday-Thursday (The exam in Friday May 6)

I hope that you have started studying some on your own as well. There will be several quia.com quizzes in the next two weeks to help you get ready. Also, I placed a terms list on our website.

See weekend assignment listed below (Starting under the WEDNESDAY /THURSDAY assignment)

Your last Test of the year will be in class on Wednesday May 3rd You will have the weekend to study and complete the text section. We will have a bit more detail in class Monday and Tuesday of next week

MONDAY and TUESDAY

• Examine the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administration domestic and foreign policy.
• Analyze detail of the 1980 Election.

MaterialsStrategy/Format

power pointLecture-discussion

Introduction

• While we have discussed the details of Nixon as a foreign policy President, certainly the most important issue was of course, Watergate. Below is a short overview of the event:

"Shortly after 1 a.m. on June 17, 1972, a security guard at the Washington, D.C., Watergate office complex spotted a strip of masking tape covering the lock of a basement door. He removed it. A short while later, he found the door taped open again. He called the police, who found two more taped locks and a jammed door leading into the offices of the Democratic National Committee. Inside they discovered five men carrying cameras and electronic eavesdropping equipment.

At first, the Watergate break-in seemed like a minor incident. The identities of the burglars, however, suggested something more serious. One, James McCord, was chief security coordinator of the Committee for the Re-election of the President (CREEP). Others had links to the CIA.

Over the course of the next year, it became clear that the break-in was one in a series of secret operations coordinated by the White House. Financed by illegal campaign contributions, these operations posed a threat to America's constitutional system of government and, eventually, forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency.

The Watergate break-in had its roots in Richard Nixon's obsession with secrecy and political intelligence. To stop "leaks" of information to the press, in 1971 the Nixon White House assembled a team of "plumbers," consisting of former CIA operatives. This private police force, paid for in part by illegal campaign contributions, engaged in a wide range of criminal acts, including phone tapping and burglary, against those on its "enemies list."

In 1972, when President Nixon was running for re-election, CREEP authorized another series of illegal activities. It hired Donald Segretti to stage "dirty tricks" against potential Democratic nominees, which included mailing letters that falsely accused one candidate of homosexuality and fathering an illegitimate child. It considered a plan to use call girls to blackmail Democrats at their national convention and to kidnap anti-Nixon radical leaders. The committee also authorized $250,000 for intelligence-gathering operations. Four times the committee sent burglars to break into Democratic headquarters.

Precisely what the campaign committee hoped to learn from these intelligence-gathering activities remains a mystery. It seems likely that it was seeking information about the Democratic Party's campaign strategies and any information the Democrats had about illegal campaign contributions to the Republican Party.

On June 23--six days after the botched break-in--President Nixon ordered aides to block an FBI investigation of the White House involvement in the break-in on grounds that an investigation would endanger national security. He also counseled his aides to lie under oath, if necessary.

The Watergate break-in did not hurt Nixon's re-election campaign. Between the activities of the burglars and the president were layers of deception that had to be carefully peeled away. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, sensing that the break-in was only part of a larger scandal, slowly pieced together part of the story. Their source, a man who strangely took on the code name "Deep throat" had never been revealed but last year Mark Fell, an FBI agent admitted to being the contact just before he passed away. Facing long jail terms, some of the burglars began to tell the truth; the truth illuminated a path leading to the White House. The book (and film) All the President's Men was written detailing the event.

If Nixon had few political friends, he had legions of enemies. Over the years he had offended or attacked many Democrats--and a number of prominent Republicans. His detractors latched onto the Watergate issue with the tenacity of bulldogs.

The Senate appointed a special committee to investigate the Watergate scandal. Most of Nixon's top aides continued the cover-up. John Dean, the president's counsel, did not. Throughout the episode he had kept careful notes, and in a quiet, precise voice he told the Senate Watergate Committee that the president was deeply involved in the cover-up. The matter was still not solved. All the committee had was Dean's word against the other White House aides.

On July 16, 1973, a former White House employee dropped a bombshell by testifying that Nixon had recorded all Oval Office conversations. Whatever Nixon and his aides had said about Watergate in the Oval Office, therefore, was faithfully recorded on tape.

Nixon tried to keep the tapes from the committee by invoking executive privilege. He insisted that a president had a right to keep confidential any White House communication, whether or not it involved sensitive diplomatic or national security matters. Archibald Cox, a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate affair, persisted in demanding the tapes. In response, Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox; Richardson refused and resigned; Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also resigned. Ruckelshaus's assistant, Robert Bork, finally fired Cox, but Congress forced Nixon to name a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski.

In the midst of the Watergate investigations another scandal broke. Federal prosecutors accused Vice President Spiro Agnew of extorting payoffs from building contractors while he was Maryland's governor and a Baltimore County executive. In a plea bargain, Agnew pleaded no contest to a relatively minor charge--that he had falsified his income tax in 1967--in exchange for a $10,000 fine. Gerald Ford, whom Nixon appointed, succeeded Agnew as vice president.

The Watergate scandal gradually came to encompass not only the cover-up but a wide range of presidential wrongdoings. These transgressions included: extending political favors to powerful business groups in exchange for campaign contributions; misusing public funds; deceiving Congress and the public about the secret bombing of Cambodia; authorizing illegal domestic political surveillance and espionage against dissidents, political opponents, and journalists; and attempting to use FBI investigations and income tax audits by the IRS to harass political enemies.

On July 24, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the House of Representatives impeach Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and refusal to relinquish the tapes. On August 5, Nixon obeyed a Supreme Court order to release the tapes, which confirmed Dean's detailed testimony. Nixon had indeed been involved in a cover-up. However, there is still some mystery because large parts of the tapes had been erased. On August 9, he became the first American president to resign from office. The following day Gerald Ford became the new president. "Our long national nightmare," he said, "is over."

• In stark contrast to LBJ and Nixon’s uses and abuses of presidential power, the next two presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, cultivated reputations as honest, forthright leaders. Both were men of decency and integrity, but neither established reputations as strong, dynamic leaders. Although many Americans admired their honesty and sincerity, neither Ford nor Carter succeeded in winning the confidence of the American people. Moreover, neither administration had a clear sense of direction. Both Ford and Carter seemed to waffle on major issues of public policy. As a result, both came to be regarded as unsure, vacillating presidents.
• A 13-term congressman from Grand Rapids, Michigan, Gerald Ford dismissed the possibility of pardoning Richard Nixon for his Watergate misdeeds, then changed his mind. In the realm of economic policy, he began by urging tax increases; however, he later called for a large tax cut. His energy policy was crippled by the same indecision. At first, he tried to raise prices by imposing import fees on imported oil and ending domestic price controls; then, he abandoned that position in the face of severe political pressure. His plan which he called WIN (Whip Inflation Now) was a flop. In 1976 Ford faced Democratic Challenger Jimmy Carter Governor of Georgia.
• Carter, too, suffered from the charge that he modified his stances in the face of political pressure. A two-term Democratic governor from Georgia who defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election, Carter came to office determined to cut military spending, to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and to withdrawal of American troops from South Korea. By the end of his term, however, Carter spoke of the need for sustaining growth in defense spending, upgrading nuclear forces in Europe, and developing a new strategic bomber. Both men were described as "passionless presidents" who failed to project a clear vision of where they wanted to lead the country. But in their defense, both faced serious problems, ranging from dealing with rising oil prices to confronting third-world terrorists.

The Economy of the 1970s

• As you saw from your class reading, the economy was in real trouble because of inflation. The upsurge in inflation started when Lyndon Johnson decided to fight the Vietnam War without raising taxes enough to pay for it. By 1968, the war was costing the United States $3 billion dollars a month, and the federal budgetskyrocketed to $179 billion. With hundreds of thousands of Americans in the military service and even more working in defense related industries, unemployment fell, wages rose, and government deficits increased. Inflation was further fueled by a series of crop failures and sharp rises in commodities, especially oil.
• High inflation had many negative effects on the American economy. It wiped out many families' savings. It provoked labor turmoil, as workers went on strike for higher wages. It encouraged speculation in tangible assets--like art, precious metals, and real estate--rather than productive investment in new factories and technology. Above all, certain organized interest groups were able to keep up with inflation, while other less powerful groups, such as welfare recipients, saw the value of their benefits decline significantly.
• Inflation reduced the purchasing power of most Americans. For over a decade, real family wages remained flat. By the end of the 1970s, wages had climbed just $36 over 1973 levels. Yet, inflation raised the prices of virtually all goods and services. Health care and housing, in particular, experienced price rises far above the inflation rate. The consequences were a sharp increase in the number of Americans unable to afford health insurance, and a dramatic increase in the cost of housing, which resulted in an increase in homelessness.

The Oil Crisis

• Political unrest in the oil-rich Middle East contributed significantly to America's economic troubles. After suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab leaders unsheathed a new political weapon--oil. In order to pressure Israel out of territory conquered in the 1967 and 1973 wars, Arab nations cut oil production 25 percent and embargoed all oil exports to the United States. Leading the way was OPEC, founded by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela in 1960 to fight a reduction in prices by oil companies.
• Because Arab nations controlled 60 percent of the oil reserves in the non-Communist world, they had the Western nations over a barrel. Production cutbacks produced an immediate global shortage. The United States imported a third of its oil from Arab nations; Western Europe imported 72 percent from the Middle East; Japan, 82 percent. Gas prices rose, long lines formed at gas pumps, some factories shortened the work week, and some shopping centers restricted business hours.
• The oil crisis brought to an end an era of cheap energy. Americans had to learn to live with smaller cars and less heating and air conditioning. President Carter even suggested that Americans not put up Christmas lights to save energy. But the crisis did have a positive side effect. It increased public consciousness about the environment and stimulated awareness of the importance of conservation. For millions of Americans the lessons were painful to learn. Have we learned them?

Foreign Policy Issues for Ford and Carter Years

• For all of their failures domestically, both Ford and Carter did have some foreign policy victories. In 1974 the Soviets and the US signed the SALT 1 Treaty on nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, President Carter achieved his greatest diplomatic success by negotiating peace between Egypt and Israel. Since the founding of Israel in 1948, Egypt's foreign policy had been built around destroying the Jewish state. In 1977, Anwar el-Sadat, the practical and farsighted leader of Egypt, decided to seek peace with Israel. It was an act of rare political courage, as Sadat risked alienating Egypt from the rest of the Arab world without a firm commitment for a peace treaty with Israel. Since this time formerly bitter rivals may not always agree but a general peace has remained and no more Arab-Israeli Wars have occurred.
• Although both countries wanted peace, major obstacles had to be overcome. Sadat wanted Israel to retreat from the West Bank of the Jordan River and from the Golan Heights (which it had taken from Jordan in the 1967 war), to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), to provide a homeland for the Palestinians, to relinquish its unilateral hold on the city of Jerusalem, and to return the Sinai to Egypt. Such conditions were unacceptable to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who refused to consider recognition of the PLO or the return of the West Bank. By the end of 1977, Sadat's peace mission had run aground.
• Jimmy Carter broke the deadlock by inviting both men to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, for face-to-face talks. For two weeks in September 1978, they hammered out peace accords. Although several important issues were left unresolved, Began did agree to return the Sinai to Egypt. In return, Egypt promised to recognize Israel, and as a result, became a staunch U.S. ally. For Carter it was a proud moment. Unfortunately, the rest of the Arab Middle East denounced the Camp David accords, and in 1981, Sadat paid for his vision with his life when anti-Israeli Egyptian soldiers assassinated him.
• In 1978, Carter also pushed the Panama Canal Treaty through the Senate, which provided for the return of the Canal Zone to Panama and improved the image of the United States in Latin America. One year later, he extended diplomatic recognition to the People's Republic of China. Carter's successes in the international arena, however, would soon be overshadowed by the greatest challenge of his presidency--the Iran hostage crisis

The Iran Hostage Crisis

• As many of you hopefully remember, the American foreign policy has historically supported many countries that hold power through murder, torture, and other violations of human rights--practices that are an affront to basic American values. All of this because they were perceived to be anti-Communist. During the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the United States began to show a growing regard for the human rights practices of its allies. The Helsinki Accords had pledge dedication to human rights. Carter was convinced that American foreign policy should embody the country's basic moral beliefs. In 1977, Congress began to require reports on human rights conditions in countries receiving American aid.
• Despite Carter's stance on human rights Like his predecessors, President Carter was willing to overlook the shah's violations of human rights. Carter visited Iran in late December 1977 to demonstrate American support. He applauded Iran as "an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world" and praised Mohammad Reza as a great leader who had won "the respect and the admiration and love" of his people. Obviously a poor choice of words.
• By 1978 tensions in Iran were escalating among the classes and supporters of Islamic fundamentalism.The shah was indeed popular among wealthy Iranians, but in the slums of Teheran and in rural, poverty stricken villages, there was little respect, admiration, or love for his regime. Led by a fundamentalist Islamic clergy and emboldened by want, the masses of Iranians turned against the shah and his Westernization policies. In early fall of 1978, the revolutionary surges in Iran gained force. The shah, who had once seemed so powerful and secure, was paralyzed by indecision, alternating between ruthless suppression and attempts to liberalize his regime. In Washington, Carter also wavered. Trapped by his own uncertain whether to stand firmly behind the shah or to cut his losses and prepare to deal with a new government in Iran, he did neither.
• By January 1979, the Shah fled to Egypt. Exiled religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, returned to Iran, preaching the doctrine that the United States was the "Great Satan" behind the shah. A fact that could not be denied and had of course existed since the Eisenhower years. Relations between the United States and the new Iranian government were terrible, but Iranian officials warned that they would become infinitely worse if the shah were granted asylum. Nevertheless, Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for treatment of lymphoma. The reaction in Iran was severe. This action seemed to be the spark for what ultimately destroyed Carter's legacy.
• On November 4, 1979, Iranian supporters of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Teheran and captured 66 Americans, 13 of whom were freed several weeks later. The rest were held hostage for 444 days and were the objects of intense political interest and media coverage.
• Carter was helpless. Because Iran was not a stable country in any recognizable sense, its government was not susceptible to pressure. Iran's demands--the return of the shah to Iran and the admission of U.S. guilt in supporting the shah--were unacceptable. Carter devoted far too much attention to the almost insoluble problem. The hostages stayed in the public spotlight, in part, because Carter kept them there

The Invasion of Afghanistan in 1980