Wednesday Q+A with Robert Dallek

The history professor and best-selling author on presidential investigations, special counsels, and how Trump should proceed.

Robert Dallek, pictured at the St. Louis County Library.
St. Louis County Library
George E. Condon Jr.
Add to Briefcase
George E. Condon Jr.
June 20, 2017, 8 p.m.

Robert Dallek, 83, is in his sixth dec­ade as one of the na­tion’s lead­ing pres­id­en­tial his­tor­i­ans. His books have ex­amined Pres­id­ents Wil­li­am McKin­ley, Frank­lin Roosevelt, Harry Tru­man, John Kennedy, Lyn­don John­son, Richard Nix­on, and Ron­ald Re­agan. His next book, to be re­leased this fall, is Frank­lin D. Roosevelt: A Polit­ic­al Life. Dallek spoke to George E. Con­don Jr. about the cur­rent pres­id­ent, one he finds quite dif­fer­ent from the oth­ers.

We’ve seen pres­id­ents and ad­min­is­tra­tions in­vest­ig­ated be­fore, from Hard­ing to Nix­on to Re­agan, Clin­ton, and the Bushes. Have we ever seen any­thing quite like what we’re see­ing in the Trump White House in its first 150 days?

This is what makes Trump’s ad­min­is­tra­tion so troub­ling, but it is also the fact that he is un­der such pres­sure. No pres­id­ent this early has been so scru­tin­ized in this way and come un­der the shad­ow of a spe­cial coun­sel.

With the in­vest­ig­a­tions, staffers face the need to hire law­yers and the con­stant worry about what’s go­ing to hap­pen. What does that do to an ad­min­is­tra­tion try­ing to push its agenda?

It dis­tracts it from the nor­mal polit­ic­al give-and-take. The ma­jor thing that Trump has lost is his cred­ib­il­ity. I once wrote a book about what makes for ef­fect­ive pres­id­en­tial lead­er­ship, and you’ve got to have cred­ib­il­ity, you’ve got to be some­body the pub­lic trusts. How many people trust him at this point?

Does his­tory tell us any­thing about how a pres­id­ent should best re­spond when his ad­min­is­tra­tion is go­ing through something like this?

Oh, yes. What it sug­gests is that they need to be as open as they pos­sibly can, and that if Trump were wise and guilt­less, what he would do is say, “I have noth­ing to hide; I will give full co­oper­a­tion to Mr. Mueller, and I’m open to an­swer­ing any ques­tions he wants to ask me.” He would hold more press con­fer­ences; he would be more can­did with the journ­al­ists. That, I think, would be an at­tempt to re­store his cred­ib­il­ity. In­stead, he seems to dig him­self in­to a deep­er trench and be­come more com­bat­ive with these tweets that he lets out.

Pres­id­ent Hard­ing an­guished about wheth­er he needed to cut ties with old friends. Nix­on felt per­se­cuted and lashed out. Re­agan was in deni­al about Ir­an-Con­tra. Clin­ton was maybe the best at com­part­ment­al­iz­ing. Can we draw any con­clu­sions?

The ones who sur­vived their scan­dals like Re­agan and Clin­ton—they are the ones that Trump should read about to see how they man­aged the loss of stand­ing with the pub­lic, the as­sault on their cred­ib­il­ity. Trump should read some his­tory about the pres­id­ency and how some of his pre­de­cessors handled these dif­fi­culties. But the things he says, like that tweet he let out about how suc­cess­ful his pres­id­ency has been, that it is un­pre­ced­en­ted. … It is fantasy world.

What do you make of the com­par­is­ons be­ing made between today and Wa­ter­gate? Is that pre­ma­ture?

Ab­so­lutely. Who knows where the Trump in­vest­ig­a­tion is go­ing to end up? Let’s say they find noth­ing to pro­sec­ute him with or charge him with or sug­gest his im­peach­ment. It will change the whole per­spect­ive on this in­vest­ig­a­tion, es­pe­cially in com­par­ing it to Wa­ter­gate be­cause it will have led to noth­ing con­sequen­tial, the way White­wa­ter did. It’s got to play out. I think it is pre­ma­ture for people to rush in­to these com­par­is­ons. They can raise it, of course, be­cause, in mod­ern Amer­ic­an pres­id­en­tial his­tory, it is sort of the touch­stone of how a pres­id­ent comes up short or ends up be­ing forced out of of­fice. But that’s wish­ful think­ing on the part of lots of Trump’s op­pon­ents—that he will leave of­fice.

One thing that leads to the com­par­is­ons is that a spe­cial coun­sel has been named. Are there les­sons in his­tory about what it means to have a spe­cial coun­sel?

It casts a shad­ow over your whole ad­min­is­tra­tion and brings down your abil­ity to lead. I’ve said that the day Richard Nix­on had to tell a press con­fer­ence, “I am not a crook,” was es­sen­tially the day that his ad­min­is­tra­tion was over. And when Trump’s spokes­wo­man had to come out and say Trump “is not a li­ar,” I think that un­der­cut him severely.

I’ve asked you what we can learn from his­tory to help us un­der­stand this White House. You’ve seen 14 pres­id­ents in your life­time and have stud­ied many oth­ers. Is it pos­sible that this pres­id­ent is un­like any­thing we have seen be­fore?

I think he is. I’ve nev­er seen a start of an ad­min­is­tra­tion like this. This tweet­ing is a whole new thing. Now, one can com­pare it to the fact that Roosevelt used the new me­di­um of his time, ra­dio, to give fireside chats. And he did that bril­liantly. And Kennedy used the new me­di­um of his time, tele­vi­sion, to hold live tele­vised news con­fer­ences. And he used that bril­liantly. But that doesn’t mean Trump is us­ing this new me­di­um in a very ef­fect­ive way. … It may do more to bring him down than to raise him up.

What We're Following See More »
Manafort Case Moves to Closing Arguments
4 days ago
Manafort Defense Rests
5 days ago
Judge Holds Witness in Contempt in Manafort Case
1 weeks ago

"A federal judge has found a witness in contempt for refusing to testify before the grand jury hearing evidence in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell made the ruling Friday after a sealed hearing to discuss Andrew Miller’s refusal to appear before the grand jury. Miller is a former aide to longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone."

Gates Says He Committed Crimes with Manafort
1 weeks ago

Paul Manafort's former business partner Rick Gates said in court today that "he conspired with Manafort to falsify Manafort’s tax returns. Gates said he and Manafort knowingly failed to report foreign bank accounts and had failed to register Manafort as a foreign agent."

Gates to Be Called Next in Manafort Case
1 weeks ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.