> It was obvious at the time and should be obvious now. All elements in
> Nixon's administration that make it the most liberal administration of
> the last 50 years stemmed from his fear of the mass movements of the
> '60s. They were in fact losing their momentum, but he didn't know that.
> Watergate came from his unnecessary fear of leftist elements in the
> population, which after all had succeeded in nominating McGovern.
>
> Then the DP began its steady move to the right, creating room for
> elements in the RP to move their party even further to the right. It has
> always been the DP that was the originating force for movements to the
> right.
>
This is rather incomplete. Nixon was terrified of the mass movements, but he also saw in them an enormous political opportunity. If he could survive a test of wills with the movements, he thought he stood a chance of defeating liberalism entirely, by using the movements against it. The movements were powerful, but they also generated enormous and widespread opposition. You might find it useful to remind yourself periodically that you live in a country with an elected government. If you keep that in mind, it becomes easier to see why you deceive yourself when you fixate on Nixon's fear of the movements and ignore the opportunities they gave him.
The Democratic Party didn't move to the right in the first half of the 70's, it moved briefly to the left. As a result, McGovern lost in a landslide. It was the electorate that moved to the right, in large part as a reaction against the movements. Choosing to see elections as epiphenomena may be convenient - it can give you license to pretend politicians respond only to Movements and Capitalists, never voters - but it untethers your analysis from the actual reality you're trying to understand. Sometimes I think you see reality itself as an epiphenomenon.
SA