In the inundation of analysis flowing from Watergate there has been little attempt to understand the phenomenon as anything more than a series of incidents perpetrated by certain individuals. One can, indeed, view Watergate simply as the excesses of the specific persons involved, or one can seek a deeper explanation within the context of our times and environment that have developed with our complicity.

That the latter approach has been substantially ignored reflects the adverse perception of Richard Nixon, and his administration, and the hostility borne toward both on the part of most analysts. That reflection, however, does not diminish the potential value in searching beneath the surface of the waves for an underlying disturbance.

Watergate would have happened at about this time irrespective of who was in the White House. There may well have been similar incidents perpetrated by other high members of government. Most distressingly, we can expect more of the same in the future, in spite of the national breast beating and catharsis over the present Watergate. In future entanglements the persons involved may be different; the personalities, however, will be substantially the same.

The tragedy of Watergate was really caused not by deficiencies of character of those on the White House staff, but by the circumstances that led to their being in the White House in the first place and by the inducements that were offered to them by society to act as they did.

The Presidency is the most powerful office in the world. It is the highest and most controlling position in the federal government of the United States; a government which spends annually more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, which employs 15 per cent of the work force of the country and, most importantly, a government which has a pervasive and growing influence over the most affluent and sophisticated society in world history.

The Presidency, and hence presidential power, is also auctioned off every four years to the group that bids the largest numbers of votes. Although money plays a significant role in securing the highest bid, it is by no means the only factor in winning the auction. As evidence of this witness the aspects of Watergate that are not financial at all--the genesis of the Muskie incident, the letter campaign in Florida, even the burglary of the Watergate residence.

There is to be no attempt here to go into the mechanics of winning a presidential election. The point is, however, that there is much to be done if the center of power is to be captured, and this necessarily attracts to the power center people who will do almost anything to acquire and retain that power. High return invites high risk.

But no one views himself as evil incarnate. All of us think we are acting in the right, and if there is a temptation to cut some corners, we look for moral justification for our actions--especially if we find ourselves up against formidable opponents. The discussion is not between the moral and the immoral; it is about what is moral.

Thus, the second impulse in the scenario is the moral relativism which we have inherited from the sixties. It is the inheritance of an era which apotheosized those who destroyed and defiled under the aegis of a higher morality. It is also the inheritance of a press and an intelligentsia which defended the thesis: if the end is noble enough, unusual and base means may be utilized for its attainment.

Like most swords this one cuts with a second edge. Having suffered the indignities and pain of the application of this thesis by one side, it is retrospectively obvious that the other side would eventually find justification for its use. Thus was traded Vietnam for the Presidency as the end, and destruction and defilement for Watergate as the means. In both cases the most serious casualty was the belief in the American guarantee of human rights and the atmosphere of freedom thought to prevail in our country.

A government grown too large and too powerful and a relativistic and duplistic moral standard are the real perpetrators of Watergate. Both of these conditions have emerged more from advocacies of the Left than of the Right--this is certainly true if the Right is interpreted as the individualistic or libertarian Right. The objective is not to impugn motives but to fix pragmatic responsibility. Policies and ideas do have consequences--not all of them foreseen or desired by the advocates.

The connection must be made between the corrupting influence which always accompanies large coercive forces--like big government--and the advocacy that government should be made larger, for whatever noble purpose. Failure to perceive this is an inherent flaw in the philosophy and strategy of the Left and of the liberals.

Until we fathom that the solution to Watergate is not a change in administrations but a severe curtailment of governmental scope, and that moral relativism must be replaced by a single and objective moral standard for all, we will continue to be submerged in the backwash of future Watergates and in the improper excesses of those who would rule us.

Avi Nelson is a PhD candidate in Physics, a past Republican Congressional candidate in the 4th District, and host of a WBZ talk show.