Looking over the increasingly dystopian political landscape in the US, I have reached the conclusion that it’s former President Gerald Ford who deserves the blame for our predicament. I also know that bashing the dead is never a popular approach, but let me walk you through my thinking.
Ford got the job of Vice President under Nixon because Nixon appointed him to fill out the term of Spiro Agnew – who resigned the Vice Presidency after being forced to resign because he plead no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion after years of DoJ investigations of his receiving kickbacks as both Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland. Kickbacks that allegedly continued into his Vice Presidency (one wonders what James Comer and Jim Jordan would have to say about impeaching him). Whether he knew it or not, Ford was walking into a criminal White House; The Watergate scandal broke soon after he took office as VP, and he was elevated to the Presidency in August 1974 – before he could take up residency at the VP’s official home in the U.S. Naval Observatory.
Where Ford got us off the rails was his ensuing and quick pardon of Nixon:
On September 8, 1974, Ford issued Proclamation 4311, which gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president. In a televised broadcast to the nation, Ford explained that he felt the pardon was in the best interests of the country, and that the Nixon family’s situation “is a tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.”>Heavily criticized at the time – Wikipedia quotes the NYT thusly editorialized against the pardon as a:
“profoundly unwise, divisive and unjust act” that in a stroke had destroyed the new president’s “credibility as a man of judgment, candor and competence”
Ford nonetheless stuck to his guns, claiming to believe that a pardon signaled a presumption of guilt, and that accepting a pardon meant acknowledging the guilt for the actions pardoned. Me thinks he wasn’t paying attention to Roger Stone.
In his speech announcing the pardon, Ford accurately predicted where TFG claims we are today:
The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused. And our people would again be polarized in their opinions. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
Notice how Ford believed – as TFG does – that prosecuting a President for crimes forces the nation to act in ways that no other citizen would or should have to endure. Notice how Ford believes – as TFG does – that such a prosecution will make us look weak as a nation. And notice how Ford sweeps away – as TFG does – the notion that legal prosecution would bring justice. It’s almost as if Ford didn’t trust America’s democracy to survive. Much like TFG hopes it won’t.
Now to be clear – I believe Nixon was guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and had he stayed and fought it out I am certain the Senate would have convicted him. Further, I strongly suspect the DoJ would have carried out subsequent investigations and prosecutions of Nixon for directing Watergate – much as Jack Smith now does with TFG.
I also firmly believe Ford’s willful naivete about what would happen by holding a former President to account opened the door to our current state of play, where TFG dares America on a daily basis to reign him in. So far, all the dire consequences Ford predicted for Nixon are coming true precisely BECAUSE TFG has not been called to account.
Which begs the question of whether we will remain equally as naïve as a nation and let TFG skate simply because we don’t think our Nation can stand the repercussions.
Agreed. Ford’s decision in the end amounted to kicking the can down the road. Whatever the validity of the concerns that motivated it, we’re now dealing with the same issues again, and at a time when we might be actually less able to deal with them. Forcing this to come to a head honestly is the most prudent thing that can be done. I’m hopeful that TFG will go down in flames in November, but by itself I don’t think a lot will be solved long term.Report
I supported the pardon at the time. Now I think it was a mistake. I think a better course would have been to let the investigations and prosecutions move forward, and pardon him after we knew clearly what he did.
Nixon is the guy who first said, “If the president did it, that means it’s legal.” We needed to put that to rest, and we didn’t.Report
True. Good stuff. Reagan nominating Bork was also a giant waving red flag. R’s learned the lesson they could get away with presidential corruption. Ford f’d up badly.Report
Watergate.
Bork
Iran-Contra
The Second Iraq invasion
Garland
The GOP has internalized that the system doesn’t stand up well to people who don’t care about the system. Democrats still can’t grok people who don’t care about the system.Report
This is just drawing a line connecting things you don’t like.
With The Second Iraq invasion, Bush went to the people, made his case, and got Congress to approve it. This was following the system. What to do about Sadam was a thing and there were no good options.
Garland was a political reality that was first observed by Biden decades earlier.
Iran-Contra was illegal but Reagan literally couldn’t remember the details because of dementia. I think several people went to jail over that one so there’s that.
Watergate cost Nixon his Presidency because the senior GOP leaders told him he was going to be removed from office. The bulk of the “Watergate 7” did Time over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_Seven
Bork I don’t understand the point you’re making. He didn’t make it to the Supreme Court but not because of Watergate.Report
It was members of the GOP who told (really forced) Nixon to resign or be removed from office.
This would have happened to Trump except he (amazingly) didn’t lose his base.
If we had arrested Nixon, the lesson Trump would have learned is he needs to stay in office or he’ll be arrested.Report
Had Nixon been convicted (either in impeachment or criminally) the lesson the GOP would have learned is to not nominate crooks just because it helps them achieve their ends. Trump was able to foist himself on the party through a plurality of voters precisely because no such lesson had been taught.Report
I remember hearing, and believing, the theory that to indict and try a former President would “tear the country apart”.
In my defense, I was 14 and the idea of such cataclysmic event was frightening.
Nowadays I call that the “peasant mentality” where it is assumed we citizens are children who need to be shielded from difficult events and choices.
What Trump has proved though, is that we aren’t. Nothing will “tear the country apart”. We have survived terror attacks, an insurrection, and a convicted fraud and rapist running for President and still we go on.
‘Report
If anything, refusing to hold powerful people accountable can do damage. I’m aware of one classicist that has argued its what finished off the Roman Republic: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1692941345860489512.htmlReport
All right. I’ve had it.
I cannot stand it any more.
The phrase is “REIN him in,” not “REIGN” him in.
“Reign” is a verb, meaning to rule over or to govern, as would a king or an emperor.
“Rein,” when used as a verb, means to control or restrain, as in using the reins of a set of tackle on a horse.
Trump is not daring America to “reign him in,” because he does not want to be ruled by America. He wants to RULE America; he wants to REIGN OVER America. Trump is daring us to REIN him in, to put some kind of a restraint on the outrageous, awful, destructive, terrible, very bad things that he keeps on doing.
I’ve seen this mistake in many posts over many months now.
REIN.Report
grammar Trumpist!Report
Do not EVEN get me started on affect/effect.Report
Sorry. Sometimes you just have to tow the line.Report
That said, if Congress had actually impeached him, then I think that could arguably have been called “reigning him in”.Report
They did impeach TFG. Twice. They failed to convict both times.
If we are going to split hairs about REINing someone, this also matters.
Actually it matters more. Because TFG was impeached twice. Clinton only once. YMMV on what that means . . . .Report
Yeah, I should have said “removed from office”.Report
I take full responsibility. I have abdicated my grammar Nazi responsibilities as of late. Will do better.Report
Time to staunch the bleeding. 😉Report
No need to flout your erudition.Report
Certainly better then hiding it.Report
I know you think calling Trump “TFG” is somehow a diss, but it sure comes off like you think he’s so powerful that you have to make up special names to handle him mentally.
I really do not understand the strategy of proving how little you think of someone by proving you think about them so much you even make up nicknames for them.Report
I don’t think Silhus made up “TFG,” or that he claims to have. The nickname has been around for years. Sometimes an insult is only an insult, and who among us. present company very much included is above it?Report
FORD TO PHILIP H:
DROP DEAD
(probably)Report