“Gerald Ford was handed the presidency in exchange for a political favor.”
“Gerald Ford set the table for himself, and sold out Richard Nixon to gain the Oval Office.”
“Gerald Ford was a moderate Republican, and his appointment to the office of the President was an orchestrated move crafted to dupe Democrats into buying into Republican machinations.”
“Gerald Ford was a tool of the Republicans so that conservatives could lay down roots and install themselves as unmovable fixtures within the political machine.”
“Gerald Ford was a disgrace to the Republicans, and his inadequacies let down every conservative American.”
As a child and then as a teenager, growing up in a politically divided household, I heard these theories and accusations time and again. And then some.
The first argument I remember suggests that Ford, the non-threat, the easily approvable candidate for the vice-presidency, was given the office because of his loyalist nature. That’s a nice theory, but Ford demonstrated his unwillingness to vote with his party when he felt that the party was wrong. This was demonstrated well before even Nixon took office; his foreign policy clearly showed, repeatedly, that he was an internationalist, a man who would choose peaceful tactics rather than military effrontery every time. Ford sought to build international relationships constantly, as can be seen in his détente with the then-U.S.S.R. and the People’s Republic of China, two nations that perpetuated their own Cold War for decades.
Too, Ford risked disfavor with fellow Republicans by engaging in accord talks that would establish global human rights watch activities. President Ford was almost single-handedly responsible for bringing Canada into the international socio-economic summit that we now know as the G8 (Canada was the eight nation to be included in this organization.). All, in all, Ford represented more of a threat to the Republican war machine and to those with special interests in mind. So much for theory one.
As for Ford selling Nixon down the river, Nixon did more damage to himself in the latter days of his role as President than anyone else could have dreamed of doing himself. His paranoia and his rambling accusations of almost everyone around him pushed away most of even the hardiest of his allies. It also didn’t help that he still persisted in taping conversations and meetings in a clandestine manner, the very thing that got him in trouble in the first place.
And as for Ford setting the table for himself, Ford’s congressional record does not show that he played the political game ever, and that he truly felt as if he were in office to represent what his constituents wanted, not what the Republican Party wanted. Until he received the call to accede to the vice-presidency, Ford held little interest in moving over to the Executive Branch. And he never publicly stated that he had any aspirations for the White House until after he had served as President by accession. So, another theory is shot down.
Ford was a moderate, true. But he was still a Republican, and Democrats were fierce in their opposition to anyone running under the banner of the right wing. The sixties had seen a dramatic increase in the number of registered Democrats, and that number only grew as opposition to U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia increased. No, no matter how moderate or even liberal Ford may have been, his Republican nametag would not entice any Democrat voters. This point was proven with his loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Next theory: Gerald Ford did appoint several key people to significant positions while he served. But then, so has anyone that ever resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But how big a conspiracy theorist do you have be to believe that Ford’s appointees were egalitarian seeds that would come into bloom twenty-five years later? It is true that George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Karl Rove can be traced to Ford, but with the political cosmology ever-changing in Washington, it is inconceivable that Ford’s appointments of these men were calculated.
That brand of accusation is better kept to science fiction tales of intrigue- unless Dick Cheney and company really are members of the Evil Empire… Besides, if this accusation is to be believed, then why did Ford appoint John Paul Stevens as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court? Historically, Stevens had shown that he was unwilling to engage in partisan politics, but Ford appointed him, nevertheless. Stevens went on to produce some of the more liberal decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, serving as a perfect argument that Ford was not planting Republican ticks on the backs of American Democrats.
The last argument was a favorite of my grandmother, who apparently never got over her distrust of Franklin Roosevelt. She asserted that Ford was a disgrace and should have himself been impeached for his actions in handing over the country to the Democrats, before and after the ’76 election. I loved my grandmother dearly, but I could never understand how it was that she could lower the boom of accusation against Ford and still proclaim that Nixon was an exceptional man and wonderful President. Talk about sticking to partisan politics! Grandma never did justify her mindset, only saying that when I was older I’d understand.
Well, I’m forty years old now, and in my mind, Nixon is no closer to the role of martyr or saint than he was when I was an adolescent. He was dishonest, for whatever reason, and he deserved to be expelled from office. He only just managed to save a shred of dignity by resigning the office, although I still believe that he deserved some sort of public reprisal for his misdeeds. Lesser offenses have garnered stiffer attrition, and most historians would agree that he achieved something tantamount to impunity. And Gerald Ford was the unfortunate victim in that completely sordid time, though he never once bemoaned his eventual fate. For the pardon of a criminal, Gerald R. Ford was himself thrust into public scrutiny and persecution. A nation of angry people would decry foul, and shake their heads and their fists over what was, to them, just another example of Republican corruption at the highest level.
Ford had no scheme tat would take him to the office of the President. He was simply the most logical and the safest choice the Republicans had for replacing Spiro Agnew. Period. But what he did when got to office was the key to his identity, and it assured that he would hold a spot in history forever.
There are those dyed-in-the-wool Democrats that will always proclaim that once a politician shrouds himself in the banners and bunting of the G.O.P., then that person is and always will be a conservative, a Republican. And for the most part, they would be right. After all, American history is heavily laden with the names and faces of men whose conservatism prevailed and pervaded the nation even after they left office. Take for example the career of two of the twentieth century’s earliest Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.
Both of these men served as President, and both held sway over public policy and the lives of Americans well after leaving office. Roosevelt brandished a rigid policy against bridling foreign powers (hence his insistence on waging war on Spain in the waning days of the nineteenth century) and corrupt corporations and grafted judges that threatened to disrupt the blossoming national economy and the rule of law. Equally as rigid, Taft also adopted the conservative stance of rule of law, and though he never narrowed his target sights on individual captains of industry like his predecessor Roosevelt, he did focus on the dissolution of monopolies in the U.S. corporate world. Further, he established the foundation for the personal income tax system that Americans have come to know so well.
Like his early Republican brethren, Gerald Ford held onto conservative values that gained him scorn from Democratic Party leaders and support from his home party. However, a second look at history will show that both Roosevelt and Taft lost the backing of the Republican Party when their personal beliefs and policies deviated from what the Party endorsed. For Roosevelt, it was his progressiveness and his campaign of attack on prominent judicial figures. And Taft lost favor with Republicans when he split the party in an almost personal war with once-ally Roosevelt; this conflict divided the vote among Republicans and opened the door for Democrat Woodrow Wilson to step in.
If this sounds eerily familiar when held in context with recent history, there is good reason for that. It is almost the same thing that happened to Gerald Ford, following his accession to the presidency in 1974. It is no secret that Ford was selected to replace the disgraced Spiro Agnew because he was the safest bet the Republicans had. However, with the Nixon pardon came the downcast eyes of the American public that saw just another instance of Republican corruption. Despite the opinion that the power brokers behind the scenes hoped to put a safe, malleable player in the Oval Office, and the pardon of Nixon was almost a negotiated, planned move, those in the highest planes of the party could not have anticipated the impact of the pardon that Ford issued. Nor could they have foreseen that Ford, already known for his moderate views, would seize upon the opportunity, as President, to take affirmative action for a nation torn by scandal and war.
Beyond the pardon, Ford moved to bring the interests of both minorities and women into focus. He was a staunch advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment, and put forth efforts to create a stronger workforce by initiating incentives for companies that hired minorities. He also pushed and saw pass legislation that would ensure special education for the nation’s handicapped children, even though the country was caught in the grip of a recession and funding would hit hard an already thin budget. Ford’s administration also saw the pullout of troops from Viet Nam, a conflict that had fueled the Republican war machine.
It is no wonder that the hard-line conservatives of the Party decided that Gerald Ford was not the man to represent them in the future. For the man who had selflessly committed political suicide by issuing the infamous pardon for Nixon, all allegiances were lost. While he would win the nomination for the Republican ticket, Ford would lose to Jimmy Carter in 1976. His loss was barely a marginal one, and he could easily have regained the office in the 1980 election, but party leaders gave the nod to Ronald Reagan, whose conservative stance gained the favor of the party. It was Reagan that would run against Carter in 1980, an election that he won easily. Ford was forgotten by his party. Abandoned by the Republicans. Detested by the Democrats. And all for being what Ford considered was the job of a good president.
Yet, that would not stop the quiet, ‘accidental president’. Ford remained active as an advisor for his successor, Jimmy Carter, and the two men would form a friendship that would span decades. He served on several commissions that focused on election reform and government excellence. And he was, in recent years, vocal about the need for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Too, he admonished the current administration for the war in Iraq and the high costs that that conflict has placed upon the nation.
Gerald Ford’s record, before, during, and after his presidency, gives due cause for reconsideration as to whether he was the model Republican- which is to say, the model Republican would have followed the schematic of his party rather than what was good for the country. Since he seemed to fly in the very face of what his Party wanted from him and followed reason rather than party lines, one might say that he was more liberal than conservative. Or, at the very least, he was a humanist. Gerald Nixon was a friend to Richard Nixon, a longtime friend. Theirs was a friendship built and maintained out of respect and honesty, and Ford was one of the few men to have ever seen the true nature of Nixon. Yes, Nixon was paranoid, and yes, he suffered from obsession because of the paranoia, but he had, once upon a time, been a strong leader, capable of moving the U.S into greater places. But Ford was able to look past the negative things and see a broken, shamed man who genuinely felt the weight of guilt and remorse for his misconduct and the sting of rebuke from his countrymen. But moreover, Gerald Ford saw a nation torn apart by scandal.
He saw a population left swinging in the bitter winds of a war the United States could not win, and he saw a nation’s people grow weary over the loss of trustworthy leadership. The government had sunk to an abysmal level, and the administration was, at best, threadbare. Ford could have taken a self-promoting stance, pushing aside his friend, while also flogging the constituency by promoting his party’s platform of issues and policies. Instead, he turned aside from expectations and committed what most people consider the greatest, most heroic act a leader could ever perform. He sacrificed his political stature and a probable long run in office, to lend the graceful hand of absolution to a disgraced president and a nation’s people. His was a healing act, greater than that of any of his contemporaries.
This he did without hesitation, and we as Americans may do well to remember the lasting lesson that action, the pardon of a shamed man, taught us. Although it took a great deal of time for the lesson to sink in, that lesson is this: To be a party man, on any side, is easy- you just have to move with the flock. But to be a good human being requires stern stuff. It takes intelligence, wisdom, courage, strength, and, above all, heart.
President Gerald R. Ford has passed away, but I hope that he will not pass out of memory. He will not pass from mine, as I know that he was not a good Republican, he was a great American, and a singularly heroic President.
Goodbye, sir.
