| Subject: The Ford "Legacy" |
Author:
Ned Depew
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:42:18 01/02/07 Tue
"Not a Lincoln"...and how!
As a general rule I observe the ancient maxim, "De mortibus nil nisi bonum" - "speak nothing but good of the dead." But that doesn't mean that one should condone the re-writing of history, and I don't.
The fact is that at the time he was appointed many commentators speculated that the choice of Ford was "impeachment insurance." President Nixon had to choose a new "second-in-command." He had to replace elected Vice President Spiro Agnew, who had resigned under indictment for accepting bribes (Agnew later pleaded guilty to a "lesser charge" as arranged between the "Justice Department," his political protectors and the Maryland Attorney General).
He chose the ineffective, unimaginative, loyal, pleasant and acceptable non-entity Gerald R. Ford (in twenty five years in the House of Representatives, Ford had never authored one single bill!) Many speculated that the reason for the choice - aside from the bland mediocrity and near political invisibility of the candidate that would make taking any substantive objection to him nearly impossible - was the fact that Ford was so obviously NOT "Presidential timber" that the Congress would hesitate to take the step of removing Nixon - despite his criminal activities - and elevating Ford to a position that was so clearly beyond his competence.
But in a graphic demonstration of the Peter Principle (that within hierarchical organizational structures "people rise to level of their incompetence") Ford did indeed become President.
That wasn't so bad. But his morally (and politically) inexcusable behavior followed soon after. After taking a "sacred oath" in which he vowed to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States" and giving an inauguration speech in which he claimed that the Watergate investigation and the resignation of Richard Nixon "proves that we are a Government of Laws and not of men," he proceeded to suborn the Constitution and give the lie to his own words by "pardoning" Nixon for any and all unknown and un-named "crimes" he "may" have committed - and action to which no other man in US history has been privileged.
By doing so he set the stage for Reagan's Iran-Contra and Arms-for-Hostages deals - clear violations of the Constitution, for which the Chief Executive - the man responsible for what goes on during his watch - was then held blameless, just as Nixon was held blameless for his crimes. And he set a dangerous and destructive precedent for future Presidents.
Ford's actions assured future Presidents that if they only played the political system shrewdly there were likely loopholes (e.g. Reagan's "plausible deniability") that would allow them to act "above the law" - like Kings or Emperors. That lesson was obviously taken to heart (and savored) by such current oligarchs as Dick Cheney - who served as Ford's Chief of Staff and has advised the current President that he can scorn and flout the Constitution as he pleases - knowing that if he should go too far, a mechanism is already in place to protect him from answering for his actions.
The model of US Government as an insulated oligarchy (or possibly in the current case "oily-garchy" might be more accurate) headed by a figurehead President claiming Imperial Powers to overrule the Constitution at his whim in the name of "National Security" (the same argument by which Nixon sought to protect the evidence of his crimes from public exposure!) is a logical result of the further abuse of the precedent Ford's pardon set. The idea that the "Head of State" (and by extension those working under his direct orders) is exempt from any oversight, any accountability, and any responsibility to his oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution" if he says he is, has its roots in Ford's action.
Not that I believe that Ford thought this up. He was merely a willing pawn, as he had been throughout his career, to the Party Hierarchy that told him what to do. He consciencelessly and irresponsibly carried out those orders.
He was, admittedly, merely a tool - but his behavior has led to the further deterioration of the American Dream of "Government of the people, by the people and for the people." For having willingly lent himself to that purpose he deserves not false praise, but to be allowed to go to his rest without further comment than a review of the facts and the inescapable conclusion they present, and for history to make a final judgment on his actions and their consequences.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 