Gerald R. Ford, the 38th president of the United States, died Tuesday at the age of 93 — making him the oldest ex-president in history. Ford’s presidency was short and uneventful and may have been the least significant of the post-World War II years.
The New York Times pretty much sums up the significance of Ford‘s two-year presidency in its lead on its story on his death:
Former President Gerald R. Ford, who was thrust into the presidency in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal but who lost his own bid for election after pardoning President Richard M. Nixon, has died, according to a statement issued late last night by his wife, Betty Ford.
Watching the news last night, I was struck by how the newscasters and analysts were striving to elevate Ford’s rather inconsequential presidency, to make him seem more presidential, his brief tenure as a placeholder who prevented things from getting worse somehow being elevated to the level of national healer — with nearly as many words being spent on his wife, Betty, as on the now late-ex-president. (I turned to my wife, Annie, and said, “The fact that they are talking more about Betty than Jerry pretty much says it all about the Ford presidency.” The reality is that the 38th president of the United States was less important culturally or historically than the soul-singer who died Christmas morning.)
Gerald FordFord spent two years in the White House, replacing President Richard M. Nixon in 1974 after Nixon resigned amid scandal. Ford is credited with restoring a sense of order and confidence in the presidency:
When Mr. Ford took the oath of president in 1974, the economy was in disarray, an energy shortage was worsening, allies were wondering how steadfast the United States might be as a partner and Mr. Nixon, having resigned rather than face impeachment for taking part in the Watergate cover-up, was flying to seclusion in San Clemente, Calif.
There was a collective sense of relief as Mr. Ford, in the most memorable line of his most noteworthy speech, declared that day, “Our long national nightmare is over.”
Two years later, as he accepted the Republican presidential nomination and began a campaign that would end in his first failure in an election, Mr. Ford scarcely seemed to be indulging in hyperbole as he recalled what it had been like to take office as Mr. Nixon’s heir.
“It was an hour in our history that troubled our minds and tore at our hearts,” he said. “Anger and hatred had risen to dangerous levels, dividing friends and families. The polarization of our political order had aroused unworthy passions of reprisal and revenge. Our governmental system was closer to stalemate than at any time since Abraham Lincoln took that same oath of office.”
History has been kinder to Ford than the voters were, of course. He lost in his bid for office by about two percentage points in 1976, a loss that historians said should have been worse (talk about what ifs) based on early polling. This “comeback” (from what exactly? bad poll numbers?), the Times obit says, “reflected a positive aspect of his brief presidency.”
It indicated the extent to which he seemed to have re-established a sense of trustworthiness in the nation’s most visible and symbolic office.
One political aide said of those who voted for Mr. Ford, “They’re voting for something solid — a simple, honest, decent man.”
For me, the defeat raises questions about whether the country had really healed. Jimmy Carter, after all, defeated Ford running on a platform of change and ethical probity similar to the one the second George Bush used to defeat Al Gore in 2000.
Stuart Spencer, his campaign manager, said that polling data about the pardon had made it clear that “it cost him the election.” He said 7 percent of Republicans had either voted for Mr. Carter or stayed home because of the pardon, and it hurt with Democrats and independents, too.
Robert S. Strauss, who was Democratic National Chairman in 1976, agreed. He said Mr. Ford “was never forgiven for it.”
“People always assumed there was a deal, even though there was no evidence of one,” Mr. Strauss said.
We can look back and view the Ford presidency in the context of healing now, but the years both before and since were pretty tumultuous — war and Watergate, energy crises, the disastrous Carter presidency and the Iran Hostage crisis — paving the way for 12 years of retrenchment and reactionary policymaking under Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush.
Ford’s place in history is more complicated than the current hosannas make it seem — at best he is a transitional figure and the answer to two trivia questions (who is the only president to serve without ever being elected to the office? and who was the oldest living ex-president?); at worst he was a two-year blip who managed to prevent bad from growing worse.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 
People assumed there was a deal because Alexander Haig famously discussed pardon scenarios with Ford when they were discussing the offer for the vice presidency and because nobody can believe that Ford would have gotten that offer if he didn\’t agree to play ball. And I believe there was a deal for that same reason and because, one month after Nixon resigned, he was pardoned by Ford. And that pardon came even though Nixon was not under indictment anywhere. He was actually pardoned for crimes he MAY have commiteed while in office. Doesn\’t that strike anyone else as fishy as hell?