Contextualizing Gerald Ford, II

A quick addition to my previous post. Two links — one from The Nation, the other from Chris Floyd’s Empire Burlesque — sum up the part of the Ford legacy that the mainstream media seems willing to ignore. From Jon Weiner’s Nation post:

Gerald Ford is gone, but he lives on in two of his key appointees: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Their impact on America today is greater than Ford’s, who died Tuesday at 93.

Ford appointed Rumsfeld his chief of staff when he took office after Nixon’s resignation in 1974. The next year, when he made the 42-year-old Rumsfeld the youngest secretary of defense in the nation’s history, he named 34-year-old Dick Cheney his chief of staff, also the youngest ever.

Those two Ford appointees worked together ever since. The Bush White House assertion of unchecked presidential power stems from the lessons they drew from their experience of working for the weakest president in recent American history. “For Dick and Don,” Harold Meyerson wrote in The American Prospect last July, “the frustrations of the Ford years have been compensated for by the abuses of the
Bush years.”

Jerry Ford may not have seen this coming, but this is what we all now have to live with.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Contextualizing Gerald Ford

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

Opportunism knocks

Why is that Republicans never concern themselves with political reform when they are the majority party?

Consider the record: The party ran in 1991, in the wake of the unpopular Jim Florio tax hike, on a platform that included recall of elected officials and initiative and referendum. They controlled the Legislature for 10 years, the governor’s mansion for eight, and we still have no I&R.

And then, after the McGreevey administration came to power, the GOP started pushing for pay-to-play reforms — something that was off the table when the Whitman administration was botching E-ZPass and lottery contracts.

I raise this question after reading an Associated Press report saying that a pair of Morris County Republicans want to create a limited version of I&R for spending measures. The Assembly members, Richard Merkt and Joseph Pennacchio, say their plan would allow citizens to have a direct say in how public money is spent.

“This proposal would give New Jersey citizens direct control over state tax, spending and borrowing decisions,” Merkt said. “Trenton has failed the taxpayers of New Jersey and it is time that we put decision-making power back in the hands of the people.”

The plan, according to the AP report, would allow citizens to:

post questions on the ballot if they get signatures from 25 percent of registered voters in 14 of the state’s 21 counties. If passed by voters, a proposal would become law within 60 days. It could be stopped only if two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature voted to overturn the voter approval.

Put another way, petitioners could bypass some of the state’s largest and densest counties (Bergen, Camden, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex and Passaic — about half the state’s population) and still get something on the ballot. That’s absurd.

That doesn’t mean we should dismiss I&R out of hand. On the contrary, I&R theoretically enhances our democracy — provided there are tight controls on money spent during I&R campaigns.

But we have to ask hard questions not only about the plan being floated by Merkt and Pennachio but about the motivations behind it. The Assembly members say they are making their proposal — destined to die in committee — because of the summer’s budget fiasco and sales tax hike and the recent approval of money for stem cell research and needle exchange programs, but I have to wonder.

After all, we are entering an election year in which the entire Legislature is up for election, a Legislature that is not exactly popular in public opinion polls. Simply put, the proposal smacks of the kind of political opportunism that gave us the GOP majority in the early 1990s, a majority that slashed the state income tax without thought to future budgets, while burying its own reform platform in the back of its storage closet.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

This soul cries for the godfather


James Brown, who along with a handful of others, created the music we know of as soul, died this morning. It lends an air of sadness to a Christmas morning spent watching my niece and nephews opening gifts.

Along with Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan and a handful of others, Brown was one of the major musical influences of the past 50 years. At least one generation idolized him, and sometimes openly copied him. His rapid-footed dancing inspired Mick Jagger and Michael Jackson among others. Songs such as David Bowie’s “Fame,” Prince’s “Kiss,” George Clinton’s “Atomic Dog” and Sly and the Family Stone’s “Sing a Simple Song” were clearly based on Brown’s rhythms and vocal style.

Chuck D, the great rapper from Public Enemy, said it best:

“James presented obviously the best grooves,” rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy once told The Associated Press. “To this day, there has been no one near as funky. No one’s coming even close.”

Rest in peace, Godfather.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick