Lincolns Are Made By Ford
Lincolns Are Made By Ford
As our nation absorbs the news of Gerald Ford’s death, there is an almost palpable sense of relief that amidst the current controversies involving corruption, deception and immorality, we have a prominent political leader about whom we can feel good. As President, Gerald Ford established his place in history not by championing a cause or articulating new vision, but by modeling integrity and by steadying the ship.
As I listen to the commentators assessing Ford’s administration, I notice that first and most often mentioned is his act of pardoning Richard Nixon. We are far from a consensus on the wisdom of Ford’s decision. At the time, the criticism was acid, and Ford’s ratings in the polls plummeted. Indeed, many analysts feel it cost him the election in his race against Carter 2 ½ years later. The commemorations at this time of his burial begin with the question of whether Ford was right to do it. Questions of “right” are usually tinged with emotion and judgments of who was hurt or helped. I notice the eulogizers going back and forth, their answers depending on what they think about the results. If they feel Nixon did not deserve pardon and should have suffered more, they do not like it. If they think the nation pined for release from Watergate’s sordid grip and needed a time to heal, they like it.
Many seem to think of the pardoning power as a kind of anomaly--that it serves no useful political purpose (unless for the culprit‘s mother). They don’t understand how the pardoning power got slipped into the Constitution. In fact, I heard one respondent insist that, despite the pardon’s presence in the Constitution, the President really does not have the power legitimately, because it is at odds with the revolutionary generation’s distaste for royal acts of tyranny. This, in reverse, is the same kind of confused thinking and disrespect of the Constitution that has led to undeclared Presidential wars. One says the President can’t unilaterally pardon, the other says the President can unilaterally wage war--the Constitution be damned in both cases. If we don’t like pardons, we should either figure out why the Constitution writers thought it important, or exercise our greater wisdom and take it out. But before we do anything drastic let’s look more closely at what Gerald Ford, of all people--a local boy who lucked out and was appointed President--had to say about it.
Few speak of the nature of the deed itself, and what it meant to the pardoner. In his pardoning statement, viewed nationally on television, Ford not only explained why he was issuing it, but spoke about how he came to the decision, and why he felt it appropriate. The decision was birthed in introspection. He acknowledged that, to know what was right, he needed the help of God and the supporting prayers of the people. He weighed the effect of a pardon on both Richard Nixon and on the nation, concluding that whether Nixon merited a pardon took second place to the benefit the nation would receive. He felt concern for the effect of Nixon’s disgrace on the ex-President’s health. And he saw the Nixon family’s troubles as “an American tragedy in which we have all played a part.” In Ford’s mind, sealing the book on the episode would best insure domestic tranquility and wake us from a national nightmare. This President knew he would be vilified for his decision, but saw a need to sever the national preoccupation with courts, lawyers, and legal maneuverings.
The pardon was a flanking move, but it was a human move first. As political strategy it was suspect, but the new President explained that “my first consideration will always be to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.” He saw pardon as the “right” thing and was not ashamed to say this conviction was rooted in a spiritual understanding. He used scripture to explain what he meant. Paraphrasing James 2:18 (correctly), he said that , “{I} as a humble servant of god, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.” He wanted to set an example for the nation to follow.
When it comes right down to it, Nixon will always be the villain of Watergate. The evidence of wrongdoing is well established. Initial reaction to the pardon was skepticism about Ford’s motives. If there was a “deal” made, Ford is guilty of villainy by association. Ford insisted there was no deal. Diehard cynicism that would disbelieve him should wane in the face of an appreciation of the Constitutional writers’ intentions, an enlightened acceptance of the pardon principle, and the solidity and consistency of Gerald Ford’s character.
With some distance from the grappling moments, we may be able to see Gerald Ford not only as a “nice guy,” but as a hero who understood what our Founding Fathers thought about what it takes to uphold a great democratic nation. One of our greatest Presidents in another time of war, 140 years ago, spoke of the enemy with a distinct absence of malice. When President Ford stepped into the high office he assured us he was a Ford not a Lincoln. But I believe he has shown our generation that both versions come from the same manufacturer.
Ironically the death of Saddam Hussein the same week as President Ford’s passing distinctly limns for us the difference between a hero and a villain. We learned from Bob Woodward this week that Gerald Ford, in a private interview, had expressed that he would not have ordered an attack on Hussein. The public response to the execution of Saddam Hussein, while Ford lies in state, may reveal whether we understand what Ford was made of and how ready we are to canonize him for infusing democracy with spiritual insight and political courage for pardoning an enemy of the state.
As our nation absorbs the news of Gerald Ford’s death, there is an almost palpable sense of relief that amidst the current controversies involving corruption, deception and immorality, we have a prominent political leader about whom we can feel good. As President, Gerald Ford established his place in history not by championing a cause or articulating new vision, but by modeling integrity and by steadying the ship.
As I listen to the commentators assessing Ford’s administration, I notice that first and most often mentioned is his act of pardoning Richard Nixon. We are far from a consensus on the wisdom of Ford’s decision. At the time, the criticism was acid, and Ford’s ratings in the polls plummeted. Indeed, many analysts feel it cost him the election in his race against Carter 2 ½ years later. The commemorations at this time of his burial begin with the question of whether Ford was right to do it. Questions of “right” are usually tinged with emotion and judgments of who was hurt or helped. I notice the eulogizers going back and forth, their answers depending on what they think about the results. If they feel Nixon did not deserve pardon and should have suffered more, they do not like it. If they think the nation pined for release from Watergate’s sordid grip and needed a time to heal, they like it.
Many seem to think of the pardoning power as a kind of anomaly--that it serves no useful political purpose (unless for the culprit‘s mother). They don’t understand how the pardoning power got slipped into the Constitution. In fact, I heard one respondent insist that, despite the pardon’s presence in the Constitution, the President really does not have the power legitimately, because it is at odds with the revolutionary generation’s distaste for royal acts of tyranny. This, in reverse, is the same kind of confused thinking and disrespect of the Constitution that has led to undeclared Presidential wars. One says the President can’t unilaterally pardon, the other says the President can unilaterally wage war--the Constitution be damned in both cases. If we don’t like pardons, we should either figure out why the Constitution writers thought it important, or exercise our greater wisdom and take it out. But before we do anything drastic let’s look more closely at what Gerald Ford, of all people--a local boy who lucked out and was appointed President--had to say about it.
Few speak of the nature of the deed itself, and what it meant to the pardoner. In his pardoning statement, viewed nationally on television, Ford not only explained why he was issuing it, but spoke about how he came to the decision, and why he felt it appropriate. The decision was birthed in introspection. He acknowledged that, to know what was right, he needed the help of God and the supporting prayers of the people. He weighed the effect of a pardon on both Richard Nixon and on the nation, concluding that whether Nixon merited a pardon took second place to the benefit the nation would receive. He felt concern for the effect of Nixon’s disgrace on the ex-President’s health. And he saw the Nixon family’s troubles as “an American tragedy in which we have all played a part.” In Ford’s mind, sealing the book on the episode would best insure domestic tranquility and wake us from a national nightmare. This President knew he would be vilified for his decision, but saw a need to sever the national preoccupation with courts, lawyers, and legal maneuverings.
The pardon was a flanking move, but it was a human move first. As political strategy it was suspect, but the new President explained that “my first consideration will always be to be true to my own convictions and my own conscience.” He saw pardon as the “right” thing and was not ashamed to say this conviction was rooted in a spiritual understanding. He used scripture to explain what he meant. Paraphrasing James 2:18 (correctly), he said that , “{I} as a humble servant of god, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy.” He wanted to set an example for the nation to follow.
When it comes right down to it, Nixon will always be the villain of Watergate. The evidence of wrongdoing is well established. Initial reaction to the pardon was skepticism about Ford’s motives. If there was a “deal” made, Ford is guilty of villainy by association. Ford insisted there was no deal. Diehard cynicism that would disbelieve him should wane in the face of an appreciation of the Constitutional writers’ intentions, an enlightened acceptance of the pardon principle, and the solidity and consistency of Gerald Ford’s character.
With some distance from the grappling moments, we may be able to see Gerald Ford not only as a “nice guy,” but as a hero who understood what our Founding Fathers thought about what it takes to uphold a great democratic nation. One of our greatest Presidents in another time of war, 140 years ago, spoke of the enemy with a distinct absence of malice. When President Ford stepped into the high office he assured us he was a Ford not a Lincoln. But I believe he has shown our generation that both versions come from the same manufacturer.
Ironically the death of Saddam Hussein the same week as President Ford’s passing distinctly limns for us the difference between a hero and a villain. We learned from Bob Woodward this week that Gerald Ford, in a private interview, had expressed that he would not have ordered an attack on Hussein. The public response to the execution of Saddam Hussein, while Ford lies in state, may reveal whether we understand what Ford was made of and how ready we are to canonize him for infusing democracy with spiritual insight and political courage for pardoning an enemy of the state.
Labels: Gerald Ford, Presidential pardon
posted by Doug at
9:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home