Gerald Ford, Good People, and Public Life
Posted by
Kevin
The overwhelming response to President Ford’s death has been to talk about his character. Over and over again, people talked about his Midwestern values, kind nature, and personal decency. Pundits have praised him for the very same things. I did not know, obviously, the former President personally and I do not dispute their characterization of the man. I also don’t care one whit. It does not matter if President Ford was nice to visitors and colleagues. It does not matter if he represented the best of men in his personal dealings. He was president and he should be judged on whether or not he represented the best of America in his actions as President. The record there is decidedly mixed.
His pardon of Nixon was a horrible mistake. It not only allowed the people under Nixon to remain in politics and spread their anti-democratic corruption into other administrations, but it set a standard for scandals that does the country a disservice: at the mere hint of contentiousness, the media and political elite of Washington rush in to assure us that the country simply cannot take the stress of honest disagreement and won’t somebody please, please put an end to all the nastiness. The most recent manifestation of this nonsense is the call for the Democrats to put an end to partisan rancor, as if they have been the party in power for the last six years and Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich were perfect choir boys, but it has been present ever since Ford’s pardon. In 2000, the television was filled with talking heads whining about how a disputed election constituted a Constitutional crisis and wringing their hands about the prospect of the country flying apart. Perhaps if the country had already weathered the trial of Nixon — which it would undoubtedly have done just fine — we could have been spared such nonsense. At any rate, Ford did not display the best of American character when he pardoned Nixon: he gave in to overblown concerns and mindless fear instead of seeing the task through to the final justice. It was not and admirable move.
In foreign policy, too, he did not always live up to the best ideals of America. He gave the vicious dictator of Indonesia permission to invade and subjugate East Timor. The invasion an occupation were a bloodbath:
Indonesian rule in East Timor was often marked by extreme violence and brutality, such as the Dili massacre and the Liquiçá Church Massacre. In addition, subsistence agriculture, food, and medical supplies were deliberately obstructed,[citation needed] resulting in heavy excess mortality. From 1975 until 1993, attacks on civilian populations were only nominally reported in the Western press. Death tolls reported during the occupation varied from 60,000 to 200,000 [3]. A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor cited a lower range of 102,800 conflict-related deaths in the period 1974-1999, namely, approximately 18,600 killings and 84,200 ‘excess’ deaths from hunger and illness.[4] Since each data source used under-reports actual deaths, this is considered a minimum. Amnesty International estimated deaths at 200,000 [5].
The fact that there would be a bloodbath was entirely predictable given Suharto’s vicious and monstorus history:
Between 300,000 and one million Indonesians were killed in the mass-killings following the arrest of PKI members in Suharto’s cabinet on October 6, [1965]]. [1] Lists of suspected communists were supplied to the Indonesian military by the CIA. A CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that “In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century…” [20].
It must also be noted that the CIA was not the only party to the issue, and there was also British involvement in the events.
Time Magazine presented the following account on December 17, 1966 : “Communists, red sympathizers and their families are being massacred by the thousands. Backlands army units are reported to have executed thousands of communists after interrogation in remote jails. Armed with wide-bladed knives called parangs, Moslem bands crept at night into the homes of communists, killing entire families and burying their bodies in shallow graves.”
“The murder campaign became so brazen in parts of rural East Java, that Moslem bands placed the heads of victims on poles and paraded them through villages. The killings have been on such a scale that the disposal of the corpses has created a serious sanitation problem in East Java and Northern Sumatra where the humid air bears the reek of decaying flesh. Travelers from those areas tell of small rivers and streams that have been literally clogged with bodies.”
And Ford explicitly green lighted the monster’s invasion of East Timor. One wonders if the victims of East Timor would have been charmed by Ford’s self-deprecating humor about his golf game.
To all but a few friends and family, it does not matter if Gerald Ford was a good man outside his official duties. What is important to the rest of us is whether or not he was a good man when he made decisions in the Oval Office. The record on that is very clear. At best, he was not as good a man in the Oval Office as he could have been. All the eulogies, all the fond remembrances, all the Chevy Chase references, all the golf humor serve to do nothing to illuminate Gerald Ford the President of the United States of America. In fact, they serve to confuse the issues, using the virtues of the private citizen to obscure the failings of the public man.
And in doing so they perpetuate the myth that a man’s private character, they way he treats his friends and coworkers, how nice he is to people he loves, likes, or needs something from, is somehow a marker for what can be expected when he is in office. It is a continuation of E! entertainment news journalism, substituting faux-psychology for hard questions and insipid “character” analysis for probing discussions of actual issues. The question of whether or not Gerald Ford was a good man in his private dealings and whether or not Gerald Ford was a good President are not the same question. Pretending that they are is one of the press’s greatest failings. Don’t tell me how a President treated his golfing buddies or white House staff; tell me how a President treated the powerless in the face of the powerful. Don’t tell me how a candidate gets along with the staff of his favorite restaurant; tell me how that candidate proposes to help that staff get the opportunity to lead the lives they want.
Do that and maybe you will find that people pay more attention to politics and that the laughter will stop when you announce that you are a journalist.
Kevin, do you wish to be judged at your death by your politics and how well you did your job, or by what type of person you were? Ford has been out of politics for quite some time now. His character was not a central issue during the time he was in politics, nor will it be when he is judged by history. However, at this moment, the moment of his death, the way he lived his life is relevant. The need for political blogging notwithstanding.
Comment 1/3/2007
Ted
I am not President of the United states of America. This emphasis on Ford’s character is at the expense of looking at wehat he did with the power of the Office. How well he did that job is an indicator of the kind of person he was. Ask the East Timorese about what kind of person Gerald Ford was, or how he lived his life.
And if the time of a man’s death is life work, his successes and failures, his mark on the world, are not relevant, then when are they? These discussion are going to be the lasting impression a lot of people have of Ford and his presidency. And they aren;t being told about he actions in office, they are being told he was nice to people and humble, as if that was a way to judge a president. And when the next humble, nice person comes along, well, hey, wasn’t that really good president Ford just like that? It does no service to the man or the country to pretned that Ford di not do what he did, to pretend that the reason he has a state funeral is becasue he joked at being bad at golf. The need for faux civility notwithstanding.
Comment 1/3/2007
“His pardon of Nixon was a horrible mistake. It not only allowed the people under Nixon to remain in politics and spread their anti-democratic corruption into other administrations,”
How did the pardon of Nixon pardon anyone else in his administration? The pardon was for Nixon alone. Name the ones who were charged and convicted of any crime and then went on to serve in other administrations. Can’t do it? Didn’t think so.
Comment 1/3/2007
Kevin, I understand that you are not the President. Ford lived for 96 years. He was president for 2 1/2 of those years. In the grand scheme of things, 2 1/2 years does not define him as a person. And, when someone dies, I believe an entire life should be considered, not just 2 1/2 years.
A couple of weeks to consider his entire life, before and after which the primary emphasis is on a specific 2 1/2 years. Had you been blogging when Kennedy was assassinated, would you have dismissed all else and focused on the Bay of Pigs?
Comment 1/3/2007
Ted is your that its good that only good things are said about a powerful public servant at the time of his death, when the popular vision of him is being reset for perhaps the last time, but bad when people point out that the picture is incomplete and based on unimportant standards?
Comment 1/3/2007
Kevin, your extrapolation of my position has led you astray. Let me try again. Powerful or not, I believe it is appropriate to reflect on a person’s entire life and their character at the time of their death. Had Ford been a great president and a real prick of a person, I believe it would be appropriate to now discuss the fact that he was a real prick of a person.
Now, if you happen to be in a political history class and Ford is the subject of study this week, then by all means focus on his presidency, because the rest is irrelevant from a historical perspective.
I doubt anyone who was politically aware in the 70’s will have their opinion of Ford changed by informal eulogies tossed about by the MSM. Nor any serious students of history. For everyone else, Ford will always be the guy who was spoofed (inaccurately) by Chevy Chase on SNL and the guy who pardoned Nixon.
For what it’s worth, I also disagree with you concerning the pardon on Nixon. A very unpopular decision when it was made, but one that has withstood the test of time. Even the Kennedys agree on that.
One more thing. If one considers East Timor in the mid-1970s within the context of the coincident events in Kampuchea, Ford’s actions become more understandable. The world was a vastly different place then.
Comment 1/3/2007
Ted:
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. When a famous person dies, it’s both natural and appropriate to primarily discuss what that person was famous for. Gerald Ford was primarily famous for having been President of the United States, and that’s where the discussion is bound to focus. I’m not going to go so far as to say whether he was a nice guy or a prick is irrelevant, however that’s all secondary to his role as president. His presidency is what’s historically relevant.
Nobody cares whether Lincoln was someone you’d like to call your friend, or a world class dickhead. What they care about was that he preserved the Union and helped free the slaves.
A larger complaint that I have, though, is that it seems in our culture that when somebody dies, especially someone famous, people seem to go out of their way to find nice things to say about them, whether or not they’re accurate or relevant, and then only say those nice things. I understand the desire to be respectful to the departed, but engaging in revisionist history is not my idea of “respect.” For a good example of this, see Dale Earnhardt’s death.
Comment 1/4/2007
Ted
The problem isn’t saying nice things about Ford — very few people are all good or all bad. the problem is that the media is not doing a very good job of detailing the whole man, and they are doing that bad job largely becasue they either fall itno the “chjaracter” discussion themselves or becasue they meerly repeat the “character” discussion of friends, mournders, etc with little to no contradiction. That is the failure I am concerned about. I wouldn;t expect his eulogists to say bad things about him, but noether would I expect the press to cover his death by largely just apeing his eulogists.
And, in general, the discussion of character severed from policy/actions is bad for the polity.
Comment 1/4/2007
I am disappointed that President Ford did not permit his opinion of Presidents Carter and Reagan to be known until after his death. I do not share his opinion of those two men.
Sincerely
R M Kraus
Akron Ohio
Comment 1/19/2007