Category: default || By jt3y

The day that former Allegheny County Commissioner Tom Foerster died, I happened to be talking to a local TV personality --- and I'm not going to say who, for reasons that will soon be obvious.

Foerster, then serving on county council, had left the commissioner's office several years earlier under something of a cloud. There was a scandal involving the public works department and there were many complaints about the new jail in Pittsburgh. Some people blamed Foerster (or credited him, depending on your point of view) for ending 60 years of Democratic control of county government.

Upon Foerster's passing, though, the newspapers and airwaves will filled with praise for his long career of public service, and some of the same commentators and political rivals who had been ripping him were now offering lavish tributes.

So I asked the TV personality what he thought of the accolades Foerster was receiving. He sighed. "If you never did anything good in your life, but you want people to say something nice about you, just die," he said.

Uh, ouch. That was an unfair thing to say --- Foerster wasn't that bad, and actually did quite a bit of good --- but I got the point.

. . .

I thought about it over the weekend as I read all of the solemn tributes being paid to former President Ford. Pundits are praising his "controversial" decision to pardon Richard Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office --- and in case you're playing along at home, those crimes likely included illegal wiretapping, campaign finance violations, conspiracy to commit theft and burglary, official oppression and obstruction of justice. (Hey --- nobody's perfect.)

I have heard Gerald Ford compared numerous times to Abraham Lincoln, with his champions claiming that the man from Michigan, like the Great Emancipator, "held the country together" during a crisis.

If Gerald Ford is "Lincolnesque," it's only by comparison to the presidents who came before and after him. By the way, there's an inspiring trio of leaders for you: Ford, Carter and Nixon. Or as Bob Dole called them, "see no evil, hear no evil, and evil." But I digress.

Many editorialists are praising Ford's "courage" in issuing the pardon. True, it was courageous, since it probably cost him the 1976 presidential election. But you can do something that's courageous and wrong, too.

. . .

There are plenty of good reasons that Ford could have pardoned Nixon. After two years of investigations and months of hearings that had stalled the federal government, the Vietnam war was still dragging on, inflation was out of control and OPEC was threatening to shut off the flow of oil to the U.S. The country had to move forward.

And no one (except for the far left) really had any stomach for seeing a president of the United States put on trial.

But on the other hand, pardoning Nixon allowed him to collect his substantial government pension and benefits. It also effectively ended any attempts to figure out who had committed the various alleged offenses during his administration --- and what steps, if any, should be taken to prevent those offenses from happening again.

Make no mistake --- Nixon was completely unrepentant. In September 1974, before the pardon, the former president was subpeonaed to testify before Congress. His lawyers said he couldn't comply because he was suffering an attack of phlebitis. At the time, Nixon was playing golf in San Clemente. You could, as they say, look it up.

. . .

And people seem to forget that President Ford had denied over and over again that he would pardon Nixon ... almost right until the day that the pardon was announced. His press secretary quit in protest.

As for courage, Ford had been one of Nixon's most fervent supporters, going all the way back to the 1952 presidential election. According to Tom Wicker, when Nixon was accused of taking campaign contributions under the table (his denial was the notorious "Checkers" speech), U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford sent him one of the first telegrams of encouragement.

Throughout his career in Congress, Ford staunchly defended Nixon against all of his critics, even as the Spiro Agnew scandals and Watergate were pulling the White House down around Tricky Dick's ears. This unswerving devotion to Nixon no doubt helped Ford get the vice-presidential appointment in the first place, leapfrogging him over such contenders as John Connally, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

The most conservative elements of the Republican Party didn't think Nixon had done anything wrong in the first place, or refused to admit that he was a scoundrel, and pardoning Nixon was exactly what they wanted. How did it take "courage" for Ford to issue the pardon under those conditions? And where was this "courage" a year later, when the right-wing demanded that Ford dump Nelson Rockefeller from the ticket?

. . .

I truly don't mean to speak ill of the dead, and I hate to beat up Gerald Ford, who by many measures was a great American, and a decent and honest human being. But I can't tolerate this reckless revisionism. There are perfectly valid reasons that Ford's pardon of Nixon was "controversial," and why it should remain "controversial" today.

Should Nixon have been frog-marched into a jail cell? No. But pardoning him before he even had a trial or a formal hearing certainly gave creedence to Nixon's boast to David Frost in 1977 that "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

Some people may argue that a trial was a mere formality --- that we already knew what Nixon had done. True --- but we knew that Saddam Hussein was guilty as sin, and he got a trial. (The merits of that trial are best debated elsewhere.)

I also heard several people say on talk shows that by accepting the pardon, Nixon did admit his guilt. Maybe. But to what? Ford pardoned Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he ... has committed or may have committed."

What were those offenses? Until the day he died, Nixon never admitted a thing. He described the myriad of scandals that tainted his administration as "a complex and confusing maze of events, decisions, pressures and personalities," and accepted responsibility only for "not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate."

That's not an admission of guilt --- that's deflecting blame.

I understand that we occasionally have to look back and re-evaluate historic figures and their legacies, but let's try to place them in their proper contexts, please. Willful ignorance of the facts helps no one.

. . .

Ford was probably an average president --- better than many of our leaders, not as good as others.

But being the leader of the free world is not like participating in the Cub Scout potato sack race. You don't get a ribbon just for competing.

So let's try to keep Gerald Ford's legacy in its proper perspective, and please, don't start breaking ground for his monument just yet.