President Gerald R. Ford, 38th President of the United States, the "accidental President," as he is called usually by detractors, passed away two days ago at a robust 93 years of age. A golfer, a swimmer, a former Michigan Wolverine football star, Mr. Ford found himself in the Oval Office after first replacing the corruption-tainted Spiro Agnew as VP, then by succeeding the resigning Richard Nixon. I was 14 years old when he became President, and at the time I was far more interested in the Red Sox and working on my jump shot than Presidential politics. A bit more informed two years later, in 1976, I would have voted for him had I been eligible. It seems quite clear in retrospect, absorbing the large volume of material currently being produced on the occasion of his passing, that history will be a lot kinder to President Ford than Chevy Chase ever was.
I thought it might be interesting to have a look at some of Mr. Ford's speeches during his two and a half years in office. I can say after reading several that 'interesting' is an understatement. I found a number of passages that accurately summarized situations with clarity at a time when clarity was rare, and differences of opinion abounded. For instance, this section from a speech on foreign affairs given to Congress in April, 1975:
Under five Presidents and 12 Congresses, the United States was
engaged in Indochina. Millions of Americans served, thousands
died, and many more were wounded, imprisoned, or lost. Over $150
billion have been appropriated for that war by the Congress of
the United States. And after years of effort, we negotiated,
under the most difficult circumstances, a settlement which made
it possible for us to remove our military forces and bring home
with pride our American prisoners. This settlement, if its terms
had been adhered to, would have permitted our South Vietnamese
ally, with our material and moral support, to maintain its
security and rebuild after two decades of war.
The chances for an enduring peace after the last American
fighting man left Vietnam in 1973 rested on two publicly stated
premises: first, that if necessary, the United States would help
sustain the terms of the Paris accords it signed 2 years ago, and
second, that the United States would provide adequate economic
and military assistance to South Vietnam.
Let us refresh our memories for just a moment. The universal
consensus in the United States at that time, late 1972, was that
if we could end our own involvement and obtain the release of our
prisoners, we would provide adequate material support to South
Vietnam. The North Vietnamese, from the moment they signed the
Paris accords, systematically violated the cease-fire and other
provisions of that agreement. Flagrantly disregarding the ban on
the infiltration of troops, the North Vietnamese illegally
introduced over 350,000 men into the South. In direct violation
of the agreement, they sent in the most modern equipment in
massive amounts. Meanwhile, they continued to receive large
quantities of supplies and arms from their friends.
In the face of this situation, the United States-torn as it
was by the emotions of a decade of war-was unable to respond. We
deprived ourselves by law of the ability to enforce the agreement,
thus giving North Vietnam assurance. that it could violate that
agreement with impunity. Next, we reduced our economic and arms
aid to South Vietnam. Finally, we signaled our increasing
reluctance to give any support to that nation struggling for its
survival.
Do you want an "Iraq is like Vietnam" comparison? This is it. The problem is not so much the conflict, the "quagmire," as it is the politics and popular opinion. The new Congress is intent on tying the hands of the President and the military, much like they did 30 years ago. In this speech Mr. Ford calls for monetary assistance to fund the efforts of the South Vietnamese to resist the communist aggressors, and to enforce the Paris accords. That funding was later denied by Congress, South Vietnam and Cambodia fell, and millions of Cambodians died.
Then there's this, on the execution of American foreign policy, from the State of the Union address, January, 1976:
Of
course, it is our responsibility to learn the right lesson from
past mistakes. It is our duty to see that they never happen again.
But our greater duty is to look to the future. The world's
troubles will not go away.
The American people want strong and effective international
and defense policies. In our constitutional system, these
policies should reflect consultation and accommodation between
the President and the Congress. But in the final analysis, as the
framers of our Constitution knew from hard experience, the
foreign relations of the United States can be conducted
effectively only if there is strong central direction that allows
flexibility of action. That responsibility clearly rests with the
President.
Are you listening, Senator Biden? He emphasized that point in the State of the Union speech in January, 1977:
I know all patriotic Americans want this Nation's foreign
policy to succeed. I urge members of my party in this Congress to
give the new President loyal support in this area. I express the
hope that this new Congress will reexamine its constitutional
role in international affairs.
The exclusive right to declare war, the duty to advise and
consent on the part of the Senate, the power of the purse on the
part of the House are ample authority for the legislative branch
and should be jealously guarded. But because we may have been too
careless of these powers in the past does not justify
congressional intrusion into, or obstruction of, the proper
exercise of Presidential responsibilities now or in the future.
There can be only one Commander in Chief. In these times crises
cannot be managed and wars cannot be waged by committee, nor can
peace be pursued solely by parliamentary debate. To the ears of
the world, the President speaks for the Nation. While he is, of
course, ultimately accountable to the Congress, the courts, and
the people, he and his emissaries must not be handicapped in
advance in their relations with foreign governments as has
sometimes happened in the past.
That speech also contains this concise assessment of the worth of an intrusive government.
We thought we could transform the country through massive
national programs, but often the programs did not work. Too often
they only made things worse. In our rush to accomplish great
deeds quickly, we trampled on sound principles of restraint and
endangered the rights of individuals. We unbalanced our economic
system by the huge and unprecedented growth of Federal
expenditures and borrowing. And we were not totally honest with
ourselves about how much these programs would cost and how we
would pay for them.
A scenario which seems to want to play itself out about every four years.
Finally, we shifted our emphasis from defense
to domestic problems while our adversaries continued a massive
buildup of arms.
That latter scenario repeated itself in the 1990's under President Clinton, with terrorism replacing arms buildup in the formula. As for the story now circulating that Mr. Ford was at odds with President Bush over the war in Iraq, not exactly. (hat tip: Ankle Biting Pundits)
Ford was a few weeks shy of his 93rd birthday as we chatted for about
45 minutes. He'd been visited by President Bush three weeks earlier and
said he'd told Bush he supported the war in Iraq but that the 43rd
President had erred by staking the invasion on weapons of mass
destruction.
"Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get
rid of him," he observed, "but we shouldn't have put the basis on
weapons of mass destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does [Bush]
get his advice?"
Gerald Ford was a solid, upstanding man, emerging to lead America at a time when solid upstanding leadership was needed desperately. May he rest in peace, and may America be blessed to have more presidents with those personal characteristics.
