One More Note On The Ford Hagiographers

I know this has already been hashed around, but i have an observation from the Washington Journal this morning.

More than one caller was worship at Ford's altar because he "did the right thing" instead of worrying about his poll numbers. One person said that Ford KNEW his poll numbers would take a beating before he pardoned Nixon, but didn't worry about public opinion.

I thought of two things when i heard this for the third time:

1) I don't understand the lionizing of elected officials who do what THEY think is right without regard to the people's opinion. Why is that a good thing? Isn't this a gov't of the people? (At least in theory.)

2) In most lines of work, doing what nearly everyone else thought was bad idea is CALLED A MISTAKE! It's not a sign of courage! It's not a sign of conviction! In the real world, we call it STUPIDITY!

Just because someone is willing to be wrong and do the wrong thing, even though they think it's ok, is nothing admirable. Jeez, that excuse could be used by every criminal in every jail. "I robbed that bank, knowing there might be consequences, but i stood by my beliefs and robbed it anyway." Who admires that?

Well, i heard at least 3 people on the Journal this morning who might!
The Professor

And this was "doing the right thing?"

Who the Hell are these people?

mikey_the_rat

Apparently, to Republicans, driving your car over a cliff is a GOOD thing if you really believe you're going to fly.

Reality based person: "Wow, that guy was an idiot, he drove his car right off that cliff even though everyone told him he was driving for a cliff and he should turn! What a moron!"

Republican: "Moron? I respect him for his beliefs! What a great man! He truly believed he was going to fly and he stuck to it no matter what people told him or what all the evidence to the contrary suggested! I admire that conviction! It takes great courage to ignore the laws of physics!"

Great point. :thumbsup:

How were the holidays? And how's mama doing with the twins?
The Professor

I ended up spending Xmas moving furniture around the apartment preparing for the place for the twins! At this point we're resigned to the fact that we're going to all have to squeeze into our 1 bedroom since it's obvious we're not going to be able to sell it and move before the birth. Oh well.

Mama's doing fine, and hanging in there, thanks! How about you and yours?

A delegate is only empowered to carry out the mandate given to him by the people. A trustee is empowered to make decisions according to what he or she determines to be in the best interests of the people. If you have a problem with that, then you naturally have a fundamental problem with how the US Constitution was set up and, as a result, how the federal government is run.

I do not agree with your analysis of the Constitution. Therefore, i have no need to disagree with it. Only your interpretation of it.

While those powers are, indeed, vested with the office, the people's will still MUST be a consideration in any democratic republic. That's is sacrosanct in a gov't of the governed. To suggest that one will do the unpopular thing simply because there is a constitutional power to do so is hubris and has nothing to do with governance.

The Professor

On Edit: In this particular case, Ford was a delegate, per your definition. The Constitution makes no specific and explicit provision for presidents appointed without ever receiving a single popular or electoral vote. He was not "entrusted" with the position by the electorate. He was therefore delegated those powers.

Ideally, he will listen to the will of the people, but he is not obligated to do so under the US Constitution. The US, to be sure, is a republic, but there are shades of gray on how democratic republics are or are not. Otherwise, Bush would never get away with increasing the occupation force by 30,000 troops with only 11 percent support. He would be recalled by the very people themselves if the founding document had empowered citizens with the power of invoking referenda.

It sounds like we agree in principle but not in the details. That's probably a good thing. It prevents lockstep.

My point is, however, that doing it DESPITE the opinions of the people is not praiseworthy or courageous, no matter the Constitutional powers granted. Therefore, it's a stupid reason to lionize Ford.
The Professor

Nixon was, at the very least, guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony. He should've gone to jail. I am not talking about impeachment because he resigned. I'm talking about the pardon and about Nixon being tried as a regular citizen in a conspiracy to break the law. I don't think he should've been given a pardon, and most Americans didn't either, but he got one anyway.

When I was in various leadership positions I used to tell people that I would train that if everyone is telling you that you're making a mistake you really need to listen. Everyone else telling you that you're making a mistake means that they have a perspective you are either missing, or you are not giving enough weight to due to your own perceptions and values. Your own perceptions and values are not flawless.

would back people away from this line of rationalization.

Every time i heard one of these troglodytes this morning, i thought that very same thing. The people's will MUST be in the calculus somewhere. Suggesting that what the people think just doesn't matter seems very unamerican.
The Professor

and Jimmy Carter. These two Presidents accepted the reduced role of the Presidency, at a time when it needed to be reduced. They both were not well liked by the opposition in their time of office, but over the years America will look upon them favorably.

Ford has no choice. An unelected president, taking over for a felon, didn't have a gram of power anyway. He didn't decide to accept a reduced role. His role was reduced the moment he took the oath.
The Professor

No doubt Ford was a nice guy, relatively speaking, for a Republican. He certainly would have no place in that Party today. But I remember him as a George W. Bush without the dictatorial aspirations, a rather uninspiring caretaker. I think most people felt that he was chosen to become VP as a Nixon insurance policy. He could be counted on not to rock the boat when the resignation went down. He pretty much kept the Nixonian Republican apparatus intact. For that, he was defeated in 76.

Funny how we look at the past through the prism of the present. Given the abusive and criminal doings of the current Executive occupants, we seem to look back on Jerry Ford's brief administration with wistful remembrance.