DUers' Rage Against FORD: Perspective, Proportion, Past and Present

My first husband had one level of anger: rage. When our daughter dropped a Cheerio on the floor, he reacted with the same fury as if she’d thrown a rock through the TV set. All things “bad” pulled the same trigger and got the same response.

I think there’s something of the same reactive switch among many DUers. “Bad” is all equally bad, and is met with the same level of rage. It’s evident in the astonishingly extreme, immediate demonizing of President Ford.

Nixon and Ford (and Reagan and Johnson) did some bad things, and some good things; they made mistakes, they harmed people, we disagreed with them, we were angry and maybe we remain so. But none of these men were the Devil Incarnate. And although it may seem obvious, none of them were as bad as the current White House occupant.

I think our current perspective is angry, and rightfully so. We have on our minds things like impeachment, accountability, unjust war, corruption, deceit, executive overreach, imperialism. We despise today's Republican party, and particularly the products of Ford’s administration, like Cheney and Rumsfeld. So I think when we look back at Ford and Nixon, Vietnam and the pardon, we see it colored by Bush and Cheney, Iraq and zero oversight, and all the unprecedented erosions of our country’s principles in recent years.

There are degrees of “bad” and, hopefully, corresponding degrees of reaction. In my view, the all-out venom against President Ford, especially so soon after his death, is in proportion to the crimes of BushCo, but not to the crimes of Nixon, let alone Ford. I disagreed with the pardon at the time and disagree with it today, but it was a decision to sweep the matter off the table (under the rug perhaps) in order to prevent a national preoccupation with vengeance when there were other crucial matters at hand. It didn’t exactly “heal,” but neither did it amount to a catastrophe of BushCo proportions (in terms of legality, damage, cost, or Constitutional implications).

Just as I find it unreasonable to take disagreements with Democrats to the level of calling them “warmongers,” I don’t think it helps to equalize all mistakes, crimes, or bad acts by reacting to them all with the same extreme. The differences become obscured that way.

One more analogy, if I may: Paula Jones and Anita Hill. The judge in the Jones case ruled that even IF Clinton had done what Jones claimed, it wouldn’t have come close to “sexual harassment.” What Hill described was, indeed, ongoing sexual harassment. Yet right-wingers want to equalize the two. When people react to an awkward ‘pass’ as if it were sexual harassment, it does a terrible disservice to all the women who are truly victims of sexual harassment.

Similarly, reacting to President Ford at the outer limits of outrage belies blurred perspective – blurred perhaps, as I suggested above, by our rage at the current administration. Compared with the crimes of the past six years, nothing Nixon and Ford did amounts to more than some Cheerios on the floor. They can't be swept under the rug, but neither do they rise to the same level of rage justified by today's Republicans.

Just my opinion!

Who'da thunk it! ;)

Ford was an affably evil motherfucker, with a legacy of shame, death, impoverishment and cynicism.

:shrug:

Good one! :rofl:

Bahahaha!
Can't...stop..laughing!

..... ■

country, that no matter what you do, if you are 'important' enough, you can get away with anything. Get the Exxon shit. So, a couple went to prison. The people harmed are still harmed. The money? You can bet its in foreign accounts, unless you can show me a few billion dollars in possessions at these criminal's houses. You steal a can of beans, go to prison. You subvert the political process, coarsen it with bullshit and lay the groundwork for what passes as politics now, you get a pardon.

What Ford did was unforgiveable. I agree with leftofthedial. The totality of what Ford did with the pardon and other crimes will never be known and that was the point. Fuck him.

Thank you.

BushCo, in all it's continuing evil, has yet to produce as many "Cheerios" as LBJ, Nixon, and Ford.

The ways the Vietnam began and continued were different. Of COURSE it was wrong, but you're also looking back on a long war with the perspective of time. We have yet to see the ultimate results of BushCo's fiasco in Iraq, and I believe it'll be much worse in MANY ways.

To say that LBJ's, Nixon's, and Ford's crimes against humanity were the equivalent of "spilled Cheerios" is nonsense.

It's his/her perspective of time that's faulty. There were a helluva lot of us who protested the slaughter in SE Asia while it was going on.

Bush's little venture into neo-colonialism may well end up doing as much, or more, damage to the world, but that doesn't make what the previous monsters wrought any less monstrous.

That LBJ, Nixon, and Ford "did some good things" is the equivalent of saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" or "Hitler brought full employment to Germany."

Especially comparing them to spilled Cheerios, so classy. I think I'm going to throw up now, brb.

And I did NOT compare people to Cheerios!! I compared people's reactions to two administrations using an analogy. We can discuss this seriously, or we can facetiously pretend to misinterpret each other.

And swoon around. What's that I spy over in the corner? Why YES, it IS. It's a meeting of the DU Drama Queens!

:rofl:

Look, you seem to compare our anger at Nixon for violating the rights of peace activists, continuing a war he PROMISED to end, and committing many illegal activities against not only the Democratic Party but the American people with a guy who couldn't tell the difference between spilled Cheerios and Vandalism. Excuse me for being pissed at the comparison. Not to mention Ford, who let Nixon get away with it, not to mention his own atrocities, which you seem to conveniently ignore.

It's an analogy, not a literal comparison. You can include me in "OUR anger." I was never a fan of Nixon or Ford. I'm not ignoring anything they did, nor am I excusing them in the least. HOWEVER -- despite every wrong they committed, this administration far surpasses them. Compared to BushCo, they are saints. (And please, don't pretend I just called them saintly!)

Nice precedent there, really.

If people think they're relatively equal, then yes, there's a precedent there.

I'm saying, they are NOT equal. There is NO precedent for BushCo. I honestly believe what this administration has done demands criminal accountability, beyond anything else in our history. What they've willfully done to our country and the world -- and our country's place in the world -- requires prosecution. And unlike Nixon, it could be an international court, not merely a federal one.

There was no equal, we aren't just talking about the normal atrocities of some other Presidents, like secret CIA wars, or bombing villages that are unarmed, but actual domestic crimes ORDERED by a President for others to commit. Not to mention abuse of power and other things that, up till that time, other Presidents haven't done. He got away with it, and so will Bush, simply because of attitudes JUST LIKE YOURS. Where does the buck stop?

Nixon's domestic crimes were bad; Bush's are bad beyond compare. Nixon's pardon should NOT be held up as equal precedent to shield Bush.

I'm not sure what "attitude" you're talking about. As I wrote, I was against the pardon at the time and still disagree with it. My point is that BushCo is many, many times more deserving of impeachment than Nixon ever was.

That is what I'm talking about. Impeachment is, and has been, pretty much a toothless provision of the Constitution, for the United States has yet to actually impeach a president and remove him from office. Even if removed from office, I doubt Bush would ever be in a courtroom as a defendant. This has nothing to do with who "deserves" such things more, its like arguing that a thief shouldn't even be prosecuted as long as murderers exist. That's just logically wrong, we are either a country ruled by laws that are upheld, or we are a nation who elects kings who are above the law while in office.

"arguing that a thief shouldn't even be prosecuted as long as murderers exist." Who's arguing that? :shrug:

I figured you were just part of the "Ford fan" brigade. Most of us really are mad at what Ford did, covering up the crimes of Nixon, as he did, in addition to many of his other actions. To be honest, most of us would have said something along the lines that he hope he's burning in hell, and left it at that, we didn't count on the amount of ignorance and stupidity of others that called Ford such things as a decent man and shit like that.

to vilify Carter when he dies?

Seriously, why do people assume this is something that is purely partisan, all the warts need to be exposed, for posterity otherwise we just keep on repeating those same atrocities again and again.

four or five people said something negative among all the praise and mourning. One thread was critical of him, although nothing approaching the bile spewed at Ford.

Then there were several threads bemoaning "all the attacks on Irwin".

It is clearly partisan when people want to focus on the mistakes and then demonize somebody and then other times they want to focus on the good things and make somebody else a saint. "Ford did this. He's a total piece of sh*t!!!!" Even God hates him, apparently. Or would if there was a God, and if said God cared about human justice.

Exposing warts is one thing. Going from the warts to extreme judgement is another.

In fact, I don't think I even gave a thought to his death, it simply didn't register. That isn't really a valid comparison, for, as far as I'm aware of, while he did some stupid and careless things, and said some stupid things, he had no real power to implement any of them. So criticism of him is limited by default. A more valid comparison would be how we eviscerated Ford's "good buddy" Pinochet when he died.

"Compared with the crimes of the past six years, nothing Nixon and Ford did amounts to more than some Cheerios on the floor."

If I hadn't heard how he single handedly "saved our country" 18 billion times in the last 24 hours, on NPR for shit's sake. if it weren't for that, I might not have had the equal but opposite reaction. That is a big part of why I am so riled up about it.

Ford didn't "save" us, nor "unite" us. He just swept it off the table. (Nor were we as imperiled by Watergate and the prospect of Nixon's impeachment -- as our supposedly worst "Constitutional Crisis EVER" -- as the media is hyping, in my opinion.)

Remember, Jimmy Carter did nothing different than Ford did regarding East Timor.

As for Vietnam, I lay most of the blame squarely on LBJ (and Nixon). Kennedy knew the mess we would have and refused to escalate involvement. Johnson lost his mind and escalated the conflict.

As for CHeney and Rumsfeld, LBJ had a couple of sociopaths in his cabinet, too. How man Americans died needlessly because of Robert McNamara and William Westmoreland?? Or, are we going to give McNamara a "pass" becasue he served under a Democratic president and then said "I'm sorry" thirty years later?

No matter how "good" their intentions or what party they affiliate themselves with.

that it was eisenhower who sent MAAG, who supported Diem, etc., etc.
anybody here remember, or know, that Ho Chi Minh came to this country in 1948, asking for help in getting the french out of the country? at the time, he was what could be considered an agrarian nationalist, whose main desire was to have his country unified and independent, and one of whose hereos, incidentally, was thomas jefferson. he asked for several million in aid, and help in getting the french to leave. but noooo, couldn't turn on our allies, could we? just think of all the lives, all the agony, all the money, we could have saved, had the state department not been so damned freaked about "communists".

;)

I truly believe Jerry Ford was a good man, a decent man, particularly in the context of today's politicians. I was quite elated that he outlived Reagan (whom I reviled) while still managing to keep all his wits about him.

People should reflect on this, I think: if you had a choice, in the last two elections and even the next one, between someone of the calibre of Ford and Jimmy Carter, you guys would marvel at your embarrassment of riches and be laughing. And when I ponder what politics has become in the last 30 years, I almost want to bust out crying.

And it's not even my country.

Ever hear of them? They're murderers, torturers, war criminals, traitors. Good thing Ford kept them on huh?

How could President Ford, in 1975, have envisioned what Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz would do 30 years in the future?

Didn't Ford pardon Nixon? Think that might have had something to do with reinforcing Cheney's and Rumsfeld's notion that they could get away with anything?

"Ever hear of them?" :shrug:

I suggest our extreme wrath against the recent actions of those men, and the rest of the administration, is well-justified and (as I think your post illustrates) it is coloring perspective on Ford and his presidency in retrospect.

I just dont see the outrage you speak of. We cannot be both a nation of laws and equality and pardon those at the highest levels of our government who do the greatest damage to our nation.

Where is/was accountability?

As far as your quote "Compared with the crimes of the past six years, nothing Nixon and Ford did amounts to more than some Cheerios on the floor."

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Perhaps if history included an ex president jailed for his crimes others wouldnt be so quick to do the same again. But here we are.

Failing to agree that he was a great president as per the compliant media is 'hate'. Noting that parts of his administration returned to the white house as the neocon criminal cabal is leftwing lunacy.

And I note that the OP thinks that Nixon was a good guy too. I have to reassemble my head as it seems to have exploded.

Nowhere did I say "Nixon was a good guy."

Nowhere I did I say "failing to agree that he was a great president... is 'hate.'"

This is more black/white, good/bad absolutism. If we react to everything at extremes, distinctions become meaningless. I believe the result of that downplays the unprecedented damage done by the current administration. In my view, they are the worst administration in history, and deserve that special distinction.

So if you want to hang your argument on that slim point go ahead.

"Nixon and Ford (and Reagan and Johnson) did some bad things, and some good things; they made mistakes, they harmed people, we disagreed with them, we were angry and maybe we remain so. But none of these men were the Devil Incarnate. And although it may seem obvious, none of them were as bad as the current White House occupant."

You lumped Nixon and Ford together as if they were the same while attacking the opposition to Ford's canonization. You then engage in hyperbole by claiming that we have called the two of these presidents 'the devil incarnate'. No such claim has been made of course, which was the point of my post: you and others here have exaggerated opposition ot the compliant media's elevation of Ford and revision of history as 'rage', as claiming that Ford is the 'devil incarnate'. We just want to keep the record straignt.

As others have noted, Nixon was a war criminal whose direct body count Bush has not even come close to matching. For example Nixon has 20,000 dead US soldiers on his hands after he was elected with his 'secret plan for peace'. That peace included increased bombing, expansion of the war into Cambodia, and multiple efforts to beat vietnam into submission. The cost in vietnamese lives is on the order of at least 1,000,000.

In what respect Nixon was not as bad as the current occupant is a point you have yet to explain. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember? Perhaps you need to revisit some of the facts uncovered by the watergate investigations? Facts that were never fully investigated because Ford's corrupt act ended criminal prosecution before it even got started.

"attacking the opposition to Ford's canonization" -- I did no such thing. I don't think he should be canonized at all.

"claiming that we have called the two of these presidents 'the devil incarnate'" -- I may no such claim.

Watergate and Nixon's part in the Vietnam war are two different things. Impeachment was based on the former, not the latter. Bush's "body count" is as yet unknown, both in terms of dead Iraqi civilians and the ultimate death count of US soldiers. (In addition, the casualties of this war involve more survivors with severe injuries compared with the deaths from Vietnam, which can't be overlooked.)

"In what respect Nixon was not as bad as the current occupant is a point you have yet to explain." I believe THIS administration has led us close to facism, if not right into it, in ways even Nixon's imperialist presidency didn't come close to. Undermining the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; undermining the will of the people and the democratic process; dividing the nation on phony "values" issues and pseudo-religious sources of conflict and money; demonizing political opponents as a new "enemy within;" taking executive power and corporate/government collusion to new heights; thumbing its nose and rattling its sabres against international foes and allies alike; and stirring up, by sheer CHOICE, instability in the middle east that will have devastating consequences for years and years to come.

...Bushco's crimes. We could argue that, and several here already have -- rather eloquently.

I would simply like for you to explain why you think that there should be no open and honest discussion on this board of Gerald Ford's folly, as President and pardoner of Nixon, because you consider putting it on the record here as "speaking ill of the dead."

We are speaking of the dead. We are doing that because we have just heard the news of his passing. As when anyone dies, that causes us to reminisce about what we know of his life, particularly given that he served as the most powerful person in our land, and in the world, for a short time, and his act of pardoning Nixon still reverberates in our national psyche and our political institutions to this day.

Since his acts while alive are a matter of public record, then I fail to see how setting the record straight in this venue, as a possible antidote to the MSM's hero worship of Ford -- against the facts of the matter -- can be classified as "bashing" or "speaking ill."

On the other side of the coin, I would have to ask why you and others are willing to just whitewash Ford's legacy in service of whatever emotion is stirred by yet another morbid state funeral for someone who does *not* stand out as a standard bearer, before the world, of our democratic institutions.

I don't get that point at all.

Suggesting that Ford was a bad president who set the precedent of not caring what the citizenry thought is out of bounds because Silverspoon's gang was worse?

That seems to be what you're suggesting.
The Professor

That's not what I'm suggesting. Point out the bad! I'm all for that.

My point is about perspective.

I was angry in the 70's. I was an adult during that period. I wasn't some snot nosed kid who was oblivious the chaos.

That being said, i don't think Ford did the right thing then. I thought he was merely a tool of the powers that be to put gov't officials above the law. They were pardoned for things they "may have done", which means justice wasn't served. That is the LAST thing a president should ever do.

So, i didn't respect him then. I didn't respect him or his presidency on December 24th, and i'm not going to suddenly start because his heart quit beating. My lack of respect has been in place for 30 years. His demise doesn't change a thing.

It's not misplaced rage. It's not misdirected because i loathe Bush. It was directed at specifically Ford, for the pardon, for the horrible way he handled the economy, for the wage controls that hurt so many families, for his failure to investigate the price gouging on gas (which hurt so many poor families), etc., etc., etc.
The Professor

This is about politics. We witness on the news all day the politics of Ford. There it is whitewashed. Like all US history... dumbed-down to a fictional disney-like story.

we discuss it here from another perspective.

not that much difference between them.

Got links?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. For too many people, their rage over the current administration (while wholly justified) blinds them to see anyone with an "R" after their name as anything other than evil.

For me, Robert mcNamara was jst as much of a butcher as Rumsfeld. Yet, oddly enough, I've seen almost no criticism of him on DU.

:applause:

Your insight about the filter of current passions seems right on to this old fellow.

Nixon's downfall occurred the summer that my (draft-induced) Army time finally ended and my anti-war, anti-Nixon passions were intense, probably obsessive. The pardon was a stunner at the time.

Hindsight, though, is a wonderful thing. It didn't take long to realize that there was more to life than that miserable, corruptive administration and that it was OVER via Ford's action.

We should be so fortunate again......

And we who are old enough to have personal memories of the time, Ford's actions, the whole revolting mess, do not have the right, as a perk of growing a bit older, to sit back and glory in fireside fantasies of someone who "healed" the country.

I shudder to think of our being so fortunate again. I have not far to look. The tone that was set by the pardoning of a criminal for political purposes resonates in our institutions today.

No, we can't expect that Ford had the vision to see down the road and calculate the results of his actions. If he gave it much thought, however, it's hard to see how he couldn't have had any clue about the ramifications of his pardon. It was damage control, pure and simple.

"...more to life than that miserable, corruptive administration..." rings a bit hollow. It's a "move on" sentiment that I doubt would be very much appreciated by the families of the 58,000 or so young men who died in Vietnam. It's one that is in the winds now, as certain of our leaders counsel putting the past behind us, again, "for the good of the country."

Thanks for a sane perspective.

WE MUST HAVE RAGE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

Constitution and electoral processes, but I wouldn't call that rage. And when I heard Ford had died, I could care less either way. Now when Jimmy Carter dies, I'll feel some sadness, I met him a few years ago on an airplane, and he's the real deal. And when Cheney dies, I'll be hoping there's no hidden cameras around his grave to capture all the pissing and dancing.

The amount of pure B&W, if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us, if-you're-not-perfect-you're-evil silliness in this thread alone is astonishing and depressing in equal measure.

(And I'm sure just by saying that, some people have become convinced that I think Ford or Nixon should be canonized or somesuch - which only really proves your point.)

are the same crimes.

Any attempts to separate them, diminish them, or overlook them, are unreasonable.

:applause:

only thing I would add is that virtually every president has done something "bad" or that turned out to be a mistake. FDR with Japanese internment, Carter with the failed attempt to save the hostages, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, Truman and dropping the bomb (that is very much debated), Ike and failing to address Civil Rights and his lukewarm support he gave the Brown decision...

...and yes, a sense of proportion is a valuable asset in public discourse, regardless of exactly where on the heinous scale you place this or that villain.

What I really wish is that some of the folks who are so swift to condemn anyone who's ever made any choice or decision that has resulted in a horrible outcome would be confronted with the same kinds of decisions, with the same kinds of "all options are evil, which would be least evil?" choices.

Hindsight is always 20-20.

(Obligatory redundant, should-be-unnecessary disclaimer: I detested the criminal acts of Nixon, the vile combination of recklessness and supineness of Johnson, and the appalling supineness and misguided denial of Ford, OK? I really, REALLY, REALLY detested those things, ALL OF THEM. Cripes. OBSBN Disclaimer over.)

There hasn't been a saint or a perfect individual as Chief Executive of this country since we declared independence. Period. Every single one of them has made terrible decisions that have resulted in horrible consequences for innocent people, LOTS of innocent people in almost every case. It's the nature of the job. If you get the job, you WILL have regrets, deep, soul-destroying regrets, about how some of your decisions turned out. You may choose to make your "mea culpas" public, or not. You may never be able to make those "mea culpas" because, like FDR, you die in office. Or because you've left your successor with a hellish mess to clean up and you don't want to make things worse and then you die before the mess is finally cleaned up, like LBJ. Or because you just don't believe in putting your feelings out in public for a big display. Or because you regret the "wrong things," and you know that people would think even worse of you for expressing those regrets... which is why I suspect Nixon never expressed any.

In general, being President means sacrificing several years of your lifespan due to stress-related health deterioration. There are exceptions, certainly, but the pattern through history is clear. There is no tougher job. Every decision you make puts the lives, prosperity, future, health, etc., of millions of people, at home and throughout the world, on the line somehow. And every decision you make will create losers, take away prosperity, health, peace, etc., from someone.

Ford knew that. Nixon knew that. Johnson knew that. Reagan knew that (until his Alzheimers got so bad he didn't know his own middle name...) EVERY President, until blivet, has known that. And yes, they've made terrible decisions anyway. Many times there are no other types of decision to make. We can certainly take issue with, deconstruct, vilify, etc., them, their choices, and the consequences of those choices. But then we come to blivet.

Only blivet seems utterly unaware of the fact that the world is a china shop, and he's a giant bull with untreated cerebral palsy. The harm he is doing is truly unprecedented, on a scale that NO other President has even approached, except perhaps Lincoln had the North lost the Civil War. (Yes, I think Lincoln made the right decision, and I hope that even had the North lost the Civil War I would still think it was the right decision, but there's no way of knowing, is there? In any case, Lincoln made those decisions with his eyes focused on the potential evil consequences thereof, and accepted the horrors he unleashed and the profound regrets they engendered as the cost of doing the right thing. That's why he's a great President and blivet is an unparalleled disaster.)

I *think* that's what Sparkly was getting at, and I agree. Perspective is important.

philosophically,
Bright

Ford was a nonentity as president, but was a decent guy. He was only there for two years, and accomplished little. I don't think even I, an avowed Nixon hater, wanted to see three years of trials. Resigning in disgrace seemed to fit the crime, at least to me. And I DESPISED the bastard.

"Nonentity"

As a person, he has a very good reputation (in general) here in Michigan.

no one in politics is. But some of the attacks, as there were on Reagan, causes one to welcome this outlet for people's rage, to keep their kids, spouses, dogs and co-workers safe.

"Compared with the crimes of the past six years, nothing Nixon and Ford did amounts to more than some Cheerios on the floor. They can't be swept under the rug, but neither do they rise to the same level of rage justified by today's Republicans."

The unaswerable Presidency is what Ford gave us.

I want to see your take on this say ten years from now, with Monkeyboy and gang happily living a comfortable life, knowing that what they did they will never answer for, and the President(Emperor)at that time throwing the Cheerios that he will be able to get ahold of.

"Compared with the crimes of the past six years, nothing Nixon and Ford did amounts to more than some Cheerios on the floor. They can't be swept under the rug, but neither do they rise to the same level of rage justified by today's Republicans."

The unaswerable Presidency is what Ford gave us.

I want to see your take on this say ten years from now, with Monkeyboy and gang happily living a comfortable life, knowing that what they did they will never answer for, and the President(Emperor)at that time throwing the Cheerios that he will be able to get ahold of.

Could some of it be intentional? Maybe even troll-like? Could there be a (slightly?) concerted effort to keep DU on the edge of hate and despair?

It worked well for BushCo leading up to and through most of Iraq.

and ready to dance on graves

This is one of those times I would suggest turning off your TV/Radio News for a while.

The constant barrage of Ford/Saddam is not healthy.

I can understand why people inundated with this death frenzy might want to let off steam on a political message board.

Times are hard, and Ford did his duty enabling them to get that way.

I'm sure there are other places on the web that will allow no demonization of Ford.

I am taken aback by this statement. You can't possibly be serious.

I consider the outrage of the Nixon administration's actions to be much more than "Cheerios on the floor." Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, based, by his own admission, on his own religious views (and the law of the land be damned), is still being played out right now in a country which has lost its way -- owing in no small part to Gerald Ford's interference in the judicial process.

I will never believe, however, that Ford's decision to pardon was just a personal epiphany. He had the full backing of his party -- no two ways about it.

I have read most of the comments on this board about Ford, and most that I've seen are simply rememberances of the man's actions, stirred by his passing. This cliche of "speaking ill of the dead" is a tired remnant of the deference some people are eager to give to *leaders* of all persuasions. I prefer to speak as a thoughtful individual, not as someone in thrall to someone "greater" than myself. Giving up our right to criticize our elected leaders, and more to the point, our appointed leaders, is a first step to tyranny.

Just my opinion!