Gerald Ford
This week, the news was packed with stories about the entertaining, moderate and deceased Gerald Ford. First let me say that I think President Ford was a very nice guy. Second, I think his light shines only brighter when compared to the excesses of our current President. As the Republican pundit Peggy Noonan said, it was comforting to know there was "a normal man in the White House." Genial and pragmatic though he was, I have to break with the conventional wisdom on Ford in one respect. I think pardoning Richard Nixon was a big mistake. I think this for primarily two reasons.
First, it seems that the rationale most often trotted out in defense of the pardon is that the investigation and trial of Richard Nixon would open worm cans, take up time and resources and "distract" the nation. In other words, impeachment would have been a royal pain in the ass. I am not sure that is ever a good reason to avoid anything. Most things worthwhile are difficult and time consuming. Holding an elected official accountable for his betrayal of the American people is no exception. Make no mistake about it. In all likelihood Richard Nixon committed impeachable offenses. Excising that wrongdoing from the bowels of our government and holding the perpetrators accountable was a worthy endeavour regardless of the time, money or "distraction" involved. I quote the word "distraction" (twice now) because I have never understood its use in this context. What exactly is it that we think was more important than safeguarding our democracy? What important tasks would insuring the rule of law distracted us from?
Second, the whole pardon argument carries with it the smell of hypocrisy. It seems that President Ford's actions are most often defended by those who, in other contexts, think the country is suffering from a chronic lack of accountability and "personal responsibility." From welfare reform to the War on Drugs, we hear all sorts of blather about people having to own up to the consequences of their actions. It simply does not make much sense that we will lock up a non violent criminal offender for decades, yet pardon a man who committed crimes of a Constitutional caliber. If our leaders are not accountable for their misdeeds, where is the rationale for anyone else being held accountable?
(Note that I will leave for another day the argument that so many people who thought it was wise and prudent to pardon Nixon wanted to impeach President Clinton for having a Johnson Wax and not owning up to it. The moral astigmatism present in that position would require pages to properly fully revel in. And by "revel in" I mean "make fun of.")
First, it seems that the rationale most often trotted out in defense of the pardon is that the investigation and trial of Richard Nixon would open worm cans, take up time and resources and "distract" the nation. In other words, impeachment would have been a royal pain in the ass. I am not sure that is ever a good reason to avoid anything. Most things worthwhile are difficult and time consuming. Holding an elected official accountable for his betrayal of the American people is no exception. Make no mistake about it. In all likelihood Richard Nixon committed impeachable offenses. Excising that wrongdoing from the bowels of our government and holding the perpetrators accountable was a worthy endeavour regardless of the time, money or "distraction" involved. I quote the word "distraction" (twice now) because I have never understood its use in this context. What exactly is it that we think was more important than safeguarding our democracy? What important tasks would insuring the rule of law distracted us from?
Second, the whole pardon argument carries with it the smell of hypocrisy. It seems that President Ford's actions are most often defended by those who, in other contexts, think the country is suffering from a chronic lack of accountability and "personal responsibility." From welfare reform to the War on Drugs, we hear all sorts of blather about people having to own up to the consequences of their actions. It simply does not make much sense that we will lock up a non violent criminal offender for decades, yet pardon a man who committed crimes of a Constitutional caliber. If our leaders are not accountable for their misdeeds, where is the rationale for anyone else being held accountable?
(Note that I will leave for another day the argument that so many people who thought it was wise and prudent to pardon Nixon wanted to impeach President Clinton for having a Johnson Wax and not owning up to it. The moral astigmatism present in that position would require pages to properly fully revel in. And by "revel in" I mean "make fun of.")
Labels: This week
posted by Jack Reed at 1:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home