September 25, 1974

Are Ford Actions Hasty Or Shrewd?

If President Gerald Ford hadn't made such a big thing about how truthful and open he was going to be, perhaps he wouldn't be faced with his own credibility gap so soon.

The realities of leading a polarized nation encourages dissembling.  Telling it like it is more often brings on torrents of criticism.  Acting decisively is bound to infuriate some special pleaders who had hoped to gain advantage through delay.

So far, Ford is having trouble coordinating his zigs and zags.

An unconditional pardon for President Richard Nixon was the right move at the wrong time - an occupational hazard of political leaders.  It came too soon after President Ford's promise to consult others before making great decisions.

An admission that the CIA did, and does, attempt to influence political events in other nations is candid; but it hardly enhances our foreign relationships.  In addition, it provides the professional hate-America critics at home ammunition for another barrage of propaganda.

If Ford is going to pull this nation together, he might do better by acting and talking a little more cautiously.

The pardon for Nixon was inevitable.  On first reaction, a pardon at this time seems premature.  We are in the midst of Congressional and state political campaigns.  Even in the best of such times, tempers grow short and criticisms grow long.  A Christmas pardon would be in keeping with tradition and give us all time to recover from campaign excesses.

I say the pardon "seems" to be premature.  I'm not sure.

After two years of intensive investigation, all the pertinent facts about Watergate are known.  Despite this, the hate-Nixon gang has made it clear it intends to pursue him unto death.

Should Nixon have been indicted, the Nixon critics undoubtedly would have screamed even louder at pardoning.

The Democrats gave every indication they wanted the issue kept alive until the 1976 presidential election.  All this would mean another two years of political polarization.

Perhaps, therefore, Ford did what Nixon should have done - acted quickly and, decisively to remove the cancer with surgery rather than prolong the agony with mustard plasters.

Ford's pardon makes a lot of sense to - bridge players who often are faced with difficult "no-trump" hands.  Losing tricks have to be calculated at the start of the game and taken first lest they turn up later to interfere with essential leads.

In the end, the pro-Nixon citizens, and the American sense of compassion, would have demanded a pardon - indictments, conviction, imprisonment or what ever.

I, for one, am glad the subject is now behind us.  It was sickening to everyone – whether because Nixon was hounded unmercifully, or because he wasn't.

One more observation on the pardon:

The anti-Nixon crowd like to repeat the plausible assertion of "equal justice" in demanding prison for Nixon.  The draft dodgers say "unconditional amnesty" for Nixon should mean the same for them.

Certainly, no man is above the law.  But equal justice means equal punishments for equal crimes.

Nixon's "crime" is substantially different from, and less than, that of his aides or that of the exiles who fled to foreign shores to avoid military responsibilities.

Nixon participated in a cover-up of political dirty tricks.  He neither planned it, approved it nor knew of it before hand.

His aides who did plan it, and those who actually entered private premises illegally, paid for their "crime" with prison.  They physically committed an illegal act, and paid a greater penalty.

Desertion and draft evasion is still another thing.  It involves endangering the nation and comrades in the field in time of war.

Obstruction of justice, burglary, and evasion of military duty are different crimes deserving different punishments.

Let us debate the degree of severity merited by each, but let us not confuse the issue by equating one to the other.

Ford's other gaffe, the public embracing the CIA intrigue, is no less astonishing than his sudden pardon of Nixon.

It is true, of course, that what we do to induce small nations to act in our interest is substantially less than similar efforts of the Soviet Union.  But we expect a perfect order of morality in our own government while accepting imperfections in others.

Either we do the moral thing exactly, or we keep quite about it when necessity requires something less.  To blab about it is to deny any future temporizing with ethics.  Are we prepared to don a national straight-jacket while the communists subvert the world around us?

Here, again, it is possible that President Ford wanted to take his lumps sooner rather than later.  The covert actions of CIA were well known even if not admitted.  Eventually the justification for CIA policies would be debated.

President Ford has stunned us with his forthright actions.  Yet we are facing up to controversies and getting them behind us quickly.

The sooner we stop talking about what is wrong with America, the sooner we can start talking about what is right?

Author: Lindsey Williams