For Gerald Ford, as with LBJ, there were really two presidencies: his first 30 days prior to his pardon of Richard Nixon, and everything that came after. Historian Leuchtenburg writes that, "Numbers of thoughtful commentators have concluded, upon reflection, Ford acted wisely to avoid the spectacle of a former president in the dock with the possibility that Nixon, visibly depressed, might take his life…" But others disagree, including historian Laura Kalman, who writes, "the timing of the pardon was poor, it's justification ill conceived".
Leuchtenburg says Ford did not redeem himself with his
unprecedented testimony to a House Judiciary Subcommittee investigating the
pardon. Leuchtenburg notes, "In his testimony, Ford falsified the record,
especially by claiming that 'At no time after I had been president…was the
subject of a pardon raised by…Nixon...or
people representing him', when, in fact, there had been intricate negotiations
during which Nixon's Chief of Staff spelled out for Ford his options on a
pardon. The impact on the nation's faith in its political institutions was
devastating."
Those feelings were exacerbated by the findings of a committee
chaired by Senator Frank Church.
Leuchtenburg writes that the Church Committee, "revealed that the
CIA had been violating its charter by spying on American citizens and had
recruited the Mafia for eight attempts to assassinate Castro during the 1960s.
[The Committee] also published the names of other foreign leaders whom, since
the 1950s, the CIA, quite possibly at the direction of the White House, had
targeted for murder. Ford responded not with indignation at the miscreants but
by doing all he could to suppress damaging evidence. When he learned that
Church had been drawing on information about nasty plots provided by CIA
director William Colby, he fired Colby."
Yet, despite all of this, Ford still nearly won reelection. Granted,
Ford became the first president since Herbert Hoover to be ousted from
office by voters, but his opponent - Jimmy Carter - only narrowly prevailed in
the Electoral College, 297 to 240, having won by only 2% in the popular vote.
Indeed, while some have argued that Carter's election was a mandate by the
voters to reform government, Leuchtenburg writes that, "Instead of sending
Carter to Washington with a mandate, though, the 1976 election registered
widespread popular disaffection with the political process and with the
executive branch. Turnout [for the election] was the lowest since World War II,
because [in a survey of voters leaving the polls] four-fifths of American
voters did not think that either candidate was 'presidential'."
Of Carter, Leuchtenburg writes, "No one ever arrived in the
White House with better intentions than Jimmy Carter, and few have had so
little notion of how to carry them out." First and foremost, he wrongly
believed that he'd been elected to deconstruct the power of the presidency.
This included instructing Chief Justice Burger to swear him in as
"Jimmy" not "James" Carter, as well as his decision to
eschew a limousine and instead walk down the inaugural parade route [much to
the horror of the Secret Service]. As Leuchtenburg notes, "He followed up this piece of political theater a few days
later by appearing on television in a simple beige cardigan. He lugged his
clothes on his back on and off Air Force One and sent his daughter to public
school in the District of Columbia....He got rid of the presidential yacht,
slashed the White House staff by one-third, took government luxury cars away
from cabinet members, and insisted that all federal officials fly coach.
Instead of elevating his public reputation, however, these deeds of
self-effacement lowered it. Critics accused him of depriving the White House of
the aura of majesty…"
Carter also harmed his presidency with his preacher-like tone and
speeches calling for Americans to change their ways. The most famous example is his
"Malaise" speech [although he never actually used the word in his
speech]. Leuchtenburg says the speech,
"is usually remembered as a disaster, but, in fact, it won wide acclaim,
and the president's ratings shot up." At this moment of success, however,
Carter imploded. As Leuchtenburg notes,
"Only two days after the singular triumph [with the speech] Carter... shockingly, demanded
the resignations of every member of his cabinet. Foreign chancelleries,
familiar with parliamentary custom, feared that the U.S. government was
collapsing, and his constituents at home concluded that this man had taken
leave of his senses. Carter wound up dropping five cabinet officials and
bringing in replacements. Even more consequential than the mass of cabinet
shake up was his appointment of a Wall Street favorite to head the Federal
Reserve Board. Carter counted on Paul Volcker to combat inflation by imposing a
tight money regiment, but Volcker plunged the country into a severe recession
that increased unemployment without significantly lowering prices."
The seminal event in Carter's presidency was the taking of
American hostages in Iran. Long forgotten is that - initially - the incident
proved a huge boon to Carter's political fortunes. Indeed, Leuchtenburg writes,
"Carter's approval rating skyrocketed from 30% to 61% - the swiftest climb
in the history of polling, even faster than FDR's after Pearl Harbor....But as
weeks of captivity of the hostages in Iran turned into months, then to more
than a year - eventually to 444 days - public attitudes soured."
Public confidence further plummeted in April 1980, when Carter attempted a
military rescue of the hostages. Leuchtenburg writes of the commando raid,
"It ended in disaster, taking the lives of eight Americans when a
helicopter collided with the transport plane in the Iranian desert. Secretary
of State Cyrus Vance, who regarded the operation as foolhardy, resigned in
protest, and the botched rescue attempt reinforced the impression that Carter,
like Ford, was a bumbler, clueless about how to govern. Eventually, Carter's
painstaking [negotiation] procedure [with the Iranians] succeeded, but,
spitefully, the Arabians did not release the captives until a few minutes after
the president's term ended."
Yet, despite all of this Carter - like Ford - almost won
reelection. He had started far behind Ronald Reagan but, by the last week of
the campaign, he had a strong momentum.
Indeed, Newsweek prepared three different post-election covers: one
showed Ronald Reagan, one showed Carter, and one featured the seal of the House of
Representatives in the event that neither main gained an electoral majority.
Then the last week of the campaign happened. As Carter biographer Julian Zelizer has
written, "...'the last week of the campaign went horribly for the
administration." Carter's pollsters were, "getting reports of a
massive slippage in popularity as people realized that the hostages were not
coming home." Leuchtenburg adds, "Carter experienced the misfortune of
having the first anniversary of the Tehran captivity coincide almost precisely
with election day, a strong reminder, as his pollster said, that these people
were still over there and Jimmy Carter hasn't been able to do anything about
it.'"
Then there was the last debate in that final week. As
Leuchtenburg notes, "A final televised debate one week before the election
also powerfully affected the outcome. A seasoned actor, Reagan was wholly at
ease, tossing off bright quips.…
Carter, on the other hand, made himself seem foolish by indicating that he
turned to his young daughter, Amy, for advice on nuclear weapons policy. The
critical moment of the debate came when Reagan, peering into the camera lens,
urged viewers to ask when they entered the voting booth: 'Are you better off
than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the
stores than it was four years ago? Is America respected around the world as it
was?' When he posed these questions, he knew that millions of Americans, in a
year of so many bleak tidings at home and overseas, would not find it possible
to give the answer Carter needed."
With that broad shift of allegiance toward Reagan in that final
week, the former California governor gave Carter an electoral
"thrashing," as Leuchtenburg termed it. Many have compared the 1980 election to that
of 1932 [although Hoover never led in any respectable poll in 1932]. The
comparison of Carter and Hoover, "highly intelligent, exceptionally well
informed, dedicated, the two men were bewildered when they found out that the
sterling qualities (engineering backgrounds) did not suffice."
No comments:
Post a Comment