The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past. William Faulkner
I thought about that quote the moment I learned the news of President Ford’s death last week. I informed my husband a few minutes later, and then said to him, You know, it’s odd that his funeral will be just days before a Democratic Congress takes over.
But perhaps this is not so odd. You know that cliche–God has a great sense of humor. And impeccable timing, to boot. Putting the lie to the vain hope that past can be buried with the truth. It cannot. Foolish people can only attempt.
Which would explain the week’s worth of hosannas of our great president.
Understand, unlike our ruling junta, I do not glory in death. I feel badly, on a personal level, for Mrs. Ford and her family. And I was deeply touched by the graciousness of her children, thanking people who came to pay their respects. All the same, I rather read things as they are, not as some wish to be.
Which is why all the talk of this “humble” man of the Midwest healing our great nation with his heartland values was rather…interesting. Yes, I know–all that empty verbiage aided and abetted by the American aversion of not “speaking ill of the dead” –but did we listen carefully?
It’s so easy to just mock the self-satisfied blather oozing from some quarters. I actually considered issuing Fred G. Sanford “You Big Dummy” Awards for two deserving dolts–David Broder and Cokie Roberts.
First, for Broder writing this:
As vice president, he had defended Nixon against the Watergate charges, but he recognized in our meeting that he had a responsibility larger than any further claims of personal loyalty from Nixon.
When Woodward would write this:
Until now, the relationship between the two presidents has been portrayed largely as a matter of political necessity, with Nixon tapping Ford for the vice presidency in late 1973 because he was a confirmable choice on Capitol Hill.
But the tapes, documents and two lengthy recent interviews with Ford before his death this week, conducted for a future book and embargoed until after his death, show that the close political alliance between the two men seriously influenced Ford’s eventual decision to pardon Nixon, the most momentous decision of his short presidency and almost certainly the one that cost him any chance of winning the White House in his own right two years later. Ford became president on Aug. 9, 1974; he pardoned Nixon just a month later. “I think that Nixon felt I was about the only person he could really trust on the Hill,” Ford said during the 2005 interview.
Ford returned the feeling.
“I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn’t want to see my real friend have the stigma,” Ford said in the interview.
That acknowledgment represents a significant shift from Ford’s previous portrayals of the pardon that absolved Nixon of any Watergate-related crimes. In earlier statements, Ford had emphasized the decision as an effort to move the country beyond the partisan divisions of the Watergate era, playing down the personal dimension.
And for this:
A story told by Cokie Roberts, the National Public Radio correspondent, may sum it up best. Roberts noted a conversation she had with Ford in recent years.
Ford was minority leader while her father, Rep. Hale Boggs of Louisiana, was majority leader. Ford told her that the two old friends would share a cab to the National Press Club, deciding on the way what they would debate. Once on stage, they’d argue vehemently based on their very different views of what was best for the country. Then they would get back in the cab, Roberts said, and resume their friendship.
When the tapes revealed this:
On April 6, 1971, for example, Nixon called Ford to find out what was going on with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Boggs had just taken to the House floor alleging that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was regularly wiretapping members of Congress, and Nixon wanted to know why Boggs was going public.
“He’s nuts,” Ford told Nixon in the call picked up by Nixon’s secret taping.
“He’s on the sauce,” Nixon said, suggesting the majority leader was drinking. “Isn’t that it?”
“Well, I’m afraid that’s right, Mr. President.”
“Or is he crazy?” Nixon asked.
“Well, he’s either drinking too much or he’s taking some pills that are upsetting him mentally,” Ford replied.
Anyway…the “pardon was prudent” chorus was in full sway this week:
According to Richard Ben-Veniste,
At bottom, the decision to pardon Nixon was a political judgment properly within the bounds of Ford’s constitutional authority. The specter of a former president in the criminal dock as our country moved into its bicentennial year was profoundly disturbing.
Disturbing to whom? And how? Fully holding accountable those who committed such violence to our Constitution would have given pause to those who do so at this very moment. (Besides, we didn’t seem to fret over the specter of killing Reconstruction during the centennial year, but I digress.)
And oh, all the talk of his compassion! He felt such compassion for Nixon. Would that he had felt such compassion for the Constitution. And his selflessness. He didn’t seek the presidency; the presidency was thrust upon him. His act of sacrifice saved a grateful nation and endeared one and all to his wise actions on their behalf. His image was so airbrushed that you’d be forgiven if you thought he had ascended as the very right hand of Christ Himself.
Yes, the historical revisionism is breathtaking and nauseating. I know you’ve had your fill of it. Even though we deserve better than to expect such license, you knew it was coming. But also remember the most salient point: these inane notions of a nation healed isn’t about the past. It’s about the present.
It’s about Thursday, January 4, 2007.
It’s about bemoaning the death of civility while ignoring those who killed it.
It’s about equating justice with vengeance and transforming “go along to get along” and “taking one for the team” into moral virtues.
It’s about begging the Democratic party to clean up Junior’s mess, but ignoring the demand for accountability.
I am utterly uninterested in a bastardized notion of “national healing.” I want accountability. I want it five minutes ago. I want it five YEARS ago.
So. Why are we so afraid to lance that boil?
Because the long national nightmare isn’t over; not by a long shot. And every one of our leaders knows it. Including Ford at the time. Revisit his oath of office:
To the peoples and the governments of all friendly nations, and I hope that could encompass the whole world, I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace. America will remain strong and united, but its strength will remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom.
I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our Government but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.
In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.
My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.
Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.
Had he actually believed what he was saying, he would have not have issued his pardon.
Truth is, we have long sought the illusion of due diligence. The love affair with truthiness didn’t begin with an unfortunate Oprah’s Book Club pick, but with those who publicly and piously intone about truth without exercising it. As I wrote to Real History Lisa, we “hate” history as kids because it’s a learned response from those around us; it’s the tacit admission that we ignore history because what lies beneath is not be examined, much less revealed.
Which leads to the disturbing, but inevitable question: could it be that truth threatens our systems as currently constituted? Obviously, the truth that sets us free would put many of our leaders in prison, and they obviously feel they are in the wrong class for all that. But it’s even more insidious…they seem to assume that the truth, and nothing but the truth would doom us as a country. If the truth is deemed too messy, too much, then the assumption must be that truth will destroy us. It’s an astonishing, damning admission of some of our political leaders that the ties that bind our country are as thin as tissue. Less than ephemeral, in fact. Whatever the fears of our ruling class, I believe that truth and accountability and the Constitution still matter. I am unafraid of where it leads. Our party should be similarly unafraid in the days and weeks and months to come. I know it is folly to believe that that sentiment is enough to fortify some in party, but it must be enough to fortify us.
Consider, again, the words Real History Lisa:
The topic of the Iraq War and the lies that took the nation to war was a frequent sub-theme at the conference. To many of the 135 people gathered, history is one long through line. By not confronting the lies we were given about the assassination and demanding government accountability, we essentially agreed to look the other way, empowering government to lie to us about other events.
