Terry Cowgill

4 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. The problem is that most peoples’ view of Ford, including that of Hitchens, is based on a few headlines, and not on the substance of what Ford did or did not do as president. He inherited not only a mess of vast proportions but an over-reliance on Nixon-Kissinger diplomacy that had put the U.S. in bad positions all over the world, for instance, in hock to the Shah of Iran and the dictator of Indonesia.

   I won’t say these are minor matters, since they are not, but they were continuations of policy, not of his own making. I prefer to celebrate his nobler actions, on view, e.g., in the rescue of the first wave of Vietnamese. refugees, for instance. As for the Mayaguez incident, take a look for yourself at the transcript of the key NSC meeting on this matter, available on-line at the Ford Library website, and ask yourself if you would have asked better questions of your advisers or acted differently, based on the information available to you as president at the time. In 1974-76 I thought Ford was adequate but not very good, as in Dick Reeves’ sneering biography, A FORD NOT A LINCOLN. But the evidence of his being a lot better than that is now available, and I’ve changed my opinion to fit the facts.

   On many issues, Ford was pulled to the right by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and his first secretary of defense, James Schlesinger, also a Nixon holdover. Some of what was done by Ford, in catering to the right, was done out of a fear that if he didn’t, the right wouldn’t support him in 1976. They didn’t anyway, and he lost several key states because of it, and the election. That paved the way for the Reagan era — which we’re still in.

   Comment by Tom Shachtman — December 30, 2006 #

2. Surely, articles such as Hitchens’ are only a matter of time. I see them as a necessary counterweight to the inevitable rush to put people on a pedestal when they die, as Hitchens points out. Over time we may arrive at a nuanced view with some truth in it.

   You all may enjoy knowing that Alex Cockburn, a foe of Hitchens and far to his left, wrote a highly laudatory commentary (if slightly tongue-in-cheek) about Ford: http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12272006.html. You just never know!

   I see all that ugly meddling in foreign affairs as standard-issue stuff. I’ll be glad to pen the first dissent upon the future death of Carter showing that he did more of the same, and so did all who followed.

   It is interesting to note, however, that as Tom points out, it is much the same cabal pulling the strings — Rumsfeld, Cheney, and crew. The empire marches on. The big difference now is that those people and the forces they represent are in full control.

   –Fred–

   Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 30, 2006 #

3. The blogoshpere is rife with discussions comparing andf contrasting the ford legacy, dealing particularly with The Pardon and whether or not we have him to thank for the petrie dish that spawned neoconservatism.

   Regardless of where one comes down on it, a thoughtful discussion, worth reading, is at The Agonist.

   Comment by Doug Richardson — December 31, 2006 #

4. We, in this country are sometimes blessed with the fact that we have Political, Parties, and Heads Of State.
   A a Republican or Democrat, or whatever, you are treated with little or no compassion…as a Head Of State, when you die, you are treated with respect, and the tahanks of a grateful nation for your service.
   I. for one, appreciate focusing on the good at these times.
   God Bless and my thanks to President Ford and his family for their sacrafices to serve our country.

   Comment by Marshall Miles — January 1, 2007 #

Leave a comment