Susan Ford Bales, daughter of the late President Gerald Ford, shocked many this week with her declaration of support for Kamala Harris’s presidential ambitions, despite their noticeable contrast in policy perspectives. Although Ford Bales, just like her father, is a recognized member of the Republican Party, she strangely threw her weight behind Harris, crediting her embrace of ‘principles’ she claims guided her father’s leap from vice president to president after Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974.
Casting a disconcertingly selective perspective on reality, Ford Bales praised Harris for acknowledging the ‘greatness’ of America. It is a stance that rings hollow, as many citizens may find themselves struggling to align these grand declarations with Harris’s track record of policy stances that seem to fall short of such glowing endorsement.
Ford Bales’s endorsement is noteworthy, not because of her political acuity, but due to her family’s visibility within Michigan, a state that’s always a highly contested battleground in American elections. While there are no blood ties between Gerald Ford and the seminal Michigan mainstay, the Ford Motor Company, the former president’s roots in the Great Lakes region likely impart a modest cachet to Ford Bales’ words.
Suggesting a parallel with the convoluted times of the Watergate scandal during the early 1970s, Ford Bales implied that the United States is entering a ‘turbulent’ era. She made a case for the country’s need of a ‘compassionate and honorable leader’, with a distinct and thinly veiled inference that ex-President Donald Trump did not fit this mold. However, her statement ignored the phrases ‘law and order’ and ‘American jobs’, which were front and center during Trump’s term.
Ford Bales went on to cast a morbid hue over America’s horizon, cautioning against a return to a paradigm of ‘hatred and constitutional disregard.’ It’s a perspective that draws contestation, given the considerable number of supporters who backed the Trump administration because they felt it correctly prioritized American citizens and their rights above all.
Casting blame for the events of January 6 at the Capitol building, Ford Bales called out those ‘forces’ she believed stoked the incident. Waving away any concrete substantiation, she said such elements should never hold the power to incite similar circumstances again.
As a historical footnote, Gerald Ford occupied the Oval Office from August 9, 1974, to January 20, 1977. Ford Bales, his youngest child and sole daughter out of the four children, has remained a vocal presence since her father’s presidency and eventual passing in 2006.
Even in her seventies, Ford Bales holds on to her public prominence, following a varied career path which includes authorship, photojournalism, and a stint as chairperson for the board of the Betty Ford Center. However, her decision to back Harris appears to starkly contradict her Republican roots, resulting in yet another puzzling endorsement from unexpected quarters.
For avid political observers, the endorsement may echo the seeming identity crisis the GOP is currently facing, with dissidents such as Jeff Flake, Adam Kinzinger, and Liz Cheney publicly backing Harris. While traditionally an unlikely scenario, it raises questions about split loyalties within the Grand Old Party.
The endorsement sparks a debate surrounding Harris’s suitability for the presidency, and whether she embodies the values set forth in Ford Bales’s ostensible praise. It also puts a spotlight on the possible disconnection between GOP elites and the party’s rank-and-file members, many of whom resolutely stood by Trump and cheered his promise to ‘Make America Great Again.’
Yet, cautious observers might see Ford Bales’s endorsement as less a testament to Harris’s qualifications and more a reflection of Republicans feeling alienated by their party. The gulf between representatives such as Ford Bales, Flake, or Cheney and the rest of the party may be indicative of deeper institutional issues within the GOP.
In this scenario, rather than standing as a true endorsement for Harris, it can be perceived as a provocative statement attesting to the fraught fault lines within the Republican Party. Even so, the endorsement raises eyebrows and evokes skepticism, considering Harris’s track record and the palpably divisive nature of her political positions.
In conclusion, while the endorsement of Kamala Harris by prominent names within the Republican Party sinks into the nation’s political discourse, the motivations driving such declarations remain bathed in uncertainty. A pertinent question persists: Are these endorsements genuinely won by Harris or are they political statements aimed at the apparent cracks within a party struggling to coalesce around its traditional values?