The imperial presidency phenomenon, where power is openly defied and abused, can surprisingly be traced back to Gerald Ford, the 38th president. A novel interpretation by Jeffrey Toobin suggests that Ford’s absolution of President Nixon ultimately created a shield for future presidents against legal repercussions. This unchecked power, brazenly displayed by Elon Musk in his dismantling of government agencies, suggests that he, too, is confident in his legal invulnerability. Moreover, as we near the end of Trump’s presidency, the speculation of a pardon makes it clearer that presidential insiders and families have obtained an alarming level of immunity from the law.
Looking at recent pardons, we can conclude how presidential loyalists and family members are increasingly shielded from prosecution. It seems they are becoming akin to diplomats who are given free rein to park anywhere, a clear indication of a growing culture of exemption. The commencement of this era of prosecution immunity can be attributed to several different administrations. However, Gerald Ford, the 38th president, is seen as a key contributor by Toobin.
Contrary to popular belief that Ford’s exoneration of Nixon was a selfless act, Toobin boldly challenges this understanding. Ford’s action, Toobin suggests, might instead have started an alarming precedent for lawlessness. In many ways, the road to Trump’s presidency began with Nixon’s absolution.
Discounting the likable persona of Ford, a celebrated college football stalwart and a World War II veteran, it becomes fairly challenging to portray him as a villain. Laid next to personalities like Trump and Nixon, Ford appears to epitomize humble dignity. However, his detractors may argue that the faults with Ford were not outward but ran much deeper, leading to his questionable decision to pardon Nixon.
In the midst of the Watergate scandal, Ford committed to remaining as oblivious about the crisis as he could. His defense of Nixon was shrouded in ambiguity, and he steered clear from any substantial involvement when asked explicitly by Nixon to look into evidences related to the scandal. His acceptance of the vice presidency was more of a way to round off his diverse political career as opposed to fueling further ambition.
Ford’s strategy was clear – he wanted to coax the future president into granting him a pardon without having to directly ask for it. This was a well-conceived plan developed with White House counselor Fred Buzhardt under the guise of attorney-client privilege. The twist in Ford’s scheme was that Buzhardt had organized a list of six ‘endgame’ options for Ford’s successor to ponder over. Navigating through complex Washington politics, the only option that promised a neat transfer of power was one where Nixon would resign and Ford could effectively pardon him.
However, this ‘neat’ solution bore more than just a faint scent of corrupt horse-trading, rightfully raising several eyebrows. Ford proceeded with this plan without taking the time to critically evaluate its merits, rushing through the process so much so that he gave his announcing speech without adequate preparation, leaving his reasons for such urgency in the dark.
In his most audacious speech, Ford labeled Nixon’s predicament an ‘American tragedy’, in which ‘we all played a part’. Rather than sympathizing with this forced complicity, the public chose to retaliate. Ford’s popularity nosedived by 21 percentage points in just a week. His party witnessed severe defeat in the subsequent midterm election as the public’s tolerance for political blunders dwindled.
Toobin presents a highly nuanced criticism against Ford’s decision to absolve Nixon. Despite all evidence pointing towards Nixon engaging in some of the most grievous presidential misdeeds ever recorded, his repentance was notable in its absence. Ford’s handling of this situation was more akin to freely handing out impunity, with one influential figure protecting another.
Although Ford had a sincere intention to undo the Nixon legacy, his pardon ironically further asserted the dominance of the presidential office. The pardon inherently becomes an unchecked instrument in the hands of the executive office, with no real safeguards limiting the power.
The preserve of the pardon has been exploited by many administrations, with presidents often waiting until their final moments in office to misuse this authority. By doing so, they avoid any substantial political cost and hope that their inappropriate actions are lost amidst the fanfare of their successor’s inauguration.
By vindicating his own patron, Ford was instrumental in creating an unsettling practice in Washington – the use of presidential pardons to unshackle friends, colleagues, and family from the chains of justice. This practice was most notably carried forward by George H. W. Bush who employed it to pardon key figures implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Moreover, Joe Biden later had the audacity to dub himself as the protector of law and order, despite following the unsettling trend of cushioning his own family from possible prosecution. This is indeed a stark example of the double standards that seem to plague American politics when it comes to following the rule of law.
Recent events have laid bare the vulnerability of American institutions. Under the strain of brazen attacks on the civil service, the structures designed to uphold justice have effortlessly crumbled. It would be remiss to say that the institutions collapsed overnight; rather, their decline was a slow, gradual process that spelled disaster.
Over generations, the president’s power has continued to expand unchecked, Congress has become defunct, political parties have grown more defensive of their leaders, and courtrooms have become the playground of the ideologically biased. As Toobin points out, even seemingly upstanding figures such as Gerald Ford have had a hand in intensifying these worrying trends.