A shiny new book by Jeffrey Toobin takes an innovative yet unsettling view on the rise of uncontrolled presidential dominion, tracing its roots back to a quite unexpected figure: the 38th US President, Gerald Ford. His audacious argument sheds a new light on Ford’s pardon of President Nixon. This lustrous act seemingly served as the fulcrum lifting unchecked presidential power into place. A power, that recent events suggest, could potentially allow supporters of presidents such as Donald Trump to assert invulnerability against lawful pursuit.
Indeed, today we live in an era where loyalty to a president could translate into a somewhat diplomatic immunity. The origins of this rampant impunity are as deep and as many as the administrations that have wielded power. However, the author’s spirited proposition points towards a single figure at the heart of it all – Gerald Ford.
Ford’s magnanimous pardon of Richard Nixon has generally been viewed as an action of great benevolence. Widely accepted wisdom, not necessarily wise, argues that through pardoning Nixon, Ford prevented years of contentious court proceedings against him. The argument goes that such a trial would have only served to exacerbate existing divisions within the nation.
However, the author argues that this highly esteemed act of indulgence set a concerning precedent – a move towards lawless governance. Soberingly, the path to the Trump administration, with all its shenanigans, might have been dimly lit by Nixon’s absolution.
To many, Ford – a well-regarded veteran from the Second World War and a college football star – may appear an unlikely villain in this narrative. Perhaps he was too decent, too earnest as opposed to the conniving figures of Nixon and Trump. As they say, the man did nothing wrong, except for the fact that he might have played too much football without a helmet.
The chronicle unravels that Ford chose to be blissfully ignorant about the Watergate scandal. His defense of Nixon was as foggy as a misty morn, and he skillfully dodged the evidence that Nixon attempted to thrust his way. Filled with optimism, Ford had assumed the vice-presidency in the hope that it would serve as the crowning glory of his political life.
Nixon, however, schemed to coax Ford into granting him a pardon in a tactful, roundabout way. This plan was concocted in secrecy with the assistance of White House counsel Fred Buzhardt, leaning on attorney-client privilege. A memorably audacious element in this strategy was a memo – prepared by Buzhardt – that outlined six so-called “endgame” options for Ford to review.
In a classic display of political cunning, these alternatives were carefully laid out such that every other option seemed complicated and prolonged, except one. The clear, convenient choice of Ford: ‘Nixon resigns and then Ford pardons him.’ This elegant solution, however, reeked of scandalous quid pro quo.
Ford, without engaging in extensive consultation, advanced the process. His hastily prepared address to the nation, filled with weak arguments and nervous delivery, was so hurried that aides had no time to set up a teleprompter. Ford seemed to spring his decision on congressional leaders, leaving them befuddled and unable to comprehend his urgency.
At its most brazen, Ford’s speech declared the fate of Richard Nixon ‘an American tragedy in which we all played a part.’ This affront to public sentiment led to a steep fall in Ford’s popularity, a 21-point dip in a single week. The political fallout for his party was catastrophic in the ensuing midterm elections.
The narrative skillfully argues against attempts to redefine history’s view on Ford. Nixon had committed unprecedented offenses in the presidency – crimes clearly and incontrovertibly contained within tapes. He escaped unpunished, received absolution without a trace of remorse. It’s painted as a ‘free pass’ extended from one powerful man to another.
Even though Ford might have sincerely wanted to dismantle Nixon’s legacy, his pardon ironically was an act enforcing the imperial presidency. Despite the American system’s myriad of checks and balances against authoritarian misuse of power, the presidential pardon stands as one unwieldy tool unchecked.
Presidents often reveal their awareness of this power’s misuse by withholding pardons until their term’s twilight hours – exactly when there’s no political cost to pay. Institutionally, it’s hoped their questionable conduct gets muffled by the fanfare of inauguration, reducing scrutiny.
Invoking such newfound practices, Ford inadvertently initiated a controversial tradition: presidents setting their allies free from legal burdens. A blatant example of this was George H. W. Bush forgiving key figures in the Iran-Contra scandal and strikingly, Joe Biden pompously proclaiming himself an upholder of law before using his powers to shield his family from potential prosecution.