WI: Ford takes a "poker pause" before pardoning Nixon?

Relevant news article:
Rick Perlstein said:
When you’ve published a book about Watergate, your phone rings off the hook in the days leading up to Aug. 9, 2014, the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation. But my phone’s been quiet this week — even though the event that took place almost exactly one month later, on Sept. 8, 1974, is the one that really changed the world. It’s still changing the world 40 years later.
Gerald Ford had announced upon acceding to the highest office in the land, “Our Constitution works; our great republic is a government of laws and not men. Here the people rule.” For the sentiment, he reaped a harvest of gratitude. The very existence of this new presidency, everyone said, proved that “the system worked.”
Then, four Sundays later, 11:05 a.m., when many Americans would have, like Ford, just returned from church — in the mood, he hoped, for mercy — Ford proceeded to read, then sign, a proclamation announcing that pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, he was granting “a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20 through August 9, 1974.”
It was an enormously unpopular act. Ford’s approval rating declined from 71 to 49 percent, the most precipitous in history. This pardon was proof, the people said, that the system didn’t work — America was still crooked. Suspicions were widespread that it was the fruit of a dirty deal between Nixon and Ford: the presidency in exchange for the pardon. “The son of a bitch pardoned the son of a bitch,” was how Carl Bernstein broke the news Bob Woodward on the phone.
Since then, judgment on the pardon has reversed 180 degrees. First Woodward, then Bernstein, came to conclude there had been no deal, and that this was instead an extraordinarily noble act: Ford “realized intuitively that the country had to get beyond Nixon.” After Ford died in 2006, Peggy Noonan went even further. She said Ford “threw himself on a grenade to protect the country from shame.”
They’re wrong. For political elites took away a dangerous lesson from the Ford pardon — our true shame: All it takes is the incantation of magic words like “stability” and “confidence” and “consensus” in order to inure yourself from accountability for just about any malfeasance.
In 1975 the Senate and House empaneled committees to investigate the CIA, FBI and, later, the NSA after it was discovered these agencies had operated unethically and illegally. The House committee, under Rep. Otis Pike, who died last year in obscurity, discovered not merely that the CIA was out of control, but that it was incompetent — for instance, predicting Mideast peace the week before the Yom Kippur War broke out. Frank Church’s Senate committee, meanwhile, proved the NSA was illegally gathering the telegraph traffic of American citizens, without even top executives of the telegraph companies being aware of it.
But, in the spirit of the Nixon pardon, the idea of holding elite institutions to reckoning had fallen out of favor. At the height of the intelligence investigations Washington Post’s publisher Katharine Graham complained of the media’s tendency to “see a conspiracy and cover-up in everything.” Sen. J. William Fulbright said “these are not the kind of truths we need most right now,” that the nation demanded “restored stability and confidence” instead. The CIA had no trouble promptly drumming up a disingenuous propaganda campaign that all but neutered reform. And, 39 years later, these institutions are still largely broken, and still almost entirely unaccountable.
Follow the thread a little more than a decade later. Ronald Reagan’s administration contravened law and its own solemn pledges by selling hundreds of thousands of missiles to Iran in an attempt to free hostages held in Lebanon. The president’s own diaries revealed that he approved the action; he lied about that in a press conference. The deal didn’t even work; Hezbollah just took more hostages. Then profits were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras in direct violation of congressional statute. But instead of a Watergate-style Senate investigation (the one in 1973 heard witnesses live on TV for over five months and produced 26 volumes of reports), Iran-Contra was investigated by a panel convened by Reagan himself and led by a political ally, Sen. John Tower; at subsequent congressional hearings, deliberately limited in scope, the star witness, Oliver North, testifying under immunity, bragged of destroying thousands of pages of evidence.
Six administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, were indicted by a special prosecutor. But one month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush — who did not testify in congressional hearings about his own involvement in the affair as vice president, because the Democratic chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye, wished to spare him embarrassment — pardoned them all.
Just like 40 years ago today, a longing for consensus over messy conflict, for elite comity instead of accountability, “stability and confidence” instead of justice, trumped all.
Meanwhile, the congressional minority report on Iran-Contra, drafted by then-Rep. Richard Cheney, all but rejected the very notion of congressional oversight over the executive branch — and Cheney, as George W. Bush’s vice president, literally took Iran-Contra as the subject for a “lessons learned” workshop on how to put such a foreign policy into practice.
Note, of course, that Cheney had once been top deputy in Gerald Ford’s White House. The Nixon pardon had to have been a lesson learned for him, too — future administrations would let the Bush administration get away with things like illegally spying on Americans, and starting a war on false pretenses, scot-free. And he was right: Following his 2008 election, President Obama announced “that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.”
Comity over accountability. Denialism instead of risking national “shame.” In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Library awarded Ford its Profile in Courage award for the pardon decision. But the idea that “too big to fail” institutions are too fragile to handle honest reckoning with the truth is not courage. It is civic cowardice. Better, much better, that we keep the faith: that our Constitution can work, that our great republic is a government of laws and not men, and that here, the people rule.


Rick Perlstein is the author of "The Invisible Bridge," "Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America" and "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus"

More Rick Perlstein.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
A poker pause here doesnt make much sense. First, enough information was out to make a decision regarding a pardon. Second, poker pauses are often done with the intent of creating the perception that one is weighing their options even though they already have made their decision. That also doesnt make sense here as Watergate had dominated the headlines for over a year by then. The correct decision was to push the process forward in an expeditious manner regardless as to whether it would be a pardon or not.
I mainly mean feeling your way to a good decision. This is similar to the idea that the left-brain is the logical and analytical side, and the right-brain is the pattern recognition and feel and texture side. Now biologically, this may not be strictly true for humans, but I think it makes for good shorthand for at least two different styles of thinking.

Our institutions focus on "left"-brain thinking, whereas much of what we are best at is the more "right"-brain thinking.

In addition, if Ford had held off, maybe Nixon might have agreed to a plea bargain deal with prosecutors?
 

Realpolitik

Banned


Perlstein is wrong. He would be right in a more idealistic world IMO. Simple as that. I've stated why I don't believe a Nixon trial would have changed gross illegalities in politics and would only made everything in our political culture more dysfunctional. You are free to believe him over me if you want, I'm just stating my opinion based on what I've seen for myself and what I've read.

Every so often, said political elites and establishment figures get it right.


Perlstein is great when it comes to the overall sociopolitical situation regarding the Silent Majority. He isn't so great when it comes to Nixon the man himself. The book should be titled "Americaland".
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Cambodia... I don't want to divert the thread too much. But in sum, I believe that no one in the USA is "responsible" for the Khmer Rouge in the sense that the accusers mean. Not our policy-makers. Not our anti-war people(Ludendorffism). Nobody. No one could have predicted the utter evil that was the Khmer Rouge. Ultimately responsibility goes to the Khmer Rouge themselves and their North Vietnamese backers-who later did overthrow them. However... one of America's darker pages shows itself here. Our policies-or more generally, treating Cambodia like a sideshow. Our Congress and their abnegation of responsibility. But the worst has to be, in my opinion, on those who love to flog others about human rights and portray themselves as heros.

NYT headliner: "Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life."

Our great press, the beacon of human rights. :rolleyes:

East Timor was mainly done because Suharto was our main ally in the region and with Indochina having fallen recently, we wanted to be in good with him.

Bangladesh was really nasty. Worse than East Timor. Funny how no one knows about it.
All three of these may have snuck up on people in the sense that it was first a public relations issue and being on the 'ins' with the 'right' people, and then it becomes quite a bit worse. And later on, we think, damn, why didn't we do anything.

In a similar way, with their recent unsafe cars, GM at first looked at the ignition switches as a customer satisfaction issue. Whereas in fact, if circumstances happen badly, it can cause crashes where people actually die.

With long simmering conflicts like Northern Ireland, I love the method of sending a retired Senator. If it works out, great. If not, you haven't really invested that much time or prestige. And if I was president --- and the chance of that is slim because I'm quirky and artistic --- I would keep a rolodex of 20 some odd retired Senators and use this method all the time.

But, I do not know how this method would play out with the beginnings of genocide when you need to move quicker.

PS I think the press is usually pro-establishment.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Oh, yes. The mainstream press anyway. Flashy headlines from an editorial columnist doesn't make an establishment paper less establishment.

The more explicitly partisan stuff you see on the web is different, but they are if anything, worse in self-righteousness.

That IS a good idea.

And I suppose I should quit whining and do some homework...
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
You're either joking or naive. Senators and Representatives are politicians.
Yes, but like what Robert Caro said about LBJ --- he was never happier than when he could combine political ambition with standing up for the little guy.

If Ford could have matter-of-factly mentioned in a positive way politicians who were being moderate and constructive, that may have made a difference. Such as, 'like what Tip O'Neil says about police and prosecutors overfocusing on the first suspect. This is something we should all be concerned about as citizens.' [I'm not sure Tip ever publicly voiced concern about this, but as an example]
 

Cook

Banned
How about the O.J. Simpson trial of 1995? Yes, there were so bad feelings. There were some also worthwhile discussion of the differential justice system faced by black and white persons.

Presumably a black man wouldn't have got the trial O.J. had.
;)
 
There is an ASB but interesting POD here. Ford pardons Nixon in later October. The public is very angry and the 1974 midterms are an even bigger Democratic landslide. Bill Clinton wins. I have read that Bill Clinton thought that if had been elected to Congress, he would have become a Washington guy. When he loses in 1980, he gives up his political career. He and Hillary become Washington lawyers. Bill does serve in President Tsongas's Admisntration. He had to resign in disgrace after an affair with an intern.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . It will not just be a matter for the courts, not when it is this big. Congress will be busy planning partisan battles and witnesses and all the rest, especially if dirty laundry about the government as a whole gets revealed. . .
If some of this is talking about dirty money in elections (or let's say, questionable money) and if there's enough politicians like Robert Caro's description of LBJ --- never happier than when he could combine political ambition and standing up for the common citizen --- might there be some silver lining in more of the type of discussion we need to be having?

For example, if some members of Congress introduce a Constitutional amendment for campaign reform with teeth, in the discussions before this is voted for, might some of that be more positive, long-ranging discussion? I tend to think it would.

** And I'll acknowledge, with the rise of talk radio and Fox News, I have a hard time envisioning a lot of this conversation as being positive. But, back in the 1970s, that may have been among one of the minority of times in which journalism was highly professionalized and strived to be "responsible." In practice, that may have often meant being timid and pro-establishment. I've all in favor of freedom of speech even for people with way-out views. I guess I just wish there were more people with sensible views to help balance this out.
 
Just how long would a Impeachment trial take? Held in the senate, correct? Congress would be tied up for god knows howlong, Ford himself would be called as a witness im sure. Whole Executive and Legislative Branches of the government in limbo. What a mess.
 
I think that the pardon was the right thing to do for the reasons given earlier in the thread, the various trials, appeals and investigations could well have lasted into the 1980's and been an open wound in national politics. I've seen it discussed on here before that Ford's mistake was in making the pardon unconditional and that it covered "crimes that may have been committed" this created a sense that there was worse to come out about Nixon, something he supposedly reinforced by being very coy on that issue in subsequent interviews. So perhaps Ford makes it conditional on Nixon admitting his guilt and then providing full disclosure and co-operation with an investigation in return for no criminal charges?
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Just how long would a Impeachment trial take? . .
Not an impeachment trial. That's solely for removal from office, and Nixon had already resigned. It would be a regular criminal trial in a regular federal courtroom probably for something like obstruction of justice.

The argument is that Sunday morning talk shows circa mid-1970s, newspaper editorials, speeches when candidates are in their district, etc., that all of that would be more partisan in a much more negative way.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
I think that the pardon was the right thing to do for the reasons given earlier in the thread, the various trials, appeals and investigations could well have lasted into the 1980's and been an open wound in national politics. I've seen it discussed on here before that Ford's mistake was in making the pardon unconditional and that it covered "crimes that may have been committed" this created a sense that there was worse to come out about Nixon, something he supposedly reinforced by being very coy on that issue in subsequent interviews. So perhaps Ford makes it conditional on Nixon admitting his guilt and then providing full disclosure and co-operation with an investigation in return for no criminal charges?

I personally think the reason that Ford didn't do that is to a) get Watergate over with ASAP without haggling for a long time and bringing on suspicion, and b) make sure that Nixon wouldn't refuse the pardon as much as possible, as mentioned earlier. When you through Nixon's rather fragile mental and physical state at the time-one other thing I forgot mention-Ford probably didn't want that being revealed either, which is at risk if Nixon decides to debate or reject the offer.

Maybe it would work-Nixon's physical condition can ultimately force things. Maybe it wouldn't-even in his lowest state, Nixon and his team were very ruthless in "negotiating" with Ford over the content of the pardon, apparently(I'll see if I can get the link). I don't think Ford wanted to risk it. This is one of those things that could go either way.

Ford was disappointed, but not shocked, when Nixon admitted to "mistakes".
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
If some of this is talking about dirty money in elections (or let's say, questionable money) and if there's enough politicians like Robert Caro's description of LBJ --- never happier than when he could combine political ambition and standing up for the common citizen --- might there be some silver lining in more of the type of discussion we need to be having?

For example, if some members of Congress introduce a Constitutional amendment for campaign reform with teeth, in the discussions before this is voted for, might some of that be more positive, long-ranging discussion? I tend to think it would.

** And I'll acknowledge, with the rise of talk radio and Fox News, I have a hard time envisioning a lot of this conversation as being positive. But, back in the 1970s, that may have been among one of the minority of times in which journalism was highly professionalized and strived to be "responsible." In practice, that may have often meant being timid and pro-establishment. I've all in favor of freedom of speech even for people with way-out views. I guess I just wish there were more people with sensible views to help balance this out.

One of very many topics. And I don't think so, given the absolute bitterness between opposite sides of the political aisle that a trial would bring. Again-it's possible if everything goes right, but knowing people, it won't.

I'm not certain about that-watchdog/adversary journalism was reaching its first original "happy time" in the Johnson/Nixon/Ford period, and beginning the slide toward the nadir of polite standards. And pro-establishment was not pro-Nixon, a lot of the time.

I was born in the early 90s, which I fully confess colors my attitude.
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Nixon committed domestic violence? Probably.

Two Stories Seymour Hersh Never Wrote

" . . . Here is an edited transcript of his remarks at a Nieman Fellows seminar February 6, 1998."

http://niemanreports.org/articles/two-stories-seymour-hersh-never-wrote/

"I published a book in 1983 about Kissinger in the Nixon White House and at that time I knew some pretty horrible stuff about Richard Nixon’s personal life, and I’ll tell you why I didn’t write it.

"There was a serious empirical basis for believing he was a wife beater, and had done so—at least hospitalized her a number of times. 1 had access to some records. Okay? I’m talking about trauma, and three distinct cases. . . "

.

.

.

" . . . That story would have been denied by Nixon, his wife. The sources would have gone batshit if I’d named them. I talked to a doctor involved. He was in direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath. So I had a million technical problems with that story. I’m still telling you why I don’t think I would have written it. . . "

In addition, the baseline is that domestic violence is relatively common. I mean, we're not talking about some rare bird.

===========

So, how does this play out on the question of how hard Nixon would fight if he didn't receive the pardon? He probably would try to overcompensate, with the idea of making it up to Pat, and be prepared to fight harder.

At least for three or four months. And then, it becomes kind of awkwark having a spouse who formerly worked long hours around the house all the time. A lot of spouses will tell you this about retirement. At that point, if Nixon wanted to plea bargain and accept some jail time, Pat would probably be agreeable. Or even if Nixon wants to make a grand gesture, and he is a man given to grand gestures, that if the two men most loyal to him are in jail, he's going to be in jail, too. Now, this latter point is somewhat unlikely, but perhaps one chance out of ten.


PS To me, the fact that Dick Nixon probably did commit domestic violence against his wife Pat Nixon makes him less complex in a good way. It just makes him boring and stupid.
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
In addition, the baseline is that domestic violence is relatively common. I mean, we're not talking about some rare bird.

===========

So, how does this play out on the question of how hard Nixon would fight if he didn't receive the pardon? He probably would try to overcompensate, with the idea of making it up to Pat, and be prepared to fight harder.

At least for three or four months. And then, it becomes kind of awkwark having a spouse who formerly worked long hours around the house all the time. A lot of spouses will tell you this about retirement. At that point, if Nixon wanted to plea bargain and accept some jail time, Pat would probably be agreeable. Or even if Nixon wants to make a grand gesture, and he is a man given to grand gestures, that if the two men most loyal to him are in jail, he's going to be in jail, too. Now, this latter point is somewhat unlikely, but perhaps one chance out of ten.


PS To me, the fact that Dick Nixon probably did commit domestic violence against his wife Pat Nixon makes him less complex in a good way. It just makes him boring and stupid.


Oh, for Pete's sake. Nixon was a lot of awful things, but not a wife beater. The same guy who claimed he did also claimed he had a gay affair with Bebe Rebozo.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Seymour Hersh is saying that he did.

This proves that Seymour Hersh is an idiot. He's also gotten into trouble with extravagant claims with "anonymous sources" before.

Nixon often neglected Pat, and was far from a perfect husband. But if you look Pat's funeral and see him sobbing and shaking... this is a man that rarely showed emotion. Ever. This is the not the behavior of somebody who physically abused or hated his wife.

I remember reading someone predicted to Clinton that Nixon would die within the following year now that Pat was dead. And he was right.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
. . . Nixon often neglected Pat, and was far from a perfect husband. But if you look Pat's funeral and see him sobbing and shaking... this is a man that rarely showed emotion. Ever. This is the not the behavior of somebody who physically abused . . .
He could be crying for missed opportunities.

All kinds of different people engage in domestic violence.

Nixon is almost too easy because he was a person with a lot of anger who put up a public front.

Well, this might be one risk factor, but plenty of people who don't do this also commit domestic violence. Sometimes I think in part it's just a bad habit, that the person doesn't have the skills for knowing how to deal with medium to high anger.

For example, one skill is the cross-hand grip. If someone is being aggressive and getting in your face and you feel you're at risk of committing violence, reach across and take hold of their diagonally opposite shoulder. Your arm in between gives you some protection. 'Can we discuss this later? I want to discuss this, but not now. Is later okay?' Having something prepared to say may also help. Now, the cross-hand grip does have some risk of escalation, but if it escalates in a family-type situation more a risk of a wrestling type thing. There might be even a 'softer' martial arts style, more in the style of Tai Chi.

And walk away if you can. That's fine to do. In fact, that's a good thing to do. Be aware of good areas to walk, too. Walk toward an area of more people in a conflict situation. This is a very specific skill, and I don't know why it's not taught more often.

And if someone has a problem with violence, it's not just enough to know these and similar skills. The person probably needs to be practice these along with coaching in a variety of situations.

=====

domestic violence tends to continue and happen again,

and with random ups and downs, it tends to get worse over time

Yes, this is personal. My dad is a violent individual. And I personally have found psychologists and psychiatrists singularly unhelpful. (If other people have found them helpful, more power to you. I just have not.)

Just a guess, I'd say 1 out of 5 families has issues with domestic violence.

And what's been in the news with the NFL, if you try and make one or two individuals uniquely bad, that is counter-productive. These are systemic problems, including the way people are raised and including the crap we watch on TV, and plus very human emotions.

And with the NFL going the route of zero tolerance, that's counter-productive. In the real world, "zero tolerance" too often means high threshold.

A better approach would be if the player presents on his own and seeks help, he can get time off. If the situation comes to the attention of the league or team, then something in the neighborhood of a 6 week suspension.

And I'll quote Jeremy Bentham that, punishment deters by its likelihood, not its severity. That is, to the extent that punishment works at all in a case like this. A lot of this is simply lack of skills, and lack of positive examples of how else to handle anger, including anger which is justified.

I wish Seymour Hersh had reported this in 1983, including the uncertainly factor. And I wish he had talked with some people, for example a person who helps to run a shelter, to put the issue in more context.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
As it turns out, my dad is a lot like Nixon. a lot of anger and he puts up a front. I'm 51 years old, and am happy to give advice on this issue.

okay, so I haven't been helped by psychologists, generally overblown theory and overblown perfectionism. Try and find someone just with some snap and life experience. The only thing they might need to be brought up to speed on is that domestic violence tends to continue and tends to get worse over time.

under-writing is a method I've developed. journal writing with a light touch.

And ask a relative for help, even a relative you may not have seen in a while. In a letter or email, understate and let them read between the lines. for example, 'things haven't been real great at home' Relatives are familiar with conflicts between young adults and their parents. They may be able to let you live with them, they may not. You might want to directly ask, but do respect their answer. And figure whatever you say in the letter will come back to your family of origin. This is another reason to understate.

I'd like to explore more Asian styles of martial arts and conflict resolution. But let them know, this is not someone threatening you with a knife in a parking lot. This is violence within the home. You want to protect without injuring, best case scenario.

==================

And for other mental health, a regular doctor like an internist can prescribe an antidepressant, which is trial and error in a respectful sense anyway. Also sometimes it's important to phase down in series of medium steps even if the medication doesn't seem to be working, just that your body may have gotten used to it. For example, see the book Hello to All That: A Memoir of Zoloft, War, and Peace by John Falk. prozac didn't really work for him, but zoloft did. For a more technical thing, there's the STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) which is a medical study published in 2006. Which basically found that if one antidepressant doesn't work for a person, there's a fair to middling chance the next one will. keep trying, and be willing to try a whole series, with medical supervision of course.

I've struggled with bouts of depression. Heck, a lot of people have. Haven't yet tried antidepressants, but this is kind of my game plan. I'm even prepared to doctor-shop as necessary.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a persons choice. You can see a psychiatrist, or you can see a general practitioner like an internist.

=======================


PS I experiment with different ways of medium disclosure. I don't think I've revealed anything all that personal in the above.
 
Last edited:
Top