Frank’s Case Book

The adjectives “honest” and “decent” have been so repeatedly attached to the recently deceased 38th President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, that they are rapidly becoming cliché. Nonetheless, these traditional mid-western virtues explain a considerable portion of both Ford’s success and failures as president.

Ford was the only un-elected president and openly acknowledged that fact. When he assumed the presidency after the resignation of President Richard Nixon on August 9, 2004, Ford explained, “I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers.” The words are poetic and his intent genuine.

When President Nixon resigned the country was deeply divided, in the final years of a bitterly divisive war, and in economic distress (unemployment 6-9%;, inflation 10-12%). Perhaps there was not an adequate sacrifice offered to the gods of a harsh justice, but it was Ford’s inherent decency and longing to assuage the country’s pains that explain his decision to pardon President Nixon. Many at the time were frustrated of an opportunity to pursue Nixon further and the decision probably caused Ford the election in 1976 to President Jimmy Carter. Ford knew the likely consequences of his decision and put his vision of what the country needed over any political advantage.

In retrospect, the decision was probably a wise one. An indictment and trial probably would have lasted through his term and through the term of the next president. Any political energy required to deal with the nation’s problems would have been dissipated by such proceedings. The country would not have been able to begin to address any of the problems confronting it.

Ford’s conspicuous forthrightness and directness, perhaps unfairly associated with mental dullness, also helped heal a nation. After Nixon, the country needed a president that did not appear too clever or nefarious.

Ford’s decency also explains a good deal of his failures. Only a good man who mistakenly expects his own notions of good will and patriotism to be embraced by others and who came from the WWII generation would have believed that “Whip Inflation Now” program to exhort Americans to restrain their wage and price demands had any possibility of succeeding.

Only a person who spent his life in the House of Representatives and believes that all differences are splittable would have been so willing to overlook Soviet behavior and eagerly negotiate with them. This eagerness caused him to twist his normal good sense and argue that Poland was not dominated by the Soviet Union and to spurn Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn, fearing that the Soviets would break off the warm relations of detente.

It was in Ford’s good nature, when he defeated Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976, at the end of the Republican National Convention, to call down Ronald Reagan to the platform with him. It was Ford’s moment, yet he extended the olive branch to Reagan and simultaneously undercut his own chances of victory against Jimmy Carter in the fall. Reagan was reluctant to come to the platform. After all, he had just narrowly lost the nomination. However, once he did, Reagan gave an impromptu speech which charged the Republicans present and gave everyone there the palpable feeling that in nominating Ford, they had just sellected the wrong fellow.

Ford was a caretaker president filling in between two elected president. Despite his shortcomings, Ford was welcome relief from President Nixon’s mendacity. Moreover, he served his nation’s interest far better than his successor President Carter. At least, he never embarrassed himself during his post-presidential years, as has Carter,  in self-righteous dotage

In the opening chapter of Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge is solicited for a private donation during the Christmas season to “make some slight provision for the poor the destitute” since “many thousands are in want of common necessities.” In one of literature’s most memorable exchanges, Scrooge asks, “Are there no prisons? … And the Union workhouses are they still in operation?” When assured that prisons and workhouses still are in operation, Scrooge dismisses any personal responsibilities by claiming that “I help to support the establishments I mentioned.” In other words the existence of large institutions for collective provision, Scrooge believed, relieved him of personal responsibility for the poor.

Unfortunately, one of the consequences of well-intentioned government provision is to attenuate the personal responsibility we all have with regard to the material needs of others. The empirical evidence suggests that those who most persuaded of the efficacy government provision are those who, as a rule, feel less personal responsibility. Arthur Brooks, in Who Really Cares, has thoroughly examined the statistics on charitable giving and has found that Conservatives, particularly religious Conservatives, are far more likely to donate to charities and in higher amounts than Liberals, particularly secular Liberals. Moreover, Conservatives are more likely to volunteer their time and even donate blood at a substantially higher rate.

These statistics represent a generalization. There are very many liberals who are quite generous with their time and money and their efforts should not be ignored or disparaged. However, Brooks does not allow us to escape the conclusion that Conservatives are more generous. It is not because Liberals are inherently less empathetic or compassionate, it is because the political ideology of collective provision saps the moral necessity for personal action.

This fact mirrors itself in national differences with respect to European countries who have bought into the socialized world view. The United States provides a large amount of direct foreign aid, but other industrialized countries provide more relative to their Gross National Product (GDP). However, much of the assistance to foreign countries from the US come through private donations to private non-governmental organizations. Indeed, private assistance dwarfs US official development assistance by a factor of three and few doubt that such private aid is more efficiently dispensed. When all these sources are taken together, the US ranks among the highest in generosity relative to its wealth.

When the ghost of Jacob Marley visits Scrooge, Scrooge wonders why Marley is so burdened in death since he was such a good businessman. Marley’s Ghost shouts, “ Business! Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings ofmy trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean ofmy business! [emphasis added]” This observation is consistent with the Conservative intuition. A Liberal version of Marley’s lament would have substituted “our” for “my” and therein lies the difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

On January 20, 1981, just after Ronald Reagan delivered his first inaugural address, Iran formally released the 444 hostages it had seized from the American embassy and had been holding for about 14 months. It is hard to fathom the entire reasoning behind the gesture by the Iranians. Perhaps it was the prospect of having $8 billion in frozen assets released or being offered immunity from international civil litigation, or perhaps the propaganda value of the hostages had been fully exploited and no longer worth the diplomatic difficulties it was causing. It is also possible that the election of a new American President, Ronald Reagan, altered the Iranian calculus. Reagan was reputed to be far more willing to employ force to free the hostages. In any case, they were unlikely to get any better deal from the new president the past one. It is at least plausible to suggest that the election of President Reagan sent the Iranians the message that the United States did not want to sit passively by. Perhaps another rescue attempt would be better planned, executed, and include substantially more force.

Nonetheless, it is dangerous to always assume that what your enemy considers an unfavorable development is necessarily a favorable one for you and visa versa. One’s enemies very well could be mistaken in their assessment. However, we should be concerned about the message received (though not intentionally sent) to Islamic extremists by the Democrats gaining control of both houses of Congress in the recent midterm elections. Are the radical Islamists likely to be concerned that there is a new party in power more capable of conducting the War on Terror or are they persuaded that the recent election results confirm their long held belief in the weakness of the West?

At the very least, the conclusion our enemies provide in public should give Democrats and the rest of us as well cause for concern. The leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq has judged that “The American people have put their feet on the right path by … realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel. So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.” Yet is hard to imagine how much reasoned dialogue can be exchanged with a leader who also states. “We will not rest from our jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have blown up the filthiest house — which is called the White House.”

Some on the Left have argued that Al Qaeda sought a Republican victory because it is in Al Qaeda’s best interest for the US to remain in Iraq. The argument is a concession that the reaction of our enemies to our election results remains a legitimate subject for argument. We can believe that both political parties have the same goal of success in opposing prescriptions for success. However, the argument that Al Qaeda would not benefit from a US withdrawal is inconsistent with recent history the past suggests that American withdrawals from the Mideast have emboldened rather than pacified radical Islamists.

When President Ronald Reagan pulled troops from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks, when President Bill Clinton pulled troops from Somalia after American serviceman were killed in the “Black Hawk Down” episode, when President Clinton had only a feeble response to the bombing of US embassies and a deadly attack on the USS Cole, Islamic extremist concluded that the US was a paper tiger, so casualty adverse that it would not stand up to any assault. This judgment as to American resolve allowed our enemies to believe they could strike us on September 11 with impunity.

Let us hope that our enemies do not interpret the recent election results as a similar lack of resolve.