Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s

Conclusion

351 Conclusion Conclusion The Long-term President Presidential Leadership in Troubled Times The task of leadership in the 1970s was trying. Speaker Carl Albert found his duties uniquely onerous compared to those of recent House leaders, because he had “a greater variety of difficult issues and situations to deal with than any past speaker. I mean Watergate, impeachment, two resignations [Agnew and Nixon], Vietnam, and now the economic and the energy crisis.”1 Gerald Ford confronted these challenges and thought the solutions lay in steady leadership and a conservative approach. He saw a brighter future for the country in the principles of its past: frugal government, greater reliance on private industry and initiative, tax relief, and economic growth marked by low inflation and low budget deficits. Some presidents are wafflers. To remain popular or win an election, they expediently shift their stance according to which way the winds of public opinion blow. As a consequence, their actions are inconsistent, their core beliefs difficult to discern. Richard Nixon relinquished free-market tenets to adopt wage and price controls and oil allocations. George H. W. Bush abandoned his “no new taxes” pledge. Bill Clinton was notorious for measuring public opinion to decide what concerned voters, like health care in 1993, an issue that he dropped as quickly as he adopted it. Ford betrayed no such vicissitudes; while willing to compromise, he remained loyal to his ideology. A consistent thread ran throughout his policies and utterances, one of conservative economic principles. Paul O’Neill observed, “He was true to them every day of his presidency.”2 Ford’s economic and energy programs provided a window through which to view the beliefs he espoused. Throughout his presidency, Ford saw inflation as the greatest danger. His anti-inflation program began with an uneven gait; Congress immediately rejected his proposed surtax, and the WIN program embarrassed his 352 Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s administration. More important, a severe economic slump forced him to focus on battling recession, temporarily blurring his anti-inflation policy. Nonetheless, Ford remained intent on achieving price stability. He believed the nation had to endure high unemployment while he first subdued inflation. High jobless rates were painful for him to see and politically damaging, but Ford preferred that to increased spending, which he believed would spur inflation. Central to Ford’s fiscal restraint was his veto strategy, which marshaled presidential power against Congress. But Ford was no rigid, doctrinaire ideologue. After a quarter century in the House minority, he was steeped in the art of compromise, and his legislative skills enabled him to reach agreements with Congress. If Ford had refused to compromise with Congress, he would have been left with nothing; by flowing with, rather than perennially fighting, the currents of the mainstream, he helped calm the turbulence left from the Nixon years. Political scientist Nelson Polsby observed, “Ford restored normal political relationships in Washington. Nixon was essentially a destroyer of normal political relationships. In restoring them, Ford performed a great service, really.”3 Yet at the end of Ford’s term, political skepticism still hung like a storm cloud over the nation. Some of Ford’s shortcomings hardened the cynicism. He handled the Nixon pardon badly and could not prevent huge GOP losses in the 1974 elections. Nor did he project the image of a hero that Americans longed for in the mid-1970s. For those Americans aching for inspirational leadership, Ford disappointed. But in some fundamental qualifications, Ford fit the times well. The president who succeeded Nixon needed impeccable moral character. The media would see to it, functioning as character cops after Watergate, questioning even the slightest moral tincture. This desire for integrity meant the absence of dalliances, drug use, dubious associates, officious or unruly family members—problems that have plagued recent presidents. A bland, even boring, character was both desirable and functional, for it would defuse the overwrought emotions of the time. The new president had to show an amicable disposition toward the press, which had suffered a turbulent relationship with Nixon. Nixon’s successor also had to exercise power circumspectly, within constitutional bounds, and be self-effacing enough to deflate some of the presidency’s pomp. These were rigorous criteria, yet Ford possessed many of them. He was, in fact, so free of moral and psychological hang-ups that the press highlighted his only palpable though irrelevant flaw, an alleged proclivity to stumble. That media preoccupation was a backhanded compliment, indicating the absence of more...