Speaking of recently dead people:

[redneckgaijin]

Richard Nixon was right.

Seem absurd to you? Don't laugh. It's the growing word on the conservative talking heads circuit.

Richard Nixon was right.

It's been the foundation of Dick Cheney's policy ever since he came into Ford's White House, lo these many years ago. It was the basis of his career as a Congressman, as Secretary of Defense under Bush 41, and as Vice President under Bush 43. It was a belief shared by his patron, twice Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Richard Nixon was right.

What was he right about, you ask? Nixon, the Cheneyites would have you believe, was within his rights and powers as President to do pretty much anything he wanted. They believe that the Presidency has unlimited power- the "unitary executive" you might have heard about. They believe that all the evil things Nixon was found to have done- sabotaged the Democratic Presidential campaign of 1972, used the powers of his office to attack his political rivals and opposition groups, conceal evidence from investigators and deliberately obstruct justice- were legitimate exercises of Presidential power.

Perhaps saying Richard Nixon was right is a little inaccurate; it should be Richard Nixon should not have been impeached.

He never was impeached, of course- he resigned just before the House of Representatives would have voted on bills of impeachment. Back then, his resignation was greeted even by most Republicans with a sigh of relief and a shout of "Good riddance!" So I had been taught all through school, so I had read from my own reading since, and so every source I have to hand repeats... yet a couple days ago, while driving my grandmother grocery shopping, I turned in to the Limbaugh program, and his substitute of the day said that there was heated controversy at the time whether or not what Nixon did constituted impeachable offenses.

Taken in modern context*, this historical revisionism is understandable. George W. Bush has been accused- by many people, including myself, with greater or lesser evidence in support- of doing everything Nixon did. Bush has been accused of using Homeland Security, the NSA, the IRS, and the military intelligence services to spy on and sabotage dissenters and political opponents. He's accused of using his office to block investigations into leaks of confidential information, corruption, and other abuses of power. Most notably, he's accused of subverting not one but TWO Presidential elections- and although the evidence for 2004 is much more scanty, it's the more probable and feasible of the two.

In addition to all of this, Bush has lied repeatedly to Congress and to the American people- many lies, and well documented. He deliberately misrepresented Saddam Hussein as an ally of al-Qaida and a bearer of nuclear and chemical weapons in order to gain support for a war to overthrow him. He's used "Presidential signing statements" as a legal tool to avoid vetoes by saying, solely on his own authority, that the laws Congress makes do not apply to him. Most odious of all, he turned the United States of America into a nation that openly practices torture.

As things stand, there are only three things standing between Bush and impeachment: a lack of audio tape evidence, a Democratic leader who still recalls how Clinton's impeachment backlashed on the Republican Party, and the spectre of President Dick Cheney. Considering that Cheney, even less popular than his boss, might be taken out first, and that some new "smoking gun" might crop up in upcoming Democrat-led investigations that will force Nancy Pelosi's hand, these are fairly weak protections. Therefore the Republican base- including Limbaugh, who apparently doesn't mind carrying water as much as he'd have you believe- has to make the case, and keep making the case, that what Bush has done in office is not sufficient cause to remove him from that office.

And the best way to protect the Second Coming of Nixon is to try to make the case that the First Coming of Nixon really wasn't all that bad.

Which brings me to Jerry Ford.

This morning I saw today's Filibuster online political comic. In one panel Gerald Ford's sum total contribution to history is described. He was the man who let Richard Nixon off the hook for his deeds- and nothing more.

This should have surprised no one at the time. Even before becoming Vice President, Ford was Nixon's stooge. Recent articles in the Washington Post and Vanity Fair show how Ford, as House minority leader under Nixon, and later as President, did the dirty work required to cover Nixon's ass. Ford was picked by Nixon for reasons not of political expediency, as the history books have said, but for reasons of loyalty. Ford was Nixon's "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

If Ford had looked past his personal friendship and loyalty to Nixon and allowed criminal prosecution to proceed after Nixon's resignation, perhaps a precedent might have been set- a precedent that would say We do not tolerate those who use the government of the United States for their own benefit. Instead, when Ford pardoned Nixon, he set this precedent: You can lie, cheat and steal in the highest office in the land- you can even undermine our democracy and thwart the fair and equal enforcement of our laws- and get away with it, and we the American people will accept it.

It was Ford's pardon of Nixon that the Bush/Cheney doctrine of "unitary executive" is founded upon... and it's Ford's pardon of Nixon which, above all else, will serve as a shield against Bush's future impeachment prospects.

This isn't helped at all by another, much more recent President. Bill Clinton was one of the more openly corrupt Presidents we've had... but, despite accusations of rape, abuses of power as governor of Arkansas and as President, personal financial corruption, and obstruction of justice, no one could find sufficient proof to make anything stick. Like the deep-South political boss he was and is, Clinton just kept on smiling and glad-handing his way through Washington, to the consternation of his opponents.

Finally, after years of investigations, Clinton's enemies finally got something to stick- something tiny, insignificant, even insulting to the intelligence of most Americans. Clinton lied, under oath, about an extramarital affair. The vast majority of Americans said that the offense was not a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to warrant impeachment... but Clinton had been caught, on the record, as lying about Monica Lewinsky.

And the only means by which a President may be called to account for breaking the law is by impeachment. Otherwise he's untouchable- "censure" is not only mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, it's a punishment with no more effect than shaking a finger and saying, "Shame, shame, shame on you." If the President breaks a law, you must either impeach him... or else let him go free, accepting the validity of his actions.

In the direct party-line split votes which followed, two precedents were set- a different one for each party. The Democratic precedent says We think it's perfectly fine for a President to lie under oath, much less while not under oath. The Republican precedent says Impeachment is political suicide for whichever party initiates it.

Now we come to George W. Bush, a President who lies, who lies pathologically, who lies even when the unadulturated truth would do nothing but help him and his cause. The Democrats, who would love nothing more than to erase every vestige of his Presidency, have three precedents to bear in mind.

First: If we impeach against the will of the people, we destroy ourselves in the next election.

Second: We've said, by our votes on Clinton, that lying is no crime, even under oath. We might want to lie again ourselves in the future- do we want to destroy that?

Finally, and most strongly: With only a handful of exceptions, we've established that we in Washington can do whatever the hell we want, and the American people either can't or won't do a thing to stop us. Do we want to reverse that, hold Bush accountable- and thereby risk being held accountable ourselves in the future?

And so the Democratic leadership holds back, and appears likely to do so until and unless the public or events force them to change policy.

And so Bush goes free, to finish out his term, to commit more high crimes and misdemeanors.

This didn't begin with Ford, but Ford came to the Presidency at one of those sadly rare moments when it is possible to reduce the power of government. Instead he acted to preserve power, to protect those who abused its use.

And his legacy, as he is shipped back to Michigan for his clay to be returned to the soil, is between a quarter and a third of the voting public chanting, louder and louder, Richard Nixon was right.

Thank you so VERY much, Jerry Ford.

Watch your step on that spiritual stairway, whichever way it's going...



* "Modern context?" Yes, because something that happened when I was seven months old is now in a decidedly historical context. When I was in elementary school (1979 - 1985), "history" ended pretty much with World War II. In junior high (1985-1988), the history curriculum only covered up to the beginning of the Civil War. In high school (1988-1992) I didn't take it, but the book essentially cut off right after Watergate and said very little about it. Fifteen years later, the disconnect between "current events" and "cold, dead, musty history" has advanced to enclose Watergate firmly in the latter category. I don't know how I feel about that, considering just how earth-shattering Watergate was at the time... and how little we've apparently learned from it.