In death, former President Gerald R. Ford might be coming back into style.
Friends and colleagues said Wednesday that there is a yearning among many voters in his own party for the kind of pragmatic politics of compromise that Ford embodied.
But internal Republican Party dynamics make it unlikely he could rise to power today. Independents and moderates would like him, but not the staunchly conservative Republican base.
One example of how Ford seems out of step with many GOP conservatives came Wednesday with revelations by author Bob Woodward that Ford told him in a July 2004 interview that he would not have gone to war with Iraq without first pushing alternatives such as sanctions. Ford was also critical of two key members of his administration who have played prominent roles in the Bush White House: Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Though beloved in his own Republican Party, the Midwesterner had been seen by today’s partisans as too much of an old-fashioned politician willing to make deals and forge cozy friendships with the other side.
Indeed, a moderate conservative like Ford would have a hard time governing in today’s harsh political climate where both parties seem at each other’s throats, analysts said.
In the recent midterm elections, voters appeared to send a message that they were fed up with divisiveness in Washington. As a result, politicians with some of Ford’s abilities for bridging the partisan divide could find greater support than once believed.
Frank Zarb, one of Ford’s close friends and a top energy official in his administration, said the candidate who could “represent that they could genuinely bring people together” would have an advantage in the 2008 election.
To Marlin Fitzwater, who served as press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, and Michael Genovese, a political scientist at Loyola Marymount University, presidential contenders like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are tapping such voter sentiments that could pay off.
“The message of the last election was that people wanted someone who could see both points of view,” Fitzwater said.
“There is a hunger for it,” added Genovese.
But moderation and compromise of the type favored and practiced by Ford still face an uphill battle in today’s atmosphere, Fitzwater and Genovese conceded.
Though Democrats say they want to work more closely with Republicans and President Bush, it remains to be seen whether they can deliver on that promise.
Fitzwater, for one, doubted it. “The hatred for George W. Bush is just too strong,” he said. “I don’t think we will see much change until we get a president who is elected in a landslide.”
And then there is the question whether a modern-style Ford could survive in a party where religious, social and economic conservatives impose ideological litmus tests on party leaders.
That question is very much up in the air since a deep-seated animosity between the parties has been part of the political picture for more than a decade. It became more pronounced with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
Ford brought a solid but practical Midwestern conservatism to Congress, where he rose to become the House Republican leader, and to the presidency, which he claimed after Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, as Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate burglary unfolded. Nixon tapped Ford as his vice president after Spiro Agnew resigned after a scandal involving his acceptance of cash payoffs.
Different style
Ford “reached out and wanted to work together with the other party,” said Guy Vander Jagt, a friend and former GOP congressman from Michigan. “He also had those basic Republican beliefs. He worked to reduce taxes and cut spending. He believed in a strong defense. A lot of his basic beliefs are predominant in the Republican platform of today.”
Ford differed with today’s Republicans more in style than in substance, said Vander Jagt, adding: “His style . . . doesn’t exist today. It is vital and desperately needed.”
Recalling that style, Zarb said Ford once reached a deal on a major energy policy bill with Democrats in the House and Senate in a meeting that never came to light. “Those guys shook hands, and the deal was done. No press conference, no press release,” he said.
Zarb cited another example in which Ford quietly kept key members of Congress informed of delicate negotiations. He said the former president had assigned him to work on negotiating a deal with the shah of Iran at the height of the energy crisis. The shah had indicated he wanted to negotiate discount oil prices with the U.S., Zarb said.
More Top Picks Best Pen Displays
The deal never materialized for various reasons, including economic considerations, but when two top members of Congress, the late Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) got wind of the talks, Ford told Zarb “you’d better go up and talk to John and Scoop.” Zarb said he did as he was told, and consequently the talks were never made public.
Like his predecessor, Ford went along with major social programs like Medicare and Social Security, protecting the government’s major safety net. He sought to cut taxes to relieve the financial burden on Americans, but not while raising the deficit.
Yet, Ford and Congress did not always see eye to eye, particularly on spending legislation. During his 2 1/2-year tenure, he exercised his veto frequently.
By contrast, President Bush has vetoed only one bill, dealing with stem cell research, explaining that he usually got what he wanted from a Republican Congress. The sharp partisan tone in Washington preceded Bush’s presidency, but has appeared to worsen in recent years, several analysts said.
“Our majority became so damned haughty,” said former House GOP Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.), who served in the minority with Ford. “Back in those days, you could still get things done, if you were reasonable with people.”
Harsh rhetoric part of game
Ford often could be harsh with his rhetoric in vetoing spending bills, but that was understood to be part of the political game.
“Jerry was a very fiscally responsible guy,” Michel said. “By the same token, he had another side of him. He favored amnesty for draft dodgers.” And, Michel said, he reached out to the Russians during the the Cold War and pushed for human rights.
“He was a moderate in his thinking, no real ideologue,” Michel said. “He was my kind of conservative.”
Michel blamed former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who resigned after being involved in a lobbying scandal, for feeding the partisan atmosphere. “His modus operandi is one that turned people off,” he said, adding that the GOP rammed legislation through the House without much consideration for the other side.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who brought a sharper ideological tone to his job than previous Republican leaders, credited Ford with using a sense of decency and Middle American values to unite the country when it “was torn apart by Vietnam, Watergate and a genuine sense of cultural division.”
Zarb said that in the last few years of his life, Ford often complained about the climate in Washington. “The overall political process left him very troubled,” he said, adding that it appears that the rest of the country is now just as troubled.
———-