Gerald Ford and Edward Levi:
Over at the WSJ Law Blog, Peter Lattman has an excellent post recalling another important connection between Gerald Ford and the law; the appointment of the universally-respected Edward Levi as Attorney General. I was particularly interested to see this speech Ford gave about Levi, which recounts two interesting tidbits: first, that Levi initially didn't want the job, and second, that the person who first recommended Levi for the AG position was Donald Rumsfeld.
That hardly puts in context why Levi's appointment was so important. Levi's appointment was crucial not merely because of his qualities but because those qualities were so desperately needed at the time.
Younger readers may not have in mind the desperate circumstances that had surrounded the AG's office under Nixon. Never mind the alleged shortcomings of RFK or the proven criminality of John Mitchell. What much more closely preceded Levi's appointment--and what dramatically underlined a conception positing the Attorney General as a personal servant whose main job was to do the President's bidding--was the Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973.
Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned rather than follow President Nixon's order that he fire independent Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had refused to back down on the subpoena powers he was using to obtain White House records because he(and anyone else with integrity) knew they were essential to carrying out his job properly. That made Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus acting head of the Department of Justice, and he also resigned rather than fire Cox. Up stepped the next acting Department of Justice head, Solicitor General Robert Bork, who finally did the dirty deed, claiming someone had to do it.
Nixon appointed William Saxbe as AG in January, 1974, eight months before resigning the Presidency, but no Nixon appointment at that point could have restored integrity to the office. It was left to Ford to do that, and that he did with Levi's appointment.
Levy and Ford were good decent men, and I will say the country needed them at the time, as comptent caretakers, but that is about the extent of it. Levy needed to be compared to some of his predesessors to look better than average. Ford's legacy stands out because he had the huge benefit of being sandwiched between the two worst presidents of the 20th century.
As opposed to others who do not need to be compared to anyone to look (or even be) better than average? Pray tell us how such a determination is made without making any comparison.
Ford's legacy stands out because he had the huge benefit of being sandwiched between the two worst presidents of the 20th century.
I don't see that Ford has any legacy that stands out. He was a mediocrity at best, both as a Congressman and as Vice-President and President. Probably the best thing he did as President was appoint Levi, who was not only far from a mediocrity but a first-rate Attorney General by any measure.
From what I've read, the most remarkable thing about Ford's post-Presidential career was his insistence on receiving huge fees, payable in advance, wherever and whenever he appeared. He wouldn't have been caught dead near any of those folks for whom Jimmy Carter builds homes. Golf courses for the rich and famous were more up his alley.
Does no one remember Warren Harding any more?
My impression from the history books is that Harding was a decent but possibly gullible man who was unable to keep control of the men working for him. My own personal choice for the worst President of the 20th Century would be Johnson, rather than Nixon or Carter - but maybe I lean towards Johnson because I first started paying attention to politics in 1964.