SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Making An Example Of Nixon

THE PLANK DECEMBER 29, 2006

Making An Example Of Nixon

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

Despite a flood of articles on Gerald Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon, I haven't seen anyone put forth the best reason for prosecuting Nixon all-out: deterrence. Wouldn't it have been valuable to throw a president in jail, or at least see him convicted of serious criminal charges? I know, I know, it might have prevented our country's "healing" so soon after Watergate and Vietnam. But seriously, a lot of American presidents have done a lot of bad things. Wouldn't the example of Nixon have served as a nice warning? --Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 12 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

12 comments

healed? Did the pardon heal us, or did it subsequently enable Rummy, Vadar, and Shrub? I say the pardon was itself a crime. Of course Nixon et al should have been prosecuted. Or, at least Ford should have gotten a signed confession from Nixon, and the rest should have been prosecuted.

- rishy

December 29, 2006 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has made that point and every post, letter, and rant also. Christopher Hitchens has written a terrific article about Ford's crimes in Slate. (must be getting sober for New Years).

- Yminale

December 29, 2006 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess we should have prosecuted Clinton -- as a deterrent to lying under oath too.

- epackard

December 29, 2006 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For public indeceny but yes perjury is a serious crime

- Yminale

December 29, 2006 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And that proved quite a deterrent to his successor, right? I think the aspect to Ford's pardon of Nixon that's relevant now is that it lowered the bar of public acceptance of the use of the presidential power of clemency and pardon in cases of political or even constitutional crimes. When Reagan pardoned Cap Weinberger and five others for their role in Iran-Contra, that provided a disturbance in the body politic that lasted perhaps one or two news cycles. When Bush pardons Libby, and who knows whom else -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, himself? -- for their sins, that will be greeted with a brief howl, then acceptance by the public. This is how democracies are corrupted. Ford moved the process along significantly on that September morning in 1974.

- kevmo

December 29, 2006 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Mexicans are not too sqeamish to throw their corrupt ex-Presidents in the hoosegow. The prospect of jail, like that of a hanging, concentrates the mind wonderfully. If Nixon had indeed done time, might it have deterred Bush from some of his more egregious illegal acts? Alas, we'll never know.

- JackR

December 29, 2006 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And that proved quite a deterrent to his successor, right?" Now that the Dem's are in power, we'll see how Bush acts especially with all the investigations that are planned.

- Yminale

December 29, 2006 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton did not commit perjury. It is annoying that this canard continues to be repeated. He lied, but not under oath. Under oath, he accurately answered an astonishingly badly framed question.

- sklein11

December 29, 2006 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes he did commit perjury.

- Yminale

December 29, 2006 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...and being forced out of office ought to be pretty good "deterrence" for any would-be coverupper, etc, Mr. Chotiner. We hardly needed another two or three years of partisan near-civil war after the thirteen previous years of assasinations, racial riots, Vietnam draft riots, the occupation of universities by student thugs. Your sense of the situation when Ford took office in 1974 is not very acute, Mr. Chotiner, if "detrrence" is at the forefront of your mind.

- ChanRobt

December 30, 2006 at 1:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why not prosecute Henry Kissinger, who richly deserves his own trial for crimes against humanity? The remark about Libby et al is funny. People who have committed no crimes don't need pardons. And as I recall, Newt Gingrich paid a higher price for the Clinton witch-hunt than Willie did.

- Robert Powell

December 30, 2006 at 3:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take a different outlook; he shouldn't have pardoned Nixon, but not because it would've served as an example (though no president should be above the law as so many Republicans said in 1998. I think Nixon should've gotten a fair hearing in the impartial justice-system), but rather in view of the history we now know: if this pardon cost Ford the job, then the "malaise"-years and the Iran-mess could've been a Republican administration's handy-work, thus stopping the Reagan-candidacy as an anti-Carter campaign in 1980. Reagan might still have beaten Ted, Scoop Jackson or whoever would've run in 1980, but at least the Democrats wouldn't have to defend a weak presidency against the first faux-populist.

- hustveit

December 30, 2006 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close