A longer, more accomplished and highly esteemed Ford Presidency?

Gerald Ford might not be counted among the top tier of great presidents, but staring at a portrait of him, I have noticed that he sure as hell looks like one. His physical appearance seems to me to be the perfect aesthetic representation of an American President. With his good looks, athletic bearing, dashing suit vests, the pipe he frequently smoked and hair that yelled "I'm not too young and not too old", he resembled one of those highly idealized, fictional Presidents from the movies and television. These perceptions I have of Ford probably have a lot to do with what Malcolm Gladwell called the "Warren Harding Error", the phenomenon of politicians being regarded more for their image than for their actual ideas and actions, but just take a look at him!

kinstler-ford.jpg


First of all the highly unusual circumstances of his OTL elevation to the presidency could from the foundation of a great presidential mythology, "The humble, unpretentious man who did not seek the great office, but who did not shirk from it, and who went on to heal the nation". The "National Nightmare" speech was also a great rhetorical foundation for said mythology. So there's a good start to the "Ford as great president" idea...

Now, what would it take for Gerald Ford to go down in history as, if not a "great president" in the category of the Lincolns and Roosevelts, maybe a highly esteemed and universally respected POTUS, more in the category of say Eisenhower or Clinton?

Two brief, quite rudimentary scenarios here;

Maybe he avoids the "Soviet domination" gaffe and is elected in '76. He does what Carter does and pulls off an exact ATL replica of the Camp David accords. Come 1979, his own attempt at an ATL Eagle Claw succeeds brilliantly, results in the discrediting of the Ayatollah and the emergence of a moderate, democratic regime in Tehran led by Mehdi Bazargan, with whom Secretary of State Kissinger negotiates a lucrative oil deal in the same vein as in '74 with the Arabs which eases then ends the '79 Oil Crisis, all in time for the 1980 election.

Humphrey is narrowly elected in '68 and while pursuing a diplomatic peace settlement with North Vietnam, continues to escalate militarily on the ground (though there is no expansion of the war in Cambodia), domestically, Humphrey presides over a continuation of Johnson's Great Society. Come 72, the Republicans are divided between Reagan and Rockefeller and pick Ford as a compromise candidate. Due to the incumbency fatigue, Ford wins in November and becomes the 38th President. He gets Kissinger from Rockefeller and most of the OTL Nixon administration achievements are instead accomplished by the ATL Ford Administration (relations with China, Detente, end to the American war in Vietnam, etc.)

But what other factors and scenarios could make for a greater Ford presidency? What could he do differently upon inheriting a dwindling Vietnam war from Nixon, that results in the survival of South Vietnam?

What other foreign policy achievements could he and Kissinger pull off?

What about the pardon, which could play a very big part in his being a great president? What if he does not pardon Nixon which many say contributed heavily to why he lost in '76? What happens to Nixon and the nation, and how would that relate to Ford as President? What if he goes ahead with the pardon as in OTL but then goes before the nation and delivers a highly eloquent and far more detailed justification for his action, appealing to the need for healing and national unity? What opportunities for presidential greatness lie in these scenarios?

Also, rhetorically the bicentennial could have been more memorable.

Could someone explain to me his policy of "Whip Inflation Now"? I don't know much about that, how did it work in OTL and how could be a truly successful economic policy in TTL? And is there anything else economically and domestically that could add to Ford being a great president?

Also, what would be the consequences of a greater Ford Presidency, in terms of the development of the Republican Party and national politics in general? Would a successful and highly respected moderate Republican president stem the tide of Reaganite Conservatism, both inside and outside the GOP? Could we be looking at a much more moderate Republican Party by 2012? Instead of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich battling for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, I imagine that in such a TL, the present battle for the GOP nomination would be headlined by the likes of Jon Huntsman, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Brown, and maybe even the circa 1994 Mitt Romney, all claiming to be proud and dedicated "Ford Republicans".
 
Although it may have been done before, go with Ford defeats Carter in 1976.

The biggest scandal in US political history, a poor economy, gaffes from the incumbent - yet Carter only ends up winning a measly 50.1% of the vote. So a Ford victory is plausible.
 
Making a Ford Presidency longer is easy enough, and making it "more accomplished" is technically likely to flow from there. Making him "highly esteemed" -- that's a different kettle of fish...
 
Your first scenario could happen, although Kissinger would be gone if Ford is reelected (too much baggage). But Ford winning in '76 would doom him to worse than Carter's OTL image. Second scenario can't happen. Or the candidate wouldn't be Ford at least.

"Whip Inflation Now" was nothing besides a catchy campaign. Didn't do wonders for his image when this was so obvious. Speaking of Ford's image, in the modern era I think the ability to be a good speaker trumps looks. And Ford doesn't have that at all.

There is a way for this to work though. Gerald Ford is Reagan's Vice President, which could've happened with a few tweaks from OTL. And John Hinckley succeeds. Exit polls in '84 show that Ford would have won 49 states had he been eligible to run for reelection.
 
This is a little bit of a stretch, but here's another approach. Nixon manages somehow to hang on without resigning until after January 20, 1975. Perhaps Butterfield doesn't drop the bomb about the existence of the Nixon tapes during the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973 and that delays the public knowledge of their existence just long enough such that Ford takes office in February 1975 rather than August 1974. He runs, beats Reagan in the primaries and then loses to Carter by the same narrow OTL margin. Carter's term progresses much as it did and Reagan, late in 1979, is somehow injured (thrown from a horse?) severely enough that Reagan cannot run in 1980. The GOP turns to Ford who gets a rematch with Carter. This time he wins and, having served less than half a term, has no 22nd Amendment issue. If you subscribe to the theory that Reagan's success with economic recovery had as much to do with Volcker at the Fed as much as anything and that the collapse of the USSR was more or less a structural inevitability, it is easy to see a Ford Presidency from 1981 to 1989 under these circumstances as being seen as very successful and, given that he was perceived as being less ideological, he might be viewed positively across the political spectrum much in the same way Eisenhower is. In terms of Presidential history, he'd occupy a unique niche: he would have served in the office longer than anyone but FDR and would be -- a la Grover Cleveland -- both the 38th and 40th President.

As an aside, I happen to think that Ford is an underrated President as it is. I have mixed feelings about the Nixon pardon, but would be the first to admit it was awfully gutsy. I also would note that few Presidents have stepped into such a big mess when taking office. I think he did a lot with what he had to work with and did a lot to restore some of the prestige of the office, which had taken a beating during Vietnam and Watergate.
 
This is a little bit of a stretch, but here's another approach. Nixon manages somehow to hang on without resigning until after January 20, 1975. Perhaps Butterfield doesn't drop the bomb about the existence of the Nixon tapes during the Senate Watergate hearings in 1973 and that delays the public knowledge of their existence just long enough such that Ford takes office in February 1975 rather than August 1974. He runs, beats Reagan in the primaries and then loses to Carter by the same narrow OTL margin. Carter's term progresses much as it did and Reagan, late in 1979, is somehow injured (thrown from a horse?) severely enough that Reagan cannot run in 1980. The GOP turns to Ford who gets a rematch with Carter. This time he wins and, having served less than half a term, has no 22nd Amendment issue. If you subscribe to the theory that Reagan's success with economic recovery had as much to do with Volcker at the Fed as much as anything and that the collapse of the USSR was more or less a structural inevitability, it is easy to see a Ford Presidency from 1981 to 1989 under these circumstances as being seen as very successful and, given that he was perceived as being less ideological, he might be viewed positively across the political spectrum much in the same way Eisenhower is. In terms of Presidential history, he'd occupy a unique niche: he would have served in the office longer than anyone but FDR and would be -- a la Grover Cleveland -- both the 38th and 40th President.

As an aside, I happen to think that Ford is an underrated President as it is. I have mixed feelings about the Nixon pardon, but would be the first to admit it was awfully gutsy. I also would note that few Presidents have stepped into such a big mess when taking office. I think he did a lot with what he had to work with and did a lot to restore some of the prestige of the office, which had taken a beating during Vietnam and Watergate.

I think this is the best scenario for Ford to be seen as a good to great president.

At the end of the day, the longer Nixon hangs on, the less distant the memory of the pardon is and the more damage he does to Ford's 1976 campaign, meaning Ford isn't discredited by being president during Carter's OTL term.

I've got a few tweaks to it though. I know that Squeaky Frome and Sara Jane Moore tried to assassinate Ford in 1975. I'm not sure what their motives were, but let's say that Moore for example, is somewhat more successful-Ford is pretty seriously injured, but recovers. As a result of this though security is tightened around the president. Frome realises that shooting Ford is next to impossible now, so she decides to try and assassinate the man who is arguably the second most well known politician (at least in California), former governor Ronald Reagan. Reagan's death gives a huge sympathy boost to the conservatives in the GOP, leading to a less successful primary challenge to Ford's nomination (any ideas who could do this in Reagan's absence)?

Let's say that whoever it is will be less reluctant than Reagan was in OTl to split the republicans and mount a conservative challenge in the election. This challenger doesn't have Reagan's "star power" and is overall seen as a fringe candidate by most voters, but the challenge takes just enough votes away from Ford to hand Carter the victory, despite any sympathy boost Ford might otherwise have gained from the failed attempt on his life. To add insult to injury, let's make Ford actually win the popular vote here, so his 1980 candidacy is seen by many republicans as a chance to correct the mistaken Carter election in 1976.

1980 has 2 other opponents in the primaries-John Anderson and Jessie Helms (I'm not sure if these 2 are credible candidates, but I'm trying to get both wings of the GOP represented, so Ford can play the compromise card).

Ford chooses a more conservative running mate, going on to comfortably win the 1980 election. The economy goes as well as it did under Reagan’s first time, leading to a Mondale nomination (and ultimately, a big Ford victory in the election).

BTW I agree with you, though I don’t live in the states (and wasn’t around during Ford’s OTL term), he’s my favourite president of the past few decades.
 
It would help if he didn't pardon Nixon.

But, yes, I like the 'loses to Carter, replaces Reagan' scenario.

If Ford doesn't pardon Nixon, their's the risk of the trial (and appeals) stretching out for years, making the republicans unpopular. Ford, as the man who bought this about (by not nipping it in the bud early) would grow unpopular with the base, leading to a heavier defeat in the 76 election (or even a successful challenge in the primaries by Reagan).

Alternatively, this could lead to Ford beating Carter in 1976, which means he's saddled with most of Carter's OTL problems and takes the blaim for them.

Perhaps Nixon could die of a stress-induced heart attack, either just before or just after resigning, which takes care of the issue of the pardon. That probably leads to a 1976 Ford victory though.

I still think a Reagan free 1980 is Ford's best bet. I added the election controvasy and the 76 conservative party challenge in there to make Ford's negatives (eg the Pardon) seem more and more irelivant in the long run.
 
...Perhaps Nixon could die of a stress-induced heart attack, either just before or just after resigning, which takes care of the issue of the pardon. That probably leads to a 1976 Ford victory though...

Nixon had severe phlebitis both during and after his resignation. A pulmonary embolism or stroke caused by a clot breaking loose isn't that far-fetched. As I recall, he was severely ill and may have nearly died a few months after he resigned. Perhaps if one can delay Watergate a few months, you could engineer a scenario in which he dies in office sometime in late January/early February 1975 thus disposing of the pardon issue. While, as you note, that may increase Ford's chances of being elected in 1976, it is by no means a guarantee. For one thing, you still have the possibility of Ford making a gaffe along the lines of his "no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" one. Even without the pardon, Ford had an uphill climb in 1976. The GOP was unpopular due to Watergate and the party was divided after the Reagan primary challenge.

Perhaps a better twist here might be for Reagan to beat Ford in the primaries, then get his clock cleaned by Carter in '76. Ford would have less time in office and less time to prepare for a run in his own right; under these circumstances, a Ford primary loss can't be ruled out. Carter would likely still have the still-Democratic South as well as much of the modern Democratic base states, as well as a GOP-weary electorate for whom Goldwater and 1964 was but 12 years in the past. Here, the Reagan far right would be discredited by the loss to Carter and Ford, a former President who would be remembered as a decent caretaker during difficult times, might well have a relatively easy path to the 1980 nomination.
 
A Ford victory in 1976 is easy enough. I still see letting the Shah in and therefore we have Ford remembered for the hostage crisis. I also don't see a better economy in 1980. The very original and unlikely idea of Ford as a compromise candidate for president is way to go if you want to improve Ford's reputation. I would have him run and win in 1968.( Although I think his conservative record would be a problem.) If he hits it off with Kissinger, he could accomplish all of Nixon's foreign policy triumphs with no Watergate. He also could easily win reelection in 1972, so he is president for eight years.
 
A Ford victory in 1976 is easy enough. I still see letting the Shah in and therefore we have Ford remembered for the hostage crisis. I also don't see a better economy in 1980. The very original and unlikely idea of Ford as a compromise candidate for president is way to go if you want to improve Ford's reputation. I would have him run and win in 1968.( Although I think his conservative record would be a problem.) If he hits it off with Kissinger, he could accomplish all of Nixon's foreign policy triumphs with no Watergate. He also could easily win reelection in 1972, so he is president for eight years.

The main problem with a Ford win in 1968, is the fact he really didn't care for the presidency until he actually became president in OTL. He wanted to stay in the house originally and was planning to become speaker some day. He'd have to be chosen at the 1968 convention, ahead of many other possible "compromise" candidates, who were a lot more keen than Ford to take on the job.
 
Top