Former president Gerald Ford died last night at 93 
and, based on the non-stop media coverage, you are led to believe he was the most important president in the history of the United States.
and, based on the non-stop media coverage, you are led to believe he was the most important president in the history of the United States.
He was not.
Not all presidents are great.
Nor should they be in the greater scheme of hungry men and their petty dreams.
Not all presidents deserve the race to media outlets by their friends and henchmen to be inappropriately venerated by those who claim to best know "the real man."
Gerald Ford was never elected by the people as Vice President or President.
Ford was picked to fill the Vice President slot because he was dull, non-threatening and knew his place.
He was known as the "Accidental President" who became president -- for only 896 days -- only because Nixon resigned in disgrace.
Ford is best known for his inexcusable pardoning Nixon
, and it is most telling how he is remembered by those who need to celebrate his greatness. Andrea Mitchell of NBC news said, "He was humble, decent, honest." Is that a compliment or an excuse?
, and it is most telling how he is remembered by those who need to celebrate his greatness. Andrea Mitchell of NBC news said, "He was humble, decent, honest." Is that a compliment or an excuse? Other newshounds can only summon up his All-American football days at the University of Michigan and his being an Eagle Scout as a child as evidence of his greatness.
There's a reason Chevy Chase relentlessly mocked him every week on Saturday Night Live. Those on television struggle to give form and meaning to Ford because he didn't have any memorable feats in his public life and so, in a required and ceremonial public death, the life before he became president is celebrated instead of the misbegotten deeds of power.
We need to have mourning in America that meets the standard of the achievements of the dead.
Gerald Ford is being venerated not because he was a great president -- but merely because he was president -- and that difference has mighty and dangerous ramifications in the young history of a nation.
Ford also gave comfort and power and safe harbor to Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Ford also gave comfort and power and safe harbor to Rumsfeld and Cheney. Ford's death begs this question: Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? If we believe in the Rule of Law then we must also accept the fact that any man can become president and the nation will not crumble. Gerald Ford is an example of the power of the Rule of Law but the ceremony and pomp and circumstance surrounding his death is disproportional to the feats and achievements of his life as president.
The biggest accomplishment of Gerald Ford's life is he married a hardcore alcoholic and remained tethered to her for 58 years. That is a fine and private accomplishment but it does not deserve the rapt attention of the nation.
We need to have balance and humility in our national mourning. If we use power, influence, and meaning to ascribe appropriate mourning to presidential deaths, then Richard Nixon deserves four times the ceremony than Ford -- even though the damage Nixon did to a nation and its people was far worse than Ford's experience.
Ford acknowledged his own unimportance when he said, "The problem with me is I'm a Ford and not a Lincoln." Some deaths are more important than others and the salivating over Ford's death in the media for broadcasting the celebrity of his death is unseemly.
The other, brighter, example of inappropriate public veneration over a private life was when television broadcaster Peter Jennings died.
Jennings was beloved by his friends and, unfortunately for the rest of us, all of his friends are in power positions in the media, and so we were subjected to a full 10 days of public mourning for a man who admitted he committed suicide by cigarette.
Jennings was beloved by his friends and, unfortunately for the rest of us, all of his friends are in power positions in the media, and so we were subjected to a full 10 days of public mourning for a man who admitted he committed suicide by cigarette. Jennings' behavior was not something to be celebrated or admired or imitated. Jennings was a heavy smoker for most of his life. He kicked the habit for 20 years. Then, in the aftermath of 9/11, he started smoking again.
Cancer grew in his lungs and killed him. He tried to fight his bad decision to start smoking again, but lost to the power of a body in rebellion in the smoke.
To watch the coverage of Jennings' death in the media was to witness the endless, inappropriate, veneration of a man who was merely a teller of other people's stories. He did not make history.
He repeated the deeds of others and claimed none of them as his own. Jennings knew he was a talking head and make light of it in many interviews.
Let's try to find a way to return to reasonableness when someone "famous" dies in America.
Let's acknowledge the death, but not inappropriately venerate a life merely for the benefit of those in power positions who wish to publicly proclaim their touching of the fame of the dead.
I think part of the problem is that these days anybody can be "famous" - the accidents of fate - to being employed in the right place at the right time - or for winning a celebrity TV program or having a pop record.
One no longer has to have made enduring sacrifices, or signigicant contributions - just take up some air time or column inches.
I think you're right, Nicola. The entire world seems to be infatuated with celebrity. Without the media and new shows and new magazines to feed the hunger and create new need we would be much better as a human whole.
We need to celebrate the unsung and those who sacrifice without seeking credit. We could start with the maimed soldiers sent home and ignored by the media, and once that need was set, we could, perhaps expand it to the starving in Darfur.
When everyone deserves the same attention and breast-beating in death it cheapens true mourning for the rest of us in life.
I think we as society have lost our way major time - we have lost respect for human life.
We do seem to revere celebrity over common human suffering, Nicola.
When do you think we took that turn as a people? What was the watershed moment?
I think that this magazine was the beginning of the end. I don't think we'd have nearly as many celebrity magazines and blogs and television shows had it not been for People.
By the way, I'm having a hard time with the 5 things you don't know about me meme - it's not that I don't want to do it - I just think you know practically everything about me! I am working on it, though. :)
Gordon!
Doesn't it go beyond People magazine? I'm tempted to say it started with silent movies when people became "larger than life" and more people knew them indirectly than directly.
Then I think of Davy Crockett and Egyptian Kings and I begin to wonder if the human condition requires some kind of cult of personality in order to survive?
Do we need celebrate others beyond the self? Is there something innately creepy about placing other unworthy others -- not related to you by blood -- above you on a pedestal for admiration?
JUST DO THE MEME GORDON! I can name 10 things I don't know about you that I know about you and the first one is, "I have a hard time finishing memes!"
:mrgreen:
Not sure about when it changed - I would have pointed the finger at television - you have suggested movies - I think you are right. TV is when things changed for me but I suspect that Hollywood and the movies started that change and TV may have completed the process by bringing them into our living rooms.
Hi Nicola!
Yes, it seems in the modern world the "false idol" idolatry started with silent movies and then talkies and then moved into radio and television. There have always been print versions to celebrate the "real lives" of the stars.
It's all so sad and pathetic. The real wonders, the real heroes, and the real people who suffer every day in silence for their extraordinary lives are rarely given their public due and if they are celebrated it's only because there's a money profit in it for the media profiteers.
Thanks for the comment, Dave.
Right, Dave, same to you.
I wonder if they would've skipped Reagan's funeral?
http://tinyurl.com/ydtqm9
If the dead president were a Democrat, Reid and his gang would not miss the burial.
If the dead president were Democrat, he would not be given a Full Honors burial.
JFK and RFK were both assassinated. I wager anyone who runs for president and is assassinated after winning the California primary will be buried with Full Honors.
It's all politics with Ford. The Republicans will do anything they can to keep Iraq off the front page.
Ford pardoned a criminal and it stains his memory to this day and forever.
Just think if Ford had the moral fortitude to go public in 2004 with his views again the Iraq war instead of embargoing the interview with Woodward until his (Ford’s) death.
Some would call that the mark of a coward who refused to stand by his beliefs in life and only wanted his morality lobbed, bomb-like, after he was dead and could not answer his critics or deal with the heat generated by doing the right thing:
http://tinyurl.com/yknku6
As well, it looks like Bush is skipping out on some of the "5 Days of Mourning" for Ford.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061228/D8MA4NL00.html
I, hereby, rest my case:
If Cheney supports the Ford pardon, then we are all the worse for it in the timeframe of history.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/30/D8MBH8589.html