He Listened to Us!

It’s probably too late for more Gerald Ford references, but my copy of Fred I. Greenstein’s The Presidential Difference is still on the bedside table, diverting enough to inspire an afterthought. Here’s Greenstein on Ford’s management style:

His practices in the critical area of economic policy are of particular interest in that they exemplify the much praised but rarely practiced procedure of multiple advocacy in which policy disagreements are rigorously debated in the president’s presence, with all important points of view accorded careful consideration. These exchanges occurred in a body Ford established …: the Economic Policy Board. … Ford met at least once a week with thee EPB, welcoming debate and constructive disagreements. (119)

And here, discussing Ford’s “cognitive style”:

Alan Greenspan, who chaired Ford’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), has provided an insightful account … His first impression, Greenspan remarked, was that Ford lacked the capacity to engage in abstract reasoning. The consistency of Ford’s concrete economic decisions persuaded him otherwise.

It was Greenspan’s further observation that Ford found it enjoyable to discuss economics with him, even when there was no pending decision that made doing so necessary. Similarly, Greenspan’s CEA colleague Burton Malkiel commented that although it took Ford some time to grasp difficult economic concepts, ‘He always ended up with a very firm grasp of the issues and a complete maste4ry of the complexities that might be involved. He loved to hear things argued out in front of him and would often ask the most insightful questions of the participants in the debate.” (124)

--Fred I. Grenstein, The Presidential Difference 119-124

(Second ed. 2004)

There’s an overwhelming impulse to make the invidious current comparisons here, but I want to make a different point, if no less sardonic. That is: excepting possibly the physicist, there is no one more vain about his “brains” than the economist—“brains” here meaning quick response time, a certain kind of analytical power and perhaps (though this is perhaps less important) a capacity for sopping up and retaining information. The best and easiest way to flatter them is to listen and admire.

I think Greenstein probably paints a fair picture here, and that Ford probably deserves the credit that Greenstein seems to give him. But you’d have to say also that he seems to have run a pretty good number on the economists. “He listened to us,” says Greenspan, “and he learned from us,” adds Malkiel. Flattery will get you everywhere. It’s almost poignant.

Greenstein on Ford

As an appraisal of President Gerald Ford, this is probably hard to beat. It’s from Fred I. Greenstein, The Presidential Difference¨Leadership Styles from FDR to George W. Bush 122-4 (2d ed. 2004):

Public Communication … He was a plodding speaker, whose rhetorical limitations mad him less able than a Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan to put a good face on political misfortune. Ford also resembled Truman in being verbally accident prone…

Organizational Capacity Ford’s organizational legacy includes his painfully won demonstration that it is no longer feasible to operate an effective presidency without an able and experienced White House chief of staff. There is in general much to be learned form the intelligently structured staff procedures of Ford’s White House. Of particular interest is his Economic Policy Board, which employed the principles of multiple advocacy that served well in Eisenhower’s foreign policy advisory arrangements. A policy mechanism like the EPB would have been useful to a number of Ford’s successors, particularly Carter.

Political Skill Ford’s political skills were those of an experienced legislative pragmatist. …

Vision It might be assumed that the eminently practical Gerald Ford possessed little in the way of political vision. But in fact he had clear, internally consistent policy convictions, particularly in the domestic sphere. ….

Cognitive Style Despite his portrayal on Saturday Night Live as a presidential dullard, Ford brought an open mind and thoughtful intelligence to his responsibilities. Alan Greenspan, who chaired Ford’s Council of Economic Advisers CEA) … [observed] that Ford found it enjoyable to discuss economics with him, even when there was no pending decision that made doing so necessary. …

Emotional Intelligence It is not necessary to depict Ford as a closet intellectual to appreciate the personal strengths he brought to the presidency. He was patently emotionally stable, and his self-esteem was not wrapped up in the fate of his policies. “You never got negative emotional vibrations from the man,” Greenspan recollected, “except when he was mad for reasons that were absolutely objective.” …

[Greenstein's appraisal of the current incumbent is perhaps more charitable than that of most readers of this blog. It would be interesting to know if his 2006 views are any different from those he uttered two years ago.]

Remembering the Ford Administration

They say the job of every (Republican?) president is to make his predecessor look good. The web is awash with commentary this morning on the passing of Gerald Ford; I cheerfully align myself with the “Ford was a decent man” faction—virtually the last American president who could do the job without letting his ego get in the way.

Dissenters from this view cite, as exhibit #1, the fact the Ford White House was the same gang of ruffians who created the current mess—Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s hard to argue with this but I would like to throw out one idea that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere. This comes from my friend Gladys, an old-time East Coast GOP pro, who remembers a day when she thought you could be both a Republican and a feminist. Gladys recalls:

I think it is the heart surgery. I remember Cheney from the Ford administration. You could deal with him. He was a hard Wyoming conservative, but you could deal with him. He stood for what he stood for, but that was that. These days he is bitter and angry and dark. He’s had the surgery; he never really came back. He’s an old man and he is near the end and it shows.

It’s worth a thought. And no, not really Gladys. Nobody is named Gladys. But since I am quoting without permission (and paraphrasing from memory, at that)…

Postscript: Two other quickies. One, remember it was the Reagan right who undertook to destroy Ford for ideological impurity. And two, recall the 76 election: Ford v. Carter. On the decency scale, things have changed, not so?