The pardon and Iraq

A caller on C-Span Washington Journal’s “Democrat” line, on the passing of Gerald Ford, mentioned that he was “against [Richard Nixon’s] pardon at the time but now understood the wisdom in it,” adding later, “But this President Bush will go down as the worst president ever.”
Within those few seconds, the caller highlighted the accuracy of hindsight, the confusion of the present, and the opaqueness of the future. When President Ford issued a complete pardon to former president Richard Nixon in 1974, only a third of the U.S. population agreed. Yet, Ford understood that President’s Andrew Johnson’s impeachment a century earlier, occurring immediately after the Civil War, weakened the presidency and helped produced a deep schism in a country still reeling from war. In Ford’s case, the country had deep divisions not only from Watergate but from Vietnam. An act of pardon began the process of re-uniting our country, and in time, people appreciated Ford’s act of courage and understood its importance. However, that singular act in large part cost the president his opportunity for re-election.

Though one can look back and see perfectly, policy has to be built on current knowledge, the country’s mood, experience and history, a reasonable guess about the future, and the judgment to know how much of these need to go into the equation. Unfortunately, none of these are known with certainty, even the lessons of history. After all, new situations might remind us of a past one, but the nuances of the present challenge make for inexact analogies. Cultures are different; times and expectations change; values are moveable. Therefore, one can only use the previous outcomes and events as instructive rather than definitive. Since there is such inexactitude, plans and even goals are constantly refined.

Still, President Ford proved that good judgment can enable one to see the best path forward among the myriad of possibilities. Public opinion at the time may be wrong or may be right. In President Ford’s case, it was wrong. In President Bush’s case, we shall see. – SJG

Grasping at straws

Sun Tzu, ‘The Art of War’: To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

The battle over the Blockhouse development in Spartanburg County should send a clear message to Polk County – developers who do not reside in the area may not care if the locals like their plans. Their goal is to maximize their profits. What they leave behind is our problem.

Ideally, to secure Polk County against this threat, county commissioners would develop and implement a comprehensive growth plan. Short of that, we have the recent proposal by commissioner Pack to require two-acre minimums in Polk’s un-zoned areas, to be discussed by the council at its Jan. 8 meeting. Its stated intent is to slow down growth and maintain the county’s rural character. While the changes may be beneficial, at least in the short term, there are drawbacks that might limit its long-term effectiveness. For example, the potential exists that by limiting the number of home sites in a particular development, more land may need to be sacrificed to accommodate demand which may, in turn, lead to sprawl. Within a master growth plan, there is a role for Mr. Pack’s proposal just as there is one for high-density developments, which would cluster residential areas around one corridor while preserving surrounding property.

Ultimately, the decision for a more lasting strategy rests with the citizens here and elsewhere in the Thermal Belt. Those who are going to be most affected by its implementation will have to decide if, and how much, they are willing to sacrifice. To make such a plan a reality will require readdressing such controversial issues as zoning.

But choosing not to develop a long term plan is, in effect, producing a plan. And aggressive developers such as the Phoenix Ventures of this world understand opportunities and the Art of War. – SJG