Parting Words from President Ford

Parting Words from President Ford

For Gerald Ford, the White House has become a symbol of his defeat and a place to be avoided. Since November he has spent half of his time outside Washington--at Palm Springs, Calif., Camp David and at Vail, Colo. When he was not on Vail's ski slopes last week, he worked for several hours on the 1977-78 budget, a proposal for a $10 billion tax cut and the State of the Union message that he will deliver on Jan. 12. He also made the surprising announcement that he would ask Congress to enact legislation to admit Puerto Rico, now a commonwealth whose residents have U.S. citizenship, as a full-fledged state.

Still, the sense of urgency is gone, and the President spends much of his time pondering why Jimmy Carter, and not he, will be sworn into office on Jan. 20. With visitors he can talk and joke about his defeat and the future without much melancholy. And yet the wound is there. TIME Washington Bureau Chief Hugh Sidey chatted recently with the President and took away the impression that Ford is not sure why his job, which he came to love more than any he had ever held, is being taken away. For fear of hurting someone, he refused to talk about what he might have done to win the election. But he was willing to talk at length about the tasks that he wishes he had time to accomplish and his thoughts on the nation's future. Excerpts:

Q. What threats do you see ahead for the U.S.?

A. Number one, there is a serious problem as to national security. The Soviet Union over the last decade has had a constant program of gradually strengthening and modernizing its military capabilities. At the same time, the U.S. paid less attention to [its military strength] and permitted a narrowing of the gap with the Soviet Union. We have been able to turn it around the last two years, and we are now on the right track. If this trend continues, then the U.S. has nothing to be concerned about. However, if we again go into the posture that developed before 1974, where we were spending a smaller part of our G.N.P., a smaller part of our federal budget [for defense], then we would find ourselves ten years from now or five years from now in a serious military national-defense posture.

Number two, we have been spending more and more on various social programs over the last ten years, which takes a greater and greater percentage of our federal budget and of our G.N.P. If that trend continues much longer, we could find ourselves in a period of years in precisely the crisis Great Britain faces today. That trend has to be stopped.

Those are the two very serious problems that Mr. Carter faces. If he doesn't meet them head on and give the right answers, either he or some President following after him will find this country in serious [trouble].

Q. Judging from his campaign speeches, do you believe that he is going to face those problems head on?

A. Sometimes people change when they become President. I don't think anybody can look at the facts before him, forget political rhetoric and come to any other conclusions. When you sit in this office and look at those facts--and they are hard facts--you can't come to any other conclusions.

Q. Are there any other subjects that particularly worry you?

A. Nuclear proliferation has to be a matter of major concern. Terrorism is a problem that can be solved, and I think there is now a recognition that it has to be. I think you will see some united action in this area. Arms sales--I think we have to be highly selective. I don't think we should arbitrarily cut them off because countries that want to defend themselves have to have a military capability. If you are selective, arms sales can be justified. Energy--this is a short-term problem, but it can magnify in the long run. You can talk about conservation. You can talk about using more coal. You can talk about more domestic production of oil and gas. But in the long run, most of those resources could be exhausted. That is why you have to move into some exotic programs--solar energy and so on.

Q. What are the Soviet objectives in a nuclear arms race?

A. The Soviet buildup is not a sudden surge. It has been a long-range program. I don't necessarily think that buildup is for adventures around the world. It is my feeling that they are doing it because they feel it is necessary for their own security. On the other hand, we have to be as dedicated to our security as they are to theirs. We can have this stability in the world, with the Soviet Union on one side and the U.S. on the other, as long as we have a balance. But if we go up and down and they keep a trend that puts them ahead--which they aren't today--then we could be in serious trouble, and it might lead some leader at some future time in the Soviet Union to undertake some adventure.

Q. Do you feel that their expressed desire to rule the world has diminished?

A. They are just as dedicated today to their system as Stalin was in his way. But there isn't the belligerence today that existed 20-some years ago. The way for us to keep the peace and to make sure they don't undertake these activities outside their borders is for us to be strong. If we ever fail in that, then we are just inviting disaster.

Q. What about some other observations on this country? Are you concerned about the disintegration of the family, signs of selfishness here and there, open sexuality and pornography?

A. Obviously, it worries me. But on the other hand, I see an awful lot of goodness at the same time. I am convinced in the long run the American people have an awful lot more good in them than they have bad. And with the right kind of leadership, I am absolutely convinced that the American people themselves will lick that difficulty.

Q. Do you think that we have a problem with concentration of wealth?

A. I don't think so. The average income of an American today is better than it was a few years ago. I believe that trend will continue. I don't recollect that there is any substantial growth in the percentage of people in this country who have income of a million dollars a year or more. I think the middle-income group have had their income go up. They have been shortchanged in federal taxes, but their average income, I think, has improved.

Q. Do any groups or institutions have too much wealth, power or both?

A. The third century of this country ought to be a century where there is a better break for the individual and less power in the hands of big labor and big business, big education, and maybe big religion. If we should ever lose the individual's right to do more for himself or more for his family, I think one of the great character builders of this country will be down the drain. And once that goes down the drain, a lot of the character in our form of government likewise will be under constant jeopardy. We didn't get to be a great country by having the Government do all of that or labor do all of that or industry do all of that. We became great because of the individual. But there has been some erosion of that individual's opportunities and responsibilities. So we just better restore that kind of situation, rather than having all these institutions do everything for us.

Q. How do you reduce pressure on Government from big labor, big education?

A. I don't have a magic formula. I don't want big political parties dominating the life of our country either. I want two parties, but I don't want them so powerful that they take over the political arena.

Q. Are there any changes you would make in the presidency, for instance, less ceremony or less travel?

A. Not significantly. I think there might be some merit to one six-year term, however. I am beginning to move in that direction. Q. If you could do one or two or three big things before leaving office, what would they be?

A. In foreign policy, the achievement of the SALT II agreement, the solution to the problems of the Middle East and the resolution of controversy in southern Africa. On the domestic scene, I wish that I could turn a switch and achieve a healthy economy with more success against inflation and more progress against unemployment. Unfortunately, a President doesn't have that capability. It takes time.

Q. Is there one piece of legislation that you were frustrated over?

A. In [reforming] federal taxation, primarily to help the middle-income people. They have been very shortchanged.

Q. You sound very optimistic. Is America ready to go into another great era?

A. I am absolutely certain that it can. I am an optimist today. I always have been. I think our political system is flexible enough to change these trends. So in the next two elections I feel there will be a different philosophy expressed than in the past ten or twelve years.

Q. Whom would you like to see run for President the next time around?

A. There are some potentially excellent candidates. You have people such as John Connally, Elliot Richardson, [William] Simon. You go around to other parts of the country and you have Jim Thompson [the Illinois Governor-elect]. [Michigan Governor] Bill Milliken is a possibility, and there may be some in the Senate. We have to see how it develops in the next two years.

Q. Do you have a sense the country is moving a little more to the right?

A. I would say more conservative, much more than most politicians think.

Q. Then why are Republicans not moving into a new period of strength?

A. The fact that I got 48-plus percent of the vote, despite all the handicaps #151;Watergate, recession, etc.--I think is a reflection of the fact.

Q. Do you think that Richard Nixon ruined the Republican Party?

A. There is no question that Watergate and the pardon had an impact, a serious impact, on my election possibility.

Q. Why do you still pay a kind of honor to Nixon?

A. He made terribly bad decisions which were shocking to me and certainly to millions and millions of Americans. On the other hand, I think in a number of other ways he did some good things for this country, particularly in the foreign policy area, SALT I, the opening of relations with the People's Republic of China, the handling of the Middle East crisis during the Yom Kippur war.

Q. How can you dismiss Watergate when you talk about him?

A. I just don't talk about it.

Q. How bad was Watergate in your judgment in historical terms?

A. The actual break-in was a minor legal crime. Q. But I am talking about what happened after that.

A. What happened afterward was disgraceful. It kept multiplying itself as a cover-up of really monumental proportions. That is what really, I think, bothers the American people. It certainly bothers me.

Q. What worries you about Carter?

A. I am not going to say anything worries me about him until I see how he performs. I will give President Carter the benefit of every doubt until we see the performance.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.