Presidential Funerals: Enough Already

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3, 2007 — -- Several years ago, a friend of mine wrote a thrilling mystery book titled "Six Days of the Condor."

When Hollywood made the movie, it had the good sense to call it "Three Days of the Condor," a condensation that did no harm to the plot and ensured that the audience's attention would not flag.

We should now do the same for fallen presidents!

I liked Gerald Ford and thought his accidental presidency was a happy accident for the country. He deserved praise and homage in death. But public ceremonies spanning six days with all events carried live day after day by the television and cable networks just seemed too much.

The first presidential funeral I remember was that of Franklin Roosevelt, although I didn't cover it. I was 11 years old. Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945. It took two days for his body to arrive in Washington by train. There was no lying in state for the man who had brought us through the Great Depression and the most dangerous and costly war in our history, only a private funeral ceremony at the White House, and the next day he was buried at Hyde Park in New York.

Later, when I was in a position to cover events, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower were the focus of elaborate Washington ceremonies, one the assassinated martyr, the other the "Supreme Allied Commander" as well as president. But for each, from death to burial, the time span was less than six days.

There were no Washington ceremonies whatsoever for Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, and death to burial took three days for each.

The six-day format arrived on the scene with the death of Ronald Reagan in 2004. The script had been written years in advance by his wife and his loyal inner circle.

The sum total of the planned events, choreographed by masters of show business, constituted a brilliant, majestic send-off for a president who had made a deep impression on the country. But is that now the standard that should be applied to every former president: a six-day vigil for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and both Presidents Bush for fear of somehow giving an unfair short shrift by comparison?

While I'm being the skunk at this garden party, let me complain about a particularly pernicious aspect of all this, the role played by the hand that has fed me all these years: television.

Thank goodness we have television to bring these ceremonies to people everywhere. But over the years, the television and cable networks and the principal anchors and correspondents who work for them have begun to think of major events of almost any kind more as promotional and competitive opportunities rather than news stories that should be covered according to rigorous standards of news judgment.

In the old days, if a casket was moved from a hearse to an airplane that was no reason to "go live." Today anything that can be seen will be shown immediately with round robin commentary that in the cumulative sense is redundant.

How many times in the last six days have you heard former President Ford's virtues described in the same way from event to event to event? Does this add to the luster of the man or his memory? Is the viewing public glued to the screen during all this? The ratings say no.

It reminds me of the old story about the fellow in church who was so struck with admiration for the opening oratory of a visiting preacher that he vowed to put $10 rather than his usual $5 in the offering plate.

After an hour of fiery oratory the parishioner, who had begun to squirm in his seat, decided that his usual $5 contribution would suffice after all.

When the preacher finally concluded after two hours of fire and brimstone and the plate was passed again, the fellow, tired, cross and hungry, reached in and took out $5!

Let us honor them, our fallen presidents, but let us not turn that into an unseemly pageant that we do mainly for ourselves.