Reagan and G.W. Bush: Presidents Above the Law
First of all, thanks so much to everyone -- Kyle Longley, Douglas Kmiec, Stephen Knott, and Michael Cohen, so far -- who've posted here and made this what I think was a really interesting debate and discussion of the Reagan myth. My last post is rooted in current events -- and the frustration that many share that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions plotted torture tactics, illegal wiretapping,, political manipulation of the Justice Department and other alledgedly unlawful acts inside the White House, - and seem to have gotten away with it. Are you looking for someone to blame for that? How about Ronald Reagan? Or more accurately, the politicians and members of the media who let Reagan and some key aides - not to mention Reagan's long-term reputation -- largely get away with one of the worst scandals in White House history.
Because make no mistake, there is a straight line from the great political escape of Ronald Reagan - who went from failed president to near Mt. Rushmore status with the help of a well-oiled myth machine and a national case of amnesia - to the wanton and largely unchallenged lawbreaking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue under G.W. Bush. The Iran-Contra experience began to solidify the notion that national unity and presidential strength are more important than making sure that presidents or even their key staffers followed the law, and that serious offenses that don't involve petty matters like sex are merely non-prosecutable "policy differences."
As someone who graduated college and launched a career in journalism during Reagan's presidency, I was a little surprised to learn last year - as I researched my book "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future" - the extent to which everyday Americans don't remember much about the Iran-Contra affair. I should not have been - after all, there's a whole generation of American voters who was watching "The Smurfs" in Saturday morning when the Gipper was in the White House. But the Iran-contra affair was nothing less than a major subversion of the U.S. Constitution. Democrats in Congress had passed a measure called the Boland Amendment that barred military aid to right-wing rebels in Central America, a lethal pet project of Team Reagan. To undermine that ban, administration aides secretly traded weapons to our supposed adversaries in Iran, seeking to free Middle Eastern hostages, reaped illegal profits from the deals and used those to fund the anti-Communist rebels, in defiance of Congress.
When the scheme unraveled, there were televised hearings, and there was expressed outraged - and one-third of Americans told pollsters that Reagan should resign as Richard Nixon had done a decade earlier. But the '70s were a very different time - members of Congress in both parties took very seriously their job in investigating and then holding impeachment hearings over the Watergate break-in, the cover-up and related offenses. But the aftermath frightened many Americans, who linked the bad news of the later 1970s, from Arab oil embargoes to stagflation to the fall of Saigon and the Iran hostages, to a weakened presidency.
Thus, there was a pre-determined notion not to go after Reagan too hard, especially because many in Congress worried that old age (the Gipper was 76 in 1987) had diminished Reagan's capacities. As I write in "Tear Down This Myth":
As the new Speaker of the House in 1987, Texan Jim Wright would have been tasked to oversee the impeachment of Reagan, and he candidly admitted a few years after the fact that he just didn't have the stomach for that, and that the congressional investigations of Iran-Contra that did take place were therefore rushed. "I hoped there would not be the discovery of an impeachable offense," Wright told reporters in 1993. "I didn't want to focus on such a divisive subject. I may have bent over backwards in error."
In 1990, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote a lengthy investigation of the Iran-Contra probe, focused on how the rules and timing were rigged to avoid finding any culpability for Reagan. Hersh explained the ground rules, set down two months before Reagan himself came clean on what he knew. "At an early caucus in January [1987], according to one participant, the Senators reached one easy consensus. 'We didn't want to go after the president,' the participant said. 'He was too old,' with too little time left in office. The Senators "honestly thought the country didn't need another Watergate. They were urgently hoping to avoid a crisis. There was another consensus, the participant added: the President did not have the mental capacity to understand what had happened."
Few imagined that the Iran-Contra scandal would fade from the American consciousness, but it did, to the extent that the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., gets away with no mention at all in any of its expansive exhibit spaces. The thing is, it was one easy step from the non-impeachment to the decision by Reagan's successor George H.W. Bush, who had some links to the scandal as the Gipper's vice president, to pardon some key figures like former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. By now, the modern template was beginning to take shape, that it was a bad idea to go after White House officials including the president on "policy matters," even if a policy was in clear violation of the law -- as would be the case with torture directives a generation down the road.
Instead, politicians and the press could focus on the seemingly non-partisan (though not really) less murky "objective lie" - the issue that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which had none of the Constitutional nor global implications of Iran-Contra. By the time of the Bush outrages, there were now layers of reasons not seriously investigate them -- that - ironically - the Lewinsky experience had soured Congress (but not citizens) on impeachment, and also the notion that Bush could just pardon wrongdoers, maybe even himself, anyway. Now, with a new president who wants to "look forward," it appears highly unlikely that anyone will be ever prosecuted for the Bush offenses, and even more down-to-earth Truth Comission plan is drawing opposition from Congress that it might hurt the American economy.
The end result is this: To make Richard Nixon, sadly, a truth-teller when he told David Frost that "when the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Well said! My college years were the late 80s, when I left an affluent white suburb, where it was indeed 'morning in America,' to attend a small liberal arts college, where I studied communications and journalism, and was exposed to the true extent, and less than benign intent of the US in its dealings with Central America.
To the theme of your post, I'd add that the Reagan Administration also paved the way for the resumption of breaking International Law when it suits the purposes of the US. afaik, the US has never responded to the ICJ ruling that its actions in Nicaragua, specificaly mining their harbors, were found to have violated the Geneva Conventions.
Regarding Iran-Contra, I was amazed at the time how it was dampened, and how Reagan was implicitly shielded from any repercussions. His teflon admission in so many words to lying directly to the American people only a few weeks prior was the only hit that he took, and his admission was couched so smoothly, the lie seemed to come from some unknown third party.
The other aspect that remains remarkable was the John Kerry report to the Senate in the late 80s of US officials involved in facilitating narcotrafficking, and later, Gary Webb's expose of the Contra cocaine trafficking into the US, and its effect on the growth of the crack cocaine epidemic at the time. To those of us paying attention, this was a heinous crime, made even worse by the hypocritical 'Just Say No' campaign. Also, I don't think much has been mentioned in our discussion at TPM about Reagan's ramping up of the 'War on Drugs' as a way of camouflaging US imperialism abroad in Central America and elsewhere--a trojan horse that continues to be ridden to this day.
Sadly, to echo the last sentence of the post, I think the Reagan presidency started the trend continued by Bush, whereby the Cult of Personality trumps the Rule of Law.
February 20, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, finally! But you kind of buried the lede in this discussion, Will. Iran Contra is the Reagan legacy and Bush is heir to it.
And when you say: "I don't think much has been mentioned in our discussion at TPM about Reagan's ramping up of the 'War on Drugs' as a way of camouflaging US imperialism abroad in Central America and elsewhere--a trojan horse that continues to be ridden to this day,: I have to respond that you FAILED TO BRING THIS UP.
You really treated Reagan's defenders, and I understand they're friends and peers of yours, with kid gloves. Your treatment of the Reagan legacy, at least in this discussion, was far too kind.
February 20, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who took seriously the outrageous conduct of the Reagan Admin throughout the Iran/Contra affair, I have been greatly impressed by the degree to which Ollie North has been rehabilitated from traitor to a super patriot.
Nowhere does the public's failure to grasp the seriousness of Reagan's extra-Constitutional crimes become more apparent than in the acceptance of Ollie North as a man worthy of playing any role in this society beyond prisoner, perhaps even one hanged at the gallows in Leavenworth.
On another point, it is amazing how we went from Reagan and Iran/Contra into the Clinton Presidency, which was treated from the beginning by the GOP as an Impeachment looking for an Impeachable offense. The fact that this Impeachment - over what was essentially little more than a lie to conceal a blowjob - was bookended by Reagan and Bush and their outrageous crimes against the Republic. It is almost as if the Clinton Impeachment was calculated to provide a "get out of jail free card" for the Bush Admin to follow, essentially removing Impeachment from the table as a realistic response to ANY crime to be committed. After all, the public would view any effort to Impeach Bush as political payback and would not welcome another possible attempt at political assassination such as the Clinton Impeachment was in its essence.
February 21, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
On another point, it is amazing how we went from Reagan and Iran/Contra into the Clinton Presidency, which was treated from the beginning by the GOP as an Impeachment looking for an Impeachable offense.
Hmmm...what was it Marx said about history repeating, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDJkQYKag9BPgb25_FK8OKwXVJEA
http://www.zazzle.com/impeach_obama_patriotic_bumper_sticker-128968905464612260
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Alan_Keyes_Stop_Obama_or_U.S._0220.html
February 21, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
I wasn't aware of these initiatives, paltry as they may be. They are nevertheless scary for the lack of understanding that elections count for something. To immediately propose Impeachment at the end of an election for no other purpose than as a response to losing said election is to totally misrepresent what this democratic republic is all about. This is made all the more ironic inasmuch as the major complaint against Obama seems to be that he somehow threatens to violate the Second Amendment and other Constitutional protections.
Unbelievable!
Then again, unfortunately, not really so unbelievable at that. Civics 101 is apparently not taught in Republican schools.
February 21, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? "Impressed" is not the word I would have used.
Stranger.
=D
February 21, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are certainly right Bwak. With aplologies, I was using the term without any qualifiers, not remembering it is usually implied that one is "favorably" impressed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The idolization of Ollie North is in fact horrifying to anyone who understands the true nature of patriotism..
February 21, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always equate North with G. Gordon Liddy, whom are both beloved by wingnuts for their law-breakin' ways--for God and Country, of course. It is, of course, painful for the other 99% of us to have to watch these fascist scumbags preen on FOX News.
North remains a right-wing tool; last summer, he was the 'eyewitness' who claimed a US airstrike in Afghanistan took out a Taliban base, with no loss of civilian lives. Later, real journalists reported the opposite, and that 80 civilians, including 50 children, were killed by the airstrike.
My own personal rendition fantasy, involving North, Liddy and others, would not involve waterboarding, or any physical punishment, just 24/7 of listening to John Lennon's 'Imagine' played over and over again.
February 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite right that Liddy and North are both cut from the same treasonous cloth. And I, too, find even their apearance on TV to be revolting. I simply cannot watch them or listen to anything they have to say.
And BTW - I love the avatar. Nolte never looked so good, as though he was playing the role he was destined to have all along. Tragic, but incredibly poignant.
February 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The major networks all but abandoned live coverage of the Iran-contra hearings. New York Times 6/21/1987
NBC, like ABC and CBS, has presented live coverage only of the opening testimony of retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, as well as of some of the testimony of Robert McFarlane, the former head of the National Security Council. New York Times 6/9/1987
Elliot Abrams' testimony wasn't carried.
NBC [alone among broadcasters] carried the hearings up to a point at which Ms. Hall was questioned about the shredding of documents relating to the affair, when it cut away to accommodate local newscasts. New York Times 6/9/1987
And an incompetent investigating committee didn't explain the importance of the scandal -- and that's not to mention Ollie North making its members look like fools.
February 21, 2009 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
LANDSLIDE by Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus reports on the fact that Reagan's staff considered trying to have Reagan replaced as President because he was mentally incompetent. Howard Baker talked them out of it.
February 21, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded. That was an excellent book on the crisis.
February 22, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should not forget that Reagan did torture defenseless civilians in large numbers throughout Central America and elsewhere. We should not minimize his cruel and bogus Wars of false pretense on Drugs, Terror and Communism which were instead campaigns of torture, terrorism, deprivation and tyranny against the peoples of Central and South America as well as other areas of the Globe.
He was a political opportunist who called people and countries names, condemned and would not talk to people like Gorbachev until he was told he could take credit for what others like Gorbachev were doing (and were going to do) with or without Reagan’s involvement.
Reagan's presidency involved tyranny both at home and abroad mixed with sentimental and emotionally manipulative photo-ops. Only George W (43) spared him from being the worst president in the past century.
Good riddens!
JK
February 21, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I almost forgot,
1. The US is the only country convicted for state terrorism by the World court. That conviction was for Reagan’s crimes against Nicaragua including the War crime of mining the harbor at Corinto.
2. Reagan personally signed for the transfer of over 100 bio-warfare seed cultures to be given to Sadaam Hussein to be used against Iran etc.
Reagan was bad news. Although Bush (41) (in similar fashion to Cheney with Bush 43) pretty much ran the terrorism and War Crimes operations, Reagan was not completely in the dark and almost got us all killed with his serious consideration of an unprovoked 1st nuclear strike against the Soviets.
I'm just sayin.
Peace,
JK
February 21, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main reason why the Iran-Contra was easily forgotten is because the press did not do an effective job at describing the scandal to the American. Instead the American public got the right-wing talking points that Oliver North, a man, who sold weapons to the Iranians and went against the laws enacted by Congress, was somehow an American hero. The press repeated its failure during the second Bush administration when it did not want to criticize some of G.W. Bush's abuses of power for fear of looking unpatriotic.
February 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Iran-Contra is to some extent remembered by those of us old enough to have followed it -- very few put at Reagan's feet many of the implications of the blind support for the Afghan Mujahedin, and the whole network of relationships that included the Pakistani ISI, the Military Dictatorship, and all the rest -- which included using the benefits from poppy sales to support the whole refugee program in Pakistan. And oh yes, in the process we also looked the other way while AQ Khan proliferated his Nuclear Industry, supported in part by the BCCI bank.
February 22, 2009 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, Oh yeah, Dictator Bush KNOWS he is above the law. In every way, shape and form! Pretty pathetic isnt it?
RT
www.anonymity.eu.tc
February 22, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is also a straight line between California's revenue problem, and Ronald Reagan.
I remember growing up in West Covina, CA. My school had the best of everything. New books, great food, small class sizes. Then, Prop 13 was passed in 1978, I believe. A bunch of right wing Republicans were behind it. Prop 13 destroyed the major funding mechanism for education in California. In the 1960's, California was in the top five in per pupil education spending. It is now ranked as the 34th best state for education in the US.
Proposition 13 has been an absolute disaster for California, but it will never be overturned. Some people I know pay $200 in property tax on a $500K house.
Great deal for them, but the state is falling apart, and now the rest of us in other states are bailing them out.
Reagan invented the great American meme of cut taxes while increasing spending. The free ride. The ultimate welfare state, where we just borrow money until the end of time.
Well, the piper has come to be paid, and now the Republicans are looking to blame it all on the Democrats. And you know what? Everyone now knows it is true, that Republican policies have brought us to this point, with St. Ronald Reagan as their philosophical leader. But they are in denial, and blaming Democrats is just a defense mechanism that has been reinforced as part of the national psyche for so long it just might work again.
This is a big part of what Josh Marshall calls the hard wiring of DC towards "conservative" politics. This is why the myth of Ronald Reagan must be attacked at every opportunity.
February 22, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink