Reagan Faces Return of the Establishment
WASHINGTON — In future biographies of Ronald Reagan, the week between Feb. 26 and March 4, 1987, will be called “the Revenge of the Establishment.” First the Establishment passed judgment on the Reagan Administration and found its behavior unacceptable. Then reliable agents of the Establishment were called in to repair the damage. The condemned Administration is now in receivership.
This is quite a reversal for a President who made his career by running against Establishments--first the Eastern Establishment that controlled the Republican Party and then the liberal Establishment that ran the federal government.
The Tower Commission, acting as the executive committee of the Washington power elite, reproached the Administration, using the strongest phrase of disapproval in the Establishment vocabulary: It called the Iran arms initiative “a very unprofessional operation.” Recoiling from this harsh invective, the President fired his chief of staff and replaced him with a consummate professional who has the confidence of the power elite, former Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.). Baker’s appointment, along with the earlier designation of Frank C. Carlucci as national security adviser and the subsequent choice of William H. Webster to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, are acts of penance designed to “restore credibility.” With whom? With the Washington power elite, of course.
The Iran arms deal and the diversion of funds to the contras were motivated by ideology. They were carried out by zealots who had contempt for foreign-policy professionals. Ideology is alien to the power elite. Washington insiders prefer to deal with pragmatists and consensus-builders, moderates skilled at the art of compromise. Exactly like Baker.
Gone from the Administration are the true believers, John M. Poindexter and Oliver L. North, who saw the world as “us” versus “them” and believed, as most ideologues do, that the end justifies the means. Also gone are the Reagan loyalists, William J. Casey and Donald T. Regan, whose mission in government was to “let Reagan be Reagan.” In their place are Baker, Carlucci and Webster, men with exemplary Establishment credentials--a former congressional leader, a former career Foreign Service officer and ambassador and an FBI director and former federal judge. More to the point, Baker, Carlucci and Webster made their reputations long before Reagan became President. They do not depend on Reagan for legitimacy. That is what has the hard-core Reaganites worried.
In an interview last year, Baker described himself as a Reaganite. But he offered a distinctively non-ideological assessment of the Reagan presidency. “I think there has indeed been a Reagan revolution,” Baker said, “but I don’t think it is an anti-Establishment revolution. That might be the rhetoric, but that is not the reality of it.” The reality, as Baker saw it, is that Reagan is an Establishment President. “To begin with,” Baker said, “he has worked well with the government and with Congress. Unlike (Jimmy) Carter, Reagan is a real pro. Every Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock I used to sit in the Cabinet room with the leadership and the President. It was a good give-and-take--traditional American politics. He managed it very well. That certainly was not anti-Establishment.”
What Baker admires about Reagan is his political skill, not his ideology. Indeed, Baker has been vilified by conservatives because, as Senate minority leader, he helped lead the fight for ratification of the Panama Canal treaties; as majority leader from 1981-84, he did little to advance the religious right’s social agenda, and since leaving office he has advocated a tax increase to help reduce the deficit. When interviewed last year, Baker committed ideological apostasy several times.
On the Strategic Defense Initiative: “I am not at all convinced SDI will work.” He then added, “I am convinced that we will not discharge our obligation if we don’t try.”
On trade: “We simply do not have an opportunity for free trade in the classic sense any longer.”
How does Baker deal with polarizing issues like race and religion? He expresses the true establishmentarian’s faith in the system: “So far, we have managed to contain those passions within the framework of a broader constituency and a broader set of interests. That is happening now. Neither civil rights nor the religious right is going to disrupt the American political system.” Spoken like a pro.
Baker’s professionalism is already working. Last week, Senate Democrats decided they did not have the votes to cut off the final $40 million in military aid already authorized for the contras. “Howard Baker changed the equation,” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). “The feeling is that Howard has a few votes in his pocket.”
Reagan’s control over his own Administration, as revealed in his speech Wednesday night, did not seem quite so professional. “I appointed a special review board, the Tower board, which took on the chore of pulling the truth together for me,” the President said. The board’s key finding contradicted the President’s assertion that he did not trade arms for hostages. “My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true,” the President said, “but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.” This sounds like the ultimate delegation of authority: The President had to appoint an investigatory panel to find out what he did.
Reagan still doesn’t know whether he approved the first arms shipment to Iran before the fact, or how funds got diverted to the contras. “The facts here will be left to the continuing investigations of the court-appointed independent counsel and the two congressional investigating committees.” How detached can you get?
So it looks as if the presidency is in the hands of two regents, Howard Baker and Nancy Reagan. Baker’s view of the nation’s agenda is clear enough. “There are two things left on the Reagan agenda,” he said last year. “The first is arms control. I think before Reagan finishes his second term he is going to try to have a historic agreement with the Soviet Union.” Does he think SDI should be a bargaining chip? “There is certainly something Reagan would be willing to give up for SDI,” Baker added. “Maybe it is the destruction of all nuclear weapons. I bet he would take that.”
The second item on the agenda is the budget deficit. “I think he would really like to get his fiscal house in order,” Baker observed. He admitted, however, that “those who say the deficit is last on the agenda are probably right. “
Baker will undoubtedly press for his agenda. He will have considerable support from the First Lady, who is known to favor a summit meeting and an arms-control agreement. Both are undoubtedly aware that arms control holds out the best hope for rescuing the President’s reputation. The Soviets are aware of that too. That may be one reason why they have proposed a quick deal on intermediate-range nuclear missiles. What better time to bargain with the United States than when the President is vulnerable? Nevertheless, Reagan seems eager to proceed. He said he got the message that the Soviets are too, “if we’re reading the signals right.”
All of this drives conservatives wild. They are not impressed by the fact that Baker is a class act, or that he can get along with Congress. As New Right fund-raiser Richard A. Viguerie said after the Baker appointment, “I’ve talked to 50 conservative leaders and activists in the last 40 hours, and I haven’t found one who is not outraged. We feel abandoned and betrayed.” Conservative columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak put it succinctly: “The selection of Ronald Reagan’s third and probably last chief of staff connotes a surrender to the permanent government Establishment.”
Even Nancy is not spared. Conservatives were infuriated by her campaign to oust former chief of staff Donald T. Regan, their last ally in the White House. New Republic writer Fred Barnes described the Administration as “henpecked.”
The conservatives may have the last laugh, however. Baker’s withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race removes the only prospective candidate who represents GOP moderates. Everyone left in the race is a conservative. Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) is an aggressive leader of the New Right. The Rev. Marion G. (Pat) Robertson is trying to muster a Christian army for the religious right. Former Sen. Paul Laxalt (R-Nev.) is a Reagan replica. Former Delaware Gov. Pierre S. du Pont, despite his high Establishment origins, is a born-again populist and supply-sider. Vice President George Bush has also shed his moderate skin and converted to Reaganism. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) assiduously courted the right during his two years as Senate majority leader. Although he differs with the right on some important issues, Dole has established his credentials as someone who can deliver.
Compare the Democrats’ situation. With Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts out of the race, there is no one left to fight for the Old Politics--free-spending, high-taxing, big-government liberalism. All the Democrats left in the race, with the important exception of Jesse Jackson, are “pragmatists” who want to try “new ideas.” No one knows what these are.
The conservatives shouldn’t worry too much about losing the battle for the White House. They have changed the agenda of American politics and created a new consensus in both political parties. In other words, they have won the war.
