Fall From Grace

Never did I dream it would happen to Ronald Reagan. Neither, apparently did he. All his life he's been playing Prince Charming, and he's not accustomed to the role of bete noire.

I've aged more than two decades' worth following Reagan's 20 year governmental career, from the time he won the governorship of California on to the present, and deem him to be providentially anointed — one lucky guy. Perhaps the Iran-contra flap may yet stem the adoration of his numerous fans, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Throughout his governmental career he has said one thing and done another, but still reaped the increasing adulation of the still beloved American public.

As the millionaire governor of California, he argued for years against payroll tax withholding on grounds that "taxes should hurt," but managed to escape paying any state income taxes himself.

He campaigned against a pusillanimous Jimmy Carter for not forcibly freeing the 52 American hostages in Iran and, promising America "would stand tall" against all terrorists, vigorously promoted more billions than ever before for the military. Yet, when 241 marines were wantonly slaughtered in their barracks in Beirut by terrorists sponsored by Iran, he did absolutely nothing.

Correction: He unleashed the might of America against Grenada two days later.

Throughout both his campaign and his presidential tenure, he has thundered against the "big spenders" in Washington. Yet, he has run up deficits in his six years alone as large as during all the 200 prior years of our existence.

Most recently he unveiled the first trillion-dollar budget in all of our history with the cheery comment that it "cuts spending."

Even now, with the unfolding tawdry scandal of the Iran arms sales and illegal contra aid funding, the polls show that he is still beloved — if not believed.

Nevertheless, on this matter the fickle hand of fate seems to have straight-armed him. It must seem rather 'Iranic' to have him now come a cropper. Why on this particular and unlikely issue after so many prior escapes from accountability?

The president's vast popularity, buttressed by an avuncular TV image along with compelling communication skills, have shielded him in the past from the everyday slings to which most political figures are subjected. It has also given rise in the White House to an enormous self-confidence bordering on hubris that Reagan's persuasive verbal gifts could explain everything — no matter how far-fetched and contradictory.

Initially he defended his policy of clandestinely sending arms to Iran, saying he believed it "wasn't a failure until the press got a tip from that rag in Beirut."

To this very day I seriously question whether Ronald Reagan comprehends the contradiction of his publicly espousing a policy of not dealing with terrorists while at the same time authorizing arms sales to an Iranian regime that supports and instigates terrorism.

Reagan's greatest strength, in my estimation, is that he selectively chooses what he wants to believe completely, and blots out meaningful contrary facts. Thus, he comes across as trustworthy because he really believes what he says. Too many facts confuse him.

Moreover, he basically is an optimist, so his choice always is to pick out the positive data and ignore the negative evidence. This ever so natural and sincere approach keeps him and most of the American public happy while driving some of us up a wall.

Undoubtedly he genuinely wanted to save the lives of the handful of American hostages and, out of true compassion, and conveniently ignored the fact that the armaments sent to Iran would kill countless others.

The deleterious effect on the American image and our foreign relations to have such a contradictory and hypocritical stance emanating from the White House was too arcane for Reagan to absorb.

Similarly, he considered the contras in Nicaragua as fighters against communism in the Western Hemisphere and, accordingly, entitled to our full assistance and support. His subordinates knew from his past actions and statements that the contra effort in Nicaragua had a high priority in Reagan foreign policy and that he was not too concerned with the legalities of the situation.

Fortuitously (for him), life is not all that complicated for Ronald Reagan. He believes that the ends that he desires justify the means — even when it involves an arrogant disregard for the American principal of government by laws. Therein lies the genesis and rationalization of all that occurred.

"To err is human, to forgive, divine" (Alexander Pope) is an aphorism that Ronald Reagan could have utilized. Instead, he and his advisors were entrapped by another axiom: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott).

I believe the current, unfolding saga could have been avoided. Had the president been somewhat contrite and admitted the miscalculation by his White House crew initially, he probably could have walked away unscathed once again.

But, shades of Watergate, the on-going media involvement is not caused so much by what actually took place with Iran and Nicaragua as by the campaign of obfuscation and evasion put forth by the administration's minions.

Had Ronald Reagan assumed some lofty, overall responsibility in the matter, he undoubtedly would have been soon forgiven by his adoring public and he would have shoved the matter off the front pages by appointing a "commission to investigate." That ploy always seems to work.

For most of us, the words, "I'm sorry," are among the two hardest in the English language to utter. For Ronald Reagan, who has rarely been called to task or experienced much failure in public life, it must be doubly difficult.

Perhaps man was predestined not to accept fault and responsibility. Witness the first two human beings on Earth, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden:

"And the Lord, God, said, 'Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commended thee that thou shouldst not eat?' And the man said, 'The woman who Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat.'

"And the Lord, God, said unto the woman, 'What is this thou hast done?' And the woman said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.'"

So it goes back a long way!