Lame Ducks and Horse Races : Reagan Era Runs Out As Contenders Jockey for Position

WASHINGTON —  At the beginning of 1986, Ronald Reagan was flying high--likely to be the first successful two-term Presi dent since Dwight D. Eisenhower. At the end of 1986, Ronald Reagan was a lame duck, his effectiveness depleted and his popularity squandered. Welcome to Year 1 of the post-Reagan era.

It wasn’t just Iran and contras . Even before the controversy, Reagan was showing signs of losing clout. The first clear indication came in early October, when Congress voted to override the President’s veto of a bill imposing stiff sanctions on South Africa. A year earlier, faced with similar congressional pressure, Reagan defused the issue by announcing his own program of limited executive sanctions. In 1986, he forced a showdown--and lost.

The midterm elections confirmed what people were beginning to suspect. Reagan barnstormed the country for Republican senatorial candidates, arguing that a Democratic recapture of the Senate would reverse the mandate of 1980 and endanger his agenda. He lost. One reason he lost is that he did not really have an agenda. In order to make a convincing case for a Republican Senate, the President had to explain what he wanted to do in the next two years. He couldn’t. Even if the Iran fiasco had never happened, Reagan’s agenda was exhausted.

Presidents who win landslide re-election have an unfortunate tendency to over-interpret their mandate. Reagan fell into the trap and we should have known something like this would happen. After all, Reagan is a man of deep ideological convictions. Ideologues are always tempted to believe that the end justifies the means, or to accept that reasoning in others--as, for instance, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and White House Communications Director Patrick J. Buchanan.

We have also known about Reagan’s detached management style. He concerns himself only with the big picture and leaves details to others. The combination of ideological fervor and aloof management turned out to be explosive. It meant that zealots were tolerated and even encouraged in the White House, but no one kept an eye on what they were doing.

Reagan could count several major achievements in 1986: tax reform, the No. 1 domestic priority for his second term; confirmation for William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia as the new chief justice and associate justice on the Supreme Court, and a public relations triumph following the inconclusive Reykjavik summit. The problem is that each of these achievements is likely to sour over time. Public opinion was never very enthusiastic about tax reform. Having become increasingly Reaganized, the courts will probably issue more and more controversial rulings on civil rights and abortion--the kinds of divisive issues Reagan has steered clear of in his legislative agenda. And Reykjavik set the stage for an increasingly acrimonious debate over the Administration’s commitment to arms control. Even the Soviets seem to have given up on making a deal with Reagan.

As everyone acknowledges, arms control, the federal budget deficit and international trade are the most serious problems facing the country right now. But the Administration doesn’t seem to have a program for dealing with any of them. And even if it did, Reagan has lost the principal source of his political effectiveness--a special relationship with the American public. His approval ratings have dropped from far above to slightly below where a President usually stands after six years in office. That means neither politicians nor the press will treat Reagan with the kind of deference--or fear--they exhibited in the past. Lame ducks don’t scare anybody.

The arms scandal is, of course, at the top of the political agenda for 1987, diverting attention from the real problems of arms control, trade and the deficit. For one simple reason: Nobody knows what to do about arms control, trade and the deficit. Congress and the press are much more comfortable dealing with a scandal. They go into their Watergate mode. Congress becomes an investigative rather than a legislative body, with plenty of room for TV cameras. And the press narrows its focus. The President can talk about the budget or trade policy or missile throw-weights, but the press is only going to pay attention to The Big Story: What did the President know and when did he know it? A good many members of Congress are looking in their mirrors and saying, “You know, I could be the new Sam Ervin,” or “the new Barbara Jordan” or “the new Pete Rodino.” And a good many Washington reporters are saying to themselves, “I could be the new Bob Woodward” or “the new Carl Bernstein.” Visions of Pulitzer Prizes and movie scripts dance in their heads.

Visions of presidential nominations are also dancing in many heads. Both party nominations are up for grabs and the Iran controversy has the effect of opening up both contests. An uncertain political atmosphere encourages unknowns and anti-Washington candidates who think they can be the next Jimmy Carter. And no one wants to bear the burden of being the front-runner for his party’s nomination. Not after what happened to Walter F. Mondale in 1984.

A front-runner becomes a target, “the Establishment” candidate whom all the other candidates can gang up on. In order to maintain his credibility, a front-runner has to defend himself against everyone, everywhere. That’s why Vice President George Bush took advantage of the recent Iowa poll showing him falling behind Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas in Republican preferences, saying, “Now the expectations are down. I’m no longer a front-runner.” You are so the front-runner, replied Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, who relishes the idea of becoming the anti-Establishment GOP candidate. Kemp is obviously jealous of Dole’s new prominence as a spokesman calling for full disclosure on the arms deal. Said Kemp’s press secretary, “Very few conservatives . . . think making political hay out of this thing by trashing the President is a good thing.”

He may be right. Dole has increased visibility as a result of the current crisis--therefore his name recognition, therefore his poll standings. But it is not clear whether he has helped himself among the constituency that really counts-- GOP activists who attend caucuses and vote in primaries, and who are strong Reagan loyalists.

Conversely, Bush’s candidacy seems to have been hurt by the Iran episode. He is the National Security Council’s crisis manager and has been a key figure in sustaining support for the contras in Central America. The public tends to believe he knew what was going on. A recent nationwide poll by U.S. News & World Report and Cable News Network shows Bush only five points ahead of Dole among Republicans nationwide. On the other hand, party activists may come to Bush’s defense precisely because he has not tried to distance himself from the President. “Loyalty is not a character flaw,” the vice president said recently.

The Democratic situation is equally confused. Gary Hart, the front-runner in the polls, is doing everything he can to avoid acting like one. He has left the Senate and moved to Denver. In case you are wondering what his plans are, the telephone number of Hart’s new office in Denver ends with “1988.” To whatever extent the Iran scandal generates anti-interventionist sentiment in the Democratic Party--because of the contra connection in particular--it is likely to benefit Hart’s candidacy. He was George McGovern’s campaign manager in 1972 and the candidate most identified with the old anti-war constituency. At the same time, Democratic governors such as Bruce E. Babbitt of Arizona, Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts probably see an opportunity to present themselves as untained outsiders who can clean up “the mess in Washington.”

Right now, the hottest property in the Democratic Party is Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia. Nunn’s position as chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee and the special investigating committee give him a key role in the controversy. He has already established a reputation as the Democrats’ chief spokesman on defense policy. After Reykjavik, Nunn offered a stinging critique of what Reagan offered the Soviets. Nunn indicates that he is thinking about running for President. If he does, he will have problems. His voting record, one of the most conservative of any Senate Democrat, includes support for military aid to the contras and for the Strategic Defense Initiative. Still, if Nunn becomes the new Sam Ervin, Democrats may be willing to overlook ideological transgressions. The fact that the Southern regional primary will be the climactic event of the 1988 nominating contest will certainly not hurt.

The Iran scandal has the effect of increasing the volume of political activity while curtailing the likelihood of new policy initiatives. With both party contests now opening up, 1987 looks like a year for plenty of politics and not much policy. Both politicians and the press are highly responsive to voter interests. And when it comes right down to it, which would you rather watch on television--a show about Ollie North or a program about the federal budget deficit?