CHAPTER 3:
“I've spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they're fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong.”
-- Reagan on the Contras, CPAC 1985
“As long as I’m in charge, the United States will continue to pursue a sound policy of building allies in the Middle East. That includes Iraq. I don’t believe it is fair, or right, for Congress to try and dictate to the White House what our foreign policy objectives are. ”
Those were the words that had gotten Alexander Haig in his latest spot of trouble.
His public critics, most of them Democrats but some Republicans too, argued that Haig was undermining both the President he served, and the Congress. They, and much of the public, viewed Haig’s comments as evidence that he would ignore or try to circumvent the will of Congress, with respect to such things as the Prevention of Genocide Act, if it were passed by the 98th Congress – which was likely, as if the polls were to be believed, the next Congress would be firmly Democratic.
Haig immediately went into damage control, claiming that “of course we in the State Department will observe all laws passed by the Congress”.
But Haig’s enemies inside the White House, and there were many, pounced on the moment of weakness and sought to kick the former General while he was down.
Leaks and anonymous accounts from Reagan’s White House began pouring out to the media – horror stories of Haig’s overbearing style, his domineering personality in cabinet meetings, his lack of friends in the White House or at Foggy Bottom, his handling of the Israeli-Lebanon War and more.
Efforts were made to remind the news media and the public of past mistakes by Haig also – his controversial comments on a “nuclear warning shot” against the Soviet Union, his downplaying of the slaying of nuns by American allies in El Salvador and more.
It would only be a matter of weeks before Haig had decided that enough was enough. He privately told Reagan that he would resign in the new year and Reagan accepted it.
The powers that be in the White House decided that Defense Secretary Weinberger would become Secretary of State, a position he’d long sought, while his replacement as Defense Secretary was yet to be determined.
News of Haig’s impending departure and Weinberger’s ascendancy was leaked to the press only days later, causing another embarrassment for the Reagan administration.
In a press conference a few days later, a frustrated Reagan told the media: “I was going to have an opening statement, but I decided that what I was going to say I wanted to get a lot of attention, so I’m going to wait and leak it.”
This was yet another embarrassment for the embattled Reagan administration. But the lead up to the 1982 mid-terms would have one more surprise waiting around the corner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13th, 1982, a special 2-hour edition of ABC’s Nightline program aired to the public.
Its subject was the Contra rebels inside Nicaragua, who fought a campaign against the leftist Sandinista government.
This was the first major piece of news on the Contras to capture the American public, not least of all due to the man responsible for conducting interviews with local Nicaraguans on both sides of the conflict – Bill Stewart.
Stewart’s celebrity status made him one of the most known newsmen in the United States, and the fact he had returned to Nicaragua, where he had endured a vicious beating at the hands of soldiers there, meant that few Americans could ignore his report.
And it was a report which was utterly damning towards the Contras – claims that they bombed hospitals, schools, health clinics and civilians were backed up with footage and photos of wounded children, destroyed buildings and wailing civilians.
Interviews with Sandinista politicians, and figures inside the Contras revealed another chilling truth to the American public – the US government, or more accurately the CIA, had a hand in training and arming these rebels.
In particular, Stewart interviewed a Contra militia member and queried him about the large knife in his possession.
“That’s a very large knife you have there,” Stewart said, “Who gave it to you? What do you use it for?”
“An American gave me this knife. He was CIA or a commando or something.”, the man responded, with a chuckle, “I use it to kill people, to cut their throats”.
The interview and irrefutable visual evidence, presented by one of the most trusted and beloved faces in American journalism, destroyed the credibility of the Contras in the eyes of the American public.
The outcry among politicians inside the United States was swift
Senator Ted Kennedy called for an end to all US government aid to the Contras, and Senator Joe Biden referred to the Contras as “terrorist thugs”.
White House Press Secretary James Bradley was heavily criticized for claiming that Bill Stewart was “influenced or misled by the Sandinista regime into completely misrepresenting the Contra freedom fighters and what they stand for.”
Eventually, the criticism got to a point where Ronald Reagan felt it necessary to give a radio address defending the Contras.
“Good evening, my fellow Americans. Tonight, I’d like to speak with you regarding a topic that has been hotly debated these past few days – the Contra Freedom Fighters and our policy inside the Latin American nation of Nicaragua. Now, you might have heard allegations and accusations of improper, some claim terroristic, behavior from our Contra allies in their struggle against the oppressive Sandinista regime.
Perhaps worse than that, you’ve heard that these same alleged acts of brutality have been sanctions, and even taught to them by our own intelligence services. Let me just say, right now for all of you listening at home, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a fact that the Contras are engaged in a violent struggle against their Marxist-Leninist oppressors. And it is a fact that we are helping them in this effort through material aid and training.
But neither the training, nor any aid provided by us, was used to attack civilian targets inside Nicaragua.It is the goal of the Contras to liberate the people of Nicaragua from the communist puppet government that is presently denying them their democratic rights, and other such freedoms that we take for granted here in the United States. This goal could never be achieved if the Contras were to attack the very people they are trying to liberate.
In their task, I truly believe they are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. And perhaps we have forgotten that the American Revolution was not won by men and women who begged and pleaded for freedom. No, George Washington and his fellow revolutionaries knew in their hearts that freedom is worth fighting and dying for. In that sense, our Founding Fathers are perhaps the original Contras. And those of us who stand with them in their struggles are Contras too.
And if we turn out back against our Contra allies, what then? Will we allow the forces of Marxist-Leninism to take root here in our backyard? Will we allow the Sandinista regime to expand and spread through Latin America and reach its way up to us?
I don’t believe the American people would stand for such a thing, and neither would I. In that sense, I believe we are all Contras. Rather than spreading salacious rumors, I believe we should come together to support our friends in Latin America, so that they might one day be free. That is all they are asking for – not for our troops. They are asking, as Churchill did during the Second World War, for the tools to finish the war themselves.
To deny them the chance to claim their freedom goes against everything we believe as Americans.”
Reagan’s speech was well received by conservatives and cold war hawks but did little to stem the tide of opposition toward the Contras by the wider public.
It appeared that once again, the Reagan White House was on the opposing side of an issue with the American public.
With the mid-terms on the horizon, Republicans braced for the culmination of the present administrations many mistakes and unpopular activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were many stories to come out of the mid-term elections of 1982.
Reagan’s recession, the multiple foreign policy controversies, the continuing “malaise” from the late 1970s – but perhaps nothing was quite as curious as the resurgent power of unions, who made themselves seen and heard in ways not seen in years.
Following Reagan’s controversial dismissal of PATCO strikers, and the World Trade Center plane crash that followed, there was a groundswell of anger amongst trade unionists and blue-collar workers alike.
Reagan’s policy of mass firings followed by the appointment of inadequate replacement workers and overworked staff to pick up the slack had been met with disaster. Those in the union movement used the outrage generated from the event and turned it into something productive – a renaissance in union organizing.
“We have to stop what happened in New York from ever happening again,” said AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland in a stump speech given us trade halls all throughout the United States, “and that can only come about when the Government, unions, and private industry come together and negotiate for the good of us all. It can’t happen by bullying or heavy-handed tactics by the President or anyone else. Ronald Reagan’s class war has already resulted in hundreds of lives loss, are we going to allow any more?”
That last line often resulted in a loud response of “No!” from the crowd.
In trying to break the back of unions and signal to employers that strong arming unions was an effective tactic, Reagan had courted disaster and given the trade union movement its biggest shot in the arm in generations.
Reports would be made public that Reagan’s decision to fire PATCO strikers rather than negotiate, coupled with the World Trade Center plane crash and associated damage to New York, and disruption of the Stock Market, cost billions of dollars more than if he had accepted the demands of the union.
Union leaders created councils of unemployed union members to act as union organizers and activists, and new members were required to sign up one sympathetic friend or family member. Former PATCO members fired by Reagan were essential figures in this effort.
The reinvigorated union movement campaigned hard against Reagan’s policies in 1984, criticizing the PATCO strike, the continued struggles in the civil aviation industry, his appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, his economy policy that had resulted in recession and more.
They campaigned heavily against Republicans, and generally lent their support to union friendly Democrats in key races. They wanted to, in the words of Kirkland, “send a message to Ronald Reagan – if you want to wage a class war on us, we’ll fight back”.
The unions had seen a sharp rise in membership since the events of early 1981, and this new, well organized campaign was sure to have an influence in the mid-terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another figure who had risen from the ashes to challenge Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office was none other than former Vice President Walter Mondale.
Fighting Fritz campaigned aggressively, all across the nation leading up to November 2nd, 1982. True to his nickname, he leveled blistering attacks against Reagan’s performance as President, blaming him for the economic recession, the death of the ERA, soaring unemployment and interest rates, cutting social security, trying to gut Medicare, favoring the rich, a cruel and incompetent foreign policy, as well as attacking the union movement.
In a speech before the Human Rights Campaign Fund, Mondale claimed that, ''of all the principles the Reagan Administration is weakening, the most important in the long run may well be this country's commitment to universal human rights”.
Mondale visited the site of the World Trade Center, still in the process of being repaired, and called it “Ronald Reagan’s greatest failure”.
He campaigned in the South, the Midwest, and the West Coast. He made an effort to be in as many states as possible, appearing on local news and in newspapers.
He sought to redeem the Carter administration in the eyes of the public, telling audiences across the nation: “'We told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace”.
But for as important as these midterms were, Mondale had another reason for campaigning – he was raising his profile and networking for the 1984 election. With Reagan’s presidency in such a state, Mondale saw a golden opportunity to make his run for the White House and hoist the banner of liberalism up again for another generation, as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter had done.
But first, they had to clear the way by a strong showing in these midterms.
Mondale was optimistic about the chances of many exciting Democrats, and even privately began looking at promising candidates for a running mate, should he win his party’s nomination in 1984.
In particular, Tom Bradley’s campaign for the Governorship of California excited Walter Mondale. To have an African American elected to the Governorship of the largest state in the union would be a watershed moment in the history of the United States. He could just imagine how proud Hubert Humphrey would be.
With Bradley solidly ahead on the polls riding a wave of support, he looked like he just might pull off the victory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2nd, 1982 was a referendum on Ronald Reagan’s Presidency to that point, and a clear message was sent – voters wanted change.
Democrats, who already controlled the House of Representatives, saw an additional 31 seats added to their total, resulting in a strong majority of 274 seats.
Meanwhile, Republicans were left with 160 seats, with the lone member of the Conservative Party, William Carney, causing with Republicans.
The results in the Senate, which Republicans controlled, was even more disheartening.
Despite a favorable Senate map, Democrats made considerable gains in the Senate, with a net gain of 8 seats.
Incumbents John Danforth, John Chafee, Harrison Schmitt, Robert Stafford, David Durenberger, and Lowell Weicker lost re-election to their Democratic challengers.
Of the three Senators who retired in this election, 2 of the seats were won by Democrats.
In New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg defeated Millicent Fenwick to replace interim appointee Nicholas F. Brady. The retiring incumbent, Brady, had been appointed in April of 1982, following his predecessor’s conviction for taking bribes.
In Virginia, Dick Davis narrowly defeated his Republican opponent, Paul Trible, to replace retiring incumbent Harry F. Byrd Jr.
Bucking the trend, in California, Pete Wilson narrowly defeated the controversial governor Jerry Brown to become the junior Senator from California.
This Senate result in California was a small bright spot, but the results of the state’s gubernatorial election was yet to be determined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley had the perfect base from which to launch a campaign for the Governorship of California. Since the early 1970s, he’d been one of the most visible men in the state, and built a powerful coalition of black, Latino, Asian and Jewish voters, alongside church leaders and white liberal voters.
George Deukmejian, California’s Attorney General and the Republic nominee for Governor, accused Bradley of being anti-police, and cutting 600 police from the streets.
The attack was effective, and despite being a former police officer himself, ate into his double-digit lead. Furthermore, Deukmejian criticized Bradley for the rising rates of murder and robbery in Los Angeles.
However, the economy remained the number one concern for California voters come along day, and most residents were frustrated with economic performance under Reagan.
Still, Bradley maintained a 6-point lead on the eve of the election day. Exit polls supported the relatively clear Bradley victory, leading to some news organizations to project a Bradley victory early in the night.
However, the election itself proved far closer than the exit polls predicted.
While Bradley won the majority of votes cast on election day, but absentee ballots ate into his lead substantially.
It would be several weeks, and a recount, before the result would be known to California voters. In the end, Mayor Tom Bradley had won with a razor thin 0.3% vote margin ahead of Deukmejian.
With his victory, Tom Bradley had become the first-ever elected African American governor. The state that had produced Ronald Reagan’s political ascendancy would now be governed by the first popularly elected African American governor.
Bradley’s election was international news, and a major cause for celebration among Democrats, but even more so amongst the wider African American community.
In his victory speech, Bradley spoke of unity and the need for Californians to come together.
“The time is now for all of us from across this Golden State to bridge the divide that exists between the land we live in, and the land we want for our children. Together we will turn our dreams into reality, and I look forward to working with people of all parties, backgrounds, and beliefs to build a better California. ”
Bradley was joined by other victories newly elected Democratic Governors, 9 in total including himself.
They were:
- Adlai Stevenson III of Illinois
- Allan Ertel of Pennsylvania
- Bill Clinton of Arkansas (avenging his loss from 1980)
- Bill Sheffield of Alaska
- James Blanchard of Michigan
- Rudy Perpich of Minnesota
- Bob Kerrey of Nebraska
- Richard Bryan of Nevada
- Dick Celeste of Ohio
- Mark White of Texas
- Tony Earl of Wisconsin.
Hugh Gallen was able to successfully win re-election, which brought the Democrats total number of Governors up to 38, while Republicans only held 12. Gallen would survive a near fatal blood infection following the election, but he would return full time to his duties in early 1983.
All things considered, however, for as many victories as Democrats enjoyed during the 1982 midterms, none were as sweet as Tom Bradley’s historic triumph. It signaled that a whole new era in American politics had begun.
Reagan’s Revolution had faced a liberal counterrevolution. What this meant for 1984, few could say, but the nation and the world would watch the results intently.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The full results in the Senate were as follows:
SENATE RESULTS:
Arizona: Dennis DeConcini (D) wins re-election (D hold)
California: Pete Wilson (R) wins an open race, replacing S. I. Hayakawa (R) (R hold)
Connecticut: Toby Moffett (D) defeats incumbent Lowell Weicker (R) (D gain from R)
Delaware: William Roth (R) wins re-election (R hold)
Florida: Lawton Chiles (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Hawaii: Spark Matsunaga (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Indiana: Richard Luger (R) wins re-election (R hold)
Maine: Interim appointment George J Mitchell (D) elected to full term (D hold)
Maryland: Paul Sarbanes (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Massachusetts: Ted Kennedy (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Michigan: Donald Riegle (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Minnesota: Mark Dayton (D) defeats David Durenberg (R) (D gain from R)
Mississippi: John C. Stennis (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Missouri: Harriet Woods (D) defeats incumbent John Danforth (R) (D gain)
Montana: John Melcher (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Nebraska: Edward Zorinsky (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Nevada: Howard Cannon (D) wins re-election (D hold)
New Jersey: Frank Lautenberg (D) defeats Millicent Fenwick (R), replacing incumbent Nicholas F. Brady (R) (D gain)
New Mexico: Jeff Bingaman (D) defeats Harrison Schmitt (R) (D gain from R)
New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) wins re-election (D hold)
North Dakota: Quentin Burdick (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Ohio: Howard Metzenbaum (D) wins re-election (D hold)
Pennsylvania: John Heinz (R) wins re-election (R hold)
Rhode Island: Julius C. Michaelson (D) defeats incumbent John Chafee (R) (D gain from R)
Tennessee: Jim Sasser wins re-election (D hold)
Texas: Lloyd Bentsen (D) wins re-election
Utah: Orin Hatch (R) wins re-election
Vermont: James A. Guest (D) defeats incumbent Robert Stafford (R) (D gain from R)
Virginia: Dick Davis (D) defeats Paul Trible (R) to replace Harry F. Byrd Jr (I) (D gain from I)
Washington: Henry M. Jackson (D) wins re-election (D hold)
West Virginia: Robert Byrd (D) wins re-election
Wisconsin: William Proximire (D) wins re-election
Wyoming: Malcolm Wallop (R) wins relection (R hold)
DEMOCRATS: 52 (+8)
REPUBLICANS: 47 (-7)
INDEPENDENTS: 0 (-1)
HOUSE RESULTS:
Democratic seats: 274 (+31)
Republican seats: 160 (-31)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Democrats sweeping victory in 1982, the gains made by Reagan had almost completely evaporated.
Robert Byrd would be assuming the role of Senate Majority Leader, and Tip O’Neil had tightened his control over the House of Representatives.
Reagan, who’d already struggled to implement his agenda in the Congress, would face obstruction all the way leading up to 1984.
In a brief address to the press, Reagan lamented that while some races were close, his party had been dealt a blow. All the same, he promised to work with the next Congress “to pass an agenda that would get the government off the back of the people and get this nation back to work”.
Following the Republican Party’s dismal showing, there was a major internal debate inside the White House as to how Reagan would proceed.
Reagan’s California loyalists argued that the President should do what he did when faced with an overwhelming Democratic state legislature in California – compromise with them where possible and double down on popular positions, rely on tough-on-crime policies and strong conservative rhetoric to keep the Republican base happy.
Those newer in Reagan’s circle, who entered his orbit during his entrance into national politics, argued for an agenda of total resistance, relying extensively on the President’s veto powers, and claiming that the Democrat’s tax and spend agenda would result in even worse economic conditions.
Reagan, as he always did when faced with internal division, tried to chart a course between the two options, to make both groups happy. Oftentimes, this resulted in neither group being satisfied.
Reagan’s White House, already a den of dysfunction, was sent into a tailspin. With the impending exit of Alexander Haig, a major cabinet reshuffle could hopefully offer a semblance of order to a deeply troubled administration.
Or perhaps this was yet another shift that would doom Reagan’s Presidency. Time would tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final nail in the coffin of Reagan’s annus horribilis was the passage of the Boland Amendment in December of 1982.
As part of the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, the Boland amendment sated that “no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement or individual”.
In effect, this completely prevented the Reagan administration from sending money or aid to the Contras.
The Boland Amendment, named for its author, Democratic Congressman Representative Edward Boland, essentially forbade Reagan’s administration aiding the Contras efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government.
The amendment, and the extensive nature of the wording, was brought about due to strong opposition to the Contras among the American people following Bill Stewart’s expose. Edward Boland wanted to be absolutely certain that the White House could not support the Contras any longer – such an effort would badly damage American credibility abroad, and be against the wishes of much of the American public at home.
Reagan, wary of his weakened position following the disastrous midterms, signed the bill.
However, he began to tout private enterprise efforts to fund the Contras, through private entities such as the Nicaraguan Democratic Force and the World Anti-Communist League. Within weeks of the Boland Amendment, millions of dollars were pouring into these groups to fund the continued efforts of the Contra guerrillas.
Of these efforts, Reagan said:
“Private citizens and supporters of freedom around the globe are now the Nicaraguan peoples’ best hope. The new Democratic Congress has seen fit to strangle the Contras' efforts to defeat Soviet-backed tyranny in their homeland, but the American people have shown they will not abandon our friends in Nicaragua or anywhere else. As it has always been throughout our history, where Washington politicians fail, the American people step up to do what is right.”
As 1982 ended and 1983 began, the year did not start off on a positive note. The stress of the past 2 ineffective and troubled years had been too much for White House Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver, who already hated living in Washington, DC. He would leave at the start of the new year. He would be replaced by Edwin Meese, who was serving as Counselor to the President until his appointment to the position.
Any hopes of the 1983 starting off better than 1982 had ended when the 98th Congress met and sought to rectify one of the great Reagan controversies of the previous year.
Another aspect of Reagan’s foreign policy, closer relations with Iraq, was dealt a blow in January of 1983 when the new 98th Congress reintroduced the Prevention of Genocide Act.
The Prevention of Genocide Act 1983 maintained the goal of its predecessor – to punish Saddam Hussein’s regime for its gas attacks of the Kurds and genocidal repression of population of Khuzestan.
Again championed by Jesse Helms, the act would do the following:
- Requires the U.S. Executive Director or representative at all international financial institutions to vote against all loans to Iraq.
- Prohibits the provision of any assistance, the sale of any kind of military equipment, the provision of any credits, or the provision of any credit guarantees to Iraq.
- Prohibits the sale or transfer to Iraq of any item subject to export control by any agency of the United States.
- Prohibits the importation of any oil or petroleum products produced in Iraq.
These sanctions could be waived by the President, only if proof was given that Saddam had stopped his genocidal activities. But that was highly unlikely, and both the White House and Congress knew it.
The act was again sent to Reagan’s desk, who again vetoed it. But this time, the veto was overridden by the Congress. It was the first time in the 20th century that a President had his veto overridden on foreign policy legislation.
With yet another embarrassment, Reagan and his White House staff could not hide their displeasure.
With the departure of Alexander Haig, Casper Weinberger was appointed to the position of Secretary of State with little opposition. As he was the incumbent Secretary of Defense, however, a replacement had to be found.
Reagan’s White House staff had the perfect candidate in mind.
They did not want to take anyone out of the House or Senate, given the recent losses suffered. While the mid-terms had been devastating for Republicans generally, for one man, an opportunity presented itself.
Former Governor of Texas Bill Clements was one of many Republican politicians to be ousted from office in 1982. Prior to being elected Governor of Texas, he served as Deputy Secretary of Defense, and briefly as Acting Defense Secretary in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
He had a wealth of executive experience as Governor and had done the job before.
Clements appointment to the position of Secretary of Defense was met with some opposition among Democrats, but he was accepted by the Senate all the same.
With the departure of Haig, and with Weinberger and Clements now in place, Reagan looked forward to a new and better year in 1983.
However, he was not yet ready to abandon the Contras, or his plans to make a reliable ally out of Iraq. Israel was privately furious with the United States for allowing Iraq to decisively win the war with Iran, but if Iraq could be brought into the fold, things would improve considerably.
Weinberger and National Security Advisor William P. Clark Jr both tilted towards Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in any case, so Reagan’s desire to build a relationship between the two nations appealed to them.
Reagan made clear that his two top priorities in the new year was to keep the Contras afloat in Nicaragua and maintain the strategic opening that had come about with regard to Iraq.
In making this proclamation, Reagan committed perhaps the gravest mistake of his Presidency.