Reagan Stalled in Congress on Foreign Policy

Early in 1981, when President Reagan was newly elected and anxious to change the course of U.S. policy, he pledged that whenever members of Congress tried to frustrate his efforts, he would “go over their heads” and appeal directly to the American people.

Now, however, as he nears the middle of his second term, the President whose success at mobilizing public opinion has earned him the title “Great Communicator” is finding it increasingly difficult to persuade members of Congress to accept his legislative program, especially on foreign policy.

And, despite public approval ratings that continue to remain extraordinarily high, Reagan often fails to translate his enormous popularity into concrete legislative results in Congress--even though he still frequently tries “to go over their heads” with speeches and television appeals for public support.

In the last few weeks, Reagan has suffered a series of embarrassing setbacks in Congress on key foreign policy issues.

A large majority of members of both parties in the House have opposed him on his request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan contras. He was able to secure the sale of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia only by vetoing congressional disapproval of the sale, and an attempt to override the veto fell only one vote short of a two-thirds majority last week in the Senate. And now his decision to abandon the unratified 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty is meeting a groundswell of congressional opposition.

“Contrary to what has been the conventional wisdom, he is not doing at all well with Congress. There has been tremendous disarray on foreign policy matters,” said Norman Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization.

“You have to conclude that there are deep, deep differences between the President and Congress on foreign policy matters,” said Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and frequent critic of Administration policy. “When we in Congress feel that a President is off on the wrong direction on a foreign policy issue, we have an obligation to do something about it.”

For their part, Reagan’s advisers concede that there have been serious reverses, though they insist that the President’s differences with Congress do not reflect any erosion of public support.

Private GOP polls show that the President’s approval rating for foreign policy hit 70% shortly after the Geneva summit last November--surpassing a record 66% rating for his economic stewardship--and has remained in that realm ever since. His highly popular bombing of Libya in April is believed to have contributed to these high ratings.

“You have to look to the issues,” said a White House official. “It’s not the President who is on the down side of the Hill.”

‘Unfortunate Timing’

The official, who declined to be identified, attributed the recent setbacks to “unfortunate timing” with too many unpopular, controversial foreign policy issues surfacing at the same time.

Perhaps the President’s biggest frustration with Congress has been his inability to win approval for aid to the contras fighting Nicaragua’s leftist regime, which he views as a primary foreign policy objective. Despite his tireless lobbying efforts, key Republican leaders such as House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) say that the aid package is unlikely to be approved this year.

And while Reagan managed to save his Saudi arms sale proposal in the Republican-controlled Senate by the narrowest possible margin last Thursday, the victory came only after the package had been scaled back. Even his supporters viewed it as a repudiation of the President’s policy.

But the opposition he has encountered on contras aid and Saudi arms may pale in comparison to the outrage being expressed in Congress over the President’s decision to abandon the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union.

Not only have many members drafted legislation to reverse the SALT decision, but Republicans and Democrats alike predict that it will undermine Reagan’s effort to win $4.8 billion for continued funding of his Strategic Defense Initiative, the space-based missile defense system known as “Star Wars.”

‘It’s Going to Be Messy’

“There’s no way the Democrats could possibly let this go,” said an Administration official, referring to charges that Reagan’s SALT II decision will unleash a new arms race. “It’s just good ammunition against us. It’s going to be messy all summer.”

Like the SALT decision, many of Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives fail to win congressional support because they are clearly unpopular. In the case of SALT, he acted in the face of overwhelming opposition expressed in advance by members of both parties.

Polls suggest that a majority of Americans do not share Reagan’s support for what he calls the “freedom fighters” in Nicaragua, his view that the Saudis should be considered as a loyal ally and equipped with sophisticated U.S. weapons, his hard-line approach to arms control or his commitment to develop a space defense against nuclear missiles.

“On most of these issues, the Administration is on the wrong side of public opinion,” said Ornstein. “The notion that a President who does not have to face reelection can do whatever he wants is wrong.” U.S. presidents are limited by law to two terms in office.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while not denying Reagan’s problems, noted that just because the President’s proposals are unpopular does not mean they are wrong.

Pursuing ‘Unpopular Policies’

“Sometimes a President has to pursue unpopular policies,” Lugar said. “If the President were not for freedom fighters and if he were not pushing the Soviets very hard on their violations of arms control treaties, he would have it a lot easier.”

Another factor eroding congressional support for Reagan’s foreign policies is the obvious differences of opinion within the Administration itself. On the question of abandoning SALT II entirely, for example, it is no secret that Secretary of State George P. Shultz opposed such a move while Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger supported it.

Likewise, the Defense Department recently issued a report critical of peace talks in Central America--even though the President had pledged to Congress that his Administration would pursue a negotiated settlement in the region if it approved funding for the contras.

“It’s no wonder that public opinion is confused about our policy in Central America,” said a Senate Republican.

A Lack of Savvy

Critics see the Saudi arms episode as further evidence that the President’s legislative strategy on foreign policy issues suffers from a lack of savvy. Ignoring warnings from Saudi officials, White House strategists mistakenly assumed that congressional opposition to the sale would die down after the Israeli lobby decided to stay neutral on the issue.

White House officials were stunned when both the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly against the sale, forcing the President to plead for Senate votes to sustain a veto. Despite the lack of active Israeli opposition, the lawmakers saw it as a sale of weapons to an Arab country that has supported anti-American terrorism.

“They were cockier than they should have been,” a GOP strategist said of Administration officials.

According to Ornstein, White House lobbying on foreign policy issues has been less skillful since the departure of former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, whose experience included several years as a Senate aide. Neither McFarlane’s successor, John M. Poindexter, nor White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan is credited with having a strong grasp of legislative strategy.

“I see it as ineptitude,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

Election Year Partisanship

In their own defense, White House officials contend that the Administration’s differences with Congress have been worsened by election year partisanship.

“It is not unusual for the party not in power to say the party in power doesn’t have a sound foreign policy,” said William L. Ball III, White House chief of congressional relations and a former legislative aide himself. “I used to write the same kind of speeches.”

The President’s biggest frustration has been his inability to win approval for contras aid.