His Recuperative Powers Mute Criticism : Crisis Could Undermine GOP’s Loyalty to Reagan

The Iranian arms scandal has sent shock waves rippling through the Republican Party and threatens to undermine the GOP’s deep-rooted, hitherto unquestioned loyalty to President Reagan.

“People in my position have been known to run for cover,” said Minnesota Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, new chairman of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee. “If the President is not forthcoming or doesn’t make changes, he could reasonably expect that (from) people in his own party, even though they have relied on him and benefited from his presidency a great deal.”

Yet, despite a drastic fall in Reagan’s poll ratings and the efforts of some Republicans to distance themselves from their President, no one is running very far or very fast.

And would-be presidential candidates in both parties hesitate to speak out because none can be sure how the controversy ultimately will play out, or what its final implications for 1988 may be.

With new indications of possible official misconduct leaking out almost daily, Reagan’s decision this week to seek an independent counsel to investigate possible criminality in the secret Iranian arms sales and the diversion of profits to the Nicaraguan rebels seemed to be the sort of forceful response his critics had been clamoring for.

His action, and the crisp manner in which he spoke, helped boost the stock market to a record high and reminded politicians in both parties of the personal strengths that have allowed Reagan to dominate the national political scene.

“The first thing to be cognizant of is the recuperative power of this President,” said former White House aide Richard Williamson. After recalling Reagan comebacks from such setbacks as the 1982 recession and his failure to win the GOP presidential nomination in 1976, Williamson added: “He has a unique hold on the loyalties of the American people. They like Ronald Reagan and want to give him the benefit of the doubt.”

A CBS News-New York Times opinion survey released this week showed that the President’s overall public approval rating had fallen 21 points in a month, from 67% to 46%, the sharpest such drop ever recorded. Moreover, a majority of those surveyed said they did not believe Reagan’s contention that he did not know money from the Iran arms sales was helping the contra rebels in their battle against Nicaragua’s Marxist regime.

Honesty, Integrity Cited

Nevertheless, substantial majorities of those surveyed said that they still regarded Reagan as a strong leader and--particularly striking in view of the skepticism about his statements on Iran--believed that “he has more honesty and integrity than most people in public life.”

“I think there’s a premature burial going on,” said Robert Beckel, a Democratic political consultant and former Carter Administration congressional liaison official. “People still like this guy a lot. I don’t think you can overestimate the real desire people have for this guy not to screw up.”

The good news for the President and the GOP, in the view of political professionals in both parties, is that Reagan’s legacy of good will gives him considerable potential for controlling his own destiny. Barring convincing evidence that he has betrayed the public’s faith in him, many believe, the President should be able to ride out the storm and recover some lost ground--if he makes clear to the country that he is more determined than anyone to clear up the mess.

But it remains uncertain whether he will do what is necessary to drive that impression home. Senate Foreigns Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) stated publicly what most other Republicans believe privately: The President must sever official ties with anyone suspected of direct involvement in the arms fiasco. Lugar called this week for the resignations of both White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan and CIA Director William J. Casey.

Beyond that housecleaning operation, many believe that the President must use his celebrated communicating skills to turn the attention of the news media to other matters. “He needs to start making speeches on substantive issues, catastrophic health insurance, for example, that have to be covered on Page 1,” said one GOP strategist with close ties to the White House.

While Republicans wait to see if Reagan can get his presidential act together again, their view of the future is clouded with anxiety. The Democrats regained control of the Senate last month after six years of Republican domination, and Boschwitz, as GOP Senate campaign chairman for the 1988 elections, said: “I’d like to have a shot at winning back the Senate. I don’t want the whole damn thing to be academic.”

Boschwitz is particularly concerned that fallout from the Iran crisis could discourage attractive GOP candidates from signing up to challenge Democratic incumbents. “Obviously, people run when they think they have a chance of winning,” he said. “And, in the event that (incentive) is removed, it’s going to be very, very difficult.”

In addition, the Iran arms affair and the furor it has created appear at this early point to add to the uncertainties facing the major contenders in the intraparty competition to nominate Reagan’s successor. By general reckoning, Vice President George Bush has the most to lose, in part because he is the front-runner and also because much of his political strength reflects that of the President.

Bush’s Potential Problems

Bush has other, more specific potential problems: his own background as former director of the CIA, his contacts with a former CIA agent linked to obtaining private aid for the contra rebels and his role as head of the Administration’s anti-terrorist task force.

“The fact is that he’s been involved with elements of the Administration which have been involved in these arms deals,” said an adviser to one of Bush’s potential rivals for the nomination.

But Bush has denied any knowledge of the diversion of the funds from Iranian arms sales to support the contras. And, unless facts emerge to refute him, his political standing in the party may suffer only minimal damage.

Indeed, some of his supporters contend that, by remaining loyal to the President--in an address here this week he delivered a full-dress rationale for the Administration’s arms overture to Iran--Bush may actually derive benefit within the GOP from the affair.

“You have to ask how is the party leadership going to take to Republicans who cut and run from the President,” said Marlin Fitzwater, Bush’s press secretary.

Independent analysts agree that Bush’s rivals, even as they seek to avoid being stained by the Iran scandal, must also take pains not to appear disloyal to the President. For example, Kansas Sen. Bob Dole--an almost certain White House contender--captured headlines by urging the President to call Congress into special session to speed an inquiry into the Iran arms sales.

But some feel he may have overplayed his hand. “People might think of him as too greedy for media attention,” one party professional said.

The tactics of the third major Republican contender for 1988, New York Rep. Jack Kemp, reflect the political quandary the Iranian affair poses for all GOP presidential hopefuls. Kemp so far has limited his comments to a brief statement that he did not support the sale of arms to Iran and that the public should support the President while inquiries are under way.

Meanwhile, he has instructed his staff to avoid public speculation on the political impact of Iran.

The implications of the affair for the Democrats are even harder to assess because they are further removed from events. At the recent Democratic National Committee meeting, pollster Harrison Hickman told party leaders that the Reagan Administration’s bungling had given the Democrats a chance “to reassert ourselves” in defense and foreign policy areas.

But other Democrats scoffed at the idea, arguing that initiatives in foreign policy are best left to the party controlling the White House and pointing out that the Democrats lack a consensus on issues in this area.

Some Democrats believe that they will benefit from the Iranian controversy simply because it will help to refute claims that Republicans are better able to manage America’s foreign affairs, an argument bolstered by the inability of Jimmy Carter’s Administration to deal with the Iran hostage crisis or to curb Soviet aggression.

“This puts the Republicans who bragged about handling foreign policy in the same boat as Democrats,” said William Carrick, political director for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

And, more generally, Democrats say, the Iranian controversy undercuts the feeling of well-being at home and abroad that the Reagan Administration has tried to foster for the last six years.

“If we don’t blow it, we can be the beneficiaries of a mood change in the country,” Democratic lobbyist Howard Pastor said. “We might see a new mind-set in the country that would react negatively to the Republicans.”

But Pastor and other Democrats worry that their party leaders could overplay their hand by seeming too eager to exploit the Iran crisis for partisan advantage.

“There’s a danger of the Democrats mishandling it,” said Richard Moe, former adviser to 1984 Democratic presidential nominee Walter F. Mondale, “if you get 17 different committees trying to investigate and clamoring for headlines.”

Reflecting the problem, Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, considered the Democratic front-runner for 1988, warned Thursday: “If people in my party attack the President for partisan advantage, I say shame on us . . . it’s bad politics and it’s bad policy. I think we ought to play it straight down the middle.”

Yet Hart, speaking at a news conference during a swing through Iowa, the state that holds the first test of presidential candidates in 1988, suggested that the scandal will force increased voter attention on “the integrity and honesty” of the candidates. And, he added: “I wouldn’t deal with terrorist groups or terrorist nations . . . . I certainly wouldn’t offer arms to terrorist nations.”