Congress and the President

Price is a scurrilous mouthpiece of shameless propaganda. The issue is not whether a show trial is being held to paralyze a President, as he suggests; if the Iran-contra trials are nothing but substanceless theatrics, then the show will be exposed, and these deviant Democrats will face a terrible, popular, backlash.

The notion that congressional Democrats have so much power that they can humiliate any Republican President they want is ludicrous. If they had that power they would virtually dictate policy, yet they couldn’t even stop (as is now known) a highly unpopular dirty little war. (Also note that the last Democratic President was booted out of office in humiliation.)

The true issues involved are twofold: First, if the United States is a nation built upon the rule of law, then what is the relationship between the administration of that law and the law itself, its wording and intent? Herein lies the problem of policy formulation. The arguments are constitutional and belong in formal settings, to be debated by lawyers (which come, by the way, in both Democratic and Republican denominations). These arguments will never be fully resolved, nor should they ever be, for they represent the ongoing dynamism of our governmental system. The current controversy is just the modern manifestation of this essential dynamism.

The second issue is more immediately important in its scope, for it may just decide the future of our country, and the world: What should be the moral and ethical positions and actions of the United States in its role as superpower and defender of freedom and liberty in the world?

Should our policies be forthright and upstanding, or devious and heavy-handed? Should they be ideological and offensive, or reactionary and defensive? Beneficial to other societies, or destructive? What should be the relationship between these policies and public opinion, both in the United States and abroad? What should be the final objectives of these policies, and by what standards should their effectiveness be judged?

If we are the true bearer of our proclaimed beliefs, exerting our unique influence worldwide in service of those beliefs, then shouldn’t the world be becoming a better place to live?

Why do we seem to be so incredibly ineffective in promoting peace despite our absolute (nuclear) power and willingness to meddle?

Price suggests that at issue here is not “a cockamamie scheme,” nor “an assortment of shadowy subterfuges and shady middlemen . . . used to getting around congressional restrictions,” but rather “whether Congress is going to succeed in so paralyzing the President that America cannot act as a great power.” It seems to me that the two points are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable, with the latter fairly feeding on the former.

The issues are legality and moral judgment. At stake is the integrity of the American government. If Ronald Reagan finds himself paralyzed by the events, then, in Price’s own words, “the ultimate responsibility rests, quite properly, with the President.”

STEVEN L. ANGLE

Ventura