Embarrassed for Reagan
Christopher Hitchens
Houston, Texas
The strongest impression made by Sun- k. day's much-ballyhooed Presidential duel was probably on the national plumb- ing. As one longeur succeeded another, one could sense the great American people leaving their sofas en masse for beers, cokes, leaks and the like. Many having reached the kitchen or the bathroom, never returned. An editorial writer at one of this city's newspapers, who was in effect being paid to watch, told me that he switched over to see The Big Chill. When I took a straw poll in a margarita bar an hour or so later, nobody I questioned could remember any specific incident or ex- change in the 90-minute broadcast. This meant, on balance, that it was a good evening for Ronald Reagan.
'Debate', on this occasion, was a mis- nomer. The two candidates were abject prisoners of the format. There was no direct engagement between the two of them, because at any moment of spon- taneity the moderator would lumber in and return the ball to one of four pundits. The columnist in America does not always see it as his or her job to entertain. Indeed, most prefer to give the impression that they are grimly holding up an important piece of the sky. One sign of weakness on their part, they imply, and the results might be catastrophic for civilisation (needless to say, civilisation 'as we know it'). For these four, this was a big night. One of them asked a question that was longer than the answer. All seemed acutely conscious that their mothers and their editors were watching.
The weakness of this approach soon became evident. To Henry Trewhitt of the Baltimore Sun fell the honour of asking the senility question. He phrased it quite care- fully, recalling that during the Cuban missile crisis President Kennedy had had to go for nights without sleep in the White House 'situation room'. Since it is well known that Ronald Reagan can't get through a cabinet meeting without 40 winks, the question was properly pointed. There was a stench of midnight oil as the President came up with his carefully crafted reply about the 'youth and inex- perience' of his opponent. This would have been quite a sporting prelude to an answer, but as the laughter died away it became clear that it was the answer. Trewhitt then said, `Mr President, I would like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but I'll go on to another question.' See what I mean? The atmosphere was one of toadying intimacy, leavened as such occasions always are by the slang of the baseball field. Expectations of a Presidential howler had been raised by the preceding debate, so that Reagan had only to get through the evening without an egregious error in order to win. Most commentators felt that, by staying on his feet and by remaining coherent, he had preserved his diminished lead in the polls. My investigations in the margarita bar, and in other parts of the city, tend to bear this out. Most voters felt vaguely that Reagan had held his own, and that Mondale was 'boring'.
This means that Reagan's luck is still, after a few fickle moments a fortnight ago, sticking by his side. In the course of the debate, he told one huge and dangerous lie, made one enormous and revealing admission, and escaped one tight corner by means of a less than brilliant wisecrack. If it hadn't all been so dull, more people might have noticed. The wisecrack, of course, was about the coup de vieux that he has suffered while in office. The lie takes a little longer to explain. Reagan was asked if it was true that he had ever said that a nuclear missile, once launched, could be recalled. He replied: 'I never ever con- ceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing.' Well, I have the quotation in the original. It was recorded for posterity on 13 May 1982. The President spoke of those missiles 'that are carried in bombers, those that are carried in ships of one kind or another, or submersibles, you are deal- 'Lucky for him, he wasn't dealing with Arthur Scargill.'
ing there with a conventional type of weapon or instrument, and those instru- ments can be intercepted. They can be, recalled if there has been a miscalculation. This is clear, if convoluted. Context rein- forces the point, because Reagan was contrasting these missiles with land-based ones, for which he had correctly said the was `no recall'. The Democrats are making sure that this quotation is reprinted, but it doesn't seem that many people have the energy to compare it with the transcript of the debate. The admission came in the brief period that was devoted to the issue of human rights. Defending his policy of support for the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines' and saying that the Shah of Iran had been unfairly treated by his friends, the Pres' dent said that the only alternative, in, Manila and elsewhere, was communism. 11 this is true, it constitutes a greater conde- mnation of the Marcos tyranny than any' one has so far uttered. But human rights are out of style these days, and by the time this section of the evening had been reached, nobody was focusing anyway. Which was fortunate for Reagan, be- cause his closing statement was one of the most upsetting and depressing things .1 have ever seen. I don't take much stock in the President, as I suppose must be ob- vious. But I was embarrassed for him. 1-1e, looked like a sick tortoise as he tottered and maundered through his peroration. Describing a drive down the glorious Pao" fic highway, he found himself wondering what people 100 years from now would make of us. 'They would know that we live in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons. . . . They will know whether we used those weapons or not.' Well, they won't know if we have used them, will they, you stupid old git, I found myself snarling. Beside me, a Texan woke from 3 refreshing snooze. It was a mercy when the moderator cut in to say that time was up. Reagan, by now well into a dotard s. unstoppable ramble, looked both shocked and relieved. How ill-dyed hairs become a fool and jester. As I write, the newspapers are doing the usual second-guessing. Reagan \was wrong about the CIA manual for th,e Nicaraguan Contras. It does speak, even Of its edited form, of the assassination c),‘ judges and mayors, and it does spec ,,.1 about the employment of underworld figures to do the work. It also alludes to the r desirability of killing a few people on own side, in order to create martyrs. Orbit last must make queasy reading for some O' the Contra leadership.) Each bulletin brings news of a fresh slip, a new blunder' another glimpse into the bottomless well , ignorance. Mondale and his team obvious- ly think this is their winning issue, because e they plug it incessantly. They are probably mistaken. The only conclusion to be drawn from this campaign is that the American people like Ronald Reagan, not in spite of his faults and his weaknesses' but because of them.
Previous page
