ArReagance

"IT DOESN'T MATTER whether Reagan knew." These words seem to be coming out of every Democrat's mouth in response to the ever-widening scandal over the arm sales to Iran and the secret funding for the Contras. And in a sense, the Democrats are right. If Reagan didn't know, he clearly didn't want to; and anyone who is that out of touch with his staff's maneuverings certainly has no business in the Oval Office.

Nevertheless, Reagan's opponents are committing an egregious error by using this tactic. After all, the comparisons between this scandal and the Watergate break-in have nothing to do with any similarity between the two crimes. In fact, on one level, Watergate doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Contra funding. Watergate involved petty squabbles between political parties while the Contra funding was a gross usurpation of Congress' power of the purse, a patent violation of the Constitution.

The Watergate scandal escalated only because of Nixon's cover-up. His demise was the result, not of an "error" by his henchmen, but of his willful deceit, his lying to the American people.

And the same will be true of this scandal. Like it or not, if Reagan is able to show that he was completely ignorant, he may survive the crisis with only the loss of a few advisors. But if the Democrats can prove that he was aware of what was going on, he may not complete his term of office. Reagan knows it, which is why he is proclaiming his ignorance above all else.

THAT THE DEMOCRATS have not yet chosen to focus on the "ignorance factor" simply shows how out of touch they are with the reasons for Reagan's popularity. While bright, articulate liberals continue to write books that chronicle every blunder Reagan has ever made, the President remains untarnished. No one really cares that Reagan thinks that trees are the greatest cause of pollution or that he forgot that Pierre Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada. In fact, it could be argued that Reagan's image as a bumbling old geezer actually strengthens his popularity. It reinforces his image as a common man, a man of the people.

Ironically, Americans have ample evidence that Reagan is more arrogant than ignorant, more a devious liar than a genial fool. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a recent issue of The Nation, when Reagan told Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir that he himself had liberated Jews from the Nazi death camps he was not simply making a blunder. Reagan never left the country during the War, and he knows it; it's hard to confuse Hollywood with Auschwitz. By the same token, when Reagan claimed he had received a message "from Pope John Paul urging us to continue our efforts in Central America," he was not confusing the Pontiff with his wife Nancy she was lying.

In fact, the entire Reagan Administration is committed to a policy of systematic deception. There is no better illustration of this than Chief of Staff Donald Regan '40's candid comments in a recent New York Times interview. "Some of us are like a shovel brigade that follows a parade down Main Street cleaning up," he said. "We took Reykjavik and turned what was really a sour situation into something that turned out really well...I don't say we'll be able to do it [with Iran]. But here we go again, we're trying."

While Democrats cannot yet know for sure whether Reagan knew of the Contra funding, they are utter imbeciles if they fail to make concerted efforts to find out. They are faced with their greatest opportunity to crack Reagan's teflon armor. All they have to do is look at the polls. It is no coincidence that the 20 point dive in Reagan's approval rating comes at a time when the majority of Americans believe that he knew about the funding.

OF COURSE, the Democrats will be criticized for such an approach. Some Reagan supporters will demand that they be gentle because the United States has important foreign policy goals, such as arms control, that will be set back if the President is too badly damaged. Others will call Democrats mean-spirited for being gleeful about the crisis.

Democrats must ignore such nonsense. It is absurd to think that the Reagan Administration will be any more interested in arms control now than it has been for the last six years. On the contrary, Reagan has responded to this crisis by setting back arms control even further. In just the last week he exceeded the limits of the Salt II Treaty, voluntarily adhered to since 1979, apparently hoping that it would shift attention from the scandal.

Democrats should be gleeful. Gleeful not that the crisis has occurred, but that, now that it has, they have the chance to put an end to many of Reagan's damaging policies. Just as Watergate brought about important reforms in the election laws, so too this scandal will probably lead to changes in the role of the National Security Council as well as ending aid to the Contras.

With a little luck, Democrats may be able to prove Reagan's involvement in the scandal. If so, they can rest assured that even if he remains in office, he will have great difficulty passing any more of his pernicious legislation.