Congress Should Not Join Reagan in Deceiving Americans

An entire generation has grown up since the torrential falsehoods of Lyndon B. Johnson ended the innocent era in which one could disagree with a President’s views but rarely disbelieved his assertions of fact.

Any hope that this wound of disbelief--so damaging to democratic government--might be healed has been shattered by President Reagan, whose violent abuse of rational discourse has made it impossible for most of us to understand, let alone debate, the very real policy issues confronting the United States in Central America. We don’t know the facts, and thus cannot make decisions.

There are many ways for a President to lie--over-statement, selection of facts most favorable to his views, deliberate misrepresentation. Reagan has used them all. He may believe everything that he is saying--just as Lyndon Johnson may have truly thought that the fall of South Vietnam would endanger Hawaii--but honesty is not truth, and sincere belief does not justify deliberate distortion.

The President of the United States is not merely an advocate--an attorney for one side of an adversarial clash. He is the elected leader of a free nation, responsible to supporters and opposition alike. He is, of course, expected to pursue his own convictions, but he is not entitled to do so by deceiving the public, by demagogic appeals to fear, by slandering the motives--even the patriotism--of those who obstruct his will.

The question before Congress is whether we should send money and advisers to the contras . And behind that question is the issue of whether the Sandinista government is irrevocably an instrument of Soviet power, and whether this Soviet triumph can be undone by a trivial donation of $100 million to a band of Nicaraguan insurgents.

The answer to the first question is “maybe.” To the second the answer is “no.”

Obviously Reagan disagrees. But, not content with a reasoned exposition of his views, he asserts as probable a scenario in which, from their base in Managua, the Russians will topple the other countries of Central America, cut the Panama Canal and launch an invasion of Mexico designed to drive millions of desperate refugees into the American homeland--impairing, perhaps fatally, the well-being, even the freedom, of our own country.

What bull!

However, since the fantasy is the President’s, it requires a serious response. Should this nightmare begin to materialize, and the dominoes begin to fall, the United States has the military power to arrest it. Our towering arsenal is more than a match for any combination of Latin American states--with or without Soviet support. Unless, of course, the Soviet Union decides to fight World War III over Central America, choosing to engulf the globe in an act of madness.

But we should not be lured into debate based on the President’s fantastic fictions. We can admit that a Soviet base in Central America, even if confined to Nicaragua, is at best undesirable and could constitute a potentially hazardous development in the continuing Cold War. But if Nicaragua is already a Soviet base there is not the slightest chance that the contras can win. A small, poorly led guerrilla force--even with U.S. money and advisers--cannot overthrow a well-established government with unlimited access to Soviet assistance.

This being so, we can see the Reagan aid package for what it is: a tentative, trivial prelude to an American invasion. Only the direct use of our own military force can overthrow the Sandinistas. Since this is the real choice, we should debate it and not conceal reality behind the comforting pretense that we can achieve such a goal cheaply, painlessly and with the blood of foreigners.

Is Nicaragua now and forever a puppet client of the Soviet Union? The Administration says that it is. Many disagree. At best, the President’s indictment must be regarded as not proved. Surely firmer evidence is required before we embark on a course leading toward a war in Central America. The test will be the Nicaraguan response to good-faith proposals for peaceful resolution. The terms: American “hands-off” in return for an end to military relations with the Soviet Union and to Nicaraguan help to insurgents or terrorists in other countries.

Having stated this proposal, let me also admit that it is a delusion. The President can be denied his aid. He can be prevented from use of the U.S. military. But he cannot be compelled to negotiate. Even less can he be made to negotiate with determination and in good faith. Even worse, as in Vietnam, he can claim that he has tried to talk and failed, leaving us no way to evaluate his efforts or even to know if he is telling the truth.

I do not think that Reagan wants to negotiate. He has one goal--to wipe out the Marxist government in Nicaragua--either because he believes that the Soviets have already taken over or as a matter of anti-communist principle. If so, the outlook is bleak--the growth of Soviet influence finally provoking an American attack. Unless, of course, there is time to wait for a new and more sensible Administration.

In any event, wasting money on the contras will only feed the “cancer,” not abolish it, transforming ambiguous fear into real danger and making Congress an accomplice in the deception of the American people.