Workers World, Vol. 23, No. 5
January 28: At this early stage in the Reagan administration, it is easy to get distracted by the struggle of conflicting factional groupings among the Reaganites over the lucrative booty that comes as a prize in having won the administration of the capitalist state.
One must, however, be able to distinguish between a river and a puddle. Here, confusion abounds.
For example, the capitalist media has opened a campaign to present Reagan as “gentle,” “amiable,” “compassionate,” and above all “moving from the right to the center.” This was most clearly put by the New York Times in its editorial commentary of January 21, 1981, on the Reagan inaugural. The Times characterized Reagan as having abandoned the right for the center.
Recent columns in the capitalist press have begun to fortify this impression.
It is, however, a trap for the progressive movement and for all who are able and willing to put up a struggle against the reactionary domestic and adventurous military policy of the Reaganites.
Even though it is still in the very early days of the Reagan rule, this much already holds true.
Consider this:
Just yesterday, the Strategic Air Command (SAC), that is, the nuclear forces of the U.S., began a truly significant military exercise “without notice,” reports the Associated Press (New York Times, January 26, 1981).
What is meant by the phrase “without notice”? Does it mean without notice to the Environmental Protection Agency which certainly would be interested in getting advance notice in view of the hazards involved? Does is mean without notice to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to the pubic in general, or even to the president? Or does it conceivably mean without the notice that is required by SALT II? According to this unratified treaty the U.S. and the USSR are obligated to give each other notice of military maneuvers involving strategic forces.
This matter is not of little moment. The exercise, called Global Shield ’81, is scheduled, according to the Pentagon release, to extend for 20 days. Moreover, it involved in excess of 100,000 people and as many as 800 aircraft.
The Pentagon informs us that it is merely for training and testing and that it is not related to “real world situations.”
What is that supposed to mean? That this nuclear exercise is not related to the Soviet Union or oppressed countries? Or that it is not related to the U.S. imperialist allies? Is this exercise only meant to simulated “hypothetical enemy targets”?
If it is not related to the USSR, then shouldn’t it be assumed that the simulated exercise of the nuclear forces is to be used against oppressed countries, like Iran?
If the USSR began to carry out an exercise of its strategic nuclear forces without notice to NATO, wouldn’t this have been big news, and an occasion for anti-Soviet war propaganda?
The Pentagon release said that at one point during the exercise more than 400 planes, many of them B-52s and FB-111 bombers, will take off simultaneously from airfields across the whole country. These bombers and missile crews will then receive orders to simulate attacks against what the Pentagon calls hypothetical enemy targets.
How are the hypothetical enemies supposed to view this threatening military muscle-flexing? Are they supposed to take this calmly? What will be their reaction, particularly after the government of the U.S. and the USSR had agreed that neither should undertake such dangerous and costly maneuvers without giving the other prior notice?
Where was the capitalist media when it could have brought out the plans for these maneuvers ahead of time, even if it was for the purpose of showing how costly they are and how they involve danger to life and limb even as a mere military exercise?
The Pentagon hasn’t been shy in admitting that this military exercise is “the largest and most comprehensive exercise of strategic readiness ever undertaken.” And, let us repeat, “without notice.”
Every military command in their corresponding country never really knows for sure whether an exercise like this one is merely a military maneuver or the real thing. When this is considered, is this exercise not a frightening development, especially at the beginning of a new administration in Washington?
Yet, war are told in a four-column story in the New York Times on January 25, 1981, how the Reagan administration is shifting from right to center. This bolsters the view that Reagan, after all, is turning out to be a moderate, of all things. The Reagan administration, we are told, has found itself “under attack from conservative legislators and activists who were among Reagan’s earliest and most ardent supporters.”
The attacks focus on naming so-called moderates and “non-ideological Republicans” to high-level jobs. These are not non-ideological functionaries. They are right-wingers in ideology without organizational ties to any of the particular factions in the spectrum of the rightwing.
“We’ve all been had,” the Times quotes a conservative politician as saying. “We boys on the Right have gotten snookered.”
The example given is Frank C. Carlucci, the notorious deputy CIA director under Carter, who is supposed to be a liberal because he is a friend of Walter Mondale.
Other examples are Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s dismissal of his transition team the day after his nomination. Secretary of State Alexander Haig did the same, and then nominated his own under-secretaries which include several former aides of Henry Kissinger including the former ambassadors to Yugoslavia and Singapore. Another transition team for the CIA has been given a senior post in that agency thus far.
All this has presumably enraged the extreme right, headed by Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina.
Why were the so-called moderates picked instead of others? The answer, according to the conservative politicians quoted in the Times, is that “Reagan’s personnel people, such as Ed Meese, don’t want to ruffle the waters and are just more comfortable with establishment kind of folks.”
To sew all these pieces together and make out a case for a genuine shift by the Reagan administration from the right to the center is to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
This is merely a common practice of any incoming administration. The real power holders get rid of the surplus of professional hacks, job seekers without any moorings in the capitalist establishment, and the usual assortment of soreheads who failed to be properly “compensated for services.”
After having worked themselves into a frenzy to lift their candidate to the presidency they always find themselves on the outs when it comes to the distribution of real power.
Invariably, the extremist elements take up the cause of the cast-outs and always find the usual disloyalty, if not downright treason, to Republican right-wing demagogy.
The naming of Donald T. Regan to the post of Secretary of Treasury, Caspar Weinberger to Secretary of Defense, and Alexander Haig to Secretary of State are regarded by extremist elements such as Jesse Helms as having surrendered to the [capitalist] establishment.”
All too frequently this is translated by the liberal capitalist politicians, anxious to get into the good graces of the new administration (or at least ward off attacks from them) as evidence that the Reagan administration has moved from the right to the center and therefore is worthy of respect, if not support.
This is what the media and press campaign to build up the new image of Reagan is really all about.
But what is left out in all this maneuvering to paint up the Reagan administration? What is it that really must be taken into account? Is it that some extreme right-wingers and a motley crew of out-of-establishment extremists are being disowned and cast aside?
Not at all. The most significant fact in the evolution of capitalist politics in the U.S. both before and during the Carter administration and especially in its last two years is that the capitalist establishment itself has moved far to the right. In doing so it has lopped off political representatives of the liberal element in the capitalist administration. It has cast aside and soundly defeated old and traditional exponents of what passed for the liberal cause, such as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and others.
Upon recommendation from the establishment, Reagan has designated such well-known reactionary figures, such as Secretary of Treasury Regan, to preside over matters concerning the resuscitation of the capitalist economy. Note how the Wall Street Journal of January 28 literally sings paeans of praise to Reagan for this nomination. Likewise for Weinberger, known as “The Knife” by the rest of the capitalist press for ruthlessly cutting social programs in health, education, and welfare. Also note the somewhat grudging but nonetheless unambiguous support for Haig, notwithstanding his adventurousness in military and foreign affairs.
The truth is that both Reagan and the capitalist establishment generally hold a common viewpoint on the course the administration should follow given the many profound contradictions which are endemic to the administration of the capitalist state.
It is not to be wondered that the very far-out extremists find themselves mostly out of jobs. The Reaganites, especially Reagan, are “more comfortable with [capitalist] establishment kind of folks” than those from without.
At this stage of the struggle the out-of-establishment far rightists are so far only a fringe grouping although they wield considerable support among the conservative petty bourgeoisie, especially in the rural areas. It does not necessarily mean they can be discounted as a political force. The huge monopolies, Big Oil, and the military almost invariably turn to them as an invaluable support when they are needed as a stick to club the rightists of the capitalist establishment into line.
What does this show? Certainly not that Reagan has moved from right to center. There has been no move to the center, notwithstanding that the as-yet insignificant extremist, far-right politicians cry bloody murder and treason because their neo-fascist ideological cohorts have not been given some of the cushy jobs. These jobs have gone to establishment functionaries who will carry out the orders of their superiors with skill and punctiliousness.
A potentially significant struggle in the Reagan administration is to be found elsewhere than in the squabble over the booty with the ultra-rightists. It lies in the relationship of General Alexander Haig to the Reagan administration.
On January 20, when Haig handed President Reagan a proposed executive order describing his authority in the administration, it cause alarm among the Reaganites. Instead of waiting for Reagan, as the president, to issue a memorandum or order describing Haig’s authority, Haig hurriedly drew up an extensive, 20-page memorandum which was probably viewed not merely as a simple job description of his authority but more like an ultimatum This happened on January 20, only a couple of hours after Reagan was inaugurated.
At a hurried meeting involving Haig, Reagan, the president’s counsel, Edmond Meese, Caspar Weinberger, and National Security Adviser Richard Allen, it was reported (New York Times, January 28) that it was agreed to temporarily lay Haig’s memorandum aside. “It was not a power grab by Haig,” the Times, which supported Haig’s confirmation, says with tongue in cheek, quoting some unnamed source.
The significance of Haig so hurriedly presenting Reagan with this so-called job description or what may be closer to an ultimatum, could scarcely be lost. The hurried meeting of the top leaders in the Reagan administration, it should be noted, was between one professional militarist and four civilians. That, too, did not go unnoticed in circles where such confrontations are given proper attention. What invests this confrontation with more than ordinary importance is that the authority of the secretary of state, which is a constitutional cabinet post, does not generally require definition of authority.
The point that has to be borne in mind in all this, aside from the political figures who are at the helm of the helm of the capitalist state, is that the objective course of U.S. politics is set by the growing instability of U.S. capitalist finance and industry.
The driving force which generates the greatest instability and pushes Washington in a perilous course lies precisely in the hands of Big Oil and military-industrial complex and the generals and admirals. While they may vie with each other on tactics and on detail, they are nevertheless all headed toward the same perilous military adventurism abroad and continuing deterioration on the domestic front.
Last updated: 11 May 2026