preview

President Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair

Decent Essays

The Iran-Contra affair can be described as the type of event expected to give rise to a demonstration of public support for the president. However, this incident had the opposite effect. The public’s response to the Iran-Contra affair led to a sharp decrease in the support of President Reagan. Due to President Reagan’s role in the political scandal of aiding armed conflict in Nicaragua, the United States Congress used its constitutional power to investigate and check the role of the executive branch. The impact of this congressional oversight highlights the checks and balances the Founder’s instilled in our political government during our nation’s conception. Beginning on May 5th, 1987, most of America turned in to national television to watch …show more content…

Another example of one of these issues that emerged from this affair was one of propaganda. While the Administration and Congress can appeal directly to the people for support of their positions, appropriated funds may not be used to generate propaganda or covert propaganda activities. Congress found that the Office for Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean were issuing white propaganda activities that violated the ban on covert propaganda overseas (Reclaiming the Congressional Hearing, 2015). In respect to what was happening in Iran, Congress made it clear that a joint decision with the House and the Senate would have rejected the proposal to sell arms to Iran, but since it was not reported to Congress, their inability to react was clear to the public. The end of the congressional hearing emphasized that this affair was founded on dishonesty and secrecy, morals that do not align with the Constitution and fellow Americans (Journal, 2011). And while some involved cited fear of leaks as a justification for their practices. The final report Congress made on the matter ended with a rather unenlightening thought which was that “all of the fact may never be known”, placing more confusion and distrust in the American public. So, why was this hearing important, if it was at …show more content…

Oliver North became an American obsession even though he was convicted of charges related to the affair, with the public making dolls, shirts, and even sandwiches as a tribute to him. It seemed as if the Iran-Contra hearings were more of a last hurrah of the numerous Congressional hearings being held in Congress rather than evidence of the hearings’ efficacy. Compared to other hearings, the Iran-Contra affair involved deeper partisan divides (Brown University). Party divides created conflict through the congressional hearings, with Republicans defending and supporting the administration and Democrats united in an attack against the administration. One of the minority members of the House Select Committee charged with investigating the Iran-Contra affair, Bill McCollum, made this statement, “Partisan bickering was the most distressing thing about the hearings. It got in the way of our purpose, which was to bring out the facts, to determine the President's credibility, and, finally, to recommend law and policy changes that reach far beyond these hearings" (Brown University) Consequently, some blame can be placed on party divide as to why the public and government officials felt very little had been done to address the secrecy and blatant incompliance of law at a federal

Get Access