The Death of a Moratorium

Soviet invasion prompts Carter's rivals to attack

For two months the candidates in both political parties who seek Jimmy Carter's job had watched helplessly as Americans rallied behind the President and supported his handling of the crisis in Iran. With hostages' lives in danger, most of Carter's opponents restlessly refrained from making any partisan criticism. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan changed everything, and last week any moratorium on presidential politicking ended with a bang.

In a burst of candor that will haunt him through his whole campaign, Carter provided an opening for his opponents to accuse him of being an innocent in the harsh world of global politics. When the President conceded to ABC's Frank Reynolds that "my opinion of the Russians has changed most drastically in the last week, [more] than even in the previous 2% years," his admission was quickly seized upon. Within Carter's own party, Peter Edelman, chief adviser on issues for Candidate Ted Kennedy, called the President "extraordinarily naive" in his "lack of appreciation of what the Soviets are all about." More obliquely, Senator Kennedy made a similar point. Said he: "I am deeply concerned that our foreign policy is out of control--that all we can do is react to events that constantly take us by surprise."

Jerry Brown, the other major Democratic contender, criticized Carter for withdrawing from the scheduled debate with Kennedy and himself in Des Moines this week. The President argued that he should keep out of "partisan political" activity during the crisis in Iran. Brown, who had hoped to use the forum to show he belonged in the same league as his rivals, accused Carter of "ducking the debate and using Iran as his excuse."

With the Soviet tanks rolling across Afghanistan, Carter's Republican foes eagerly ripped into the President's handling of U.S.-Soviet policy. "It's time to take the gloves off," declared Bill Brock, the Republican National Chairman. "Mr. Carter's policy of patience is a policy of deception. It only works to conceal our weakness in the world."

As the G.O.P. front runner, Ronald Reagan had been helped by the moratorium, since his rivals could not exploit the foreign policy issues as a means of gaining on him. But last week Reagan opened up. He scoffed at Carter's new views of the Soviets. Reagan told TIME: "The only thing that surprises me is that the President is surprised." He added: "President Carter has finally admitted to a truth most Americans have been aware of for some time--the Soviet leaders are not to be trusted."

John Connally emerged from a briefing at the State Department to declare: "I have a greater sense of foreboding than I had when I came in." He charged that Carter had followed "a policy of appeasement" toward the Soviet Union. Campaigning in New Hampshire, the Texan had earlier claimed that Carter was "failing to recognize the facts of life. He should be trying to mobilize the whole world against the Soviet Union. All we're doing is deploring, If we sit here piously hoping for the best, we're going to get the worst." As for Iran, Connally advocated setting a deadline for release of the hostages and called for "disruptions" of Iran's oil production if it was not met. He did not say how this would be done.

George Bush said he felt "an increasing frustration and sense of urgency" about the U.S. position in the world. But he also vowed not to join other candidates in trying to "out-macho each other" by urging ever tougher action by the U.S. Said he: "I'm not going to play that game of 'I'll mine one harbor,' then the other guy says, 'I'll mine one harbor and bomb one airfield.'"

Howard Baker declared: "We will not be able to avoid future Irans until the U.S. re-establishes the fact that it protects its vital interests by whatever means necessary. I would tell the Russians that the time is over when we will tolerate adventuristic Russian foreign policy." Bob Dole assailed Carter's lack of decisive action in Iran, and claimed that the President bears a "heavy responsibility" for the seizure of the U.S. embassy.

But Carter controls the headlines and television, as he demonstrated again last Friday when he addressed the nation on Iran and Afghanistan. The Republicans face the difficult question of knowing how far to go in attacking Carter without going so far that they build sympathy for the man in the White House. Additionally, the public was aware that none of the candidates had put forth a constructive plan of his own for handling either the Iran or Afghanistan crisis. These concerns were certainly on the minds of Connally, Baker, Bush, Dole, Philip Crane and John Anderson when they debated with one another last Saturday in Des Moines. (Reagan did not take part, claiming that, as an act of faith, he did not like to criticize fellow Republicans.)

Two things seemed certain last week: 1) foreign policy will loom much larger as a campaign issue than any of the candidates would have predicted two months ago and 2) Jimmy Carter's sudden rise in popular esteem, based on his cool handling of the hostage situation, could fade just about as fast if his response to the twin problems of Iran and Afghanistan is eventually viewed by the voters as being ineffective. Despite the current commanding leads of Carter and Reagan for their party's nominations, 1980 promises to be a highly volatile political year.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.