The Making of a Folk Hero

Everywhere I have traveled in recent weeks, people have been asking me what I think of American’s number one folk hero, Oliver North.

The questions are understandable; 15 years ago I sat (figuratively speaking) in the same seat. It can be intimidating to confront some of the most powerful personages in government under the glare of television lights in that grand, high-ceilinged caucus room. (Testifying can be more than just psychologically intimidating; in the less-civil Watergate era, one committee member threatened to break my nose.)

But North was not intimidated, charging up the Hill the way he led his combat platoon in Vietnam. He wrestled his congressional tormentors to the ground in a swashbuckling performance; they, in turn, fought their way to the microphones to praise him.

And I was on my feet, shouting, “Get em, Ollie! You tell em!”

There were some parochial reasons for my undignified conduct. As an ex-marine, I was proud that the honor of the corps, tarnished in the Moscow embassy scandal, was being regained. And I was not unmindful that North is a Christian; he attends church with several of my friends. And I had to admire his chutzpah, secretly wishing I had dared to do the same thing during Watergate.

But there were other, more significant reasons that I and millions of Americans cheered Ollie North.

For one, we’ve needed a hero. These have been lean times for national honor—spy scandals, Wall Street insider trading, double-dealing political leaders, and ministers betraying their most sacred trust.

So along comes a decorated marine who loves God and country. Abandoned by his superiors, pilloried in the press, he comes bounding back—and with bravado and pure grit, he wins the day.

A second reason for North’s popularity is the public reservoir of resentment toward politicians. Most Americans are offended by the self-righteousness of members of Congress who so often attack others for doing what they so gleefully do themselves. For example, only months ago Congress allowed a pay raise to take effect automatically by operation of law—then the next day went on record as voting it down overwhelmingly. (A moot point, in that the increase could not actually be voted down after going into effect.) They managed to get their cake and vote against it too.

Thus many cheered North for turning the tables on the posturing Congress. Even his admitted indiscretions—backdoor dealings with sleazy arms dealers, altered documents, and misleading of the Congress—were swept away in Ollie-mania. Barber shops were jammed with patrons requesting Ollie cuts; buttons and bumper stickers proclaimed “North for President.” Polls showed that almost a third of all Americans would vote North into office. Two-thirds opposed him being prosecuted.

One senator who announced eight months ago that “It is going to be a cold day … before any more money goes into Nicaragua,” wryly commented during North’s testimony, “… the outside temperature [has] dropped about 60 degrees.” Surveys show that public support for the contras has surged to its highest level ever.

Why such a dramatic shift in public opinion? Was it North’s explanation of policies, the rational discussion of issues, or a sudden public enlightenment?

No. And here is where I began to have some sobering second thoughts. For what made public opinion swing so wildly was image—the power of the television tube. It was not thoughtful discourse, but emotion. As one political satirist puts it, “Ollie North’s performance is a triumph of his telegenic personality—the charm, the charisma, the presence—over substance.”

This point was well illustrated by the next witness, a rather colorless bureaucrat, Adm. John Poindexter. He announced blandly that he alone had approved the covert plan and had deliberately not told the President. Coming after North’s charismatic testimony, Poindexter’s disclosure was viewed as a political coup: Reagan had been telling the truth, was vindicated, and started regaining lost ground in the polls.

But wait a minute. What Poindexter said was that the President knew nothing of extremely sensitive covert operations involving the diversion of millions of dollars, arguably in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the law. But in the wake of the country’s emotional orgy over Ollie, most folk seemed not to care.

I happen to be a supporter of Reagan’s policy. I cannot imagine looking the other way while the Soviets arm a proxy state (which is, by the way, persecuting Christians) a few hundred miles from our borders. Under our system of laws and carefully designed checks and balances, however, it is the President who must conduct foreign policy, not rear admirals and lieutenant colonels in the White House basement.

While I was in the White House, every foreign policy decision, certainly covert actions, had to have the President’s approval. I, for one, would sleep better if it turned out Reagan had approved the scheme. It frightens me to think that he didn’t.

This leads to the most crucial—and underdiscussed—issue in this whole episode. When serious policies are made apart from the constitutionally prescribed system and ratified in an emotional public reaction, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that should be of grave concern, especially to Christians. The belief that law must be grounded in the transcendent truth that comes from God’s revelation has been a cornerstone of American democracy for 200 years. Rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it has been the principal bulwark to protect the weak and the powerless, and to preserve free institutions.

The question we should ponder, then, is more important than Ollie North’s charisma—or even our policies in Iran and Central America, crucial as those are. It is whether we are still governed by the rule of law and intelligent discourse—or whether this great legacy is being swept away by the national hysteria the electronic tube instantaneously induces.

It is ironic that as we celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution, the quintessential expression of the rule of law, we also mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of full-scale network news. The Ollie North affair should cause us to question which has the greater influence on American life and values today.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.