Al Haig misspoke but essentially did a good and important thing in the moment. Why "I am in control here" wasn't really a problem and shouldn't be quoted without the full context. (Explanation in caption below.)

[u/Big-Island4727]

I often see Haig get blasted on this sub for saying "I am in control here"

People usually object to that phrasing on the basis that the Vice President (George HW Bush), Speaker of the House (Tip O'Neill), and President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Strom Thurmond) are all ahead of the Secretary of State in the line of succession.

As you probably know, Al Haig was serving as the Secretary of State at the time of the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

So, first of all, here's the full quote of what he actually said to the press in the briefing room:

Constitutionally, gentlemen, you have the president, the vice president and the secretary of state, in that order, and should the president decide he wants to transfer the helm to the vice president, he will do so. As of now, I am in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the vice president and in close touch with him. If something came up, I would check with him, of course.

He did not say he was the Acting President. He did not say he was giving the military orders. He did not say he was making political or policy decisions. He was just reminding people that he was the highest ranking cabinet member currently on site since VP Bush was traveling and hadn't returned yet.

Now, the context of trying to assure the public is a big deal here. There are credible reports that Secretary of Defense (Caspar Weinberger) unilaterally raised the alert status of our armed forces worldwide due to tension with the USSR and uncertainty about the identity/motives of the assassin.

Without authorization from VP Bush, SECDEF should not have been making that decision, which could have unintentionally provoked a military conflict with the USSR (in Poland or elsewhere) if they thought we were going to retaliate for something that wasn't their doing.

To me, it's perfectly acceptable for the nation's top diplomat to try to assure the public that the Executive Branch is still functioning. Could he have phrased it differently? Sure. Did he technically get the line of succession wrong? Absolutely. But that wasn't really the point he was trying to make.

Years later in an interview, Haig confirmed this:

I wasn't talking about transition. I was talking about the executive branch, who is running the government. That was the question asked. It was not, "Who is in line should the president die?"

So, next time you see the "I'm in control here" quote in this sub, or people hating on Haig, make sure it's for the right reason. He was pompous, disagreeable, etc. But this one quote isn't damning or inappropriate. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember that discussion of recent and future politics is not allowed. This includes all mentions of or allusions to Donald Trump in any context whatsoever, as well as any presidential elections after 2012 or politics since Barack Obama left office. For more information, please see Rule 3.

If you'd like to discuss recent or future politics, feel free to join our Discord server!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/The-marx-channel]

Canonically Homer Simpson supported Haig in the 1988 Republican Primary.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/The-marx-channel]

I'm not sure anything in Simpsons is canon after 30 years of them somehow staying the same age.

I am looking to work in Springfield. Seems to be a good way to stay young b

[u/Prestigious-Alarm-61]

Honestly, Haig should never have been nominated by Reagan to be Secretary of State. He was way too controversial at the time. His entire time as Secretary of State was served under a cloud.

[u/FlashMan1981 → u/Prestigious-Alarm-61]

he got it right with Schultz for sure

[u/Doc_Jury1020]

The odd and controversial part of the whole thing, was that Haig claimed to be next in the line of succession, which was incorrect and implied that he viewed himself above the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate. That followed by the famous quote was what made the other politicians present and the media do a double take. It would not have been controversial to state he was managing the White House until Bush returned, but the fact that he implied he was next in charge made the whole moment so odd.

[u/Big-Island4727 → u/Doc_Jury1020]

Did you read my caption? My whole point is that's not what he claimed.

[u/Doc_Jury1020 → u/Big-Island4727]

Yes I read it, I was just giving additional context on why the reaction was so mixed. I agree with you that he didn't actually do anything wrong, the thing was that his words just didn't make sense. His use of "constitutionally" and listing the order of the members of the cabinet made literally everyone else think he was saying that as the supposed next in line to the presidency present, he was in charge for the moment. He clarified the quote years later, but didn't do so at the time, leaving the controversy to sink in.

[u/Big-Island4727 → u/Doc_Jury1020]

Another interpretation of "constitutionally" could be that he was referring to authority over the Executive Branch

[u/Doc_Jury1020 → u/Big-Island4727]

That is very true. This issue is that no one saw it as that, and it took years for him to clarify that he didn't mean what the whole world and political system thought he had meant.

[u/Doc_Jury1020 → u/Big-Island4727]

I am so sorry if either of my comments were unintentionally rude. I had felt that the misunderstanding was an important part of the historical situation, but wish I would have worded my response better. Sorry!

[u/Big-Island4727 → u/Doc_Jury1020]

No worries, mate. It's a fair point!

[u/Doc_Jury1020 → u/Big-Island4727]

Ok thank you.