President Reagan selected Alexander Haig to be his secretary of state and Richard Allen to be his national security adviser, and almost immediately the stories began, alleging a "tug of war" between the two men. It has been said the Haig-Allen feud was reminiscent of the Brzezinski-Vance conflict in the Carter administration and was creating the same impression of a fractionalized foreign policy.
The latest round in this internecine fighting was spotlighted this week in Jack Anderson's column, where he said: "the secretary of state has reportedly one foot on a banana peel and could skid right out of the Cabinet before summer." He also quoted an unnamed White House official as saying "there is something about the man [Haig] that tends to raise the hair on the back of the president's neck."
Haig countered that someone in the White House was waging guerrilla warfare against him. James Baker and Richard Allen promptly denied they were the culprits, while President Reagan reassured everyone that Haig was "one of the best secretaries of state that we have had in a long time."
Left unanswered was who was doing what to whom in the Reagan inner sanctum. The problem seems to evolve more around temperament and personalities than around any basic differences of opinion.
Richard Allen was born on Jan. 1, 1936 and has his sun in Capricorn. Alexander Haig was born on Dec. 12, 1924 and has his sun in Sagittarius. James Baker was born on April 28, 1930 and has his sun in Taurus. Allen and Haig have Mercury in Capricorn (and so does President Reegan), and even though Baker's Mercury is in Taurus, it is still another earth sign; thus, compatible. Therefore, all those men communicate with one another and think along similar lines. But their personalities and temperaments could not be more divergent.
Alexander Haig is a deeply emotional, passionate man, but his feelings are turned inwards, are well disciplined and very focused. He is a very private man. Such a combination creates a very intense personality and this intensity probably has given rise to speculation about his "great presidential ambitions," an ambition quite absent from the chart.
Such internal dynamics make one capable of total commitment to a cause or a person. Haig's loyalty, once given, is unshakable and he will fight to the death for something he believes in.
Office politics, rumors, flattery, backbiting or back-slapping are all beneath his dignity. He is what he is and will never stoop to anything underhanded.
At the same time, he will make a formidable opponent, for he will stand up and fight. He is not a man who abandons a battlefield, no matter what the odds against him. Since his chart is karmically tied to President Reagan's chart, the chances are remote the president will let him go. It is very hard to break karmic links. As to the statement that "he raises the hair on the president's neck," it appears to be exaggerated wishful thinking. It is Haig's emotional intensity that may make some people uncomfortable around him, especially if they are much weaker than Alexander Haig, which is not the case of Ronald Reagan.
Richard Allen's chart, in comparison with Haig's chart, is much weaker and much more pliable. In contrast to the rumored overriding ambition of Alexander Haig, Allen's chart indicates he is truly ambitious, but more diplomatic and cautious than Haig. Allen's chart also indicates he would have preferred Haig's job as secretary of state, rather than his present one, since he has a genuine interest and liking for foreign affairs. This interest, combined with his ambition, prods him to put his "fingers in the pie," and immediately pits him against Haig's need to be his own man.
Alexander Haig's desire to be his own man does not spring from the drive to be chief of the land, nor is it his supposed ambition that prods him to formulate foreign policy. It is simply the desire of a man who likes to take full responsibility for what he thinks or does. Haig is not a man who likes to put his imprimatur on anyone else's thinking. Neither can he stand anyone's imprimatur on his own, even if it alters only a comma. His ideas are his -- someone else's are theirs -- and he opposes merging them into some hybrid.
James Baker's chart indicates another ambitious, stubborn and forceful man who is probably much more congenial with Allen than with Haig. Baker, with his chart, can influence and/or manipulate Allen, but he could never budge Alexander Haig, for no one could manipulate or push Haig around. He is simply too strong and too intelligent.
And thus, astrologically, I can provide a very simple solution to the problem. If one can understand Alexander Haig, one can turn him from a tiger into a pussycat. All that he needs is to be given autonomy and total responsibility for a project, since he does not believe in collective thinking. If he can then present his project to President Reagan, as the sole author of that project, and if he is sure that it is President Reagan who as his authority figure either accepts or rejects it, he will have no problem even if his idea is dropped.
But if he feels it is someone on a lower level (Allen, Edwin Meese, Baker, etc.) who is passing the ultimate judgment, it will be very difficult for him to operate. And it will not matter at all whether the judgment of his "equals" was favorable or not, for while Alexander Haig can submit easily to the highest office, he will never submit to anyone whom he does not accept as his authority figure. Under such circumstances he will become a tiger. His chart shows a great deal of stress in 1982, and he should watch his health. Allen's chart indicates some kind of readjustment and possibly some fundamental changes in the area of work.