MUCH has been said about Dan Quayle's hard-line policy toward Russia, Gorbachev and the Malta Summit. He's standing his ground, he tells us, and won't be convinced by a smiling Kremlin leader that all is fine and dandy under the Iron Curtain.

Do they expect us to forget 1956, 1968 or 1979? Do they really think we can ignore the tanks in Budapest, in Prague, in Kabul? No, Quayle tells the talk-show audiences, it is going to take a lot more than glasnost to erase his memory.

Many are not convinced that Quayle's assessments are wholeheartedly sincere. There has to be some explanation for his recent ventures into intellectual manliness:

Theory one: Much Ado About Nothing. Republican party loyalists insist that it's not intellectual manliness. President Bush has explained Quayle's assertions away. They don't exist; they are only nuances in emphases, only subtle intonations, only subjective expressions of the same responses.

When did the Bush administration stop understanding English? It is insulting, even to Quayle, to equate his "evil empire" rhetoric with Bush's glasnost fever. It is equally insulting to claim that the American public can't tell the difference.

Theory two: Appeasing the Conservatives. This is the "right wing conservatives are so stupid, they don't know anything" tack. Believing that conservatives are angry with Bush for his soft Gorbachev-loving persona, the administration sent Quayle out to appease the critics. Meanwhile, back in Malta, Bush was telling Gorbachev that Quayle had no influence in foreign policy matters.

This theory has problems from the start. Right wing consevatives are not all that stupid, and even if they were, they are not so stupid to believe Quayle has any bearing on Secretary of State James Baker's view of foreign policy in the 1990s.

Theory three: Be a Man. Few can deny that Quayle is one of the least respected people in public office, golf scores notwithstanding. Quayle's military record coupled and his near disappearance until after the election make him an unwilling victim of the perennial wimp-factor.

This is an administration concerned with such public perceptions. What to do about Quayle, they worried, eyeing the 1992 presidential election. The only other alternative--dropping Quayle from the ticket--would be evidence that Bush's first decision as a candidate was a bad one.

So, trapped with Quayle, Republican strategists have decided that a bolder v.p. is a better v.p.

Theory four: I Am Man, Hear me Roar. A combination of ego and ignorance, Quayle is showing an "I don't give a damn" quality. He has been consistently badgered by the press, mocked by Democrats, and ignored by Republicans.

After withstanding so much abuse, he performs without giving a damn. All we are seeing is an overextended ego a la Leona Helmsly.

THESE explanations are all plausible, but they ignore the Bush foreign policy towards Eastern Europe--prudence.

And so the most probable theory is Theory five: Cover Your Tracks. With Quayle chanting the Conservative Line and Bush chanting the "End of History" Line, there is little that the administration hasn't covered. Quayle's public statements put just the necessary tinge of cynicism on all this euphoria. The administration has little knowledge of what is to come, and little input into how it will be done. They are sitting pigeons, and, honestly, that's risky public policy. So, instead, they'll casually glide on the wave of current events.

Bush's only idea for the future is to save face. This policy may lack vision and courage, but it doesn't threaten future elections.