Washington gets glimpse of Reagan’s ‘style’

Press, 26 November 1980, Page 11

Washington gets glimpse of Reagan’s ‘style’

i By,

James Reston

* of the *‘New York Times,” through NZPA The pause between administrations in Washington is a little like the hush during the prelude to one of Wagner’s operas — all. fiddles and comforting melody before the curtain goes up and the drums begin to roll. Ronald Reagan and his leading lady were in •'Washington for a dress re- 1 "hearsal, and they did not miss a cue or skip a line. No stage manager could possibly have arranged a more perfect setting. Washington sparkled in the crisp clear autumn air, and even the disappointed Democrats were conceding that the President-elect really had “style.” It is a slipper?' word, usually implying in Washington that the man is all style and no substance and should be tossed to the society writers; But “style” in politics, at least in the beginning of a new administration, is a kind of substance, for it sets the tone and mood for the . coming drama. Carter came to Washington four years ago determined to "face the lions,” to be an "effective” if not a popular President, to confront the hard issues and reform the Government and evan his party, with the support of the Congress and the people ic possible, alone if necessary. He built no alliances with the elders of his party and the Congress, and he inspired no personal affection, for he concentrated on the substance of things as he saw them — often changing the issues as he went along — but he failed to develop the style needed to achieve them. This may be his political epitaph. Reagan, on the other hand, came in in a different style. He went around town paying his respects to the President, the Congress and the Chief Justice as if he were still campaigning for their support — which of course he is. He attended a '.couple of parties with some of his supporters and some; of his political oppo? nents, and then flew home

to California, feeling, as most people in Washington also did. that everybody had had a jolly good time. Reagan is optimistic, maybe with the optimism of inexperience or even ignorance. Unlike Carter, he does not think he can stamp out sin or impose human rights on a divided and selfish world. But he does think that maybe he can tame the Soviets with larger defence budgets, cut taxes by 10 per cent a year over the next three years, reduce prices and unemployment, and still balance the Budget. It is a popular vision, and may even last until he takes office on January 20 and has to face the facts. Still, Reagan has some other personal advantages which go to the question of both substance and style. He has a sense of humour, if not a sense of history. Unlike Carter, Nixon, and Johnson, he

seems to have a limited view of his own importance. and even of his own campaign rhetoric. Perhaps more important, he has the gift of speech. This may be more significant than anything else in the coming year. Carter sensed the problems of his time and had a vague vision of the ominous coming years, but he never managed to explain them clearly to the people, so that they could understand what he was trying to do. This will be a big challenge for the new President: to make clear that we are living in a different. even a revolutionary period at home and abroad — requiring, as Lincoln said more than 100 years ago, that since the world is new, “We must think anew.” Reagan has made a good beginning since the election. He has been modest, he has been friendly to his opponents,

he has insisted that the foreign policy of the nation must be non-parti-san. And. maybe he is right in thinking that if only he can “Get the government off the backs of the people" we will have enough money to increase the defence budget, reduce taxes, and balance the budget But even most of the men. now being considered for his Cabinet have their doubts. Carter insisted that there was a “malaise” in the nation, that we were living beyond our means; and that we must therefore sacrifice to restore order at home and defend a decent civilisation in the world. He suggested that we were excessively worried about the Soviet menace and should concentrate on limiting the arms race. But these were unpopular arguments that he never managed to articulate and that in the end helped defeat him. History may be more generous to him than his contemporaries. Reagan may very well do betteri Though the Republicans have controlled the White House for only eight of the last 20 years, he has a remarkably good roster of experienced Republicans to chose from for his Cabinet and staff. It would probably be a mistake to _ believe in all the cliches that-have been bandied . about since the election, to the effect that Reagan now has a "mandate” to preside over a new era ,of Republican conservative control. This was said when Eisenhower won in ..the elections of 1952 and 1956, but it did not happen. Johnson won in ’64 and .Nixon in ’72 by much larger popular votes than Reagan’s, but their parties lost the next Presidential election. So Reagan has a historic opportunity, but not a cinch. It is not clear that he has a policy that will command the support of his party let alone the Congress, but he has a relaxed style • of friendship and speech,. and he seeks co-operation . rather than confrontation at home and abroad. This has given Washington a sense of a new beginning and even of' some hope.