But Can Reagan Be Elected?

Yes, say Republicans, as they assess Carter's weaknesses

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: "A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election."

But last week, after Ford gave up his own ambitions and Reagan's nomination took on a look of inevitability, a reassessment was under way across the country. The consensus was that although many hazards lie ahead, Ronald Reagan indeed has a chance to be elected as the 40th President of the U.S.

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle. Nonetheless, few political observers now write off Reagan's chances, and certainly not Jimmy Carter's chief election strategists.

As recently as last month, before Reagan's New Hampshire victory, White House advisers looked forward with relish to the possibility of Reagan as their target. No longer. Says one Georgian: "People like what Reagan's saying about the economy, about foreign policy. He's offering simple solutions and that's what people want." Adds another White House aide: "To dismiss Ronald Reagan as a right-wing nut would be a very serious error--for us or anybody else."

California Pollster Mervin Field, who just last fall felt that Reagan's nomination would lead to a Republican disaster, has changed his mind. Says Field: "I just don't see how you could dispassionately and factually argue that it will be a Carter victory. It's going to be a very close race."

Unlike the situation in 1964, when Democratic Incumbent Lyndon Johnson was still very popular, Reagan confronts a Democratic President who, after a temporary surge in the national polls because of the crises in Iran and Afghanistan, is now plagued by declining job ratings. The odds are that by fall, Carter will be trying to defend his management of an economy with double-digit inflation and rising unemployment, gasoline prices of upwards of $2 per gal. and a reduced budget that offends many of the traditional Democratic-constituencies. New York Opinion Researcher Daniel Yankelovich sums it up: "The biggest thing Reagan has going for him is Carter."

Yankelovich believes that the American electorate has already shown a predisposition to replace Carter. This was manifested in the early eagerness for a Kennedy candidacy, which proved so disappointing when it became a reality. The brief bubbling of support for a Ford candidacy was part of the same feeling. If popular unhappiness with domestic and world problems finally comes to rest at Carter's doorstep, voters may begin to see all sorts of previously invisible virtues in Ronald Reagan.

Not only does Reagan face a weakened President, he also presents a less frightening prospect than the apparently more reckless Goldwater. Says TIME Washington Bureau Chief Robert Ajemian: "To many people, Reagan is reassuring, almost parental. He is too fatalistic and too modest to be a crusader."

So far in this campaign, Reagan has done little to damage that image. Says Florida National Committeewoman Paula Hawkins, a John Connally supporter: "He has been dignified, professional under stress. He responds well when he gets punched. He's gentlemanly, answers with humor and with enough acid to let you know he has heard."

Reagan cannot hope to win, however, unless he moves beyond the hard-line conservative base that has sustained him since he first appeared on the national political scene as a spokesman for Goldwater himself. He has no experience in Washington politics or foreign affairs. Both Congress and the federal bureaucracy are as unfathomable to him as they were to Carter. Indeed one of Reagan's major supporters in the Senate notes that the Californian is uncomfortable even visiting Washington. But Reagan does have his record as a relatively moderate two-term Governor of California to wave as proof of his ability to cope with major responsibilities. And he does wave it, pointing out that he won the governorship only by attracting Democratic support and that he managed to leave a $500 million surplus for his successor, Jerry Brown. He appears to be making some effort to reassure less conservative voters that he understands their concerns. He told a New York audience: "Increasingly employment must be a major priority for helping the cities." And in Chicago he mixed his opposition to the SALT II treaty with support for arms reduction.

There is evidence that voters other than Republican archconservatives are beginning to support Reagan. In last week's Illinois primary, according to one poll, 40% of the Republican vote was cast by Democratic and Independent crossovers, and roughly 30% of these went to Reagan. Some of the voters are those who once supported George Wallace--but not all of them. Reagan has a personal following all his own.

The Republicans have been bedeviled off and on since 1964 by the bitter party split between moderates and conservatives. In 1976, Reagan's defeat at the convention led many of his supporters to offer at most lukewarm support to the Ford candidacy. This year, so far, the party has not divided sharply, at least not until John Anderson arose as a mildly successful liberal. Reagan himself has been a benign campaigner--last week he even offered to help his defeated rivals pay off their campaign debts--and the odds are that he will enjoy more party support this fall than Ford did in 1976. Says New York State National Committeeman Richard Rosenbaum, who had been a Ford admirer: "Republicans are hungry for a victory. Even those who find Reagan a little too far to the right for their tastes will back him in the general election." Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh, a former Ford backer, will support Reagan and thinks the Californian can win if he seeks support even from normally Democratic constituencies. Said he: "I would hope that no candidate would write off the support of labor unions because they have traditionally supported Democrats." Given the deeply ingrained loyalities of such groups, this will be no easy task for Reagan.

Just as the Republican Party is closer to Reagan's point of view than it was eight or even four years ago, the country as a whole has moved right. Reagan's reach for the center will be shorter now than before. Says Pollster Yankelovich: "Reagan should not assume this is a mandate to define a right-wing program for the country. Rather it is a chance to define a new policy for the center."

But to say that Reagan can be elected is by no means to say that he will be. On the contrary, he looks very much the underdog. Some party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: "There's a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party's response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years. We're at the same stage the Whigs were. There's no choice."

Carter, for all his problems, has the power of incumbency. As President, he can react to challenges by changing the direction of the whole Government, which he has done recently by attempting to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year, a course urged by all Republican candidates. Carter is an undeniably deft--and extremely lucky--politician. He also is a relatively known quantity in the White House, whereas the inexperienced Reagan would require a definite leap of faith by voters supporting him. Says Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti: "There's a variation on the old cliche: you don't change horses' asses in midstream. You've got one, and at least you know its contours."

Reagan has a history of committing rhetorical blunders that drive away voters. His quest in 1976 was damaged when he suggested vaguely, without proper research and consideration, that $90 billion in federal programs should be turned back to the states. He then spent months explaining that the affected programs would not be eliminated, only transferred. As Governor, Reagan was outraged by student unrest and once proclaimed: "The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity."

Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan's relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: "We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones."

This approach to public policy continues to characterize Reagan's 1980 campaign. One of his proposed cures for inflation is the notion that a huge tax cut will restore the productive vitality of the economy and control price rises. Most economists believe this approach is nonsense, that it would simply fuel more inflation. Reagan also asserts that "inflation comes from the Government spending more than the Government takes in. It will go away when the Government stops doing that." Economists say that a balanced federal budget would still trim less than a percentage point from the inflation rate.

Of the energy problem, Reagan says: "From the time of the horseless carriage until 1971, there was no energy shortage. What happened is that in 1971 Government got into the energy business. If Government would just get out of the energy business and leave the oil companies alone, the greatest petroleum geologists have told me we would not have to buy from OPEC." Reagan ignores the fact that before 1971, the Government was heavily involved in energy, largely by erecting tariff barriers to protect the prices of domestic oil and to limit imports. As for those future supplies that Reagan sees waiting to be drilled, the American Petroleum Institute says that if all the economically recoverable oil in the U.S. were being drilled, production would be increased by 4 million bbl. a day, only half of current import levels.

Reagan's loose statements and flabby positions will make splendid targets for Jimmy Carter. John Sears, Reagan's former campaign manager, was worried by that very problem during his year-and-a-half reign, and after Reagan fired him in late February, Sears complained publicly that Reagan does not have well-prepared policy positions. Frets Sears: "I'm not sure that he is now adequately briefed on matters on which politicians and the press and the people hold him to account."

As Reagan attempts to become the oldest President ever elected in the U.S.,* his choice for the second spot on his ticket will have to be seen as instantly capable of taking over the presidency. There has already been speculation that Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee or Rival George Bush could be possible choices.

As the political situation stands at this moment, a Reagan-Baker ticket could offer a worthy challenge to Carter-Mondale, who after all managed to defeat the Republican ticket in 1976 by only 56 electoral votes. If the Californian can hold the states won then by Ford, the switch of only a few states, such as Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana or South Carolina, out of the Democratic column could make the "unelectable" Ronald Reagan the next President of the U.S.

*The six oldest previously elected Presidents and their ages when inaugurated: William Henry Harrison, 68; James Buchanan, 65; Zachary Taylor, 64; Dwight Eisenhower, 62; Andrew Jackson, 61; John Adams, 61.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.