An Interview with Reagan

"The people want the Government off their backs"

Tanned and fit, Ronald Reagan quietly prepared for the campaign to come last week by meeting with his staff, consulting Republican members of Congress, and appearing at events to raise money to pay the campaign debts of the foes he had defeated. As always, he projected an air of casual, almost bland self-assurance, and with reason: the latest polls showed that he had edged past Jimmy Carter. For two hours, Reagan met with Time Inc.'s editors and outlined the views on domestic and foreign issues that he firmly believes will carry him to the White House. Excerpts:

Q. Governor, how justified are the complaints that the Europeans are making against us these days?

A. Well, I think we have been very insensitive about the actions we have taken concerning them. I think there should be a far closer relationship between us. I think there is every indication that some of our European friends are beginning to wonder if they shouldn't look more toward--or have a rapprochement with --the Soviet Union, because they are not sure whether we are dependable or not.

Q. How would a Reagan Administration convince them that this is not the case?

A. I think the Reagan Administration, first of all, would do it by action, by consulting with them, making it evident to them that we do value that alliance and want to preserve it.

Q. Do you think they should support us more firmly on such matters as sanctions against the Soviets over Afghanistan?

A. Had we handled the situation properly --yes. If we had worked out a grand strategy with them, if we had a plan instead of reacting to each incident, but we didn't. We turned to the Europeans and said, "Hey, you know, join us in something or other."

Q. Are you at all concerned about the dedication of the Europeans to Israel's integrity and security?

A. I question whether they have the same feeling that we have about that. I do believe it is a moral obligation. But it is a two-way street--we are receiving benefits too. It is not all altruism on our part. Israel represents the one stable democracy sharing values with us in that part of the world, and they have a proven military capability that stands as a deterrent to further disruption and chaos. I think we should make it plain that we are going to keep our commitment to the continued existence of Israel.

Q. Would you try to persuade Israel to stop settling on the West Bank?

A. Frankly, I don't know the answer to that. Under U.N. Resolution 242, the West Bank was supposed to be open to all, and then Jordan and Israel were to work out an agreement for the area.* Under those terms, I do not see how it is illegal for Israel to move in settlements.

Q. Governor, what course do you feel should be pursued on the hostages in Iran?

A. Unless you have access to all the options the President has, it is almost impossible to know what could be done now. I think that it has been mishandled. I think all the things the President has done over these long months were things that should have been done in the first few days. But some place along the line there had to be an ultimatum. Here again, because we have lost so much influence with friends and allies, we were not in a position to go to the rest of the world and say, look, this is a violation of international law, and present to them the idea of the world literally quarantining Iran.

Part of the lack of confidence in us is the seeming inability of this country to solve its very great economic problems. And there is the in-and-out diplomacy of this Administration, persuading West Germany's Helmut Schmidt to allow neutron warheads, which was a great and tough political decision for him, and then changing our minds. They need to see some consistency.

Q. In January, President Carter said that the Persian Gulf area was of vital interest to the U.S. Our military experts said we had no means of enforcing that definition other than perhaps by strategic warfare. Would you approve that kind of statement--extending our commitment beyond the limits perhaps of our ability to enforce it?

A. No, because that is where you lose credibility. Why did he make the statement on television about the unacceptability of the Soviet brigade in Cuba? And then later say it was acceptable?

Q. You would not have made that statement?

A. Not unless you had something you could do if the brigade remained.

Q. Should we have had something in mind that we would do?

A. Well, yes-yes. Now don't ask me specifics because, again, I don't know all the options that are available. But if we had a plan, if we knew where we could not allow the Soviet Union to advance aggressively, then you would have to have in mind something that you would do if they did advance. Let's take Afghanistan. I'm not trigger-happy. There have been four wars in my lifetime, and I believe the goal is world peace, but I believe the U.S. is the only nation that can preserve the peace. Can ensure it. And I think that the conduct of this Administration, with its vacillation and all, can accidentally escalate a problem into a conflict that we do not want. Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. So when they invaded Afghanistan, maybe that was the time for us to have said, "Look, don't talk to us about trade. There will be none. Don't talk to us about treaties, like SALT II. We are not going to have any communication with you until [those forces in Afghanistan] are back in the Soviet Union."

Q. Would you go to Madrid in 1980 to be part of the conference with the Soviet Union following up the Helsinki accords of 1975?

A. Frankly, I have an uneasy feeling that going to Madrid is negating what we thought we could accomplish by boycotting the Olympics. If the athletes can't go, why should the diplomats go?

Q. Speaking of places that are essential to us, do you see any way of preventing the nightmare of a native radical movement toppling the monarchy in Saudi Arabia?

A. My own feeling is that such a development is possible, if not probable.

Q. Is Saudi Arabia a place where we should draw the line?

A. Yes Q. How?

A. I do not think that the Soviet Union is ready for an outright confrontation with us or with our allies. We should follow a course of action that would lead them to believe that if they got overconfident and decided to go in there, they would be running into the possibility--the probability --of a confrontation with us. I question whether an uprising in Saudi Arabia would be totally free of Soviet influence. I think their hand would be in there stirring the pot and they would be ready to heed a call to bring order.

Q. Governor, if you're elected, what are the chances of your Secretary of State being Henry Kissinger?

A. Well, let me say that this is a subject I cannot get into at this point. I am going to do a little tentative thinking about that before I know whether I have the job or not, and I am going to follow pretty much the same course I followed when I was Governor--using a knowledgeable task force to explore the whole nation for potential appointees, and no one is ruled out. Whatever appointments I make, I want people who have to step down to take a job in Government. Whose achievements are such that it is a sacrifice for them to be part of Government. I think the trouble with this Administration is that for everybody they got in, it was a step up. They never had it so good.

Q. What do you think the Government ought to be doing about the recession?

A. I think the Federal Government has created this recession in its attempt to fight inflation by doing what the President swore up and down he would not do --by using unemployment as a tool. I think it is time to reduce Government spending, to eliminate waste and extravagance wherever you find it--and there's plenty of it--to review programs as to whether they are cost effective or not, and at the same time reduce tax rates in such a way as to increase productivity by increasing incentive. I think you also remove unnecessary thousands of regulations on business and industry that are holding productivity down.

Q. But what about Social Security, which has increases built in to keep up with inflation? Are you prepared to take it on?

A. Well, yes. But you are not going to lower the grant to the truly deserving men or women who have worked all their lives. But let's take the disability program under Social Security, for instance. Son of Sam, the murderer, is getting $300 a month because he is too mentally incapacitated to hold a job.

Q. A lot of people are arguing that Social Security ought to be re-indexed to keep retirement benefits from increasing faster than wages. What do you think about that?

A. I think it is something really worth looking into and so is the fact that Social Security is geared to the total cost of living index, which incorporates a great many things that are no longer problems for old people--real estate, for example. They are not buying homes as they once did.

Q. It seems typical of each campaign that the man who has not been President has diagnosed something wrong with the spirit of this country. Do you perceive such a defect?

A. Well, the President said there was a malaise in the land--he said the people were sick. The people are sick and tired --of Government. And people want to be proud again. They do not like our country being pushed around. I think they want to believe that the Government believes in them. That they do not have to be wet-nursed by the Government. And they want Government off their backs. And I know--I've got a farm. I farmed at a time when I never heard from the Government. Now you get a 19-page questionnaire--same farm, but every year you're expected to answer how many acres are in crops, how many acres are in timberland or pasture. I just threw the damn thing in the wastebasket the last few years and I haven't gotten any follow-up at all. They've stopped sending the forms.

Q. Governor, I do not want to discourage you, but almost exactly four years ago, we had another farmer to lunch, and you would be astonished at the similarity in your comments.

A. Well, I know. Hell, I could have campaigned on the same things he campaigned on. The only difference was he forgot them between Plains and Washington. He's done virtually a 180DEG turnaround on almost everything he said he was going to do. Again, I just plead my record. In California, I kept trying to do the things I said I was going to. He had a record and, damn it, he was not a good Governor. Streamlining government, for example. He did not streamline government. He just bunched up a whole lot of departments under one title.

Q. Governor, do you have any confidence that you will be the first President in sometime to break into the bureauracy of the Federal Government?

A. I have no illusions about the difficulty, but yes, I do, and maybe this is one of the places where my age is an advantage. What the hell do I have to lose?

Q. How much is Southern pride going to help Carter this time?

A. I'm very hopeful I am going to dent the South. Ford got more white votes in the South than Carter, but Carter was more successful with the blacks, and that was the edge. I would like to feel that I could get more black votes. I think we have more to offer than this Administration has. In addition, I think that maybe we can get a bigger turnout of whites for our side, and that does not call for racism. I am cautiously optimistic.

Q. How do you view the candidacy of John Anderson? Do you think it's any kind of threat to the two-party system?

A. I do not think that it is healthy. If he were advocating some view that both parties were neglecting, then it could be healthy. But his campaign just smacks of an ego trip to me. And frankly, other than his 50-c- a gallon tax on gasoline, I'd like to know what the hell he represents. I don't see what it is that he's really after, or what it is that he's preaching.

Q. We had all expected that you were going to Europe this summer. We now hear that you probably are not going. Could we get that cleared up?

A. Yes. I think that right now there's a better use of my time than making the trip.

Q. Like what?

A. Like getting ready for a day coming up in November.

* U.N. Resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, which would include the West Bank. The question of settlements is not mentioned or implied.

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