Too Close to See Clearly

By Hugh Sidey

The Presidency

The longest-running story from Washington in the past two years has been about the problems of Ronald Reagan's White House staff and Cabinet. The trials and tribulations of Meese-Deaver-Baker and Shultz-Clark-Weinberger have probably been covered as thoroughly as any specific issue of the economy or national security. The story keeps replaying day after day like a bad soap opera. Through it all has been the not-too-faint suggestion of an Executive structure stalled and befuddled by ignorance or enmity and always on the brink of explosion or collapse.

Political scientists meeting in Chicago recently disagreed. Their rather startling conclusions were reported by the Washington Post's David Broder: "Papers and panels at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association draw a picture of a Reagan White House with notably high levels of policy agreement, staff coordination and political acumen."

There has been something terribly wrong about the staff story if these scholars are correct, or even partly so. The political scientists made it clear that none of these studies indicate that Reagan's presidency will be considered successful when all is said and done. Some of the experts took pains to point out their lack of sympathy for Reagan's politics and policies. What they said was that Reagan's Executive apparatus has worked well for him.

Rutgers University's Charles E. Jacob credited Reagan with creating "revolutionary change" in economic areas. Michael E. Kraft of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and Norman J. Vig of Carleton College noted that Reagan's changes in environmental policy, whether good or bad, had discredited those who believed the American presidency had become a powerless relic. Other professors found that Reagan had created "a sense in the country that he is addressing fundamental historical questions," thus giving his Administration cohesion; that there is 50% more internal communication in Reagan's White House than there was in Jimmy Carter's; that "we should not be lulled by Reagan's inattentiveness to detail and nuances... As President, Reagan has imposed exceptional discipline on his Administration."

Without attempting to, the political scientists diagnosed a classic perversity of Washington. The dialogue and mood of the capital are often controlled by the 50,000 men and women who work as lobbyists, legislative aides and journalists. They are nurtured, entertained, and often guided by trivial events and gossip. Many of the 15,000 lobbyists get paid on the basis of their access to White House staff and congressional leaders; every scrap of capital intelligence has outsize value to them. The Congress is now freighted with 20,000 employees, many of whom spend their time plotting how to help or thwart the Administration. The 15,000 Washington journalists feed off these 35,000 sources and frequently mistake their priorities for those of the country at large.

Given the same scrutiny as the White House, virtually any human organization--corporate, academic or governmental--would often appear incapable of functioning. Yet the country goes on, and so does the White House. The more important part of leadership, as the political scientists point out, consists of articulating and advocating broad goals. This Reagan has done, despite staff arguments and upheavals.

In the past few months the networks have quietly begun to de-emphasize some Washington news. They are finding that viewers are more interested in the news around them than in the preoccupations of Washington insiders. At next year's political science convention there may be a paper or two on how it came to be that the American people had a clearer sense of priorities than the movers and shakers in the capital. That is an old story, but it is one that bears repeating. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.