An Interview with the President

Reagan talks about the campaign, political shifts and a second term

During the final eight days of the 1984 election campaign, Ronald Reagan met twice with the editors of TIME for exclusive interviews. The first occasion was in the Oval Office, the second in Los Angeles'Century Plaza Hotel on the afternoon of his election victory. At both sessions he was filled with zest and optimism as he talked of where he felt America stood today and what might be achieved in his second term. Excerpts:

Q. A lot of people have said that this election may bring a political realignment in America. Do you think that is so?

A. I've gotten superstitious about talking about things of that kind. But I do believe that there has been a realignment in the sense of political philosophy. Some of the things that we have tried to do in the economy have gained support. There is less of that great division between the two parties philosophically. Not the leadership; the Democratic leadership clings to the old tax-and-tax and spend-and-spend philosophies. But I think there are people out there, that, regardless of affiliation, want a return to a free economy and less Government invasion of their lives and their businesses. Whether that could make for a political realignment, or whether we are going to see some basic changes in the philosophy of the parties--that too could happen.

Some people stay where they are in their own party, but they make their party go in a different direction.

Q. What can be done to encourage that process in a second term?

A. Continue our program of reducing the intrusiveness of Government, reducing the rate of increase in Government spending, have tax policies that provide incentive for growth in the economy and let the people see that, to their surprise, it works.

Q. Do you view a second four years as primarily an opportunity to fine-tune what you have already accomplished, or do you think there is a chance for more large steps in the direction of your goals?

A. That is like asking a quarterback who has taken the team from his own ten-yard line down to the opposing team's 20-yard line is he going to change his game plan? No. It's working. We started out to reduce the size of Government. We started out to provide the incentives, taxwise, that would create economic growth and reduce unemployment. We started out to rebuild our defenses and then to actively seek arms reductions. Those are still our policies.

Q. Is tax reform the biggest specific domestic goal?

A. Oh no, I think it's a very important one and I think it has been a long time coming. When you have a system that can have at least $100 billion that is not being collected from people who legitimately owe it--there's a flaw. [Tax reform] is a part of the whole economic problem that faces us. I think we've made a good start and this is a case now of going further with it. One thing, above all, I won't stand still for anything under the guise of reform that is just another way of saying a tax increase.

Q. In your U.N. speech in September, you made the point very vigorously about your desire for genuine arms reduction. Do you envision much more time and energy being focused on that?

A. We are going to devote whatever time it takes to bring that about. We do not give in to the idea that the Soviet Union walked away permanently from those negotiations. And I just happen to believe that we cannot go into another generation with the world living under the threat of those weapons and knowing that some madman can push the button some place. It doesn't even have to be one of the superpowers. A war could probably be triggered, as nuclear weapons proliferate, by someone else doing it.

My hope has been, and my dream, that we can get the Soviet Union to join us in starting verifiable reductions of the weapons. Once you start down that road, they've got to see how much better off we would both be if we got rid of them entirely. And then, if the two great powers turned to the rest of the world and said: "Now look, we've done it--come on. Even if it's only one or two you've got tucked away someplace, let's get rid of them."

Q. Have you seen any signs from the Soviets that they are ready to come back to the negotiating table?

A. I think the very fact of my meeting with [Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei] Gromyko means there hasn't been any outcry on their part that they won't. They have even made some proposals to us. It is true that when we agreed with one of them, they did not take yes for an answer. But I am optimistic and I believe that they, themselves, are concerned with where this is all going.

Q. In your weeks of campaigning, what did you see that perhaps surprised you in its intensity or its direction?

A. I have been emotionally moved by, first of all, the very spirit and optimism and feeling of the country, the pride that you see now. Not too many years ago, while I was Governor of California, the campuses were burning down, the ROTC buildings and so forth. Even the adults were not very happy about our country. Now there is a rebirth of patriotism. There is a pride in the country that is so evident. The other thing, of course, is their feeling about the economy, that we're back, that they can hope again and they can have ambition. I wasn't quite prepared for this feeling. I think it began for me at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics; to look down at those volunteers putting on that magnificent show. And from there it has just snowballed.

Q. A prominent Republican leader said off the record that for the party to hold on to what he thinks will be a great victory in this election, it will have to be seen as more compassionate, stand for less selfishness than some people believe it now does. Does that make sense to you?

A. We have been compassionate. All of these stories about throwing the people out into the snow or throwing them off the school lunch programs--they're just plain lies. We're spending more money on food than our predecessors were. What we have done is, we found that some of the programs were not able to do all they should for the truly needy because they were so busy also helping some people that really should not be getting help from their neighbors. So what we did was redirect [aid].

Q. During this campaign, every poll showed a split along white-black lines and poor-vs.-affluent lines. Are you concerned that blacks and the poor feel that your Administration has not done them any good?

A. I know they feel that way, but I also know that there are some pretty knowledgeable blacks who don't feel that way and who know the true story. Sometimes I suspect there are leaders of pressure groups and interest groups who are very concerned about keeping their very cushy jobs, and they can keep those jobs better if they can keep their constituents unhappy and believing that there is a cause. But of the 6 million jobs [created] in these last 21 months, 1 million have gone to blacks.

Q. Your nomination in 1980 ended a long ideological split within your party, and your political success since then has kept that down. But at the Dallas convention we began to see the feud revive. Is it going to be possible to keep the party together philosophically? Or as you get into a lame-duck situation, will we see the feud revive?

A. I think there is a fringe, maybe two fringes out there, but they are fringes. I think there is a mainstream Republican Party that is very united around the type of thing that we have been advocating, and there is not any quarrel with them on wanting us to go forward on what we are doing. But I think there is a fringe that, yes, that is down a liberal side, and you can usually look at their voting record and find out that they don't very often support us. But there is also a fringe up at the other side. And that fringe, I know as a fact, as far back as 1976 tried to solicit some of us and wanted to get a third party started. So I don't think they are supporters that abandoned us. They were never with us.

Q. About your new supporters, the young--will that trend grow?

A. Oh, I hope so. That has been one of the most thrilling things, particularly for someone like myself with a background of being hung in effigy a few times [on campuses] back in my Governor days. It is just amazing.

The funny thing is, they are kind of practical about it.

Oh, there is a patriotism, no question. But I asked a young lady that I sat down beside at a kind of picnic lunch on one of these campaign things--I said, well tell me, what has brought your generation to this point? She laid it right out hard and fast: economics. She said, next year I'm going to be looking for a job and we see that now there's something happening in which there's a future out there for us. Earlier, people were telling us there wasn't any and it didn't look too good for us. Now we like what we see.

Q. Prairie fire, that marvelous phrase you used as Governor in 1967, you used it again this week. That's another way of talking about political realignment or sea-change. Is that what's happening out there with your re-election--a sea-change? Is it bigger than Ronald Reagan?

A. California was a perfect imitator of what was happening at the federal level--the runaway spending, the runaway Government authority, more and more intrusiveness. I think in a way there has been some prairie fire that has reached the banks of the Potomac. I think what we're seeing out there--I've never taken it personally--is a lot of people who more and more felt the hand of Government on their shoulder, more and more awareness that Government was getting unmanageable and beyond their control and certainly unmanageable as to cost. I think this is what's happened. The people have seen an opening and they've said "Yes, let's carry it through." I don't think the people, having seen that changes could be made, are suddenly going to turn around and walk away and let the Big Government advocates creep back in and put everything back in place.

Q. There has been some speculation that you would consider, midway through a second term, stepping down and letting George Bush carry it forward.

A. I don't know where that came from. It was a surprise to me. No, I haven't considered anything of the kind [chuckling].

Q. And wouldn't?

A. And wouldn't.

Q. How has it felt to be running your last campaign for public office?

A. Well, there can't help but be some relief in that. Because it's a hard road. I only had one previous experience of running as an incumbent, where you've got the job to do as well as campaign. And I have to tell you, being the challenger is a lot easier.

Q. A little regret along with the relief?

A. No. Maybe if I were a younger man ... No, I've had my day. It's not over yet, but when it is... I think that will be it.

Q. You rarely talk about what you feel about being President. What have you found most satisfying as President? Or disappointing?

A. The frustrating and the disappointing thing is trying to get the ponderous wheels of the legislative process in motion on things that you feel desperately need to be done. The other one, maybe, comes down to smaller things--the ability sometimes to have brought to your attention an individual case and to be able to do something about it. To rectify some injustice. Those are wonderful and rewarding moments.

Q. Surely getting the 25% tax reduction must have been rewarding.

A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. With things like that you go back upstairs feeling ten feet tall. You've actually made something come true.

Q. You must feel ten feet tall today.

A. I do.