Putting The Presidency Back to Work

By John F. Stacks

For six years Ronald Reagan was a President the country could respect for his calm, his bearing and indeed for the very success of his tenure. Reagan represented something the nation had not really seen since John Kennedy: a personally popular President who was leading the country. At last, it seemed, a President was going to serve two successful terms in office.

But the Iran-contra mess, the stock-market crash and the inability to pick a Supreme Court nominee capable of being confirmed by the Senate have threatened to add Ronald Reagan to the list of 20th century presidential failures. Reagan's earlier successes restored national confidence in the presidency. A reversal now would reduce the standing of America's institutions, at home and abroad, at a time when the country can least afford it. Is it too late for Reagan to salvage his place in history? Not necessarily.

The Reagan ship of state righted itself a bit last week by picking a Supreme Court nominee who appears to be neither politically extreme nor personally objectionable. The prospect of a deficit-reduction compromise, though getting little help from the President, looks mildly promising for the Reagan record. The coming summit meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev and the achievement of an arms-control agreement will help restore Reagan's stature. However, much more must -- and can -- be accomplished.

Working in Reagan's favor is the broad consensus that exists on the most urgent economic remedies. Political professionals cannot understand why Reagan has not put his best skill to use and gone to the airwaves, outlining the future, soothing the markets, sharing a sense of purpose and direction to ease the economic angst that is rattling the world economy. Says Jody Powell, who served as Jimmy Carter's press secretary: "Reagan's legacy will be judged by what happens to the economy. That ought to be his absolute No. 1 priority."

One can easily imagine the rhetoric: "My fellow Americans, we have been through some unsettling moments recently. While the country is sound and the foundations of economic prosperity and stability are solid, we have some pressing problems that must be addressed with new energy and resolve and without partisan acrimony and without regard for personal political + advantage." Instead, Reagan has shouted fragmented and unwise slogans. Advises New York City Financier Felix Rohatyn: "He must not try to run after the markets; he must get ahead of them with credible, long-range plans."

This is easier said than done, especially because Reagan's economic attitudes are part of a larger ideological problem that has plagued him from the start. By every measure, the nation, while embracing Reagan himself, has never fully endorsed his brand of conservatism. It has liked him best when he adapted his views to the political mainstream.

Reagan has to remember that neither he nor his party controls the Congress. "To get anything done," observes University of California Political Scientist Nelson Polsby, "he must deal with people with whom he is in disagreement. The smartest way to proceed is to behave cooperatively toward Congress." Stuart Spencer, a former Reagan adviser, would counsel the President to pick his battles with the Congress carefully, recognizing that as a lame duck he has precious little political capital to spend. "If he goes to the mat on every issue, he is going to have more problems," Spencer says. Congressman Richard Cheney of Wyoming warns against any grandiose attempt to recapture the past glory of Reaganism. Says he: "In the old age of an Administration, you should lie back and enjoy it."

Some observers are suggesting that the Administration needs a staff shake- up. The financial community especially misses Paul Volcker, who resigned last June as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. But most feel that personnel changes would simply generate more uncertainty. They cite Jimmy Carter's mass Cabinet firing as proof that housecleaning usually does not work. "What we need now is stability," says Cheney.

While James Baker was a better White House chief of staff than he is a Treasury Secretary, removing him would create a furor that neither the White House nor the financial markets need. "It's not people they have to get rid of," says former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson, "but phobias and attitudes." Says Jerry Jasinowski, chief economist of the National Association of Manufacturers: "It would be a serious error to undermine Baker and Alan Greenspan."

Nonetheless, Reagan should be more careful in deciding which advisers he heeds. By following James Baker's counsel during the first term, the President navigated a successful course to re-election. But with Baker at the Treasury, first Don Regan and then Howard Baker have been unable to get the President's ear.

The vacuum has been filled by Attorney General Edwin Meese, whose advice has nearly always led to disaster. Even David Broder, the Washington Post's normally temperate columnist, last week joined the growing cry for Meese's firing. The likelihood that Reagan will heed that recommendation is virtually nil; Meese is the last of his California cronies left in the Administration. Still, the two Bakers, Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary- designate Frank Carlucci are all people of sound judgment to whom the President should listen.

At this stage, the odds are not high that Reagan will change his habits enough to ensure success. But it will be a bitter irony if the man who did so much to restore leadership to the Oval Office in the end fails to provide it when it is most needed.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington, with other bureaus