Stockman

To the Editors of The Crimson:

One has to wonder whether or not the Crimson editor who wrote the highly critical editorial (November 17) relating to the recent Atlantic Monthly article on David Stockman really took the time to read the 27-page article which has excited so many frustrated liberals.

Perhaps he did manage to skim through the article, selectively choosing a few of the passages which supported his preconceived notions about supply-side economics, while ignoring the more important, but less sensational aspects of "The Education of David Stockman." The most notable of these is his disillusionment with the power of interest groups and the nearly insurmountable political and practical problems associated with formulating a $700-billion budget. It seems more likely though and this is evidenced by the scarce references to the Stockman article in the Crimson editorial, that the Crimson editor simply read a few secondhand newspaper accounts of the article and then opportunistically launched into a nasty essay which attempts to discredit the whole of supply-side economics and the integrity of the President.

That the editor's analysis is either superficial or inaccurate (or both) is clearly seen. In the one paragraph that does manage to discuss the article, the misleads readers with his interpretation and quotes. He says the Atlantic Monthly article "describes in chilling terms just whom the [Reagan economic] plan benefits--the 'hogs' of American big business were 'really feeding' on a diet of special tax breaks." In fact the article referred to Stockman's disillusionment with special interests, not the ominous "big business" the Crimson writer imagines. To quote directly from the article's next sentence, "Stockman saw the 'new political climate' dissolve rather rapidly and be replaced by the reflexes of old politics. Every tax lobby in town, from tax credits for wood burning stoves to new accounting concessions for small business, moved in on the legislation, and pet amendments for obscure tax advantage and profit became the pivotal issues of legislative action, not the grand theories of supply-side tax reduction" (p.51). At other points, Stockman makes this realization even more explicit, as when he says, "the client groups know now to make themselves heard. The problem is unorganized groups can't play in this game" (p.52). This is no criticism of any economic theory, rather it is an acknowledgement of the difficulties of interest group politics, as they are always played in the halls of Congress.

Somehow, though. Stockman's disenchantment with legislative politics induces the Crimson writer to declare, two sentences later, that "this is an administration engaged in a far-reaching war against the great mass of the American people in an effort to aid the wealthy." Unfortunately, for the Crimson writer, Stockman's shedding naivete, which is probably due in great part to his youth and the change in perspective which accompanies a switch from the legislative to the executive branches of government, can hardly be considered an indictment of supply-side economics.

The Stockman article also stimulates the Crimson writer to announce that Stockman's candor "provides the perfect opportunity for unraveling the deceit and sophistry which have characterized the administration's program." This seems to be pure rhetorical nonsense designed to fit his perceptions of the Reagan Administration as inherently evil. To say that the Administration lied by promising a better economy and then not delivering in the first 11 months of its existence, indeed, in the first two months since the tax bill went into effect, clearly shows more liberal frustration and impatience than any deceit on the part of the President. No administration, Democratic or Republican, has been able to perfectly forecast and control the infinite complexities of the American economy. To expect this of President Reagan is to ascribe to him even more omniscient power than some conservatives do. Nevertheless, the Crimson editor seems to base his distrust on this supposedly intended "deceit."

Admittedly, David Stockman was not in total agreement with all of the Administration's decisions, nor with the final bills passed by Congress. He voiced his dissent, was overruled, and resented the fact that politics interfered with the implementation of an ideology. Anyone who impartially reads the article, however skewed it may be and regardless of the principles of privacy it violates, will see that for themselves. I find it disturbing that such a realization was so inaccurately editorialized and hope that the Crimson employs more journalistic integrity in the future than it did in this piece, ironically entitled "An Honest Man." Dan Frahm '83   Chairman, Youth   for Republican   Leadership