The Elements of Style

The night before he came to Boston, President Reagan gave Congress his third State of the Union address, in which he outlined a six-point plan to boost the country's ailing economy. He hailed the program as a significant step toward curving the spiraling deficits which he called "a clear and present danger to the basic health of our Republic."

But despite the President's optimism, Harvard professors interviewed yesterday said the speech represented little substantive change, calling it only a modification of his presentation style.

Reagan's proposals include imposing a freeze on selected government programs, creating a three-year contingency tax plan with a 1 percent surcharge on income taxes, extending unemployment compensation six months and passing a law allowing youths to receive sub-minimum wages during the summer, and new tax exemptions for parents with children in college.

Two members of the Economics Department called the spending freeze impractical and unrealistic. Benjamin M. Friedman, professor of Economics, said that the cap is impractical if Reagan refuses, as he vehemently did in the address, to apply the inflation-adjusted limit to defense spending. "Rhetorically claiming to have a solution is different from actually having an effect," Friedman said.

James S. Duesenberry, Maier Professor of Money and Banking and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, said that the spending freeze was "simply a way for reacting to demands about doing something with the budget," he added that it would be unlikely that Congress would agree to what could amount to $30 to $40 billion in non-defense expenditures.

Realism

But other Harvard experts interviewed saw in the speech growing political realism in the President, considered by some a hard-lined ideologue. Richard E. Neustadt, Littauer Professor of Public Administration said that Reagan's speech showed increasing concern with political opposition in the House, which has become increasingly defiant of Reagan in recent months. "At this juncture it's too difficult to tell if he's acting out of calculated bargaining or simple conviction," the former advisor to John F. Kennedy '40 said. Neustadt noted that when Presidents are facing serious opposition, they usually ask for more than they want, but Reagan is "starting off by conceding to the opposition at the beginning with everything he's going to concede in the end."

Otto Eckstein, Warburg Professor of Economics, concurred that Reagan structured his proposals from a surprisingly defensive position of "trying to retain what he has gained" while battling Congress.

Arthur Maass, Thomson Professor of Government, went on to say that Reagan's address was masterfully constructed because "a sense of his ideology" still came through along with his awareness that he needs Democratic support if he wants to push economic programs through.

The only time Reagan's 45-minute speech drew the members of Congress to their feet was when he said, "We who are in government must take the lead in restoring the economy."