Lost in the Fog

EVER SINCE he took office, President Reagan has been criticized for the overly relaxed manner in which he approaches his job. Opposing politicians and common taxpayers alike have grumbled about his frequent long vacations and his 9-5 Presidency.

But make no mistake about it. Reagan is devoted to the job. He loves being President--which is just fine. But the sad truth is that his view of what exactly the man in the oval office should be doing is different from most people's. He sees himself as an elder statesman, a philosophical grandfather-figure too elevated to bother himself with details like facts and programs.

To foster this image. Reagan has learned to defuse media criticism. He is better at manipulating the press than any of his predecessors, including Kennedy. He learns his lines well for press conferences and folksily calls the reporters by their first names. His anecdote-filled speeches are lulling political Muzak But when forced to think on his feet and answer questions off the cuff, he fails miserably.

Three weeks after Reagan took office a Crimson reporter had the first exclusive interview with the new President. Paul M. Barrett '82 observed afterwards that Reagan "is anything but the man with all the facts in his head and a them." An interview printed last week in The New York Times shows that in three years nothing has changed.

Reagan's words are almost incomprehensible. He rambles and backtracks and says little that means anything. When asked about the huge federal deficit, Reagan said:

I think the basic part of the deficit is due to government itself and the excessive share of the people's earnings, the gross national product, the government is taking. And so we're going to continue. We made a proposal for the down payment in the next three years, so it's pretty evenly divided between some revenues, not by raising rates but by eliminating some tax practices that we think aren't fairly distributed.

The response--preceded by a diatribe against deficits--is nothing but gobbledygook. It seems he is saying the budget deficit is due to the government taking in too much money and the way to fix it is eliminating even more taxes.

True, the Times' transcript is cruel; it left out nothing save the pauses and stumbles. But it is important for the public to see just how foggy the President really is.

In the next question the reporters asked Reagan to elaborate on a passing remark he had made about the need to restructure. Social Security. He couldn't. It will take months or years of study for the government to figure out what to do about the entitlement programs, and the President hasn't a clue what to expect.

Reagan is so inept at responding to questions without knowing the issues or the facts that his aides have tried desperately to prevent reporters from catching him unprepared; they have virtually banned questions during informal sessions.

The second half of the Times interview dealt with more philosophical questions about the Middle, East and Reagan did a lot better. His train of thought is still hard to follow but he could wax lyrical about the good guys and the bad guys and avoid getting tripped up by the facts.

IT MAY SEEM petty to harp on how Reagan looks in a verbatim transcript. Most people's everyday speech would look atrocious transcribed word for word. But the content made no more sense than the phrasing; Reagan, was being asked to explain his views on specific issues and he should be able to communicate ideas, if not a fact or two as well.

Politicians and journalists alike have complained for three years that he consistently avoids specific issues and talks in misty parables or tells old Hollywood stories. Done with style and humor, this is an acceptable method of diverting a tough or unfair question from a reporter. Among colleagues, however, it is simply inappropriate.

The inescapable conclusion is that Reagan simply isn't all that bright and doesn't do his homework. The number of complex issues the President is faced with is staggering, but simply to farm out the needed thinking to staff members, as Reagan does, is wrong. The President is ultimately responsible and the realization that he is so foggy on the issues, no matter how competent his advisers are, is frightening. How can we have coherent and decisive government when the man in charge is caught in the mist?