Regan Blamed for Tarnishing Reagan Image

After taking over as chief of President Reagan’s White House staff, Donald T. Regan brushed aside critics’ questions about his lack of political experience, saying: “Judge me on what happens, not on what people are saying.”

Now, almost four months later, what is happening is that Reagan’s second term has lurched to a rocky beginning after his highly successful first four years. And critics are placing a substantial share of the blame on the new chief of staff.

Since Regan swapped jobs with Secretary of the Treasury James A. Baker III, the President has suffered serious setbacks in Congress on aid to the Nicaraguan contras and on the MX missile. Congress has placed him on the defensive in the budget battle, slashing into his military buildup and forcing him to abandon a campaign promise to leave Social Security benefits untouched.

Most Unsatisfying Trip

On the international scene, Reagan has completed the most unsatisfying foreign trip of his presidency, marked by the controversial visit to the German military cemetery in Bitburg. Back home, public opinion polls show that his job-approval rating has dropped from nearly 70% at about the time of his second inauguration to 50% to 55% just before the European trip.

“The worst thing about all this is that the President’s credibility for leadership is being sacrificed,” said a Reagan adviser who played a key role in the Administration’s first-term successes. “His moral leadership was questioned on Bitburg, and his political leadership is being undermined on Capitol Hill. His record for consistency was hurt by the flip-flopping on Social Security.”

No one blames Regan for all of the President’s problems. And even some of his critics say that the former Wall Street executive may yet emerge not only as a powerful chief of staff but as an efficient one, particularly after Reagan unveils his tax reform proposal Tuesday.

“Unfortunately, he’s got the toughest job in town, and it’s not much of one for on-the-job training,” said a former White House official who still works closely with the Administration. “But he’s got a chance to go back on the offensive with the tax simplification bill. If he doesn’t come through on that, we’re in for a long, hot summer.”

Regan’s critics, who uniformly choose to remain anonymous, aim their fire not only at his political naivete but also at his brusque, imperious style, which has irritated Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress. Among other things, they criticize Regan for:

--Recruiting as the President’s communications director a right-wing ideologue, Patrick J. Buchanan, a stern practitioner of the politics of confrontation.

Damaging Repercussions

--Stubbornly pressing ahead with a congressional vote on aid to the contras and on the Bitburg visit despite warnings of damaging political repercussions.

--Advising the President to endorse a Senate Republican proposal to cut back next year’s scheduled increase in Social Security benefits, a move that Reagan had promised he would never make and that has given Democrats a highly emotional issue for the 1986 congressional elections.

“I haven’t heard a good word per se about Don Regan in that job,” said a former White House official who still advises the President. “He’s the wrong guy for the job. He’s got a short fuse and a big ego and no political instincts.”

In March, after the White House narrowly won congressional approval to buy another 21 MX missiles this year, Regan and Buchanan adopted a combative posture and urged Reagan to go all-out in lobbying for legislation to aid the contras. The President pressed the contras issue to a vote, and the measure was defeated as soundly in the House as Minority Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois had warned.

Ortega’s Visit to Moscow

Now Reagan may get some of what he wants for the contras -- although probably no military support--largely because Congress reacted against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s aid-seeking visit to Moscow soon after the first vote. At the same time, however, the Senate, controlled by Reagan’s own party, last week rejected his proposal ultimately to deploy 100 MX missiles, favoring instead a cap of only 50.

Although Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) had announced his intention to limit MX deployment as long ago as March, the White House began negotiating with him only as he was formally placing his proposal before the Senate last Tuesday. White House staff members succeeded in raising the cap from 40 to 50, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s chairman, Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), said later: “I think they should do their planning a little better.”

When several Republican senators who face reelection challenges in 1986 voted against some of the President’s programs, Regan joined in issuing signals from the White House that Reagan would restrict his campaigning to staunch loyalists.

Reacting to angry replies from the Republican senators, Reagan himself found it necessary during a press conference to deny that he had any such intention, and he has scheduled appearances at fund-raisers for Sens. Paula Hawkins of Florida and Don Nickles of Oklahoma, both of whom deserted him on key votes.

Signals From White House

“One of the problems is there’s no refining at the White House now,” said one of the first-term senior White House staffers who still advise Reagan. “The President will say something now like, ‘Look at these senators voting against me, and they want me to campaign for them,’ and he’s just getting something off his chest. And Don Regan goes out and puts out the word that the President won’t be campaigning for them. He just doesn’t understand the rhythms of this town or know much about legislative strategy.”

Four years ago, when Reagan was new to the White House, he concentrated nearly all of his energies on his proposals for spending cuts and tax cuts--and won them both. This year, fresh from an even greater electoral victory than in 1981, he has spread himself thinner--and lost some important votes.

“There’s no big picture now, no focus,” a longtime Reagan aide said. “Putting aside the question of whether they (Regan and his staff) know how to get to where they want to go, I don’t think they even know where they want to go.”

Savvy Predecessor

Regan’s critics invariably make invidious comparisons between him and Baker, his politically savvy predecessor. Baker, they say, would never have pressed the contras issue in face of certain defeat, would have developed a more satisfactory budget compromise and would have canceled the President’s trip to Bitburg once it was disclosed that some Nazi SS troopers were buried there.

But Regan, who bristles at suggestions that the President would have fared better with Baker, runs what some aides call “a tight ship” that allows for relatively limited discussions of major issues among senior aides.

While Baker’s door generally was open to staff members who thought they needed to see him, Regan “works with his door closed,” said a White House official who has worked with Reagan for more than a dozen years. This official, observing that many White House officials still have not had a conversation with Regan, said: “Don may be good at dealing with lists and numbers and charts. But where’s the humanity? I don’t see any knack for dealing with people.”

Strong Personalities

An official who has worked with Regan for several years said: “He’s not comfortable with collegiality, that’s not his style. He has people sitting around who do not know what each of the others knows. That doesn’t work well when you’re dealing with strong personalities like Ed Rollins and Pat Buchanan.”

Edward J. Rollins--brought into the White House by Regan to serve as political director--had served as Reagan’s 1984 campaign director and was expected to give the staff some much-needed political expertise. But so far he has not been a key player.

“Ed’s been elbowed aside,” said a Reagan adviser who pointed out that Rollins learned of plans for the Bitburg visit only after Regan asked him to try to limit the political damage. Earlier, Rollins had lost a bruising battle with Buchanan over which one would supervise the public liaison office, which handles relations with minorities, women and special-interest groups.

‘Ideological Combativeness’

With Regan in charge and Buchanan emerging as a powerful influence, conservative political analyst Kevin Phillips wrote in the New York Times Magazine that the White House is suffering from “ideological combativeness and political ineptitude.”

“Hubris” resulting from Reagan’s landslide reelection victory, Phillips wrote, “has helped nurture excesses, from likening the contras to America’s founding fathers to persisting in the Bitburg visit.”

Despite all of the criticism, Regan apparently continues to enjoy a close working relationship with the President, with what one aide described as a “great chemistry” between them. And the Bitburg visit may actually have enhanced the chemistry.

“Bitburg was Reagan’s own call. He made a commitment to (West German Chancellor Helmut) Kohl and he was determined to keep it,” one White House official said. “But Regan has had to take a lot of heat for it. I think Bitburg has strengthened their relationship.”

Chance to Redeem Himself

Several of Regan’s critics see the continuing battle over the budget and the forthcoming struggle over tax simplification as opportunities for the chief of staff to redeem himself.

“Four months maybe isn’t long enough for a firm judgment,” said a Reagan adviser who has worked with him throughout his political career. “Regan didn’t have complete control of the White House and Buchanan didn’t have complete control of his shop until Mike Deaver left.”

Michael K. Deaver, Reagan’s longtime confidant, resigned as deputy chief of the White House staff to begin a public relations firm here earlier this month. He was the last of the inner circle of Californians Reagan brought to the White House, and his departure left the President without any longtime associates or close advisers from his first term on the senior staff.

“In Deaver and Baker, you had two guys who knew the President very well and knew how to minimize his weaknesses and maximize his strengths,” a Reagan political adviser said. “Now there’s too much of letting Reagan be Reagan, and even some hard-core Reaganites don’t think that’s a great idea.”