Q&A; WITH ALAN CRANSTON

As he embarks on his bid for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, the California Democrat offers his views on the role of government, his fears for the Republic and his thoughts on a longtime political foe--President Reagan.

Two years ago at this time, he was tramping through the snows of Iowa as a presidential candidate. His hair was dyed orange, his skin was artificially tanned--both done to make him look younger--and his rhetoric was decidedly liberal.

But the other day, California Sen. Alan Cranston was focused on another political goal--winning a fourth term to the Senate in November. Looking relaxed and more natural with his fringe of white hair and pale skin, the 71-year-old Democrat talked about his view of government, his fears for the Republic and about President Reagan, an old Cranston foe whose popularity is soaring.

The interview found Cranston sticking to his guns, after appearing to moderate his liberalism and his criticism of Reagan a year ago, when analysts were discussing the increasing strength of conservatives.

The conversation took place over lunch in Los Angeles. Cranston, a devotee of exercise and low-fat meals, had his usual tomato juice and barely cooked fish, quizzing the waiter closely on the preparation of his food.

An obscure public official for many years until he ran for President, Cranston seemed delighted at being recognized as he walked to his table. An elderly woman whispered loudly to her companion, “It’s Alan Cranston.” The reservation was not in Cranston’s name, but the waiter had seen that bald head somewhere and he fussed endlessly--”But of course, senator,” “As you wish, senator.”

Question: If the Gramm-Rudman Act--which you voted against--is not the way to attack the federal deficit, what is?

Cranston: Well, first of all, now that Gramm-Rudman is the law of the land I want to try to help make it work. . . . But it is going to make drastic cuts in programs that everybody needs--in law enforcement, air safety, education. There is another way out that is not as painful. It is to make some cuts in domestic spending but be more restrained in military spending and to pick up new revenues--and that doesn’t mean an increase in income taxes. The easiest way is to have tax reform close some loopholes and make sure there is a minimum tax so that no person or corporation can get away with paying no taxes at all. And also, we shouldn’t cut tax rates, as the current tax reform bill would do. I have talked to a number of well-to-do Californians, and repeatedly they have said to me that they would love to have their tax rates cut but they don’t need it and the country can’t afford it.

Q: Is the country more secure today after five years of a Republican presidency?

A: In an economic sense it is probably less secure because of the accumulated debt we have. Militarily, it may be somewhat more secure, but not to a vast degree. The fact that we are talking to the Soviets again is a plus, I think. . . . My view of them has not changed: I have never trusted them and I know that they are adventuristic and that they deny fundamental rights to their people, but I believe that they share with us a desire to avoid nuclear war.

Q: Has Ronald Reagan been a good President?

A: He has been good in his capacity to lead in the direction he wants to lead.

Q: Is that a direction in which you want to be led?

A: (Laughter) Not exactly! What Reaganomics has done to the economy is what is wrong.

Q: But many people feel the economy is doing just fine.

A: People feel it is in good shape, yes, but they are also very uneasy because of the deficit. And there are some people who are suffering--farmers in California and in the Middle West, for example. There are still hungry people in the world who need to be fed, but we have priced ourselves out of the market with the high value of the dollar and by farm programs that raise the cost of food.

Q: Are you basically happy with the direction of the country regarding civil rights and the rights of the oppressed?

A: Well, I am glad that the people of the country accept the goals of equal opportunity and civil rights. We have made progress, but I think there have been setbacks in the Reagan Administration.

Q: Back to California: Many of the principles embodied in the decisions of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird are shared by you. You once supported her. How do you feel now about her as she prepares to face the voters in November?

A: Well, since I am not getting into that race, I just don’t want to get into discussions of Bird, pro or con. I think there should be a separation of that judicial race from the partisan races that I and others are involved in.

Q: But it is true that in 1978 you were more willing to cast an approving eye on her?

A: Well, I was not running in ’78 and the circumstances were different then.

Q: Political labels seem to mean less and less. Are you concerned that there may be an erosion of the two-party system in the country?

A: Yes, I am. I think it has been a successful part of democracy to have a strong two-party system. . . . This (erosion) is caused by the tremendous role of money and mass media in elections and by the vast bureaucracy we have in Washington. It is not elected and stays there as Presidents come and go, and it doesn’t respond that much to people.

Q: Have you changed your basic philosophy that government should be activist, that there is danger in having too little government?

A: I believe in an active government. We created government to do the things we cannot do alone.

Q: Is California more conservative today than it was when you were first elected to the Senate in 1968?

A: I’m not sure that it is. I have never felt that California or the country got as conservative as the view has been. I won the first time when Richard Nixon was carrying the state for the presidency, and I won in 1980 by a huge margin while Reagan was being elected President. This indicates that the California voter looks at the individual.

Q: The Republicans will choose your opponent in their June primary. Describe the kind of candidate you fear the most.

A: Nope. I’m not going to get into that.