A Problem Of How To Lead

Dissatisfaction is the Washington mood

Flying high over Germany on his recent state visit, Jimmy Carter received an urgent message from the steward of Air Force One--three of the President's aides said they had to see him immediately. The President agreed. What now? What new crisis could have arisen?

In came Hamilton Jordan, Jody Powell and Jerry Rafshoon, their arms linked like those of chorus girls. They chanted their urgent message: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

The startled President laughed heartily, but the burlesque was not entirely a joke. What confronted Jimmy Carter last week as he returned to Washington from the glittering pomp of his talks with Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the economic summit in Bonn was the harsh fact that his presidency is in deep trouble. His Oval Office In box was overflowing with problems: mounting inflation, the energy deadlock, the failure of tax reform, the Turkish arms embargo, the chill in relations with the Soviet Union. There was even an embarrassing furor over the discovery that White House Health Adviser Dr. Peter Bourne had written an improper drug prescription. Surveying the jumble of problems, a key presidential adviser remarked: "If only we could have stayed in Germany."

But it is more than difficulties with specific problems that plagues the Administration and prompts the Chicken Little chorus. There is a mounting mood in Washington that the Carter presidency may be fundamentally flawed and that the Chief Executive may, despite his widely respected intelligence and dedication, be unable to lead the nation effectively. His apprenticeship has already lasted too long, according to a number of veteran observers, and he has too far to go before he becomes a skillful practitioner of Washington politics. Public opinion surveys have chronicled a fairly steady slide in presidential popularity--from a peak of 75% of those queried by the Gallup poll approving his handling of the presidency in March 1977 to only 44% approving this May. With growing frequency, Washington insiders speculate that Jimmy Carter may in fact occupy the White House for just one term.

It is not unusual for a President to falter as he approaches midterm, and this has to be especially true in an era of unprecedented media exposure. The once fresh face and crisp, new manner have be come familiar as the local grocer's. What may have been entertaining idiosyncrasies, like Truman's salty language, Eisenhower's chronic golfing and Carter's reflexive grin, can become slightly irritating. No longer larger than life, as on the triumphant eve of Inauguration, the mid-term President starts looking all too vulnerably human.

But the criticism now assailing Carter exceeds such predictable norms, and it comes from all quarters. While Republicans hungry for gains in this November's elections are understandably harsh, so are many members of the President's own party. Complains one prominent Democrat: "Things continue to fall apart. A year ago we were saying that pretty soon Jimmy Carter would take hold of things. Six months ago we were saying that pretty soon Jimmy Carter would take hold of things. Now we are saying that pretty soon Jimmy Carter had damn well better take hold of things." Some Democratic congressional leaders in particular warn that they have just about given up on the President. Says one top congressional insider, gloomier and grouchier than most: "The possibility of rapport is gone. Like a bad marriage, it's just gone sour beyond repair." Dissatisfaction and discouragement are showing up even inside the White House, with key staffers complaining about the sloppy way the Administration is being run.

It is Carter's style of leading that may be at the heart of the problem. Although he is Chief of State of the world's most powerful nation, he seems more comfortable wearing his famed cardigan than the mantle of presidential leadership. Perhaps in an attempt to avoid the trappings and pitfalls of the imperial presidency, Carter has been too reluctant to assert himself, to lean on people, to operate, in a sense, with the ruffles and flourishes that this one job of all in the U.S. may demand. As admirable a trait as this may be in many callings, it clearly can be a serious liability for a President who sometimes has no weapon but sheer intimidation to reconcile conflicting interests or to overcome congressional and bureaucratic opposition. It is partly this that has prompted Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill to complain in private lately about Carter's failure to understand the nature of the presidency.

Carter often seems unwilling to offend his close advisers. Partly as a result, the Administration has taken inconsistent or variable stands on a number of important issues. Examples: It first advocated and then dropped a $50-per-person tax rebate; it originally warned Americans that the need to save energy was the moral equivalent of war, then claimed that its energy program would not be much of a burden because it would cut costs to consumers; it enraged the Israelis and confused the Arabs by its tangled statements about the Palestinians. Such irritating zigzagging has led one Democratic Senator to observe: "For a while, everyone spent a lot of time just trying to figure him out. It can't be done. We've given up."

The White House staff reflects Carter's lack of success as a Government manager. Hamilton Jordan is the President's senior adviser and is sometimes regarded as chief of staff. In fact, however, no one has that title and function, or even a standing mandate to keep things moving by cracking the whip over his colleagues. Major assignments rotate from office to office, and much is handled on an ad hoc basis. Explains a high Administration official: "The problem is not the decisions we make, but how we make them and how they are made public. Jimmy Carter consults everyone, and there is no one coordinating and making sure there is focus."

Much of the White House's poor performance, according to this official, is the fault of the "Kiddie Korps." This is the group of relatively young men and women who have been given key Government jobs by Domestic Affairs Adviser Stuart Eizenstat, 35, because of their help in getting Carter elected. Explaining that many of these Kiddies proceeded directly from college campuses to the campaign, the official claims: "They had very little experience and brought along all that baggage from the campaign. Decision making in the Administration has thus become BOGSAAT--a bunch of guys sitting around a table." Adds another Administration aide: "The White House, with the exception of Vice President Mondale, is full of very inexperienced people." The tightly knit and provincial Georgia Mafia, which dominates the staff and enjoys the best access to the President, has slowed Carter's integration into the Washington scene and has limited his effectiveness.

Nowhere has the White House's lack of experience hurt more than in its relations with Capitol Hill. It is probably true that any President would find it extraordinarily difficult to control or even work smoothly with today's independent and assertive Congress. Dissatisfaction over the past Administration's handling of the Viet Nam War and Watergate has enhanced Congress's powers and sense of independence. Congress now has far greater authority over the budget, Government priorities and foreign policy than it had five years ago. But the incumbent Administration's ignorance of Washington's ways (something Carter elevated to a virtue during his campaign) has made cooperation between the two branches even harder.

During Carter's first year in office, the White House seemed chronically insensitive to congressional egos and needs. Leading Congressmen were slighted socially, liaison was poor and the possibilities of horse trading were ignored. This situation has improved: the liaison staff has been strengthened and Congressmen have been more skillfully courted. As a result, the Administration was able to rally enough wavering legislators to ensure ratification of the Panama Canal treaties and to approve the controversial sale of military aircraft to Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both major Carter victories.

But serious problems between the two branches of Government remain. According to Administration critics, the White House still fails to consult adequately with key Congressmen before measures are sent to Capitol Hill. Once new programs are proposed, the White House does not do a good enough job lobbying for them--recognizing once again how difficult that is with such a fractionalized and obdurate Congress.

The Administration's leadership difficulties have contributed to its very spotty performance in significant areas: The Economy. By some important measures, the nation's economy is doing well. The gross national product during this year's second quarter grew at a 7.4% annual rate; for all of 1978, it is expected to expand about 4%. This is a veritable boom compared with the sluggish growth rate of almost every other Western country. The job picture is almost as good, with unemployment down from 7.4% when Carter took office to 5.7% now. During this same period, 4 million new jobs have been created and a record-breaking 64.3% of the population is now at work. It is indicative of the Administration's image problem that it has not received the credit it probably has earned for combatting joblessness. In a recent poll, 68% of the respondents gave the Administration an undeserved negative rating on the unemployment issue.

Darkly clouding the economic picture, however, is inflation, currently surging ahead at an annual rate of 11.3%, far ahead of last year's 6.8%. Prices began soaring long before Carter took office and are caused by a number of factors over which he has little control, among them the world cost of oil. But he must take some of the responsibility for the new surge. Carter seriously underplayed the inflationary threat while he concentrated on cutting unemployment. Bowing to pressure from organized labor last July, he accepted a substantial hike in the minimum wage ($2.30 to $2.65 per hour) even though he was warned that it would be highly inflationary. Also contributing to the rising cost of living was the huge Administration-sponsored hike in Social Security payroll taxes. .

The Administration, moreover, seems to lack an authoritative economic voice. Treasury Secretary W. Michael Blumenthal supposedly charts the course of the nation's economy, but Robert Strauss is the Administration's anti-inflation czar, and he reports to Carter rather than Blumenthal. To make matters worse, the President occasionally seems to endorse whatever economic policies were advocated by the person who spoke to him last. The result: 18 months of mixed signals that have confused businessmen, trade-union chiefs and foreign leaders.

No coherent economic policy is possible without a national energy program. While the President has rightfully blamed special-interest groups for bottling up the energy bill since he sent it to Congress 15 months ago, he shares responsibility for the long delay. The complex, 114-page program was so hastily drafted it almost invited the legislators to rewrite it. Among its most controversial features is its reliance on conservation rather than development of new energy sources. Carter's program rests on Government action and the use of taxes rather than the marketplace's supply-and-demand mechanism.

Foreign Policy. In a number of areas, Carter deserves high marks. By swinging the U.S. dramatically behind black majority rule in southern Africa, the Administration has won the respect of moderate black African leaders and improved the chances of a peaceful transfer of power in Southwest Africa (Namibia). By successfully pushing for the Panama Canal treaties, Carter accomplished something that four previous Administrations had postponed. In the Middle East, the most dramatic moves have been made not by the U.S. but by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. However, Carter and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance have carefully strengthened the U.S. role as an honest broker to whom both Israel and moderate Arab states can turn.

In other areas, however, Carter has appeared less adept. Stung and baffled by the appearance of Cubans as an influence in Africa, the White House has alternately blustered and equivocated. The Administration failed to offer conclusive evidence for its charge that Cubans were deeply involved in the recent invasion of Zaire by Katangese rebels. To many observers, it seemed a risk of presidential credibility on a marginal and ill-documented controversy.

Carter's most questionable foreign policy performance has been his handling of U.S.-Soviet relations. His early penchant for open diplomacy and dramatic gestures, like publicly calling for drastic cuts in the superpowers' nuclear arsenals, almost immediately threw Moscow off balance and probably slowed the pace of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). He remains an advocate of open diplomacy, but would be unlikely to make that kind of negotiating mistake with the Russians again.

Fulfilling his worthy campaign pledge to conduct a "moral" foreign policy, Carter has strongly championed human rights, including those of Soviet dissidents. This has enhanced the nation's moral stature in many parts of the globe but has also enraged the Kremlin and contributed little toward easing the plight of those suffering from Soviet repression. Despite U.S. protests, the Kremlin ruthlessly tried and sentenced Dissidents Anatoli Shcharansky and Alexander Ginzburg. To back up his rhetoric, Carter presumably felt that he had to retaliate, and last week he canceled the sale of a computer to the U.S.S.R. and threatened to block transfers of advanced oil drilling equipment.

As in many other policy matters, Carter's approach to the Soviet Union has appeared inconsistent. In part, this is a result of the complexity of the superpower relationship. But it also probably reflects Carter's inability so far to reconcile the conflicting views of his two key foreign policy advisers: Cyrus Vance, who generally favors dealing with Moscow in a quiet and conciliatory manner, and National Security Affairs Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who by and large advocates a tougher line. The Vance-Brzezinski differences, though firmly denied by the White House, affect much of the handling of foreign policy. Brzezinski's aides are often angry over what they regard as the State Department's unresponsiveness, its constant leaks and its ill will toward them. State Department officials feel much the same about the NSC.

Social Reforms. Carter has been unsuccessful so far in his attempts at major change, even though some of his programs have been praiseworthy. His highly touted welfare reform, originally an ambitious $20 billion effort to revamp the nation's tangled and scandal-ridden welfare system, was trimmed back by the President because of the cost-cutting mood on Capitol Hill. But efforts to enact even the truncated $14 billion version collapsed last month. Parts of the urban program have not even been sent to Congress. The National Development Bank, intended to underwrite businesses in economically depressed areas, stands no chance of being put to a floor vote before Congress recesses. The hospital cost control bill, designed to limit cost increases to 9% per year, was gutted last week.

How much at fault is Carter for his uneven record on these issues? Certainly not completely. Congress has on many occasions proved balky and ineffectual. So has the vast bureaucracy. As the nation has grown more centralized and complex, the public has unrealistically begun to expect its President to solve an increasing number of intractable problems.

But Carter's share of the blame is significant. Though intelligent, he has noteworthy lapses of judgment, especially about people. His intense loyalty to his staff makes him reluctant to fire those who may have served him well in his campaign but have demonstrated limited ability at the national level. (No Administration in recent memory has been so close to the mid-term mark with so few significant personnel changes as Carter's has.) Finally, his deep moralism and evangelistic background at times seem to have persuaded him that it is enough to preach the good word or introduce the good program without having to follow through with hard political pressures.

The White House at last seems aware of its shortcomings and has fought off what looked like a temptation to hunker down in dismal self-pity. It has begun working hard to improve its image and revamp its management techniques. The Administration's capacity for following through on its program proposals has been bolstered by the promotions of Tim Kraft and Anne Wexler to important White House staff positions. Public Relations Expert Jerry Rafshoon has been put to work full time to burnish Carter's image.

Carter has concluded that he has made many of his mistakes by ignoring his instincts and compromising instead of standing firm. As an example, his aides point to his reluctant backing of the generous minimum wage law. Not only did it fuel inflation and anger business, but it failed to win much gratitude from union leaders. The tougher "new" Carter has also been taking on Congress publicly, attacking it--accurately enough--for being slow, unresponsive and susceptible to pressures from special interests.

While this strategy may pay dividends, it has its hazards. The public may find it hard to buy the idea of a presidential David locked in combat with a congressional Goliath when Congress is controlled by the President's party. There is a limit to how much public relations can accomplish. Notes Ted Van Dyk, a longtime aide to the late Hubert Humphrey: "Image flows from policies and performance. If they aren't good, no imagemaker can repair the situation."

Indeed, only Jimmy Carter can make those repairs. In the American political system of checks and balances among competing interests, he must recognize that the Chief Executive can be effective only if he finds a way to lead vigorously. To do this, he must combine long-range vision with tough management and a willingness to engage in political give and take. In all these areas, despite great personal assets, Carter still has a way to go.

Reports TIME White House Correspondent Laurence I. Barrett: "It took more than a year for the diagnosis to be made, and it will be a few more months before we know whether the medicine suffices. There is a feeling in Washington that these are crucial months, that the White House has a limited time in which to recover if Carter is not to be a one-term President. Carter's aides insist that he feels neither panic nor despair, that he is simply determined to pursue his policies more effectively and energetically than before, believing that sooner or later this will pay off. The President still has his sense of humor, more of one than he is generally credited with, as well as his sense of purpose, or so it is said. As Jody Powell sums it up, 'He'll have to stand or fall on what he's really like. He's got his particular style of operating, of leadership, and in the long run he'll be judged on that, up or down.' "

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.