An Interview with Ronald Reagan

The President-elect talks about how he will set the U.S. on a new course

In the first broad-ranging interview that he has given specifically to discuss plans for his new Administration, Ronald Reagan talked with TIME Senior Correspondent Laurence I. Barrett, who has been with him for ten months of the campaign. Here are the plans and hopes of the next President.

Q. You are the first certified conservative sent to the White House in more than 50 years. Do you think this represents a basic political change in the country?

A. I have to believe there has been a change. I think it was a change based on the discovery that some of the nostrums that were administered under the name of liberalism were not doing the job.

Q. Do you think you can achieve a fundamental change in direction of the Government?

A. Yes, I do. The people have made it evident that they want that change. And when that happens, I think that even Congressmen of the other party sense it from their constituents back home, and they themselves are in the market for new approaches to solve problems. Basically, I want to change the course we've been on in which Washington was seen as the answer to all the problems. I want to restore the balance between the different levels of government that has been so distorted in these recent decades. I would like to restore functions that properly belong at different levels of government to those levels; and restore also the taxing authority that has been preempted, turn much of it back to local government and state government.

Q. What will be your top priorities once you are in office?

A. I have appointed a number of task forces that are working right now to carry out the transition. But I would like immediately to get into the things that I think could begin to turn the economic situation around, such as elimination of excessive and unnecessary regulations. I would like to offer some legislative proposals principally aimed at the economy--including tax proposals. And start work on reducing the size of Government. One of the first things I want to do is issue an Executive order putting a freeze on the hiring of employees to replace those who leave Government service.

Q. What procedures will you use to select the key members of your Administration?

A. We will have a committee of people who are not only qualified to judge the accomplishments of possible appointees, but who also could have some clout in recruiting them for the Government. My basic rule is that I want people who don't want a job in Government. I want people who are already so successful that they would regard a Government job as a step down, not a step up. I don't want empire builders; I want people who will be the first to tell me if their jobs are unnecessary. Out there in the private sector, there's an awful lot of brains and talent in people who haven't learned all the things you can't do.

Q. So there will be some surprising choices?

A. Yes, there will be a lot.

Q. Do you plan to bring Democrats into your Cabinet?

A. I think so. Yes.

Q. Are there Democrats of sufficient stature and in sufficient agreement with you to handle the Pentagon or the State Department?

A. I believe so. But again, I think you are thinking in terms of people already in Government. I'm thinking in terms of people who are out there and very successful in the private sector.

Q. Whoever your Secretary of State is, he will be bringing you some complicated news about dealings with the Soviets. How are you going to make the Soviets more amenable on SALT or other issues?

A. I believe that in the Soviet Union right now, there is an element of confusion about the vacillation of our recent foreign policy, the threats and then the backdowns, and so forth. I honestly believe that the Soviet Union would prefer consistency. That you can be firmer with them, make it clear that you would not be pushed around, and they would know what to expect. They would know what our policy is. They do not want to accidentally make a move that would bring them into a confrontation they don't want. I believe that they would be happier with someone--even though it was someone who is firmer, someone who opposed some of the things they did--who let them know what they were dealing with. And this would be my approach.

Q. How do you intend to open this dialogue?

A. We could open it by telling them that we have to renegotiate SALT II. We could take what is usable out of SALT II, and then tell them that we are not going to ratify the treaty the way it is and then make it plain that we are ready to sit down to legitimate negotiations. I will say this right away.

Q. Would you welcome an early meeting with Brezhnev?

A. I remember a happier time when there was a tradition that the President of the U.S. never left our shores, but I don't say that you could do that today. Still, the first job is to let them see the course we were going to follow domestically, getting hold of our economy, straightening out our energy problems. And the fact that we have the will and determination to add to our defensive stature.

Q. Henry Kissinger recently proposed that the U.S. should seek an interim arms control agreement while a longer-term SALT III is being worked out, and that during this process there should also be broad political negotiations to get the Soviets back on the track toward detente. Does his proposal reflect your thinking?

A. Yes, very much. I agree that there has to be linkage between arms control and other areas of difference, and there has not been. The Soviets have wanted to discourage that so that they could go their own way with a free hand, such as in Afghanistan, or in the other things they are doing. I think if we are going to sit down and negotiate on arms or anything else, the whole package has to be on the table. You cannot sit there and negotiate arms and pretend that the Soviet Union is not invading Afghanistan. Broad negotiations are the kind that I would support and believe in.

Q. During the Ford Administration, Kissinger tried that approach with only limited success. How do you see that changing now?

A. I think that in negotiations you are going to have to make it plain to the Soviets that there are some disadvantages for them if they do not go along. Maybe the disadvantage would be that you wouldn't negotiate. I think that they have a very great stake in those negotiations.

Q. Would you, for instance, make a pullout from Afghanistan one price of serious arms control negotiations?

A. I'd make no commitment at this time on specific things because it's bad diplomacy to go into a negotiation having said everything that's on your mind in advance. But let's put it this way: their overall policy of aggression must be a part of what is going on at the negotiating table.

Q. Kissinger has been more and more visible at your side since the convention, and has become something of an adviser. What role do you foresee for him?

A. He has made it very plain that he does not want to be a part of the Administration, but he has also made it plain that any time I want to call upon him for missions or something of that kind, he would help.

Q. Perhaps he would be available for more full-time employment. Have you tested him on that?

A. No, but he has spoken out on that, and I accept that.

Q. President Sadat has suggested that an urgent Middle East summit is required to get the peace negotiations moving. Are you considering such a summit shortly after your Inauguration?

A. I have not actually thought that out, but I could see where that particular trouble spot should very quickly have some knowledge of what this Administration's course will be.

Q. A very early initiative?

A. Yes. Possibly even before the Inauguration.

Q. You have been very explicit in your support for Israel, including its West Bank settlements. Are you concerned that such a policy may drive many Palestinians and other Arabs even further toward seeking support from Moscow?

A. The Nixon Administration was largely responsible for getting the Soviet influence out of the Middle East, but look how much it is getting back in there now. That is the boiling pot, and lately we have even seen the possibilities of, literally, a religious war--the Muslims returning to the idea that the way to heaven is to lose your life fighting the Christians or the Jews. I think that Jordan is a key in settling this. And I think if we stand ready to help we could achieve a settlement.

Q. Would you like to meet soon with Jordan's King Hussein?

A. Yes, and I think that meeting would be an important one.

Q. In dealing with foreign policy, will you rein in your National Security Adviser and leave the State Department preeminent?

A. I think of the NSC as a kind of liaison, and to correlate what comes in from the State Department for the benefit of a President. I think that the White House adviser should not be a rival of the Secretary of State, as he has been so much in the past. The National Security Adviser has seemed to be almost in competition with the Secretary of State, and I want that changed. Policy remains between the Secretary of State and the President. The adviser is the President's liaison to the Secretary.

Q. All recent Presidents have promised large roles for their Vice Presidents, but their promises always seem to fade away. What do you plan for George Bush?

A. George very definitely has a great capacity to be of more help than one usually thinks of a Vice President as being, and I intend to utilize that. I think that there has long been a need for a Vice President to be something of what in the corporate world they would call an executive vice president, so that he is involved in the functions of Government.

Q. Your success will depend a lot on getting along with a Congress that will be Democratic and quite difficult. How will you do that?

A. I'm not sure how difficult Congress would be. The present Democratic Congress certainly had its problems with the present President. And some of those problems arose because they seem to be more favorable to the things I'm talking about than they were to what he wanted. I believe we've got a new kind of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. I think it might be a Congress that could be appealed to on the merits of what I am trying to do. I certainly intend to work with them.

Q. We know your views about the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Would there be a fairly early attempt to get rid of those?

A. Well, I think you have to take at least enough time for some study, because both of those agencies, though they are new as agencies, did incorporate other existing programs in them. Now, you'd have to find out what of those programs are necessary, are proper functions of Government, and then, where should they properly fit.

Q. Governor, do you think it is time for a President to come into office proclaiming himself a one-term President?

A. No. I have thought of it at times, but I do not think it is necessary. The reason is that I am determined to behave as if it's a one-term office. I think that with too many Presidents, in fact with most of them, there is a terrible temptation to think in terms of the next election. This past Administration has been more guilty of that than most. But I will not do that. In California I promised myself that I would make every decision based on the assumption that I would never seek office again.

Q. And that will be the rule for this Administration?

A. Yes.

Q. That's a promise?

A. Yes.

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