Muted Thunder on the Right

By Thomas Griffith

Was he happy about Haig's resignation? John Lofton, editor of something called the Conservative Digest, was asked the question that very night on ABC's Nightline. "For about a minute and eight seconds," Lofton replied-- meaning, until he heard the name of Haig's successor. Once again, to a mind like Lofton's, Ronald Reagan was proving himself insufficiently Reaganite.

The dismay about Reagan among Reaganites brought an ill-assorted two dozen Some them together for a meeting a week before Haig's resignation. Some were writers and polemicists of standing, including Michael Novak, Irving Kristol and as Podhoretz; some edit obscure, cranky magazines that posture as if they them armies of followers; others have enough name recognition to get themselves onto talk shows on an off night. Richard Viguerie, whose computers contain the hottest list of right-wing fat cats, was there; so was Terry Dolan, who raises hours for commercials against candidates on his hit list. After five hours of palaver in a Washington restaurant, Lofton telephoned the New York Times about the historic" meeting. People had concluded, he said, that Reagan was salvageable, but "there was unanimous agreement on one thing: Haig must go."

Not so fast. "Not true," said Podhoretz. Kristol, the neoconservative editor wrote Haig a similar disavowal. George F. Will, who had been invited but declined, later chided the New York-based Kristol for not knowing--as those who live in Washington quick ly learn -- which invitations to avoid. Will steers clear of conservative groupies and styles himself a Tory-- which is fine if he remembers that Tory originally referred to an outlaw Irish highway robber.

Haig's resignation did not appease the opinion molders on the right. Instead, it has removed their favorite target, forcing them to aim somewhat reluctantly at Reagan himself. Columnist Will had greeted Haig's appointment as "The Right Man for the Job" ("Boy, was I wrong about that," he says now). But in a Newsweek column, Will last month denounced "Haigism" as softness in foreign affairs. He knew who was finally responsible: "Reagan has had less impact on foreign policy than any modern President (Ford excepted)." When it came to the President personally, however, Will was circumspect: "Reagan has not devoted the energy necessary to imposing his perceptions." Take that!

Or consider Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine. Early in May, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neo-Conservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy," Podhoretz wrote lengthily that this "movement of dissident intellectuals," was admittedly "a minority within a minority." But that was as intellectual as Podhoretz was going to be. Without their skill in intellectual combat, he suggested, Reagan probably would not have won over the traditional Democratic constituencies "whose support swept him into the White House." Neoconservatives had been counting on Reagan to reverse "the decline of American power": nevertheless, after looking at other possible candidates, they have now concluded that "there is no one else in sight. This is why we are hoping against hope that the President is not in fact fully aware" that his tactics don't serve the strategy "he professes to believe in." The pulled punch again.

Polemicists and commentators of the right obviously think their ideas are sounder or more steadfast than Reagan's, but it was he who carried 44 states.

They also treasure access to power or aspire to it. Reagan likes to stay in amiable touch and knows that White House dinner invitations are ego enhancing. After the Times article appeared, he telephoned Podhoretz, agreeing with much of his argument but pleading necessity for his own tactics. He sent Will the speech he was going to deliver to the English Parliament, asking advice; Will thought it "ghastly" and wrote another; Reagan used a third version with borrowings from Will.

After the night when right-wingers dined on their discontents, Lofton proclaimed, "Reagan without Reaganism is the worst of both worlds." Perhaps his difficulty is in definitions. Kristol says of the new Secretary of State George Shultz: "He's not a Reaganite-- but I don't know what a Reaganite means any more." To the pragmatic Californians in the White House, a Reaganite is someone who this any moment is prepared to go along with what Reagan wants. If this can be descried.

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