Reagan's Bad Boy Slips Again

When controversy beckons, Jim Watt is always ready

Interior Secretary James Watt and his legion of antagonists have a perverse symbiosis going: he has a talent for enraging them, and they seem happy for the regular opportunities to lambaste him. Last week was a regular free-for-all of Watt-inspired controversy. Much of it stemmed from an ill-advised letter the Interior Secretary wrote to Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., in which Watt argued that "liberals of the [U.S.] Jewish community" who oppose his aggressive oil-development policies "will weaken our ability to be a good friend of Israel." By the end of the week, Watt had gone from saying that he was "proud" of the message to apologizing for it.

A White House spokesman called the letter "unfortunate" and "not the President's viewpoint," while Ronald Reagan himself made excuses for his impolitic Secretary at a midweek press conference. The obligatory resolution denouncing Watt was introduced by twelve Democratic Senators, including New York's Daniel Moynihan, who described the letter as "bareknuckled bigotry."

The epistolary pother had its genesis on June 13, when Watt and Arens sat together at a Washington banquet. Four days later, Watt reiterated his dinner-table chatter by mail.

The criticisms of Watt were twofold.

First, it seemed inappropriate to send an official message to a foreign ambassador complaining about opposition from U.S. citizens in an essentially domestic dispute. Second, Watt's letter seemed to contain an implicit, cynical threat: if American dependence on Arab oil becomes too great, the U.S. might find it politically expedient to temper its support of Israel.

Reagan, however, inferred a broader, more innocuous meaning. Watt was merely saying, according to the President, that "if we should find ourselves without the energy needed to turn .. . the wheels in industry, we wouldn't be much of an ally to our friends, and that would certainly include Israel."

On Wednesday, in a meeting with officers of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Watt finally backed off. Reported A.D.L. National Director Nathan Perlmutter: "He termed his own remarks an unfortunate mistake. He said that he was embarrassed." Said A.D.L. National Chairman Kenneth Bialkin: "I think he is a man without guile."

At times he is certainly a man without much political common sense. Arens did not publicize the letter; Watt himself proudly sent copies to Washington journalists. He seems to relish getting his name and righteous views in print, regardless of the controversies that ensue.

Still another overheated Watt letter, sent to 28 Congressmen two weeks ago, continued to make waves. This one was a direct defense of Watt's plan to permit oil companies to lease up to a billion acres of U.S. coastal waters for drilling. He contended that the specter of offshore oil rigs would be more palatable than explaining "to the mothers and fathers of this land why their sons are fighting on the sands of the Middle East, as might be required if the policies of our critics were pursued."

Watt's basic plan for leasing the Outer Continental Shelf has been known for more than a year. Late last month he approved a "revised" version of the leasing scheme, offering 25 times the offshore area that has been available for exploitation since the program began in 1954. Seven conservation groups, as well as the states of California and Alaska, have filed suit to prevent or modify the expansive scheme.

Typically, Watt never bothered to tell White House operatives that he was about to announce a go-ahead for the politically troublesome plan. Despite his propensity for imbroglios, says one Reagan aide, Watt "is not in trouble with the President." The aide thinks Watt is too confrontational. The boss's view? "The President," he sighs, "doesn't mind."

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