Playing Seek-and-Hide

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

Will the old actor ask for an encore?

Please, do not put me into an election by going too early and forming a committee. Please let me make that decision at the proper time.

--Ronald Reagan

Both the setting and the content of that remark last week advanced a tantalizing and serious game that might be called seek-and-hide. The President was addressing a luncheon of 80 former political directors of his national campaigns, and the very fact that he had called them together in Washington provided a new indication that he will seek a second term. But his wording constituted another example of his determination to hide that intention, at least in the sense of formal public announcement, until the moment of maximum political advantage--which, some of his aides have begun to hint, may come even later than the September declaration they once had anticipated.

Ordinarily, it is simply assumed that a first-term President will run for reelection, even if his prospects seem as dubious as those of Jimmy Carter--or, for that matter, as hopeless as those of Herbert Hoover. But Reagan would be the first President to be less than three weeks shy of his 78th birthday when he finished a second term. And he does not feel the driving personal ambition that would make re-election a psychological necessity.

Reagan is well aware of these considerations, and for all the gravity of his decision, cannot resist the actor's temptation to have a bit of fun by prolonging the guessing game. He once promised Texas Congressman Phil Gramm that Gramm could make one of the nominating speeches for him at the Republican Convention in Dallas next year--then, eyes atwinkle, added the inevitable qualification: if he chooses to run. To newsmen he jokes, "There is a 50% chance." He has been equally coy with his closest aides. In a limousine returning to the White House after a speech by Reagan to staunch conservatives, Political Aide Edward Rollins told him that what his audience had wanted to hear was a declaration of candidacy. End of conversation: Reagan stared silently out the window.

But if the President eventually announces he will not run, he will surprise his aides and opponents alike. Whether or not he has reached a final, this-is-it decision in his own mind, he has been acting and talking like a candidate for months. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that as long ago as last December, Reagan assured King Hussein of Jordan that "we will be partners for six more years." He is also said to have told Hussein that he knew his Middle East peace initiative would cost him Jewish votes but that he could win reelection without them. The White House has formally denied this story. Reagan has personally disavowed it to close aides, managing at the same time to strengthen their conviction that he will run. "He sounded like a man who was counting constituent groups," says one aide, describing a conversation in which Reagan insisted that he was not writing off Jewish votes.

Beyond that, his aides report that their scheduling of Reagan's future activities is already heavily influenced by next year's political considerations. Explains one adviser: "There has been a lot of sensitivity to 1984 around here in the past two months."

Presidential Counsellor Edwin Meese sums up the feeling among Reagan's advisers this way: "If the President had to make the decision today, he would definitely plan to run. I don't think there will be much this summer that is different." Quite the contrary: aides believe that a continuing pickup in the economy will make a re-election race all the more likely by making it look more winnable. The beginnings of recovery from recession already are boosting Reagan's poll ratings. One example: a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted between April 8 and 12 showed Reagan beating Walter Mondale 46% to 45% and John Glenn 44% to 43%; only six weeks earlier he had trailed these potential opponents by 9 or 10 points.

If Reagan really has pretty much decided to run, why does he not say so? Some of his aides and allies think he should, and have tried to talk him into an announcement this spring. One aide asserts that "had he already announced, it would have helped us with the Republicans in the Senate" who are rebelling against White House tax and budget policies.

The potential effects of delay are more worrisome in foreign policy. That, at least, is the judgment of one expert in political timing: Richard Nixon. The former President, who stays in close touch with foreign leaders, has told White House aides that seeming indecision on Reagan's part might encourage Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to continue stalling on Middle East peace negotiations, and prompt Soviet Leader Yuri Andropov to drag out arms-control talks. The reason: both might hope to get a better deal from Reagan's successor.

Reagan, however, appears to see more domestic political advantage than foreign policy disadvantage in delaying an announcement of his plans. He once explained to reporters, "I think to do it [declare candidacy] too early leaves you open to the charge that everything you do is based on politics. And if you say the other way too soon, why, you're a lame duck prematurely." Aides contend that an early announcement would heighten partisan tensions and thus damage his chances of negotiating compromises on tax, spending and other domestic legislation with the Democrats who control the House. A more strictly political reason for delay: frictions inevitably occur between a President's re-election committee and his White House staff; the longer they can be put off, the better.

Thus one adviser sketches this potential timetable: by late summer Reagan will have negotiated, or failed to negotiate, whatever legislative compromises are possible with the Democrats, and will permit formation of what will be called an "exploratory" re-election committee. He will informally signal his candidacy some time between Labor Day and Oct. 15, but may delay a final announcement until December or even January. To get ready, such key Reagan operatives as James Baker, Michael Deaver and Senator Paul Laxalt have been meeting privately every other week, sketching out campaign plans.

That tentative timetable makes little difference to Democratic candidates, who are already campaigning lustily against Reagan and his policies. But on the G.O.P. side, it immobilizes would-be successors. To stand a realistic chance of winning, such possible contenders as Senators Howard Baker and Robert Dole and Congressman Jack Kemp would need to start organizing and raising money by mid-autumn. Vice President George Bush possesses the remnants of the nationwide network he put together for the 1980 primaries and a basketful of lOUs from Republican congressional candidates for whom he campaigned last fall, and so could start a successful run much later. Indeed, if Reagan were to announce any later than the end of the year that he will not run, he might in effect be anointing Bush as his successor.

Talk of who might follow him, however, brings up the strongest of all evidence that Reagan will run. The President, who clearly enjoys his job, has confided to close aides that he does not see anyone to whom he could confidently entrust the completion of his ideological mission. Baker, Dole or even Bush, he fears, would not be conservative enough; Kemp has the necessary right-wing fervor, but in Reagan's view may not be mature enough yet for the presidency. To White House Deputy Chief of Staff Deaver, the political calculus is clear: "Who else is there? I think Reagan will run." --By George J. Church. Reported by Douglas Brew/Washington

With reporting by Douglas Brew/Washington This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.