The Nation: I’ve Had a Bum Rap

Stumping Louisiana, a newly confident Ronald Reagan talked with TIME National Political Correspondent Robert Ajemian. Excerpts:

Q. Until now you have been unwilling to predict that you would win the Republican nomination. Why do you now say you can beat Gerald Ford on the first ballot?

A. After four straight primary victories, I decided to say what I’ve really thought in my mind. People needed to hear me say that; so do all the uncommitted delegates. I believe I’m the only candidate who can beat Jimmy Carter, if he does win.

Ford made his first big mistake with me when he said publicly that I should get out of the race. That was at our low point, right after the Illinois defeat. Everybody was telling me to get out. As soon as I heard the Ford remark I knew it would backfire on him. I repeated it to every audience in North Carolina, and it helped us. Now we’re really rolling. I’ll bet they’re plenty nervous over at the White House.

Q. Why do you consider yourself a stronger candidate than Ford?

A. Ford has shown he is unable to go past his old friends in Congress and to the public. He does not rally people or sell his programs. He just blames Congress. Besides, with Ford as the nominee, Republicans would have to defend a candidate who’s been responsible for the biggest budget in our history, who’s let our military strength erode, who’s done nothing to reduce bloated Government. Carter would not be able to use those arguments against me.

Q. Isn’t the divisiveness between you and Ford surely leading to a bitter, bloody convention?

A. I think the divisiveness has come from him. He has repeatedly done one thing and said another. And then he attacks me for pointing out the inconsistencies. Take Cuba. I know that since last May we’ve been warming up to Castro, including trying to influence the Organization of American States. Suddenly, during the Florida primary, Ford tells the Cubans in Miami that Castro is an international outlaw. In North Carolina, he made strident statements against gun control at the same time that his Attorney General was pushing a gun-control bill through Congress. On Panama, he denied in Texas that we were giving up any rights to the Canal. Then we learn from Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker’s congressional testimony that he’s been negotiating it away.

I wasn’t prepared for the false denials or the personal attacks. Why shouldn’t I speak back when he calls me glib and irresponsible and worse? I hope he won’t keep it up. We better set our sights on the election.

Q. The President’s campaign staff contends that your string of primary victories last week was due to Wallace supporters who voted for you. Do you agree?

A. What are they complaining about? On the one hand the Ford people claim my base is too narrow, a small minority within the party. When I attract Democrats and independents and blue-collar voters, they gripe. They can’t have it both ways. The Republicans absolutely cannot win in November without those voters.

Q. If you are the nominee, and Carter is your opponent, what will be the principal issues?

A. Well, Carter is running on an anti-Washington, anti-Big Government philosophy. But when he does offer a solution, it turns out to be another federal program. Take his approach to national health insurance. That’s socialized medicine, let’s not kid ourselves. There is no health care crisis. We have some problems but they can be solved without compulsory insurance for everybody.

Or his approach to unemployment: he’s for the Humphrey-Hawkins bill. If ever there was a design for fascism, that’s it. Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini’s success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say, “But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.” The Humphrey-Hawkins bill calls for the same kind of planned economy, and that would mark the end of the free marketplace in this country.

Q. What political strengths do you see in Carter, and in yourself?

A. I think both he and I share this advantage of not being part of the Washington scene. It’s time for new faces. The people who were part of this enormous buildup of Government are not the ones who can change it.

Q. Both you and Carter have stressed the need for a moral revival in the country. How large an issue is this?

A. There’s a real hunger in this country for a return to spiritual and moral values. I hear it and feel it everywhere I speak. Carter seems to be able to volunteer this information about his deep beliefs easier than I can. I don’t know whether on my part there’s a hesitancy to involve God in a political campaign. I know one thing: it’s inconceivable to me that anyone would think he could do this job, the presidency, if he couldn’t call on God for help and have the faith that he’d be granted that help.

Q. You have had little support from blacks or poor people. You are not viewed as a leader who is ready to rush to help the neglected or poverty-stricken. Is that a fair view?

A. That’s part of my image, unfortunately, and I have to deal with it if I expect broad-support. It springs partly from my strong positions on welfare. I think welfare destroys human beings. I really think I’ve had a bum rap on caring about people who need help.

I know a little about prejudice. My father was a rough, tough Irishman, a Catholic, and my mother was Protestant. I used to catch all the Pope stories. I’ll just have to make myself and my record clear: as Governor, for example, I appointed more blacks to executive and policymaking jobs than all the rest of the California Governors combined.

But it’s a problem for me, I know. I saw a column recently that said my attacks on Henry Kissinger were because I was antiSemitic. Such stupidness. James Schlesinger, whom I admire, is the son of Jewish immigrants. I would consider any Administration would be fortunate to have a man like Schlesinger in it.

Q. You have been accused by Senator Barry Goldwater of encouraging guerrilla warfare in Panama. What is the difference between having a treaty with guaranteed rights to the Panama Canal and your insistence that we maintain total control over the canal?

A. I don’t understand Goldwater attacking me on this. He signed a Senate resolution himself in 1974 committing us totally to retain ownership of the canal. Treaties invite nationalization. Then we really would be faced with guerrilla warfare. Retaining ownership, to me, is far more stabilizing.

Q. Six months ago, when you announced for the presidency, you said you were doing it out of a sense of duty, like a paying of dues, and that you almost wished someone else were in your position. Many people see a dramatic change in your ambition to be President. You seem more aggressive, more zealous. Has your attitude changed?

A. I was a little bit in awe of the decision then; now it’s not so hard for me. I feel a change must take place in this country, that we’ve reached a point of crisis in our history. People have become so isolated, so dependent. Yes, now I want very much to go to Washington.