Interpreting the New Moderation

Congress and Reagan adjust their course by the voters' compass

From the cloistered political scientist spinning academic theories about ideological trends to the clubhouse party pro grubbing for fresh clues on how to elect future candidates, various experts will be mulling for months over the minutiae of the 1982 election returns. What matters in practical national terms, however, is how the politicians in power interpret the sentiments expressed by voters on Nov. 2, and how those millions of often clashing voices translate into calls for specific courses of governmental action. Last week there was an emerging consensus among leading politicians, based as much on intuition as solid evidence, about what a majority of voters want.

In broadest terms, White House strategists and leaders of both parties in Congress view the voter message as being aimed primarily at the nation's economic mess. The voters are seen as less interested in blaming anyone than in having something done about the situation. They want unemployment alleviated, the recession ended, the huge deficits curtailed—and they want this done without refueling inflation. That is a tall order, of course, but far from a controversial one. All politicians applaud those goals; the problem is how to reach them.

By the politicians' estimate, the voters are relatively unconcerned about ideology, wary of dogmatism and extremes, and interested solely in results. "They don't care about supply-side or Keynesian economics," explains one presidential aide. "They will be dissatisfied with either one until they see Government working for them, until they see a meaningful improvement in their lives." The lesson for Ronald Reagan, says one of his political strategists, is that the election pressures should nudge him toward a greater pragmatism but no abandonment of his basic course. What the voters gave the President, in this adviser's view, was "a good, strong tweak in the nose."

But what does that signify for specific economic policies? The politicians were drawing some tentative conclusions:

Unemployment. The rising national unemployment rate hurt Republican candidates more than any other single issue. One result of this political chastening has been a surprising bipartisan consensus on some type of federal jobs program. In the lame-duck congressional session starting Nov. 29, the Democrats plan to introduce a bill to create some 600,000 jobs by rebuilding the nation's decaying highways, bridges, sewers and mass-transit systems. Sponsored by Wisconsin Democratic Congressman Henry Reuss, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, it would be financed by scaling back Reagan's planned increases in defense spending and curtailing portions of his 1983 tax cuts. At his press conference last week, the President seemed receptive to a similar program that had been proposed a year ago by Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis. It would support about 300,000 jobs and be funded by some $5 billion from a 5¢-per-gal. increase in the federal gas tax, which is now 4¢. Reagan called this prospective rise a "user fee," and said he did not consider the Lewis plan a "job-creating proposal" as such. Indeed, with 11.6 million workers unemployed, these programs would be mainly symbolic gestures toward easing the problem.