Washington

IT WAS an agonizing decision for Donald Rumsfeld to give up a secure congressional seat representing an Illinois suburban district and enlist, at age 36, in the Nixon administration. He held a variety of positions in and out of the Nixon White House. But, luckily for Rumsfeld, he was off in Europe being an ambassador when the Watergate scandal unfolded.

Though he always went about his missions with a Haldeman-like thoroughness, Rumsfeld was untouched by the taint of Watergate. He returned to Washington to supervise the Ford transition, ran the White House staff for a while, and then served as secretary of defense. Both Republican presidents are said to have considered him for the vice presidency.

When the clock ran out on President Ford, Rummy was an older and wiser wonderboy of Illinois Republicanism. He had been part of the new look that arrived with Charles Percy, Richard Ogilvie, William Scott, Tom Houser, and finally Big Jim Thompson. Rumsfeld had been away from the state tending to OEO and NATO, the Cost of Living Council and the Pentagon. New faces kept coming along. The best offices were spoken for. If he is to reenter elective politics, he will have to make his own openings.

But his political interest in Illinois is undiminished. Before leaving Washington, while he was still sorting out his Pentagon papers, Rumsfeld chatted about the future. His incomparable managerial experience, determination, and an awareness of the importance of image in politics that has always been ahead of his time almost guarantee that Don Rumsfeld won't quietly fade away.

At that, he projects a curious air of innocence. During our interview, for example, he pretended that he did not actually know when Percy or Adlai Stevenson would be up for reelection.

Here are excerpts from the conversation with Don Rumsfeld:

Q: Are you thinking about elective office in Illinois?
DR: There's always been a strong tug to Illinois. I plan to be out of public life for a period of years, how many I don't know. I have a sense that it's probably useful for people in government to be out of it for a while. It's good to have more time to stoke your furnace, more time for reading and reflection, for reseeding the ground. I've never had any particular ambitions or targets. When you look at our country, you think of how vastly more important the nongovernmental segment is. If I ever come back into government I like to think I'd be a much more valuable participant for having been out of it for a time. Pd like to spend another chunk of my life at it ... at some point. We'll take our chances.

Q: Do you subscribe to the theory that Nixon's enemies would have found another excuse to bring him down if it had not been for Watergate?
DR: Other people tend often to see conspiracies where I don't. A conspiratorial view of events sounds unlikely. After all, Mr. Nixon had just been reelected by one of the largest margins in the history of our country. The handling of it was just so terrible. If somebody was after him, he certainly gave them a lot of help.

Q: How do you feel about the future of the Republican party?
DR: What is disturbing is that a majority of the people consider themselves part of neither party. Being an independent is not a terribly effective role for a citizen. We all "vote for the man," but there's nothing noble about saying "I'm an independent." The question is: Do you want an opportunity to participate in and influence the selection of who one of the two people is who you'll be voting on?

Q: Every time we have a Republican governor, there's talk of building a strong party organization in places like Chicago, and it never seems to happen. Why not?
DR: Being in power and patronage are the kinds of things that sustain parties, and there's so much less patronage now. It must be hard to do or else it would be done more widely and more readily.

Q: A Percy or a Thompson feels he's got to be perceived as something more than a Republican, doesn't he?
DR: I suppose that's part of it. The party tends not to be the mechanism that puts candidates in office. Therefore it tends not to be the mechanism that candidates rely on to get into office. Which causes which I don't know. Candidates count for a great deal in today's political environment.

Q: There's so much emphasis on style these days. Is that good?
DR: The American people are not unwise. They make a net judgment about how well they're being governed that takes into account both substance and form. I don't know that I worry about it too much.