Addressing a standing room Kennedy School audience last night Presidential Counselor Edwin P. Meese III gave the strongest official indication to date that President Reagan will run for reelection in 1984.

"I fully expect the President to run in 1984 and I expect him to win reelection Meese told a crowd of 800 gathered to hear a panel discussion assessing Reagan's mid-term performance

Other panelists participating in the forum were House Majority Leader Rep. James Wright (D-Tex) and two journalists from opposite sides of the political spectrum National Review Publisher William A Rusher and New York Times Assistant Editor Tom Wicker

While Wicker and Wright conceded that Reagan had at least attempted to accomplish the policies he promised in his campaign they questioned whether these efforts represented the right approach to solving the country economic problems

Give him a script and he can make it sing," Wright said, "He's a kind of Daddy Warbucks with hair."

Meese said Reagan's success in reducing federal spending and curtailing the inflationary spiral caused by previous administrations put him in a strong position for a 1984 candidacy

But Wright disagreed with Meese's suggestion that high deficits are the legacy of past Democratic administrations He argued that the loss of $135 billion in revenues caused by Reagan's 1981 tax package is the source of the ever-widening deficit

Continuing along the same lines. Wicker maintained Reagan was taking credit for the accomplishments of past administrations, while blaming current problems on these same presidencies. "Jimmy Carter never blamed the problems he faced on the preceding administration," he said In addition, the prospect of arms-reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union are the result of NATO and SALT agreements over the past decade, not the Reagan administration.

During his rebuttal, Wright called Meese to task on an earlier off-the-cuff response to the question, "Where would Franklin Roosevelt be without Social Security?" Meese had replied, "I don't know where Franklin Roosevelt would be without social security, but I know we would have been a heck of a lot better off without it."

"I hope it was in jest." Wright countered, adding that for the 36 million Americans who receive benefits, nothing has done more to create peace of mind."

Rusher was quick to rise to Meese's defense. "It is important that Meese not be man-euvered into a 'Let-'em-eat-cake' position," he said, assuring the audience that Meese was referring to current social security woes and not the program itself.

In an interview after the panel, Meese reiterated that he did not mean to imply that he was against the entire social security program, but declined to elaborate In a question and answer session after the panel, the speakers discussed proposed cutbacks in social programs such as child nutrition and student aid.

Meese defended the administration by citing increased allocations for the Head Start program and Work study as examples of the administration's commitment to social programs.

Outside the Kennedy School a Law School group protested the recently released Reagan budget's proposed elimination of the Legal Services Corporation, a $ 240 million program which pays thousands of lawyers to defend the poor in civil cases such as land lord tenant disputes.

Thirty five members of the Law School legal aid bureau began marching outside the auditorium an hour before the start of the discussion and their chants were audible as the speakers took their places at the discussion table