In Transition

After a protracted period of ambivalence on the Viet Nam war, Michigan's Governor George Romney followed most other leading Republicans last April 7 in giving general support to the Administration's policy. Last week, by contrast, Romney was leading the party. Although his exact destination was not certain, the direction was clearly away from Lyndon Johnson and toward a clear-cut, independent Republican stance on the war during the 1968 campaign.

A remarkable aspect of the shift was that Romney managed it merely by changing emphasis rather than by overt self-contradiction. In his Hartford speech four months ago, he emphasized points of agreement with the Administration, including his willingness to have the U.S. "use military force as necessary." As to domestic politicking, he observed then: "It is not a test of wills to see which party will be the peace party, which candidate will be hawk or dove." The performance earned him a public thank you from the White House.

When asked at a Capitol Hill meeting with student interns last week if the Republicans could be the "party of peace," Romney replied: "The Republican Party is going to pursue those programs that they believe will produce peace in Viet Nam on a sound basis as soon as possible." At a Lansing press conference, he went so far as to describe U.S. involvement in Viet Nam as a "tragic" mistake. "All of Southeast Asia is at stake today," he declared. "It wasn't initially. It wasn't before we built this thing up."

Disengagement. No one reminded Romney that Malaya was an East-West battleground before most Americans knew where Viet Nam was, that Laos nearly slipped under Communist control six years ago, that the U.S. presence in Asia encouraged Indonesia's excision of Communist influence in 1965.

Romney's memory for history may have lapsed, but his sense of political timing was unusually keen. His drive for the G.O.P. presidential nomination had received little attention during the summer until the Detroit riots and his differences with the President put him back in the headlines. Last week's off-the-cuff remarks landed on television screens and front pages across the nation. He followed up with a speech urging U.S. flexibility toward China, in the hope that Peking will reach the point where it will "deserve and desire" United Nations membership.

More significant, Romney has managed to disengage himself from the Administration at a time when popular support both for Johnson and the war are at alltime lows and when many Republicans have begun to have second thoughts about Viet Nam. He accomplished this without committing himself to firm positions on bombing the North, increasing U.S. troop levels, or any of the other hard questions about Viet Nam. He made critical sounds about the bombing, for instance, but said that he really did not disagree with House Republican Leader Gerald Ford, who advocates more intensive aerial warfare. "If there is going to be bombing," said Romney, "we should bomb in a more effective way." Moreover, he argued, no amount of bombing will destroy the Viet Cong infrastructure in the South, which is the real goal to achieve before the war can be won.

Essential Alternative. Indeed, the gap between Romney and Republicans who have been militantly pro-war is narrowing. The G.O.P. attitude in Congress, says one leader, is "in transition" toward a softer stance on the conflict. There is talk of reminding the electorate next year that Democrats controlled the White House when the U.S. entered each of its last four wars. Because the G.O.P. until now has been more staunch in its support of the Administration's Viet Nam policy than the Democrats, some Republicans fear political damage if progress in Viet Nam continues to be slow. Kentucky Senator Thruston Morton, a former G.O.P. national chairman, said recently: "It is essential that the party find an alternative course for disengagement."

Republicans are by no means unanimous on this issue. Former Vice President Richard Nixon in a Minneapolis speech and press conference disagreed with Romney by supporting the original U.S. commitment in Viet Nam. Nixon faulted the Administration not for bombing too much but for "not doing enough in expanding the bombing to more military targets." Under

Johnson's strategy, Nixon said, the war will drag into the '70s, with growing risks of a confrontation with China as Peking's nuclear weaponry improves.

But Nixon seemed to be going against a gathering party consensus. If it is still far from all-out opposition to the war, it is clearly in favor of keeping all options open. The Republicans, of course, have as yet failed to come up with a cohesive position that offers any reasonable alternative to present policy. At this point in the political calendar, however, their best strategy is to wait upon events; whatever happens, it seems unlikely that they will adopt an extreme antiwar position. Meanwhile, Romney is looking ahead, and it seems likely that in coming months moderate G.O.P. leaders will coalesce behind him.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.