To the Polls: Permissiveness v. Purse

RICHARD NIXON, political analyst, is always the best explicator of Richard Nixon, political performer. While moving into the grand finale of his party's 1970 campaign, he made clear why he is making the most vigorous presidential effort ever in a mid-term election: "I think that this campaign will be determined in the next two weeks. I have never seen so many close races, close races in all fields. In a close race, we want momentum on our side. So let's move. Let's go!"

In the campaign's penultimate week, politicians in both parties sensed an extraordinary proportion of voters still undecided. To Nixon, this uncertainty --some call it apathy--represents opportunity. With the Democrats lacking national leadership, the President is able to define issues as the G.O.P. would have them, and with little contradiction. He monopolizes news-media coverage. He injects excitement into state contests that have evoked ennui. Hence the President will have covered at least 22 states in the campaign's final 21 days. Last week he sent Pat to Michigan, Minnesota, Florida and Nevada; Spiro Agnew continued to sweep across the country juggernaut-style, scourging radic-libs (see ESSAY).

Slamming Lines. The President offers an appropriate contrast to his Vice President. Throughout the campaign, Agnew has dealt in invective and named individual opponents; last week he said that Adlai Stevenson III had "demeaned his great name." Nixon attacks on a higher plane, treating the opposition as an abstract mass guilty of collective failure. He individually identifies only his honored Republicans.

Through seven Midwest, Border and Southern states last week, Nixon sounded his theme. He has scaled down the war, and needs Republican support to continue that progress. He wants "new programs to reform America," and needs Republicans to enact them. He wants a stop inflation, but the "runaway pending binge" perpetrated by Democrats hampers him; the only solution is to defeat the "big spenders."

These and other issues, however, are merely a preface to the big punch: attacks on crime, violence and permissiveness. Nixon saves the last third of ach speech for the slamming lines that get the biggest applause. He cites a specific atrocity or two by the radical left --a campus bombing, an assault on policemen--and then declares: "It is ime to draw the line." How? "I say it s time to give us men in the House nd the Senate who will vote for strong aws to deal with law-and-order, rather han against them."

Foul-Mouthed Foils. Thoughts and phrases from the 1968 campaign appear again and again: Nixon still wants judges who will strengthen "the peace forces as against the criminal forces." One vital circumstance has changed. Two years ago, Nixon was rarely the target of foul-nouthed hecklers. Now they are a constant feature, and Nixon welcomes them as foils. In a recent New Jersey appearrance, police tried to bar a handful of demonstrators. Ron Walker, Nixon's chief advance man, told the police to let the protesters in. In speech after speech, Nixon recalls that obscenities--and in one case, rocks--have been hurled at him by the "vicious minority." The President then admonishes: "Don't engage in violence against them. You don't have to shout four-letter obscenities. But it is time for the great Silent Majority of Americans to stand up and be counted."

The approach is straightforward, aimed directly at popular resentment and apprehension over radical assaults on civic peace. There is no discussion of the complexities of extremist activity, no attempt at serious discrimination between the merely irksome and the really violent among dissenters. Nor is there much of a Democratic rebuttal at the national level. Most of the Democrats' strongest spokesmen are tied down in their own individual Senate races.

Merely by performing his proper duties last week, Nixon was able to interrupt his campaigning and still dominate stage center. First he conferred with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. Then he addressed the United Nations (see THE WORLD). Finally, he set an E-shaped dinner table for 29 world leaders, the biggest gathering of its kind in White House history. Various dietary restrictions ruled out many dishes; Chef Henry Haller settled on Columbia River salmon and squab. Split-second timing was necessary to assure the proper sequence of arrivals in ascending order of diplomatic precedence. It did not work. Chiefs of state and heads of government arrived helter-skelter at the White House gates.

Sharp Jag. Lawrence O'Brien, Democratic national chairman, did strike one retaliatory blow last week. "It's outrageous to suggest," he said, "that somehow Democrats in Congress and Democrats generally condone violence and extremism and do not support law-and-order and justice." He would not dream of implying, he said in Washington, that the increasing crime rates of the past two years were caused by a Republican Administration. Recalling the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, O'Brien said: "We know violence and extremism. We have experienced it. We have lived with it. And we abhor it." Then he tried to shift attention back to the Democrats' best talking point of the fall: the economy and unemployment. For once the headlines were cooperating with the Democrats. The cost-of-living index for September showed a sharp jag upward that, coupled with other factors, reduced spendable income (see BUSINESS). Moreover, unemployment, while not high when compared with previous slack periods, is worse now than during most of the past decade. In addition, it is affecting a broader spread of the population, including professionals and skilled workers on whom the Republicans have been counting for strong support.

It seems unlikely that Nixon's attempt to blame economic troubles on the Democrats will succeed. Johnsonian fiscal programs produced inflation, but it is the Republican antidote, however necessary, that has cut profits and jobs. Therefore the key to the campaign is whether voters have been aroused enough over violence and dissent to put aside their unhappiness over pocketbook issues. The President has banked on that. The powerful campaign mounted by Nixon and Agnew has succeeded at least to the extent of keeping the Democrats on the defensive.

There is a gamble in Nixon's decision to commit himself so heavily, but it seems a shrewd one. If the Republicans sustain serious setbacks, he will suffer a blow to his prestige. However, losses in a mid-term election are likely to be soon forgotten or explained away, while any gain in strength will be a boost for Nixon, allowing the President to claim that he has won a national referendum on his policies.

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