The Sour, Frustrated and Volatile Voters of Election Year '72

Perhaps not since the Depression has the American electorate seemed quite so restive and unpredictable. In the midst of a spring of startling primaries, the mood of the voters has often been bigger news than anything the candidates have said or done. Clearly, the public's shifting predilections, opinions and prejudices are not only changing the nature of the election but also steering the U.S. toward what may be a crucial intersection of its history.

To monitor the changeable voter mood this election year, TIME has commissioned Daniel Yankelovich Inc. to select and periodically interview members of a TIME Citizens Panel. The panel consists of 200 citizens chosen at random out of a carefully selected larger sample of 2,000 people who are a cross section of the national voting-age population. Here is the first of seven reports on the American mood this election year:

THE voters of 1972 are in a sour, gloomy mood based on multiple frustrations. A majority of them are sick of the war in Viet Nam and feel that it is going badly. Most voters complain about street crimes and fear that all kinds of crime are increasing. They are angry at what they consider a still-spiraling cost of living and unfair, ever-rising taxes, while their income seems to be frozen. They regard busing to integrate schools as foolish. As they search for the causes of their malaise, they do not necessarily blame President Nixon. But they do feel that the Nixon Administration and party leaders lie to them. They do not trust the press, either. The cynicism extends, surprisingly, even to Nixon's celebrated summitry in Peking and his impending trip to Moscow. Most find these trips either a bore or downright harmful.

At least at the moment, the voters feel most intensely about the war--an issue that only a few months ago seemed to have subsided. Ranking a distant second to Viet Nam are taxes, inflation, crime and busing--all rated about equally aggravating to voters. Lesser but still important concerns are drugs and the lack of credibility among political leaders. There is a widespread feeling that the nation's millions of "little guys" are repeatedly being victimized by a relatively few "big guys." Voter comments on all of these issues are rarely restrained, often angry.

THE WAR. Some 70% of the panelists feel that the war has taken a turn for the worse, and many fear that U.S. involvement may continue indefinitely. Some base their feeling upon the renewed U.S. bombing of North Viet Nam. When he heard the news of the bombing, says Robert Langmuir, a college professor in Altadena, Calif., "I was shouting bad words at my TV set, hoping that someone would listen. The bombing is only delaying the ending of this immoral war." To anti-Nixon panelists, the renewed raids are another confirmation that Nixon is seeking military victory, not a swift winding down. A minority on the panel consider the bombing a means to hasten the war's end. "It has to be done," contends Stanley Reed of North Andover, Mass. The panelists are not yet sure just what degree of U.S. disengagement will be needed to ease their war frustrations, but they indicate that the war may be the major campaign issue unless Nixon moves more decisively to end it. "All during Nixon's campaign, he promised to get us out," protests Marsha Siple, a fashion designer in Menlo Park, Calif. "He is doing no better than Johnson."

Yet there is considerable sympathy for Nixon as a man trapped by Viet Nam. "I don't think the Communists are going to let us get out easily and peaceably," says a housewife in Raleigh, N.C. "I don't think the other candidates would do differently than Nixon has done." A minority urge even stronger military measures. "I think we should go in and fight a real war and get the damn thing over," says Alice Freeman, a California housewife. Yet the dominant plea of voters is to end the war. "I'm just praying it will come to an end --it's been sickening," says Seymour Schimler of Miami Beach, Fla.

THE ECONOMY. Despite the Administration's imposition of wage and price controls, 70% of the panelists state that they are finding it more difficult to remain financially solvent. Complains Ed Barcott, a teacher in Port Townsend, Wash.: "I have not received any wage increases in the past 21 years, and yet the cost of living has gone up. We eat less now--and not very good meats." Retired people especially feel the pinch. "Money seems to go as quickly as you get it," notes Arthur Lincoln, 77, of Fresh Meadows, N.Y. Says a Pittsburgh housewife: "I'm broke. The butcher says he's broke. The Government is broke. Who's got the money?"

Two-thirds of the panelists believe that the economic controls are not working. "Important controls are left off; the ones that are left are ridiculous," complains Armand Ballaert, a construction worker in Alpine, Calif. Adds Faye Richards, a Portland, Ore., housewife: "It is an unfair thing--no real overall plan." Many feel that powerful labor unions and big corporations benefit from the controls while nonunion workers and consumers suffer.

TAXES. The nation's tax system, from the local property tax to the federal income tax, is considered unfair by 80% of the panelists. "When I hear about the rich getting away with paying little or no taxes while we middle class are paying and trying so hard to make ends meet, I get mad," says a California housewife. A retired woman, Janet Lindo, 67, of Mineola, N.Y., "feels sorry for the little guy--he has to pay almost everything he has in taxes." Much of the anger is directed at property taxes. "They are too high and they're going higher," protests I. Gifford Ladd, of Wellesley, Mass. Moreover, many feel that they get little service in return for the taxes they pay. "They don't do enough with the tax money; you feel that people in government pocket the money themselves," complains Louis McDowell of Edmonds, Wash.

BUSING. Two-thirds of the panelists see no advantage for either white or black children in busing to integrate schools. "Black children are getting the same education as white kids," contends William Septak, a white telephone installer in Pittsburgh. "Black parents don't want their kids to be bused. They get a better education in black heritage in a black school." Pat Gearon, an Atlanta housewife, has another objection: "I would be afraid to drive into some areas knowing that my children would not be in complete safety." Adds a Pittsburgh housewife: "It's not democratic for the Government to tell you where to send your children to school." Only 25% see advantages to busing. "We need integrated schools--mixing of the races--not separate-but-equal schools," contends the California professor.

CRIME. In the eyes of 60% of the panelists, crime in their own areas is growing worse, mainly in the form of robberies, burglaries and muggings. "I used to talk to anyone who needed help and start conversations with anyone," observes Ida Moreno, a retired woman in Brooklyn. "However, many of my friends have been attacked and I was robbed. Now I'm too afraid of humanity." The voters have various explanations for the crime rise. "Moral standards are very low," says Yvonne Morris, wife of a blue-collar worker in Decatur, Ga. "There's too much discontent," argues Rhoda Friedberg, a New York City store clerk. "It's a home problem--there is not enough parental supervision," counters Nell B. Coakley of Louisville, Ky. Joan Lefkowitz of Philadelphia sees other factors: "The courts are lax. They allow criminals to walk the streets. Also, drugs are too available."

Only a minority feel that the Nixon Administration is doing enough to curb crime. Some point to the decline in crime statistics for the nation's capital and argue that the Nixon policies applied there would be helpful if copied elsewhere. But the New York construction worker insists that the Administration mostly just talks about crime.

DRUGS. There is much concern about the use of drugs. Many panelists see it as a contributing cause of crime; others regard it less malignantly as the youthful substitute for an earlier generation's "smoking behind the barn." As John Doherty, 73, of Framingham, Mass., views it: "Kids are unsure of themselves, grow up too fast and take drugs." John Septak has a more sympathetic attitude. "We're looking for an answer to what life is, and everything seems to fail. We have no answers, so we look to drugs for an answer."

SUMMITRY. Roughly half of the panelists consider Nixon's trip to Peking a mistake, wasteful or unproductive. "Nixon took a long trip that didn't do anything," argues Camelis Gallagher, 18, of Corpus Christi, Texas. "We don't know the Chinese well," says Alice

Freeman. "I don't trust them. Nixon shouldn't have gone." An opposing view was expressed by Robert Ritter, a Lake Charles, La., teacher: "The best thing between two nations like China and the U.S. is communication, even if it is not all that peaceful." Some panelists feel that whatever the U.S. might have gained in easing tensions with Communist powers was wiped out by the renewal of bombing in North Viet Nam. Insists Mary Ann Schueller of Philadelphia: "Since we bombed Hanoi, the trip was wasted."

The attitude toward Nixon's impending trip to Moscow is mostly ho-hum. "I don't care whether he goes or not," says Dominic Greco, of Dayton. "I don't think it makes a difference, because one day Russia is with us and the next day they're against us."

CREDIBILITY. A majority of the panel are skeptical about much of what they hear from the President, journalists, politicians and labor leaders. Many on the panel doubt that Nixon has told the truth about Viet Nam or that his Administration is believable when it contends that large contributions to the Republican Party do not influence Government decisions. They distrust labor leaders' statements about the economy and reporters' comments about the news, especially those made on television. They doubt that Governor Wallace really puts the interests of "the little man" ahead of his own self-interest.

Moreover, the voters of 1972 demonstrate a lack of confidence in the way U.S. democracy is now functioning. They doubt that the Government reflects the views and represents the interests of the majority of Americans. They do not believe that the two-party system leads to the election of the best possible man to the White House. There is, however, at least one man they tend to trust more than those now in high office or running for President. Half the panel has confidence in Ralph Nader and the charges he levels at Government and business in behalf of consumers and environmentalists.

Yet the general skepticism has its limits. A dominant 75% of the voters still believe in a venerable American canon. They agree that "it is still possible to get ahead if you are willing to work hard and stick with it."

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