The President Buys More Time

Rarely if ever in the long and lamentable history of the Viet Nam War have the attitudes of the American public shifted so abruptly as they have in recent weeks. That fact is sharply underscored by the TIME Citizens Panel, a group of 200 citizens randomly chosen from a scientifically selected cross section of 2,000 voting-age Americans. Conducted for TIME by Daniel Yankelovitch Inc., the in-depth interviews with panelists are designed to measure the mood of U.S. voters in election year 1972. In sounding out the panel on the war, the second of seven TIME Yankelovitch reports shows how volatile that mood can be.

A FEW short months ago, the war seemed to have receded as a campaign issue. Heartened by President Nixon's withdrawal of nearly 500,000 U.S. troops from Viet Nam, war-weary Americans were more than willing to divert their attention to problems at home. Then as the North Vietnamese pressed their military advantage in the South and the U.S. responded with expanded bombing attacks in the North, the war that will not go away once again preyed on the national conscience.

Only a month ago, the first Yankelovich report showed a deepening sense of gloom and frustration about the stepped-up hostilities. At that time, two-thirds of the TIME Citizens Panel felt that the war had taken a sharp turn for the worse. Now, in the aftermath of the mining of North Vietnamese harbors and the summit meeting in Moscow, there has been a distinct change of mood. Seven out of ten panelists in the latest survey express a renewed confidence in the President's conduct of the war. Only three of ten give him a vote of no confidence.

Significantly, the majority support for the President's policies is equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. Some voters from both parties echo hardline, hawkish positions, saying that the U.S. should escalate the action even further if that is what is needed to win the war. "Fight it and get it over with," says Mrs. Wilma ("Billie") Renner, a Lawrenceburg, Ind., housewife and a Republican. "We're being pushed around overseas and at home. I'm disgusted with people not backing President Nixon." Walter Glamp, a Dublin, Md., high school counselor who voted for Edmund Muskie in his state's primary, feels that the President's advisers would have voted against the mining action if they thought it was unduly risky. "I believe," he says, "that the North Vietnamese now will watch their step before taking any escalatory actions of their own."

Among those panelists who support the President, three themes stand out:

RISKY BUT WORTH IT. Nixon's move is regarded by most panelists as dangerous. Frequently referring to the Cuban missile crisis, many say that they experienced a few anxious days. Mrs. Taylor Chambers of Richmond, Ky., a Democrat who has tentatively decided to switch her vote to Nixon, says her first reactions were ambivalent: "I was scared. I wondered what China and Russia were going to do. I felt both horrified and pleased." When it became clear that the feared confrontation had been avoided, a guarded optimism began to replace the doomsday gloom. The high risks, panelists feel, were worth it because now, they assume, the war will truly come to an end. Though vague about what kind of peace will be achieved, many figure that it will be something like the negotiated settlement in Korea. Others, like John Cowley, a construction worker from Warren, Mich., contend that the South Vietnamese "are a bunch of crooks taking all our money in the black market" and are beyond helping themselves.

THIS MOVE IS DIFFERENT. Panel members do not make the same assumptions about the mining of North Vietnamese harbors as they do about the bombing of bridges, railroads and supply depots. The feeling of many is that the bombing has failed before and will likely fail again. The mining, however, is a new tactical maneuver and thus is not condemned in advance. More important, panelists believe that it is directed squarely at the Russians--the real power behind the scenes. Though many are convinced that the Soviets are the key to resolving the war, few expect them to cooperate because the war enables them "to gain more economic advantages round the world."

WE WON'T BE BULLIED. Time and again, panelists use the same phrase in appraising the President's action. At long last, they say, the U.S. has served notice that "we won't be pushed around." In their view, the bullies are not only the North Vietnamese but the entire Communist world. William Jensen, a Fremont,

Calif., advertising man, fully backs the President, saying that the U.S. has "lost face" for too many years because "we didn't have the backbone to use our military power."

The 30% who oppose the President's handling of the war are no less fervent in their dissent. Mainly Democrats who favor the nomination of George McGovern, they object on ideological grounds or because they think the war is already lost. "You can't ignore the fact that people are getting killed day in and day out," says Rhonda Friedberg, 20, a Manhattan office worker. "It's like witnessing a murder right in front of you." While many panelists view the U.S. involvement as an honorable if misguided attempt to help a small nation, she feels that anything less than immediate withdrawal will be unsatisfactory, because "we are only there to protect our own interests; the concept of honor is an abstraction."

For all their differences, panelists on both sides of the issue reflect an underlying note of wait-and-see skepticism that suggests President Nixon may simply have bought a little more time for himself. If the war should drag on and Nixon's new tactics fail to reap many appreciable rewards, that skepticism could turn into a form of political backlash.

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