Lindsay’s bid illustrates confusion

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32802, 30 December 1971, Page 11

Lindsay’s bid illustrates confusion

(By

JAMES RESTON

of the New York Times News Service, through N.Z.P.A.)

NEW YORK, Dec. 29. Most of the public comments about Mr John Lindsay’s bid for the Presidency, announced in Miami yesterday, illustrate the tyranny of the political parties, and add to the confusion about how to choose a President of the United States in 1972.... The main problem, which seems always lost in the struggle, is to pick the best man to lead the republic. It is not a judgment on the past but a bet on the future; not a reward for past services, but a jud- nrit on the coming probit 4 the coming men.

This is not an argument for Mr Lindsay as the answer, but only a suggestion about getting the question right, and the comments about his candidacy clearly indicate that the national

debate is involved with the past and on the parties, and not on the future.

The “old geezers” in the Democratic Party are against him. They welcome converts from the Republican ranks, but they regard Mr Lindsay as a cheeky upstart, a little like a Presbyterian who joins the Church of Rom* and wants to be Pope four months later. And, obviously, they have a powerful point. They have another point, which is that if he could not solve all the problems of New York City, how could he possibly solve all the problems of the nation. So the taxi drivers are blaming him both for abandoning the city, and for doing nothing about its problems even when he is there.

But if seniority and success in previous jobs are to be the tests, how are we to decide? Probably Mr Lindsay will never surmount the charges that he is a new boy in the Democratic Party, and that he didn’t transform New York into a safe, clean, and

triumphant city. But there is nothing in America’s recent history to prove that seniority and success in previous jobs were the answer to the problem of picking a President.

President Johnson had seniority and was enormously successful as a political leader in the Senate—probably the most effective party leader on Capitol Hill this century—but he resigned the Presidency in sorrow. President Kennedy had no seniority in the Democratic Party and his record as Senator from Massachussetts was no better than Mr Lindsay’s record as Mayor of New York, and probably not nearly as good. But he was attractive, intelligent, and cunning, and he defied his party and put his case to the people and won. President Nixon is an even better example of personal conviction and determination; he not only lost to Mr Kennedy for the Presidency in 1960, but to Mr Pat Brown in 1962 for the Governorship

of California. He was not only rejected by his party as a has-been, but even rejected by himself. And still, he came back to the White House, and by extraordinary efforts of personal perseverance is now an odds-on favourite to win again in 1972. So there is a mystery in all this, which seniority, past records, and party preferences cannot quite explain. After all, Mr Nixon and Mr Kennedy did not get to the White House because they were great senators, or because they had seniority, or had the overwhelming popularity of the party workers.

In the end, they put the question to the people over the head of the parties. And this is what Mr Lindsay is trying to do; not only him, but Senators Humphrey, Muskie, McGovern, Jackson, McCarthy and all the rest.

So why not leave it to the people? American politics are very mixed up now. With Mr Nixon going to Peking

and Moscow and controlling prices and wages, and Senators Humphrey and Muskie arguing for decentralisation and more local control, where are the party principles? If party loyalty and service are to be the tests, then obviously Senator Humphrey, Senator Muskie or perhaps even Senator Mike Mansfield, or Senator Wilbur Mills, should be the Democratic Presidential nominee. But if not, Mr Lindsay is entitled to his chance, and might even surprise the professionals, if he gets it, personality, conviction and television being as powerful as they are. After all, the Presidency is too important to be left entirely to the professional politicians and the play of the seniority system. All Mr Lindsay is asking, like the other long-shot candidates, is to get a chance. In fact, it may even be better than leaving the question to the Democratic Party, for obviously the party elders don’t know how to judge.