U.S. POLITICS WATERGATE WILL NOT SOLVE THE DEMOCRATS’ PROBLEMS

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33252, 15 June 1973, Page 8

U.S. POLITICS WATERGATE WILL NOT SOLVE THE DEMOCRATS’ PROBLEMS

(By the Washington bureau of the “Economist ) (Reprinted by arrangement) The extreme caution with which most Democratic Party leaders, are treating the Watergate scandal is not only a considered political tactL but also a recognition that benefits to them from President Nixon's crisis may be limited. While these Democrats cannot totally subdue their euphoria over the discomfiture of an ancient enemy as bitterly detested as Mr Nixon, they have misgivings for a variety of reasons over his possible resignation, or worse yet. impeachment. The wisest ot them also know that Mr Nixon’s fall from grace does not in itself solve the deep-seated problems of the Democratic Party.

Self-restraint and caution are by no means universal among the Democrats. Several respectable politicians, most recently Governor Patrick Lucey of Wisconsin, have demanded the resignation of the President. Some, including Mr Clark Clifford, a former Secretary of Defence, have called for the resignation of both Mr Nixon and Vice President Agnew, who would be succeeded by a coalition caretaker government until 1977. Mr Fred Harris, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is toying with the idea of filing a law suit to set aside the results of the 1972 campaign on the ground of the Nixon campaign’s extralegal activities. On the wilder reaches of the Democratic Left wing, the militants are calling for the President’s impeachment. But most Democrats follow the strictures of Mr Robert Strauss, the chairman of the

National CommitTee, to be careful about de;manding Mr Nixon’s departjure, largely for reasons of | self-interest. Mr Strauss is !deathly afraid that the public j will associate the Democratic j Party as a whole with the ["impeach Nixon” talk. In jspite of President Nixon’s 'precipitous drop in the public iopinion polls, he continues to |boast a loyal following. Nor J do most prudent Democrats I want to establish impeachment as a standard weapon ’!of American political dialogue. “If we impeach Nixon lor even try to impeach ; Nixon,” says one Democratic 'leader, “the next Democratic President would be in jeopardy from the first day he took office.” Furthermore, many Democrats are frankly worried about the purely partisan impact if Mr Nixon is hounded out of office and replaced by Mr Agnew. Mr Agnew’s political skill and industriousness are not highly valued in Washington, but the fact remains that he is unmistakably clear of the Watergate scandal (as, indeed, he is clear of almost all the Nixon Administration’s business). Democratic strategists, fearing that Mr Agnew might turn into a Republican Truman, would prefer a crippled Nixon unable to succeed himself as President to an Agnew eligible to run in 1976. Far from resolving Democratic difficulties, the Watergate eruption may have complicated the search for a Democratic presidential nominee in 1976. Until recently, the widespread belief within the party was that Senator Edward Kennedy was the inevitable, if not necessarily the most desirable, candidate. But the aftermath of Watergate may require such purity

and openness that Mr Kennedy, still burdened with the undisclosed details of the Chappaquiddick affair, might be totally inappropriate. Thus there is now hopeful speculation among many Democrats that Mr Kennedy might not be interested in seeking tlie Presidency after all. „ Lacking Mr Kennedy, there is no obvious choice. Two of the unsuccessful candidates in 1972, definitely Senator Henry Jackson of Washington State and possibly Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, seem interested in trying again, but neither excites widespread interest. Two newer faces lin the party, Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota and Governor Daniel Walker of Illinois, have fresh, clean .images that might fit the ; post-Watergate mood. But Ineither is known nationally and neither has been tested in big-time politics. A more immediate problem for the Democrats than the lack of a clear candidate in an election which is more than three years away is the continuing ideological conflict within the party. Mr Strauss, fast-talking and canny, has done a remarkable iob as national chairman in papering over deepseated differences between the reformers who nominated Senator McGovern in 1972 and the regulars who opposed him. But, sooner or later, Mr Strauss will have to make some hard choices about the procedure for selecting delegates to the nominating convention in 1976. The regulars, particularly the trade union leaders, who elected Mr Strauss as chairman grumble privately that he has made too many concessions to the reformers. The reformers, while appreciative of his co-operation thus far, are keping up the pressure on Mr Strauss to ratify the 1972 reforms. Showcase for divisions A potentially explosive Democratic national conference, mandated by the last national convention, is scheduled for 1974, and that will probably prove a showcase for the continued divisions within the party which at present are obscured by the preoccupations over Watergate. A newly published book by Mr Gary Hart, Senator McGovern's campaign manager in 1972, indicates clearly that the reformers maintain contempt for the regulars they defeated in 1972 and have no intention of helping to return the party to the ideological centre. This ideological rigidity by the Democratic left has been hardened by the Watergate affair, which is viewed by Mr McGovern’s loyal stalwarts as his tardy vindication. Accordingly. Democratic moderates fear .that the intoxication over Mr Nixon’s fall may lead the party to ignore mass opinion once again. For example, the Democratic left was inordinately pleased last week with the election by a surprisingly large margin of Mr Tom Bradley, a black member of the city council, as mayor of Los Angeles against Mr Sam Yorty, a Right-wing Democrat and political eccentric seeking a fourth consecutive term as mayor. Since Mr Bradley comes from the left of California’s Democratic Party, his election is being hailed as proof that the Watergate scandal has pushed the political balance of power well to the left and that Californian Democrats should move in that direction for next year’s state-wide election. Such conclusions ignore the fact that Los Angeles, which was carried by Mr McGovern in 1972 while Mr Nixon was winning the state by a comfortable margin, was bound to defeat the anachronistic black- baiting Mr Yorty sooner or later. His defeat, can scarcely be considered a significant barometer of national political trends.

Unconvinced voters Moderate Democrats, far from being bemused by Mr Bradley’s victory, are concerned by the substantial number of voters who remain unconvinced of any sin in the Watergate affair by either the President or his aides and who view the investigation of the scandal by the press and Congress as a vendetta to destroy Mr Nixon. That number of diehards is diminishing (rapidly. But it remains substantial enough to cloud any hopes for immense Democratic windfalls immediately ahead. It seems much too early to see any clear Democratic gains resulting from Watergate in the mid-term elections of 1974, which quite probably will be affected more closely by the state of the economy next year. The 1976 presidential election is so far away that it is not even possible to speculate about the impact on it of the Watergate scandals. The hard facts are that both parties are in poor shape from the (standpoints of unity, morale and organisation. The present revelations in Washington, (while they may emasculate [the Nixon Presidency and perhaps even force Mr Nixon ,out of office, will hardlv [ decide the long-term political (struggle for support in a jdeeply troubled and divided country.