Taking the public pulse

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33448, 1 February 1974, Page 17

Taking the public pulse

(By

MIKE ROYKO,

of the "Chicago Daily News,” through N Z.P.A.)

CHICAGO. During their recent break, most Congressmen went home and asked their local voters what they wanted done about President Nixon. It’s important for Congressmen to know how their constituents feel about any big issue, that way they can vote according to their constituents’ hatreds, suspicions, or prejudices, rather than rely on their own consciences. Acting on the basis of conscience can be dangerous for any Congressman or any politician because it can bring about the worst possible tragedy: not being re-1 elected. And when that hap-i pens, what good is a con-! science anyway?

So the Congressmen were eager to know whether they should return to Washington to grasp the President’s hand or this throat.

Surprisingly, many Congressmen said that they couldn't get a clear idea about public sentiment for impeachment. So now they are fretting that they might accidentally do the right thing morally, but the wrong thing politically, which is far worse than the reverse.

I’m surprised they can’t gauge public opinion because

I’ve talked to few people who don’t feel strongly one way or another. Right now, you can walk into any bar and announce: “I think Nixon ought to be thrown out of office,” and somebody will hit you. You can also walk into any bar and announce: “I think Nixon ought to stay in office,” and somebody else will hit you. So all you have to do is try it often enough and figure out how many punches you get from each side.

A safer method is to go in a bar and ask: “How does everyone here feel about President Nixon?” That way, they will soon be punching each other. By counting the | fists on each side, and dividling by two, a reliable survey (has been made.

1 In some cases, though, it may not matter how voters feel. At least that is what Edward Garrity, a lawyer in Svcamore, Illinois, believes.

Mr Garrity recently wrote to his Congressman, a Republican representative, Mr Leslie Arends. Mr Garrity felt that it is his duty as a citizen to let Mr Arends know how he feels. In his letter he said: “Mr Nixon must be impeached and removed from office by our representatives ... the only Constitutional

method that we have for removing a most unworthy servant. “. . We are a very tolerant people, granting our elected officials handsome salaries and even tenure for a term of years. “Our constitutional process of impeachment does not punish an unworthy public servant, but only removes him from his public office. "You must act promptly to do this ... It is not a partisan matter. Centuries after the Republican and Democratic parties have disappeared, your failure to do your duty "now may do untold harm.”

Whether you agree with him or not, Mr Garrity has made his position perfectly clear.

And Mr Arends promptly replied to his constituent. Within a week, Mr Garrity received a letter saying: “I was pleased to receive your letter which you sent to my office proclaiming your continued support for President Nixon.”

Mr Garrity immediately looked at the envelope to make sure he hadn't opened somebody else’s mail. But it was addressed to him all right.

Mr Arends went on to say: “More and more of. those who support the President

are speaking out, and this is good. The President’s critics overlook the many great things he has accomplished for our nation and our urgent need for strong leadership at this time when we are faced with such a dilemma in the Middle East.

“In my judgment, only Mr Nixon has the experience and fortitude to keep the lid on this highly explosive situation and I expect to continue to support him in every way possible. “Thank you again for taking the time to send me your views.” Mr Garrity isn’t sure what to make of it; nor am I. Could it be that someone in Mr Arends’s office has erased parts of Mr Garrity’s letter? I wouldn’t suggest that the Devil did it, because he is busy erasing elsewhere, but possibly a spare demon. Or maybe Mr Arends thinks impeachment, compared with other proposed solutions amounts to “continued support” for Mr Nixon. At least when you are impeached, you don’t have to visit a parole officer. Whatever is behind Mr Arends’s reply, it is clear that he thinks he knows the public’s pulse. But it’s a good thing he’s not a doctor, or he'd take it by sticking his finger in your eye,