Time for a change
with the last weekend approaching, the ierican election campaign has at last shown s of coming to life. For too long it has mbled a lap of honour by Mr Richard on, with obligato accompaniment from the !lace chorus, and Vice-President Hum- y trailing the chains of the outgoing inistration far in the rear. But the con- ing refusal of the Republican candidate escribe his intentions, the growing aware- s of the unfitness of his chosen running to for the office which has produced the ellinbent President and both the leading tenders for the succession, the reluctant e`(lorsement of Mr Humphrey by Senator arthy and other spokesmen of the left against1118 of the Democratic party, accusations Governor Agnew which revive memo- °s of Mr Nixon's own troubles in the past, ttold also perhaps the traditional swing back le the outgoing administration (albeit repre- ' 441 by its Vice-President and not its chief) kth e closing stages of the campaign have all kit11,, billed with memories of 1948 to make the 11.,4sters hedge their bets. The announcement vu,tO the White House of a bombing pause in is'etnani between.now and Tuesday could, it peace talks for the eve of his own departure in January. Even if he did give Mr Humphrey the boon he has, been craving, it is probably now too late. The Johnson administration's impressive record of social legislation has been more than outbalanced by its failure to find answers to the agonising problems -of Vietnam and the cities. Mr Nixon seems likely to win on Tuesday night because at least he offers a change of administration, and too many Americans doubt whether Mr Hum- phrey offers even that.
This is hard on Vice-President Humphrey, for, paradoxically, it is he rather than Mr Nixon who has tried at least to suggest a different course—an end to bombing, a reduc- tion in the numbers of American troops—in Vietnam (even if he has been soundly snubbed for his pains by the White House). Mr Nixon, for his part, has encouraged the expectation that he would be tougher with dissent and violence in the cities; but as usual he has avoided commitments. If they could be judged by their words alone it would be the Vice-President, and not the opposition candidate, who would emerge as the candi- date of change.
But of course they will not—and should not be judged on their words alone. It is the cumulative impression of a candidate which, in the end, determines the nation's verdict. And if the impression of Mr Nixon has been an impression of evasiveness, the impression of Mr Humphrey has been one of good in- tentions unaccompanied by the will-power to carry them out. If he is Mr Johnson's monkey today, whose monkey would he be at the White House?
Even under a strong President the composi- tion of the leading membership of a modern us cabinet is of great importance. President Johnson has been a strong President; yet his Vietnam policy has been shaped and trained by the Secretary of State, Mr Rusk. Under a weak President like Mr Eisenhower members of the Cabinet soon come to assume direct executive responsibility. There is now a need for some new faces in Washington. Mr Rusk's Vietnam strategy—the strategy of limited war unlimited in duration—has exhausted the patience of the American electorate. At a lower level the bluff browbeating methods of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Fowler. have come near to exhausting the patience of overseas governments and central bankers. Mr Nixon's cabinet nominees might not be better (although if he carries out hisireported intention of offering the Treasury to Mr David Rockefeller this would certainly be an improvement). But at least they would be different. him and Mr Humphrey has narrowed, so fears of a deadlock in the Electoral College have revived once more. On the whole, it seems unlikely. Nevertheless, the United States has this year been forcibly reminded of the alarming possibilities of distortion and corruption inherent in the antique system of indirect election—possibilities which, if the Wallace party fails to disappear after the election, could all too easily become realities in 1972. It is to be hoped that no time will now be lost in scrapping the Electoral College, and allowing the electors to choose their leaders direct—as most of them imagine they do al- ready. Another desirable constitutional re- form which might be considered at the same time would be some change in the procedures for the succession in the event of the death or incapacity of the President in Office.
When the party conventions had picked this year's Presidential nominees the SPEC- T'ATOR concluded that, on balance, Mr Nixon would be the better choice. We see no reason, as the campaign draws to its close, to change this view. America needs a new regime. But it is a harsh criticism of the machines which still control the two great parties that this ,.an be achieved only by a vote for a man ‘v ho has asked for a blank cheque, and whose choice of a potential successor has turned out to be a major blunder even by the standards of a wholly unimpressive campaign.
