Cracks in the foundations

ANGLO-SAXON POLITICS D. W. BROGAN

In the early spring of 1937 I visited Washing- ton after FDR had achieved what was, up to then, the grea !est victory in American elec- toral history. I called on a close friend of mine, a Democratic Congressman, who shared a house with the leader of the small Republi- can minority in the House of Representatives, Mr Joseph Martin from Massachusetts. My friend, now a distinguished federal judge, in- troduced me in these terms: 'This is a friend of mine from England who is interested in the future of the Republican party.' To this Mr Martin replied, 'I am glad to meet anyone who believes the Republican party has a future.' Less than two years from then, the 'Republican party showed that it had a future by cutting savagely into the Democratic majority in Congress, and Mr Martin himself was twice the Speaker of the House before the Eisenhower magic wore off.

I was again in America in the election of 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson won a victory at least as startling as that of FDR, and it was a reasonable subject for conjecture to speculate if the Republican party had a future. The congressional elections of Novem- ber 1966 showed it had, and certainly in Washington a few weeks ago it was not the Republicans who were worried, but the re- cently triumphant Democrats.

That the Democratic troubles came from within their own ranks was, of course, largely true. It is Democrats who are fulminating against President Johnson's policy in Vietnam; they attempt to elucidate it and, if possible, change it. Criticism of the 'credibility gap' came in a most effective form from Demo- cratic dissenters, especially in the Senate. The most serious widening of that gap has been caused by the contrast of the statements of the Secretary of Defence, the only member of the administration who is practically independent of the President, and the more recent action of the American high command in Vietnam. This has led, on the one hand, to a belief that Mr McNamara has abandoned his high standards of truthfulness and of wisdom, and, on the other hand, as an alterna- tive, that he has been overruled very drastically by the President and for that—and other reasons—is seriously considering resignation.

Wisely, as in 1937, the Republicans let the Democrats make the running, let them foul their own nest, to use an old political metaphor. And many administration Demo- crats were heard to say that 'with friends like these, we don't need enemies'—as they contemplated Senators Fulbright, Clark and McGovern. The more naive Republicans, especially those who had been shellshocked by the Goldwater debacle, acted as though they had only to wait for the Democrats to tear themselves in pieces. No doubt it had been a tradition of the Democrats to fight savage internal wars while the Republicans usually united for battle, whatever internal doubts and hatreds their excellent drill concealed. But in recent years the Republicans have shown a Democratic talent for internal warfare, made most manifest not only in the Goldwater nomination and campaign of 1964, but by the bitter resentment still felt by Goldwater sup-

porters at the betrayal of their hero by some of the most prominent young Republicans who are now being hailed as saviours of the Grand Old Party.

The simple idea of waiting for the Demo- crats to cut their own throats is not quite so appealing as it was even a few weeks ago. The split in the Republican minority of the Senate on the policy of the Vietnam war, the hostility to it now openly revealed by one of the most promising younger Senators, Senator Percy of Illinois, the doubts and fears expressed by the conscience of the Senate, Senator Aitken of Vermont, all reveal that there are cracks in the Republican as well as the Democratic facade. The only problem is whether there are also cracks in the foundations.

I think there are cracks in the foundations of both parties, as I think—and this I want to emphasise—there are cracks in the founda- tions of both the Conservative and the Labour parties in this country. Cracks over the Viet- nam war are more serious than cracks over the policy of entry into Europe, and, although this may be unduly censorious, the dissenters in both the Democratic and the Republican parties seem to be more impressive than those who are revolting, in either the Labour or the Tory ranks, against the policy of entering into Europe. One could guess in advance who would be against Europe in the Labour party and who against Europe in the Conservative party. It was harder to guess, even a year ago, who would be against the escalation of the Viet- nam war, the pursuit of victory, the risk of an armed conflict with China. Some, to me, surprising names are to be found among the dissenters and some very surprising names are also to be found among the hawks. Some very odd manages de convenance seem to be de- veloping. The spectacle of the former Galahad of the Democratic party, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, buddying up with Governor Mad- dox of Georgia startled and shocked many of his old friends. And, in the United States at the moment, a good many issues are breaking old alliances and old friendships and making party discipline even more slack than it traditionally has been, especially in the Senate.

As recently as Christmas some of the most determined doves were extremely pessimistic about their ability to withstand the great pres- sure towards a patriotic front supporting the war in Vietnam and supporting any policy that promised to end it soon and victoriously. I know one of the leaders of the opposition inside the Democratic party who then felt they were

defeated in advance. They are not so sure now. Take the case of Senator Percy of Illinois. He defeated ,that veteran and much-admired

liberal, Senator Paul Douglas, largely, though not entirely, on the issue of the war in Viet- nam. For Senator (ex-Colonel) Douglas was very much a hawk. Senator Percy has now come

out in open criticism of American policy which he muted a little during his campaign, though

his- views in private were very much what they are today. I think it is unlikely that Senator Percy can be nominated in 1968, but he is not a totally dark horse, though he is certainly subfusc. In the same way, Governor Romney, the front runner today, is no hawk, and the most vociferous preachers of war a foutrance come from the South, where Senator Russell of Georgia and Representative Rivers of South Carolina do not attract much sympathy from regular Democrats in the North. I do not think that either the Republican or the Democratic party is cracking up, despite the pessimism of Professor Galbraith, but I do think that if the Vietnam war is still going on at the time of the election, anything can happen.

And these things, it seems to me, have a lesson for the politicians of this country. A failure to enter Europe may be blamed on General de Gaulle, but the public may also blame it on Mr Wilson. The voters of London, if they voted against the Labour rulers of the Greater London Council because of national policies, may be irritated to discover that the cl_c can do very little for them on these points.

Labour discipline may crack. The faithful, who should never be disregarded completely, even by the most pragmatic Prime Minister, may very well be disillusioned and vote with their feet, by not voting.

On the other hand, there are signs of a premature euphoria among the Tories.

Victory is very far from being in the bag and it is very unlikely that Mr Wilson's hand has entirely lost its cunning or that all the luck will run one way. Already there are signs that the old Tory loyalties, to the Empire, to Ulster, to Rhodesia, to nostalgia for a dead past when the English people really knew their place, may damage the resurgent Tory party as the Goldwater nonsense nearly wrecked the Republican party. It is not accidental that the favourite Republican candidate for 1968 among the professional Republican politicians is Mr Richard Nixon. He is one of them and the fact that he is notoriously accident-prone does not offset his advantage of being a real pro. (So were the victims of Cassius Clay: it didn't do them much good.) In the same way, it is probably too late to look back nostalgically at the brief reign of Sir Alec, or even look forward to the stern remedies which that old-fashioned radi- cal, Mr Enoch Powell, is offering to his party.

A Tory comeback has come quicker than I, at any rate, expected. In the White House and in Downing Street, the magic spells have lost their power. The 'credibility gap' and 'gimmicks' are charges with enough plausibility to weaken the authority of the President and the Prime Minister. But each is a master politician, if not at the highest level. Both Re- publicans and Tories will be rash to count their chickens or to pay too much attention to the noisiest of their supporters. Neither side will win by cheering on its own supporters. Both must intimidate or seduce the discon- tented adherents of the other party or that numerous body of voters called independent who vote 'No' rather than 'Yes.'