NARROW VICTORY, WIDE PROBLEMS

POLLED and analyzed as never before, accused of indifference toward the candidates and alarm over the issues, the nation's electorate finally got its turn. It spoke quietly. It expressed no overwhelming preference for a personality or a party. But it acted coolly, picking and choosing among candidates for high office and low. And it laid to rest some phantoms that had threatened to haunt the Republic and the two-party system for years. Yet the nation denied Richard Nixon the really massive "mandate to govern" he had pleaded for. In fact, the vote was in many ways a reflection of the divisions that have been tormenting the country all year.

Ironically, in a record turnout of more than 72 million, Nixon's victory was painfully narrow--though a triumph in personal terms. With 93% of the unofficial count in, Nixon had 29,565,052 (43%); Hubert Humphrey, 29,539,500 (43%); and George Wallace, 9,181,466 (13%). The indicated electoral vote was 290 for Nixon, 203 for Humphrey and 45 for Wallace. Contrary to many predictions, the voters showed no inclination to boycott the election. Nor were they so angry or disillusioned as to waste inordinate numbers of votes on splinter parties.

Wallace's 13% was impressive in one sense: it was more than twice the combined totals won by Progressive Henry Wallace and Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in 1948 and was the largest third-party turnout since Robert La Follette garnered nearly 17% in 1924. (Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party ran second with 27.4% in 1912.) However, outside the Deep South his showing shrank dramatically below his standing in the polls through the late summer and early fall. He failed to prove his contention that the "rednecks" he bragged about were sufficiently numerous or widely enough distributed to people a national movement (see following story). Thus the prospects of his American Independent Party now seem far less bullish than they did just a few weeks ago. Conversely, the future of the two-party system seems more secure.

Unfettered Team. Combined with the Republican vote, however, Wallace's showing underlined the electorate's biggest message to Washington: Americans want a change, although in the absence of a figure with a compelling program, their feelings were ambivalent. Hence they belatedly warmed to Humphrey's gutsy drive for an upset in such numbers as to make Election Night one of the most suspenseful in memory. Also, they were insufficiently moved by Nixon's wary campaign to give him a generous plurality. Finally, the candidates' failure to draw the issues very sharply does not allow for translation of the outcome into cohesive demands for specific innovations in public policy.

But in broad terms, the differences among the three candidates were tangible enough to judge what a majority of voters went for--and against. The trend was obviously conservative, away from the omniscient federalism of the Great Society, toward the decentralized approach espoused by the Republicans and, more vaguely, by Wallace. White voters seemed to be attracted by Nixon's relatively tough stand on the law-and-order issue and leary of Humphrey's rather orthodox liberal approach. Because so little light showed between Nixon and Humphrey on Viet Nam, it is unlikely that the war played a large part in the presidential vote--or, for that matter, in the congressional races. The bombing suspension and the prospect of more significant negotiations may well have helped Humphrey's momentum in the campaign's last days. On the other hand, Nixon's promise of a new team unfettered by the outgoing Administration's war policies undoubtedly attracted many votes. Wallace's stated intention to turn the war over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a last resort obviously had little appeal.

Smallest Since Wilson. The vote pattern underscored yet again the fragmented condition of American politics. Negroes were almost unanimous for Humphrey, showing no faith whatever in Nixon's promise to give blacks "a piece of the action." The Northeast was Humphrey country, with the important exception of New Jersey, where Governor Richard Hughes blamed what he termed Wallace's "hate vote" for the narrow Democratic defeat. Nixon and Wallace divided the South, except for Texas. Nixon dominated most of the Midwestern and Western states. Historically, there is nothing too unusual about minority Presidents. In the 37 elections since the first serious attempt to count the popular vote, this was the 15th won with less than a majority, most often because of third and fourth parties. Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson and Truman all had to make do with less than 50%, as did John F. Kennedy. But not since Wilson's first election in 1912 with 41.9% of the vote, has a President received so small a share as Nixon has. And no other modern President has been elected to a first term to confront a Congress controlled by the opposition. Although the G.O.P. gained Senate strength, its progress toward domination of the House was surprisingly slight. The 91st Congress will be in Democratic hands.

The 37th President, regardless of his party, could hardly have expected the initial bliss that most new White House tenants enjoy on Capitol Hill. The political atmosphere has been too roiled, public opinion too combustible. Partly for this reason, partly because he fell so far short of a popular majority, Nixon will probably attempt to give a non-partisan patina to his Administration. Otherwise he cannot hope to rally the public support and Democratic cooperation he will need.

Social Remedies. At the same time, the Republicans, even with their man in the White House, still have a long way to go to establish themselves as a strong, full partner in the two-party system. This they failed to do even with the benefit of two Eisenhower landslides in the 1950s. Despite their comeback in the congressional and gubernatorial elections of 1966, despite their gains at the statehouse and Senate levels this year, the Republicans must drive their roots still deeper. And they must do it at a time when the electorate seems more independent than ever.

Ticket splitting this year seemed to become the national norm. Filling offices below the national ticket, voters in state after state indicated a keen sense of discrimination and a resistance to predictable patterns. In the House elections, incumbents seemed to enjoy the edge. In several Senate and gubernatorial contests, the voters reached for new personalities. In New York, Humphrey gained an easy victory, while the Republicans ended Democratic control of the state assembly.

The Democrats, of course, have their own set of problems. They managed to achieve a degree of unity in October that seemed impossible immediately after their August convention. Yet in defeat they lack a single strong leader. Lyndon Johnson may achieve an elder statesman's status, but he can hardly expect to regain the trust of the party's most vital activists. Humphrey, in his concession statement, pledged to "dedicate myself to a vital Democratic Party and to continue to work in the cause of human rights, of peace and the betterment of man." Although his showing certainly assures his position in the party, his most attentive listeners will not be among the younger and more energetic Democrats.

That the old Democratic coalition is broken has become a political cliche. The question for the immediate future is how the party will attempt to construct a new coalition in view of the wholesale defection of the South, the disaffection of many middle-income families, the revolt of many liberals and young voters.

The 1968 election lacked sufficient clarity for both parties. The Democrats were not beaten so badly as to make thoroughgoing internal overhaul unavoidable. The Republicans did not win easily or widely enough to be comfortable in victory. George Wallace was deflated, but not totally demolished. Thus the outlook is for more turbulence, at least until the electorate gets a chance to speak more unequivocally in 1970 and 1972.

Meanwhile, both parties will be seeking new foundations on which to enlarge their strength. They will have a common target among the young. Both parties must seek to reclaim the Deep South and to win back the disenchanted on the right and left elsewhere as well. In the process, the Republicans and Democrats might find some of the social remedies that both major candidates promised when they repeatedly pledged themselves to lead the nation and re-store national unity.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.