Slipping Anchor on the Right

The alliance between Richard Nixon and the nation's conservative ideologues has never been automatic or assured. His 1960 campaign, in which he compromised with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller on matters like civil rights and medical care for the aged, caused many conservatives to worry that he was far too willing to sacrifice philosophical principles for the sake of votes. They backed him for the Republican nomination in 1968 largely because he seemed more likely to win than their preferred candidate, California Governor Ronald Reagan. Explains Texas Senator John Tower: "Having gone through the debacle of 1964 with Barry Goldwater, we were not going to be lemmings again." Moreover, according to Tower, "we received certain assurances from Nixon. So we felt that his inclination would be in our direction, even though he was never really regarded as one of us."

Riding Roughshod. Now, more and more conservatives are uneasy about the President. They were pleased by some of his actions, such as his move to end the antipoverty program, his stance against busing, his Supreme Court appointments, his efforts to scale down the Federal Government's activity and return revenues to the local levels. But they were dismayed by many of his other moves, including the wage-price controls that he imposed and the rapprochement with Peking. Says Frank Donatelli, executive director of the Young Americans for Freedom: "He certainly is not a conservative President so far as we are concerned. We do not see how his health-care program is much better than [Senator Edward] Kennedy's. His conception of detente is riding roughshod over our friends, ruining our defense posture and ignoring the basic human rights of people within the Soviet Union."

In his time of Watergate troubles.

Nixon has tried to make fast his slipping anchor on the right. He scuttled a land-use bill in Congress, opposed big subsidies for mass transit and proposed amendments to weaken a consumer-protection bill. But conservatives regard such shifts as being too little and too late. Says Maryland Congressman Robert Bauman: "After five years of losing initiative a change at the last minute to win back our support isn't going to help." So much criticism of Nixon was voiced at a conference of conservatives in Washington last January that Presidential Assistant Patrick Buchanan rather defensively asserted: "The President may not be a card-carrying conservative, but he is certainly a fellow traveler."

Watergate and the President's fumbling defense have widened the rift between Nixon and conservatives. Many believe that the scandal has destroyed an opportunity to remake American government in a more conservative image. They had hoped that the landslide victory would make Nixon so secure in office that he would feel no need to compromise with liberals. Now, however, they believe that the Watergate scandals have changed that situation. Last week, for example, the American Conservative Union forwarded to the White House statements from 35 conservative Senators and Congressmen roundly criticizing Nixon's proposed fiscal 1975 budget of $304.4 billion with its projected deficit of $9.4 billion.

Ohio Congressman John Ashbrook, who ran against the President in several 1972 primaries, argues that "there is not much support for the President below the surface of conservatism. There is a lot of grumbling and downright hostility. For the average conservative, it has been a question of digesting so much stuff: Agnew, the 18-minute gap in the tape, the President's taxes, the missing deed for his papers. It is a litany of events that seems not to cease, and no demagoguery of trying to blame it on the press and on the left is going to work. The President acts as if he thinks that he has the conservatives in captivity, with nowhere else to go. That position itself grates on a lot of conservatives."

Last week, after Nixon lost the support of Senator James Buckley of New York, most other conservative leaders followed the example of Senator Goldwater, who said that he would not subscribe to Buckley's solution "at this time." From their statements, however, it was clear that conservatives were not holding back because they approved of Nixon. Rather, they fear that a resignation with no finding that he was guilty of serious wrongdoing would set a dangerous precedent.

Many conservative officeholders agree with North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms that "conservatives will make a serious error if they advocate that a President, if he is truly innocent, resign to appease a hostile press or even a majority of his countrymen." Senator Tower declares that for Nixon to resign when there are only "allegations of circumstantial evidence" against him would do "irreparable damage to the presidency." California's Reagan describes Buckley's call as "a little curve in the road," a departure from proper conservative ideology.

Profound Effect. Nonetheless, Buckley's defection had a profound effect on conservatives, particularly on those in Congress. "What Buckley has done is pull a plug on the President's most important reservoir," says Howard Phillips, a Washington lobbyist for the American Conservative Union. At the very least, Buckley's pronouncement will force many on the right to reconsider the reasons why they want Nixon to stay in office. Says Congressman Bauman: "Some of us feel that Senator Buckley said many of the things that we have had on our minds, although we may not agree that Nixon should resign." Adds California Congressman John Rousselot, a onetime member of the John Birch Society:

"Conservatives do not want to lead the charge. They do not want to ask for a public hanging in the square. But there is quite a lot of disgust with what has been going on."

Quite a few conservatives have a dim view of Nixon's prospects. "He's not going to resign, and his credibility is going to worsen," complains Ashbrook.

"There's no light at the end of the tunnel." Others, however, are more optimistic about the conservative cause.

"With or without this President, certain basic principles are going to survive," says Tennessee Senator William Brock.

"I am convinced that the country is more conservative today--in a responsible, creative sense--than it was five years ago. I am confident that we can elect a man in 1976 who is essentially in the conservative mainstream."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.