Several A's, Some F's for Jimmy

The economy aside, Jimmy Carter certainly bought home an outstanding report card for the spring semester of his freshman year. For "staying close to the people," he was given a 93% rating by those who expressed an opinion; for "providing moral leadership," 88%; for improving relations with the nation's friends and allies, 83%; for restoring Americans' pride in themselves, 80% (see chart page 16).

Yet so mixed are America's feelings that between 25% and 50% of the voters said they had no opinion about Carter's handling of most issues, ranging from welfare reform to curbing inflation --and the mood of the nation was worsening. TIME'S national mood indicator, based on a series of questions that measure Americans' confidence in their country, has slipped two points since March, to 45%-- though it is still 2 1/2 times higher than the Watergate level of about three years ago.

Candor & Folksiness. These are among the findings of a nationwide telephone survey of 1,036 registered voters conducted in late May for TIME by the opinion-research firm of Yankelovich. Skelly & White Inc. A comparison with a similar TIME survey conducted last March shows that Carter has lost a sprinkling of popularity points in some areas but has registered gains in others. Most notably, voters who feel that Carter is coming to grips with the energy problem increased from 64% to 71%.

Much of Carter's popularity continues to be based on his candor, folksiness and straight-from-the-hip moralizing. His ratings since March for providing jobs, maintaining strong defenses and reducing unfairness each improved by 1%. One worrisome finding for the President: in March, 48% of those surveyed said their impressions of Carter had improved since the Inauguration; in the May sampling that figure shrank to 38%. At the same time, in March, only 6% said they had formed a worse impression of Carter since he took office; in May that figure grew to 14%.

For at least some voters, one reason for their disappointment is that they have increasingly come to view Carter as a moderate-to-conservative politician. One month before the 1976 election, 35% of the voters surveyed saw Carter as either a liberal or a radical; in the new survey, about half that many --18%--described him in those terms.

One issue facing Carter proved to be the focus of a high degree of voter concern. Fully 65% of those polled expressed the fear that there would not be enough money left in the Government's Social Security pot by the time they were ready to retire. Asked about Carter's proposal to boost the Social Security tax for employers and workers, 56% of the Democrats who were polled found it to be "fair," while 54% of Republicans called the proposal "unfair."

A broader consensus opposed the ban on saccharin imposed by the federal Food and Drug Administration. An impressive 75% of those questioned said that instead of banning the sweetener, the Government should mandate labels warning of its potential dangers and should allow consumers to decide for themselves whether or not to use it. Moreover, 53% said it was wrong to ban saccharin since the evidence of its harmfulness to humans is too skimpy.

On energy the survey found that while public opinion is aroused, it is also torn between a belief that a crisis exists and a reluctance to make sacrifices to overcome it. Nearly three out of four voters agreed with Carter that "we have to solve the energy problem now." But a month after Carter unveiled his program, a bare majority--51 %--were convinced that the shortage of fuel oil was "really serious," 40% said the shortage has been "exaggerated," and 9% were unsure. There was slightly more faith in the existence of a natural-gas shortage, which caused widespread factory closings last winter: 54% said they believed the shortage was serious, 38% said it was exaggerated, 8% said they were not sure.

Clear Majority. Despite the widespread suspicion that the energy crisis may be exaggerated, only 20% felt Carter had deliberately oversold his program. Meanwhile, 59% called Carter's proposed program "fair," and only 33% complained that Carter asked people like themselves to bear most of the burden. Even more--34%--said Carter's program did not go far enough. When this group is added to the 30% who said that, in general, Carter's program was "just right," there appears to be a clear majority--64%--in favor of measures that are at least as tough as those proposed by Carter.

That consensus evaporates, however, when it comes to the specifics of Carter's program. Although voters did not quarrel with Carter's plea that consumers conserve energy, they protested that he had placed "too little emphasis" on other alternatives: public transportation (62%), solar energy (56%), more domestic production of oil and gas (50%), more conservation of energy by industry (47%), greater use of coal (42%), more Government control over the oil companies (41%). These figures suggest that consumers feel they have already been squeezed enough and expect solutions other than more sacrifice on their part. In addition, voters emphatically opposed Carter's proposal for new taxes to curb energy use. A solid 69% opposed cutting consumption by increasing gasoline taxes, and 53% opposed a special tax on gas-guzzling cars. Such a tax is favored, however, by 58% of those who own fuel-efficient cars that get 21 or more miles per gal.

No Rationing. Confronted with a choice between a more modest life-style and a fouler atmosphere, 61% opted for the latter; they said they favored the burning of more coal "even if it slowed down our progress toward cleaner air." The survey also found some willingness to pay higher prices if they would help prevent living standards from falling; 56% said they would favor the use of coal for electricity generation "even if it resulted in higher electricity rates." But only 39% said they would favor abolishing price controls on oil and natural gas if it meant more inflation. Gas rationing, like gas taxes, remains extremely unpopular; 62% said no when asked whether Carter's program should have included rationing.

Given these contradictory responses to the energy crisis, it is no wonder that those questioned were convinced, by a margin of 58% to 32%, that the American public is not ready for the kind of sacrifices that the President envisions. Yet the survey also indicates that the gravity of the energy crisis has indeed penetrated, perhaps at a subliminal level. Asked what they saw down the road, 82% said they expect to live with a gas tax in the future, and an identical percentage foresaw a 100% increase in utility rates. In the view of 71%, gasoline will eventually cost at least $1.25 per gal., and 57% expect gasoline rationing. One other prediction received overwhelming assent. Asked how they" felt about the statement that in five to ten years "Congress will still be arguing about what to do," 85% readily agreed with it.

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