Nation: WHAT PRESIDENT

• Share

NIXON HUMPHREY

WOULD BE LIKE

FOR most of this long election year, the "real" Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey have eluded the most studious candidate watchers. As Humphrey whirled about the country, occasionally switching positions or contradicting himself, it sometimes seemed as if there were too many of him to pin down. Nixon tiptoed over the hustings, scrupulously avoiding mistakes and evading debate, sometimes giving the impression that there was too little of him to pin down. The most important question for voters, of course, is what kind of President each would make.

There can be no certain advance test of how a man will conduct the presidency. But educated prophecy is possible on the basis of the candidates' personalities and policies, and indeed even on the basis of their performances on the current campaign trail.

All through the campaign, antagonists from both ends of the political spectrum insisted that there were really no fundamental differences between the two. But there are. Despite their kindred pasts (small towns, occasional hard times) and similar attitudes about party loyalty (intense and constant), the contrasts go deep. In the White House, they would become highly visible.

Efficiency. Of the two, Nixon is by far the better organizer and administrator. He has given serious thought to making government perform more efficiently. He would be likely to insist on high performance by subordinates, just as he has done to excellent effect with his campaign organization. Humphrey has pointed out a number of times that the Bible is unconcerned with efficiency but deeply involved with compassion. On the day-to-day operating level, Humphrey could be expected to concern himself with more trivia than Nixon, to spread himself thinner, to put up with more intramural disorder.

In an era of huge, unwieldy government, when translating policy into reality is one of the most difficult problems of all, Nixon's mechanical approach may be more promising. Yet efficiency is a means, not an end, and can become meaningless in the absence of a creative policy—and worthy policymakers. Despite his image as a hardheaded selector of talented men, Nixon chose the mediocre Spiro Agnew as running mate to avoid antagonizing Southern Republicans, while Humphrey picked the better-qualified Edmund Muskie. "Agnew is not a racist," said Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke, last week. Then, in an extraordinary burst of candor, he added: "I hope I'm right. I hope for the good of the country I'm right." Nixon, too, must be hoping for a better show from Agnew. He himself now regrets his choice—although in public he must continue to defend it. In retrospect, he looks longingly at respected public figures such as John Gardner, who might well have been available.