Nation: NIXON'S NEW ALIGNMENT'

• Share

GOVERNMENT by a strong executive, by Cabinet, by legislature —these are the terms most often used in assessing the two-party system. Less frequently discussed is the question of cohesive party rule. Given their fragmented condition, neither major U.S. party today is cemented to a clearly defined constituency of region or class; both grope for a majority among shifting factions. In a recent speech, Richard Nixon argued that there is an alternative, that in fact a first-of-its-kind "new alignment for American unity" has been forming.

"The new majority is not a grouping of power blocs, but an alliance of ideas," said Nixon. It stems from five sources: Republicans, "new liberals," the "new South," black militants and the silent millions "in the middle of the American political spectrum" heard from mostly on election day. Implicit is the expectation that they will all sound off Republican next fall.

Machine Run Amuck. As Nixon sees it, the quintet has in common a distaste for expanding federal power and a desire to return decision making whenever possible to lower levels of government and to the private sector. Washington should provide incentives and guidance toward problem solving, but not domination. "That traditionally Republican thinking," he says, "is the wellspring of the new alignment." It is also traditional Nixon thinking—the assertion of individuality against the weight of centralized authority.

All of which must come as news to the non-G.O.P. elements of the Nixon equation. But it is provocative. The Chicago Tribune found it "as thoughtful and intelligent a political appraisal as we are likely to get this year." The New York Times mulled the proposal over and concluded that it is "intriguing but implausible political speculation." Ted Sorensen decided it was the product of a "Nixon mimeograph machine that ran amuck one night."

Nixon, however, has the best-run political mimeograph that is now in operation. One of his problems as a contestant for the Republican nomination has been to break out of his stereotype as a narrow sectarian, to show that he can appeal to enough Democrats and independents to convert the Republican minority into an election-day majority. His radio speech was aimed squarely at that wider audience. And at a moment of national dissension, any new, constructive note of national unity can only be welcome.

But is the statement a valid X ray of the body politic in 1968? Or merely a vote-getting ploy? Are these disparate elements capable of ballot-box cohesion? It would seem unlikely. Nixon himself concedes only "differences of emphasis, not of fundamentals; differences in the speed of change, not so much in the direction of change." Yet the pace of progress is itself a key issue. Black militants—and black moderates, for that matter—have been increasingly dissatisfied with gradualism. It was the demand for "Freedom now.'" that motivated black militance in the first place, while many of the whites Nixon talks about are horrified at being rushed.