Get. 11.

\in

|le$ IKoJtttf Suwtag flegi^tcr

/4n Independent
IHvinKRHIiKMF.R. Preiidrnt and Publisher GARDNER C(> US. Chairmen of the Hoard

KF.NMFTII MAr.DovM.n. Editor A. Kn'MnnllF.iivs.Manapin/t Editor

I . M m.M SoTM, Editorial I'aff Editor Lot is II. iSoRRls. Rn.iinau Manager

The Choice for President

T
HIS NEWSPAPER is politically independent. We are not committed to any political party, and we do not "support" candidates in the sense of trying to help them get elected. It is not our function to tell readers how to vote. Our function is to report in the news columns as much pertinent political information as we can gather and to provide on this editorial page discussion and comment. At the end of a campaign we attempt to reassess the candidates and issues and to state our own conclusions. This has been a dreary campaign with almost no illuminating debate that would clarify issues and strengthen the nation's political institutions. President Nixon, assured of reelection if the polls are correct, has felt no need to submit his record to searching debate. Senator McGovern, who had been expected to discuss the overriding issues in a thoughtful and rational manner, has resorted too often to the same appeals to class prejudice and the same kind of loose statement which some critics have associated with Nixon. Our conclusion as the campaign ends is that, all things considered, this country would be belter served by a continuation of the Nixon Administration than by transferring the presidency to Senator McGovern. We conclude this despite serious disagreement with some current Administration policies. Any assessment of President Nixon's performance must begin by recognizing his creative statesmanship in reversing this nation's 23 years of hostility to China, in reaching an accommodation with Russia and in making a beginning toward control of nuclear armaments. Taken together, these accomplishments may well prove to be the most significant reorientation of U.S. foreign policy in recent decades. A number of circumstances contributed to the Administration's success in these areas where three former presidents had been unsuccessful. But President Nixon's perception of America's current position in world affairs, his willingness to change a previous strongly-held position and his general leadership skills must be recognized as the major reasons. The Nixon Administration has managed, too, to keep an uneasy peace in the Mideast through the efforts of Secretary of State Rogers and Assistant Secretary Sisco. On the economic front, the President has done well, considering the severe inflation which he had to deal with when he entered office. He has not been doctrinaire in economic policy. He made mistakes in trying to curb the price rise by conventional monetary and fiscal means, but when this didn't work, he did not hesitate to take decisive action in applying controls and in moving toward world monetary reform. Today, the United States has the lowest rate of inflation of any major industrial country. And the economy is moving upward encouragingly, which should soon ease the unemployment situation. The President has failed to press hard enough for desperately needed welfare reform, but he did make innovative proposals to Congress encompassing a guaranteed basic income level, and he was the first president to do so. The Democrats in Congress must share the blame for lack of progress on this reform. * * * There is much to criticize in the Nixon Administration. We have been critical of the President's Vietnam policy which ostensibly has been based on guaranteeing the South Vietnamese the right to determine their own government, but which has had the effect of propping up a dictatorial regime imposed by us and prolonging the killing and destruction in a war which we should never have entered. We have criticized certain mediocre appointments (notably some of the nominations to the Supreme Court) and the soft attitude on civil rights to woo Southern support. We have raised questions about the moral climate in Washington. We are disturbed by the Watergate scandal and the evidence linking it with the White House, by the hidden political funds, the indication of secret deals in the ITT affair and the dairy price supports and the Russian wheat sales. We are disturbed by the Administration's lack of candor on these questions and its refusal to disclose information which would identify any who are guilty. The ugly charges of political connivance which are being made may not be true, but they will not be dispelled by silence. We can agree with much of Senator McGovern's criticism of the Administration in these areas, but his campaign has not built confidence that an administration under his guidance could deal adequately with the crucial problems of the next tour years. His failure to organize his own campaign staff, the revisions in his positions on economic policy, the vacillation exhibited in the Eagleton episode, the lack of credibility in the Salinger incident raise serious questions about his leadership abilities. In the awesome office of the presidency good intentions are not enough. We favor a continuation of the Nixon Administration. [At the end of a campaign we are often asked about our position in previous campaigns. In 1960 we favored Nixon; in 1964, Lyndon Johnson; in 1968, Hubert Humphrey.]