It's not often that the two candidates in a Presidential election are sharply contrasted types. They were in 1952, when Eisenhower, the benevolent, fatherly national hero, the amateur politician who spoke in earnest platitudes, faced Stevenson, an "egghead," articulate and gifted, but probably too aloof and indecisive for the average voter. More often the personality of one candidate has been so strong as to force his rival completely off the stage, or else, rarely, the candidates have been strikingly similar. That seems to be the case this year.

Both Nixon and Kennedy are expert and coldly calculating politicians, with well-oiled organisations behind them. Nixon's was provided by the Republican Party, which has been grooming him during Eisenhower's term, and Kennedy's by the family fortune, but the end result is the same Both make good, well-polished speeches that say surprisingly similar things with a carefully controlled emotional content—just the right amount in the right places.

Avoiding Commitment

Over the years both have shown that they know the first rule for Presidential hopeful—avoid commitment on as many issues as possible. Nixon has managed to cover himself so as to come out on the winning side on any issue. For instance, in August last year he established himself as "the man who talked back to Khrushchev" in the Moscow " kitchen debate," and during Khrushchev's tour of the U.S. Nixon kept well in the background and said little. Thus when the inevitable blow up in U.S.-Russian relations came this year, Nixon was ready to step forward as the tough man to deal with the Russians. He would, of course, have been equally ready to take over Eisenhower's mantle as peacemaker.

Nixon's first elections for his seat in Congress, in 1946 and 1948, were won by smearing two prominent Democrats as "Commies" in some of the dirtiest "no-holds-barred" campaigning the U.S. has seen since the war. But in 1954, when the reaction against McCarthy and his tactics was setting in, Nixon worked enthusiastically for his downfall. Since 1952, in keeping with the "new Nixon" image, he has expressed regret for his early election campaigns. This year Nixon has taken another well-timed stand by repudiating the record of Eisenhower's bumbling Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, who is about as popular as the Colorado Beetle in the farming states.

Kennedy has also been careful to avoid commitment on too many issues. His career in the Senate has been undistinguished; he never became part of the "inner circle" who make the important decisions, and he has none of the liberal crusading fervour of his former Democratic rival Senator Humphrey. Kennedy's one crusade, for Labour Union reform, has lost him no vote particularly since the notorious Jimmy Hoffa has been his bitter opponent.

The Men

The backgrounds of the two candidates are very different. Kennedy grew up in the wealthy, socially-select atmosphere of Boston. His father is a wealthy banker who was once Ambassador to Great Britain. His family's connections, influence and money were at his disposal when he decided to enter politics, and his career since 1956 has been one of steady preparation for the Presidency. His steamrolling of Senator Humphrey in this year's primary elections shows that Presidential politics are still a rich man's game, for Humphrey's organisation and campaign funds were nothing compared with Kennedy's.

Nixon, of course, has the resources of the Republican Party behind him. His origins are the reverse of Kennedy's. He came from a poor Californian Quaker family, and he worked his way through Law School against very heavy odds. Nixon's underdog, "poor-boy-makes-good" appeal will no doubt be made much of by Republicans. Actually, the distinction is now artificial. Nixon stands to the right, not the left, of the wealthy Democratic candidate on most issues. Both men show at times an appalling lack of humility in regard to their achievements and good luck, although this is more apparent in Kennedy. His speech accepting the Democratic nomination showed no sign that he regarded it as anything more than his due. An acceptance speech by Eisenhower or Stevenson, on the other hand, reflected enough humanity and emotion to give the parties affection as well as respect for their candidates.

The Issues

Foreign policy will be very important in this campaign, and since the parties do not differ at all on this the dispute will centre round the qualification of the candidates. Nixon's image as a strong man with the Russians is well established. This is Kennedy's weak spot. Since the Summit failure he has been hurt by the suspicion that he is too young to handle the problems facing the U.S., and his suggestion that the U.S. should apologise for the U-2 flights was unpopular. Nevertheless, he shows in his speeches that he is aware of foreign policy problems, and has called for "improved communications with mainland China."

Nixon's weakness is farm policy. The Administration policy has been a costly failure, and Nixon's attempts to dissociate himself from it may not be enough to save the farm vote.

The other big issue in domestic politics is how far the government should encourage economic growth. Democrats insist that the economy should expand at the rate of at least 5 per cent, per annum, to be forced by government spending if necessary. Nixon has scorned this as "growthmanship" and advocates the relaxation of government controls on the that increased government spending on education and welfare is necessary.

The Religious Issue

No one can tell how Kennedy's Catholicism will affect the election result. The shadow of Al Smith, the Democrats one Catholic nominee who was beaten disastrously by Hoover in 1928, haunts Kennedy. Experts are not agreed that his religion was a major factor in Smith's defeat (it could have helped him in some states) and probably no one could have beaten Hoover. Kennedy has not been above using his religion for his political advantage, as when, earlier this year, he tried to blackmail the Democratic Party by suggesting that if he were not nominated it would lose Catholic votes. These tactics could backfire badly.

Much of the opposition to Kennedy on religious issues has been led by prominent Protestant clergymen. Early this year Bishop Pike of the Episcopal Church began a furore by suggesting that Kennedy would not use U.S. Foreign Aid Funds to promote birth control in undeveloped countries. The U.S. probably would never do this anyway, but the issue had considerable emotional value. Two weeks ago a group of some of the right U.S. Protestant clergy, led by Norman Vincent ("The Power of Positive Thinking") Peale and Daniel Poling, signed a statement questioning Kennedy's fitness for the Presidency on religious grounds. Liberal Protestants, including Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich, immediately condemned the statement, but if the sectarian campaign against Kennedy gets such "respectable" backing it could do him much harm.

—J.D.