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.