(2 of 9)
Unusual as the pace in Washington was, the week's events were consistent with the Nixon presidency. Like a practiced surfer, he was balanced carefully in the curl, in control of his board and in no apparent danger of a wipeout. He chanced on a good wave, and he was also riding it reasonably well. If stranded astronauts were starving on the moon instead of preparing to dine at the presidential table, the national mood—and Nixon's—would be markedly different. If the Democrats had the unity to capitalize on their congressional majorities, or a single leader to follow, the President would be feeling his minority mandate far more keenly. The public's frame of mind may be mercurial and dour, but summer has quenched the campuses without igniting the ghettos—so far. Inflation continues to be a serious threat and the stock market a shambles, but prosperity prevails for most citizens. Apollo 11 and the Asian trip made good box office. A new Gallup poll shows public approval of Nixon's performance popping back to 65% after slumping to 58% in July.
By his relative placidity, Nixon seems to have helped to calm the national temper. He may also be the beneficiary of simple popular fatigue following the tumult and continual crises of 1968.
For the President, the victory for his ABM program was doubtless the week's most satisfying development. He had much to lose by a defeat. Nixon rightly considers himself something of an expert in foreign policy, and by extension in matters of national defense; those occupy a good two-thirds of his time. Thus far in his presidency, his National Security Council has met 26 times, his Urban Affairs Council only 15. A rebuff on the ABM issue would have been a repudiation of his judgment of U.S. security requirements. By winning, Nixon has the flexibility to go ahead with ABM or to scrap it if future events warrant. He has promised periodic reviews of the project. Of course, Congress too will have future opportunities to attack the program.
The crucial Senate vote on ABM came after months of debate in Washington and around the country, which divided politicians, scientists and laymen alike. The Safeguard plan calls for 14 missile sites in the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii, aimed chiefly at protecting the U.S. nuclear deterrent —ICBM silos, Strategic Air Command bomber bases and the National Military Command Center in Washington. Beyond the immediate technical issues, ABM came to symbolize to many a national crossroads in the crucial issue of civilian v. military priorities. It also underscored the new skepticism toward Pentagon proposals which in the past rarely received thorough scrutiny.
Leadership of the Senate skeptics fell to Democrat Philip Hart of Michigan and Republican John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, a respected bipartisan duo. They offered an amendment that would permit ABM research to continue but forbid deployment of any rocket or radar hardware. As last week's vote approached, each side was hopeful of victory by no more than a couple of votes.