New York, July 22—Before the discovery of the June 23 tape (after which it was generally conceded that President Richard Nixon simply had to go) one of the arguments most forcefully used against his impeachment was that the very act could destabilize not merely the President, but the Presidency. The argument was not without merit. Mr. Ford’s interregnum proved no problem, but here we are with the first genuine successor, and there is actually talk now of a Carter resignation. Not only Young Americans for Freedom—impatience goes with youth—but Professor John Roche of Tufts and Professor Jeffrey Hart of Dartmouth, both of them syndicated columnists and men of huge ability and perception, have called on Carter, for the good of the country, to step down. John Roche is specially qualified to evaluate the fragility of Carter, having stood by Lyndon Johnson during the bitter years before Johnson was, in effect, made to step down, though the resignation was orderly. The thesis is that Carter can no longer govern.
Even so, it would be a mistake. All of us harbor at least one unconstitutional fantasy. Mine, were I given plenipotentiary power, would be to abolish polls. Their volatility both proves their superficiality—and enhances their newsworthiness. Carter, with 26 per cent public approval, climbed 11 points after a theatrical speech arriving at epicene conclusions. Instantly we are advised by all the networks and the press that Carter’s popularity has increased by 50 per cent. A huge smile of contentment issues out of the White House. But then we are reminded that so it was after the success of Camp David, but that the popularity proved to be shortlived. A groan issues out of the White House. Political advisors fire thunderbolts of advice, and consider themselves justified if they can raise the popular estimate of the President. When it reaches so low a level, it is said that the President is without effective power—“incapable of governing,” to use the conventional phrase. The proposed remedy? Resignation.
Comments