REVOLT of the MODERATES

As political reporter, analyst and author, Samuel (The Future of American Politics) Lubell, 44, has long trudged across the U.S. ringing doorbells like a brush salesman, shaking hands like a Kefauver and asking questions with the persistence of a six-year-old. He takes what people tell him, mixes it thoroughly with detailed county-by-county analysis of presidential election returns going as far back as the Civil War, and adds a large pinch of punditry.

Out of this formula has come an other penetrating Lubell book on American politics. Its title: Revolt of the Moderates (Harper: $3.75). Its principal propositions for political 1956:

1) The U.S. is "a nation turned conservative, and struggling to give effective voice and force to that conservatism."

2) The odds favor a Republican victory in 1956.

Taft Could Have Won. "Rarely in American history," Lubell writes, "has the craving for tranquillity and moderation commanded more general public support."

This craving, he thinks, was the main factor in Dwight Eisenhower's election in 1952. In fact, Lubell believes (as he explained in the Wall Street Journal last October) that almost any other candidate, the late Robert A. Taft included, could have won, albeit by a smaller margin than Eisenhower's. The nation was ready to take any Republican v. any Democrat because of angry opposition to a long list of disturbing Truman Administration policies, topped by Korea.

Furthermore, his book implies, the narrow Democratic congressional victories of 1954 really foreshadowed Republican success in 1956, rather than a reversal of 1952's G.O.P. trend. The American voter has an emotional fear of depression and war, and his vote on election day often depends on which seems to loom largest at the moment. By 1954, the memory of Korea had begun to fade; the chief issue was economic, and Democratic allusions to the Republicans as a depression party had their effect.

"In the shuffle of ballots, one item of striking significance was widely overlooked--in a vote dominated by pocketbook considerations, the Republicans had come close to running the Democrats a dead heat! The booming prosperity since 1954 has strengthened further the Republican economic appeal . . . The chief Republican liability [i.e., the stigma of depressions] has been ebbing--just how fast is the question that probably will decide the 1956 election."

With perhaps a pollster's predictable prejudice, Lubell disputes the theory that "great men make history," argues instead that in the U.S. the voter does far more to shape the politician than vice versa. In such a half-light, Lubell regards President Eisenhower as, "one of the most masterful politicians in American history . . . adept in 'giving the people what they want.'" Ike's presidential success depends not on a "follow-me" type of leadership but on "the skill with which he has followed the public mood ... He has led the people by moving in the direction toward which they were already inclined."

A Time to Worry? While anticipating a Republican victory this year, Lubell thinks it likely that neither party will win a truly decisive majority before 1960 or possibly 1964, because the U.S. electorate is at "almost deadweight evenness." A sizable part of it has "developed what might be described as a strong case of political insomnia, tossing from one party bed to another." What the people want is to stay squarely in the middle, and, perhaps unconsciously, they use each party to check the other.

Lubell hopes the moderates will, before too long, cast their lot with one party or the other; he does not suggest which. With the realignment completed, the two trim and muscular political forces would then slug it out. Moderate Lubell wants the moderates to win--but not until there has been a good fight. "The continuing fight--not sweetness and light--is the hallmark of the American democracy. The hidden strength of our democracy springs from the very vigor with which we battle ourselves into unity . . . The time to worry about this country is not when we are battling among ourselves, for it is then that our democracy functions best. The time to worry is when all is 'moderation.' "

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.