Changing Climate

While whatever is afoot in Moscow and Hanoi remains unclear, it is obvious that in the U.S. the climate over Viet Nam has changed considerably. The sharp edges of dissent have blurred a bit, and the extreme opposition--both left and right--has grown less raucous. In such an atmosphere, Lyndon Johnson should have more room to maneuver.

The fact is that many members of the U.S. protest movement, which only recently was capable of producing an instant cacophony of complaint in Congress, in churches and on campuses across the land, have begun to lose heart. Last week, for example, when U.S. forces in Viet Nam climbed above the 300,000-man mark, there were no full-page ads, no teach-ins, no placard-studded demonstrations to mark the milestone.

Few dissenters have changed their minds; indeed a fresh chorus of criticism can be expected when students and professors return to their classrooms. But many have concluded that they just are not making much of an impression on anybody. For them, the discouraging turning point was the public's reaction to Lyndon Johnson's decision to attack the oil depots around Hanoi and Haiphong: an overwhelming four out of every five Americans said that they approved of the bombing.

Grievous Deception. In Congress, where roughly one-fifth of the House and one-third of the Senate remain opposed to the war, most of the critics feel that their efforts have been futile, and have fallen silent. The most articulate of the antiwar Senators, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright, concedes that the voices of dissent have not generated much volume. Last week he warned Moscow, Peking and Hanoi that they would be "grievously deceiving themselves if they underestimated the militant spirit" in the U.S. "I don't believe the President is isolated," said Fulbright. "The Congress is more warlike than he is."

Similarly, many organized church groups that are on record as opposing the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam are beginning to wonder just what they are accomplishing. "We have a constituency of about 40 million Americans, and they are weary of the war," said a spokesman for the National Council of Churches. "But this weariness is reflected in such statements as, 'Let's get this war over with, even if it means major escalation.' " Said United Church of Christ Pastor William Bruce MacKenzie in Denver: "I haven't preached a sermon on Viet Nam for a long time. You get discouraged. You've said everything you had to say before, and things haven't changed."

On the campus, most protest groups have been less noisy than they were last spring, and vacations are not entirely responsible. "This is not the wild and woolly teach-in atmosphere of last year," said French-born Southeast Asia Expert Bernard Fall, a levelheaded critic of Administration policy, after a discussion on Viet Nam at the University of Illinois last week. "There is far less 'Let's clean up the Chinese' on one hand and 'Let's get the hell out' on the other."

Stolen Thunder. The President has helped bring about this blurring with his "two-fisted" policy, stealing thunder from the right by prosecuting the war vigorously and from the left by emphasizing his desire for peace. As Secretary of State Dean Rusk noted last week: "Once in a while I see a picket carrying a 'Peace in Viet Nam' sign. I'm tempted to go and say, 'Let me help you carry that sign because President Johnson has taken that sign into every capital in the world.' "

Last week the Republican Party, which had previously maintained a more militant stance than the Administration, adopted a two-fisted policy of its own, supporting the President's prosecution of the war in a general way and at the same time plumping for peace talks--specifically the all-Asian conference. Even Richard Nixon, a persistent hardliner, has agreed to the new strategy, taking to heart the advice of one Republican Senator: "Dick, why in hell don't you let L.B.J. take some credit for the war?"

Cutting Both Ways. Though every public-opinion sounding indicates that Johnson enjoys a broad consensus for his handling of the war, it is virtually a consensus by default. Many Americans, foreseeing a Korea-style stalemate, support the President without enthusiasm. "People want something done," says Ohio's Republican State Senator Michael J. Maloney, "but they just don't know what." Above all, the war has generated confusion. "I have opinions on almost everything," says California's outspokenly liberal Episcopal Bishop James Pike, "but on this I am not sure."

Neither are most politicians. Though a recent poll by New Jersey's Opinion Research Corp. shows that two out of three Americans rate Viet Nam the nation's foremost problem, campaigners have so far handled the issue gingerly. They simply do not know which way it will cut. All-out support of the President seems to be helping Democratic Senatorial Candidate Robert Duncan in Oregon, for example, and hurting Democratic Senator Paul Douglas in Illinois. Along with most other people, the politicians are generally keeping quiet. They are letting Lyndon Johnson take the responsibility, and waiting for something to happen.

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