First, Kennedy's failings, if not excusable, are at least explainable. As I noted earlier, Kennedy's business as Democratic nominee is to win the election; there are certain lengths of honesty to which one can go and certain appeals which, though irrational, go over well. For any of the bright promises of the platform to be fulfilled, Kennedy must first win the election; I think he may be forgiven for trying to do so. His campaign, despite its weaknesses, has been more consistent than most; the errors, unlike those of Roosevelt in 1932, have been those of omission, not of commission.

'Sense' Not Vote-Getter

Adlai Stevenson, admittedly, set out in 1956 to "talk sense to the American people" and in fact did just that, but it can't be shown that the experience did the American people much good. They voted for a man who very clearly didn't talk sense, and probably only a small minority of those who supported Stevenson did so because of his "sense" and not for other, less rational reasons.

Second, the rationalists no longer claim they see no difference between the two candidates. They know very well which man they would rather see win. If they share the feelings of other liberals, they consider it very important for him to win. It is threaten depressed areas. If Nixon wins, part, not to cast their votes, just because the form--not the substance--of their candidate's arguments has been disappointing.

To stay away from the polls in this country is a sign of indifference, not of protest. If anyone can honestly say that he sees no difference between the candidates and that to him it makes no difference who wins, then and only then should he not vote (a case could be made for such a course of action in the current Massachusetts gubernatorial race). The problem of "reason in politics" is as old as democracy itself; it cannot be solved by boycotting Presidential elections until a "reasonable," intellectually consistent candidate appears: the wait will be a long one, and the candidate--unless he has other qualities besides sweet reasonableness--may very well lose.

The electorate, one might as well admit without cynicism, is usually swayed by things other than reason. This is why, to the Harvard community, this has been a rotten campaign. This is why Eisenhower defeated the candidate of reason in 1952 and 1956. This is how (to return to the original question) the next President will win the election.

Kennedy appears to have won now--and this is what really distresses the rationalists--not because his argument was good (which it is, if you fill in a few omissions), but because his personality is appealing; because in the absence of a popular Republican leader, the country is normally Democratic; because, possibly, of a large Catholic vote; because of dissatisfaction with the Republicans "ins" in certain depressed areas. If Nixon wins, it will most likely be for similar "irrational" reasons: response to his demagogy about "running down America" and "not giving an inch of the area of freedom"; a carry-over of Eisenhower's immense personal popularity; the material satisfaction of those who have prospered (or think they have prospered) under Eisenhower. Kennedy has done nothing right, except being himself. Nixon has done nothing wrong, except also being himself.

This, it seems, is the way elections go, and yes, it was a rotten campaign.