THE SAME DAY that President Nixon urged the nation to "stand fast" on Vietnam, the Massachusetts Sixth District sent Michael J. Harrington, '58 to Congress. The election was regarded by many as a referendum on Vietnam. Political commentators pointed out that it marked the fourth defeat suffered by Republicans since January in special Congressional races.

This stray win last week, though, is slightly bizarre. Not only is Harrington the first Democrat from that district since 1874, but one of the most unlikely as well. In GOP territory, he refused to run as a moderate or tailor his views to appeal to the center. True, he played on war weariness, but he also made clear his dislike for moderate thinking on a broad range of issues.

Harrington found surprising support in Republican strongholds along the North Shore. This area was expected to produce big for his opponent. William Saltonstall; conceivably, Harrington's brashness was his appeal to these voters. A candidate of the left must not only "speak out" but simultaneously play up his outspokenness in speaking out. It must appear that he is risking unpopularity (just a little) with his honest views. Certain Harrington slogans, with their attempts at negative definitions, illustrate this point well: "He's some other kind of politician" or "If you like the way things are going, don't vote for Mike Harrington" or "Mike knows it may not be easy, but let's face it."

The second lesson apparent for candidates with leftist views is to appeal to the fiscal conservatism of the voters. Harrington, for example, widely publicized figures on military spending and especially on ABM (still recalled with rancor in north of Boston suburbs). Within the limits of patriotism, defense figures can be made to seem truly appalling. In the TV debates and often on the circuit, Harrington frequently reminded his listeners that and23 billion was wasted on obsolete weapons over the last fifteen years. With the Democrats out of office, the left can feel at case in attacking federal waste.

Harrington also advocated an end to the surtax, an end to inflation, more tax relief, and more money for the cities. Both frugal and lavish, these goals don't mesh too well, but Saltonstall seemed unable to prove it.

BY DIRECTLY confronting the moderate center and debating national rather than local issues. Harrington broke the rules of ward politics. "Michael was very direct, he never tried to soften his image," said Ron Fox, '60 who served as the campaign's coordinator for Lynn. "The whole tone of the campaign was dictated by the character of the man himself." Harrington's record as a state legislator testifies to his independent character. He has antagonized two successive speakers of the House, crossed party lines with impunity, and been punished with insignificant committee assignments.

But he easily won the party primary for Congress. State party chairman David Harrison intervened in his behalf, and the candidate also had powerful support from his cousin Kevin Harrington, the majority leader in the state senate. As campaign manager, Kevin Harrington did observe certain niceties of "old politics." To win the support of local labor unions, the Harrington cousins promised to campaign for stricter import quotas on foreign manufactures. Organization also helped. According to Fox, "We must have canvassed the whole district three or four times with literature, and that's remarkable."

Senior Democrats throughout the nation began to patronize the Harrington campaign. Humphrey came, the one big gesture to the moderate center; so did Muskie and McGovern. Eugene McCarthy sent his regards, and Fred Harris appeared on election night in time to make his own victory statement. Edward Kennedy, though, unlike homestaters Brooke and Sargent, could do little to help his favorite in the race.

In many districts, and aggressive emphasis on national priorities or the military-industrial complex would seem out of place. Saltonstall must have felt that way too. He stressed his administrative experience with his father and chiefly relied on what Fox called the "old Bill Bates approach." Bates, the district's last Congressman, proposed to cater to the individual needs of every voter. Saltonstall called this the "people-to-people approach." It meant promising special favors for the shoe, fishing, leather, and electronics industries that make up the economy of the North Shore. Such a strategy unwittingly wrote off the growing proportion of commuters who depend on jobs in Boston and not in the district. For these people, Saltonstall's appeal was not sufficiently broad.

Nevertheless, Saltonstall ended up fighting Harrington on the latter's terms-the national issues. Pressed hard for this level of debate, "Salty" more and more identified with the Nixon Administration. On Vietnam or ABM or tax policy, he found himself weakly deferring to whatever Nixon was saying at the moment. He failed to develop a coherent counterattack, even with a crude theme like "law-and-order." His attempt to avoid debate gave Harrington one more issue to exploit.

IF REPUBLICANS hesitate to debate in 1970, or tie their campaigns to ambiguous White House policies, the Democrats will score big gains. In such a situation, it may be no great advantage to run as a moderate or make bland appeals to the center. Voters' impatience with the war could make them more tolerant of "honest" outspokenness on other issues. Ironically, Harrington's victory in a conservative district depended on his ability to polarize the situation.

One should not push this point too far. There is much impatience with the war, but it is difficult to say of what nature. Is this impatience strong enough to tolerate prolonged campus disruption, to survive backlash from a "peace without honor," and permit the advocates of withdrawal in Vietnam to become the architects of a new society at home? A negative majority has been emerging in opposition to the war. Whether it will take a positive character and elect more Michael Harringtons remains undetermined.

New Politics Note: College students in the Boston area were informed by a circular that a radical named Michael Harrington was running for Congress against a "superhawk." Student volunteers saw a Harrington victory as a good omen for the October Moratorium. Many were certain that this Michael Harrington was the Michael Harrington who wrote The Other America and Toward a Democratic Left. No, that man is another Michael Harrington. The Sixth District may not be ready for him.