$42 itkeigatt Baigh
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
under authority of Board in Control of Student Publications
WALTER LIPPMANN
Richard
Nixon
is
the
only
one
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone; 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily exp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: JOHN GRAYI
Nixon in Flnt:
Balancing the accounts
WHATEVER else Richard M. Nixon is or
is not, he is loyal to that grand incar-
nation of American political sterility, the
two-party system.
His sojourn to Flint two days ago can
only be interpreted as a gesture of poli-;
tical camaraderie with Hubert H. Humph-
rey. '
The ostensible purpose of Nixon's visit'
was to squelch growing support in Flint
for the third party candidacy of George
C. Wallace.
Nixon is said to attribute Wallace's ap-
peal in Northern industrial centers like
Flint not to the supposed racism of the
workingmen but to their frustration with
high taxes, high prices, and the soaring
crime rate.
Given this assumption, Nixon can pre-
sent himself to workingclass Americans
as a man who shares their concerns and
who, unlike Wallace, is a "serious" can-
didate who could win the election and ef-
feet the changes they desire.
BUT, THEN, any student who has spent
a summer in a factory and observed
the racial attitudes of manyfull-time la-
bor men is in a position to question Nix-
on's theory of thesource of Wallace's ap-
peal. And, significantly, Nixon had to per-
form some strenuous mathematical exer-
cises to convince the workers of Flint that
inflation in the past four years had can-
celled out wage increases.
Furthermore, it is no secret that tradi-
tionally little love has been lost between'
union members and Republicans. In the
polls of Flint UAW locals where Wallace
has placed first, Nixon - despite infla-
tion, taxes and crime - has finished a
resounding third behind Humphrey..
Actually-, Nixon c a m e to Flint fully,
aware that any votes he wooed away from
Wallace would be won for Humphrey. On
the other hand, the Republican realizes
that through s o m e justice of political.
back-scratching, What electoral support
he and Humphrey steal from Wallace in
Southern and border states will revert
back to the GOP. -
The victims of these neat games of po-
litical account-balancing are,those Amer-
cans genuinely fed up with a political sys-
tem that is too narrow but which refusesa
tobe broadened. If, as it seems, the Dem-
ocrats and Republicans have attempted
to represent all the diverse interests of a
pluralist population and ended up repre-
senting none of them adequately - a
multiparty system would seem to be in
order.
NIXON AND Humphrey would both rath-
er be President, but each would prefer
that the other win in November t h a n
Wallace. And it so happens, that by block
ing Wallace they can work together to
their mutual benefit.
Hopefully, Wallace's supporters will
not be swayed by sugar-coated expediency
rationales. For while it would be a disas-
ter should/ Wallace be elected, it would be
far more tragic for the Wallace movement
to garner so few votes that the powers-
that-be could continue comfortably to
ignore,the deficiencies of the present po-
litical structure.
-URBAN LEHNER
IN THE weeks that have passed since the Democratic convention in
Cicago,' it has become painfully clear that the Democratic Party
is too disorganized to run the country. No doubt it is theoretically pos-
sible, though it is highly improbable, that Hubert' Humphrey can do
what Harry Truman did in 1948. But it is getting late even for that.
Should he win by some fluke or miracle, there is still no doubt that
he would go to the White House as a minority President, opposed by a
great heterogeneous majority consisting of Republicans, Wallaceites
and disaffected Democrats. It seems to me clear that the. Democratic
Party today is unable to offer the country the genuine prospect of a
coherent government.
All this is even more true of what George Wallace has to offer. He
does not have 4.nd has never had an organized party behind him. He
has only an angry crowd behind him, and if he could be elected -
which he cannot be -- he would be at a loss as to what to do next, not
having the supporters or the program or the experienced men to form a
genuine government. Wallace does not offer the country a. choice, only
an expression of part. of the people's discontents.
This leaves;us with Nixon as the one and only candidate who can
be elected and shows the promise, like it or not,,of being able to put
together an administration to run the government. Wallace is not a
real alternative to Nixon because Wallace cannot put together an ad-
ministration to govern the country.
IT IS GENERALLY agreed that there is a movement, probably of land-
slide proportions, away from the liberalism of the past 40 years and to-
ward, relatively speaking, a -more conservative posture at home and
abroad. This is not surprising and it is not in itself deplorable. It does
not mean that all the good things that have been accomplished will
be repealed and undone. But it does mean that the virtues and ideals
which conservatives cherish - particularly discipline and authority
and self-reliance , will for a time prevail over the liberal alternatives
of permissiveness and largesse and environmental improvement.
9
S
S
The liberal era has lasted for some 40 years, and if it has now pro-
voked a reaction, it must be that it is not now working sufficiently-well
to command general support. Leaders of the party in power have in
some considerable measure run out of ideas.
Letters to the Editor
Humph-r'ey and arms control
PERHAPS the most convincing of the
transparent rationales advanced by
the faint-hearted for supporting Hubert
Humphrey after the Chicago Convention
were the major differences alleged to'ex-
is$ between Humphrey and Nixon on arms
control,
A ^deep concern with the problems of
nuclear weapons and stockpiles appeared
to be all that remained of the ultra-lib-
eral rhetoric of the Hubert Humphrey of
1958.
And throughout his mechanized cam-
paign, Nixon has remained faithful to old
liberal fears by arguing that meaningful,
arms agreements with the Soviet Union
would only be possible when the United
States is sufficiently well-armed to "ne-
gotiate from a position of strength."
Add to t h i s the insiders' expectation
that Nixon, if elected', will massively ex-
pand the anti-ballistic missile lunacy. It
would thus seem likely that Humphrey
could use the arms control issue to attract
disgruntled liberals to his tattered ban-
ners.
but for those who nurtured such self-
deluding h op e s, Humphrey's maiden
address on arms control this Tuesday
was lackluster at best.
ADMITTEDLY Humphrey differentiated
himself from Nixon by pointing out
the futility of a continued arms race and
argued, "Each new weapon only brings
us nearer the day when we will be unable
to stop the plunge into nuclear war."
Humphrey also proposed the construc-
tive idea of frequently scheduled summit
conferences between the leaders; of the
, major powers. As a minimum, such high-
level contacts would serve to lessen the
chances of world leaders misinterpreting
each other's motives during a world
crisis.
In light of over two generations of
mutual distrust between ourselves and
the Soviet Union, the chances of halting
the arms race at the conference table
are virtually nil.
PHIS BASIC mistrust will block any
i possible major agreement until we
cl arly demonstrate to the Soviet Union
the sincerity of our alleged commitment
to disarmament by unilaterally junking
some of our nuclear arsenal and inviting
a similar move by the Russians.
Humphrey's clear unwillingness to takeJ
even the most minimal military risks'
and advocate an unconditional bombing
halt in Vietnam indicates his own psy-
chological reluctance to engage in ,the
kind of peace-oriented and imaginative
policy-making necessary to make any
significant progress toward eliminating
the dangerous and highly volatile nuclear
arms race.
But why despair? Since when do we
-have the right to expect anything imag-
inative or peace-oriented in this dismal
election year?.
-WALTER SHAPIRO
In any event the country is turning to the conservatives and this
means that Nixon and Spiro Agnew will almost certainly be elected. I
regard the election of Gov. Agnew as a serious mistake which could.
have tragic consequences. But all things considered - the distintegra-
tion of the Democratic Party after the colossal mistakes of the Johnson
Administration - I do not shrink from the prospect of Nixon as Presi-
dent. He is a very much better man today than he was 10 years' ago,
and I have lived too long myself to think that men are what they are"
forever and eyer.
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT in the White House was a quite different
man after he had passed through his long illness than he was to those
who had known him when he was a young man about town. Few who
knew Mr. Truman as a senator foresaw that he would preside over such
great.measures as the Marshall Plan and NATO. The John F. Kennedy
of the Camelot legend was not visible to those who knew him in the
50's as a young Boston politician. So I do not reject the notion that
there is a new Nixon who has outlived and outgrown the ruthless poli-
tics of his early days.
Having argued that he alone among the candidates brings with
him a prospect of an administration that can govern, I go on to say
that the country will need a government that can govein in the troub-
led days which lie ahead of us. Much as I believe in the justice and wis-
dom of a large-scale reconstruction and reform, there remains the fact
that our social order cannot conceivably be reconstructed quickly. Yet
the injustices and the miseries are obviously painful. Thus there will
probably remain a considerable body of irreconcilable revolutionary
dissent.
There are no easy and there are no quick solutions for the discon-
tent that will have to be dealt with, and' we would be hiding our heads
in the sand if we refused to admit that the country may demand and
necessity may dictate the repression of uncontrollable violence.
MY VIEW IS that it will be in all ways better if the conservatives
are in power should these necessities arise. It would be a disaster. I .
think, if a man like Humphrey had to do what is against the whole
grain of his nature. It would be another example of President Johnson
adopting Barry Goldwater's war .policy in Vietnam. It is better that
Nixon should have. the full authority if the repression should become
necessary in order to restore peace and tranquility in the land.
It will be better also that the disorganized Democrats should be on
the sidelines, reforming their programs and their views and offering op-
position to extremism and be making themselves ready for the inevi-
table reaction against reaction. The Democrats can unite only when
they are in opposition, and only when enough time has passed to retire
the older men who have made the Johnson disaster and nominated
Humphrey.
There remains the agonizing problem of the Vietnamese war. There
is no easy and short way out of the disaster after all the entanglements
which have been created. I am writing at the end of September and
-there does not appear today any real prospect of concluding the war.
SUCH CONFIDENCE as I have in Nixon's foreign policies rests on
the belief that his greatest ambition will be to be elected for two terms,
and that he knows just as well as anyone else that if he is bogged down
in Vietnam, he will become as unpopular as Johnson and Humphrey
are today. He must find a solution to Vietnam in order to be more than
a one-term President. I think Nixon's whole future will be staked on
getting a cease-fire and a self-respecting withdrawal of our land forces.
That is the best I am able to hope for. But I see nothing better in
Humphrey.
All in all we cannot deny that the near future will be difficult, and
I have come to think that on the central issue of an organized govern-
ment, to deal with it Nixon is the only one who may be able to produce
a government that can govern.
(c) 1968, The Washington Post Co.
To the Editor:
RECENTLY, OR perhaps I
should say finally, George
Wallace has been receiving t h e
press coverage that he deserves as
a major presiential candidate.
However, the word "coveragei
should be interpreted rather loose-
ly as the only fact of coverage is
that his name is appearing'in the
various media at an ever increas-
ing rate.
It's the same old story of the In-
dians and the cavalry. When the
Indians win it's a massacre, but
when the cavalry wins it's a great
victory f or the forces of decency.
And so it is with George Wallace's
campaign. Headlines "blare," "rac-
ist" policies are "exposed," Wal-
lace attacks "preying" on "Paa-
noid delusions." And we're all
supposed to be terrified or at least
frightened by this man w h o is
only reflecting the desires of mil-
lions of Americans. How do we
combat truth and reason in this
age of hypocrisy and 1 i e s? It's
easy! We simply label him a racist,
a fascist, a warmonger, but never
do we stop to think about the rea-
sonability or the truth of what he
is saying. We've become so good
at dodging issues and reality that
we have come to believe this to be
a way of life for our society. Wal-
lice is attempting to abandon the
bureaucratic jungle of insane pol-
icy to a course run on rails of
reason..
You say he is not a reasonble
man? It. has been said countless
times that Wallace and his sup-
porters do not understand the
"complex" and "involved" issues
of our times. Will someone please
tell me what is so complex about
500.000 scared American boys
parked on a swamp 12,000 miles
away risking their lives to kill an
enemy they hardly see? What is
so difficult to understand about
a mother wanting to s e n d her
children to a school two blocks
away instead of busing them into
the next county? What is so dif-~
ficult to comprehend about your
home a'nd your cities burning
while men you pay to guard life
and property have orders not to
shoot and instead spend their time
directing traffic in a congestion of
sofas and TV sets in the streets?
IF GEORGE WALLACE advo-
cates one thing, he advocates the
Law. What is the Law? Forgot that
it existed didn't you? Well, the
law is a group of words joined to-
gether creating an idea for the
purpose of legislating certain be-
havior of people that at times gets
out of line and is therefore detri-./
mental to the good of the major-
ity (forgot that word, top, didn't
you?) and provides a punishment
that ideally is appropriate to the
magnitude of the offense against
society. Now that isn't too complex
is it? So, in other words, Wallace
is an idealist who believes t h a t
what we have decided should be
followed and enforced to the best
of ability. If all it takes to enforce
the law is a word from a peace of-
ficer, fine!
But, if it takes the twistiig of
arms, or the breaking of heads, or
the shooting of a few to protect
the lives of many, then do it!
Protests are good. It shows that
we are thinking and that we won't
be fooled, pushed or bullied out
of our rights. But they must be
within the law! The highest law
in the land, our Constitution,
makes provisions for protests, but
it does not say "protest within the
Law UNLESS your cause is great
enough!" You must do it each and
every time that you decide that
first man in history to dig a hole'
bigger than the Grand Canyon
with his mouth. So what does one
do? It is apparent that one is left
with one's own thoughts on the
subject. J1.et's review Wallace on.
this question. Wallace s a y s. as
does every American, that he
wants an end to the war. And b'ow
does he plan to accomplish th1at?
If elected, he will first try for an
honorable peace and a diplomatic
end to the war, but if this is not:
possible he will go to the Joint
Chiefs. of Staff. He will ask thern
if a military victory is possible
with conventional weapons, and if
it is, they should proceed with all
haste to end the war in that main-,
ner. But, if this is not possible, we'
will begin t h e immediate with-
Let's give
PhoenixI/SDS
Wallace a chance
drawal of all American troops
from that\ country. I'm sure that
all -ofyou are shocked by this ex-
tremely radical line of thinking
and are all quite certain that this
reasoning would lead to the de-
struction of all mankind.
I BELIEVE THAT I have said
enough. My point was, to try to
make you more aware of a phe-
nomenon that some call reason.
George Wallace is more ,than a
reasonable man and is one of our
greatest patriots today. He may
not speak as well as you, he may
have been brought up in the hills,
and he may be wrong on some is-.
sues, but let's give him a chance.
-Karl Slatner
Oct. 6
To. the Editor: '
OVER THE PAST two yea r s
many students h a v e became
increasingly annoyed by / he. in-
action and sterility of VOICE Po-
pitical Party, and increasingly
disgusted by the factional infight-
ing and intellectual constipation
of the past few weeks.
Accordingly, many of us chose
to take, action while both of the
now-famous VOICE factions pre-
ferred to spar with each other. We
went to Chicago this weekend and
laid the situation before the Na-
tional Office of Students for a
Democratic Society. We w e r e
promptly given permission to set.
,up a new and separate chapter of
S.D.S. in Ann Arbor, under the
name of PHOENIX/SDS. The fol-
lowing statement gives our, rea-
sons for breaking with VOICE, and
outlines our basic policy.
WE AS REVOLUTIONARIES
believe:
- That as human beings we can
na longer tolerate control of our
lives by authoritarian Institutions;
- That we cannot tolerate the
subjection of individuals to this
or any other state;:
- That since men will cooperate
for their mutual interests, we
cannot tolerate any attempt by
state or institution to interfere;
- That since the institutions of
American society have become de-
structive of human rights, it is
therefore our moral right and duty,
to end such institutional controls
over our lives;
-That we have the right to
end these restraints by any means
available, so long as these do not
injure innocent people or deprive
them of their rights.
WE HAVE FOUND VOICE, un-
der its present leadership, an un-'
satisfactory agent f o r achieving
these ends because:
- It has degenerated from an
Two' systems
To the Editor: -
I AM writing in regard to the sort
of running argument appearing
in T h e Daily between William
Berg (October 8) and Steve Dan-
iels (October 9). As might be ex-
pecte; of two people caught up
with themselves and enraptured
by their own "lucid" arguments,
both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Berg
miss the point.
Mr. Daniels advocates a. kind of
academic revolution which would
do away with- the "authoritarian
bureaucracy which channels stu-
dents into managerial positions in
(ec HHH!) American society." Mr.
activist organization into an in-
effectual debating society;
-Its membership markedly pre-
fers playing Red Guard to fight-
ing for their and our rights;
- It is unable to formulate or
carry out any coherent plan of
action;
- Its leaders are too engrossed
in their infantile ego-tripping to
respond in any meaningful 'way
to the problems of the university
community;
- VOICE has made sporadic at-
tempts at minor symptoms of.
America's social sickness, but has
made no attempt to correct the
basic flaws in the social structure;
-It has continually associated
itself w I t h persons and causes
which are either irrelevant or di-
ametrically opposed to our aims;
-It has shown no concern for'
students- outside its dwindling
circle of influence;
- It has become so hidebound
and; narrow that it no longer lis-
tens to new people or new ideas,
thanks to a leadership too con-
cerned over retaining their fading
power and position;
- Its leaders find it more con-
venient to bow to-temporary con-
sensus than to face moral issues.
WE LOOI5 'at bigger gains by
smaller chapters on more hostile
campuses and can only conclude
that VOICE a n d. its leadership
have become lazy and fat.
Because of these assorted fail-
-ures and shortcomings, we I ee 1
that VOICE is no longer repre-
sentative of the student movement
in general and of Students for a
Democratic Society in particular.
We therefore disaffiliate ourselves
from VOICE Political Party and
establish PHOENIX/SDS, to rep-
, resent the American radical move-
ment in Ann Arbor.
-M. McClary
-Mary Frohman
and 11 others
i oel. 1
of educUtion.
AS TO MR. BERG, we find the
traditional advocate of a tradi-
tional system making his tradi-
tional point in a traditional man-
ner. Perhaps if Mr. Berg examined
his remarks more closely, he-
would come to the conclusion Ghat
they are a bit too traditional.
The point, gentlemen, is that
the university must be everything
that its name implies: universal.
If traditional Mr. Berg prefers his
brand of education, he should nave
the opportunity to be so educated.
If Mr. Daniels prefers his sort of
non-structured, -libertine approach
- that's his decision. Both gen-
tlemen would do well to remem-
t
4
FEIFFED
WE AR CAP' t&)
[1}kS6 FLAM 7
you 56OUT
F TffE RbHIC
SWP6 OF -#h6
AIRCRAFT AF
10 A FEW HX.
THAT U, (LX EOVE
SThLAD 2CtW(d
F~tifr \ 1TQA.1" 14,
7
I'I
-F7
).
'VI
THOSE of 4riYX
THU- SOKHE?
N: Ct-'CAG-O.
'
i4
w .
t
RIGhT /'6A&)
AFFOP9UlJ305
%P~CE
CAHPS ' hT5
OUT O$ YOV
RIGHT
i '-N
a ,4
p
06 AOO6e FR ilN
'U(ffT TURS01U57 qWL
F G, ( I 5 7E TO W
ACUl AT&'OE IOFIACE
10 TiiU ATH 9P1I&: MC.
SffOLD E OUT OF (T
'fKORFL.t<
4
"O 1 MAM/NRfE
CHAMNL- O JTHE
----L AX
// ,~. 796
{l tI~I
/ F,1W
frl
I