$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