100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 13, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-03-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDFR AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

The People vs.

The Bureaucracy

ions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Wi ItI Prevai0MYNRlT, N ROR i

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mus t be noted in all reprints.

SUNDAY, MARCH 13, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT CARNEY

China Teach-In:
Necessary Reevaluation

By HARVEY WASSERMAN
Acting Editorial Director
"THfiE PEOPLE is a great beast."
Lippmann does not go as
far as Hamilton, but neither does
he entirely trust the people to
govern. To paraphrase Public
Opinion, the general public is not
overly interested in the complex
and distant business of govern-
ment. Furthermore, many find
themselves incapable of fully un-
derstanding it.
In modern society, issues of
policy both foreign and domestic
are enourmously complex, and re-
quire at least full time study to
even begin to understand all or
even a few of them.
This the public in incapable of
doing. Indeed, there is even the
question, now being highlighted in
the Administration's fight to
amend two-year Representative
terms to four-year ones, of wheth-
er or not our Congressmen are
amply equipped to digest the busi-
ness of government in a satisfac-
tory manner.
T H U S LIPPMANN advocated
the establishment of a highly so-
phisticated web of information
bureaus designed to investigate
the business of government as it
should be investigated to be un-
derstood.

"The purpose, then, is not to
burden every citizen with expert
opinions on all questions, but to
push that burden away from
him towards the responsible
admiinistrator. The demand ...
comes not from the public, but
from men doing public business,
who can no longer do it by rule
of thumb."
This is Lippmann speaking in
the 1920's. Today what he advo-
cated has in many cases come to
pass. We have highly specialized.
agencies working in government
in foreign affairs, economics, the
military, and so on.
BUT THE SYSTEM of investi-
gating the issues in a bureau-
cratic-administrative manner has
proved highly unsatisfactory to
many, not the least of whom is
Walter Lippmann. As one of the
foremost critics of the United
States' policy in Viet Nam, Lipp-
mann has continually opposed the
decisions of men who devote far
more time with far better back-
grounds than he in the business
of international politics.
What is perhaps most ironic is
that a large bulk of Lippmann's
opposition comes on the grounds
that he feels we cannot win in
Viet Nam, a non-moral judgment

that one might think could most
logically, in the interests of gov-
ernmental expertise, left to the
military specialists.
So on the one .hand he has rec-
ognized that a bureaucracy is
necessary to the functioning of
government, but on the other hand
he does not accept the bureau-
cracy's dicta.
PAUL GOODMAN, in his col-
umn which ran in The Daily last
Wednesday (March 9), expressed
dismay with the statement by
Senator Thomas Dodd (D-Conn)
that said, criticism of the Viet
Nam war "is the price we pay for
living in a free country."
Goodman decried the diluted
democratic faith that would say
"we elect governors who then have
inside information through spies
and secret diplomacy. They alone,
therefore, can make policy and
commitments."
So Goodman, too, has qualms
about a bureaucratized govern-
ment. But he is wrong in listing
the base of voter acceptance of
such a situation.
He attributes diluted democratic
faith on the one hand to the vague
term "laziness," but then rushes;
on to deal with the "sense of low-
grade emergency" in this country
which thus tends to allow the peo-

ple to be willing to accept the
decisions and on-going commit-
ments entered into beyond recall
by Capitol Hill.
THIS PHILOSOPHY of emer-
gency makes it "rational to con-
centrate temporary power in a
few hands." He decries such a sit-
uation because in this situation
of pseudo-emergency, there is no
way to get back to "normal."
What all this amounts to is a
rather disconcerting shift of gov-
ernmental power. What Goodman
describes as "normal" is a situa-
tion of active voter interest, im-
portant and frequent registration
of voter opinion, and explicit di-
rection of governmental policy by
that opinion.
But this situation never has and
never will exist to the extent
Goodman would like it. The "opin-
ion" in opinion polls is marginally
active and informed at best. The
general public just isn't interested
enough to form really well-based
opinion on their government's in-
tricate workings.
Thus one must question whether
it would be desirable to have a
situation where the people's voice
is felt in every facet of govern-
ment. Inexpert public opinion can
too often be misled, misinformed,
and misused in such a situation.

AS IT IS, the general public
has even less voice than many
realize. The public voice is offi-
cially recorded only in the elec-
tion and re-election of representa-
tives who more often than not run
on vague platforms of stereotypic
phrases which generally become
specific only on the less important
issues, and on the over-ridingly
important issues public opinion is
decisive only on a yes-no basis.
This is the price we pay for liv-
ing in a world with two billion
people, divided into nationalities
producing more and with more
problems than the world has ever
known.
Just how much we are willing
to pay will be quite interesting to
see. The proposal two lengthen
Congressional terms is but a spe-
cific symptom of a very long and
subtle process. Our republic will
continue to compromise its demo-
cratic orientation until the people
conforms to the ideal of democracy
and becomes a willing and able
body of experts engaging actively
and knowledgeably in the business
of government.
UNTIL THIS happens, the de-
gree of efficacy of the public voice
and even of the non-bureaucratiz-
ed opinion leaders will continue to
slip away to the bureaucracy.

*
4

ON APRIL 3 Ann Arbor will play host to
a teach-in on China. Coming just a.
year after the historic Viet Nam teach-
in here, it represents a growing attempt
to educates the American people in the
true nature of other countries and to
examine critically U.S. foreign policy.
The purpose of the teach-in, as de-
fined by Peter DiLorenzi, one of the co-
ordinators of the event, is to supplement
the "abysmally deficient" knowledge that
most 'people have about Chinese affairs.
It is essential that the majority of the
American people have this knowledge if
we are to be able to adequately analyze
and criticize U.S. policy.
The editorial by Randy Frost on China
in yesterday's Daily, in which he adyo-
cates the bombing of Chinese nuclear
weapons installations, is a good indica-
tion of the need for a teach-in on China.
IN HIS ASSUMPTION that this step is
necessary to cope with China's threat
to our national welfare, Frost has fallen
into the trap of believing o r govern-
ment's rationalization for our present ac-
tivities of aggression in Viet Nam and the
rest of Southeast Asia. By doing so, he
exemplifies the major problem surround-
ing our relations with China, and our
foreign policy in general: the blind faith
which the majority of Americans have
that our government's actions are always
right, that we are fighting "in the interest
of freedom" "to preserve democratic
ideals," and "to defend against the Chi-
nese threat to our national welfare."
It is precisely this blind faith and ac-
ceptance of our administration's profess-
ed motives that must be removed, if we
are to be able to look at our relations with
China objectively. This is one of the func-
tions which the teach-in will serve, by
providing open debate and criticism ,of

both U.S. and Chinese foreign policy.
Another closely related function that
the.teach-in will serve is to put our rela-
tionship with China in true perspective
by bringing to the public the cultural and
philosophical history of China, the suf-
fering that it endured at the hands of
the Japanese, and the reasons why Com-
munism grew and rose to dominance.
Perhaps in this way Americans will be
better able to understand why China has
a policy of world domination and realize
that they are not monsters and that more
peaceful and humane means could be
employed to alleviate the threat that
their ideology poses.
YET GAINING A REAL understanding of
United States-Chinese relations and of
the Chinese people is only half the battle.
Only through the realization that the
peace and security of the people of
China and Southeast Asia is superior to
the suppression of an ideological sys-
tem to which we are adverse can we
truly understand the falsehood of our
present policy toward China and the nec-
essity of establishing new relations based
on understanding and mutual concern for
the other's welfare.
For as long as our government contin-
ues its present policy toward the Chinese
it can only increase their strong nation-
alism and their hatred of the West, which
will only lead to the eventual destruction
of the world.
THUS, THE TEACH-IN on China is not
only worthwhile but it is drastically
necessary. But it will be effective only if
the people at which it is directed, the
"abysmally ignorant" majority, are recep-
tive to its message and willing to accept
its criticism of U.S. policy toward China.
-DAVID DUBOFF

i

Keeping Containment Policies Parallel

*1

THERE HAS recently been a
report from Peking that the
Chinese government has decided
to prevent the Soviet Union from
supplying North Viet Nam by air
and railroad across Chinese terri-
tory. The official reason given is
said to be that the Chinese rail-
roads and Chinese air space are
overcrowded.
But surely the real purpose
would be to force Moscow to
choose between abandoning North
Viet Nam or sending many more
ships to the port of Haiphong and
challenging American sea power.
Of course we must bear in mind
that the reportmay be an exag-
geration or that it may be a neat
Machiavellian invention.
The report has reached Wash-
ington from several sources, and
while I have no way of knowing
what there is in it, I had it first
from a wholly reputable European
source. In any case, the incident
brings out into high relief the
most important, indeed the crucial

equation of power politics in the
world as it is today.
IT IS THAT THE containment
of China depends upon whether
the Soviet Union on the one hand,
the Western alliance and the
United States on the other can
move on parallel lines rather than
divergent lines. For when the lines
are parallel, as for example quite
notably in respect to India and
Pakistan, the opportunity exists
to bring about a. certain tran-
quility.
When the lines of policy in Mos-
cow and Washington diverge, as
they do because of the war in
South Viet Nam, the prospects of
international order around the
globe become very much dimmer.
For while it is dangerous and arro-
gant nonsense to think that the
United States can alone bring
order into the world, it is the part
of wisdom to regard parallelism
and agreement among the great
powers as the way to order in the
world.

Today
and
Tomorrow
By WALTER LIPPMANN
Secretaries Dean Rusk and
Robert McNamara believe that
what they are doing in Viet Nam
is thethighest kind of great power
politics. They actually believe that
they are containing China, and
they persist in their belief despite
the fact that they have alienated
the Soviet Union, spread doubt
and division in Japan, have no
support in Pakistan and India.
In the realm of great power
politics, in Asia the United States
is playing a lone hand. So the
question is: How have these earn-
est and serious men come to be-
lieve that they are containing
China?

THEIR BELIEF RESTS on thef
idea that the Vietnamese war is
a crucial test of whether revolu-
tionary wars encouraged by the
Chinese Communists will be stop-
ped or will continue. This, they
tell us, is it. This is where the
future is being decided.
Believing this, they are engaged
in containing China not by dealing
with the Chinese, but by fighting
the Viet Cong and the North Viet-
namese army south of the 17th
parallel.
For anyone who thinks that
great power politics have not been
abolished, the notion that China
can be contained in South Viet
Nam south of the 17th parallel is
sheer mythology. It is pernicious
mythology in that it has diverted
the President and his advisers
from the true containment of
China, which is possible only as
and if her great Asian neighbors,
the Soviet Union, Japan, India and
Pakistan, are aligned together or

are at least acting on parallel
lines.
It does not make the matter
easier or clearer for McNamara to
say with increasing fervor that
we are not preparing to attack
China. The critical question is
whether, in the pursuit of the vic-
tory that eludes us, we are not
only escalating the war in South
Viet Nam, but are expanding it to
a big war on the periphery of
China.
McNAMARA TAKES great com-
fort in a new calculation that
while North Viet Nam can enlarge
its forces very considerably, there
is nevertheless a "ceiling" above
which it cannot increase its forces
(in South Viet Nam). Whether or
not this is another of McNamara's
unfortunate hopeful predictions, it
leaves out of account the fact that
Asia is much bigger than South
Viet Nam and that the war can be
expanded not only in Southeast
Asia, but in Northeast Asia as well.
(c),1966, The Washington Post Co.

Information on Asia

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
U.S. Plays Policeman and God

UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT H a r 1 an
Hatcher recently returned from his
trip to Japan full of enthusiastic descrip-
tions of the ease and value of modern
travel and communications. Such expres-
sions are common today, but what caused
Hatcher to emphasize them was his reali.-
zation that great achievements in these
fields have not been utilized as well as
they should be. Perhaps he also realized
that some of the blame falls on the uni-
versities.
Hatcher went to Japan to attend an
education conference dealing with edu-
cational exchanges between that nation
and the United States. The conference
found misunderstandings of intellectuals
of the two nations on many issues, and
decided that individual's contacts with
the other nation were usually superficial.
The conference concluded that more
indepth study is needed by scholars of
both nations. It was also noted that uni-
versities should encourage the transla-
tion of literary works and the publication
of reference works to aid scholars and
exchange students.
THE EMPHASIS of the conference was
on scholars and exchange students.
Yet, to truly advance the cause of mutual
understanding, it should have dealt with
the great potential of the universities in
advancing the public's understanding.
There is a great deal of general ignor-
ance about Japan and the other Far
Eastern nations. The University's stu-
dents can be considered fortunate in
having one of the nation's foremost cen-
ters on Japanese studies, and several
other centers on Asian countries. Few
universities possess such a center.
Yet the center's work does not affect
very many students, even though Asian
studies courses of the literary college
make use of several professors in these
centers.
STUDIES OF ASIA have always suffer-
ed because of Americans' great inter-
est in European affairs.
The university, as the conference advo-
cated, should encourage publication of in-
formation on the Far East. Yet the em-
phasis of its work should be on educating

creased publication of reference material
geared to the general public; 2) sponsor-
ship of lectures and debates on these na-
tions; 3) production of educational tele-
vision programs; 4) translation of eastern
literary works, and any other means of
general information dissemination.'
THE RESPONSIBILITY of disseminat-
ing such material belongs to the uni-
versities as educational institutes, and
to the news media as providers of infor-
mation. A combination of energies-uni-
versity professors writing in popular me-
dia-could become one of the universities'
most-valuable services to the nation.
Many people may feel the university
should not undertake such public educa-
tion with the time-consuming responsi-
bilities they already possess. Yet educa-
tion is needed. The university must take
up the challenge.
-MICHAEL HEFFER
Strategy
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN leaders are
anxiously awaiting the off-year con-
gressional elections next November.
Always a pleasant time for the Loyal
Opposition, the Republicans feel the elec-
tion this year will be especially party-
some. They've got the perfect issue: the
Democratic split over the war in Viet
Nam. Having sat silently outside the dove-
hawk ring for months,; they are now
poised, ready to spring. Something like
a fox jumping into a chicken coop, I
guess.
IT'S FOOLPROOF, say national Repub-
lican leaders. We'll let Gerry Ford call
it "Johnson's war" on the one hand, and
let Dick Nixon loose on the "traitorous,"
Communist-led dissenters on the other.
Patriotism!
And, although it was a Republican -
Sen. Everett Dirksen-who cried out for
unified support of the President last year,
and another-Sen. George Aiken-who
actually opposes the war in Viet Nam,
you can't really expect them not to take
advantage of the issue. That would be
naive.

To the Editor:
I AM APPALLED by the editorial
by Randy Frost on U.S. China
policy. I won't argue here about
the totally absurd assumptions
made about the nature of modern
China; that will be thoroughly
handled by extremely competent
scholars at the China Teach-In
on April 3.
What is most important here is
the "solution" offered to this sup-
posed problem, and what the mere
suggestion of this "solution" im-

plies about the nature of U.S.
policy. Super-Sam is not particu-
larly different from Deutchland
uber alles. We appear to be set-
ting ourselves up as the arbiters
of what the world may or may not
do.
We decided that the whole world
must risk annihilation to prevent
the Russians from placing some
of their missiles as close to us as
some of ours were to them. We
decided that the Chinese civil war
had to continue indefinitely so

we could establish a strong base
near the coast of China. We de-
cided that the legally elected and
popularly supported Arbenz gov-
ernment in Guatamala would not
be permitted to threaten U.S. in-
terests in Guatamala.
WE DECIDED that the Geneva
agreements of 1954, which guaran-
teed the "independence, unityand
territorial integrity of Viet Nam"
(not South Viet Nam, but Viet
Nam), are null and void because

I

(

~2jIII~jt

' 4 C , r' )
40:,uV~~r {~
ralw'' '" t

we didn't like the possibility that
"80 per cent of the people would
have voted for the Communist, Ho
Chi Minh." We decided that the
people of the Dominican Republic
would not be permitted to over-
throw a military dictatorship and
re-establish constitutional and
democratic government in their
country.
WE HAVE ESTABLISHED the
policy of sending American sol-
diers and military aid- around the
world to maintain our interests
regardless of the interests of the
other peoples of the world (we
annually consume two thirds of
the annual world use of non-
renewable resources). Now it is
being advocated that we "take
out" the Chinese nuclear installa-
tions because we have decided that
while we, the Russians, the British
and the French are capable of
handling a nuclear capacity with
restraint, the "Chinese hordes"
(the only nonwhite people of the
five) are not.
SOME PEOPLE seem to be con-
fusing America with God and are
setting America up as world po-
liceman, judge, jury and execu-
tioner. Hitler was also just going
to protect Western civilization
from Bolshevism. It is becoming
more and'more apparent that the
major difference between the
American and Nazi foreign policies
is that we are doing what they
did, but with the best of motives
(maybe).
-Stan Nadel, '66
SGC Endorsements
To the Editor:
ONE CANDIDATE for the presi-
dency of SGC has recently
published a sheet outlining his
goals and qualifications' for the
office, and also on this sheet a
list of seven persons prominent in
student activities who personally
endorse him included.
Early in this campaign the two
Reach candidates for executive of-
fices would like to go on record
for the following principles (in
response to the above method of

mitment leaders have to their
organizational constituency.
Organizational endorsements are
valuable because in this procedure
at least an attempt is made to
support candidates with regard to
collective (organizational) criteria.
This guideline for voters should
not be clouded by individual lead-
ers who respond to personal in-
clinations without the official sup-
port of their organizations.
The voters deserve to 'under-
stand issues and relevant history
of candidates. The voters should'
not be confused with such sub-
sidiary data as "who is friends
with whom."
A CAREFUL observer will note
that the most prominent campus
leaders have remained discreetly
aloof from this "friendship con-
test." These people include the
current presidents of SGC, IFC,
PAN-HEL, IHA, and UAC.
-Bob Bodkin, '67
(REACH candidate for SGC
presidency)
-Neill Hollenshead, '67
(REACH candidate for vice-
president)
Upper-half.Draft
To the Editor:
I FEEL THAT the most obvious
answer to the problem of draft-
ing students has been overlooked
both in the LSA resolution and in
the counterproposal of Prof.
George Piranian.
Information available in leading
news magazines indicates that the
current Viet Nam antiwar demon-
strators tend to range in the
upper half of their college classes
rather than in the lower half as
might be expected.
Because of this fact I propose,
instead of random selection or a
policy which discriminates against
students of a lower socio-economic
condition, the reclassification of
students who achieve higher grade
points. Along with removing from
our leading universities the left-
wing radicals who discredit the
entire academic community, this
policy would reduce the tension
due to the trimester system.

A*

C

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan