EIle rid41an ait3
Seventy-seven years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
under authority of Board in Control of Student Publications
Vietnam,
cities
are
at
issue
420 Maynard St., An Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily exp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: STEVE NISSEN
Is that trip to Chicago
really necessary?
AS THE Democratic National Conven-
tion approaches, the outcome of a
Humphrey nomination seems more and
more assured. Even though McCarthy's
chances look dismal, the Minnesota Sen-
ator refuses to admit defeat.
Although he concedes the Vice Presi-
dent a minimum of 900 of the 1312 votes
needed for nomination, McCarthy said
yesterday if Lester Maddox entered the
race there might be a possibility of stop-
ping a Humphrey victory on the first
ballot.
When McCarthy and his supporters
have to resort to a Maddox candidacy to
win the nomination it is time for a seri-
ous reappraisal of the value of the Demo-
cratic nomination as a means to the pres-
idency.
Through seven months of campaigning,
McCarthy has staunchly affirmed his
faith in the Democratic Party, claiming
he will seek the presidency within the
party's structure.
Throughout the campaign, however,
the most painful reality which the Min-
nesota senator has had to confront has
been the solidly pro-Humphrey party or-
ganization which has refused to consider
McCarthy's candidacy in any way, shape
or form other than as an affront to the
party establishment.
c C A R T H Y' S announcement about
Maddox bears an uncanny resem-
blance to the Rockefeller-Reagan coali-
tion which tried to stage a coup at the
Republican convention two weeks ago in
Miami.
Reagan, however, was at least a cred-
ible candidate for the Republicans while
Maddox looms high on the list of South-
ern racist politicians who prefer to be in
the Democratic Party and always manage
to upset any claims as a unified organ
of the people every four years at the na-
tional conventions.
A more competent Southerner than
Maddox might really be able to generate
enough support among the region's dele-
gates to make serious inroads into the
Vice President's strength. But Lester
Maddox, the former restaurant owner
who closed up shop rather than serve
blacks, is a maverick even among South-
ern Democrats. His bitter, racist, anti-
intellectual record would win him support
only in the very deepest South - his own
Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.
Even there, the people and delegates
whose support Maddox would likely win
have undoubtedly cast fond glances at
George Wallace, a candidate only slightly
less bitter than Maddox. The prospects of
the Maddox candidacy are slim indeed.
And the corresponding service that it
might serve McCarthy is equally minimal.
THIS SOUTHERN wing of the party al-
ways exerts more than its proper pro-
portion of influence at the conventions
and although the party cannot count on
the South for its electoral votes anymore,
its leaders still feel compelled to include
the latent Dixiecrats in the shaky coali-
tion of labor, blacks and liberals which
has come to comprise the party.
8econi class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St.. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 48104
Daily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer sson.
It is hard to believe that Eugene Mc-
Carthy is placing his hopes for the Demo-
cratic nomination in the hands of Les-
ter Maddox, a man who stands for most
of the beliefs that McCarthy is fighting
against.
WVHILE McCarthy plods on to certain,
defeat in Chicago, some of his sup-
porters have given up trying to reform
the Democratic Party and have joined to
create a new political organization as an
alternative to the Republicans and the
Democrats.
The organizers of the "New Party" now
say their name will appear on the ballot
in at least 25 states in November.
The base of the New Party comes from
liberals and radicals who oppose the
Vietnam War and many liberal govern-
ment institutions. As an alternative to
the Democrats, the party leadership
hopes to attract the black and labor
blocs which traditionally vote Democrat-
ic, along with the equally outcast liberal
wing of the Republican party.
If McCarthy has to resort to Lester
Maddox to stop Humphrey, then he
should question the value of the nomin-
ation he hopes to win. While it would be
absurd to dream that the New Party
could win in November, it seems equally
absurd to believe a group of stale party
workers and racist Southerners would
ever seriously consider the McCarthy al-
ternative.
IN THE WORDS of Marcus Raskin, a New
Party organizer, "There is a real pos-
sibility, I think, of a left-right coalition
based on a revulsion against bureaucrat-
ic structures. There is such a basic revul-
sion that I think the New Party is clearly
in politics to stay for the next generation.
People are prepared to think radically
and the party is a vehicle for doing that."
-STUART GANNES
The high cost
of being right
STALWART rightest and editor of the
National Review, William F. Buckley
Jr. is peddling a new, militant publica-
tion, "Combat." Appealing for subscrip-
tions, Buckley promises the twice-month-
ly newsletter will become "the rallying
point for the forces struggling to restore
an ordered America."
"Combat" will attack the Old Left, the
New Left, errant clergy, the radical press,
and "the 'Respectables' who give aid and
comfort to radical elements."
Excluding these elements, the news-
letter will possibly give Buckley a reader-
ship of those Americans whom he says
"have just plain lost sight of Communist
intrigues here at home."
But Buckley sensibly lets subscribers
know that conservatism costs. Charter
subscriptions (which include a free copy
of a new Buckley book, "The Jeweler's
Eye") sell for $24. At one dollar an issue
the four-page newsletter is downright
expensive.'
It must be the unions.
-HENRY GRIX
McCarthy: New unIts of
(Continued from Page 2) McCarthy: Well, I think if wiling to take it and I've shown Wheth
We haven't given enough that's the choice, it would be ra- more willingness than anybody ground
thought to the structure and pro- ther difficult not to support the else-if you measure the effort structi
cess by which the things we're Vice Persident. There's still a pos- that I have been making since Levi
talking about in the ghettos can, sibility that there might be a New Hampshire. I 'haven't been Leviin
in fact, be carried out. I think Isubstantial challengefrom out- indifferent, waiting for it to come panha
would vote against the Green side. I said I would have to look to me.
amendment, but I don't mean to at the fourth challenge, not that MCc
say that she didn't have some I would lead it, but if it had sub- Popa: deorge Meany, particu- the mi:
thing in tsTh didn'e other pro- stance and had able leadership as larly, and many other labor, lead- invasio
cedure had not really worked out offering a real choice to a third or ers have been very strongly sup- might;
somewhere between a third and porting the candidacy of the I thin:
and there were all kinds of loose half the American people, then they're talking out of propor- militar
ends and uncertainties, it's the kind of test I would have tion to the way the members to say
Popa: Senator, you've criticized to support. But in a showdown Vice President. Do you think stalema
Vice President Humphrey for sup- between Nixon and Humphrey, really feel? I doub
porting the administration posi-
Vietnam. If you had been chosen
tion on many things, principally
as the running mate by President}
Johnson in 1964 and he had pur-
sued the same policies, what
would you have done differently
from Vice President Humphrey?:
McCarthy: I don't like to ans-
wer those conjectural questions.
I really haven't criticized the'
Vice President for supporting the
President. I've said that if he has
a position now which is different
from that, as some of his people'
have hinted-he hasn't-what he
ought to do is to say, "I did sup-
port it because it was administra-
tion policy. I don't agree with it.
Here is my position now."
But to say, as he does, that
"when I am captain of the team,
I won't be the same as when I'm
a player on the team," but not to
tell us what he'll do when he's
captain, this is what I criticize.
I don't know what I would have
done. I think if I had judged the
war as I now judge it, that as On the campaign trail: Speech-making and han
Vice President I at least could
have been quiet.
Bute wasn aery tyou would have to make your McCarthy: I think that they vasion
But he was a very strong and choice on the domestic issues. The speak for-Meany at least does- substan
ardent advocator and defender of Vice President said that he saw a good number of people in the
the war as Vice President. I al- no significant difference between building trades, but not for all of .Levi
ways said that you could just be his foreign policy and that of Ri- them certainly. Organized labor ministr
quiet and stay healthy, if you chard Nixon, has been in support of the ad- rection
want to, once you're in that office. ministration and it has supported MC
I expect that I would have been Popa: You said on your ABC the war, although I think that wMC
less critical perhaps, but I don't debate with Senator Robert Ken- support is tending to disintegrate. What t
think I would have been an ad- nedy, in effect, that you would look b
vocator. accept the Presidency. The impli- Levin: Herman Kahn of the of pol
cation was that you weren't really Hudson Institute in a recent book militar
Levin: Assuming that Republi- out seeking it full-speed ahead, suggests invasion of North Viet- know i
,ans nominate Richard Nixon and but you were offering yourself as nam is essential if negotiations invasio
assuming your challenge to Vice an alternative and would accept are to be successful because our plans.
President Humphrey fails, don't it if.... country currently has nothing to for inv
you feel that the specter of Rich- bargain with. Isn't this the cur- plansv
ard Nixon in the White House McCarthy: Well, I don't think rent administration strategy, as
makes it incumbent upon you and that was quite it. They always you see it? Popa
all Democrats to enthusiastically say, "Do you think you're quali- Udall h
campaign! for the nominee of the fied more than somebody else?" McCarthy: Well, the bombing is betweei
Chicago convention? I have said that I was quite pretty close to an invasion now. try to
ei he means an actual
L invasion or the total de-.
on of Hanoi . .
n: He means taking the
ndle away from North Viet-
arthy: I don't know what
litary would say about that
n. It runs the risk that it
also bring the Chinese in
k we've tested this thing
ily far enough. If he wants
that we're at a military
ate, that's probably right.
t very much that an in-
government
Governor Wallace is apparently
building around the country. What
is your reaction to this proposal?
McCarthy: I haven't had time
to really to give much thought
to their proposal to see how it
would work out. My judgment
now is that its probably uncon-
stitutional. I don't see quite the
danger that Wallace could mani-
pulate things in the way in which
it is suggested he could. Certain-
ly, I don't think he could in-
fluence the House of Representa-
tives if it was thrown into the
House.
Levin: Since the peace talks
have begun there has been no ap-
parent progress towar} peace, but
the Vietnam issue has lost its im-
pact at home. Do you regard the
peace talks at present as anything
more than a political move by the
administration?
McCarthy: I don't think the
war has lost its strength at home,
I think it's running very strongly,
in what the polls show by way
support for me and what was
shown in the primaries. It's just
that people aren't talking about
it as much -because they have
made up their minds.
I had hoped the administration
was quite serious with reference
to working out something in Pa-
ris. I have to say I had to dis-
count hopes after the Honolulu
meeting and the statements made
by the President and. General
Thieu. As I see it now, if this is
our position, there's really not
very much likely to come out of
the negotiations in Paris for some
time.
Popa: If you were president and
the Soviet Union moved to sup-
press Czechoslovakia; if they
moved troops into Czechoslovakia,
what would be your reaction?
McCarthy: We are not in posi-
tion to do anything about it. We're
not even in a position now to pro-
test. If we weren't involved in
Vietnam, and if we didn't have
our record clouded by that inter-
vention, we could at least lend
some kind of moral or diplomatic
support to czechoslovakia.r But
this is one of the consequences
of Vietnam. We're so involved
there and our position is so cloud-
ed that we're almost helpless even
to protest intervention, to say
nothing of doing anything about
intervention in almost any . part
of the world.
4
4
id-shaking
of North Vietnam would
ntially change 'that.
n: Do you think the ad-
ration is moving in that di-
.?
arthy: I don't really know
they have in mind. If you
ack since 1965, each change
icy has involved a deeper
y commitment. But I don't
f they have any plans for
n. I think they have some
I'm sure they have plans
vading everybody, but not
which are likely.
: Congressmen Goodell and
have proposed an agreement
n the two major parties to
undermine the power that
A
Humphrey: Welfare despite war
(Continued from Page 2)
States and the Soviet Union be-
ing able to do these things, being
able to stop this nuclear arms
race before it gets out of hand,
being able to divert resources to
peaceful development, being able
to negotiate some kind of under-
standing on the anti-ballistic mis-
sile system, so that we don't go
and spend another 50 billion to
100 billion dollars for a new wea-
pons system that will give you no
more security.
That is really what's import-
ant, far more important than
Vietnam and far more important
than some of the passionate and
irrational talk you hear today.
I think the tragedy of Vietnam
is not only the loss of life, but it
is the fact that some people have
used it to divert our attention
from the arms race that has been
going on between the two major
powers and which spreads, of
course, to other nations as well,
and it divertedour attention from
some of the grave domestic prob-
lems we have. I think this is the
real liability of the war in Viet-
nam.
Levin: President Johnson and
Secretary Rusk both said last
week that further military escala-
tion of the war would be neces-
sary if another Communist of-
fensive is launched and the Paris
peace talks continue to be fruit-
less. Do you agree, and in par-
ticular, does this mean an in-
crease in United States troops
above the current level of 525,000?
Does this mean an invasion of the
North and a bombing of the Viet-
nam population centers?
Humphrey: Well, I am speak-
ing for myself. I do not think it
means bombing, new bombing. I
think the policy has been laid
down of restrictive bombing.
Secondly, I do not believe that
it means invasion of the North.
I'm opposed to that. The govern-
ment has never been supporting
that.,
Thirdly, I think that the troops
that are there are adequate. They
are well supplied.
Fourthly, the most significant
new development in Vietnam is
the new military capability of the
Army of South Vietnam. That has
improved by a magnitude of at
least a factor of two. It has
doubled what it was from a year
ago.
I think that this is General
Abrams' great achievement. He
is an excellent officer. He has put
a great deal of emphasis on the
ARVN. They are equipped with
modern weapons. They are well
trained and well disciplined now,
and they are getting better com-
mand.
This will permit us to schedule'
redeployment of our own forces
and some deescalation of our own
effort. I don't think that there
is any doubt about this.
So I am not worried about what
will be the result of an attack. I
think it is possible that the North
Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
may launch another offensive.
But to answer your questions, I
see no further escalation of the
war on our part. I do expect that
there may be an offensive from
the North and the Viet Cong. I
do think that the forces that we
and our allies have there, and that
the South Vietnamese have are
adequate.
Now that's my own view of it
and had it not been my view, I
would have been issuing a state-
ment on this matter a lot earlier.
I have a feeling that we're in for
a rather difficult period there un-
less the North Vietnamese think
it is not worthwhile.
Popa: Returning to the question
of the arms race. Do you agree
with Secretary McNamara's de-
cision to move toward a thin anti-
ballistic missile system?
Humphrey: At the most, I hope
we don't have to do that. I think
that there are two kinds of sys-
tems. One would have cost from
$40 to $50 billion. That's the one
in depth. The other one they said
would cost four to five billion dol-
lars; that's the thin one. I think
that You ought to be perfectly
aware that those cost estimates
will most likely go up, because of
the time factor, new sophistica-
tion, increased cost.
I think what we ought to get
is an agreement, a negotiated
agreement, where we need not
even the thin one, because that's
going to cost a lot of money. But
McNamara was right- at the time.
He was trying to spend as little
as possible and still give us as
much defense as possible.
But let me make it crystal clear,
mankind has not perfected any
defensive system that can save a
major American city from a nu-
clear attack nor have the Rus-
sians perfected any defensive sys-
tem that we could not penetrate.
If you send ten inter-continen-
tal ballistic missiles in on Detroit
Humphrey: Well. let me make
it quite clear, we have expended
a great deal of money on our ur-
ban centers and our social pro-
grams. I think, again, that as I
said, one of the tragedies of the
war was how it had sort of cloud-
ed the whole development, the
facts of life in the world.
People have become so focused
upon this sore thumb on the palm
of Asia, that they have forgotten
Asia and the world. I mean they
are constantly looking at the sore
thumb.
Now we have increased our aid
to education in therFederal Gov-
ernment by 300 per, cent in the
last four years, from four billion
dollars to almost 13 billion dol-
lars. We have increased our social
budget. Our social budget for
health, for housing, for urban life,
for children - was increased by
40 billions of dollars in the last
three and a half years.
Forty billion. That's a lot of
money, and is, of course, what
the conservatives in Congress are
complaining about. And our lib-
eral friends are apparently un-
aware of it, so between the blind-
There are thousands and tiou-
sands of people being benefited
so that while this war has surely
cost us a lot of money, it has not
been fought at the expense of no
social progress.
In a meeting on economics yes-
terday -- including Walter Heller
and Joe Peckman - we were able
to point out that we'll have some
savings if we can get an end to
the war in Vietnam, but not
quickly. The de-escalation process
takes some time.
In the meantime, there are a
lot of things that just have to be
done, that we've delayed doing' so
the amount of money that will be
immediately available will be less
than we had hoped. But in three
to four years it will be substantial.
It will run into the billions and
billions of dollars.
We've made some progress in
the various aspects of social legis-
lation, but we need to make a lot
more. What we need to do is look
at what we've done and see how
it worked and where it's worked,
build on it and try to maximize it,
intensify it. That's what I intend
to do. Now if Medicare is good for
'4
I
V
"The decisions made in the immediate post
war years ... have outlived much of their use-
f ulness now. It is a different world. In fact, they
(the decisions) were so successful that they need
to be changed."
"{.".>q..";:rP;. :.:.r,'::a ":".:.:'':?" E.. . . .W
:1".L: :..:''*l:ii::: J .Y: .> . .*': i. Y.*.*.*.* *.:i: ::* J.. ................ . . . *.L.. ...*.*.*. 'L..:::::""J1Y':::Lii: . . ..::" .;.*.*.";.L.J J >Y ,1J>J; '}" . .. . . ..:"'1:>. J. M , 1:L:".
FEIFFER
MS1 686 AfIRE ITh6 1012 PTAI\)WOIC- N)OEHVER RAAA-1 - Etf[6 L CUAW (Ds& HOW 0
VRIMAWI65.1Th6F RI- EaLOSES i5 is oout $TTLGAV% CAMP IDATE $'T .W T (LAV6 A AI 1 Co? lEG lP T seU
COJ IT5 (CA0J12A1.
~1
ness of the liberals and the an-
tagonism of the conservatives,
these social programs are in
trouble.
We didn't, have a war on pover-
ty four years ago. We, didn't have
a war on pollution four years ago.
You know, I heard a couple of my
contestants here some time ;ago
arguing about that the funds for
pollution control were inadequate.
Now it's true, but four years ago
there were none. I heard that the
Project Headstart was inadequate.
Four years ago there was none. I
know that the food stamp plan is
inadequate. Three years ago there
was none.
But, you see, we must not for-
get that despite the war in Viet-
nam, that tremendous things have
old people, maybe a kind of Child-
care is good for the child in the
early days of its life.
We know that health centers in
the ghetto and inner city areas
are important. We've got about
fifty or more of them across the
country. We ought to have five
hundred. So we're beginning, see,
to learn what to do from what
we've done.
Popa: You mentioned Mr. Hel-
ler. Do you favor Mr. Heller's pro-
posal for eventually returning fed-
eral money to the states?
Humphrey: Yes, I basically do,
but I think it all has to be under
certain guidelines and regulations.
For example, where there is a state
that has a state income tax and
_4
1MAKIJG L2EAL'5"
95L.,
'OU y 1A J TE~
WINS OF CIE
x-Coi F ?
of\~LY MeM c s VOO0U M TE0 56P0
59e -ME 9OUT AHC C NPLIOATU
9I n' ~rn~c. POF to TF R,1 )P?
LIIATK 9~O F5Y 1AEM 0 0
M ;(o05,;