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,;