Page 4-Wednesday; October 25, 1978-The Michigan Daily

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom

McGovern:1980 comeback


Vol. LIX, No.42,

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
pursuit of hess

W INE IS A magical tonic. Those
who quaf that mystical
beverage exude a confidence rarely
exhibited in their mundane lives. It
leads some men to be rascals - some
women too. It induces euphoria,
sharpens the appetite, promotes good
health - taken in the proper measure
of course - and stimulates a general
feeling of well-being. Wine is a spirit;
wine is food. Many could not bring
themselve s to contemplate life without
the essence of the grape, although
throughout recent history, misguided
individuals have occassionally
endeavored to deny mankind that
unalienable right. Civilization without
wine would be analogous to civilization
without the wheel.
Clearly, federal officials realize the
importance of wine when last week
they made it possible for any single
person over 18 years of age to produce
100 gallons of wine legally and tax free.
Until now wine could be made at home
but only by the head of the household'
and with a license from the Treasury
Department - an outright denial to

every persons'right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.
But wait, yet another victory. The
government has gone one step further
to recognize the plight of the common
person; beer, the poor man's
champaign and a college student's
staple, can now also be made by any
single person 18 years of age at the
ample rate of 100 gallons per annum.
Under the old law, there was an
obtru ive $9 excise tax on each barrel
proddced.B ut the problem was that no
one could brew beer at home legally.
This spirited vindication could not be
more appropos for Michigan residents
caught between the ages of 18 and 21. It
seems that proposition D, an obnoxious
proposal to raise the drinking age to 21,
will pass in November. But now, with
the repeal of two seemingly innocuous,
antedevulian spirit laws; those who
may be without the right to buy beer
and wine can at least make it in the
privacy and comfort of their homes. So
neophyte oenopliles and tipplers of
pilsner vote no on proposition D, but
rest assured your thirst will not
necessarily go unquenched.

Two years ago, when "outsider" Jimmy
Carter captured the Democratic presidential
nomination, he was riding a rising wave of
anti-Washington distrust. As confidence in the
government's ability to work was
plummeting, he mounted a campaign against
the system itself.
Now after 20 months in ofice, confidence in
presidential politics has dropped to even
greater depths. Confusion abounds on all
fronts as each new brace of public economists
and government experts admit that the old
models don't work and new solutions havn't
been invented to solve the country's pressing
social problems.
In such a period, suggestions that run
counter to the conventional wisdom deserve
special attention. One such suggestion was
offered recently by James Weighart,
Washington correspondent of the New York
Daily News. He thought it was just possible
that Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.) might
be in a mood to seek the Democratic
nomination if only to give discontents and
dissatisfactions with Carter's performance a
chance to find political expression.
What's that? McGovern? The Democratic
nominee who managed to win the electoral
votes of Massachusetts but of no other state in
1972?
Daily News readers must have thought that
Weighart had been smoking pot or was hard-
up for a subject that day. But the suggestion
is not as whacky as it sounds, if considered, as
it should be, in the light of one or two
assumptions.
One is that McGovern's prime objective need
not be to deny Carter the nomination. The
president is experiencing the familiar
midterm slump newly elected presidents
often face, and hemay well bounce back by
1980; polls indicating his continuing personal
popularity lend some support to this notion.
Another is that even if more popular
Democrats, like Teddy Kennedy or Jerry
Brown could lead the party to victory, neither
would be able to deal incisively with the real
prpblem the Democratic party now faces.
In simplest tactical erms, the problem is
that after 30 years of concensus cold War
politics, the right is well-organized, well-
financed and well-positioned, and its
influence has been enhanced by the absence
of an organized left or opposition movement.
So the center of gravity, is, or appears to be,
moving right. In a sense, Carter is the captive
of this massive center concensus, and he
apparently feels that lacking any strong
counter pressure, he must constantly yield
ground to the right.
But the present stalemate has other
aspects. The Republicans are not fulfilling the
function of a minority party despite gorgeous
opportunities to put a new act together.
Special "cause" groups by the score have
arisen outside the parties each pressing hard
for its particular panacea. Party
organizations have been weakened not only
by "cause" and single-issue constituencies
but by the dominance of "media" politics.
Despite the fact that older, more conservative
members of Congress have been stepping
down, the new members, who are younger,
better educated and more sophisticated,
seem to lack group coherence. Such a
situation is tailor-made for the corporate

By Carey McWilliams
interests that have been consolidating their
power for decades.
Since 1874 more than 500 large corporations
have set up "civic action programs," i.e.,
political action committees. In many cases
convenient arrangements have been made
whereby employees - with a nudge from
management - can have campaign
contributions deducted from their pay
checks. and a new breed of hawks has.
emerged: sophisticated, resourceful, calling
themselves neo-conservatives, determined to*
heat up the Colf War and to finance their
strategy by appearing to be "liberal" on some
domestic issues.
In many respects it is an illusion to
conclude that nationally opinion has shifted to
the right. The elements that McGovern
rallied in 1972 still exist today if widely
dispersed, distrustful and relatively
quiescent. Two million Americans actively
protested the war in Vietnam. They are still
"out there," waiting for someone to rally
them in support of issues in which they
believe and in whose leadership they have
confidence. Presumably they have matured
Two million Americans
actively protested the war in
Vietnam. They are still "out
there, " waiting for someone
to rally them in support of
issues in which they believe
and in whose leadership they,
have confidence.
and grown more sophisticated. New
leadership elements are also emerging in the
labor movement.
The multivarious "cause" groups
constitute a large, combined constituency.
Blacks are increasingly disenchanted with
Carter, and Chicanos have their misgivings.
Dirt farmers and small business groups are
disaffected; the middle class is increasingly
apprehensive about inflation and property
taxes. Activist political groups exist in large
numbers, but their importance is minimized
through lack of leadership and direction.
McGovern caould appeal to numberless
millions of voters who have grown a bit.
jaundiced bwith Carter's sunny smile and
blithe disregard of campaign promises.
The first practical need, is to bring together
once again the forces that supported
McGovern in 1972 along with the, large
number of new recruits waiting for a call to
action.
And who could better lead such an effort
than McGovern himself? He has maintained
his credibility; he is believable. Without beiig
hostile to Carter, he has been more willing
than any of the other Democratic leaders to
speak plain truths to the White House. In the
1972 primaries McGovern ran a remarkable
grass-roots campaign in which he succeeded
in drawing together the components of the
"new politics." After the convention, he made

s series of tactical mistakes, but these were o
slight importance. The two summits -
Peking and Moscow - together witi
Kissinger's October statement that "peace i
at hand" and the failure of Watergate t
surface as a major national issue until afte
the election, made Nixon a shoo-in regardles
of what McGovern said or did.
But McGovern's final televised address o
Vietnam was a courageous summation an
the high point of his campaign. He does no
need to prove his integrity; the record prove
it for him. He is a stubborn man, and voter.
know he would not waffle, waver and doubl
talk as Carter has been doing.
No doubt Kennedy would be the strongest
opposition candidate, but his support woul
be too inclusive in terms of building a more
realistic political alignment.
From the point of view of the need to shif
the center of gravity in the party and o
bringing together a fairly tight and cohesiv
coalition of "new politics" forces,
McGovern candidacy would be preferable
voters interested in picking a winner shoul
encourage Kennedy to run; those intereste
in fashioning a new politics - a politics fo
the 1980s - would be better to bac
McGovern.
,McGovern could hardly fail, under the ne
rules, to take a sizeable bloc of delegates t
the Democratic convention that could exer
real influence on platform and program an
on Carter's behavior and performance
Actually a strong organized opposition withi
the party might help Carter win re-electio
and hold him to his promises if he won shoul
he be re-nominated. A Kennedy challeng
would be wuite likely to succeed, but then
everyone would cheer Ted and hope for the
best without too much assurance,.that
anything had changed.
There are times in politics - hateful as the
prospect may be - when victory is less
important than laying out the right lines op
opposition in terms of the politics of the
future. A McGovern candidacy would be
gamble on the future, a gamble that he coud
complete the task he bagan in 1972.
Realistically a McGovern candidacy should
be viewed as an interim step, a means of
constituting a strong well-organized
opposition on the left, of attempting to define
the new issues, of realigning political forces
or restoring some sense to the two-party
syhstem in terms of presidential politics. It
should not be viewed with a starry-eyed
expectations of victory but as a practical
means by which, in a dry and bleak season,
national politics might be reinvested with
some of the meanfhg and significance it has
lost.
It would be a real test of political maturity
of a campaign of this kind - a campaign
aimed at deliberately at the future - could be
conducted without any of the twisting,
turning, double-talking, easy-promising,
beaming, hand-shaking and media-acting
that has come to be a hallmark of presidential
campaigns.
Carey Mc Williams, who served as
editor of the Nation magazine for over 20
years, is the author of several books. This
article was written for Pacific News
Service.

PBB in the city's landfill

A NNARBOR residenits were cha-
grined to learn last week that for
four years they have been denied
information about a PBB (poly-
brominated bipheyl) dumping at the
city's landfill. From information now
available; it is clear that state officials
purposely kept area residents
uninformed of .the PBB dumping and
the possible health hazard it could
effect. This alarming revelation
demonstrates the careless disregard
for public safety rampant in the city
and state government bureaucracy.
Although state Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) officials
and the city administration seem
convinced the dumping will not affect
the health of area residents, the city's
decision to at least commission a study
of the landfill was proper, albeit
somewhat late. All the facts must be
gathered and analyzed to develop a
course of action. Serious questions
have been raised. One city
councilperson has suggested that the
clay walls surrounding the landfill
may not be as thick as the city claims.
If city officials did not know PBB was
dumped at the landfill, the public
should also be suspicious of their
claims that the landfill is safe. The
inspection of the landfill should be
undertaken by an outside interest to
insure a proper inspection.
But the most alarming development
in the dumping is that no one on the
state level informed city officials that
the dangerous chemical was dumped

in the landfill with one-and-a-half tons
of grain. This suggests controls at the
landfill are not as stringent as they
ought to be. City officials should
reprimand the state for its lack of
concern. But the city should also be
reprimanded for not setting up proper
guidelines and checks at the landfill to
prevent the dumping of potentially
dangerous chemicals.
Area residents should not have to be
concerned that by living near the
landfill they iiay be exposed to untold
dangers. They have the right to a safe
existence. The city and the state have
the important responsibility of
insuring that right. When they fail in
this responsibility they are legally and
morally culpable.
That the city and its residents were
not informed of the dumping amounts
to a cover up. The health hazards of
PBB have been known for several
years. The governor, the state
legislature, the DNR, and the
Department of Agriculture - which
has a heavily staffed Consumer
Protection Division - have all been
neglectful of their responsibilities.
They should be taken to task.
BUSINESS STAFF
NANCY GRAU.... .....................Business Manager
DENISE GILARDONE...................... Sales Manager
LISA CULBERSON ......................... Display Manager
SHELLEY SEEGER ....................... Classified Manager
PETE PETERSEN ................... Advertising Co-ordinator


Letters to the Daily

04
IF YOU CATT
t4T
4Tt
OUTOF $g0
INS } L

Samoff's tenure
To the Daily:
Joel Samoff, the well known
Africanist and political
economist, also one of the best
teachers in the political science
department and a winner of this
year's distinguished service
award, may be denied tenure for
a third time this November.
Many concerned students and
faculty members are determined
to fight theloss of this serious
scholar, student conscious
teacher and committes activist.
Contrary to widespread
misconception, his work is of
excellent quality. A segment of
Samoff's 1978 service award
citation reads, "the important
international reputation you have
achieved in the fields of African
politics, and p-olitical economy is
greratly admired by you
colleagues." Highly involved
throughout the seventies in
increasing minority student and
faculty recrujtment and
outspoken in the drive for
university divestment from
corporations doing business in
South Africa, he represents a new
breed of professors who are very
active on campus and who work
closely with the students on
community related issues. Also
very concerned about teaching in
classrooms, he is a highly
effective teacher who
experiments with different,
teaching techniques that seek to
emphasize student participation
not only in regular presentations,
but also in tk direction of his
courses.
The political science
department's handling of his
case was indeed irregular. As a
.np-Anl -ni nl nnnmc h

increasing move directed against
the 1960's age cohorts who
adopted more radical orientation
to teaching, research and
community involvement.
Because of their different
commitments, they constitute a
threat to the existing
establishment, its methodology,
its pre-occupation with research
as opposed to teaching and its
isolation from the student body.
Tenure, in these cases, becomes
a tool used against one's
academicuopponents regardless
of high quality teaching, research
and service which all stand out in
the Samoff case.
The nation-wide move against
radical faculty is a direct attack
on student's right to get the
benefit of student conscious
faculty and community oriented
activists. It denies students the
right to have access to diverse
orientations within different
departments and areas. Last but
not least, it represents one
further proof as to how
departments and tenured faculty
continue to ignore students for
quality teaching and their right to
have an input in tenure decision
process and student related
issues.
What is hapening to Joel
Samoff does not only affect him,
it concerns you and me as
students who should be at the
heart of -the decision making
process, but are pushed to the
sidelines as mere spectators. The
Samoff Student Support
Committee is an action oriented
group who feel that they must do
something to allow students to
assume a central role in decision
making through keeping Joel
Samoff in this university. The
lessons and the pitfalls of the

Basketball ticket
inquiry
To the Daily:
Why is it that the "Big U" has
to screw the students out of the
last enjoyable activity on
campus? For those of you not
familiar with the latest
incident, it concerns basketball
tickets. Isn't it bad ebough that
they raise the dorm and tuition
rates yearly, or charge each
student $10.00 pertermto use
the athletic facilities when the
athletic department is running
a multi-million dollar business.
As fas as Al Renfr6w ('U'
ticket manager) is concerned,
it's not enough. Al has added an
additional knife into the
students' back by holding a
lottery for basketball seats this
season. al used a similar,
method for football tickets this
year and the majority of us die-
hard fans cringed at the thought
of sitting our final year out in
the eleventh row of section 26,
and sure enough, it happened to
many. Al's feeble excuse for
using this system is that it's
more equitable and most of all
eliminates lines at last. For
football he had a little bit of a
point with a 30,000 seat ticket
distribution, but you can't get
off that easy this time, al. The
B-ball crowd is considerably
smaller than the football crowd
(5,5000) and the well-organized
lines of recent years has caused
little or no problem for the
ticket office or the students. In
fact, last year line leaders had
the entire list of people
organized in a single file line by
the time tickets were to go on
sale. As for eauity of ticket

send Mr. Renfrew back to Eco
201 for a little review. He i
taking a high priorit
commodity and randoml
allocating, or, in simple
English, he is giving out gold for
nothing. Many students ar
willing to wait weeks for the fe,
good seats available to student
in Crisler arena. It's a shamd
that many people who reall
appreciate basketball and care
about the. team will end up
watching the game through
telescope.
How easily one forgets, Al
that three years ago a crowd o
8,000 was a large turnout for
Michigan B-ball. Who wer"
those people that came in the
blistering cold winter nights to
cheer on the Wolverines? These
people were the die-hard fans,
people like me who support the
team win or lose, for the sake of
the sport. That's right, Mr.
Renfrew, you're on top now and
have no worries about selling
out the arena so who gives a
damn about us student fans.
Just do me one favor. When the
Wolverines are in a rebuilding
-year and attendance falls to the
point where you can't give the
tickets away, take a look
around Crisler arena and see
who comes out every night to
offer our team support. Yep, Al,
it will be the same people
you've spat on for, so many
years now, the people who will
call you night and day trying to
set up reasonable lines for
equitable ticket
distribution-the student fans.
so with this, let me just say
"God bless the student fans."
At least the Wolverines and
coach Johnny Orr know we


I