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.

November 01, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-11-01

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


14e 3fiien Daitj
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Elec tion
Milliken vs. L

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

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

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1970

NIGHT EDITOR: STEVE KOPPMAN

Overcoming disillusionment

AS THIS YEAR'S elections approach,
students find themselves once more
questioning the value of participating
in politics. Nagging doubts concern-
ing the validity of working through the
system, the opportunities for political
alternatives and the possibilities for
achieving social change are aroused
once again.
The basis of these doubts extends to
the beginning of the last decade and
the election of John Kennedy. Most
of us were children when Kennedy was
elected President. We grew up thinking
that'had he lived; America would have
been in less of a mess. However, today
the myths of the Kennedy presidency
strike increasingly hollow chords in
our conscience. The realities of h i s
policies in Vietnam, his harrangs about
"missile gaps" and his role in the Bay
of Pigs invasion make us doubt that
Kennedy was really different. In re-
trospect, he was just another cold-war-
rior, out to fight the illusions of a dea-
mon at the expense of the real prob-
lems of society.
And then there was Johnson. We
hated Johnson. And we knew we were
right. So we marched against the war,
we went to the ,Pentagon, we signed
petitions, and nothing happened. When
McCarthy came along we supported
and worked for him - not because we
thought he would win so much as we
had to do something.
But the incredible happened. On
March 31, 1968 LBJ astounded us. It
seemed we really could change things.
For one glorious spring we plunged in-
to electoral politics, warning ourselves
that we were giving "the system" one
last chance. With Bobby Kennedy in
the race, who could tell what was pos-
sible? It was a captivating dream, and
it was shattered only as dreams can
shatter - on the streets of Chicago
during a few hot August days. All
our energy, all our efforts, all our
hopes: only to wind up with the non-
choice' of Humphrey or Nixon. The
taste in our mouths was bitter.
SOMEHOW Chicago changed us. Few
hung on to their dreams after-
wards. Some were radicalized and most
of us were disillusioned. We had to
question the nature of a political sys-
tem which turned our best intentions
into the most grotesque nightmares.
However, many of us could only ques-
tion American politics within a very
limited scope.
From the time we took social studies
in elementary school, we were told of
the value of America's two-arty sys-
tem. This, the teachers said, was the
stability of our political democracy.
What we were never taught - but only
learned through experience - w a s
the inherent conservatism of the two-
party system.
In order to achieve change it is ne-
cessary to follow a program. B u t
these parties - because of their size
and stability - have no such pro-
grams. They want to win elections for
the sake of winning them and t h e y
place a higher priority on a candi-
date's charisma than on his ideology.
We had to learn that what we saw
before us were two conglomerates of
politicians, each toying with the pub-
lic's emotions, -appealing to its fears
and resting its hopes on symbols, rit-
uals and personalities rather than
dealing with problems, pursuing a pro-
gram or even espousing a philosophy.
What kind of choice can the system
offer if you realize political participa-
tion is possible only to the extent that
you are willing to play the politicians'

games, sell yourself on a television set
and compromise your ideals?
NO, WE CAN not endorse the two-
party system as it exists now At
best we can support and vote for in-
dividual candidates who represent
liberal alternatives to those who would
increase our alienation. Certainly, this
is not the time to stop voting because
positive change seems remote. There
is a difference between having Phillip
Hart or Lenore Romney as senator.
However, we should never limit our-
selves to simply preventing society
from taking a step backwards. Social
change remains our ultimate and most
important, goal. Moreover, we cannot
shrug aside the concept of electoral
politics as meaningless activity. At
the very least, the failures of 1968 pro-
vided many small victories in terms of
expanding our own consciousness of
the need for change.
The fact that the two-party system
is morally corrupt and tectically un-
viable for the purposes of social change
does not justify ignoring opportuni-
ties presented by working through elec-
toral politics. Most importantly, we
must realize that there are creative
alternatives to the two-party system
within the scope of electoral politics.
Ideally a political party should be
an organization dedicated to the pop-
ularization and achievement of specific
programs consistent with its philoso-
phical goals. If a party becomes con-
cerned with simply increasing its num-
bers (having such a vague ideological
foundation that it can no longer ex-
clude anyone) then it will no longer
be a worthwhile social force.
Any party, even those remaining in
minority positions, must not com-
promise its programs to accommodate
itself to p r ev ailin g attitudes.,
Rather than remaining m-inority cau-
cuses within unmanageable coalitions
- which characterize the Democratic
and Republican parties - parties must
be free to pursue independent courses,
following their own best interests and
directly appealing to voters-at-large,
hoping to.convince or at least educate
them to a different point of view.
Parties which act in this manner are
not foreign to political democracies.
In fact, the United States is probably
the exception to most governments in
that a healthy third party does not
exist here. In many countries, parties
which only garner a small minority of
seats often emerge as the determining
influence in the pomposition and ac-
tions of the government in power. The
new government in Chile is only the
most recent example of this occurrence.
THE VALUE in establishing ' s u c h
alternative parties in the United
States is clear. For too long, student,
labor and minority groups have com-
promised their interests by supnorting
either the Democratic or Republican
party - for lack of an alternative. It
is time we started advocating our own
interests, independent of and un-
compromised by either of the two exist-
ing parties.
Thus, while stating our support for
certain candidates in this election, we
propose the creation of a progressive
party, seeking positive social change
and using electoral politics as a tool
for educating people to the needs of
society, as a major meaningful direc-
tion for political action in this coun-
try.
-STUART GANNES
Editorial Director
-JIM BEATTIE

(Editor's note: The following
recommendations w e r e re-
searched and written by Mark
Dillen, Steve Koppman, Jim
Neubacher and Rick Perloff.)
Sander Levin (D) vs.
William Milliken (R)
WE CHOOSE not to make an
endorsement for the gover-
norship. Neither candidate has de-
monstrated that it makes a dif-
farence who wins.
Sander Levin has been frankly
disappointing as a challenger. Per-
haps we expected too much, but he
has consistantly failed us. He has
opposed amnasty for those who
have courageously fought the draft
and the war we abhor. At the
same time, he claims to be against
the war. Grilled on his position,
he expresses no moral stand on
the war. He favors little more
than a dreary desire for removal
of American troops sometime in
the near future.
Governor Milliken has basically
the same position.
On the question of liberalization
of marijuana laws, both candi-
dates have unhesitatingly con-
demned marijuana in no uncertain
terms. Both, in the face of lack of
personal exposure to the drug,
have chosen from the mas of con-
tradictory evidence about mari-
juana, those research results
which question the drug. Both
call for "more information" and
both support lessening the penal-
Hc
Phillip A. Hart (D) vs.
Lenore Romney (R)
INCUMBENT Sen. Hart's record
and experience makes him an
outstanding candidate who far
outshines his less than mediocre
opponent. We have faith that the
people of Michigan understand
this.
Lenore Romney has demon-
strated a belief in the misguided
domestic priorities that have be-
come the hallmark of her party,
and will be little more than a
slavish supporter of the Nixon ad-
ministration's foreign policy. She
has a blatant lack of sensitivity
to blacks, youth, and the poor and
the issues that concern these seg-
ments.
Our only reservations about Sen.
Hart are those same reservations
we have expressed on this page
about the entire nature of the
political system in this country.
Within that system, however, Sen.
Hart is a fine senator by any
judgment.

ties for possession or use of mar
juana in the meantime.
On the position of protection<
the environment, Levin has
somewhat better position. Whi
Milliken certainly has not en
braced pollution, he did veto a r(
cent bill which would have r
stricted sales of non-returnab
bottles. Levin, on the other han
has initiated and fought for legi,
lation which allows private citizen
to take court action against cor
sumers.
Both Levin and Milliken have a
unquestioning attitude of awe
respect for "law". They get nerN
ous too easily when the expressio
of civil rights borders on civil diE
obedience. Both have an ove:
whelmingly strong belief that a
the changes needed in society ca
be accomplished through, legisl
tion, or in the voting booth. Ne
ther is willing to give mass phy
sical expression of opinion an
credit for initiating change.
Governor Milliken, in office f
18 months, has a mixed recori
He has brought a number of bri
liant young men to work for hin
especially in the area of educatio
reform. Yet, while announcing ne
programs for educational reforn
Milliken failed to do everything i
his power to get them through th
legislature.
Similarly, while adopting an ad
mirable stand for liberalizationc
abortion laws, Milliken allowed
to be defeated when two of h
party's Senators defected on th
final vote. That lack of leader
ship is disturbing.

recommenda tions
evin
i- Levin's stand on abortion is even
more liberal, and he would, we
of believe, be a more agressive execu-
a tive in working for passage of
le legislation.
n- Levin favors a graduated income
e- tax, a stand which is opposed by
e- Milliken. We believe the grad-
le uated income tax would be both
d, fairer to the poor and bring more
s- money to the state than the pres-
ns ent straight percentage tax. The
n- closer compliance of the grad-
uated tax with the idea of "tax-
n ation according to the ability to
d pay" is a far more important con- r";...-
v- sideration than is the remote pos-. :
n sibility that some jobs will be lost
s- as a result of the tax. We favor
r- Levin's stand.
n However, we question Levin's
ability to assert himself as a lead-{.'>.,}.
i_ er in Lansing - as his campaign
slogans say he will. When Levin $ > ,.>." .-:,r
spoke in Ann Arbor, he consistent-
ly shied away from answering
or taking forthright-stands on Sad L
d. controversial issues, relying in- Of GU
d- stead on verbal runarounds and
, political double-speak.
)n Therefore, although we find a E sch vs.
a slighessues where there is a dif-
n ference of opinion. But all to like- R. Michael Stillwagon (D) vs. Commis
ze ly Levin, if elected, would have a Marvin Esch (R) increas
narrow and precarious base of be dis
.,. support. He would be forced, ala E URGE the election of R. al orga
of Ann Arbor's disappointing Mayor Michael Stillwagon to the U.S. On tl
it Harris, to throw too many bones House of Representativestprimar
JS .otebrigdoso h ih While his opponent, incumbent welfare
e to the barking dogs of the right Marvin Esch, supports withdrawal family;
- wing to be effective in making of American troops from Indo- a year
more than token changes. china by the middle of next year, contras

4j

4

49

Villiam Millikin

*p

et vs. Romney

and has generally supported in-
creased funding of domestic pro-
grams, these votes have come
against a background of general
support for the foreign and dom-
estic policies of the Nixon ad-
ministration.
Stillwagon, on the other hand.
would support programs of more
meaningful commitment to the
poor~, of more fundamental im-
portance to the thoroughgoing
changes needed in our society.
Besides supporting a virtually
immediate withdrawal of troops
from Indochina,nStillwagon sup-
ports changes in foreign policy
which would call for withdrawal
support from rightist dictators,
normalization of relations with

tionalI
tion pr
mum in
-a mu
ment o
In c
has com
ing an
followi
the dra
homose:
Stillw
signific
current
licies th
publican
election
ficanti
trict's r
ton.

!wagon
unist China and Cuba, and
ed aid for development to
ersed through internation-
nizations.
;he domestic front, Esch is a
y supporter of the Nixon
program, which proposes
aid up to the level of $1,600
for a family of four. By
st, Stillwagon backs the Na-
Welfare Rights Organiza-
oposal for a $5,500 mini-
.ncome for a family of four
uch more realistic-assess-
f the needs of the poor.'
ontrast to Esch, Stillwagon
rmmitted himself to support-
mnesty for draft resisters
ng an end to the war and
aft, and equal rights for
exuals.
wagon expresses far more
ant discontent with the
direction of American no-
han does his moderate Re-
in opponent. We believe his
would represent a signi-
improvement in this dis-
representation in Washing-

44

Smit vs. Koster

Phillip Hart Lenore Romney

IBnrsley vs. Sallade

Donald Koster (D) vs.
Raymond J. Smit (R)
WE HEARTILY endorse the
candidacy of Don Koster as
state representative. His stand on
state issues is consistently in the
vanguard of those who favor
sweeping changes. His personal
character and aggressiveness to-
wards those resistant to change
should serve to shake up and
stimulate a lethargic Legislature.
Koster will work towards es-
tablishing university education as
a free right for all citizens. His
opponent favors maintainenceof
the current discriminatory and
elitist system.
Koster, exhibits a rare under-
standing of the feelings and moods
of students, and the rationale be-
hind current campus dissent. His
opponent has supported state leg-
islation to repress student dem-
onstrations.

While both candidates favor
liberalizing current abortion re-
strictions, Smit's plan would re-
quire they be performed in hos-
pitals, effectively discriminating
against those who cannot afford
high hospitalization or insurance
costs.
Koster would work for reform
of present welfare programs and
tax structures in order to better
serve the less fortunate elements
in thestate. Hetadvocates a pro-
gressive graduated income tax
over the current flat rate tax.
Smit opposes this reform.
Koster favors radical reforms in
drug laws which would take the
control of drugs out of the hands
of pushers and criminals and
eliminate many of the crimes
committed to support expensive
habits.
In sum, Koster's election would
be a huge plus for the people of
this district, and of \the state.

4

George Sallade (D) vs.
Gilbert Bursley (R)
JN THE LOCAL state senate race,
neither candidate offers much
appeal. Furthermore, there are no
large ideological differences be-
tween the two. Both have mixed
politics. We support some of their
programs, oppose others. Their
lack of consistency bothers us.
Bursley, after six years in the
State senate, has su-h a mixed
record. Like most politicians, he

became actively interested in en-
vironmental programs only after
they became a popular cause.
However, his long-range plans for
mass transit and population and
environmental control show fore-
sight in dealing with problems
that will undoubtedly confront
the state in the next 10 years. His
position on abortion reform has
been admirable, and 'in the van-
guard.
However, his position on other
issues of community concern are

objectionable. He has opposed le-
gislation that would institute re-
form of our antiquated welfare'
system. He has supported anti-
union strike legislation and wire-
tapping proposals. On the issues
of law and order vs. Justice and
equality, Bursley strikes out first
for repression, and only secondly
for the rights of citizens. His cri-
ticism of the University last spring
for not preventing class disrup-
tions during the BAM strike came
before 'he supported the general
goals of the class strike.
Sallade is also a curious mixture
of politics. He is a former Repub-
lican, who defected, and eventual-
ly became head of the local Demo-
cratic Party. He no longer holds
that post.
His support for a graduated in-
come tax is commendable. He
promises to support more spend-
ing for education and welfare re-
form, and supports control en
polluters. Beyond that, however,
he is vague. He supports liberal-
ization of abortion laws. Salade
was a partner with a group of
local Ann Arbor citizens who
pooled $80,000 to buy a property
in the 2nd Ward in order to pre-
vent the city from building low
cost housing there.
Neither candidate deserves a
clear endorsement. Both -ire v,:t-
eran Ann Arbor politicians with
basically the same outlook.

Don Koster Ray Smit
UniversityR eets

George Sallade Gilbert Bursley

S ta tewide

races

and

vo ter

proposals

See. of State
THE SECRETARY of State's most
important function as the role
is currently defined is to hand out
political plums to party functionaries.
In this role, and in the basic admin-
istration of the office, both Austin and
Lockwood would perform in keeping

Attorney General and his staff in
this state to interpret the law. His
rulings have the force of law until
tested in court. With the notable
exception of some politically motivated
rulings on parochiaid-related ques-
tions Frank Kelley has performed com-
petently as the Attorney General for
the past 10 years.

Proposal A
We urge a "YES" vote on Proposal
A to allow the state to issue $100,000,-
000 worth of bonds to raise money for
low-cost housing. This would repre-
sent, just a begining in rectifying the
housing situation in Michigan. Out of
current funds and projected income,

plicated decision on the ballot. The
implications involved are far-reaching.
In effect, Proposal C would ban any
state-funded aid whatsoever to private
or parochial schools. It is put forth by
those who see such aid as a threat to
the separation of the church and state,
and is primarily aimed at preventing
the establishment of a well-funded

Supreme Court, Michigan is providing
"auxiliary services" to private and
parochial school systems. These serv-
ices include bus transportation, visiting
teacher programs, special education
programs, medical care programs, and
a host of other activities related to but
not including direct instruction.
Proposal C would ban these court-

Paul Brown (D),
James Waters (D) vs.
Paul Goebel, Jr. (R),
Jack Shuler (R) vs.
Tom Vernier (SWP)
Marcia Wisch (SWP)
We would very much like to see
the election of Tom Vernier and
Marcia Wisch to the Board of Re-
gents for a number of reasons.
Both have consistently supported
positions of fundamental reform
of this University. They support
University operated child care fa-
cilities; a break with ROTC: an
end to secret research and other

Regental position. He wants to
challenge that. His election would
allow this.
Despite our feelings, we realis-
tically admit that the election of
these two candidates is unlikely.
For those who would like to make
their vote a truly political act, a
vote for these candidates would
not go unheeded.
The election of the two Repub-
lican candidates to the Board
would be a tragedy, and help to
maintain the unresponsive con-
descending nature of the current
Board.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan