" Page 4--Tuesday, April 1, 1980-The Michigan Daily hieh I-ibtigan faitg \tte v Yea rs o 'Edlitoria I Freelo,,, Vol. XC, No. 143 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan GOP may forge new majority Hash Bashe AST YEAR'S Hash Bash turned out to be just another step in the event's saddening' deterioration. At one time, the Bash provided an oppor- tunity for University students to relax with a pleasant pipe and the com- panionship of similarly delinquent scholars. The April Fools fiesta had a political aspect too: Those who chose to partake of the leafy drug were passively signalling their disapproval of archaic laws that threatened them. The peaceful pot parties tacitly made the pot prohibitionists' imagined horrors look all the more ridiculous. But the Hash Bash has lost all of its amiable qualities in recent years. It is no-longer a happening for students - not for students on this campus, at any 1 , - __ rs, go nome rate. It is no longer even peripherally a forum for political opinion; what need is there to complain about Ann Arbor's lenient pot laws? The Hash Bash no longer serves any purpose but crowding the Diag with high school students and other un- savory characters, disrupting the normal functioning of the University, and severely inconveniencing bona fide University students. For several years, one lasting reminder of the April festivities has been the trash that seemed to cover the entire campus. Some celebrants com- plained that there ought to have been more receptacles. We have a cheaper, simpler solution; give the campus back to those of us who work and live on it. Fishbowl on the Brink W E DON'T know whether to praise or blame University Vice- President James Brinkerhoff for his decision yesterday not to commit $15,000 of University funds to a Fish- bowl renovation project. On the one hand, Brinkerhoff did a sgrvice to the students of this Univer- sity. By turning away several MSA proponents of the improvements to the Angell Hall Fishbowl area until they Opve full Michigan Student Assembly support, Brinkerhoff compelled the dssembly to rethink the poorly con- 4oived plan. ,Originally, Fishbowl renovation ad- (peates thought Brinkerhoff would Iledge $15,000 for the project - which Was to include benches, tables, and dsplay cases - if the Assembly would o the same. Last week, however, the Ian hit a snag on the Assembly floor various members questioned the 4kpense of the renovations and %hether students should pay for im- rovements to University buildings. . On the other hand, however, Brinkerhoff is hardly playing the role of student advocate. Whatever the cost of any revised plan MSA might present to him, Brinkerhoff still intends to require student funds to pay for half of it. He has, apparently, no qualms about using student funds to pay for capital improvements to University facilities. Renovation of the Fishbowl certainly should not be a high budget priority of either the University or the Assembly in a time requiring fiscal restraint. But if MSA members do intend to pursue the project further, they should propose a smaller-scale plan. Under no circumstances should student funds (derived from the mandatory $2.92 student government fee assessment or any other MSA sources) be used to im- prove the Fishbowl. If Brinkerhoff won't pay for it, and if MSA can't muster enough of a lobby to convince him to pay for it, then the Fishbowl plan should be put aside. Perhaps one of the more lasting legacies of the 1980 presidential election season will be a fundamental realignment of the national elec- torate of the type this country hasn't seen sin- ce the New Deal. The voting patterns of the primary election states so far indicate a breakdown of the traditional coalitions that once formed the base of the Democratic and Republican par- ties. Once upon a time, elections were fairly predictable-if you were black, liberal, Catholic, blue collar, or of ethnic stock (or any combination of the above) you voted for the Democrat. If you were middle-to-upper class, conservative, white collar, and business- oriented, you belonged to the Grand Old Party of Lincoln and Hoover. BACK THEN, THE issues were simple and clear. The Democratic party, as formed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal, stood for a strong, active national government and an executive who would wield the powers of the office to solve the nation's ills. The federal government soon replaced local and state authorities as the fir- st refuge of the unemployed, the elderly, the tired, and the poor. The Republican party, meanwhile, clung to its 1930s-Ijoover era laissez faire policies of less government is good government. Depressions, even great ones, were a part of the natural economic cycle, and all would be well if left to the good intentions of the private sector free of federal government interferen- ce. The two parties competed on those two divergent approaches to government in the election of 1936, probably the last truly com- petitive election of American presidential history. The G O P was wiped out in a Roosevelt landslide, and by the next election in 1940, the pragmatic Republicans had adop- ted most portions of the New Deal's ideas. From then on, there was very little difference between the New Deal Democrats and the "me too" Republicans. IN 1976, Jimmy Carter won the presidency by holding together the traditional New Deal constituency; he held on to the South, his native region, while winning in the large, ur- ban industrial states of the North-Pen- nsylvania, Ohio, New York, New Jersey. But since then, the Grand Old Party has been making inroads into Democratic bastions. In 1978, Mississippi elected its first Republican U.S. senator since reconstruction. And in 1980, Ronald Reagan, California's former governor, has been making overtures to and inroads into the blue collar and ethni Catholic constituency that has traditionally voted Democratic. Likewise, Republican Congressman John Anderson has been relying primarily on the votes of liberal and young Democrats, ripping away at the base of the Democratic party. Despite their wide divergence on many substantive issues, Reagan and Anderson are very similar. Both see that their party is a minority one, and doomed to stay that way without the support of some traditional Democrats. Both are pragmatists, and have been running in primary states while building a coalition for the Novermber general ple- tion. Both Reagan and Anderson are playing on the dissatisfaction of Democrats, although that is where the similarity ends. ANDERSON IS snatching votes away from the Democratic left wing, which could cripple any Democratic candidate who hopes to win in a general election. Hubert Humphrey in 1968 learned the lesson of alienating the par- ty's most vital subsection. But liberals are feeling disaffected with the Carter administration and its Republican economists. Carter has placed fiscal pruden- By Keith Richburg . ce at the head of his national agenda, and the social programs of the 1960s are being threatened by the administration's budget- cuts and economic conservatism. Sen. Ed- ward Kennedy, the liberal Democratic alter- native, has too many personal problems for some liberals, who are now more attuned to Anderson's flaming -oratory and apparent social consciousness. Reagan, meanwhile, is getting at the core of the Democrats' traditional strength-the blue collar voters, the Catholics, and white ethnics. The workers are becoming in- creasingly attentive to Reagan's calls for fewer taxes. As high-wage union settlements push workers into higher income tax brackets, and inflation continues at World nomination. With both Anderson and Reagan doing well among Democrats and indepen- dents in states that allow "crossover" voting, there is evidencerof an eroding base of sup- port in the party that has dominated American politics since 1932. IF THE DEMOCRATIC nomination' goes down to the coivention - which is still 'unlikely but now a realistic possibility-the party pols will have to decide whether it is more important to have Carter, so he can hold the $ outh against Reagan, or to have Ken- nedy, sinlce he can hold the industrial, blue collar unionists. Urban liberals may choose to sit out the election rather than face the truly sad choice of Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan. 4 Jimmy Carter barely won in the southern states in 1976-in Mi5,sissippi, for instance, he won with only 51 per cent of the vote-and it is doubtful that he can hold that slim margin as ja APP hoto JOHN ANDERSON'S CAMPAIGN recently brought him together with Rev. Jesse Jackson in Chicago. Both Anderson and his Republican opponent Ronald Reagan have been seeking ,S ERA gets a needed boost MISSOURI COURT has ruled that the National Organization for- omen (NOW) may carry on its joycott of states whose legislators refuse to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ruling was made on the basis of the First Amen- dment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and quite rightly extends the amendment's freedom of speech guarantee to include economic tactics employed against political opponents. In recent years, members of the National Organization for. Women (STOW) and other feminists have asked professional organizations, unions, municipalities, and political groups not t6 hold conventions or conduct any kind of business in unratified states. Hundreds of groups and localities have complied with the NOW request. As the list of supporting groups has grown, the states that have traditionally been busy convention OUT IN KAN6ASJ HE FARMERS ASKED ME ABOUT PARIVY // " 6'r )Ul centers have begun to feel the pinch. The courts were pulled into the con- troversy when representatives of Missouri's business community filed a suit claiming that the ERA boycott violated anti-trust laws because it con- stituted a restraint of trade. NOW's counsel argued that ERA proponents were within their rights in applying financial pressure to achieve their goals. Freedom of speech would indeed seem a shallow liberty if sup- porters of a given cause were not allowed to put their ideas into action with such a basic tool as economics. The Missouri court chose to look at the controversy as strictly a First Amendment issue. On the basis of that amendment, the court ruled in favor of NOW. Who knows? Perhaps the way to the ERA opponents' hearts is through their wallets. We may yet have the chance to find out. I TOLD 'EM I PDN'T KNOW ANYT4ING ABOUT IT-BUT I, LOOK INTO IT OK ,N(0' THEY EVEN GAVE ME T915 CUTE LITTLE PUPPY A6 A SOUVENIR OF MY VIGI .' usually Democratic votes, such as those of coalitions. War ;II levels, these voters are finding Reagan's "less government" pitch more ac- ceptable now even more than four years ago, CATHOLICS, MEANWHILE, have trouble with the Democratic party's liberal stand on abortion. Kennedy is unac- ceptable-he favors Medicaid money for abortions. Carter is lightly less obnoxious-he is personally opposed to abortions, but would tolerate them as a matter of free choice. But Reagan is in. line with strict Catholicism straight down the line. "I believe that when you have any abortion you are taking a human life," he says, and he would support a con- stitutional amendment to prohibit abortions. This all spells enormous difficulty for the Democratic party no matter whether Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter emerges from the upcoming, bruising primaries with the minoritiies, in their attempts to build winning an incumbent marked by economic and foreign policy ineptitude. But Carter lost New York and Connecticut in the last round of primaries, and has a good chance of>Iosing Pennsylvania and Michigan if his support really is finally sliding away. The Republican party may emerge as the new majority party after 1980, if it can hold its new coalition together in this volatile election year. From liberals to blue collar workers to conservative Catholics, voters have shown they are increasingly dissatisfied with the Democratic party, and that puts the Republicans in fine position to capture the Senate and perhaps even the House in 1982. Keith Richburg is a former Daily editor who has been following the candidates on the primary trail. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: IS will change name to avoid confusion To the Daily: We would like to commend the recent Daily editorial (March 28) "Let's Call a Party a Party" for bringing to our attention the possible misunderstanding that could have developed in the up- coming election. We agree that Mr. Brumberg's complaint is a "minor problem" that should not "prove to be ominous." However, we believe a number of important points were not addressed. Our main reasonrfor banding independent candidates together was to break the party hold on. MSA (Michigan Student Assem- bly) and thereby create a gover- nment which viewed the studen- ts' needs, not those of the Assem- bly members' parties. We feel that this party control precludes MSA from being open and responsive to the students. However, the preferential voting system makes it practically im- possible for independents to be elected. The results of last year's election bear this out. Of 37 open seats, only two were filled by in- dependent candidates. It seems ironic that an independent can- didate has taken exception to an organization formed out of necessity to increase the chances of independent candidates being elected. The trivial issue at hand is whether the name "Independent Students" is deceptive. The question in our minds is, who is being deceived? The literature we have put out in the last week has said, "Vote IS: Independent' Students." On the ballot there will be a clear distinction bet- ween IS candidates and Indepen- dent candidates. Independents will be listed on the ballot first with IND next to their names, followed by candidates within slates. We have not intended our name to be deceptive, and 'we hope' that it is not. If it has been, we apologize. To put this issue and incon- venience to rest, we will accept being called the "Independent Students Party." We would like to point out that adding the word "Party" to our name is poten- tially deceptive. We are not a party in the way the word is traditionally used. We do not in- tend to perpetuate ourselves. We are an ad hoc group of indepen- dent students who are tired of party interests dictating MSA's focus. It would seem appropriate, fair, and just that if IS must add the word "Party" to its name, then PAC and SABRE should also have to do the same since they are parties in the traditional sen- se. We would like to emphasize that if our name was deceptive, we would like to apologize and put all doubts to rest. We will ac- cept the acronym ISp on the ballot next to our names, con- tingent upon the Election Board's approval. -Tom Stephens Peggy O'Dell Bob Redko Independent Students (Party) March 29 Standard evaluations hit Hubbard's bid supported To the Daily: Last term, the Law School Stu- dent Senate began using the course evaluation run by the Cen- ter for Research on Learning and Teaching. We chose questions specifically appropriate for law school courses, and used the same ones for all professors. Wewere very happytwith the system and will use it in the future. I am opposed to the use of any tandiard Universit nastion- of the unique nature of law school education, questions used for LSA or Engineering courses would often be meaningless in a law school survey. Since the law school's educational methods are: so different (i.e. Socratic method), it is essential that we use a questionnaire geared to our own needs. --Al Knauf President, Law School Student Senate ... GOOD GRIEF ! WERE To the Daily: As a concerned citizen of Ann Arbor, I feel that a change of leadership is soly neededin the First Ward. The incumbent coun- cilperson, Susan Greenberg, has Hubbard is a doer-not just an observer. His plan to shift some police personnel from writing tickets to patroling the streets is the best idea I've heard from any council candidate. During one week in I