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.

May 16, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1980-05-16

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

Page 4-Friday, May 16, 1980-The Michigan Daily

Bush for GOP
race-reluctantly
N APRIL the Daily endorsed John Anderson
for the Republican presidential nomination.
Now that Anderson has withdrawn from the
Republican conitest and is campaigning as an in-
dependent, we hesitantly endorse George Bush as
the lesser of the two evils remaining in the race.
It's tragic the Republicans can't offer the public
a better choice this election year. Ronald Reagan's
misinformed comments on foreign policy and the
Iranian crisis hint so strongly at war that he is
completely unacceptable as a presidential can-
didate. For lack of a better option, the Daily endor-
ses his trailing contender, George Bush.
Our endorsement is a most reluctant one. We are
wary of Bush's long history of social conservatism.
He opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has called
homosexuality abnormal, and does not believe
federal funds should be used for medicaid abor-
tions.
We are also skeptical of Bush's foreign policy
stances. He has said he would have increased sup-
port for the shah's regime and he opposed the
Panama Canal Treaty. Bush favors a strong stance
against the Soviets and he supports the develop-
ment of the neutron bomb.
Despite these numerous drawbacks, Bush's
record is not as frightening as his opponent's.
Educated at Yale, Bush is well-respected among
his colleagues for his quick intelligence. His im-
pressive resume includes his experience as CIA
director, U.S. envoy to China, and chairman of the
national GOP committee.
There is no question that Reagan would be totally
inept as president of the United States. His
domestic policies include virtually no provision for
sqcial programs. He addresses very complex
issues such as energy and inflation with misinfor-
med, simple-minded answers.
Buch differs from his opponent on several sub-
stantial points. Unlike Reagan, Bush supports the
Equal Rights Amendment and opposes a con-
stitutional amendment that would outlaw abor-
tions. Bush also supports SALT II, which Reagan
has said should be sent back to Moscow.
Although Anderson's name will be on the May 20
ballot, voters should not mark their ballots for him.
Since he is no longer running, his votes will go to
uncommitted delegates who, more likely than not,
will choose to support Reagan at the GOP national
convention. Voters in the Republican primary
should choose the next best candidate on the
ballot-who, unfortunately, is George Bush.

:.I I
, 5

" 4
1 .
'
'
P
,,..:--

I
1.

v
1

..W DIW E G:> 37
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Peck's column unfair to Pope

To the Daily:
Joshua Peck's column, "The
Drinan Dismissal: No Hope for
the Pope" (May 10) was filled
with faulty logic and proceeded
from some poor assumptions.
Peck writes without authority on
this matter and attempts to
reconcile two diametrically op-
posed perspectives; the secular
humanist and the Christian.
To begin with, Peck has no
authority on the matter of the
Pope's decision. The Catholic
Church is a voluntary
association. When one enters the
Church, he accepts, voluntarily,
the authority of the Pope. The
Pope's authority is a matter of
agreement, not coercion. Since
Peck is not a member of the
Catholic Church, he is not in
authority to criticize its policies.
He has no place in the debate.
The situation is somewhat akin
to a Russian engaging in
American domestic politics.
Peck has no more place calling
for the "impeachment" of the
Pope, than does a non-U.S. citizen
calling for the impeachment of a
president. Neither one has any
authority for expressing his
views.
Secondly, insofar as Peck's
view is a call to action by
Catholics, he is writing from
wrong assumptions. He is
arguing from a humanist per-
spective on a Christian matter.

Peck says: "But if there is one
benefit religion can offer, it is
that it can provide servants to the
public for the betterment of all
mankind."
This is not the view from which
the Pope, or any Christian works.
A Christian is first, foremost, and
always a servant of God. This can
take the form of service to other
men, but the "betterment of all
mankind," in Peck's perspective,
is not the primary goal of
Christians.
' It is by serving God that all
men are saved and perfected. Not
by serving government, or them-
selves. A priest's main concern is
with eternal salvation, not tem-
poral administration. That is the
Pope's perspective, and the per-
spective of Christianity.
The Pope made his decision
based on the assumption that
Drinan's job is pastoral, not
political. This is a solid position,
supported by theological
tradition and scripture. Contrary
to Peck's implication, the Pope's
decision, from a Christian per-
spective, was very rational. A
pastor's first duty has always
been to God and his flock, not to a
secular government or a nation.
It is interesting to see that
Drinan accepted the decision of
the Pontiff. He could have left the
priesthood and stayed in
Congress. He chose to submit to
the Pope, rather than leave the

Church. He obviously isn't in
.total agreement with Peck him-
self.
So Peck's column is clearly
written without authority and
filled with contradictions. He
wrote a flawed opinion on a
question which he has no place
debating publicly. The Church is
not a secular social organization
and its decisions aren't to be
judged as if it were, by people
who are not subject to its
authority.
Finally, the Daily is also at
fault for the opinionated captain
below the Pope's picture. Is it
Peck's opinion? If so, it should be
in quotation marks. Is it the
editors' opinion? Then it belongs
in the column reserved for un-
signed editorials issued by the
paper.
The caption: "Pope John Paul
II has not proved to be much of a
change from the Catholic Chur-
ch's long history of politically
regressive action," is also unsub-
stantiated. How has the Church
been "politically regressive"?
What does "regressive" mean
here? These questions can't be
left unanswered.
The attack on Pope John Paul
II was unfair and unfounded. It
was neither good journalism nor
good thought.
-John Yocum
May 13

Endorsements represent a con-
sensus of the Daily's Editorial
Board.

I,
i
I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan