Pajre 2
If iailg
76 Years of Editorial Freedom
Wayne Hurder, Editor
Bill Staton, Business Manager
Nixon's Proposal Reveals
Misunderstanding Of Youth
Richard Nixon, Wednesday,
promised the youth of America
that if he were elected president he
would create a new role for the
young, who feel "overpowered,
over-patronized, and
over-protected."
Nixon said he would create a
youth service agency whose
"byword will be challenge, not
handout." It would consist of an
open channel section, sports and
fitness program, world youth
activity, and am ombudsman for
youths.
Nixon's idea, which may sound
good to some middle-class
suburbanite who wonders what is
happening to the youth of America,
totally misses out as an attempt to
quiet the angry activists youths in
America. What he offers them is the
last thing they want participation
in the Establishment of America.
Nixon apparently thinks the
political activists of the type that
support McCarthy, Dick Gregory,
or Eldridgc Cleaver for president
simply want a "piece of the
action." He thinks they can be
bought off by creating a special
agency for them to channel their
activities into, just like Lyndon
Johnson created the Office of
Economic Opportunity in an effort
to quiet the poor.
, A suggestion such as that offered
i by Nixon,jhowever, will do nothing
1 for youths, just as 00 did little
for the poor, because the
Establishment, that Nixon wants to
get the youths into, will not allow
youths the power to make the
changes in the American social and
political system that they want to.
This is precisely what has
happened with OEO. Whenever an
OEO funded poverty organization
that was truly democratic and truly
Presidetial Aspirants Revise
History Of U.S. Revolution
FROM THE KENTUCKY KERNEL
A review of "The Revised
History of America," edited by
Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon
and George Wallace.
A completely revised version of
American History is scheduled to
go on sale in most bookstores by
early next month. The new book is
unique in that it takes a dim view
of the American Revolution.
Rumors persist to crop up saying
that editors Humphrey, Nixon and
Wallace rewrote American history
because they feel the precedent set
by the war of independence has
been overemphasized and is leading
the youth of America astray.
"After all," Nixon has been
quoted as saying, "If the American
Revolution is justifiable, you might
as well say 'The Revolution' (the
current movement among young
people) is also justifiable."
In order to make American
history compatible with their
campaign speeches, the three
editors reportedly united "for the
common good" to rewrite the story
of America.
To this end, America's
Revolutionary leaders are portrayed
in the revised text as "anarchists,
ne'er do wells and spoiled brats."
The book does allow exceptions
to this picture, as in the case of
George Washington and other
founding fathers, who are described
as "well-meaning but perhaps
slightly misled by the radicals."
Editor Wallace, however, cast a
dissenting footnote saying,
"Although Washington and his
pointed-head cronies may not have
Date Gibson, Managing Editor
Rebel Good, News Editor
Joe Sanders, Features Editor
Owen Davis, Sports Editor
Scott Goodfellow, Associate Editor
Kermit Buckner, Jr, Advertising Manager
representative of the poor tried to
use some power to change their
local power structure they quickly
found all their power withdrawn by
Washington upon request from the
local power structure.
After this drive for
self-improvement on the part of
local poor had been killed, it has
been characteristic for the local
poverty program to be turned over
to the local politicians to use in
rewarding faithful followers, and
others who know their place. This
has been a characteristic cycle for
the OEO throughout the South in
Alabama, Mississippi, etc., and in
Northern cities, such as Chicago.
So what do you think the
Establishment will do for youths
who agitate for the elimination of
the lifeblood of the
Establishment-namely, the draft,
the Vietnamese war, support of
foreign dictatorships, etc. It
certainly will not allow it
possession of a governmental
agency with power: it will either
rob that agency of any power or see
to it that those in control of the
agency aren't too pushy, make sure
they know which side their bread is
buttered on.
No, most activists, youths in
America won't accept what Nixon
is offering. They realize that it is an
attempt to drown out 'the sound of
the activists calling- for change by',
forcing them into the
Establishment.
If Nixon is really interested in
doing something for youths who
feel "overpowered, over-patronized,
and over-protected", he had better
open his eyes and realize that his
suggestion is a prime example of all
three tendencies that youths don't
like.
been smelly, they had just as long
hair as any anarchists I've ever
seen . . . and they sure dressed
awfully frivolous nothing like
you'd ever see in Alabama."
This refreshingly different view
of American history is maintained
throughout the entire
chronic alization of the
Revolutionary period.
As for criticism of the new
history text, one can say only that
it is pity the book did not get
further along. The editors authors
had intended originally to revise
American History through current
times.
But they managed to get only to
the Civil War. It was at this point
that a horrible schism of opinion
developed among the three. Nixon
and Humphrey maintained that in
this war it was the confederacy who
should be pictured as the
anarchists, etc.
But Wallace apparently could
not accept this contention. When
confronted by his two co-editors
with evidence to support their
position, Wallace is said to have
screamed in horror, after which he
fled to a closet somewhere in
Alabama where he locked himself
up for a long period of time.
In the meantime Nixon and
Humphrey were forced to release
their incomplete text in order to
meet the election day deadline.
This reviewer, after much effort,
managed to reach Wallace by
telephone and persuade him to
break his silence on the Civil War
history matter.
"It just can't be, it just can't
be," he sobbed pitifully. "That isn't
the way my mother told it."
T ptters To The Editor
Coed Visitation,
Editor:
How about NON-VISITATION
RIGHTS? Visitation includes hallways as
well as individual rooms; thus it affects
every person and not just those residents
desiring visitors. It is not a "take it or
leave it" policy guaranteeing the full
implications of the LIBERTY OF
NON-VISITATION to those who want to
"leave" it. To have one or two open
house afternoons a year (to show friends
"one's habitat) is a good idea. Anything
more encroaches upon others.
A dorm without visitation seems
unlikely, since the trend of student voters
is often to avoid being called
"conservative," even if that's not the
point, or to allow others certain
"freedoms" which may infringe upon
their own rights.
In France last year, I lived m a dorm
3 ven
otV rtfeoai " Prices
pfte nek r ire
-t ks h-;c
A.
Ernest J. Yanarella
96
"This has been a tragic year for
America... It has been like a
Shakespearean chronicle-at the end of
every act, they carry dead bodies off the
stage. "
-Theodore H. White
Despite the tendencies towards
stridency and melodrama in the personal
account of my experiences at Chicago,
(DTH, Oct. 4 and 5) the significant
question towards which it has been
moving should not be obscured or
trivialized.
That question is: in a situation like the
one the American electorate faces today,
where meaningful, qualitative choice has
been denied it, what is the moral person
to do?
Humphrey is a political Faust, who
sold his liberal soul to Lyndon
"Mephistopheles" Johnson for a chance
to be President. Nixon is an anachronism,
a throw-back to an anxious,
wi:h-hunting era whose ethos lingers on.
Wallace is, pure and simple, a demagogue,
who has taken central strands of
populism and perverted them for his
selfish benefit.
Declarative, comparative, superlative:
evil, more evil, demonic; corrupt, more
corrupt, bankrupt. What is to be done?
To vote for any one of the three major
presidential contenders means, for the
true citizen, to accept complicity in the
immorality of past, continuing or future
policies. For one, foreign; for another,
domestic and foreign; for the third,
spiritual. What is to be done?
One option for voters is to register
their dissent by not voting for president.
A low ballot tally, vis-a-vis the total votes
for other offices would give some
indication of the degree of disaffection
among the American citizenry. Yet, such
a protest is so general that is offers
whoever is elected no clear guides as to
how he can renew respect and legitimacy
to the political process.
Besides, for the responsible individual,
the force of the sign above the gates of
Dante's Inferno is compelling: "The
worst places in Hell are reserved for those
who in a time of crisis remain neutral."
The decision not to choose may in itself
by a choice; but something clearer,
stronger, and more concrete seems to be
called for.
Voting for Humphrey thus, selecting
the lesser evil is a second alternative. The
logic behind this choice is evident
Humphrey is, after all, some kind of
liberal; and he will give some kind of
liberal response to the plight of the
inhabitants of the urban ghettoes, to "the
wretched of the earth," and to the issues
of war and peace.
Still, the lesser of two (now three)
evils, as the morally-conscious youth of
today have repeatedly emphasized, is still
evil. Compromise is what compromise
here freedom of visitation existed
temporarily in May. For many girls, the
disadvantages outweighed the advantages
(like meeting guys on the hall in your
nightclothes, and having a few male
coeds). Besides, it seems to me that the
visitation issue there was a sort of
"rousing agent" in the prelude to student
agitation concerning University reforms,
which protest was then infiltrated and
directed towards social revolt on a
national level.
It is a sign of immaturity to vote for or
against anything simply because it has
been tagged "liberal" or conservative."
Likewise, there appears to be a lack of
depth in an article which pulls for votes
by obvious manipulation of such labels to
get what it wants, and by the fabrication
of as questionable a syllogistic system as
c re f cn (
-f
?"'ce, kid!
r -
ow Ebb Off Politics
accomplishes. Sometimes, one can
compromise his ideals so much that he
has nothing left. Then, he becomes . . .
well, a Humphrey.
Those of us who have taken that
fateful step across the boundary line
separating compromise from moral
intransigency on some issues find two
options open. One involves going to the
streets and engaging in the politics of
confrontation and disruption. This
strategy says, in effect, to the prevailing
powers, "Stop your evil ways or we will
bring the machine that drives you to a
grinding halt."
Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis, as we
saw, subscribe to this policy and in
Chicago tried to put it into operation.
Naturally, it has its merits and its
liabilities. Sometimes it works, as in
Berkeley and Columbia; sometimes
not notably in Chicago and at the
Pentagon. My point is that it is one
instrument among many, not the only
instrument, for effecting change. In
addition, to employ it indiscrimately and
to purposely court repression in so doing,
is to have a very short memory and a very
naive view of American history.
Repressive America in time of war or
national crisis imprisons or kills its
dissenters.
For these reasons, and others, the
other avenue seems more fruitful that is,
moral reconstruction through the
fashioning of a new party. The
mechanism of the party has traditionally
been the vehicle for generating
consciousness of existing conditions and
for arousing and disseminating new
visions of the future. With the loosening
of party loyalties, the infusion of youth
into the political process, and the
increasing growth of our national
economy and its technological potential,
historical trends are emerging which, if
seized and welded by a party mechanism,
could help remedy those very social ills so
deeply plaguing us.
Are we genuinely serious about
eradicating the defects of contemporary
American society, now that we have the
technical capacity? Or do we "merely"
wish to end the killing in Vietnam? That
issue is important, and its resolution is
imperative. The question being asked,
however, is a more comprehensive one: is
our protest a single-issue one or is it
broad-based?
If we are seriously concerned with
alleviating misery and depridation, we
must begin to grapple with these issues:
purging our leaders and ourselves of the
tacit assumptions underlying our
involvement in Vietnam; developing
programs to decolonize the ghettos in our
major cities; and dismantling the
authoritarian structures which control
and manipulate us in our everyday lives.
Vhich is to say, if we are sincere, we must
be radical and political, simultaneously.
6ObjecUoimaMe
this: A) Progress is desirable. B)
"Liberalism" is progress. (?) C) Therefore
"Liberalism" is desirable. A)
"Liberalism" is desirable. B) Dorm
visitation is "liberalism." C) Therefore
dorm visitation is desirable. A) UNC
should strive to be one of the "most
liberal" campuses in the state. B) Two
other universities in the state have dorm
visitation ("liberal policy"), thus forging,
ahead of UNC in the liberalism race. C)
Therefore UNC must endorse dorm
visitation in order to preserve its liberal
reputation.
The logic speaks for itseif. Much
depends on the definition of "liberalism"
as it relates to the status quo, implying
that, inherently, the former is good and
the latter is bad. Should not anything be
judged on its own merits within the
sure
Which groups are the potential
elements of this new coalition? The
emerging stratum of committed youth on
the campuses is one source for members.
The intellectuals, at least those who
haven't been bought off by the lures of
technological society, are a second
well-spring. Not to be slighted are the
more pragmatic of the black militants in
the ghettoes. Moreover, the "conscience
community" in the white suburbs tapped
by McCarthy in the primaries may also
provide representatives.
However, to be effective as a political
force, any new party must seek to draw
members ultimately from a wide
spectrum of American society even from
the ranks of George Wallace's supporters.
Judging from an encounter of my own, I
don't think this prospect is too
farfetched. While campaigning last Easter
vacation in a coal town in Pennsylvania
for Gene McCarthy, I came upon a coal
miner who, in the course of our talk,
assured me that he would vote for
McCarthy in the primary. When, for
curiosity sake, I inquired who he would
switch i to if McCarthy was not
nominated, he replied, "Well, I guess I'll
vote for Wallace."
The point is this: Wallace is satanic
and seeking office for personal gain. His
supporters, however, deserve more careful
attention, especially the vision or image
of the future some of them are
attempting to articulate and
communicate, even if poorly. At a
minimum, they seem to desire a politics
of clear-cut issues and straight talk.
Perhaps, too, they are searching for a
coherent picture of who or what is
manipulating them and causing such
frustration and anxiety in their inner
lives, as well as their productive lives.
It would be the paramount duty of a
fourth party to link private maladies to
outworn social institutions and
superficially controlled economic
oligopolies and corporations. From there,
the task wrould be to suggest alternative
modes of political, social, and economic
organization.
If I am not just whistling in the wind
and historical possibilities do exist now
which, through slow, painful
organizational wrork, can be intertwined
into a new revolutionizing political
instrument, a new dawn for American
politics may be at hand. If, that is, this
opportunity is taken hold of.
Even if these possibilities are
non-existent or prematurely crystallized,
the endeavor to shape a new radical along
the lines described above would not have
been in vain. For, though the destiny of
this project might be to go the way of
third parties in the past, such assimilation
of even a part of the program of this
envisaged party by the Democratic party
would redound to the benefit of some
alientated sector of the American
Gr
Thursday, October -17 1963 '
whole framework of life?
Sincerely,
Gloria Huffman
227 East Cobb
6 And Nothing
Beside Remains'
Editor
Eulogy For Kathy
It is said that taxes and death are the
only two sure things in this world. A tax
is the price one pays for making money.
Death is the price one pays for living.
Saturday, two rather insignificant lives
were totaled up; their price was paid
They weren't SAE's or Tri-Delts or
Porcellians. They were just two people
who left empty dorm rooms and a lot of
clothing for their parents to give away.
And they left their memory behind, too.
Their parents and their close firends will
grieve, but life will go on, and the whole
thing will soon be forgotten. After all,
people die every minute of every day.
And even important people will be
remembered by only a few.
But to those few who do remember,
there exists a void which will never, ever
be filled. No one else will care after a
while. Life goes on, and so do parties,
Corvettes and quizzes. The mass of The
University is busy making money, making
water restrictions and writing blazing
editorials.
Kathy Bowman won't be here to read
the editorials, not to observe the water
restrictions, nor even to pay her tuition.
Her total has already been rung up, and
she has paid the price. To her dear friend,
Lois, Kathy's absence will be a heavy
burden. To her I say, "Be strong, and
carry on." To everyone else, I say, "Slow
down, and live." And right now, thank
somebody, even if it's yourself, that it
wasn't your total being rung up on
Saturday; that you price wasn't paid and
that your dorm room is still fulL
Rick Oppenheimer
113-B Todd Street
populace. And simply to raise the level of
political dialogue in this country would
be no small accomplishment. In any case,
the rightward drift of contemporary
American politics must be countered by
some political mechnism.
The thrust of my plea is that we try
now. The remnants of grassroots
McCarthy organizations abound from
coast to coast. The New Party, the Peace
and Freedom Party, and the Freedom and
Peace Party exist, too. The need for new
politics and new visions is pressing. All
that is necessary is the will.
So, a ray of hope and optimism
glimmers in the far-off horizon. But, you
may ask, what shall we do in the
short-run on Election Day in November?
To this query, I have no ready or easy
answer. For myself, conscience dictates
that I vote as a symbolic gesture for a
fourth party candidate. The hate-filled
oratory of Eldridge Cleaver, stemming
from a literary gifted, but penal
mentality, would seem to preclude my
voting for him on the Peace and Freedom
ticket. The socialist parties either are
offering no presidential candidate for this
election andor are intellectually
moribund.
Since I am registered to vote in New
York, I shall take the option of casting
my absentee ballot for Dick Gregory,
candidate of the Freedom and Peace
Party. This action will signal to those
people in high office with humane
motives and sensibilities my allegiance to
a genuinely new politics and a radically
new and reconstructed perspective on the
shape of America's future.
Albert Camus has written: "by our
silence or by the stand we take, we too
shall enter the fray." By the stand I shall
take, I choose, pot only to enter the fray,
but to convey some token meaning, some
small message, to whoever will listen.
Little more personally can be salvaged
in these bleak, melancholy times.
Between now and November 5th, nothing
more can be demanded. The body
count one near-saint, one humane
politician is too high as it is to require
more from one person.
Letters
ALL LETTERS TO THE
EDITOR ARE WELCOMED.
THEY SHOULD BE CON
CISE. TYPED AND A DU
PLICATE COPY MUST BE
ENCLOSED.
. .-.-.-.-..-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-. .-.-.-. .-.- -
EYident
ft
if
i
t I