10 The Tar Heel Thursday. June 12, 1980
commentary and analysis
PVfl
.iH 1L si it Jni" ! '
1 1
lr 4 j .
William Durham, Editor
Amy Sharpe, Managing Editor
Elliott Warnock, Associate Editor
o o
John Royster, News Editor Susan Mauney, Copy Editor
Sarah West, Features Editor Tom Moore, Arts Editor
Clifton Barnes, Sports Editor Sharon Clarke, Photography
Editor
Carter's choice
The spectre of debates has reared its head again. President Carter already
has decided to debate one-on-one with Ronald Reagan; now he has decided
to open the possibility of another debate.
Carter has continued to rule out a debate with his Democratic rival, Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy; but John Anderson, tirelessly attempting to
maintain his viability as a candidate, is obviously on Carter's mind.
Carter, however, has stipulated that any aspiring debate candidate must
have "at least a theoretical possibility of winning." This condition brings
to mind the question" of just what constitutes a "theoretical chance of
winning." For as the polls stand now, Anderson just doesn't qualify.
Carter, dealing from the position of champion, does not have to accept a
challenge from anyone but a true contender, such as Reagan. Anderson
must earn the stature of contender before Carter will feel pressured to
defend himself .
Anderson, according to the polls, holds one-fifth of the American people
on his side. However, his popularity is spread thinly over the entire
country. He does not hold a plurality of voters in any one state. In a
national election, he would not receive one electoral vote.
. Anderson, then, must consolidate his votes into a few states of else make
a quantum leap into popularity.
Anderson desperately needs the exposure that a debate would give him.
Standing at a podium next to Carter will give him the image, if not the
actual power, of candidacy: And by the time the debates roll around,
Anderson will need all the exposure he can muster. After the Republican
and Democratic conventions, he will have been out of the limelight for
quite a while. Anderson, no doubt, hopes that, just as Kennedy came
through in his Nixon debates as witty, poised and in control, so will he
come through as a candidate to be reckoned with.
Anderson proved, in the televised Republican debates last winter, that he
is sufficiently urbane and forceful to command respect. And respect might
be enough to give him an edge. ,
The decision, then, is up to Carter. He can create or dismiss Anderson as
a candidate. Ideological views aside, it would not be to Carter's advantage
to bring: upon himself a challenge of Anderson's potential.
Transgression unjustified
An unwritten commandment has held sway in Chapel Hill ever since
William R. Davie plunked himself down under his famed poplar tree in
the late 1700s. Thou shalt not cut down a tree.
Transgressions against this commandment have been treated harshly in
the past. Orville Campbell, editor and publisher of the venerable Chapel
Hill Newspaper, once related a meaningful parable to illustrate this point.
As Orville told it, there once was a Sunoco gas station, possessed of a
great and majestic tree that, to the owners' thinking, blocked the view of
their garish sign. The owners plotted to chop down the tree, but the Chapel
Hill Weekly, as the paper was called in those days, got wind of the
nefarious scheme and campaigned vehemently against it.
To this day, as Orville pointed out, you can drive down Franklin Street
and see the station is gone but the tree is standing.
Some scalawags ovbiously have not learned the lesson of that little tale,
for, not more than two weeks ago, some mean and wretched souls chopped
down the young trees in front of the Undergraduate Library and the Pit.
The mere striplings were mercilessly hacked to an untimely death, the
bricks around their roots ripped up to expose the sandy loam underneath.
Perhaps there was a purpose to all this. We recall the early 70s campaign
promises of the Blue Sky Party (that promised to abolish the student
government if elected) among which was the solemn oath to bring the
Pacific Oaantnkt south of Hinton James.
Perhaps the persons that eradicated our shade trees to bring all the sand
merely are laying the beach for the Blue Sky Party.
Our stance on this is simple. Hurry up. We'll tolerate the sand sans sea
while the days remain cool, but when the summer's sweltering heat comes,
we'll expect the Pacific Ocean to be at our campus doorsteps.
Only that could justify cutting down a tree in Chapel Hill.
r .
(X&KWlXSt...
Reagan running strong
in front of weak criticism
By Elliott Warnock
A nimmon refrain in local cocktail party
conversation these days is "If Ronald
Reagan wins the presidency, I'm leaving
the country."
Sound advice to persons who say that
might he to have a bag packed and ready to
go by the front door. . .just in case.
Reagan already has the look of a winner
to the Republicans. The upcoming GOP
convention in Detroit will be more of a
coronation than a political spectacle, and
the only problem for Reagan will be
choosing his crown prince.
Critics of Reagan are frittering away
their time worrying
about the former
California gover
nor ' s age and
political naivete. The
age question smacks
of wretched
discrimination; the
question of naivete
doesn't seem to
bother the American
voters who think a
former peanut farmer
is too much an
insider.
Reagan
The news media's continual corrections
of Reagan statements have done little to
sway the public. For example, when
Reagan mistakenly claimed the U.S.
General Accounting Office ha4 misspent
$50 billion, NBC's Don Oliver pointed out
it was "only $30 billion."
The public was not overly relfeved to be
informed it was "only $30 billion."
The question of Reagan's conservatism
is the main issue of the campaign.
Reagan, after coming so dose to the
Republican nomination in 1916, took a
page from Richard Nixon's strategy book.
Like Nixon, who helped pick up the
scattered pieces of the GOP after Barry
Goldwater had flung them to the wind in
1964, Reagan worked from 1976-1978 to
regain congressional seats ' for the
Republicans after the White House was
lost.
In doing so, Reagan picked up
innumerable political debts, and, like
Nixon in 1968, cashed in every one for his
next bid.
Like Nixon, Reagan has spent the four
years since his first defeat to gauge the
mood of America, and seems to have
gauged it correctly. He is simply telling the
majority of voters what they seem to want
to hear.
Reagan isn't making as many statements
and promises as he is asking questions. The
principal question is straightforward:
How long can a liberal president and
Congress, elected in die public trust,
squander the national wealth before the
economy falls into ruin?
State and local governments already are
feeling the burden of that question. The
term "tax revolt" seems too neat and catchy
to aptly describe the shift of political mood,
but fits somewhat nicely.
The famed (or infamous) depending on
one's viewpoint Proposition 13 in
California was the first salvo of the tax
revolt to earn the ear of American voters; it
led to others. . .the Kemp-Roth Bill in
Congress, calling for a severe cut in federal
income tax, and little-known
constitutional convention .proposal that
has gained almost as much ground in state
legislatures as the dying ERA.
If Kemp-Roth and the constitutional
convention proposal are any indication,
the federal government is next on the
citizenry's hit list.
From 1971 to 1977, state and local tax
revenues grew from 11.7 percent of the
GNP to 12.1 percent. In 1978 they fell to
12.1 percent, and then to 11.9 percent,
while the federal revenue share of the GNP
in 1976 was 18.5 percent and grew to 19.6
percent in 1978.
Projections show the divergence will
increase, the federal share of the GNP
growing to 21 percent (or $582 billion) if
present spending habits continue.
The taxpayers clearly do not want the
habits to continue, and they are
manifesting the same attitude as die British
who swept Margaret Thatcher into
England's No. 10 Downing St
The British are renown for their reserve,
but Americans are known for wild
enthusiasm and long swings of the
political pendulum, hence the viability of
Reagan as a candidate.
Elliott Warnock is associate editor for The
Tar Heel.
The Tar Heel
Writers: Elson Armstrong. Marc Barnes, Sammy Batten. Jeff Bower. R.L. Bynum. Thom Dame!. Bnut
Davie. Dawn Dixon. Laurie Dowling, John Drew her, Peggy Edward. John Fih, Cindy Growman. Lynda
Hettith. John Hi n ion, Martha Johnsen, Faith Kiffney. Carol I -re, Diane Lupton, Aluon Lyrxh. Jennifci
McCabe. Bill Peschet, Jon Pope, Dorothy RompaUke, Yvette Ruffin. Cathy Sheet. Ann Smallwood. Angk
Sullivan, David Thompson. Julie Trotter, Jac Vereeg and Mrlanie Welch. Photographer: Bob Amhony.
Flora Garrison, and Jack Mohr. Copy desk: Maria Biro, Aliion Bond. Mmi Cook and TerriCart ard. Busmen
Manager: Mark Kadlec. Advertising: Nancy McKeruie. manmger, and Paula Brewer, toordinatnr.
Secretary I Receptionist: Linda All red. Composition: UNC Printing Department. rrini-;The I Imion Pre.
Mebarte