ustxtxb_obs_1966_08_05_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

Page 1

by

hysterical headline through stunning nonsequiturs \(Example: “He [President Johnson] said the rest of Southeast Asia is protected by the shield the Vietnamese and their ‘fighting allies’ are putting up. In other words, might is making right!” The transition between these two sentences is incoherent finale \(” . . . this is a very bad scene, one we are all in, and all must act in, by the logic of the case however it comes to be when our times come”a sentence which bears no close connection with are the article’s pretensions to reasoned and logical development enhanced by its writer’s references to the vain efforts of what he calls “the best elements of America,” which he seems to define as “the people in the colleges, the leaders of the churches, the top leaders of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate . . .” . . . Susan Steinberg, 17B Hayes St., Cambridge, Mass. Calculated Political Lies I was heartened to see your editorial [on Vietnam, Obs. July 8]. I am surprised and pleased to see such an article in a liberal magazine. My only complaint would be that you have waited about a year too long to begin speaking out this strongly against the megalomaniac that is running this country into a tangled Gordian Knot that only a nuclear Alexander will be able to cut. You have probably received letters from liberals saying that you have gone too far in this editorial. You might as well ignore these soft-hearted people who are afraid to offend Lyndon. Lyndon has offended us with every escalation; every move he makes shows us more clearly that his election promises were calculated political lies and that he had every intention of taking us down the warpath even then.Michael Brown, 202 Dennis, No. 3, Houston, Texas. 16 The Texas Observer No Chance We’ll Bomb Cities You are certainly entitled to present, even to press, your own views on American involvement in the war in Vietnam, but I fear that in doing so you imply the existence of a monolithic “liberal” opinion on the war which does not, and should not, exist. True, most of those who have spoken out against the war are liberal or radical in their politics: but there are others, whose liberal credentials are just as sound, who have remained silent and who support, at least in general terms, the President’s policies in Vietnam. The department of history at Princeton University, where I am currently pursuing my graduate studies, is a good example: some professors have been extremely active in their criticism of the President, petition-signing, teaching-in, and what-not, while others thoughtful, progressive-minded men all who believe our course of action in Vietnam to be largely correct have rarely presented their views publicly. Senator Yarborough’s reply in your July 8 issue underscores my point. Despite your attempt at self-justification in the editorial note following his statement, and allowing for your having been somewhat misled by an incomplete AP article, it seems clear that you were eager to place the senator close to Morse and Gruening. It is to Senator Yarborough’s credit that he pointed out your over-simplifications. I am really protesting against the very real pressures in many liberal and academic circles for conformity that is, a critical attitude toward the President’s policies -on the war in Vietnam . . . I should like to say that I found your editorial hysterical, unwise, and unfair . . . There exists not the slightest shred of evidence that either the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese are willing to negotiate with the US except on their own terms. I do not believe that the President sees the world in terms quite so simplistic as you contend . And I do not believe that there is the slightest chance that our bombing raids will be aimed at destroying civilian populations in the future .. . Fryar Calhoun, 414-C Devereaux Ave., Princeton, N.J. An Independent Peace Candidate As fellow Southerners \(from Alabama of the Texas Observer of an interesting and important campaign taking place here in Connecticut. Robert M. Cook, an assistant professor of sociology, is running for Congress in the Third District of Connecticut on a compaign centered around the specific issues of the Vietnam war, civil rights, and poverty and the general problem of a lack of participatory democracy in the country as a whole but especially within the twoparty system. Although Bob Cook is a registered Democrat, he is not running in the Democratic primary because the election laws of Connecticut are so “arranged” that only party hacks can get on the ballot. Instead, he is running as an independent, the candidate of the American Indepen dent Movement, and is soliciting signatures of voters in order to be listed on the November ballot. The incumbent Democrat, Robert Giaimo, has a lack-luster record, having voted against the seating of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and against home rule in Washington, D.C. Giaimo is a supporter of Johnson’s policy in Vietnam. Bob Cook’s candidacy has become an important focus for liberal-radical politics in the New Haven area and has been endorsed by Sen. Wayne Morse, John Henry Faulk, Julian Bond, Harry Belafonte, CORE, SANE, the New England SDS, and many other prominent individuals and organizations. Since there are no peace candidates in Texas this year, we are suggesting that Texans who support peace and democracy at home contribute something to the campaign. A contribution to the American Independent Party is equivalent to votes against LBJ, with his “when in doubt escalate” policy in Vietnam, which is depriving the country of rigorous civil rights and poverty programs. Contributions of any size are needed and should be mailed to Cook-for-Congress, 241 Orange Street, New Haven, Conn. Bob Zellner and Ron Kirchem, 241 Orange Street, New Haven, Conn. HemisFair and Politics Whether San Antonio’s HemisFair will benefit all of Texas or even San Antonio itself is not a simple question. What HemisFair has done so far is gravely disable the liberal Democrat forces . . . Throughout the primary campaigns and the conventions the overriding concern of political kibitzers in San Antonio was to select candidates “who can work with Governor Connally.” This was felt to be necessary to the success of HemisFair, since Connally was the HemisFair chief and since his help was needed to obtain money from the state. Many San Antonians who normally help in liberal causes were effectively sidelined by Connally’s power to make or break HemisFair. The result, of course, was that the HemisFair-Connally supporters slaughtered the Bexar County liberals at the conventions and at the polls .. . Don W. Allford, 1505 Cloverleaf, Austin, Texas. What Does Washington Want? If a liberal is one who is committed to the value of persons as persons, he will be unable to endorse the American military solution to Vietnam’s problems. Washington is ignoring the overwhelming wish of the Vietnamese people for a cessation of the strife they have endured for so many years. Does Washington get what Washington wants? What will it be? A permanent military lodgment in Southeast Asia? A war with China as soon as possible? The editor of the Observer is right to ask where the President’s policy of seeking a military solution will stop.Stella Mae Hunter, 4609 Lafayette, Ft. Worth, Tex.