Page 16


Dialogue -%P##~~~~~#~~M~~~* the American Assn. of University Professors and the Texas Assn. of College Teachers, two organizations that are dedicated to the preservation and extension Garrison a Phony . . . [Jim] Garrison is the biggest investigative phony since the late Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin, and should be unequivocally labeled as such by all liberals. If you wish to read an analysis of how he operatesnot that it should be necessary to read a special study to figure it outturn to Edward Epstein’s article in the July 13 New Yorker. Having done his part through his book Inquest to contribute to the excessive distrust of the government and its institutions with respect to the first Kennedy assassination, Epstein, watching Garrison at work, seems in spirit to have retreated from his previous skepticism with regard to 16 The Texas Observer of the highest ideals in the honorable profession of educating minds, advancing knowledge, and raising the level of human endeavor. G.O. #41#* the Warren Commission investigation. . . . Every progressive is aware of the enormous damage that the late demagogic Senator McCarthy did by his “anticommunist” investigation. . . . Unfortunately, far too frequently liberals allow themselves a double standard in judging the world around them. Many liberals and most radicals have a sneaking hope that the JFK assassination, or the three assassinationsJFK, MLK, and RFKsomehow can be traced to a right-wing conspiracy. Of course there is a remote possibility that Garrison might find something. This is exactly what well-meaning, worried conservatives used to say to defend McCarthy. But should Garrison be permitted to run wild indefinitelyand to be accorded a hearingat the expense of what remaining confidence exists in our governmental officials and institutions and the total ruin of the life and reputation of Mr. Clay Shaw and other individuals who have been detained? … Lowell L. Blaisdell, 2515 24th, Lubbock, Tex. Lunacy, Si! LiberalHa! I’m enclosing 31c to cover the costs of mailing me a replacement for my June 21 Observer which Marvin Watson’s goons lost somewhere between Austin and New York. \(I cannot consider this a conspiracy against Observer subscribers since a near-collapse of the postal system is but another entry in that splendid domestic record the LBJ boosters issue after reading “Dialogue” in the July 12 Observer. One letter there refers to an article you ran June 21 on “Liberal Lunacy,” and another lettera plea for “Unity in November” from someone on AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Educationurges us to back a HumphreyConnally ticket at Chicago because it would be “liberal” and would bring us “unity.” Now I know the labor movement under the aptly named Meany has gone soft, has changed from a “social force to a baronial country club” \(as The New Republic ness was in its guts, not its brains. I refer this laboring “educator” to his dictionary or someone else’s, if he has noneto see if any definition of “liberal” can match John Connally. Such is political logic these days that he will probably ask me: “What about Humphrey?” Well, what about him? Will we be treated to a biographical film at the convention showing his great speech at the 1948 convention where he showed Dixiecrats the door? I doubt it, now that is going about, arm-in-arm, with folks like Lester Maddox. If we are treated to a run-down of the great liberal laws he has helped pass, I and about 30 million others are going to ask exactly what the hell good these great liberal laws have done when the executive at the throttle is liberal only with money to be wasted in Vietnam. Considering the state of the nation under Johnson-Humphrey, I can hardly look forward to anything I would care to call “unity” under Humphrey-Connally. But perhaps I am out of touch with Texas lingo! By all means, rush me that June 21 issue! An article called “Liberal Lunacy” is too timely to be missed. Obviously. Harris Green, Displaced Texan \(And Texas Liberals Your summation of the actions taken by SOME liberals at the state Democratic convention in June in your article, “Liberal Lunacy,” [Obs., June 21] is remarkably accurate in most respects. I cannot improve upon your choice of adjectives That is, if you assume that they were seriously trying to exert responsible leadership. If, on the other hand, they were interested in being interviewed by reporters, filmed by television cameras and referred to as liberal leaders, then, they were skillful. The walk-out was an absurdity, not because it was poorly co-ordinated, but because there was almost no one to coordinate it with. The reason for that was that there was no real reason to walk out. This year duly chosen delegates were not unseated, nor were our caucus decisions dishonored. It was injustices in these respects that caused us to walk out in the past, or was it? Could it be that leaders we have trusted, including some of those who tried to be leaders this time, have been deceiving us? Could it be that the publicity for them attendant upon these walk-outs has been the real reason all along? When you consider that this time the governor did not aggrieve us as we have been in the past, plus the search in that caucus for a reason to walk out, which you described in all its ridiculous ramblings, what other conclusion can be reached? Another point of significance is that most of those attending that caucus were not actual delegates, and many of the actual delegates who are liberals knew what to expect, in general, from that caucus and refused to participate. Of those who did, many of them refused to be bound by it, being as disgusted as you. That seems to indicate that those of whom you spoke are a minority among liberals in Texas. There seemed to be an assumption in your article that Hubert Humphrey is bereft of any liberal support in Texas. Any such assumption misses the mark by a wide margin. Richard E. Hickman, 816 Ave. B, South Houston, Tex. 77587.