ustxtxb_obs_1968_10_04_50_00013-00000_000.pdf

Learn the secrets of beer cookery Send in this coupon for our pamphlet of free recipes on cook ing with beer. Find out how to make delicious everyday dishes with beersuch as beer meat loaf, beer chicken, beer sausages and beer cake. And then there are such gourmet treats as rarebits and Carbonnades Flamandes. Beer cookery is as traditional as yesterday… as modern as tomorrow. Beer adds a real flavor treat. I’m interested in recipes for cooking with beer. Send me my free pamphlet. Name Street City State Zip UNITED STATES BREWERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 905 International Life Bldg., Austin, Texas 78701 N1411001000IiPNtakAlmiIP ‘0001\(1101~06.44 L in this country. Their thought is that we must get a lot worse before we can get better. I am very much in favor of the nonviolent resistance against racism, poverty, and war, \( the Gandhian satyagraha that it must continue. But non-violent resistance is not incompatible with voting. The national power of the Wallace phenomenon has given me the most pause. I share the growing concern among many people of the left that the nihilistic tactics of some self-described revolutionaries have been crystallizing the worst rightwing American reaction of our lifetime. For non-violent resistance, we have been willing to take our losses, believing the gains off-set them. For violence-prone yahoos’ mihilism, which is so obviously counter-productive, we are not. The reaction now gathering force in the country could and well may lead us into even worse crimes against humanity than we have committed in Vietnam. The need, I. F. Stone wrote Sept. 9, is for more dialogue to win over more of the American people. “If law and order really break down,” Stone wrote, “if democratic processes are abandoned, it is we of the Left, the anti-war forces and the intellectuals who will be the first to suffer. To play with revolutionary talk and tactics as the New Left is doing, when there is no revolutionary situation, is to act as the provocateurs for an American Fascism.” For many good people, the first question this fall has been whether to participate at all, by voting, in the presidential election. I think we should. It is in the presidential election that we, as a people, still make ourselves most felt for the future. The certaintly that the future will be just as real as the past has been denies me, for one, the pleasure of permitting my principle to preclude me from voting for anyone because of the past. If there were a serious fourth party candidacy, that would be one thing. But there is, instead, a serious right-wing reaction, and that is quite another thing. In Texas, Wallace is coming on very strong. He is the country’s most effective white racist, and he is an opportunist reactionary. I want no responsibility for Wallace carrying Texas. Yet a nonvote, or a write-in for McCarthy, gives Wallace a better chance of doing just that. Suppose you go fishing Nov. 5 or write in McCarthy. If, then, Wallace gets Texas’ electoral votes and no candidate gets a majority of the electoral college, how will you feel about your personal responsibility to the future as Wallace wields his influence during the election of the next president by the US House of Representatives? These were my thoughts, through yesterday, but still I could not conclude to vote for Humphrey, because I believe the most important issue is the war, and while I thought there was fair evidence to justify the expectation that either candidate would end it, I was held by the force of the thought that Humphrey was still Johnson’s man, tied to Johnson’s policies, all hints to the contrary inconclusive and therefore, notwithstanding. Perhaps one should vote for Nixon. On his NBC broadcast last night, however, Humphrey said, “But I do say, if I am president, I owe it to this nation to bring our men and resources in Vietnam back to America, where we need them so badly, and to be sure we do first things first in the future.” As we are war-weary, so are we wordweary; but Humphrey did say this. These are such trying times; but here was the young Humphrey, the man I used to admire, sounding like Robert Kennedy. Hoping and praying, I believed; I have not lost the capacity to believe. “I would stop the bombing,” Humphrey said. “This would be the best protection for our troops.” He added a quali fication I do not have a good grasp of a hedge having to do with communist willingness to restore the demilitarized zone. He went on to say that he wants to de-Americanize the war, bring US troops home on a phased reduction pattern. He said that if elected, he will take the lead in reducing the military budgets of all the nations of the world. I remember, too, that he said, “I ask you . . . to vote your hopes, not your hates.” Then, suddenly, he was free to slash at Wallace and Nixon in meaningful ways. Wallace would escalate the war; Humphrey promises not to. Nixon, Humphrey believes, would escalate the war, too; Humphrey says he will not. And we must progress, Humphrey said, toward arms control, or “this generation will be the last.” It was the oldthat is, the young Humphrey. He sounded to me like the man he would have been, if he could have been, under Johnson, and still is. Humphrey must know that if, after this speech, he is elected, but does not promptly de-escalate and then end the war, we will then have the very darkest days in our country. I believe anti-war people should read this speech. If they had decided before not to vote or to write in McCarthy, I believe they should reconsider. You will perhaps remember my exploratory essay a couple of issues back, saying I did not think Humphrey was worthy of support; perhaps you will remark that I have changed my mind. I have. October 4, 1968 13