The Indianapolis Star from Indianapolis, Indiana • Page 18

A-18. -THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR- THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 198!) Goorge F. The Indianapolis Stak Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty II Corinthians 3.17 A new president's reliance on symbolism KUGENE PMJ AM-1889 1975 Publisher 1944 1975 EUGENE PULLIAM. Publisher "Let the people know the facts and the country will be saved "'Abraham Lincoln Vsid Setting It won't, but Bush has struck a pleasing pose, as he did in the campaign when he said: "If I'm elected president, if I'm remembered for anything, It would be this: a complete and total ban on chemical weapons." Bush's national security adviser. Brent Scowcroft.

speaking last Sunday, said he supposed a verifiable ban to be "impossible." That Is the unvarnished truth. But Bush has an arresting attitude, if not a practical position. Bush also stood foursquare for rectitude when he came out against "bickering" and for bipartisanship in foreign policy. Bush, like many who came of age politically during World War II. assumes that bipartisanship is the American norm.

That is a misreading of American history. The fiercest dispute of the 1790s some historians say it raised the specter of civil war swirled around the Jay Treaty with Britain. The War of 1812 stirred seml-seces- nia Avenue, the country music, the open house, the stern talk about ethics. Jimmy Carter's presidency confirmed this law: Frenetic reliance on symbolism indicates uncertainty about what you want to do. Amidst the familiar metaphors (breezes blowing, pages turning, doors opening) of Bush's Inaugural Address there ran a vein of familiar moralism.

It equates rectitude with right, and assumes that having the right attitude is tantamount to doing the right thing. Bush's feet may be in cowboy boots, but his head is in New England, home of right-mindedness and (not coincidentally) abolitionism. THE ABOLITIONISTS were not much help In ending slavery while preserving the union, but they were pure in thought. The abolitionist mentality was visible in the one specific vow in Bush's Inaugural, concerning cocaine: "This scourge will stop." Washington New presidents serve up rich sauces of symbolism, high in political cholesterol. George Hush has begun with a blizzard of words and gestures communicating high-mindedness.

We are at the English-muffin phase (folks swooned when Jerry ford popped his own muffin into the presidential toaster), which also has been cardigan sweater and Jellybean phase of young presidencies. This humanizing perhaps miniaturizing of presidents Is a recurring skit for a public that periodically pretends it wants ordinariness in that extraordinary office. The Bushes up with horseshoes, down with designer clothes are quite traditional In their ostentatious unostentatiousness. Their carefully choreographed "simplicity" projects the image of indifference to image. This is Carter Redux, as in the religiosity (Bush's first presidential act was to lead the nation in prayer), the walking on Pennsylva Miami Vice sionist sentiment in New England, which became almost a neutral zone.

The Mexican war (1846-48) was denounced by Whig critics (Including Congressman Lincoln) as, among other things, unconstitutional. The war with Spain (1898) and the acquisition of territories brought bitter-debate about the very nature of "the nation. Between 1914 and 1917. modern Isolationism found its voice, heard again In the late 1930s. Advocates of a "Pacific first" strategy troubled FDR's conduct of the tyar.

They had an ally In Gen. Douglas MacArthur who was heard from again during the angry debates apout Korea. MUCH HAS been made of the Tact that Bush's Inaugural Address contained the word "Are' we enthralled with material less appreciative of the nobility of work and sacrifice?" But one reason he was Inaugurated was his pledge not to ask a central sacrifice of citizenship taxes. "No new taxes" was a pledge not to let public needs Im-pinge upon private materialism. Bush's pledge does mean a sacrifice of national security.

Scowcroft. when asked if Bush's tax pledge and his promise of a strong national defense are conflicting goals, said: "Of course. Of course they conflict." But, as attitudes, each is popular. After praising sacrifice. Bush said, serenely: "We have more will than wallet: but will Is what we need." However.

In government will without wallet is usually ineffectual. And willing an end without willing the means to that end is mere attitudinizing. Bush was praised for saying at the Republican National Convention, "I don't hate government." That Is an admirable but actions count. Governments run On money and Bush's sole significant campaign promise was to keep the government's wallet thin. Tnat is why when he promised "a new activism," he spoke of the need for voluntarism and generally displaying "better hearts and finer souls." The new activism will not be by the government that he does not hate but will not fund.

Bush has hit the ground running in place, promising rectitude handsome attitudes and raising anew this question: Beyond "serving." is there something he wants to do? Washington Post Writers Group It will take a while for the legalese to shake out. but the Supreme Court's ruling on "set-asides" for minorities has the potential of dramatically affecting civil and institutional policy. Without exception, early reaction from black leaders blasted the court's finding as a social and cultural catastrophe and an evil legacy of the Reagan administration. In contrast, many others hailed the ruling as a long-awaited vindication of the argument that affirmative action, set-asides, quotas and the like, despite good intentions, are forms of reverse discrimination illogical, awkward and unconstitutional efforts to engineer human equality. The court invalidated a Richmond.

law requiring that 30 percent of funds spent on public works construction be funneled to mi nority-owned construction companies. The finding of illegality turned on the lack of clear evidence of past discrimination. "The 30 percent quota was chosen arbitrarily; it was not tied, for example, to a showing that 30 percent of Richmond subcontractors are minority-owned," the majority opinion said. "The figure simply emerged from the mists." Any "rigid numerical quota" is suspect, the majority ruling declared, though the 10 percent set-aside law governing federal public works projects apparently is not affected. The court noted that the federal plan was adopted following congressional investigations that demonstrated a need for a plan, whereas Richmond conducted no such investigation.

The impact 6f the ruling extends far beyond Richmond of course. Hiring and contract policies in 36 states and an estimated 200 local governments are likely to be affected. But perhaps not so drastically as thought at first. An attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said the ruling "means the court is going to require much more dotting of I's and crossing of T's before remedial plans can go into effect." That assessment is a far cry from the predictions of social upheaval heard immediately following the ruling and is probably a lot closer to reality. Indianapolis Mayor William Hudnut seemed confident the ruling would not affect local policies that promote minority participation in construction projects and in hiring by police and fire departments.

Indianapolis has established "goals" and "targets," he said, not rigid quotas or percentages as mandated by Richmond. In any event, a fresh breeze is stirring in the nation's highest court. Reason and common sense are returning to the halls of justice. A majority of justices are coming to share the convictions of millions of their fellow citizens that equality cannot be reduced to numbers. Every American has the right to go as far as guts and ability will take him.

But no racial or ethnic group has a right to a specific share of public jobs or public funds. Ignoring that simple principle has led to well-intended but convoluted exercises in racial bookkeeping that make little sense and even less fairness. Warren T. Brookes The generous rewards of congressional service increase the actuarial value of Wright's congressional pension by $1 million, and that of the average congressman by over $800,000. That is the estimate of a study by the National Committee on Public Employee Pension Systems, which estimates that the overall $45,500 pay increase will give the average congressman $1.6 million In total pension benefits.

This also tells you why. having devised con games to evade all hard decisions and produce a 98 percent Incumbency victory rate, less than 3 percent of congressmen ever quit before retire- The pay increase would give the average congressman $1.6 million in pension benefits. In the third place, all of them have access to a pension plan which alone is now worth about $40,000 a year in tax-paid present dollar benefits. In figuring their pensions, they get 2.5 percent of their last three years' average pay for each year of service (1.5 percent is norm for industry). They can count any years of military service toward their congressional retirement without taking those years -away from a separate military pension.

On top of this, all of these good pensions are fully Indexed. Thus, my good friend Hastings KeltH, the former seven-term congressman from Massachusetts who has been waging a lonely and frustrating war against federal pension excesses since 1973, now gets a congressional pension worth $52,782 a year, or about $9,000 a year over his highest congressional pay. SINCE 1973, he has received $600,433 In pension money, having contributed a total of less than $33,000. In addition he currently collects $13,872 a year for his military service and $1 1.868 from Social Security, a total of $78,528 a year. That explains why congressional pensions alone now cost nearly $16 million a year, and reward some 390 retired congressmen with an annual average pension of more than $40,000 a year each.

From 1969-1989. those 390 retired living congressmen have collected over $189 million In pensions, or an average of about $485,000 each for an average of less than 1 1 years service, with an average personal contribution of less thar $35,000. Monday: Part Two Creators Syndicate First of Two Parts The House Committee on Standards of Conduct has decided to "Wrightwash" House Speaker James Wright, submerging serious ethical lapses in a "kinder, gentler" judgment, made with more than one eye on the pending pay and pension raise. Just before this limp-wrist slap was completed, three more of Wright's savings loan patrons from Texas were indicted by a federal grand Jury in Dallas for alleged illegal corporate contributions to a political action committee set up to pump in SI 09,000 to rescue Wright crony Rep. Jim Chapman.

D-Texas. in a 1985 special off-year election. Chapman has been repaying Wright ever since. Including the outrageous 1987 tax-increase bill when Wright held a losing vote open until his ex-con strong-arm. John Mack, physically dragged Chapman back to the floor to change his vote and give Wright a victory.

Last fall the Ethics Committee reportedly heard extensive testimony on how Wright repaid the industry by intervening to stop disciplinary action, by demands to fire tough bank examiners and generally slowing down even the administration's belated efforts to shut down the looters, raising bailout costs S50 billion to S70 billion. THE POINT man in trying to shoot down this damaging evidence was reportedly Rep. Charles Pashayan, who has been shilling for Wright and the since 1984. For all this good work Wright now proposes to reward himself and his obedient servants on the Ethics Committee with a 52 percent pay raise by not allowing even a voice vote on it. This will also Cat Thomas ment.

In industry it is a rule of thumb that If your "voluntary quit rate" for a particular position or pay group is less than 10 percent, you are undoubtedly paying too much. By that standard we are paying Congress far too much. The notion that year-round living In Washington demands a higher pay structure Is self-serving. In the first place. Congress wastes well over 50 percent of the time it is here (it doesn't even meet on Mondays and Fridays).

IN THE SECOND place, because of perks, honoraria and all around Capitol Hill Incest, a Washington Times analysis recently showed that 305 of the 435 House members already make over $100,000 a year. The handwriting on the abortion clinic wall Power Of Prayer Millions will not find this medical report surprising, and it should give the most skeptical of moderns a lot to ponder. Hospitalized patients who had other people praying for them had slightly fewer medical complications. according to a study summarized in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The original, complete study appeared in July in the Southern Medical Journal.

Dr. John Thomison. editor of that publication, said he would like to see further studies on the subject. So, no doubt, would skeptics and perhaps many other people who have had faith in prayer all along. And so.

maybe, would agnostics who believe "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of" in some people's philosophies. Further studies might widen many horizons. Meanwhile. Dr. Thomison considers prayer "about as benign a form of treatment as there is.

There is no danger whatsoever." This is not the first time science and faith have gone hand in hand. The combination can be good news for modern man. who needs it. The handwriting Is on the abortion clinic wall. Roe vs.

Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision of 16 years ago this week which ushered in abortion on demand, could be on its way to the legal dustbin. The "smoking gun" in the case against Roe has come in the discovery by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward of memos exchanged by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority decision, and Justice Potter Stewart. The two 1 972 memos reveal how shaky was the foundation of medical and legal thought on which the decision was based. Woodward discovered In the files of the late Justice William O. Douglas that Blackmun wrote to Stewart.

"You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary." Responded Stewart. "I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly Arbitrary? Legislative? Isn't this social surveys for the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago, reports that since 1984 there have been significant declines in support for legalized abortion: "We have looked at it (the research) to make sure it Is reliable, and there has been a decrease in support for legal abortion in all circumstances we ask about." In many cases, pro-abortionlsts have been able to maintain the status quo by keeping women Ignorant of the details of abortion and the physical, emotional and psychological effects that accompany it. Increasingly that information Is becoming available. Faced with such opposition, pro-abortionists are reacting frantically, taking out full-page newspaper ads featuring coat hangers, suggesting that the bloodied corpses of women who have had illegal abortions will be littering back alleys again if Roe is overturned.

It is increasingly evident that the pro choicers' case has been punctured medically and legally and may run out of breath Los Angeles Times Syndicate what pro lifers have said of the Roe vs. Wade decision for 16 years? Abortion proponents began by setting the rules for the debate. Now that they seem to be losing, they say the rules don't matter. Abortion on demand, they say, should continue. IN COMMENTING on the Reagan administration's successful effort to get the Supreme Court to hear a Missouri case which could include a reconsideration of abortion, a Los Angeles Times editorial acknowledged that Roe vs.

Wade "was pegged not to the text of the Constitution but to vague concepts of liberty and privacy." A similar argument by Robert Bork about the absence of a specific right to privacy in the Constitution was enough to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court. Continued the Times editorial. "The scientific basis for the decision has become shaky as medical technology has made it possible to save smaller and smaller babies." Yet the Times is not about to allow facts to get in the way of liberal thinking: "Whatever the shortcomings of Roe vs. Wade, the Viewpoint "You'll never see me in a Cabinet meeting. Nixon had all the Cabinet wives to a meeting once and it was the silliest thing in the world.

He did it to make us feel part of things: instead of that, we felt like dolts sitting on the back row. Plus, they didn't say anything that we could have written home about." Barbara Bush Justices should ignore the zealous pleas from the Reagan administration and the state of Missouri to overturn it." But significantly, public opinion is beginning to change. TOM SMITH, director of general.