The Philadelphia Inquirer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Page 19

Reagan should meet with Marcos By Justin J. Green intellectuals could rally. Thus, Aquino's death might accomplish more than he could have by remaining alive. There are other factors beside opposition weakness that lead to the regime's stability. Marcos' authoritarianism, corruption and even the regime's violations of human rights are criticized far less by most Filipinos than they are by the American press, politicians, academics, anti-regime Filipinos living in the United States and international human rights organizations'.

Despite all of the Marcos regime'S" faults and a badly hurting Philippine economy, Marcos retains a far higher level of legitimacy among most Filipinos than his critics give him credit for. It is true that Filipinos have suffered during the recession of the last three years. However, as the economic recovery quickens in the West the Philippine economy will follow closely behind. Indeed, the early signs of this recovery are already visihle. This is not to say that economic recovery will eliminate Philippine poverty or distribute wealth more equitably.

It will not. The Philippines, with American cooperation, has chosen the "trickle down" solution to the problem of distributing wealth and we are certainly in no position to criticize a scheme that we and the international banking com; munity have urged on the Philip pines. It is also true that Marcos may be ill. but it is not true that he has done nothing about his succession. There is a mechanism called the F.xecutive intimidated them through arrest or threat of arrest for those leaders who in his view threatened the nation.

Thus, there is no strong political opposition in the Philippines today. This is not to say that there is no opposition. Part of the Catholic Church led by Cardinal Jaimie Sin and supported by some radical religious do provide some check on the regime. There is also a small, growing but as yet unthreatening radical-left revolution. Although the church opposes some of the regime's policies, it is far more interested in fos-1 tering the evolution of the present regime toward more democracy than in aiding the radicals in their drive for power.

With this background in mind, it is hard to see what the Marcos government could have gained by assassinating Aquino in front of the international press. There were few if any experts who thought Aquino had any real chance to unite the fragmented opposition, let alone lead it to victory in 1984. Though Aquino was once politically powerful and retained some popularity, popularity in itself does not gain many votes in the Philippines. Aquino had been separated from his political base too long to mobilize the strength he needed to win his own election, let alone unite the squabbling politicians that make up the democratic opposition. The reality is that the regime had little to fear from Aquino and knew it.

What the Aquino assassination has done, however, is to make the government appear inept and perhaps it has also created a martyr around which the moderate opposition and Committee in place and most of the succession struggle has already occurred. Most experts agree that the most probable successor is Marcos' wife, Imelda, supported by Gen. Fabian C. Ver, army chief of staff. Marcos also has moved successfully to weaken possible opposition from among his own followers to this successor regime.

Mrs. Marcos, though far from well liked by Manila intellectuals and the small middle class, has built up a great deal of popular support in the countryside. She can also mobilize women and in the Philippines this matters. All of this suggests that the media coverage of Aquino's killing could only lead to the unwarranted view that the present Philippine government is "inherently unstable." Such a view leads some policy-makers to overreact and strengthen support for the Marcos regime because it might be in danger of falling. Other policymakers will argue that the United States should withdraw support from Marcos and aid the democratic forces in their efforts to restore the old constitutional regime.

Philippine realities suggest that the United States pursue neither of these alternatives. In regard to the former, Marcos does not need higher levels of support to survive. In the case of the latter, there is simply no opposition leader who has the demonstrated ability to gain anywhere near the level of support and legitimacy that Marcos still retains. The United States can continue to support Marcos without committing itself uncritically to either the present regime or whoever has been The prophesied assassination of Kormer Philippine Sen. Benlgno l'niiino Jr.

has once again frwnd attention on the Philippines. In its Loverage 01 me tuning, the media have raised doubts about the stahii. htv of President Ferdinand E. Marcos' regime and excoriated it for its authoritarianism, human rights violations, corruption and an onenimr economic recession that threatens Philippine economic viability. The media have given the impres-cinn also that Aauino's return wnnlri have united the fragmented opposition, galvanized the Philippine electorate and provided the leadership that could have defeated the Marcos forces in the national elections Scheduled for 1984.

Some media accounts also asserted that the assassi nation might radicalize middle-of-the-road Filipinos, thus tilting the delicate balance of power in the Philippines toward radicalism. To begin with, the Marcos regime is lar more staDie than media accounts would suggest. Politics in the Philippines was never the party-based, power-sharing democratic system we are familiar. It was instead a competition for power between elite-led factions held to gether by their leaders wealth or by resources acauired through coneres- sionally organized pork barrel raids on tne national treasury. Beginning in 1972, Marcos forced the leaders of some of his stroneest opposition factions to leave the Philippines, fe fragmented and disorganized tSqse who remained.

He limited their access to the media and Viewpoint looking for ways to make their nation work better than it did under the institutions the Philippines inherited from the United States. We must also admit that it is possible that our institutions and values might not work for Filipinos. Though we may state our preferences we should not seek even indirectly to impose our interests. Ultimately, Filipinos will determine the future of the Philippines. (Justin J.

Green is a professor oj political science at Villanova University and an expert on the chosen to succeed Marcos should death or illness remove him from the scene. At the same time, we should keep our lines of communication to members of the moderate opposition open. Thus, if his security can be adequately guaranteed, President Reagan should go to Manila. He should, however, maintain a low profile and keep his rhetoric cool, perhaps meeting with opposition figures if time allows. More importantly, Americans must recognize and accept that many Filipinos of different persuasions are TV cameras around State liquor laws go back to the '30s Different story Turning By Jeff Greenfield It was a very familiar scene: The hard-hitting investigative reporter stalked his prey outside the victim's office; then, with cameras rolling and microphone hot, the reporter pounced.

Why haven't you responded to my telephone calls and registered letters asking for an interview about the way you do business? the reporter asked. In reply, the subject invited the reporter to "put the microphone right up here" to his mouth and then uttered a two-word phrase to the reporter that is not generally translated as "Hi there." There's nothing new about a subject losing his temper in front of a prodding TV reporter. But in this case, the subject not the reporter, the subject was Dan Rather, anchor of the "CBS Evening News." Having spent a few years at CBS News, I can testify that Dan Rather is one of the more gracious individuals in the business of journalism; indeed, he sometimes seems to go out of his way to thank everyone from the president of the United States to the desk assistant who brings him a cup of coffee. And the reporter in question representing a new show called "Breakaway," a syndicated hybrid of news, gossip and talk is a gentleman named Steve Wilson, whose conduct as a local news reporter in New York City and San Francisco in the past would have tried the patience of a saint. Nonetheless, the encounter for which Rather has already profusely apologized demonstrates something curious about the business of news gathering: the unwillingness or Inability of Journalists to play by the rules they set for others.

A Fall JPftilaitlpltia nquhtr Op-ed Friday, Sept. 23. 1983 19-A purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and as expensive as possible. That was the genesis of the Liquor Control Board and the State Stores. Although I was just a lad in knee pants at the time, I recall the high emotions that accompanied the end of Prohibition.

There was much joy in some circles but serious concern in others. A bar opened in our neighborhood in West Philadelphia on a corner that a sixth grader, passed walking to and from school. My mother was very unhappy about that, and she wasn't alone. There were, of course, many people who kept on drinking throughout Prohibition. One of our next-door neighbors made three casks of wine in his cellar every year.

Even among substantial numbers of dedicated drinkers there was genuine worry about what effects the end of Prohibition would have on their neighborhoods and society as a whole. Gov. Pinchot was able to enact tight restrictions on availability of alcoholic beverages because many in Pennsylvania, drinkers and non-drinkers, thought he was doing the right thing. That was a half-century ago. Pin-chot's great experiment turned out to be a great mistake.

If he had had his way, Prohibition would have been perpetuated forever. The State Store system was the closest thing to Prohibition he could get away with. It, too, should be repealed. After 50 years, it is time for Pennsylvanians to free themselves from burdens imposed by Prohibitionists in their desperate, dying hour. For years, one of the most commonplace of journalistic tactics has been the "ambush interview," where a reporter confronts a reluctant subject with cameras and mikes "hot" the way Dan Rather was confronted by Wilson, and the way Rather himself often confronted subjects when he reported for "60 Minutes." The sudden confrontation; the questions flung at someone walking down the street; the startled reactions of flight, anger, even violence all combined to suggest a clear sense of guilt.

Indeed, TV reporters often walk inside an office building or apartment to confront some miscreant sleeping on duty or otherwise offending the public weal. The sight of a door being flung open while Sam Scoop exposes wrongdoing is almost a cliche of broadcast news. But what happens if somebody tries to get into a broadcast operation? There are enough security guards posted at news offices to support an armed Central American insurrection. Are there good reasons for such security? Of course. The appearance of an armed intruder at ABC News headquarters in Washington moments before the evening newscast was to begin some weeks back demonstrates that such security is hardly rooted in paranoia.

But isn't it just possible that other individuals and institutions also have legitimate reasons for security? Or for refusing to talk to a journalist? If a businessman has a case pending in court, and his attorney tells him not to discuss the case under any circumstances, isn't that a defensible reason for saying "No" to Mike Wallace or Brian Ross or Geraldo Rivera? Aren't there values about privacy, for example that sometimes override the "public's right to Two other examples help make the point. A key executive at "60 Minutes" bitterly complained about a rival network's coverage of the Dan Minutes" libel suit. Why did they put on former CBS newsman Daniel Schorr? he asked. Didn't they know that Schorr felt "60 Minutes" had treated him unfairly? This same executive has helped preside over countless "60 Minutes" episodes where a disgruntled former employee has been the chief, if not the only, accuser of a corporate entity. And if journalists arc really so insistent about probing, say.

for conflicts of interests among government officials who own stock or other investment holdings, do the "people have a right to know" about the stockholdings and investments of the people who report the news? Who is more powerful in America right now. an assistant secretary ol commerce, or a network news anchor? 1 happen to like most reporters and correspondents; I even like most of the news executives and editors with whom I have worked. But the capacity to engage in what George Orwell called "doublethink" is a dangerous habit into which too many journalists have fallen. Maybe the specter of Dan Rather losing his cool in front of an abrasive reporter will alert us to the need to see ourselves as others see us. Right now, an awful lot of American news viewers don much like what they see.

(Jcjf Greenfield is a columnist and television political commentator based in New York City.) increase if you want to, but for all intents and purposes it is a substitute for a $20 million tax increase. The legislature, which enacted a $495 million package of tax increases in July, thus was able to keep the total under half a billion dollars. Four ninety-five has a nice bargain-basement ring to it. A distressing approach was used in structuring the price increase. It hits the hardest those cost-conscious people of relatively modest financial means who buy liquor and wine in large economy sizes to save money.

Large bottles were targeted for the rise in prices. In contrast, prices were reduced on half-pints and other small bottles. This was condescendingly touted as giving a break to the poor. The principal "beneficiaries" will be people who drink out of bottles kept in brown bags, coat pockets or dashboard glove compartments. Pennsylvania is strictly Third World an undeveloped backwater when it comes to retail sales of alcoholic beverages.

In more civilized states beer and wine can be purchased in supermarkets along with other food and household products. Liquor can' be bought in privately owned and operated shops with prices and service reflecting a healthy climate of competition. The backwardness of Pennsylvania is a hangover from the administration of Republican Gov. Gifford Pin-chot, who was elected on a "dry" platform in 1930 narrowly defeating a Democratic opponent who ran as a "wet." In late 1933, after national Prohibition had been abolished by repeal of the 18th Amendment, Pin-chot called the legislature into special session to establish rigid controls designed to discourage the By George Wilson Inquirer Editorial Board In Philadelphia was the the United States, the U.S. Congress enacted a tax on whiskey.

It led to Jlc Whiskey Kebellion in west- urn Pennsylvania wnere, ior iurmcn in several counties, whiskey made from rye 'and other grain was their biggest, "crop." They repeatedly refused to. pay the tax for three turbulent years, marked by confrontations and bloodshed. President Washington, who was more qf stickler about tax collections than even the British had been, mobilizecf.an army of 15,000 in 1794 callirig.up militia in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia. He accompanied the troops, a mas sive show.of power by 18th century far as Bedford and then returned to Philadelphia. Gen.

Henry Lep of, Virginia took command as the west from Bedford. The farmers, after some face-saving negotiations, surrendered. It's nbt' likely that Pennsylvanians will ever mount another rebellion against a tax on whiskey requiring 15.000 armed men to suDdue. Howev er, it is quite possible, if not probable, that many present-day Pennsylvanians will rebel in other ways, against the latest tax increase (disguised as a price increase) on liquor and wine in the State Stores. The rebellion could come in refusal to buv in State Stores.

Vast but uncount ed numbers of Pennsylvanians al ready patronize liquor and wine outlets in neighboring states. The Liquor Control Board enacted the price increase as a means of raising an additional $20 million a year Shore up the financially trou bled Stale Store system. Call it a price They can't win Catch-22 By Ellen Goodman BOSfdN I had barely collected my lunch from the options at the saladJw, when the two women at the next table began their dissection of the Miss America pageant. The Preview for black contestants In Stock Special Prices Hih Quality F.ill is tin- season to make your livinc iju.irtfrs luck their finest tlu' hnlij.iv wamn draws near, in and see what's new different fur this full season. Now is the perfect time fin a Kre.it deal with Scandinavian IVsiun's in-stock upholstery.

(. 'noose tri mi our collection ol natural-colored solas, lovese.itsleepets they're perfect tor a new look in room will any Mom style. They h.ive .1 wooden plinth base coniform to Scandinavian Peniin' hi(jh standatds ol quality. Do you prefer cusiomirtng your upholstery jyi. t-i mi i i in i ii i ii Scandinavian can uive you 4 to 6 week delivery your choice of style and fahric.

Whatever your upholstery needs, i 1 ici us iivi you dimcsc the look you're attet Zft- ukil nr.a nniu Sofa. 821 $645 Loveseat, 58T $545 Loveseatslecper, $695 ulations for this poised and confident new Miss, there is an edge of protestation. More than one judge felt compelled to tell the press, "I can assure you that this young lady got there on her merits." Vanessa Williams herself responded to the questions about her historical role by saying, "I was chosen because I was qualified for the position. The fact that I was black was not a factor." They were aware of the attitudes of my next-table lunchers. Never mind, for the moment, the peculiar items that make anyone "qualified" to be Miss America.

The subject is prejudice. It seems that the people who suffered most from prejudice against them are most likely to be accused of prejudice in favor of them when, at last, there's some change. This isn't peculiar to Atlantic City. We've seen it happen everywhere. There is the lily-white firm that finally admits a black partner.

He is then immediately suspected of having been hired for color. There is the bank or corporation that finally elevates a woman to director. She would never, it is then rumored, have gotten the promotion if she weren't female. Then there is the TV station that finally appoints an Hispanic to an anchor slot. She wouldn't be able to hang onto her seat, say the gossipers, if she weren't Hispanic.

These newcomers are often labeled tokens, symbols anything short of legitimate titlcholdcrs. It isn't that there aren't incompetents in every job category, but people rarely say that a colleague never would have gotten the job if he weren't white. Part of it is the sore-thumb theory. The "different" people are watched and graded according to entirely different standards. They are compared to the ideal standard rather than to the mean.

Few jobs and titles short of sports championships are based on purely objective criteria that separate the winner from the losers beyond question. Professors, senior executives and senators as well as beauty queens are all judged on subjective qualifications. One of those subjective judgments is prejudice. Those who don't believe that "they" arc smart or beautiful enough to get the title will be hard pressed to believe that "they" got the job through smarts or beauty. This is the Affirmative Action Conundrum.

Without affirmative action, certain companies and unions would never have hired or promoted minorities and women. With affirmative action, they may be hired but are often tainted. Given that choice, most of us vould take the job and run with it. The only solution is time and numbers. With her crown, her $25,000 scholarship and her expected $100,000 from promotion trips, Vanessa Williams doesn't have to fret a whole lot about the gossip at lunch, But there is still a lingering pattern of updated, upscale, almost respectable prejudice.

It travels along, like a shadow, in the limelight of progress. This time it's the pale shadow of a crown. (Ellen Goodman's syndicated column originates at the Boston Globe.) 'I young critics proclaimed one finalist too thin, another too plastic, a third devoid of talent. A fourth, they declared, had bodily parts of suspicious origin. When the subject turned toward the winner, Miss New York now Miss America, both the women agreed mattor-of-factly and without rancor, "She.pnly won because she was -Did it matter that the first runner-up, Miss New Jersey, also was That just proved that this was "the year for a black winner." At that point I was struck by a perverse desire to drop my marinated zucchini in their clam chowder and watch it curdle.

But maybe apoplexy7 is the proper punishment for eavesdropping. The history of the pageant is not, afterMlj'a very open-minded one. For about 30 of the 62 years of Miss America's, blacks were excluded from, competition. It's only since 1970 that any black woman has made it to, Atlantic City. Only two have ever been finalists.

Now along comes Vanessa Williams of Millwood, N.Y., who wins the crown -and what happens? Within days, we pass out of the era when a black couldn't win because she was black and into the era when she only won because she was black. I dorrt want to make a class action out of a lunch-time conversation by two white women. But it seems to me that along with the genuine congrat- i1 with a difference. jrlL. Scandinavian Design lzJ, COPENHAGEN IMPORTS Now Open in King of Prussia 21 5-265-0786 Moorestown, NJ: 121 W.

Main St. 609-235-9243, Woodbury, NJ: 66 S. Broad St. 609-845-9260 Opening soon In Willow Grovo Parkl Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis St Paul. Philadelphia Locations in Chicago, plus Mobiiu sloms the San wcisco nvtw and Dnca states Los Anguios Lji Vugas dno PHoij.