INDEPENDENT PRESS-TELEGRAM Reagan is the life of the party i r-Â»- * **V\rÂ» A A T i l A*} C \ \ Â£ ^ Â· Â· - . * Â· ' Â· JL 9f 604 Pine Avenue, 90844 Telephone 435-1 161 Larry Allison Herman H. Ridder -- 1952-1969 Daniel H. Ridder -- Edilor and Publisher Samuel C. Cameron -- General Manager Miles E. Sines -- Execulive Edilor -- Managing Editor Don Ohl -- Editor ; Editonal Page Berl Resnik--Assistant Managing Editor Don Nyller, Advertising Director E. H. Lowdermilk, Circulation Director Milton A. Lomas, Production Manager LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1976 Editorials SMake no little plans' .J'jrl^'I JL B-2 .Councilman Ernie Kcll has ex- : prÂ£ssed some reservations about Â· ' to build a new Long Beach tuseum of Art. Â· New council members might be unwilling to carry out the plans approved by a former council, Kell said. Kell and another new council ; member, Wes Carroll Jr., are only . doing their job in insisting that the council have reliable information about costs. But we hope the council members, new and old alike, will not confuse negativism with economy. C a r r o l l expressed concern about whether famed architect I. M. Pei will actually provide origi- ' nal plans or will simply submit a copy of one of his other museum . plans. We trust Carroll and other. Â· council members will accept the assurance of m u s e u m officials and the city manager that an architect of international stature would not try to palm off a second-hand design. Some of the ideas of Pei and of Jan Adlmann, the museum director, promise an art center that will be far more than a place to hang pictures and display sculpture. Adlmann, for example, has spoken of accompanying an exhibition of medieval tapestries with a performance of medieval music on authentic reproductions of old instruments--the sort of thing that has been done with great popular as well as artistic success at the Cloisters, the medieval branch of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. And Pei has said that the chance for this kind of vital art center is what led him to accept the commission to be its architect. The opposite of extravagance in this matter need not be cheapness. "Make no little plans," another great architect, Daniel Burnham, advised Chicago more, than a century ago. Chicago took that advice, and thanks largely to 'Burnham,.developed a great lake front and a magnificent park system. Burnham's advice is as useful today as it was when he offered ft. E v e n a properly cost- conscious Long Beach City Council can take it, we think, and we trust the council will. Great charter flight Responding to that mood of austerity among their constituents that has made politicians like :'Jerry Brown popular, the House of Representatives voted 219 to 67 : l a s t week against the Magna ; Carta Junket. .. On unsober second thought, the . House has now reversed itself. By a-vote of 294 to 90, it agreed to . send 25 of its members to Ixndon to bring back a copy of the Magna Carta for a Bicentennial exhibition. By a vote of 306 to 94, the House rejected a move to limit the expedition to f i v e members of Congress and two staff aides. Â·Â· After the copy of the great charter has been displayed in the Rotunda of the Capitol, the congressional delegation will take it back. The magic number of 25 has not been explained in the news stories we have seen, but a hasty look in the Encyclopaedia Britannica gave us a clue. The Magn.a Carta, we discovered, provided that "the barons shall choose 25 of their number to be guardians of the charter." The king agreed in the Magna Carta that if he or any of his officers "shall do anything to infringe its terms," the 25 guardians of the charter, "together with the community of the whole realm, shall distrain and trouble us in all possible Ways by taking our castles, lands, and pos- Â· sessions." Since the 25 congressmen will be surrogates for the barons, we suppose they will inherit this awesome power. Our notion is that they could improve their time on the flight back from London by studying the charter to see if the current monarch or the current prime minister has violated any provisions. The provision we like best promises to abolish "evil customs touching forests." On their return trip, the 25 congressmen might seize a castle or two to pay expenses. A strong alliance WASHINGTON - M o s t Democratic strategists, and most political analysts, wish Ronald Reagan would pull out o( the race for the Republican nomination. They attribute this wish to "most Republicans," who are supposed to see the Reagan campaign--after five defeats--as "pointless." The Reagan primary challenge--which is the strongest ever made against a sitting President in modern limes--is far from pointless in the eyes of most Republicans. On the contrary, in terms of public policy and party strength, Reagan's remarkable effort is jabbing a hatpin into Democratic balloons. CONSIDER, first, w h a t Reagan is doing for the nation: He has caused the internment of the long-dead remains of a policy of accommodation to the demands of the Soviet Union. When President Ford expunged the word "detente" from his official vocabulary during the Florida primary, the event was more seminal than semantic: A visible hardening has taken place in our foreign policy posture. Thanks to Reagan, Cuba was declared an "outlaw" by an administration that was anxious to re-establish relations with Castro only a year ago. In domestic affairs, the Reagan chal- Usually one expects the most intense foes of dirty movies also to oppose abortion on demand, pants suits and Bella Abzug--all dearly beloved of the feminist movement. But darned if at least one or .two Long Beach feminists didn't join in picketing a dirty movie. ' P e r h a p s a rapprochement between the feminists and the ladies of the League for Decency is near. Sexual violence has always been an e l e m e n t in p o p u l a r movies. The old films had redeeming s o c i a l significance or 'Clark Gable, though, and few .complained. The pickcters were protesting one of the new films, "Snuff," w h i c h apparently concentrates on the pleasures of murdering a young woman. The audi- once for such a film is no doubt small and a bit special, but picketing may be a useful way to keep the audience as small and special as possible. Even more important to the feminists, perhaps, may be the chance to pick up some new allies. We rather hope they succeed. new feminists and the older tlers against smut may find have more in common than realized. lenge has made it politically unwise for Democrats to try to bust the Ford budget. Although the President's new political managers get the praise for his early primary wins, the credit belongs to men like Alan Greenspan and Arthur Burns, whose anti-inflation policies have been permitted to work. Without pressure from the right, William Satire H*w Yovfc TliMi HÂ«wÂ» SÂ«rvk* populist cries to cut down unemployment would be revving up spending and inflation again. Now consider what Reagan's challenge has done to Ford. He has transformed an accidental President into a credible presidential candidate. Thanks to Reagan, the President is now recognized as a candidate capable of getting votes outside Grand Rapids. Because many in the media want to see a conservative defeat, Ford--reviled only six months ago as a clumsy klutz and general dumbhead--is now seen as a shrewd politician and a popular winner. V HI5 HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT ANO TWENTY FIVE BARONS FROM THE COLONIES TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE MAGNA Even more important for the President, the Reagan challenge has provided a shakedown c r u i s e : For example, the charges against Bo Callaway, if sprung in late October, would have been blown up to scandalous proportions. Regular Republican organizations, always lethargic, have been shaken awake; the most familiar "if only" is "if only we had started clicking early the way we were clicking at the end." That's what Reagan has been doing for the nation and for the President; now, what has he been doing for the Republican party? He has made Republicans newsworthy, which they have not been since 1952. Were it not for Reagan, the only Republican news this year would be biweekly..announcements and withdrawals of Nelson Rockefeller, ff the Republican side were lifeless, the focus of media attention would be exclusively on Democrats, and all the credit for necessary changes in the Ford foreign policy could be claimed by the Democratic contenders. WELL AND good, says the White House, but enough's enough; now we must think of Republican "party unity." That's silly; the l i m e to close ranks behind whoever wins is when a contest enlists a great many more people in the ranks. No ideological schism exists between Ford and Reagan, as used to exist between Goldwater and Rockefeller. Party unity was the Republican need of the last decade, party revivification is this decade's requirement--and the Reagan challenge is the life of the party. No wonder so many Democrats wish the Reagan campaign would fold up quickly. And no wonder Democrats are so unhappy with the positioning of Ford as center- right, where they want to be, and not far right, where they wish to portray their opposition. Reagan's primary presence continues to strengthen Ford's general- election chances. ' Negatives? The common-situs picketing veto, which the President did to placate the far right, will mean that organized labor will work much harder for Democrats in the campaign. And, if Reagan loses, some dlehards will refuse to follow him into the Ford parade. But the positives to the party and the nation of a continued Reagan candidacy far outweigh the negatives. WHAT IS Reagan doing for Reagan? At the moment, he is suffering the pressures that Ford lived through six months ago, pressures that force candidates of less character and resources to succumb. But he does well to fight the good fight, to keep the faith; this is his time of testing. If Ronald Reagan can rally his troops now, he will show qualities of leadership in adversity that would win wide respect. Given a break, or a sudden turn of events, he could even pick up steam in Texas and finish strong in California, and then--experts have been confounded before. Win or lose, his insurgent candidacy is good for the country and enormously helpful to the party. Should good Republicans urge Reagan to quit just because his presence in the campaign is driving Democrats up the wall? Good intentions, but a bad bill The bat- they they WASHINGTON-The road to hell, says the proverb, is paved with good intentions --and that is precisely the course the Congress is taking in a blundering effort to amend the antitrust laws. The end is right, but the means to that end are woefully wrong. Permit a philosophical word. It is an article of conservative faith, if I understand my political gospel correctly, to fear excessive concentrations of power anywhere. This apprehension rests upon the conviction that power should be distributed sparingly, lest bad men abuse it--for it is likely that they will. We ought, therefore, to resist too much ppwer in big government, big business, big labor, or whatever. Philip Hart and Hugh Scott, in the Senate, and Peter Rodino, in the House, seldom have drawn a truly conservative breath. Nevertheless, they are on sound conservative ground in seeking to make antitrust laws more effective. The trouble is that the omnibus bill now before Congress is a thoroughly bad bill. IN THE SENATE version, the bill begins with elaborate findings of (act. Unhappily, some of these facts have never been found, and some of the findings are o L, ID "Oft -- THAT wiretapping!' banal pronouncements. From this tcnous springboard, the bill dives into a scries of grotesque remedies. Title II, for example, would vest the Department of J u s t i c e w i t h sweeping powers to compel secret oral interrogation or to demand documents from "any person," anywhere, who may have "any information relevant to a civil antitrust investigation. Senator H a r t enjoys a f i n e reputation as a great civil libertarian, but holy smokes! Where were his instincts for civil liberty when he drafted this section? James J. Kilpntrick The proposed power is an unchecked power to harass and to punish. No such power should be granted the department. Title III similarly would endow the Federal Trade Commission with powers it has no business having. Under this section, the FTC could imptfse penalties up to $5,000 a day on any person or company that failed to comply on time with any order. Federal courts would be effectively forbidden to siv such penalties. Even if an FTC order were flagrantly wrong, a helpless defendant could be brought to financial ruin by this recklessly punitive provision. It is loo much. TITLE W, the "parens palriae" section, is the worst section. This would authorize stale attorneys general to bring Iheir own antitrust proceedings in federal court under ground rules that turn the law on its head. Suppose, for example, that a politically ambitious attorney g e n e r a l decided lo charge a state's milk producers with gouging consumers to the tur.e of a penny a quart. Under the vague terms of this section, he would not have to prove damage to any consumer; he would have to show only some damage to the "general economy of such state" lhat might "with reasonable probability be causally related to the antitrust violation." What Xind of due process is this? What a flimsy burden of proof? The treble damages l h a t couM be awarded under Title IV would not benefit consumers. The damages would be awarded the state, for whatever the stale wished to do with them. What is authorized, in brief, is a plan for extortion pure and simple. Prospective defendants would be insane not to settle out of court. TITLE V would give the Justice Department a virtual power of veto, in advance, over proposed private corporate mergers or acquisitions. Again, it is" too much power. Title VI, unbelievably, would destroy the secrecy of certain grand jury proceedings. Title VII would create a new class of "complex" antitrust cases in which court appointed experts would act as prosecutors, witnesses and judges. Too much, too much! Fifteen months ago, when an act became effective to increase criminal punishments in antitrust cases, I yelled hooray. It is fine with me to send a corporation's president to prison for three years, and to fine him $100,000, for willful violation of the antitrust laws Soak the corporation itself a million dollars! Such punishments, imposed after f a i r trails, should prove an effective deterrent to unscrupulous executives. But the pending ominbus bill is an omnibus botch. H ought to be voted down. 'It's a Mr. Lockheed, in America! Would we like a million dollars?'
What members have found on this page
Get access to Newspapers.com
- The largest online newspaper archive
- 11,200+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
- Millions of additional pages added every month