Page 14 article text (OCR)
AI'L EUITIUN* THE ARIZONAREPUBLIC • Page 6 Wednesday, Nov. 5, Ittt When He Spirit Of U* Lord Is, ttera 7s II Corinthians 3:17 Published Every Morning by PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC. 120 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 EUGENE C. PULLIAM, FublMicr The Vietnam Speech President Richard Nixon's nationwide speech on Viet- 'imm was an honest, forthright statement that does credit to the President and the good sense of the American electorate. Obviously, it did not pacify those critics who seek a U.S. humiliation in Vietnam, or those who want America to turn tail and run without regard to the fate of the South Vietnamese or the honor of the United States. -.Thus, Sen. George McGovern, whose presidential ambitions are so closely tied to keeping the protest pot boiling, was angry that the President did not come up with anything "dramatic." But President Nixon is not interested in drama; his interest is in protecting our allies and preserving our own democratic institutions. He intenbs to insure that South Vietnam, to which we have pledged our help, is not sacrificed in order to satisfy the suicidal impulses of a vocal minority in the U.S. IF EVER A PRESIDENT has had the opportunity to bug out on a military commitment, President Nixon is that person. As he noted, he could have ordered a total withdrawal, blamed the defeat on President Johnson, and emerged as the "peacemaker." . But American presidents are both blessed and cursed with a special problem: Although they are ordinary men, the office they occupy is extraordinary. And to it they must bring not the singleminded vision which thinks only about today and disdains what will happen tomorrow, but the wide vision of a statesman whose decisions will have lasting impact on future generations. In choosing not to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists, President Nixon was not only reiterating that policy will not be made on the basis of street demonstrations and mob pressure. He was also,reassuring our allies—in Berlin and Europe as well as in Saigon land Asia—that our promises are not mere rhetoric of bombast. What he offered was confidence—in Sen. Paul Fannin's words, "peace with dignity, peace without dishonor." . Mr. Nixon did all that a President honorably can do. He was conciliatory to his frenzied critics ... he made it clear that we will scale down our efforts even as we train South Vietnamese troops to take over the bulk of fighting ... he described the great lengths to which he has gone, even to the point of implementing secret peace initiatives with Hanoi, in order to end the war. THE ONLY AREA in which the President was less than candid was in his omission of Soviet Russia's role in the Vietnam war. For while Moscow has talked of peace, and has euchered some American politicians into believing it wishes an end to the war, it continues to furnish the money and supplies which alone make it possible for Hanoi to continue waging war. No doubt the President had his reasons for this omission, and no doubt one of the reasons was tied to the upcoming strategic arms limitation talks with Moscow. But the thrust of what President Nixon had to say, and said so well, was that we are dealing in Vietnam not with mere dissidents, but with a Communist enemy bent on subjugating South Vietnam and humiliating the United States. Richard Nixon is determined that that will never happen. He deserves our support for the principled stand he has, taken. School Desegregation Those who have commended the Supreme Court's recent order for an immediate end to segregation of the public schools are understandably happy. .But we wonder whether the decision will serve the cause of racial harmony as much as they apparently believe it will. Indisputably, desegregation of the nation's public schools is the law of the land. It has been ever since 1954, when the Supreme Court ordered an end to dual (separate) school systems "with all deliberate speed." "Therefore, the question over whether dual,systems can continue to exist was no longer at issue, even though some Southern politicians have continued to wage a rear-guard action against the breakup of the South's longtime "separate but equal" system (which was separate but rarely equal). The question involves the question of time — how fast desegregation should be carried out. ADVOCATES OF "desegregation now" policies argued that 15 years is enough time by any reasonable standard. And indeed, if we were dealing only with the logistical problem of converting a dual system to an integrated system, it is more than enough. But in the South, the question of desegregation involves logistics only incidentally. The real meaning of desegregation is embedded in the warp and woof of Southern experience, in the attitudes and beliefs embraced by an entire section of the country. We hold no brief for segregation — of the kind practiced by the Deep South, or the kind advocated by black extremists of North or South. We believe that in the long haul, racial harmony can only be achieved in an integrated society which is truly color blind. But we recognize, as the administration recognized when it asked the courts to give Mississippi more time, that it is one thing to force desegregation by law, and yet another to achieve integration of the soul -- the only kind that is truly meaningful. MANY PEOPLE of goodwill believe that integration of the soul can never begin so long as people are kept apart. Therefore, they believe it best to force the races together initially, so that they can get to know one another and thus begin the slow process of breaking down barriers caused by ignorance and superstition. The Supreme Court members apparently embrace that argument. Nevertheless, while there is some truth to that argument, it is also true — as racial and religious frictions in the North, in Ireland, in the Middle East, and in Cyprus demonstrate—that proximity is no guarantee that people of different races or religions will live at peace with each other. Yet the court has spoken. And the administration properly said it will assist in every possible Way to help carry out that order. With all pur fyeart, we hope it ultimately leads to the sort of racial climate w. one of respect and understanding—envisioned by'those who are distressed by the present slow pace of desegrega* tion in the South. lit Washington Arab Terrorists, Syria Want War By RALPH de TOLEDANO Recent events in the Middle East are not calculated to bring joy to the Arab leaders who are working night and day for the renewal of all - out hostilities against Israel. This does not mean there has been an improvement in the situation, but merely that the Arab aggressors have lost ground. We Want To Help Our Neighborhood*. By Reg Manning Arizona Republic Staff Artist 1. In violation of international law, and following a practice which even Castro Cuba does not follow, DeTOLEDANO ^ rrla relsased the two sky pirates who hijacked & TWA plane, but continues to hold two Israeli passengers. For this, Syria was rewarded by the United Nations with a seat in the Security Council. This was testimony enough of the casual view that the U.N. takes of its own charter and of its responsibilities as an advocate of world law. Now, however, Syria has threatened the peace by sending its troops into Lebanon and encouraging a revolt against the Lebanese government by so-called Palestinian guerrillas who want to use that country as a base for further attacks on Israel. * • * THERE HAS, however, been no outcry in the U.N. against Syria, nor has there been any attempt to haul her before world public opinion for these violations of the peace. The effect, however, has been noted, and the Arab cause has suffered thereby. 2. The election in Jerusalem. Ever since the Six - Day War, Arab terrorists have vowed to visit death or some of the more macabre desert tortures on any Arab in territories once seized by Jordan but now held by Israel, who cooperated in any way with the Israeli authorities. When Jerusalem was formally incorporated into Israel, Arabs in the Old City — men and women over age 18 — were given the vote. (Under Jordan, only property - holding males had the franchise.) * * # BEFORE LAST WEEK'S election, the terrorists repeated their threats. When the polls opened, however, there were crowds of Arab youths, women, and the more mature males waiting to cast their ballots — and by the end of the day, the first incomplete count showed that 9,000 of them had braved the wrath of the terrorists to vote. Another 1,500 Arabs were unable to vote because they were not properly registered. This means that more than one-fourth of all Arabs eligible to vote in Jerusalem were ready to accept Israeli hegemony over the city •— an astonishing percentage when the absence of any democratic or voting tradition among them is taken into account. * * * HAD BETHLEHAM been placed within Jerusalem's city limits — as many Christian Arabs have urged — the turnout would have been proportionately much greater. Christian Arabs predominate in Bethlehem, and they were very unhappy under the Jordanian occupation. Their Moslem rulers discriminated against them on religious grounds, and many Christian Arabs said to me last March that if Bethlehem were returned to Jordan, they would move into Israel. Point 2 indicates what any objective observer in Israel will corroborate — namely, that those Arabs who remained after the 1948 war have been well treated, have been granted all citizenship .rights with the exception of being subject to military duty, and do not oppose the Israeli government or people. Their standard of living is immeasurably higher than that of their cousins in the Arab world, and they have no desire to return to the nomadic and poverty-stricken life which was formerly theirs. This is one of the major problems of the terrorists. They get little if any support from the people they want to "liberate." -WirHOUT MIXING INTO FAMILY AFFAIRS On The Right / Agnew's Criticisms In Two Talks Are Referred As 'Music To The E ar BUCKLEY By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. My recent criticisms of Spiro Agnew's rhetoric have misled a number of readers, including the vice president, to believing that I disapprove of him, or of the substance of his thought. That impression needs to be corrected, most particularly after Mr. Agnew's speech of Oct. 30 at Harrisburg. That speech, although it had in it a lot of the barroom rhetoric of the famous New Orleans speech in which he referred to the moratorium makers as impudent snobs, conveyed the outlines of his disapproval much more clearly, and I take the opportunity to associate myself with them. HIS ATTEMPT to defend his use of "impudent" and "snob" were not altogether successful, to be sure. He said that the demonstrators were "impudent" because "anyone who impugns a legacy of liberty and dignity that reaches back to Moses is impudent." The point, so brazenly put forward, is subtly made. Indeed tt does require impudence to proceed athwart the collected wisdom of our ancestors. . The trouble is, the moratorium people, or at any rate most of them, do not consider that by asking that we terminate the Vietnam war, they are rescinding the Decalogue; though most of them, in their moral cocksureness, would probably not hesitate to do so as convenience, or Dr. Kinsey, demanded. 'Oh, Oh, Those Bullies Again!' HE CALLED them "snobs," Mr. Agnew added, because "most of them disdain to mingle with the masses who work for a living." That is neither a documented truth about the bits of the moratorium workers, nor a valid point. Someone like, let's say, the Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr., may not spend a great deal of time with the masses who work for a living simply because his profession requires him to spend time elsewhere. Mr. Agnew fs a little closer to the target when he charges that "they mock the common man's' pride in his work, his family," and his country." That is true of some of the demonstrators, and it remains, the vice president's principal difficulty that he assigns to the lot of them the attributes of the few, although some generalities are in order. WHICH Mr. Agnew makes robustly. He said, at Harrisburg, that "it is time to stop dignifying the immature actions of arrogant, reckless, inexperienced elements within our society." Bull's eye. The notion that we must fawn on every protester on the grounds that he is an epistemological. dowSer -is pretty tiresome, let's face it. : If Mark Rudd ever discovers a legitimate social protest, it will be only after the cow has jumped over the moon, and the vice president's impatience with the presumptions of many of the protesters is heartwarming. He then comes in strong again with a more targeted point: "I DO NOT believe that demonstrations, lawful or unlawful, merit my approval or even my silence where the purpose is Today's Postcard fundamentally unsound. "In the case of the Vietnam moratorium, the objective announced by the leaders- immediate unilateral withdrawal of all our forces from Vietnam—was not only unsound, but idiotic." In other words, the vice president reserves the right to protest the protesters. Critics of the harshness of his language are invited to inspect their own language. Those who say that it is seemly for, say, an ordained minister to ask publicly how many kids did LBJ kill today, but unseemly for the vice president to call people who say that kind of thing "idiotic" are, well, come to think of it, idiotic. AND THEN a most profound point: "America's pluralistic society was forged on the premise that what unites us in ideals is greater than what divides us as individuals." That is brilliantly and devastatingly true, the notion that a viable society is impossible in the absence of a minimal consensus; ; It is also true that, if not all of them by any means, many of those leaders most conspicuously associated with the moratorium are drop-outs from the American proposition—men and women who flatly and categorically disdain America, and reject America's ideals. I NOTE Mr. Nixon's warm personal endorsement of Mr. Agnew. It is true that there are obvious organizational reasons to explain the official bear hug. But the, occasional rhetorical misfires aside, Mr. Agnew is doing OK, and the, impudent yelping of some of his snobbish critics is music to the ear. Lost Days Of Gold By STAN DELAPLANE SUTTER CREEK — Golden fall has come to the quiet Mother Lode country. The poplars are spears of bright yellow. The hills are splashed with red California holly. ••• We come up here to sharpen our wits (as the old lady says in Shaw's play). On quiet, winding back roads. Alongside bubbling creeks with piles of stone tailings from the days of 'gold. In ghost towns where the iron doors of Wells Fargo hang on sagging hinges, and the night air is chill as Black Bart's masked command: "Throw down the box!" iSUTTER CREEK Inn is set back from the little main street. (Drive it in 30 seconds, 40 if you dawdle.) It was a U.S. senator's mansion. A stately rambling home surrounded by gardens. It's been divided into nine rooms, bed and breakfast, Sherry and mountain,apples on the table. We lit a fire in the fireplace and took the winding key out of ourbacks. ' liighway 49 place to nowhere. Just a winding road following the Gold Rush country, far from' the freeway rattle. The days are warm. The nights are brisk as $20 to the pan. OUR GREAT grandfather came here in September 1850 after three months of crossing the Great Plains. He was on near starvation diet for five days until he struck it rich, "I thought I would soon be a rich man if I could continue to make $20 a day," .he wrote. "And I was a little alarmed, for, 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God'." Fortunately the claim petered out and he was-saved. A little disappointed, too. The booming gold towns are quiet now. The shacks fell . .dawn. Grass grew. in the sheets. But you can still take a gojq pan, wa.sh river gravel and find on the lip the thin line of pure gold. As I Sett It AgnewV Barbs Were Well Aimed By HOLMES ALEXANDER WASHINGTON, D.C. - Vice President Agnew saw his duty, and he did it. I can report that his recent denunciations of those who mislead American youth were not thoughtless-or temperamental outbursts. On the contrary, they were well-considered, deeply-felt statements of alarm and disapproval against a trend in public behavior. Mr. Agnew deliber- , ately summoned the most vigorous language at his command. It might as well be known that Agnew was referring to Senators McGovern, Fulbright, McCartny, ei ai., when he leveled his artillery of invective against "an elite corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals." + * * THE VICE PRESIDENT knew in advance that his statements would cause an uproar among leftists and pacifists. 1 Mr. Agnew wasn't everybody's choice and his prior experience in public life was very thin. But he rightly believes that the 1968 election transformed him into a national officer with whatever responsibilities he is willing and able to undertake for the administration at the request or consent of the President. These responsibilities very properly include an expression of the domestic and foreign policies, and this is what Mr. Agnew has been doing. None of the news stories and editorials that I have seen went very far beyond 'Page One of the 10-page address which the vice president delivered at New Orleans Oct. 19. A good nine-tenths of that speech was a well-phrased, measured "account of the Nixon stewardship in war, diplomacy and finance. The lead-paragraph, mostly ignored in the coverage, seems to me a sagacious comment on our times: * * » "SOMETIMES, it appears W we are reaching a period when our senses and our minds will no longer respond to moderate stimulation. We seem to be approaching an age of the gross. Persuasion through speeches and books is too often discarded for disruptive demonstrations aimed at bludgeoning the unconvinced into action." Mr. Agnew, far from being a stupid and insensible man, then proceeded to speak his mind in his own style and argot. He was only distressed he told mej "that so much of what r said was misconstrued and altered in the reporting." But from the yelps that have gone up, there's no doubt he hit those ideas arid persons he was aiming at. Guest Editorial Black Teacher ; t Defies College Reprinted from the Los Angeles Times That Black Muslim Marvin X is aV lowed to continue teaching at Fresno State College simply does not make sense. • In September, the chancellor of the state college system ruled that Marvin X could not work for the state colleges. Early, this month the president of Fresno State -refused to hire him and ordered .him off campus. A faculty poll showed' strong support for the president's position. •Yet Marvin; X is still teaching three classes a week/albeit without pay. By what stretch of .'logic is the state college system making classroom facili: ties available under these circumstances? • Marvin X's academic qualifications have been described as "minimal;" which may be a charitable definition. He does -not even hold a bachelor's degree. . . * * * HIS APPLICATION for a teaching po-' sition contained no letters of recommen-' datipn and faUed to mention that he had renounced his citizenship and was under indictment for refusing military service. When arrested for refusing induction two years ago; he fled to Canada. Black studies administrators at Fresno State insist that Marvin X will stay and an ethnic studies staff memo describes him as having "a positive relationship with the black community as a friend, relative and just plain hometown boy," ..•••;-•.'.• . Be that as,it.may, the "just plain hometown boy" and those who. support his defiance of the highest authority in the state colleges Jare doing what may constitute irreversible damage to them. > •.••«.* • • ' THE REACTION.of the public and college trustees.to the prospect of onfe individual thumbing his nose' at the administration is bound to be, adverse. More importantly, if the legislature gets 'the impression that the state college administration is not competent, oir the present temper of the lawmakers-is such that they will move in quickly to correct the situation. The situation does, in.d<fed, cry out for correction. But if the legislature is moved to act, it might well go far beyond the instant case and impose strictures which would be anathema to those who profess to cherish'aqaderiiic freedom,. ,..;.:;,••.•;,:; .. ••' , '.