4
Monday, February 7, 1972
University Daily Kansan
Garry Wills
KANSAN comment
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
John Anderson Jr., former Kansas governor, is expected to announce today his candidacy for the republican nomination for governor.
The entry of Anderson into the race should revitalize the hopes of those in the state who feared that his death was lost forever in Kansas politics.
A Good Governor?
Anderson likely will be running against Lt. Gov Reynolds Shultz of Lawrence and Rep. Morris Kay, Kansas House, also from Lawrence.
Shultz is undoubtedly the least qualified of all to hold public office. The statement Shultz made during his campaign for lieutenant governor, that Lawrence had lost nothing with the death of Rick Dowdell, a black youth shot by police in 1970, still stands as good evidence that he is unfit to be governor.
Shultz has done little to mitigate the insensitivity reflected by that statement. He has long been a foe of progress at the University, offering simple-minded law and order solutions to the complex problems that have occasionally caused flareups of violence on campus. His views are widely criticized because of his "permissiveness" are just further proof that he simply does not have the understanding or sensitivity to be governor.
Kay, while certainly a better candidate than Shultz, still leaves much to be desired. Even though he represents a university community
in the Kansas House, Kay has not been a leader in the fight for increased funding of higher education in the state. His statements regarding the budget problems at KU have been conciliatory and supportive of the university's displayed vigorous support for the University, and therefore seems to be poorly representing a large portion of his present constituency.
On the other hand, Anderson has been a longtime friend of higher education in Kansas and also a liberal Republican across the state.
Unfortunately it is not politically healthy to be a liberal Republican these days with staunch conservative Republicans in the White House and the National Chairmanship. The problems are compounded when the national chairman is a Kansan.
Senator Dole opposed Anderson's appointment to a federal district court judgeship last year, but he said recently, "If John Anderson decides to run and is the party nominee for governor in August, I and every other Republican will work hard to elect him."
Hopefully this is a sign of a new attitude on the part of old guard Republicians that, if Anderson is nominated and then elected, could be the return of a concerned and responsible citizen to the governorship.
—Mike Moffet Associate Editor
climbed up and waved V-signs at San Jose last year, because that gets young people angry. The Ms. story ties in with that incident; but it is not the most revealing passage in Nixon's gloating remembrance of his South American "Crisis." That came when a man spat at him. The Secret Service dealt with Nick, who he was pinned. Nick tells us,"I was satisfied of planting a healthy kick on his shins. Nothing I did all day made me feel better."
Nixon likes to stress that he is just as tough as the next fellow—the whole point of his encounter with Khrushchev, a Soviet commander, how Can he be a more noun dely him after a meeting full of the normal amenities? Much of the nation's attention was puffing at Nixon as was mere Nixon little-latekicking at Mrs. Gandn.
One of President Nixon's favorite gestures is a clenched right hand held up about shoulder-night, slightly turned in to ward him. At his point of emphasis he bends the fingers down toward four inches out and around—it is Lily Tomlin's tombby ederning half-punch at someone's shoulder when she reaches for her volex boxy-sorer from the Forties act.
The "machismo factor" may be the best and most permanent contribution of Ms. to our political discourse. An understanding of it would have led to far earlier disillusionment with President Kennedy, a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt so far as bellicosis went. The machismo factor cuts across America, as Ms. points out, but can be just a hint: Right-Wingers. Arthur Schlesinger is as much a secret kicker as Richard Nixon.
Nixon is proud of getting in such late little "licks." It was in this spirit that he
But Schlesinger is not President—and that is the danger of mchaismo when it is blended with personal diplomacy at home. He has said that an awful lot of fellows to be tougher than, these next few months. All the advantage of his opening to China or Russia can be lost if he gets as piqued by their leaders as did with Mrs. Gandhi.
Nixon Kicks And Tells
That makes for very embarrassing reading. Nixon is a secret kicker. And not only that. Later, when it is perfectly safe, he will kick and tell. That explains the mean little personal touch he gave the Cambodia invasion - equipping it to attack him. That explains Patton savored in Nixon's repeated viewing of the General Patton movie.
There have been other examples of the late little "punch"—the attack on the press after his 1962 defeat, the assassination of Nixon and stamping his court appointments. But the most recent example is more disturbing. Nixon's excessive moralizing over India's moralistic posture derived in past (even his are saying) are aaying from a desire to express his resentment against India Gandhi.
In a grown man, the gesture conveys not only paguancy, but a pugnacity inhibited. The new women's magazine, Ms., rises Nixon high on its machismo and invites him to his pugnance gestures. Ms., quotes an example from Nixon's Caracas trip: "As we got into the car, the rocks were flying around us but I could not resist the temptation to get in one other good kick." He got up on the mob as the car pulled away.
Copyright, 1972. Universal Press Syndicate
James J. Kilpatrick
WASHINGTON — If members of the Senate could be persuaded to devote one concentrated hour to a task, the press, the Congress might yet find its way out of this swamp. Members would spend that hour reading Freeman Greer's testimony in front of the Senate Finance Committee.
A Hard Line on Welfare
Freemen is the Vienna-born economist, formerly a staff
assistant at the White House, who established a national reputation a decade ago as an authority on the financing of public schools. Since 1962 he has served as senior fellow of the famed Hover Institution on War, Revolution University, and the Harvard University. At 67 he has made himself an expert on public welfare.
His statement to the Finance
Committee runs to 88 pages; it amounts to a small book. To say that his critique is devastating is to put an overworked word to precise use. Freeman is a poet. He writes about him. But he is also a slant man with a gift for translating gauzy theory into plain speech.
The current catch phrase in this dismal business is "workfare not welfare." As Freeman makes
clear, there is nothing much current about it. This was Franklin Roosevelt's idea in 1937. It was Dwight Eisenhower's idea in 1956. It was Jack Kennedy's idea in 1961. It was Lyndon Johnson's a few years later. Now it is Richard Nixon's.
The concept is rooted in our Puritan ethic. Historically, Americans have viewed the blind, the disabled, the orphaned, and the destitute aged as important obligations, to be cared for by public private charities and later through public assistance and Social Security. For everyone else, relief was expected to be only a temporary, sometimes thing: No work, no eat. It is only in this present age that these conditions demonstrate, that this healthy concept has been lost; and it has been lost, ironically, during the very period in which Presidents have been defending its validity through successive programs of welfare reform. Various "work reforms" simply have not worked.
Why not? Part of the answer, says Freeman, lies with the professional welfare workers who have administrated welfare for the homeless; they have no urgent interest in seeing their clients get off the welfare rolls. Another explanation lies in our changing biological system; why does living in demand. But the principal blame, in Freeman's view, lies in laws and regulations, buttressed by court decrees, that have given the right to be by deliberate design to create the very mess we have today.
The appalling increase in welfare rolls and welfare costs is due to the increased appalling increase in Aid to Families with dependent Children AFP that the system is inadequate it illegitimate and is positively
encouraged to abandon both mother and child. Nikon's Assistance Program would do nothing to correct this situation.
The system is rigged in other ways. Consider the typical welfare mother of 32, with three illegitimate children. In an annex to this chart, she has parked the children with grandmother, or with a neighbor, and found a job. Why should she go to work today? Why should she even try to track down the vanity mirror or fathers of her children? If you assume a regular monthly check, if she takes work, her earnings will be taxed at a rate of at least 67 per cent, possibly 82 per cent—and if fringe housing and medical benefits are lost, at a rate of more than 67 per cent. The Nixon bill does not correct this absurdity either.
Freeman's recommendation, in effect, is to go back to the point of beginning under Roosevelt: Put the blind and disabled into control. No work, no eat. Emit a tough law, backed by the sharp teeth of garnishmant, to put the bite on wandering fathers. Give the mother voluntary sterilization of welfare mothers, or put a freeze on further benefits after so many children. He has other ideas, and they must sense Nixon's理由 by contrast, makes no sense at all.
One school of reformers says day care centers are the answer. Nonsense, says Freeman; these have gone unused before. Much is known about Freeman's documents the discouraging record. Nixon's plan would effectively federalize all welfare programs; the dramatic effect, in Freeman's view, would be to compound the blunders.
Copyright 1972, The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Griff and the Unicorn
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom-UUN 4-4810
Business Office-UUN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail address: KU School of Nursing 60417 KU 60417 Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Quotients expressed are not necessarily equal to those listed in the Offer.
By Sokoloff
"Copyright 1972, David Sokoloff.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser...Del Brtnkman
Editor
Assistance Editor
Campaign Editor
News Editors
Ciphys Suhr
Matthew Meltzer
Scott Spurrier
Bila Haight, Dream Bay
Erik Reamerman, Joe Rinka
Joe Reamerman, Joe Rinka
Sally Carlson, Bob Simmons
Bob Simmons
Bathara Sparckur
Tahmin Singer
Chef Chet
Assistant Campus Editors
Sports Editor
Feature Sparkler Editors
Feature Writer
Willy Editors
Makeup Editors
Hector Readlin
Photographers
Joyne Dauhar, Nancy Jones
Dick Hay, Goodrick
Ed Lalillo, Katie Nitzer,
Greg Sorber, Tom Hood
Todd Rush
Office Manager
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Manager
Associate Business Manager
Advertising Manager
Marketing Manager
National Advertising Manager
National Marketing Manager
Promotion Manager
Advertising Manager
Carol Young
Associate Business Manager
Norman Massey
Marketing Manager
Dale Pipergergard
Promotion Manager
Dave Murray
Dave Murray