---
Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Oct. 31. 1962
---
.
A Low Priceag
This step proved to be a much lower price to pay for the action taken than expected from almost any quarter. But from the American viewpoint, the Cold War victory can be termed a Dollar Day bargain on a family size item. The United States government got tremendous prestige and respect and was forced to relinquish practically nothing.
Last week it was discussed in these columns that the pricetag for freedom would be established when the then sailing Russian vessels would encounter the United States' blockade around Cuba for purpose of deterring any offensive nuclear weapons. As is well known, this meeting was avoided. But the pricetag was still defined.
Determination, rigidity, conviction and embarrassment outline what the United States had to show and suffer as a result of its action in defense of the freedom it allows its people.
PRESIDENT KENNEDY and his calm aids and advisers clung unflinchingly to their initial position. It was this ability to withstand comment and criticism and still accomplish what was intended that constitutes a major forward stride in American diplomacy.
The next problem is whether the Kremlin will allow the United States another such opportunity to buy such a rich commodity at a reduced price. The Cold War has not been a buyer's market;
and Russia has unfortunately been on the business side of the counter most of the time.
BEFORE THE MOVE WAS TAKEN in Cuba there was a careful preparation made in Berlin against any immediate retaliation by Russia to the president's announcement. Thus the other current boiling spot is, for the moment, relatively secure. This can be looked at as the reserve in the United States bank of diplomacy, further lowering the price of Cuba.
Although the Cuban crisis, the present phase, is a long way from being resolved, action of an any more aggressive nature should not be necessary. We have put our money (the conviction that we were correct and could make the Russians realize we meant business) on the block and we have suffered some embarrassment in the eye's of some of the world's people.
THE IMPORTANT THING is that now Russia has become the buyer. We have established the amount, quality and degree of action necessary to take the upper hand in the continuing struggle between East and West.
It was difficult to establish the pricetag for freedom which was finally decided upon by the administration. But, with the pressure now directly upon the Kremlin, it should be interesting to see if the Russians are willing to meet the sacrifice needed to pay the price for the advancement of their effort to subvert the peoples of the world. —Bill Sheldon
Texas Politics Change
(This is the eighth in a series of congressional races in the 1962 elections.)
By Elaine Blaylock
They're starting to take the Republicans seriously down in the Lone Star state.
The GOP is putting up a good fight for the governorship of Texas, and has 18 candidates out campaigning for the state's 23 seats in the House of Representatives. In contrast, in 1960 the party had only 6 candidates for 22 House seats.
THIS DOESN'T mean the voters are expected to turn the state over to the Republicans. Democrat John Connally has a 3-2 edge over Republican Jack Cox in the gubernatorial race, according to a Houston Chronicle canvass.
It has been reported that 19 of the 23 House seats are safely Democratic while 3 more are leaning that way. Politicians are, however, predicting the re-election of Bruce Alger, the only Republican representative from Texas.
One hope for the Texas Republicans appears to be apathy among the Democratic voters. A national Gallup Poll discovered that Democratic interest was 19 per cent below what it was in 1958, and down 14 per cent from 1954.
REPUBLICAN INTEREST,however, is reported as only 2 per cent below 1954,and at least as high as in 1958.
Connally managed to maintain his Washington connections while conducting a campaign in the primary that seemed to oppose the New Frontier. But while he attacked many key proposals of the Kennedy program, he mainly tried to avoid controversy. Thus he gained the support of the conservatives who dominate the Texas Democratic party.
National interest in the Texas election has focused on the gubernatorial contest. Democratic candidate Connally, described as a moderate conservative, was the first secretary of the Navy under the Kennedy administration. He had a major role in Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's political campaigns for many years.
HIS PROBLEM now is to hang onto the support of the conservatives who might be tempted to support his even more conservative opponent, while keeping a substantial part of the liberal group reasonably happy.
Cox, his opponent, made the switch to the Republican side only last year after failing to gain the Democratic nomination for governor in 1960. Previously he had spent six years in the legislature as a Democrat.
Cox explained his move by saying, "I felt for a long time that I could be instrumental in changing the course of the national Democratic party... I no longer believe this possible. I believed the place for me was in the Republican party." Once he'd made the change, he began recruiting other Democrats for the GOP.
Control of the party has been in the hands of the moderates and liberals, or the liberals alone, since World War II. The Democratic conservatives come closer to following Republican national party lines than Democratic. In fact, many conservative Democrats have supported Republicans for national office.
SUCH AN ABRUPT switch is not so startling when considered in the light of Texas politics. The Democratic party there consists of a hodgepodge of conservatives, moderates, and liberals.
The liberals feel left on the outside, defeated in primaries or party caucuses by pseudo-Democrats who would be Republicans
anywhere else. Some liberals have even tried to lure conservatives into the Republican party — so the liberals could take over the Democratic reins.
MANY CONSERVATIVES, however, are reluctant to leave their party for fear a split in the conservative ranks would give the liberals a chance to take over the state. Republican recruiters face other problems, too. They lack a good party organization at the lowest levels. There is still a certain stigma attached to the word "Republican." Conservatives are reluctant to desert the Democratic party while it has the power — and the patronage — in Texas.
Daily Transan
A split between Democratic liberals and conservatives is believed to have been an important factor in the election of Republican Sen. John Tower in 1950, first Republican sepal from Texas since Reconstruction.
University of Kansas student newspaper
In that election, liberals and labor groups opposed Tower's conservative opponent. Rebelling against their own party's candidate, they urged their adherents either to stay away from the polls or to vote Republican. A similar move by certain liberals was reported in support of Cox against Connally this year.
The general feeling about Texas politics today is that the state has started down the road to a two-party system. But this goal still remains far in the distance.
Tower's 1960 victory gave the Republicans a big boost. This year they have some hopes of electing Republican representatives in the three districts where Tower made his best showing.
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Kansan Condemns Stuffing Practice
The Daily Kansan has learned that literature regarding the cause of the "Minutemen" was stuffed into a number of copies of yesterday's papers.
The person or persons who inserted this material are not connected with the Daily Kansan staff. The material was inserted after the newspapers had been placed in the distribution boxes on campus without the consent of the Daily Kansan.
The Daily Kansan regrets that these practices have re-occurred. Anyone having information about this action is urged to phone the Daily Kansan, VI 3-2700, extension 711.
The Editors
Rockefeller Views 1964 National Bid
(This is the ninth in a series of
congressional races in the 1962 elections.
By Dennis Branstiter
New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller said recently that re-election automatically would put him in contention for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination.
Previously it had been suggested that Rockefeller would need a plurality of at least 573,000, the margin by which he won four years ago, to show the strength necessary to cement his position among presidential hopefuls. Rockefeller brushed this aside, saying:
"MY FEELING is that if I can win by a plurality of one vote, I'm in—and that's what I'm shooting for."
This statement easily can be construed to mean Rockefeller intends to use re-election to the New York governorship primarily as the means to greater end—the 1964 Republican presidential nomination.
When he says "Tm in." he may be referring to the governorship on the surface, but the White House may be in the back of his mind. It is interesting to note that when Rockefeller's liberal Democratic opponent Robert M. Morgenthau, pledged to serve out his four-year term if elected and challenged Rockefeller to do the same, Rockefeller refused.
ROCKEFELLER QUITE possibly has one eye on the White House and the other on Albany, as Morgenthau has suggested. Reelection as governor of New York is undoubtedly prerequisite to Rockefeller's nomination for President. But although the New York governorship is prerequisite, it hardly guarantees Rockefeller access to the White House in 1964.
Rockefeller would have several strong factors working against him before he began.
The trend in recent years has been toward two-term presidents. Although a president no longer can hold more than two successive terms, it is unlikely he will lose the election for his second term if he chooses to run. Not since Hoover have we had a one-term president.
AMERICANS ARE wary of changing leadership in a time of international crisis. And even though we may not be in the midst
of a depression or a shooting war in 1964, we probably will still be in the state of sustained international crisis that we have come to take for granted. Kennedy will have to make some terrible errors if he is to be cast aside in 1964—errors that would make the election of a president the least of the United States' worries.
Rockefeller will have a difficult time getting even the opportunity to change this trend toward two-term presidents. The same Republican conservatives who fought against him for the 1960 nomination will fight him in 1964.
As tar as the Goldwater-Capehart-Kemper clan is concerned, Rockefeller might as well be another liberal Democrat. This group probably will not be in a position to nominate the candidate of their choice, but they will certainly be in a position to demand a compromise candidate. George Romney, Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, already shows signs of being groomed as a compromise candidate, although he has said flatly that he will not run in 1964.
ASIDE FROM political considerations. Rockefeller has another point against him that could preclude all others. He is divorced. This has long been considered political suicide for anyone seeking a high elective office. Of course, Roman Catholicism also once was considered an unconquerable handicap for a presidential candidate. The 1960 election seemed to show that the American electorate has matured enough to overlook religious prejudice.
Divorce, however, bears a social stigma with moral overtones that the American electorate may not yet be ready to overlook. Divorce may not hurt Rockefeller in New York. It may not be too damaging anywhere on the East Coast or West Coast. But the Midwest, an essential consideration in any presidential election, would not be likely to overlook divorce as readily as would the more socially liberal sections of the country.
A plurality of one vote in this November's election may return Rockefeller to the New York governor's mansion, but a landslide victory may not be enough to push him into the 1961 Republican Presidential nomination and from there into the White House.
letters to the editor
Bomb Shelters Needed
Editor:
In these times of uncertainties and anxieties in which any day may bring a new crisis—such as the ever-changing Berlin crisis or the recent Cuban crisis—that may result in the percolating cold war becoming a boiling hot war, one may fairly ask: "Where can we find shelter in the case of a nuclear attack?" What about you, the faculty, students, and staff of KU; is there a place on campus of comparable size and facilities to meet the standards and demands of the 12,000 or more of us who might be caught on campus during a nuclear attack?
In general, what do you think about a national or state-wide plan to build bomb shelters? Do you think the federal or state governments should take a more positive stand on this question and see that
legislation is passed to put such a program into existence?
I, for one, would support a program of the national or state government building a system of bomb shelters, not only because of its defensive and welfare aspects but for two other reasons. First, such a program as this would put many of our unemployed population to work in stable jobs for a relatively long period of time. Secondly, after these shelters are built, a certain percentage of the area can be used to store our farm surplus goods. Both reasons can be justified because they would help to solve two American economic problems: unemployment and storage space shortage for farm surplus goods. The latter reason would also make a certain percentage of food available to the shelters in a certain area.
Mary Martin Lawrence junior .
Worth Repeating
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who never knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?—John Milton, "Areopagitica"
***
A college or university of all places should require neither the protection of some ideas nor the barring of other ideas. Richard D. Weigle