4
University Daily Kansan / Wednesday, March 25. 1992
OPINION
A Clinton-Brown ticket could defeat Republicans
Ah, me. Much in the manner of three-toed sloth, Campaign 92 drags inexorably forward. The Democratic field has been reduced to two candidates: Jerry Brown, the moncalef governor of California, and Bill Clinton, the de-facto Democratic presidential nominee.
On the Republican side, it has been Bush all the way, although television personality and ex-Nixon adviser Patrick Buchan has been whipping up a sizable protest vote from conservatives alienated by Bush's moderate stance. That's it. It is no wonder the race for president has been bumped to the inside pages by newspapers and magazines everywhere.
Thanks to the ugly realities of bigmoney special interest groups and the constant need for meaningless five-second sound bites, the campaign for president has been turned into a national bummer that threatens to suck the lifeblood out of anyone foolish enough to watch even one televised debate, much less any extended discussion of the "issues." But what's new, eh? The real question here is whether Bill Clinton can beat George Herbert Walker Bush in November.
Clinton has some good credentials and has nearly destroyed his competition for the Democratic nomination, but whether he can win the presidential race remains questionable. Despite Bush's record low in his popularity polls, the length and depth of the recession, of which he has displayed absolutely no understanding, and his lack of the "vision thing," Bush could still stomp Clinton in the November elections. Why? The problem lies in Clinton's past.
Kevin Bartels Staff columnist
Life for Clinton will be very hard indeed. Clinton will have to refute or dispense with "character" issues before he gets to any discussion of his plans for the presidency. The average U.S. voter does not elect a president on the basis of his policies. George Bush is living proof of that. So expect more flag-waving and waterhead talk during this upcoming campaign.
No one could forget Bush's overtly racist Willie Horton camp scare-tactics that worked devastatingly well against Michael Dukakis. And Bush will be sure to pounce on Clinton's alleged infidelities and his draft evasion during the Vietnam war. The handlers of Bush are no strangers to mud-slinging, and there is no reason to suspect that Bush will not try to get re-elected on the same platform of hate, lies and racist commercials that placed him in the Oval Office in '88.
In order to beat Bush, Clinton will have to come across as some sort of reformer to the liberals who have left the Democratic party, yet stay moderate enough not to offend the main core of voters who helped to elect Reagan and Bush in the 1980s. So what will be the likely result of a Clinton victory? A presidency similar to the one we have now.
There is, however, a way out. Clinton needs a strategy that will allow him to attract two different groups of voters at once, while seeming to support a definite agenda for his presidency. He needs a running mate who is a reformer — and an unabashed liberal. Someone like Jerry Brown.
Although the two have been hurling accusations at one another, Brown would make an excellent complement to the Democratic ticket. While Clinton emerges on the campaign trail as a kinder and gentler version of Bush, Brown could be out cursing the swine in the White House and threatening to make the consumption of fofo a national religion. Besides, the only skeleton in Brown's closet is that he dated singer Linda Ronstadt in the '70s and early '80s.
With a Clinton-Brown ticket, the Democratic Party could claim to represent both moderate taxes for the middle class and the drive to save the spotted owl. The ticket would have something for everybody. Well, almost everybody. The one thing Pat Buchanan has done for the Republican Party has been to demonstrate that there is more to the "yahoo" vote than previously thought. Buchanan's rabid xenophobia has illustrated that Bush's gentle brand of racism will not be enough to guarantee a re-election.
The Clinton-Brown ticket would be hard to beat. One thing, though, would stay the same. With Jerry Brown as vice-president, editorial cartoonists would be guaranteed another booming period of employment.
THE UNIVERSITYDAILY KANSAN
Kevin Bartels is a Louisville, Ky., graduate student majoring in English.
Plan needed to save ecology
Cooperation, not blame, is
Cooperation, not blame, is required to stop the destruction of our environment
The ever-increasing concern about the world environment has started a dangerous game of finger-pointing throughout the world community. Larger, more influential nations blame smaller, industrializing nations for the majority of the world pollution. Only cooperation and a long-term international plan will solve the world's ecological and environmental problems.
Larger nations like the United States have complained that much of the international pollution problem is linked to increased industry in Third World nations. These nations are considered less willing to adopt international guidelines on air emissions and the dumping of trash and other hazardous materials into international waters. Or, these nations do not have the infrastructure or procedures to enforce such policies.
These smaller, industrializing nations argue that this pollution is necessary to improve their standard of living. Furthermore, they argue that nations already industrialized failed to consider the environmental effects of their actions when they were building their industrial base.
Both sides present good points. Nations like Brazil and India have horrible environmental records. In Brazil, rain forests are destroyed at a phenomenal rate, and the air in India is heavily polluted from industrial emissions. Yet, these nations' points are taken well. The United States had the same sort of apathy during its industrialization. And, as of yet, the United States has failed to take a leadership role in addressing this environmental crisis.
The problems of the world environment need to be addressed immediately. However, placing blame on individual nations isn't going to solve anything. The industrialized nations need to help others in establishing practical policies that will curb environmental abuse. While these nations are helping others, they should evaluate their own environmental policies. No nation is exempt from punishment for abuse.
Stephen Martino for the editorial board
Campaign financing unfair
Rules should be changed so that wealthy cannot gain a superior voice in government
one theme of Jerry Brown's presidential campaign that has some merit is his stance on campaign finances. While a $100 dollar cap on contributions to an individual's campaign may not be the best figure, it is a better sum than the $1,000 that is currently allowed. Not only should the cap on contributions to an individual be changed, but the campaign finance laws should be simplified to eliminate some of the creative financing that now goes on and that can cause inequities in a national political race.
Latin American nations have at times accused the United States of practicing "dollar diplomacy," of letting the interests of U.S. corporations in Latin America influence policy. A comparable situation has developed in domestic politics. Call it "dollar democracy." As was demonstrated by the Keating Five scandal, candidates for national office are often prisoners of their war chests. To
mount a successful campaign, candidates must raise millions of dollars, and that money does not come without a debt. A successful senator must remain in the good graces of the types of people who give $1,000, of political action committees that give $5,000, of citizens' groups that produce Willie Horton-type ads for a candidate; and one must do so often at the expense of individuals or groups that do not have the money to support an election campaign.
This is wrong. Our democracy cannot exist on the idea that one person's vote is more powerful or desirable than another's. One person or class of people should not be given a greater voice in government simply by virtue of wealth.
Of course, life, and government, is not fair. Wealth has traditionally translated into power, and will continue to do so. However, the rules of campaign finance can be amended and simplified to make them more equitable and to make the amount of financial support a candidate may receive comparable to that of the opponent.
Mark Coatney for the editorial board
Editorials reflect the majority opinion of The University Daily Kansan editorial board. Opinions expressed in letters, cartoons and guest and staff columns are solely those of the author or artist. Views expressed in columns and cartoons are not necessarily shared by the Kansan.
Wembers of the editorial board are: Alexander Bloemhof, Jim Brown, J R. Clairborne, Mark Coatney, Amy Francis, Tiffany Harness, Tiffany Lasha Hurt, Kate Kelley, Julie Eileen Litt, Stephen Martino, David Mitchell, Chris Moeser, Beth Randolph, Martin Scherstuhl, Juille Wasson, Frank Williams and Sarah Zercher.
Avoiding voter apathy
In light of voter apathy over the lack of any decent candidates in this all-important election year, I would like to share one of my favorite quotes from the late Robert Heinlein. It is from his "Notebooks of Lazarus Long," published in the volume Time Enough for Love in 1973:
*If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates or measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.*
"If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask for his advice. Then, vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the
enormous amount of on time that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires."
So no matter how you feel about a particular issue or candidate, do something about it, or someone else will.
■ Jason Arnett
Lawrence resident
Lettersto the editor
Kansan shows slant
Once again, the Kansan has shown an appalling lack of objectivity in its March 17 coverage of the abortion issue. Must the Kansan continue to impose its views on the rest of us (sound familiar?)$^2$ by only showing pictures of male pro-life activists and female pro-choice advocates?$^2$. And must we readers tolerate its attempts to link Christianity with the pro-life movement in order to undermine the
validity of right-to-life principles in a secular nation?
Women and men form integral parts of both the pro-life and pro-choice movements. I hope that the Kansan will concentrate on balancing its coverage and leave the editorializing where it belongs — on the opinion page.
Julia Kessler
Overland Park freshman
Racist scholarships
An editorial in The University Daily Kansas on March 5 by Tiffany Lasha Hurt for the editorial board argued in favor of minority scholarships. The U.S. Department of Education currently bans them because such scholarships violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that no person, on the grounds of race, shall be
denied the benefits of any program receiving federal money. The scholarships are targeted to minorities only, thereby discriminating on the grounds of race. The department does discriminate in other ways. For example, it allows discrimination on the basis of merit or need. But since scholarships of this nature are not inherently racist, they do not violate the Civil Rights Act.
The Department of Education is not likely to alter its policy against racial discrimination until the law is changed. Since banning minority scholarships is a "step backward in minority recruitment," racism must be a step forward. And since the Department of Education is unwilling to be racist because of that silly old law, I suggest that Tiffany, her buddies on the editorial board, and all those college presidents should write Congress asking that the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 be immediately repealed. Then the department could adopt any racist policy if it so desired. Is this the way to educate young minds?
Scott McDaniel
Garden City sophomore
Only God can decide
In response to Ami Hizer's March 17 letter to the editor on a woman's "right to choose her own destiny," by having an abortion, a woman not only chooses her own destiny, but that of her child—another human being. It is neither her right to choose the destiny for another nor the government's right to make abortion right or wrong. Only God can make these decisions.
Michon Quick
Lawrence resident
KANSAN STAFF
TIFFANY HARNESS Editor
VANESSA FUHRMANS Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
Editors
Editors
News  Mike Andrews
Editorial  Eeth Randolph
Planning  Lara Gold
Planning  Eric Gorski/Rochelle Olson
Sports  Eric Nelson
Photo  Julie Jacobson
Features  Debbie Myers
Graphics  Aimee Brainard/Jeff Meesey
JENNIFER CLAXTON Business manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
JAYSTEINER Retail sales manager
by David Rosenfield
BUSINESS
Campus sales mgr...Bill Leibengood
Regional sales mgr...Brit Harbisonger
National sales mgr...Scott Hanna
Co-op sales mgr...Arne Johnson
Production mgrs...Kim Wallace
Marketing director...Lia Keeler
Career director...Leanne Bryant
Classified mgr...Kip Chin
Business Staff
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 290 words. They must include the writer's name and contact information, including a home address, of faculty or staff position. Letters should also include the date of publication, number of words. The writer will be phoned.
Guest columnas should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
...the Kanan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kanan newsroom, 111 Stuart Floor Hall.
Stick