Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday, May 3.1956.
Will A Part-Time President Hurt Us?
(The following article is the first in a series which will evaluate the major political issues of the 1956 presidential campaign.)
One of the big questions in the 1956 presidential campaign is, does the United States want a part-time president? Can such an arrangement be a successful way to run our government?
Some people say not, but on the other hand, this method seemed successful when the President was ill. The country did not suffer in the slightest. But nevertheless, people began to worry. They are accustomed to the idea of one man at the head of the government, and they like it that way. Certainly they don't want a government like England's, where the king is little more than a figurehead and has little power other than the signing of official documents.
In the White House there is what is termed the chain of command. It consists of six men and the President. These six men—William H. Jackson, Sherman Adams, Gen. Wilton Persons, Maxwell Rabb, James Hagerty, and Col. Andrew Goodpaster—the President's close associates, and during his illness it was these men, along with the Cabinet, who ran the government.
The President has said he will conduct his second term in a different way.
"These things can be done equally as well by my close associates," he said.
Those who resent a change in the presidency point to the lack of coordination that can be seen in foreign policy. For instance, in 1952 Secretary Dean Acheson claimed American foreign policy "had begun to dry up." The reason for this was the attempt of the Republican legislature to whittle down the executive and to subordinate its will to congressional will in foreign as well as domestic matters. Congress was not intended to be an executive.
Another weakness in this chain of power is found in the question, what would happen if there were a crisis which called for a quick, major decision? Could six men make it as quickly as one?
As this chain of power is set up it is difficult to tell who is really behind what. President Eisenhower is called the "part-time chairman of the board," and people, instead of knowing it was he who decided a measure, now tend to ask who it was or, perhaps, who they were.
Mr. Eisenhower already has pushed much responsibility onto the shoulders of his six associates. It has been said that he does not want choices presented to him, but rather, an agreed recommendation. When one comes along that Sherman Adams gives the go-ahead to, it comes pretty close to being the exact statement of the President. When it is necessary for him to make a choice among recommendations, the one with the Adams endorsement is said to have the advantage.
A third disadvantage was discussed by Toceville when he said, "No doubt many of these men
had proved themselves highly competent in the exercise of their functions and had a good grasp of all the details of public administration; yet, as for true statecraft—that is to say clear perception of the way society is evolving, and awareness of the trends of mass opinion and an ability to forecast the future—they were as much at sea as any ordinary citizen."
The Republicans also have been accused of trying to change the presidency to fit their candidate. They claim that the presidency is a mankilling job, and that the less important duties could be handled as well by someone else.
The Democrats say that as they get the picture, this would mean "the President is to sign his name as infrequently as possible, read no newspapers, curtail his attendance at parties, banquets, and balls, limit the number of his visitors, delegate political decisions to the Republican national chairman and policy decisions to his subordinates.
From all this arguing back and forth, one thing is certain, by the end of Ike's next term (there seems to be little doubt that he will be elected to serve one) the presidency will have changed from its past form.
—Ann Kelly
..Short Ones ..
The United States finally ousted two members of the Russian delegation to the United Nations, accusing them of "objectionable and improper" conduct in the case of five Russian seamen who returned behind the Iron Curtain. Bet the unfortunate five appreciate the United States' interest, now, after they've gone.
How about having candidates for ASC president undergo a thorough medical checkup which might do away with the possibility of a heart attack interrupting a term of office.
If you've made it past the election campaigns and the English Proficiency test without getting your name in the paper, you'd better pass Western Civ or your life won't be complete.
University debate teams finished the season with a victory percentage of 72 per cent, but we'll bet no one has started a fund to buy the coach a Cadillac?
The only teachers we like better than those who hand out schedules are those who follow them.
Those freshman open houses are coming up again, so if you'd planned on having a date Sunday you might as well forget it.
We hope the Kansas State pep rally boys get the news about the "Folly of 56," but miss out on the plan to wire the thing for electricity.
Book Review
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler Daily Hansan
Member Inland Daily Press Association.
Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by national Advertising Service. Indicated by Indianapolis News Service. Unitized Mail. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $4.50 a year. Published in Law & Order, University year except Saturdays and Sundays. University holidays, and examination periods. Entered as second-class matter Sept. 17, 1910 at March 3, 1879.
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904
trieweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Vlkng 3-2700
Extension 251, news room
Extension 376, business office
Richard Hunter ...Business Manager
James Wilens, Advertising Manager;
David B. Cleveland, National Advertising Manager; Mary Lue Wickersham, President; Michael Meyer, Circulation Manager; Walter Baskett Jr., Promotion Manager.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
John McMillion ... Managing Editor
Barbara Bell, Bob Lyle, Kent Thomas,
David Webb, Assistant Managing Editors;
Jane Pecinovsky, City Manager;
Margaret Dawson, Dawson;
City Editors; Gordon Hudelson,
Telegraph Editor; Robert Riley,
Larry Stroup, Assistant Telegraph Editors;
Felecia Fenberg, Society Editor;
Bettie Jean Stanford, Assistance Editor;
Daniel Hall, Louis Stroup, Assistant Sports Editors; Larry Heil, Picture Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Dick Watt Editorial Editor
Watts, Ray Wingerson, Associate
Editors
American Ignorance
Luxury Items Would Make Others Happy Also, Says U.S.
When an American speaks of his country he tends to speak of it, in terms of being the richest, most powerful, and the most content in the world. We have the good government and the luxuries that other countries are crying for, or so we believe. In the United States, items such as cars, radios, television sets, and washing machines are on our ever-growing list of necessities.
Thus, we see that to an American his country's greatness is represented by the material necessities produced by American industry—a country complete in itself and needing no knowledge of the rest of the world. Sometimes going so far as not even wanting knowledge of other countries as shown by our policy of isolationism in Theodore Roosevelt's administration.
Navantara Sahgal, the daughter of Mademoiselle Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit and the niece of India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, gives examples of this feeling in her book published two years ago. "Prison and Chocolate Cake." Asked if India had "automobiles," and radios and all the things we have here.
Miss Sahgal replied that very few of her people had such things. To this Americans answered, "well, there you are," making Miss Sahgal realize that although the exasperating naivete of Americans is "charming," they have not the slightest concern for anything beyond their own small sphere."
In "Prison and Chocolate Cake" the 27-year-old Indian girl tells the story of her life, beginning with her departure from India in 1943 (when most members of her family were in prison because they were taking an active part in Sandhi's non-cooperation movement) and ends with her return to India in 1947, when her mother was Indian ambassador to Moscow and when she herself acted at Delhi as hostess for Nehru.
Throughout the book her description of Indian politics, home life, and reactions to America makes one realize the complete ignorance and lack of interest Americans have in foreign nations. Having grown up and under the influence of Nehru, and Gandhi, she describes in some detail the non-cooperation movement, which to the Indian people represented their fight for freedom and India's growth to maturity as a nation. During the struggle, when all persons involved in the movement were put in prison for certain periods, the so-called average American was probably blissfully unaware of the tense situation existing in that country.
Americans are so content that for the most part they show little concern for any other less plentiful country. Give these other countries cars, radios, and television sets and they will be as happy as we are is the attitude which is often expressed.
Yet the contrary is probably true. A country which has never known these luxuries has never missed them, and no doubt does not even crave them. Americans, trying to extend democracy throughout the world, travel to Europe and the Eastern countries telling of the wealth of America and of the need for the "necessities of life" in those countries. Their speeches fall on deaf ears. These people know that for a democracy to exist, much more than material things is necessary.
Misplaced Effort
If people of the United States would use more effort to learn how people of other nations live instead of trying to convince them that they need the products of our American industrialism, friction between countries would be lessened. Americans who go abroad are so tied to their own country's activities that they fail to use the opportunities available to broaden their knowledge of the world and things around them.
Perhaps the basic cause underlying Americans' misconceptions about the want and needs of other nations is the lack of understanding of foreign peoples and cultures. Miss Sahgal was often asked in America about the "typical day in her life in India." She could never satisfy the curiosity of her inquirers, who expected something "extraordinary, exotic, and different from their own experiences."
Miss Sahgal said she was not Indian enough for them, since she could not provide enough Indian color to satisfy their craving for mystery and glamour.
Miss Sahgal and her sister attended Wellesley College in Massachusetts while in this country. They felt that while they had come to America to learn, learning was no necessarily confined to their classes. They explored the "fascinating" city of Boston, which "offered countless avenues for cultural expression. It boasted wonderful museums and exquisite art collections, one of the best symphony orchestras in the country, and the distinction of showing the premieres of a number of plays in its theaters before they opened in New York. As Miss Sahgal reports, they "richly supplemented" their college education. If Americans could only attain the same eagerness and desire to learn about other peoples!
Too Much Distrust
Distrust has become a common word in the United States. If actions of a country are not understood, then that country is distrusted.
Before Miss Sahgal could enter the country she answered such questions as "are you a moron or an idiot?" or "state categorically whether you plan to overthrow the government of the United States." Such questions do not show understanding, but distrust for persons considered different or strong.
The years to come could hit alltime highs in cooperative international relations if the basic ingredients—learning and the understanding of others—are practiced by all Americans.
Editor:
Ann Kelly
The harmonious atmosphere of the Foreign Students' Festival last Saturday was disturbed by two incidents which we would like to bring to the attention of the University campus.
The first incident involved the withdrawal of Turkey from the festival as a protest against Greece and Cyprus participating in the exhibit together. The action of the Turkish students was obviously intended to inject political issues into a festival—the purpose of which was purely cultural. In past festivals Greece and Cyprus have always exhibited together because of the close cultural and racial ties of the two countries. There was no intent on the part of the Greeks and Cypriots to propagandize. We feel that since we are guests in a foreign country attending an American university, we should leave our political feuds behind to our governments.
.. Letters ..
The other incident concerns the flag of Greece, which just before the official opening of the festival was found out of its formation with the rest of the United Nations flags. The stand had been pulled to the middle of the ballroom and the upper part of the flag had been torn from its pole.
It is against the second insulting act that we wish to protest and publicly condemn the offender. The Greeks, just as people of other nations, look upon their flag as a sacred symbol, and believe as such it should be respected.
Demetrius Moutsanides
Athens, Greece
Evangelos Kalambokides
Athens, Greece
Margarita Pipinopoulou
Larissa, Greece
Sotirios Boukis
Athens, Greece junior