Page 4 University Daily Kansan, September 24, 1980
Opinion
A
Anderson intellectualism alienates everyday voters
Whether putting the New Yorker aside, washing a last bite of spinach quiche down with a bit of vin blanc or capping a textbook highlight pen, John Anderson's supporters prepared to watch the presidential debate Sunday night.
The words of the silver-haired Illinois congressman, intellectualism's last hope, surely brought approving nods from these fans of the Anderson ethic.
They weren't the people Anderson needed to reach, however.
The debate was to be an opportunity for the state to send a message to all Americans, not just the wealthy. No, not just the rich.
Anderson's showing in the debate may bring him up slightly in the polls, and he may gain some Carter voters disenchanted with the president's desirable avoidance of the debate. But Anderson failed miserably in his goal of reaching Mr. Average American.
As he has throughout the campaign, Reagan capitalized on a dramatic, sincere delivery marked by the right sorts of pauses and emphases.
The undeclined voters and Reagan's supporters out in blue-collar land wanted to know whether Anderson put on his white socks one foot at a time. To them, Anderson must have appeared an icy elitist whose vocabulary often was far abhorred by the average citizen, adapted to a changing world must have sounded unappealing next to Reagan's optimistic insistence that only the suffocating presence of government, not Americans themselves, must change.
Predictably then, Reagan, actor and
aecdotal maker extraordinaire, excelled in
theatre.
Anderson, in contrast, carne off as strident and quite a bit more nervous than his sound-
John Kennedy proved in his 1960 debates with a sweating, ashen Richard Nixon that the value of a televised debate for a candidate rests on his ability to project well before a camera.
Ragan related the nation's problems in
countryside to what he said the man in the street
and used simple statistics.
SCOTT FAUST
Anderson seemed to be speaking to a Congressional subcommittee, reeling off reams of figures which were difficult to absorb through the split-second medium of obeying.
Both Reagan and Anderson repeated the stands they had taken throughout the campaign, and both were able to make fairly decent rebuttals when not launching into bits
reagan, for example, referred to Anderson as "John," and looked at the camera when speaking. Sounding overly formal, Anderson called Reagan "my opponent" in a way that he did not actually questions directly at the questioner. His eyes only occasionally glanced into the camera.
Anderson repeatedly used words that, while showing off his excellent vocabulary, did little to bring home his message to the TV audience. He referred to "monetarization" of a budget deficit, the "infrastructure" of U.S. cities, the need for "retrofitting" homes for better energy efficiency and said that the United States used more energy than the "Federal Republic of Germany" by a "bactor of two"—instead of saying "twice as much."
Reagan, on the other hand, put his arguments in simple terms and used the
"If you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance." Reagan said, defending his tax cut proposal, "or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Perhaps the stylistic difference between the two came across most clearly in their closing lines.
metaphor of the everyday man to make his points.
Reagan had a tremor of emotion in his voice when he said of abortion that there was "one individual not being considered at all—that's the one being aborted" and that he sensed "the hunger in America for a spiritual revival."
He spoke with the same emotion at the debate's close, when he said:
"Together, we can meet our destiny, and that destiny (is) to build a land here that will be for all mankind a shining city on a hill. I think we ought to get at it."
Anderson, the stern realist, refused any rosy optimism in his closing remarks. Quoting historian Henry Steele Commanger, he noted the continued existence of atomic weapons and the continued insistence on "anachronistic" nationalism as a solution to global problems.
Anderson is, of course, correct in denying the existence of any quick fix. His habit of saying the things people would rather not hear is brave, but this instinct for bravery may end in his martyred in a paltry November 4 showing.
He should continue to say what he believes, for it needs to be said. But from now until November, he should work within the world of realpolitik. He must coach his tough answers to tough problems in more appealing ways and adapted to the cars of American voters.
The oval office is a much safer place than the campaign trail for verbal complexity.
Preachers awaken even reluctant minds for flow of ideas
"The morning, which is the most memorable season of the say, is the awakening hour." [Hawkley]
Autumn, like the morning to day, is the awakening hour of the school year. It is the eyepener after the long summer slumber, a kind of Bloody Mary of the mind.
In the greater scheme of things, these college years are the mornings of our lives. Indeed, what an awakening it is to study Plato, plate tectonics, the finite verb or the Italian Renaissance for the first time. What an awakening it is to hear theories bombasted that once seemed infallible, or to hear those proven true that once seemed absurd.
How appropriate, then, it is for "professors" to wander the university grounds this fall, professing their ideas. Cindy and Jedi, it seems, came to the right place.
Daily the evangelists ranted and raged, pounding their "good book", in the hopes of awakening the curious minds encircling them. It was often the case that drew the crowds, not sympathy for the word.
Many called it a circus, the daily preaching on
the ground. It was. There were
burning exchanges between
different cultures.
crowd. Many called it a farce, a capitalist ploy to wealthy innocents into God's collection of culture.
But it really was the free exchange of ideas, ideas that many of us do not find true, but ideas nonetheless. People were thinking. It really doesn't matter what the students hanging around for hours were thinking about the ideas, it simply is significant that they were thinking.
Passers-by stopped to listen and maybe they missed a class, maybe even two. So what? Their thoughts probably were more awake out on the lawn than they would have been in the classroom, mindlessly scribbling notes from a rambling lecture.
Ideas are meant to be heard and disseminated freely, on the lawn, in the lecture hall, at the bar, over dinner, wherever. They are meant to be challenged, to be pondered. Every person bears thoughts and theories; every person has the right to have these thoughts and theories heard.
Perhaps Jed and Cindy were abrasive in proclaiming their philosophies, condemning as they did the "heather" student and his/her sex, drugs and rock in roll. This condomination seems contrary to the "Christian" ethics that the evangelists professed. But mode aside, the
Their morals don't jive with ours, but at least they induced us to do some thinking, if only to prove why our own are "right". Fortunately, no
preachers on the green were welcome relief from the otherwise mundane middays.
one was forcing us to listen to the ragings, we chose to stand there hour after hour. And fortunately, no one was attempting to stifle the daily sermons, either.
rmus was the purest freedom of speech, the truest proclamation of ideas, that this "University" has seen for quite some time. If the voices of the many can't be heard by the many at an institution of the many, where can they be heard? At a time when there is a wide issue of considerable concern at this University, the unhampered preachings were encouraging.
tators. Hour after hour, the circles around the evangelists grew. Many of us laughed, but the fact remains that the preachers held a crowd. What if the "professors" embodyed the people? How did they increase the size of the crowd they sustained out on the lawn? We would have many starving professors.
Still more encouraging was the energy generated by the sermons. Maybe it was a circus atmosphere, but people were stirred by the mere presence of speakers on the green. Content didn't matter, their presence was enough to awaken sleeping minds.
Encouraging also was the number of spec-
Musicians, clowns, a fellow posing as the devil, everyone got into the act. Things happened. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "Not he is great minister matter, but he who can alter my state of mind."
Now, as the morning season dwindles, the campus is quiet once again. If we are lucky, other "philosopers" will wander onto the green and we will hear more thoughts and theories, continuing to awaken to new insights. This would be good, this would be really good. We would be thinking, really thinking, and our days would be perpetual mornings.
Letters to the Editor Carter qualities not 'presidential'
To the editor:
Scott Faust's column on the horrors of 'a Ronald Reagan presidency started me thinking about the qualities needed in a president, qualities that are evident in President Jimmy Carter.'
First of all, this country needs a president who can carry his own suitbag. America also needs someone who wears a cardigan sweater well, this is clearly one of the important requisites of the job. Skill in bringing up topics for dinner must be demonstrated, and more manageable diaries at a State dinner in Mexico show that he is eminently well-qualified in this area.
Being a good judge of character is another quality that must not be forgotten. It is so comforting to know that people like Hampton Jordan are helping the President make crucial decisions and even more comforting to know that Jimmy's brother Billy, whom he loves very deeply, is carrying on this country's relations with Libya. The team was necessary too, and Carter plainly demonstrated this ability in announcing a U.S. boycott of the Olympic Games. Thought the Games were not called off, the Russians were undoubtedly quaking in their boots.
Yes, all in all, President Carter is clearly the man for the job. Not only is he an expert on diarrhea, but he also has a terrific smile.
A man who perceives foreign problems in their proper light definitely is an asset. President Carter certainly gained the respect of the 52 Americans in Iran when he said that the hostage situation was not going to be any more can't get too concerned about 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran, can we?
Doug Cunningham Pinestone. Minn.. freshman
Stadium beer sales
To the editor:
It is my understanding that the athletic program and associated activities at the University of Colorado are in a state of shamles. Not too long ago, there were those who thought that the University should be a disgrace to the Big Eight Conference and should be removed and replaced by another school. If the University of Kansas needs a model to emulate, why not pick the University of Oklahoma, Nebraska or Missouri? What are the schools selling or not selling beer at athletic events?
I do not drink alcoholic beverages nor do I parae to chide those who do. Consequently, the there act of selling or not selling beer in Memorial Stadium will cause me no dismay. However, I strongly feel that the University of Kansas will be making a mistake if its starts making decisions using the University of Colorado's actions as precedent.
Roland A. Schank Lawrence law student
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS) 650-640) Published at the University of Kansas
(August 19, 2008) The U.S. Postal Service will pay
the students early every Saturday, Sunday and holidays.
Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 6645
in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year up-
ward in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year
paid through the student payment form.
Postmaster: Send chances of admission to the University
of Kansas as soon as possible. University of Kansas
*Postmaster:* Send changes of address to the University
*Postmaster:* Int Hall, The University of Kansas,
Kansas. KS 80549
Editor Business Manager
Baker Elaun Strahler
Manager Carol Beder
Editorial Editor David Lewis
Campus Editor Jadie Woodburn
Campus Editor Jeff Sparrow
Assistant Campus Editors Mark Spencer, Don Munday
Sports Editor Cindy Whatchone
Associate Sports Editor Gore Nine
Associate Kerry Muhlman
Makeup Editors Ellen Iwambo, Bob Schaud.
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Kovacki
National Sales Manager Nancy Clauson
Campus Sales Manager Barb Light
Campus Sales Manager Tracy Cooper
Advertising Makeup Manager Jane Wenderton
Staff Artist Judy Selter
Photographer Phil Shepherd
Photo Den Assistant Leslie Leagley
Tearsheets Manager Brandon Sparrow
Kansas Advisor Chuck Churows
Harder work, more self confidence cannot help all blacks
E. Bernard Franklin, chairman of the Board of Regents, delivered a message to black KU students several days ago. He told them that if one could take responsibility for themselves no one could keep them from succeeding.
It was a clear, straight-forward message that probably made sense to most of the students who attended the Black Awareness Seminar/Symposium. Franklin's advice obviously worked for him as he was the first black to be elected student body president at Kansas State University and now works for the Commerce Bank in Kansas City, Mo.
However, I could not help but wonder how applicable Franklin's advice would be for the blacks whom I went to school with in Wichita. They did not come to Lawrence, because they were shut out of the educational system and they were deprived to it to KU to work hard and better themselves.
I had no awareness of the problems blacks faced in education until I entered the seventh grade. It was then that the federal government undertook that blacks equality in education through busing.
In Wichita that meant that blacks were bussed from their local junior high school to the one I attended, which was white, lower-middle-class and racist.
I gained my first lesson in interacial education during the first few days of school when I saw three white students beating a black student. Later, while walking down the hall, I looked up just in time to dodge a black fist aimed squarely at my head.
After three tense years in junior high, we all moved on to the same high school. Although it
did not have the prison atmosphere or riots of the junior high, it became obvious that nothing had changed.
The blacks knew they were trying to survive in a white school, and because the government told them they had to be there there was little they could do.
*a* was a classic example of what an eminent black writer, James Baldwin, meant when he wrote that "the educational system of this country is, in short, designed to destroy the black
child . . by stoning him in the ghetto or by driving him mad in the isolation of Harvard."
The blacks in my high school made it through the three years, got their degrees and passed from my sight. One came to KU with me. Few of them went on to graduate. A handful went to Wichita State University.
Most, I think, were tired of being kept from succeeding by a white-dominated educational system and gave up the battle. No matter how hard they worked to try to better themselves they made little progress. Instead they became angry at the educational system that, although it was their only way out, remained unopen to them because they were black.
Baldwin wrote that it "it is an extraordinary achievement to be trapped in the dungeon of color and to dare to shake down its walls and to step out of it, leaving the jailhouse keeper in the
Franklin's advice to KU black students is to learn, to better themselves and to work hard. That is good advice, because they have succeeded in making it to college. What Franklin must not forget is that he will find themselves in Baldwin's dungeon and whose problems are too complex and deeply rooted to be solved by merely working harder and suffering more.