4
Thursday, September 24, 1992
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Candidates' wives play key role at election time
The popular saying that "behind every successful man is a strong woman" acknowledges the importance of female contributions to the popular success of men. Too often, the saying suggests, a woman's influence remains unnoticed.
But this year's presidential election makes one wonder. This saying has been integrated into cultural literacy because it points to the popular conception of where women belong — behind the man.
The idea that a politician's wife should support his policy but not push it or add to it has led the Clinton campaign to tone down the "Two for One" drive. Consequently, the otherwise assertive and independent Hillary Clinton has tried to soften her image.
Even so, compared to the more traditional Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton remains a potential liability for her husband's campaign. In a Gallup Poll taken over Labor Day weekend, 56 percent of the respondents gave Hillary Clinton a favorable rating and 25 percent gave her an unfavorable one. Barbara Bush received a favorable review from 81 percent of the respondents, while only 12 percent did not like her.
According to a recent Time/CNN poll, one-fourth of the respondents said their view of Hillary Clinton would factor into the way they vote in November. Of this 25 percent, 14 percent will not vote for Clinton because of his wife, while 9 percent will cast a vote for Clinton because of his wife.
But whether a candidate's wife hurts or helps her husband's effort to attract voters, the limit of influence a presidential wife should wage is yet to be determined. In the past, their influence has varied in both force and nature. Rosalyn Carter met with public disapproval for attending Cabinet meetings. Nancy Reagan remained relatively unscathed for quietly succeeding in maneuvering the removal of several top Reagan aides.
Yet whatever the exact influence, it is safe to say that the first lady's power is considerable. First ladies employ a staff of up to 125 members. They sponsor national programs such as Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign and Barbara Bush's "Campaign Literacy." They are intimate companions to the president.
While executive power ultimately rests with the president, as Bush said in response to his wife's claim that abortion issues should be left out of politics, voters should consider the woman with the man. Voters should recognize that when they elect a president, they elect the first lady. The candidate's wife is not the candidate, but as history and current polls reveal, she can play an integral role in her husband's life and policies
— one that promises to remain prominent whether she supports from behind or pulls from ahead.
ANN JURYCK FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Secession may be answer when people feel oppressed
Although the chances of western Kansas becoming a new state or an independent country may be remote, their cause is justified. It seems to me that those like Professor Russell Getter who think it is "a political stunt to avoid paying taxes" are mistaken. When people feel that their money is being taken away unjustly, they will go to extreme lengths to recover their
rights. This country was born on that tradition.
If those meeting in Ulysses come up with a plan that is equitable and sensible toward either becoming a new state or a sovereign nation, then it should not be scoffed at or denied by others.
Paul Longabach Lawrence senior
KANSAN STAFF
ERIC NELSON
Editor
SCOTT HANNA Business manager
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
GREG FARMER Managing editor
Business manager
BILL LEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
BILL SKEET. Technology coordinator
Asat. Managing ... Aimee Brainard
News ... Alexander Bloomboh
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... Gayle Osterberg
Sports ... Shelly Solon
Photo ... Justin Knupp
Features ... Cody Holt
Graphics ... Sean Tevis
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Business Manager
Campus sales manager Angela Cleverman
Regional sales mgrs Mellisa Terkil
National sales mgr Brian Wilkes
Co-op sales mgr Amy Stumbo
Production mgrs Brad Bronn
Kim Claxton
Marketing director Ashley Langford
Associate director
Classified mgr Judith Standley
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the University of Kansas address and homeline, or faculty or staff position.
Guest letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. The writer will be the Kansas reserves the right to rept edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can also include a list of authors who are responsible for the letter.
To hell with history; let's only study what we have witnessed
A few columns back, I made some historical references to which the older generation has taken offense. If people disagree with my interpretation of historical events, that's fine. Though I've taken 15 hours of history courses, I'm along way from earning a doctorate.
What I do not accept is the "You didn't live through it, thus you couldn't possibly know anything about it" mentality.
Granted, people that experienced something firsthand have an advantage over people whose information comes from a history book. However, if this idea catches on, the history department is in big trouble.
Living witnesses to the Battle of Bunker Hill are hard to come by these days. History buffs would be stuck with U.S. history after 1900.
History of the United States before the Civil War — Gone! History of the Reformation — Gone!
DAVID MITCHELL
In fact, if this idea becomes mainstream, large numbers of educators would hit the unemployment line. I was curious as to how the educators themselves might react to this dogmatic drivel.
So I asked my friend, a Western Civilization GTA, if she had hung out with Sophocles while preparing to teach the philosophy, history, religion and political science course from hell.
"He's dead, Dave," my friend said.
So you're saying you never met the guy?
Civilization will not be carried on to the next generation. But just think of all the money they'll save on text books.
Not only had she never met him, he has apparently been dead for quite some time. Therefore, she, and just about everyone else in the program is unqualified to teach the ramblings of these great thinkers. It is of course a tragedy that the classics of Western
Looking further for a hole in the "You had to be there" theory, I called on my father who taught history in his younger years.
What is the most important invention in the history of man?
So how old were you when that happened?
"Well, actually that happened a few years before I came along."
Unbelievable. My parents were evidently not as old as I thought. Obviously, my father could not possibly know anything about combustion.
However, my sister once told me my mother was older than dirt, which might explain why she is such a good teacher. I would subscribe to the theory in question.
Finally, I went in search of a student my own age who might be an authority of some sort. With all the excitement about this year's KU football team, I went to one of our sports editors.
What was the greatest Jayhawk football team of all time?
"It would have to be the 1969 Orange Bowl team."
What year were you born? "1070."
Oh, sure. All Americans John "7 and Bobby Douglas played on team, as did NFL Hall of Famer John Riggins. But could the sports editor really know that for certain? How could he when we never saw them play? Did his mother attend KU games and he was blessed with prenatal 'Hawk trivia?' I think not.
To hell with John Riggins then. The best team my friend could possibly remember would be the 8-4 team of 1981.
I suggest that we discontinue studying the long-distant past. No one will give us credit for what we have learned anyway. I know my five history courses have failed to make me an authority on anything. But at least I can attest to the shallowness of the past 20 years. I lived through them.
Associate editorial editor David Mitchell is a DeSoto major senior in journalism.
Perot has declared that his "United, We Stand" organization is a challenge to Democrats and Republicans to address "the issues." His book, "United, We Stand," has topped the best-seller list with its harsh prescription of tax increases and soothing cuts.
Out of all the twisted elements that make up the 1982 Presidential campaign, Ross Perot's now-you-see-it, isn't the candidacy may be the straught.
Ross Perot misleads many in presidential quest
Not.
Meanwhile, Perot has been placed on the ballot in all 50 states by a cadre of fanatical supporters. And yet, he says he isn't running.
Indeed, it becomes easy to believe a man is not running for President when he appears on the ballots of all the states on the Union, keeps popping up on shows such as "Nightline," and maintains 64 field offices play his Dallas headquarters at a cost of $480,000 a month.
KEVIN BARTELS
Frustrated by the shamelessness
and degradation of a presidential election, Perot shied away from actually beginning any sort of campaign at all and quit, only to return from the grave to the same whimpering, "maybe I'll run, but probably not," act again.
Actually, though, Perot never quit so much as he ran and hid from the press, Bush, Clinton, and all the other assorted nasties who were distorting his words, making a mockery of his campaign and harassing his children. Poor Ross.
His presence on the November ballets will mean little, except to siphon off votes from either Bush or Clinton. And the very thought of guaranteeing George Bush any extra votes should be enough to inspire anyone to quit and remove his name from the ballots. But even the horrid specter of another four years of George Herbert Walker Bush is not enough to deter Perot. He means to push right to November.
The purpose of the "United, We Stand" organization, according to Perot, is to return politics to the people. It will force the candidates to address the issues, primarily the naging economy. In tones more reminiscent of a mystic than a political activist, if the latter title can be applied to Perot, he predicts a turnaround in Campaign 1992 from such mud-soaked issues as Clinton's draft status, Quayle's cowering in the Indiana National Guard and Bush's indelibilities with staff aides to the more
serious concern of how to pull the United States out of its long economic decline.
All of which may play well in Dallas, but hardly justifies the $13 million spent by Perot for an organization that has thus far only produced confusion, fear and apathy among an electorate that has little enough reason to vote in the first place.
Why Perot remains with us this late into an admittedly sordid and nausea-inducing campaign will, like the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and the re-election of Richard Nixon, remain a mystery. Perhaps Perot could not adequately explain why he wishes to pursue a noncampaign that promises nothing and hopes for nothing except a debate over a seemingly intractable problem. However, Perot's "United, We Stand" organization does prove one thing: that any fabulously rich boy can grow up to not be president.
Kevin Bartels is a Louisville, Ky., graduate student majoring in English.
Grace
By David Rosenfield