<e«_-
>v^^iiiSB
Special Election Issue
V o l u m e LXXXJV, Number 5
Monday, November 1 . 1976
A Free Press
Decision '76: Ford Vs. Carter
By M A T T McNAUGHT
It wasn't long ago that the
nation's electorate was heard
asking. " W h o ' s Jimmy C a r t e r ? "
Now eight months after the Iowa
C a u c u s a n d the44ew H a m p s h i r e
Primary, the electorate still asks
the same proverbial question.
For although the answer to w h o
he is has been given — that
" w h o " hasn't told us anything
about what he believes in or
stands for. The answer merely
told us that he is the former governor of Georgia.
J i m m y Carter hasn't s u f f i ciently enunciated his positions
on the issues to be deserving of
anyone's vote. A n d whether that
p a r t i c u l a r vote-leans to the left.
r f g t i t o r - c e n t e i -ry-of rrtt»^--co?.»e -
q u e n c e because the man h a s
more sides than a d e c a g o n .
Carter has no firm stands o n
welfare " e f o r m arms safes, o"
abortion — to name a few key
issues. The man is forever dealing in generalities. The following are some examples.
• He's for welfare reform —
but in what ways does he intend
to c h a n g e the existing system?
• On arms sales — he's
against "nuclear proliferation''
— but supposedly, we don't sett
nuclear reactors for the purpose
of producing arms. Therefore,
his stand on nuclear proliferation has little or nothing to do
w i t h arms sales in general.
This typifies one of
Carter's
four aces hidden up his sleeve.
The ace is simply t h a t if Carter
isn't d e a l i n g in generalities to
confuse the specifics — he
deals w i t h specifics to confuse
the overall picture.
• His stand on abortion is a other embargo. But he didn't unwee bit confusing — as is d e r l i n e what he meant by a declaration of economic war.
F o r d ' s . Carter is p e r s o n a l l y
How are we to j u d g e if this is
against abortion, but he doesn't
favor a constitutional amend- just avant garde, right-winged
ments on the _ issue T h a t ' s a. hyperbole, or. reaLre.ason to fear
Carter's possible w a r mongering
rather gallant thing t o say c o n propensities? The answer is —
sidering the despicable moralizing that now pervades in the w e can't really j u d g e Carter! His
religious community. B u t w o u l d c a m p a i g n has p r a c t i c e d the
Carter favor an a m e n d m e n t politics of obliquity. This fact
guaranteeing the right of a alone should deny Carter the^
w o m a n to .have one if the keys to T600 Pennsylvania Aveprogressively
c o n s e r v a t i v e nue.
Oh, if you're keeping count —
Supreme Court found abortion
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , on g r o u n d s Carter's third ace is his ability to
that it violates the right of the bespeak popular themes (like
d e c l a r i n g e c o n o m i c warfare)
fetus to continue growth?
Ace number two: Carter states without giving the specifics o n
how to deal w i t h a situation.
his position on an issue, but
Before listing Carter's fourth
d o e s n ' t say to what extent h e
ace,
read "the^dtiowlhgi reasons
w i l l defend his p o s i t i o n .
not
to
vote for Ford:
By the way, Ford is in favor of
• Ford failed to restructure
a constitutional amendment
the
CIA's hie.-drchy. His appointleaving the abortion d e c i s i o n up
ment
of G^Bt^ge B u s n to the posz
to the individual states. To say
that a woman living in a state of Direct*^ was ill advised, c o n where abortion is illegal, w o u i d sidering" .Mr. B u s c h ' s f o r m e r
have to travel to a " l e g a l " state position as chairman of the
to get one. is in itself unconsti- GOP. A n d even w o r s e , all three
tutional because it affords spe- members of the CIA oversight
cial personal rights (a w o m a n liv- committee (especially one Leo
ing in the " l e g a l " state wouldn't Cherne) appointed by Mr. Ford
have to travel) a c c o r d i n g to have Song been synonymous
demographics. Well, w h a t does with the term "pro-CIA hardlinone expect from an unelcted ers."
• A no-Ford vote w o u l d guarand therefore unconstitutional
antee
the unseating of that
president? That is — if you want
to consider the 25th amendment usurper of democratic principles
and
abroad,
Henry
unconstitutional. That's a w h o l e h e r e
Kissinger. Kissinger cannot be
other argument thought.
On foreign policy, Carter is as allowed to continue at his presscary as he is ambiguous. To ent post, else the U.S. governcite one example: In t h e second ment w i l l have more blood on
debate he said that he w o u l d her hands. We've had e n o u g h of
" d e c l a r e economic w a r " on the K i s s i n g e r ' s s h u t t l e d i p l o m a c y
OPEC^states if faced w i t h an- (i.e., buying time for the white
minority government of Rhodesia), and his seat on the
National Security Council seems
to do nothing but give the CIA
the green light to intervene in
the p o l i t i c a l systems o f autonomous nation-states like Chile
(now home of the most brutal
dictatorship this side of the socalled "Iron Curtain). Portugal
and Angola.
• The Nixon-Ford expansion
rate of foreign arms sales is
staggering. In 1970 the sales of
armaments abroad was less than
$1 billion. Today it is more than
$10 billion a year. The U.S. now
sells more arms.abroad than all
other countries
combined.
Kissinger's official State Department position is that t h e s e arms
sales are^ presently t h e : stabilizing factor in M i d d l e E a s t - t e n sions. Can w e allow this logic to
continue as part of o u r foreign
poiicy?
• The U.S. continues to support the despotic regime of
South Korean
President Park
C h u n g Hee. Official administrat i o n s p o k e s m e n c o n t i n u e to
d e n o u ^ c . the regime —— but
w h e n it comes to taking real action (tike pulling all U.S. troops
out of S. Korea or cutting off all
appropriations), nothing is done.
Does America know the difference between right and wrong?
Can we c o n t i n u e to preserve
capitalism at the expense of
supporting totalitarian regimes
like C h i l e s , Uruguay's, Paraguay's and the Philippines'.
• in this age of assassinationconspiracy fervor, rt is widely
k n o w n that Ford was the onJy
member of the Warren Corn-
mission to sit in on all the minutes. Therefore, he is suspected
of being the most insidious of its
members. A n d the fact that he
rose to the office of the presidency because of two " f r e a k y "
occurrences feeds suspicions to
post-Watergate paranoia.
• The economy is in its death
throes. What else need be said
on this issue?
• Carter's fourth ace isn't hidden — in fact, it's obvious by
now. Carter knows that he can
vacillate from one end of t h e
political spectrum to the other
as much as he wishes. Be as
vague as he wishes. For all the
vacillating and vagueness in the
w o r l d , c a n ' t hurt h i m half as
m u c h as the political h a r m Jerry
F o r d does to himself by simply
existing.
The fact that Nixon
appointed
Ford,
m a k e s " Ford
the
final
remains of the ashes of Nixon's
legacy. Eight long years o1 unprecedented
corruption,
economic chaos. CIA plots to overthrow governments and genera;
SHIT is represented in the body
of Gerald Ford.
W e have to show the RepubJican leaders responsible for this
eight-year malaise, the price one
pays for incompetence. For this
reason Ford must lose. A n d unfortunately, since the two-party
system can't be changed (at
least not this year), Ford's loss is
Carter's w i n . If Ford doesn't
lose, it only proves my friend's
supposition, that given the elect o r a t e ' s mass s t u p i d i t y and
ignorance, we don't deserve the
" p r i v i l e g e of v o t i n g . " A n d
believe me-^voting^is a privilege
w h e n one considers that there
are only t w o dozen democracies
inthe^orld^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
f a i l e d to provide its readers w i t h
positive support at such a c r u c i a l point i n history.
Sy PHILIP Di VIETRO
T h e Jewish Press boasts, " t h e
largest circulation of any A n g l o Jewish weekly in the w o r l d , "
and has decided ^ o t to offeF an
endorsement for either Gerlad
Ford or J i m m y Carter. The reas o n is. " t h e r e are s t i l l far t o o
many unanswered—questions,"
and that their " r e a d e r s s h o u l d
decide for themselves."
Responsible citizens must
make a c h o i c e b a s e d either o n
Carter's promises or Ford's n o n performance during t w o years
a s president. One of President
Ford's c a m p a i g n s l o g a n s is
'that .wie_._iook._at _the_j;ecprd."
In 1976 alone. Gerald Ford
has made $7.5 billion w o r t h of
arms sales to Saudia Arabia.
Last September Ford pressured
Congress into reversing their
ban of another military sale to
Saudi Arabia. The result, Saudia
Arabia received 650 Maverick
missiles. Gerald Ford also opposed
the
Jackson-Vanik
Amendment — r e q u i r i n g the
K r e m l i n , to permiLJre-Et emigrat i o n in exchange for U.S. trade *
benefits.
T
T w o years ago. General
George S. B r o w n told a D u k e
University audience t h a t " t h e
J e w s o w n , you know, t h e b a n k s
in this country, the n e w s p a p e r s "
a n d stated that Jews h a d " u n due i n f l u e n c e " irx C o n g r e s s .
G e n . B r o w n has a l s o s a i d ,
"Israel is a military burden to the
U.S." President Ford i n s i s t s on-
defending Gen. B r o w n a n d rea p p o i n t e d B r o w n to a n o t h e r
term in J u n e 1976 as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Clearly, President Ford's reco r d indicates what J e w s c a n expect from him in the future.
What Ford evidently lacks,
C a r t e r prornises._J__^ringlthe seco n d televised debate. Carter
c o m m i t t e d himself t o Israel,
A m e r i c a n Jewry as w e l l as
Soviet Jewry. Carter has stated
that, i n case another A r a b o*V
e m o a r g o is used to black mail
o u r nation, " W e w i l l instantly
prohibit the sale of anything t o
those countries that embargo
u s . " Carter h a s c t e a r l y stated,
" A s long as I am President- the
A m e r i c a n p e o p l e w i l l never
sacrifice the security or survival
of Israel for barrels of o i l . " Carter has also promised to help the
urban financial crisis o f Americ a n cities. This includes New
York City, w h i c h has t h e largest
J e w i s h population in the United
States. In reference t o Soviet
Jewry, Carter has p r o m i s e d t o
enforce the Jackson-Vanik
Amendment — " t o use diplomatic and economic means t o
f o r c e the Soviet Union t o increa^fe J e w i s h out-migration-'*
The Jewish-American c o m m u nity, Jews o f the w o r l d ; have a
promise that Israel w i l l survive.
S u c h optimism, weak or strong;
a s the case~may beris- m o r e than
w h a t Gerald Ford has t o offer
Jews. T h e Jewish Press has
JEWISH PEOPLE magazine, a
two-year-old p u b l i c a t i o n , produced Dy Rapfogel P u b l i c a t i o n ^
Inc., whose goaf is to serve
Jews of the Lower East Side and
other Jewish
communities
throughout the City, endorsed
Jimmy Carter. It was a hard
decision to make, yet it w a s
made, as any publication w o u l d ,
w h o is~responsive t o - t h e heeds
of their readership.
The Jewish Press, w h o s e readership favors Carter, and whose
conservative editorial board
must have^elt it was not in their
best commercial interests to endorse o n e party or the other. It is
most fortunate for the J e w s of
this-Gtty that a t least-one paper,
JEWiSHPEOPLE that has a truely
responsive editorial policy.
/
-«.
trgtt-\
^
& &%%J
M o n d a y , N o v e m b e r 1 , 1976 • T H E T I C K E R • P a g e 3
Viewpoint Of A Socialist
EDITORIAL BOARD
Richard Rodriguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editor-in-Chief
Dan Lewis
. .Managing Editor
Richard Warren . . . .
.Associate Editor
P^S'isned weettiv d u ' i ^ g tne scnooi year Dy Ticker Association of trie Samara M. Baruch Cotiege
' c' r^e Ci:>'LCive'Sitv of New York Aadress an communications »o TICKER. Bos -125. 137 East'22r»d
S:-?et New Yo«v N Y TJCiO — Room 307. Student Center. Columns art<t editorials do not
•e.essa^'y - e f e c : rr>e c o ^ i c o* t^e enure TICKER staff. Ticker Association, tne College, or. the
w* v-e-sirv ' Copyrignt
"9~5 T i c ^ c Association.
'
.
Editorials
The Elections
If you have been following the presidential race
for any length of time w e are sure tha.t you have
noticed that the campaigns have been less than
enlightening. Gerald Ford proved himself t o be
the incompetent bu ngler that he w a s suspected
of being for quite a whMe. H i s domestic policy
with regard to the economy and jobs is rtot exactly designed f o r t h e i t t t l e guy. f a t h e r , Mr. Ford has
s h o w n more of an interest in protecting his
friends in big business, f o l l o w i n g a less than honored Republican Party tradition.
J i m m y Carter, however, isn't exactly t h e answer to our country's prayers either. From the
b e g i n n i n g he has been extremely vague on all of
the issues and seems either u n w i l l i n g or unabie
to c o m m i t himself to. anything. Carter is a man
fulh of contradictions. This c a n be traced all the
way back to his statement about "ethnic purity."
We see very little hope in a candidate who does
not k n o w himself what he stands for.
Then, of course, there is the seemingly fruitless
s t r u g g l e of the third party candidates this year, it
w o u l d seem logical that in a year of apathy such
as this, and the apathy is being caused Dy t w o
awful Presidential nominees, t h a O h e r e w o u l d be
s o m ^ hope among the lesser candidates. However, the only candidate in this category w h o we
feel capable of doing a reasonable j o b of carry-.,
ing out the functions of our nation's highest office, Eugene McCarthy, has been thrown off the
ballots in New York State in a highly questionable manner.
A s journalists, it is our responsibility to take a
stand. The reader should be aware^that this d e c i s i o n has been a hard o n e to make, and is not
w i t h o u t reservations. It is w i t h a certain sense of
defeat that the Editorial Board of TICKER has
d e c i d e d to endorse J i m m y Carter in his c a n d i dacy for the office of President of the United
States. Vague as he is, Carter presents to us a
~dim ray of hope for something better than the last
e i g h t years of Republican dictatorship have
s h o w n us. W e know how bad Jerry Ford has
been. W e don't think Carter could do any worse.
As Governor of Georgia, Carter hadn't exactly
turned his state into a paradise, but _he__h.ad.a't_
sent it to ruins either. At! w e ask is that Carter a t least d o the same for our nation.
By IKE NAHEM, B.C.Y.SA.
This year the American people
are faced withthe choice of
c h o o s i n g between the policies
of Gerald Ford and the promises
of Jimmy Carter. A s far as t h e
crucial issues and problems w e
all face — unemployment, inflation, segregation, the o p - .
pression of women, the threat o f
new Vietnam-type wars, a n d
FBI-CIA attacks on democratic
rights — Ford and Carter have
the same basic positions.
Both
support a $100 billion plus w a r
budget. B o t h oppose a w o m a n ' s
right t o choose abortion. B o t h
oppose school
b u s i n g td^~
^achieve- d e s e g r e g a t i o n . - t e a v m g
Carter's rhetoric about " f u l l ^ m ployment" aside, he has not offered o n e single concrete p r o posal that w o u l d c r e a W o n e j o b :
The much-lauded HumphreyHawkins bill would at most p r o - .
vide 300.000 low-paying j o b s ,
while over eight million are o f f i cially o u t of work.
The r e c o r d of both men s h o w
whose interests they are c o m mitted to serving. Both supported the murderous w a r in Vietnam. Carter even had an " H o n o r
Lieutenant Calley Day" when he
was governor, paying tribute t o
a mass murderer. Both opposed
aid to New York City last winter.
B o t h Ford and Carter have
dismal records on civil rights f o r
Black Americans. Ford voted
against aU the civil rights bills as
a congressman. Carter served
on all-white school boards that
maintained- segregation
in
Georqia.
Is there an alternative for voters in 1976? Are w e condemned
to. pla'y t h e "lesser evil" game?
Many, if not most, Americans,
will express their d i s g u s t this
year by not voting. This w i l l be
labeled " a p a t h y " by journalistic
pundits. In reality, it reflects
g r o w i n g disillusionment w i t h t h e
pro-big business two-party system.
T h e Socialist Workers Party is
providing an alternative in 1976.
They are running candidates on
a program that defends t h e i n terest of the majority against the
tiny minority of bankers and
billionnaires that r u l e - t i w o u g b
^ e - Q e m o c r a £ i c ~ a nd-Rep ujbl j c griparties. It is a program o n e can 1
vote for in good conscience.
T h e socialist candidates are
Peter Camejo for President a n d
Willie M a e Reid for Vice-President. The socialists are r u n n i n g '
on a " B i l l of Rights for W o r k i n g
People." These rights include
the right t o a job, the right of oppressed nationalities to control
their communities, the right to
free health care and free education, and the right to a secure
retirement. Camejo and Reid are
activists in the movements for
social change. Camejo w a s a
leader of the student and antiVietnam war movement. C a m e j o
and Reid have marched for civil
r i g h t s in B i r m i n g h a m a n d
Boston. T h e socialists support a
w o m a n ' s right to control her
body; they support passage of
the Equals Rights Amendment
and the building of a strong
feminist movement.
Art Open Letter
From The Governor
The socialists oppose U.S.
military aid to the racists in
South Africa. They oppose the
imperialist nature of U.S. f o r e i g n '
policy w h i c h props u p military
dictatorships from Chile t o Iran.
The SWP says that the money
to pay for social services s h o u l d
come from the Pentagon w a r
budget and interest"payments to
banks. In New York City, 2 0 % of
the New York budget goes for
these interest payments, welfare
Tor the rich.
A vote f o r the socialists is a
.vote for a party that-will not disappear w h e n the elections e n d .
T b e SWP is a party that fights
_365_days a year for the, rights of
w o r k i n g people. It is an investment i o r o u r task of b u i l d i n g a
mass socialist movement that
- c a n abolish our present decay—
ing economic system, w i t h its
constant w a r and potential d e struction o f the .environment.
S u c h prominent Americans as
Robert F. Williams, Robert Allen,
Nobel-laureate Salvatore Luria,
Phillip and Daniel Berrigan, and
many others have endorsed the
SWP campaign.
The SWPxi=ia*s gained national
prominence this year as a result
of its landmark 40 million dollar
suit against government harassment. T h e suit-lias revealed a tip
of the iceberg of FBI attacks-on
democratic rights. T h r o u g h this
suit millions of Americans have
been introduced t o the-socialist
alternative.'A socialism that supports democratic rights in the
Soviet Union and China against
the bureaucracies^ that rule
there.
T h i s year, vof
est. Vote S o c i a l i s t Worker^
Party!
quently to find the j o b
want,
t h e labor force today
the same
age and sex composition as^2QN o v e m b e r 2 n d i s E l e c t i o n Day. T h e d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y
ago,
t h e totai unemployment rare
the A m e r i c a n p e o p l e are g o i n g to effect profoundly t h e j
would be nearly a point \o\
i i v e s o f e v e r y c i r i z e n . T h i s Is p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e o f y o u n g p e o In t h e 1950's, when employment
p l e w h o h a v e t h e l a r g e s t s t a k e in t h e f u t u r e . S t u d e n t s j n o w
rose, unemployment usually fell fc\
in c o l l e g e wi-H h a v e t o m a k e j u d g m e n t s in t h e next f e w
as much as t h e rise in jobs. New job^
years c o n c e r n i n g their j o b s a n d their careers. T h e s e
were taken mainly by t h e unempioyt
Today, when employment rises.
c h o i c e s w i l l d e p e n d o n w h a t k i n d of c o u n t r y w e have a n d
larger percentage of the jobs_are takei
w h a t k i n d of p e o p l e w e a r e .
by people attracted from outside
For n e a r l y t w o d e c a d e s t h e n u m b e r of p e o p l e p a r t i c i p a t labor force. So with a smaller per-j
i n g in o u r e l e c t i o n s h a s g o n e d o w n . S o m e p e o p l e are n o w
centage of new -jobs now going to the!
p r e d i c t i n g that less t h a n h a l f o f t h e e l i g i b l e v o t e r s w i i l g o
unemployed, the unemployment rate
falls by less than it used to. even
t o t h e p o l l s i n N o v e m b e r . E v e n in N e w Y o r k S t a t e , in t h e
when employment growth is just as
m i d s t o f a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d c r i s i s , r e g i s t r a t i o n is l o w e r n o w
strong. Tile increased tendency for]
t h a n i n 1972. T h i s is u t t e r l y u n a c c e p t a b l e . It r e m o v e s a n y
workers to enter the labor force when
popular mandate for those w h o win and induces bitterness
job-opportunities improve has added
in t h o s e w h o l o s e . M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , it a b a n d o n s t h e p o l i t i .is much as a point to the- unemployc a l p r o c e s s t o t h o s e w h o h a v e a s p e c i a l s t a k e in t h e o u t ment rate.
In 1972, Congress-decided'that mothc o m e a n d t h e c a p a c i t y t o m a n i p u l a t e it.
~
ers
receiving welfare w h o were able
I reveal no-deep secret w h e n I say I a m a Democrat. But I
to work had to register for work. The
w r i t e t h i s a s G o v e r n o r a n d c i t i z e n . I a m less c o n c e r n e d
un"mplo\mcnt~ rate of • we Ifn re motha b o u t h o w y o u v o t e t h a n if y o u v o t e . J o i n m e in p a r t i c i p a t ers jumpea in i » / z - / a , eveu UIUU&JX]
i n g in t h i s c r u c i a l n a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n o n N o v e m b e r 2 n d .
unemployment generally w a s falling.
The job-registration requirement prob-l
Sincerely,
ably added, about 0.2 t o t h e total]
H u g h L. C a r e y
unemployment rate.
In 1974, unemployment insurance!
w a s extended by 26 w e e k s , and previously uncovered groups became eli-l
gible. Unemployed w o r k e r s could look]
for a job longer a n d still collect.
Everyone seemed to agree t h a t t h e Lengthened unemployment probably
By Alfred J. Telia
advisers had done a good thing, a n d increased t h e total unemployment rate
the 4 percent figure stu~k in t h e pub- by half a point o r a point.
WASHINGTON—At 7.8 percent, t h e lic's mind. But so many thrings h a v e
A recent program, Supplemental
unemployment rate today is almost happened since t h e golden y e a r s t h a t '_ Unemployment Assistance, provid*
twice as high as that of 20 years it's not really proper to compare t h e benefits t o unemployed workers not
ago. Although t h e unemployment rate unemployment rate today with that eligible for regular unemployment inmeasures fairly well w h a t it intends^ of t w o decades ago.
surance. TWs~progTacnrapparently kept
to measure, intervening events in t h e
To determine h o w much worse un- some schoolteachers a n d o t h e r s in th«
last two decades have affected t h e employment is now than then, w e working force w h o would normally
comparability of the data.
most put^the unemployment r a t e back have dropped out during sununersj
In 1961, President John F. Ken- on its old track, by adjusting t h e rate possibly raising U*e a n n u a l unemployj
nedy's Council of Economic Advisers up o r down to account for those fac- ment rate by two-tenths of a point!
"The authority of government
. . . can have no pure right over
made an important decision. The period tors t h a t cause trouble for people who
Response errors occur in the dataj
my person and property but what I concede
to it."
from mid-1955 t o mid-1957 w a s con- like fair comparisons.
as when o n e person in a househok
sidered t h e golden a g e of unemployToday, there, is in the labor force mistakenly tells a Government interj
ment that t h e country should strive a higher percentage of women and viewer that others did n o t look for
H. D. Thoreau; _ to leturnuio-Jta- those y e a r s Ihere w a s
young persons, w h o always have high work. If taken into account, su<
~ A n "Essay o f ""Civil"
no war, hardly any inflation, a n d t h e unemployment rates, even in good errors would increase t h e unemployj
unemployment rate w a s 4 percent.
D i s o b e d i e n c e , 1849
times, because they shop around fre(Continued
on Page 8)
Analyzing Joblessness
Do Your Legislators
Speak For You?
Equal state f u n d i n g for City .the parity d e m a n d . "
University with the State UniverT h e f o l l o w i n g candidates have
s i t y system has received c o m - ^committed themselves t o parity
mitments from c a n d i d a t e s , for
funding:SENATE
State Senate and Assembly in 34 A l l o r o , A l b e r t
(D/L). 15th
legislative districts in the New Senatorial District. Queens and
York metropolitan area.
Kings Counties.
The candidates responded to
Barnes. Lonnie G. (L), 36th S.D..
a request for their position on
Westchester County.
parity
funding
from
the
Bellamy. Carol (D/L), 25th S.D.,
Professional Staff Congress, the
Kings a n d N e w York counties.
union representing the i n Bernstein. Abraham (D/L), 33rd
structional staff at CUNY. SupS.D., Bronx County.
port for parity among the canBoss, Hi Hard (D), 4 t h S.D,.
didates c u t across party lines.
Nassau a n d Suffolk counties.
Burstein, Karen S. 1D/L2a_„9th_
Asjsgmblyman Irw in. H. Landes
(D/L-Great Neck), chairman of
S.D.. Nassau and Queens counthe
Assembly's
Higher
ties.
.
Education Committee, said.
Flynn.- J o h n E. (R), 35th- s.d.,
"Parity f u n d i n g for City Unrver-- Westchester a n d Bronx oryrnsity is a matter of simple justice.
ties.
It has my_full s u p p o r t . "
Halperin. Donald (D). 20th S.D.,
This
September.
C U N Y , Kings C o u n t y
students paid t u i t i o n for the first
J a c o b s . G r e g o r y <R/C), 13th
time since the university began
S.D.). Queens County.
in 1849 as the Free Academy.
G o o d m a n . Roy M. (R/L), 2~6ThThe annual t u i t i o n rates, imS.D.. New York County
posed by the B o a r d of Higher
Kaarsberg. Ernest A. (L), 24th
Education last June, are the
S.D.. Richmond and New York
counties.
same as those paid by State
Kapikian. Mark M. (L). 37th S.D..
University students. S775 for
Westchester County
freshmen and sophomore^ and
S925 for juniors a n d seniors.
Lanzillotti. Carlo A. (R/L). 14th
Last year, the BHE also man- . S XL. Queen.s^Co-Uiity,
dated admission standards
Pogestin. Laura R. (L). 20th S.D..
equivalent to the State UniverKings County.
sity's.
Pol-let. Carl (D), 6th S.D.. Nassau
Under the current CUNY f u n County.
d i n g f o r m u l a , however. New
Spitz. George N. (D). 26th'S.D..
York City taxpayers must pay
New York County.
t w i c e — o n c e t o 1he city and
W i n i k o w . Linda (D/L). 38th S.D..
again to the state—for their
Westchester and RockJand
university and still get fewer
counties.
p u b l i c d o l l a r s per f u l l - t i m e
student at CUNY senior colleges
ASSEMBLY
than t h e State* University senior
Barbaro. Frank J . (D). 47th
colleges receive.
Assembly District. Kings County.'
In 1974-75. t h e last year for
Burrows. Gordon W. (R/C). 90th
which figures are available, the
A.D.. Westchester County. '
state Daid S3.305 _oer full-time
Carver, Mable (R). 79th A.D..
e q u i v a l e n t ( F T E ; s t u d e n t at
Bronx County.
S'JNY sen.lo" colleges. The cily
C o c p e r ^ a n . Arthur J. 'D-'L-. 27th
and state, each paying-ha If. c o n A.D.. Q u e e n s C o u n t y .
tributed S2.606 p e r FTE at CUNY
DeiiiBovi. Alfred A. (R/C). 31st
during the same year.
S.D:. Queens County.
Epstein. Rosiyn (R). 67th A.D..
T n e c o m m i t m e n t of c a n New York County.
didates for the state legislature
Feder. Sau! E. (R). 27th A.D..
to parity f u n d i n g is one of the
Queens County.
initial steps in the PSC campaign to obtain equai treatment
Gottfried. Richard N. (D/L). 67th
for City University from the
A.D.. New York County.
state.
Griffith. Edward (D/L). 40th A.D..
Kings County.
"Our
students."
PSC
Hevesi. Alan G. (D/L). 28th A.D..
President Irwin H. Polishook
Queens County.
said, " m u s t - now pay tuition at
Landes, Irwin J. (D/L), i6th A.D.,
SUNY
levers
and
meet
Nassau County.
equivalent admission standards.
Larkin,-William F. (R), 65th A.D.,
To^rfeny p a r i t y funding to our
university ^ s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e
New York County.
against t h e ' p e o p l e of New York
Lasher. Howard L. (D), 46th A.D.,
City," _
..........
Kings County.
Lehner, Edward H. (D/L), 73
The city's announced inA.D.. New York County.
t e n t i o n of w i t h d r a w i n g c o m Lipshutz, Gerdi E. (D/L), 22nd
pletely f r o m t h e funding of the
A.D.. Queens County.
senior cojleges, a commitment
Passannante. William F. (D/L).
of approximately $113 million,
64th A.D.. New York C o u n t y ^ makes parity f u n d i n g from the
Posner. Seymour (D/L). 76th
state vital to CUNY's survival,
A.D.. Bronx County.
a c c o r d i n g to Dr. Belle Zeller, the
PSC's legislative representative.
Siegel, Mark Alan (D/L). 66th
A.D., New York County.
"If .elected, t h e s e candidates
Schumer, Charles E. (D). 45th
will provide the nucleus of the
A.D.,
Kings County.
pro-parity forces in Albany," she
Weprin, Saul (D/L), 24th A.D..
said, referring to the responQueens County.
dents. " I t will b e their mission
Wilson, Cliff (D/L). 37th A.D.,
and ours to w i n ; over their
Queens County.
metropolitan area colleagues to
Zane. Marie (R). 66th A.D., New
the cause and to convince u p York C o u n t y
state legislators of the justice of
Ford Vs. Carter: The Pits
By RICHARD WARREN
As we approach the end o-f
our bicentennial year, w e also
approach the conclusion of a
lack-luster presidential camp a i g n . This election serves as a
sad reminder that in 200 years
w e have regressed from leaders
like Wastrm^tc^n^Adarjrjs a n d
Jefferson t o F o r d i a n d Carter.
In Gerald Ford, we have a man
w h o has proven himself i n competent as President. He has
also made it quite clear to the
American public that he's a fool
-and a liar. In Jimmy Carter w<
have a two-faced political o p portunist w h o w i l l shift positions
on a n issue ^or not take a^ ppsi-_
tion at ail, whichever he finds t o
b e politically e x p e d i e n t .
W i t h Jimmy Carter, t h e difference between the image he has
tried tcTcreate of himself and t h e
reality of the man is rather
significant. He portrays himself
as an honest, deeply jrnoral a n d
religious person. Yet he won t h e
Democratic" primary f o r the
Georgia governorship in 1970 by
r u n n i n g a mudslinging c a m "paign a g a i n s t his o p p o n e n t ,
moderate-liberal Cacj. Sanders.
Carter, ~ whomrow^tr ies~to~po it ray~
himself a s a friend of blacks,
w o n the 1970 primary by portraying himself as a Georgian version o f George Wallace.
Carter's presidential campaign has added more contradictions.
A s a r e s u l t of
Watergate, there w a s a great
deal of anti-Washington feeling.
Carter capitalized on the fact
that h e w a s an Outsider, not a
•••--mombor •• of-. ^h<e
Wafet¥mgton
^ c r o w d . He. began h i s , c a m p a i g n
by p r e s e n t i n g himself as a
moderate alternative to the big
government, free-spending liberals who r a n against him in t h e
primaries. On this platform, he
gained a sizeable lead in the p r i maries. B u t as a result of this
campaign, Carter earned" - the
distrust of many of the Democratic Party's powerful liberals.
Senator
Edward
Kennedy
publicly stated that he feared a
Carter presidency w o u l d stifle
social reforms. There was talk of
drafting Humphrey or Kennedy
to head t h e Democratic ticket.
Carter decided he needed ^liberal support to w i n the election,
or even the nomination, and as a
result suddenly switched from
conservative rhetoric to liberal
rhetoric. He had previously
stated during New York City's
fiscal crisis that we should n o t
be bailed out. In order to get the
endorsement of Mayor Beame,
Carter reversed his position. It is
ironic that Carter now says in
his c a m p a i g n , " I w o u l d never
tell t h e greatest city in the world
to d r o p d e a d . " But at the time
President Ford w a s refusing to
give u s t h e money needed to
avoid bankruptcy, Carter also
opposed s u c h aid.
The Democratic convention
was probably the climax of Carter's hypocrisy. After a cam- .
paign in w h i c h he spoke at great
length against " b i g government
and big s p e n d i n g , " he endorsed
and advocated a Democratic
party platform advocating " b i g
government and b i g spending."
Also at thepconvention, Carter
ripped intxy t h e immorality of
Watergate, w h i l e accepting the
endorsement of Chicago's
s u p e r - c o r r u p t mayor, Richard
Daley.
Carter, while trying to create
the image of t h e honest, reli-gious statesman, has been just
the opposite. He is in reality the
epitome of t h e old-line politi-^siari-Jiis^ald-dasJiiojM^ 4 ^
tricks include saying different
things in different parts of the
country, espousing crowd-pleasTng cliches w h i c h say nothing,
and refusing t o take t o u g h
stands o n important contemporary issues. Some may argue
that all politicians do this, but I
must say that I know of few
politicians w h o have been as inconsistent on the issues as Carter^ has been.
^ B u t I must say that Jimmy Carter w o u l d probably be a better
President than Gerald Ford, and
"*fhat I doubt Carter could be
worse- In Gerald Ford we have a
-roan—of^—astounding incompetence.
S i n c e Ford became President
unemployment has risen from
6% to well over 7%, inflation
continues upward, the recession
is still with us and there has
been n b sign of things getting
any better. Yet Ford tells us he's
" t u r n e d the economy around."
In-which direction? Ford tells us
more people in America are
w o r k i n g than ever before. How
can that be if w e have the highest u n e m p l o y m e n t s i n c e the
Great Depression? Ford claims
to have b r o u g h t unity a n d
strength to America, but in reality most Americans are more
disillusioned w i t h government
than they've ever been. Ford
took a hard line against New
York City, at first refusing to
give us the money needed to
avoid bankruptcy. He claimed
that the rest of the country
should not have to pay for New
York's fiscal incompetence. This
explanation is hardly credible
when one considers the fact that
it is New York City (and State)
that pays f o r the rest of the
country. As of a few years ago,
the federal government returned
44% of the tax money it received
f r o m New York State. It returned
over 200% t o Mississippi and
several other states also were
given back more than they paid.
The situation as of last year was
approximately the same, according the The Waif Street Journal.
In the area of foreign affairs,
Ford and Kissinger have managed t o bring American prestige
abroad t o a new low. When our
President hasn't been calling
Anwar Sadat the Prime Minister
of Israel or testing the endurance of his skull, he's been selling wheat w e need to the
Russians. The result has been
an inflationary
increase in the
price of bread. He has allowed
detente to become a policy in
w h i c h almost a l l the c o n cessions are made by us, while
w e receive little in return from
the Russians. Ford even refused
to see Alexandra Solzhenftzen
o u t of fear that s u c h a meeting
would offend t h e Kremlin.
Recently, Ford and Kissinger finally d i d something
right.
T h r o u g h Kissinger's diplomacy,
steps have been taken to bring
majority rule to Rhodesia But I
have t o ask, why d i d they wait
till a few months before the election before taking these steps?
—-+n-<>ompai%»g^ord^ndrGarter o n issues they have spoken o u t
o n , Carter comes o f f more favorably. He proposes public works
p i o y r a m s to create jobs, and
m o r e money for education, mass
transit a n d aid t o the cities. In
t h e s e areas, F o r d p r o p o s e s
n o t h i n g * Carter advocates a
stronger foreign policy, o n e in
w h i c h detente is a two-way
street. H e also recognizes that
Eastern Europe d o e s not consist
of " f r e e a n d a u t o n o m o u s
nations." Carter also advocates
p l u g g i n g tax loopholes, but his
s i n c e r i t y o n t h i s i s s u e is
q u e s t i o n a b l e c o n s i d e r i n g his
personal use of tax loopholes.
B u t it is xeally-impossible t o say
what k i n d of president Carter
w i l l or w o u l d be, considering the
past discrepancies in what he
has said and what he haf done
(particularly t h e 1970 g u b e natorial campaign).
But w e do know where Ford
stands. He will continue t o d o
n o t h i n g f o r the average A m e r i can. He w i l l continue economic
policies w h i c h -are unfairly balanced in favor of b i g business.
He will continue the same i n e f f e c t i v e p o l i c i e s t h a t are
currently In use. in other words,
the economy will still be in
shambles, and finding a j o b wiii
still be an adventure.
Between these two candidates
w e AGAIN have to decide who is
the lesser of the t w o evils. This
has seemed to be the case in
most recent elections I can
remember. The two-party system
has failed to give Americans a
real choice. Dick Gregory, i n his
book " D i c k Gregory's Political
Primer," stated that Americans
do not select a President, they
elect one. The t w o major political parties select their candidates. Most Americans have little to d o with this selection
process. In most states that hold
Presidential primaries^ you can
only vote in the primary of t h e
party y o u ' r e registered t o . If
you're an independent, you have
no say in what candidates are
nominated. A substantial number o f states don't even hold primaries. In these states delegates
are selected by party leaders.
Then y o u , the voter, can elect
one of their choices.
In our state, the choices for
U.S. Senator are almost as bad
as o u r Presidential alternatives.
The Daily News dream of Moynihan and Buckley is t h e intelligent person's nightmare.
S C H O O L WILL BE C L O S E D
TOMORROW - ELECTION DAY
P*
HE
MARSCHALL
IM> DER GEFREITE
DIDN'T
PR8T£ST
EITHER
UJ
l »
"'-*. *V"••
U.S.A.
Harvard
University
fist."
KSMPFEN H
FDR FRIEDEfl U
GLEKHBERECHIIGUN
1970
ag »-
wc- & Dole
Why can't
white men act like
human beings?
.•
H
U.S.A.
teJSki
N9[>
T€XXff
NNIDYI.
KDWi
FOR
TO>UU<C»
\
The good
old days!
POLITICAL POSTERS
FROIVF OUR PAST
>*-"
Compiled by Richard Rodriguez
•_-.^fe._*i
LO
7 -A
\
-^c^Sr
V
Gets you there
Without a care
Just raise the
fare
-
E.R.A.
ixwrr
m mvmm rmmm WE C
BRING T H E GIs H O M E N O *
aUSI lifiSO PtffEl!
CMC:
4EE» A MjmOMML
^
l
l
l
lt I
• ^.-'J - V'<-^J^^ Vfe-.. -- 'y-^l-.-' 'f -
miTEtNHn
oc fefe^
-
.^•i^^^t-*^
B l a c k P a n l t M r Rarty. P r o k n t i n g
U M S h o o t i n B o f tlMl_Augusta S i x . M a c k * shot
by G e o r g i a p o t t c a « n a n . 1 9 7 0 .
THINGS
:*m*>
•:}-~f'
Give the
Presidency
back to the
people.
-?v-
.
:
,*,->*
- " - • . -
—
-
'
- ,.r^..-
•
%•;••
-
-
_
.
-
C " -
>.
; - • - • . . " • • . • .
••
- •
• - • •
"
* , : > . . . - v , — , :..<"•. •«•-'•;. . - . -
- -
- . . - . - • - .
.
"
- ' • • ' -
-
. .-.7'-;.;• v
'
k
. - .
.>T-'-'.:;^'i*--- '
)\
<v
' . » •
^^fc
---~v
"•':'•--".-:^.'.-3TTI..-:
•-• • . S - * i ' - - . - t V : - - » ' > K - < j >
.._
• '••_'"!S.^-'">«--*C<S*9-C-'*-*«
'•••'-->\..-fe p -->?-s^^-.>' - i
"TT.-!*•>•»!-**/!
• '
-~ " . ' - ^ a l ^ S U • v . - ^ j « » ; - ^ : ••••/. '
I S THIS THE
AMERICAN
WAY?
—-.v
- : • " - • ' . - • - ( •" _"•'-.•"T-v. ' • - .-'.~,..>t'.',
j McCarthy.
r-:
V,
CTLY CLEAR
->T«k^-.
*>•
•* w>
A n t "
"*j
V-
VOTE SOCIAUST WORKERS IN 68
I
YOUNG SOCIALISTS FOR
J
Monday, November 1 , 1976 • THE TICKER • Page 7
Page 6 • THE TICKER • Monday, November 1 , 1976
Trots, Libs Blast
Carter-Ford, Bi
By Tom Smucker
Originally I wanted to write about presidential candidates Peter Camejo (Socialist Workers Party) and Roger
MacBride (Libertarian Party) because I like small, interesting voices. My justification for writing about them,
though, was that both were standard-bearers for rapidly
growing minority parties. Parties I didn't necessarily
agree with, but did feel had coherent, thought-out ideologies and strategies. Unlike the other independents.
The other candidates on the left represent stagnant and
largely aging memberships. Unless you count Lyndon
LaRouche, Jr.. of the U.S. Labor Party, who some now call
a rightist, since his followers devote so much time to
—OR--Meet 4he~Press.
recently, -beating- -up—k
LaRouche called himself a Marxist but reserved his only
kind words for •'regular** Republicans, who. he s a y s , will
try toavert the nuclear war that J i m m y Carter is privately
committed to. At best he's a total crackpot, at w o r s t an
agent. A native Reverend Moon.
Meanwhile, the marriage of sxrial conservatives (Wallaceites) and fiscal conservatives (Reaganites) promised by
William Rusher of the National Review has broken up at
the altar. The bride and groom, in the form of Lester
Maddox and John Anderson, have gone their separate
ways, neither with much following.
And Gene McCarthy is just a different Democrat and
doesn't, I think, represent a distinct political formation.
You*ll vote for himdf you like Gene MgCacthy^and. Wbeln he
fades from view,"ne won't leave any organization^ I've
never liked him because I think he's a snob. And I wouldn't
write about him even if he joined the Beach Boys.
Camejo impressed Tom Snyder as stand-op comic.
Socialist Workers Party members say they take turns
running for public office to spread leadership experiences
through the ranks. I once beat the SWP candidate for
governor of Colorado at a Monopoly game in Denver. But if
the party continues to grow the w a y it has been it m a y soon
have more members than offices to run for. The number of
chapters in New York City has doubled to eight in the last
year. And three-fourths of the membership is 30 and
under.
The SWP began formally in 1938. although it existed
previously a s a CP splinter group. SWPers were among the
first"Americans prosecuted under the Smith Act during
World War II and were almost wiped out by the *50s. But
they gained a lot of members in the anti-Vietnam war
movement. Members who had a reputation as dull, disciplined manipulators who infiltrated and "took over"
other organizations. And avoided the cultural experimentation and religious fervor of the most interesting figures of
thai era. =
But whal seemed like drawbacks in the '60s are almost
advantages today. When I went to interview Camejo at MacBride sponsored, critiqued debates in Alaska
their headquarters in the West Village dock area, his press
secretary kept me pleasantly occupied with clippings and when Sadlowski wins, other struggles for democracy in
brochures and information until he arrived. And when the other unions will break out, he thinks, and open up the
interview started and I mentioned that my tape recorder possibility of the formation of a labor party that he says the
might not work, she told me not to worry, they could supply SWP would happily participate in.
another one. In the movement of the '60s, I'd have been
The old two parties are dead, according to Camejo. The
lucky to find a clean piece of paper, let alone the person I'd patronage machines and personal commitment they once
come to interview.
engendered have disappeared in every place except Mayor
If they are committed, but lack that messianic spark, Daley's dying empire. But the powers that be will prop
maybe that's better, too. Since so many of those old them up with nothing better than J i m m y Carter's "I love
messiahs have slid into incomprehensible fanaticism or you but cut back" (Camejo's phrase) a s long as possible. At
apathy. While groups with less discipline have just disap- which point they will allow more concessionary third-party
peared. When Camejo - denounced the communism of figures like Gene McCarthy or Fred Harris^rt the center
Russia a s a state»- ligion I thought he meant it. And thought stage.
that if he did seize power somehow^he probably wouldn't
_ The SWP has-survived s o m e rough times. Some of these
institute the kind of thought control successful left-wing are documented in the stuff they forced the FBI to turn over
messiahs are known for, even if he might be a little rigid. in their famous COINTELPRO suit (reproduced in a
Although I wonder if someone who doesn't have that spark Vintage paperback of the s a m e name). Groups that survive
can light a fire big enough to get into power.
such long-term harassment cannot have a naively simplistic
notion of how history will just unfold into a revolution.
The SWP traces its theories back to Leon Trotsky. Stalin,
you may remember, disagreed so strongly with Trotsky While the boringiy sane character of a legal suit shows that
that he had him exiled and later murdered. Trotsky's idea thoy don't -hnve a wildly apocalyptic vision of how to cause
that the loss of democracy in Russia was due to the rise of one, either .
Stalin may have been right. But sometimes I wonder
Camejo had a sensible, if not always totally convincing,
whether it might have been something in the personality of answer for every question that I asked, and was eager to
Lenin, or in the culture and structure of Leninist parties answer, and not offended by, what might have sounded like
(the SWP considers itself Marxist-Leninist), or in human
'anticommunist" curveballs to someone else. He was also
nature. Anyway, better a party that might be wrong about very funny. In fact, Tom Snyder, who had him grudgingly
Russia in the early 1920s than one that s wrong about on the Tomorrow show, after Camejo sued for equal time,
Russia, or the U.S.A.. today.
laughed so much he ended up asking Camejo if he'd ever
thought
of working a s a stand-up comedian.
Camejo thinks the war in Vietnam made the government
look bad to the majority of Americans for the first time.
My interview with Libertarian Roger MacBride did not
And that Vietnam. Watergate, and our screwed-up econ- go quite a s well.
omy-have counteracted the patriotism and prospertty^thar
First of all, MacBride is from Virginia, and the Liberwed people to the system after World War II. He thinks the tarian Party is headquartered in Washington, JXC. Camejo
most important election today isn** his, but EdSadlowski's lives on the Lower East Side. Both- candidates were
challenge to tlie steel worker's union establishment. If and criss-crossing the country, just like the big g u y s , . but
try. ms
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a
Unlike other
independents,
Camejo and MacBride both
have coherent,
thought-out
ideologies and strategies.
!•••!
Ozon 3: A Political Phenomenon
Camejo was easier to run into.
Besides, the Libertarian Party is somewhat disorganized
in New York, although there a r e several heavy Libertarians like Murray Rothbard living here. The local party,
evidently, is in the hands of followers of Ayn Rand. This led
to disagreements in which some who are active nationally
resigned from the local party. Randians. a s I understand it,
are seen a s a little flaky and too right-wing by mainstream
Libertarians.
On top of this. MacBride lias- seen his best response the
farther west he goes. Libertarians say he's very popular,
with his individualistic ideology, in Alaska. The LP e v e n
sponsored the<^arter-Ford debates^wi TV there, with^heir
own spdts~anoraTive"analysls"5>- Ma^cT3ndkTaTtne end.'On
the theory that the more that-voters saw Carter-Ford the
less they'd like them. MacBride talks atjout maybe carry^
arAV•est.-A^ld^rf^hottghne-claims hisparty
is made u p of equal portions of former liberals and former
conservatives, from what 1'veseen it's aimed more at conservatives.
The Libertarians, with their across-the-board opposition
to big government, end up opposed to government restrictions on every form of civil liberty and private property,
from abortions, drugs, and sex to guns and profits. I doubt
they're right, but they are consistent, and thus can work a
sort of logical jujitsu on conservatives: "If you're opposed
to big government, -why are you for the Pentagon?" "If the
government should get out of private enterprise, shouldn't
it get 0*rt of private bedrooms and foreign governments?"
'
They can also work this, in reverse, on xadic-libs. but
haven't so much, in the past, since they developed out of the
right. If the Ayn Randians comprise their right wing,
however, there are a variety of anarchists on their left.
Some of the Libertarians I -met at the Laissez-Faire
Bookstore on Mercer Street here talked-glowingly about
their potential appeal among g a y s , feminists, and potheads. And cracked jokes about which one of them were old
Berkeley radicals. They also insisted that I mention that
many Libertarians see the idea of running for governmental office a s a contradiction, and don't support the L.P.
Although it appeared to be a good-natured disagreement.
The idea of a movement of gays. Feminists, dopers, and
gun-owners fighting for free enterprise is too incongruous
not to fascinate this old radical. Their farther-out ideas,
like free enterprise armies or privately owned roads and
sidewalks, are hard for m e to imagine. Although the
Libertarians I've known and talked to have all beer,
reasonable and interesting. And their central critique of the
left, that concentrations of power for any purpose tend to
lead to tyranny, is one I find worth pondering.
But if Peter Comejo was eager to talk to The Village
Voice, and in fact bemoaned, in particular, its lack of
coverage of the COINTELPRO suit. Roger MacBride
seemed much less sure. It might have been geography or
circumstance, but my interview took place under less
desirable circumstances, and for a shorter time, than the
one with Camejo.
If I didn't get the full measure of MacBride from my
interview, talking to MacBride andjCamejo made something weirder happen. It made their campaigns s e e m
totally plausible to me.
When I started out I thought of them a s small but
.interesting^ But getting immersed in their campaigns
broke the magic hold~oT Xa^rtercForo"~on n i e r ahoT I
remembered my feeling watching TV n e w s at the beginning of the primaries: "How can Walter Cronkite get so
worked up about this bullshit?"
But I like elections, and I like to vote, and I've worked for
mainstream politicians in m y day, and eventually all the
exposure got to rne and I really got excited, to tip my hand,
.oping for a Jimmy Carter win.
Peter Camejo probably convinced rne to vote SWP.
though, when he pointed out that a large mandate for
Carter would encourage foreign adventures. 1 worked hard
a s a volunteer for Johnson in - '64 because I thought
Goldwater would start a war, and we know, what happened.
In retrospect I think it would have been harder for
Goldwater to get away with Vietnam. The s a m e holds for
Ford and Carterv Camejo thinks, and I agree. But I'd
actually forgotten this old pearl of radical wisdom in the
midst of all the campaign glitter.
There are real reasons for voting for J i m m y Carter. And
I believe a real case could be made for voting for Gerald
Ford. Each man represents a real power and therefore has
real if somewhat meager things to offer. Because MacBride and Camejo haven't been in power, they enjoy the
luxury of not having been able to do anything wrong.
Camejo and MacBride are both fond of pointing out t h a r
over half the electorate is expected to refrain from voting,
and, of course, dream of turning that turned-off half on, and
claiming it a s their own. Who knows? I didn't really c a r e
about Carter or Ford until Walter Cronkite made me care,
after all his months^pf enthi^iabm. AndafierJ>eingdipped in the campaigns of MacBride and Camejo, they s e e m e d
just, as real. Maybe it's just my taste for the exotic or
ma^lwej&5aeitt*Lsame^
-r...
The Case For Carter
-^
Reprinted from the Village Voice
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*•
*
*
*
What is the choice?
We are confronted by a Democratic
candidate whose political record is singularly uninspiring. J i m m y Carter is a politician whose chief claim to attention has
been his adroit manipulation of the media.
His sole c l a i m to any substantial achievement has been his boast of administrative
reform in Georgia.
Inspection of the actual record here
reveals an utterly a v e r a g e performance
a s governor. Despite the high moral
claims he m a k e s for himself Carter did not
shun the political jobbery and distribution
of favors inherent in the gubernatorial
function. He resolutely promoted important business interests—such a s Lockheed—in h i s s t a t e ^
The Democratic
lidate h a s spoken
warmly of the need for open government.
His own c a m p a i g n h a s been characterized
deceit, and the personnel and texture of a
possible Carter administration remain a
mystery to the American electorate.
Carter h a s evidenced almost no position
of interest on any single issue, unless we
admit to consideration such pledges a s he
has made to the deep mines of Appalachia
and such criticisms a s those of limited
nuclear w a r and nuclear proliferation.
Often noted is his alleged enthusiasm for
national health insurance. This bold promise, for those who have cared to study its
recent manifestations, now amounts to
nothing more than deceptive political rhetoric.
One of the most explicit statements in
his entire campaign has be«5> Carter**
attack on the Warren Court and one of his
most explicit endorsements the direction
taken by its successor. Those who place
their trust in a liberal Carter, chafing to be
released from his closet once the sanctuary of the White House has been acquired,
should remember that the Democratic
candidate stated only last month that he
did "favor a shifting tmck toward the
removal of technicalities which obviously
prevent the convictions and punishment of
those who are guiltv." So much for the
c-iiiidldaleV view of coj;stit.uiti<»na! _ and
legal protections. Such statements do not
promote a special optimism about possible
Carter appointments to the Supreme
Court.
It has been apparent in a l H i i s statements about the role dflhe presidency that
Carter has learned little from the Watergate affair beyond facile moralizing- He
has said that he would be responsible for
the CIA. The history of the last 30 years
has made such a statement utterly unacceptable -and once again displays unwholesome and, indeed, dangerous reverence for untrammeled executive power.
In terms of his foreign policy, there is
little to be sanguine about. It is just
conceivable that with a liberal secretary
of state some semblance of change could
occur. But it is certainlv apparent that in
the last v/eeks of the campaign Carter has
been prepared to outflank and promise to
outperform -ther^ord»Kissinger adminis*
tration from the right.
Jimmy Carter is in favor of the Trident
submarine and, s o far a s one c a n discern
from his public statements, is quite prepared to endorse production of the B-l
bomber. So much for symbolic statements
about the defense budget- He has proclaimed himself in favor of tax reform, but
after he abandoned his attack on the
deduction of home mortgage interest be
has apparently found it impossible or
politically inopportune to say. anything
specific—aside from encouraging noises to
multinational businessmen about tax
credits abroad.
Finally, it should be remembered that in
1970 Carter ran a repulsive campaign,
pandering to the lowest instincts of the
Georgian electorate. Around this time be
endorsed J. Edgar Hoover and the Vietnam warTand promised the Georgia state
police that in the event of campus unrest
he might find it necessary to dispatch the
national guard with orders to shoot to
kill.
Standing against this candidate is his
greatest single campaign asset: Gerald
Ford.
Ford represents the acts &ndv policies of
the most corrupt political administration
in modern American history. There can be
no question a s to his involvement in the
early attempts to s t a m p out the Watergate
investigation. Almost until the last, it was
Gerald Ford's foremost and declared ambition to maintain Richard Nixon in office.
It was almost his first act a s president to
pardon'the criminal who appointed him.
Aside from the political corruption of the
Watergate affair, Ford has actively prosecuted policies of economic ruin. It can be
said without exaggeration that the FordSimon-Greenspan-Burns bloc has composed the most reactionary economic policy seen since before the Second World
War.
We should be clear what these policies
have involved: a program of enrichment
for corporations through the development
of capital-intensive industry and the
maintenance—indeed
enlargement—of
vast pools of unemployed labor. These
policies have been set forth by Simon and
by Burns. Any worker should realize that
the policies of this Republican administration have directly compounded his suffering. Survival of such an administration
wouiu not Be mcrciy a nmionui, oui «*~
global, economic disaster. When the history of the Ford administration comes to be
Jimmy Carter
written it should become clear that Secretary of the Treasury Simon has had a
malign influence on economic affairs unparalleled in recent memory. His tale
should no more be'forgotten than should
that of Henry Kissinger.
Gerald 4?ord i s a bigoted, ignorant
placeman unworthy of holding elective office.
It is for such reasons that we support
Carter and urge people to vote for him on
November 2.
There are minority candidates of interest, including Eugene McCarthy. Unfortunately, their candidacies lack positive
weight in the actual contest on November
2. A vote for McCarthy is, in all probability, a vote for Gerald Ford.
If Jimmy Carter wins, we fully expect
that the country will continue on its rightcenter trajectory. With a Democratic administration the taxpayers' money will be
reallocated to a slightly different mix of
corporations. The traditional Democratic
lust for the creation of employment
through the production of armaments
could lead to dangerous international
confrontation abroad. We do not expect the
operations of American corporations
abroad to be curbed to any significant
degree. Furthermore, it should not be
forgotten amid the unending concentration
on the preside.ncy__that_Xarter_.jTOuld_be
dealmg"vwilh a~T)temdcralic X76ngress~fnat™
is also firmly ensconced in the right
center. It is illusory to think that simply
fre^ns**-******** will 1*^ a *»himg*^ nf l e a d e r s
in Congress or because of technical
changes in the structure of the legislature
that this conservative bent will diminish
with a Democrat in the White House.
Domestically, the ancient and tired coalitions established by Roosevelt and Truman may lead to a slight diminution of
pressure on the poor. (We should take note
of the argument tirelessly-advanced by
Carter's apologists on the left that his
election would permit or promote "space"
for liberal and left initiatives. The left is,
at best, a febrile tendency and the major
historical trends are inevitably powerful
manifestations of the familiar right-center
movement. The "left" relics created in the
"space" policed, bugged, and sabotaged
by the last Democratic administration
have not been notable for their potency or
stamina.)
This election is, above all, a time for
political reality. With that in mind we have
attempted over the months to deal with
candidates rigorously and without illusion.
It seemed to us that such w a s the prop -r course. Even so, there^hould he no misunderstanding. We expect little from
Jimmy Carter. But—and this is not said
cynically—our position should not be construed as urging absenteeism.
The correct course on November 2 is to
proceed to the polls and ypte Gerald Ford
out of office. This can only be done by
voting for J i m m y Carter.
safcsMBKSHws^^
THE C A M P A I G N
Reprinted from Time
AVOIDING A KNOCKOUT IN THE CLOSING ROUNDS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
L
ike two wary prizefighters, each
convinced that he will win by a decision if only he can avoid being
kayoed. Gerald Ford and Jimmy
Carter last week feinted and jabbed,
bobbed and weaved. If eilher had a
knockout-ptmeh,r^^kejMrit under wraps.
That was true throughout the week. but.
most emphatically during the third and
final presidential debate.
The reason for the candidates" caution was clear: although the polls continue to give Carter an edge, it is extremely narrow. A new TiME-Yankelovich survey for Oct. 16 to 19. updated
after the debate, showed Carter leading
the incumbent by 4c'c—48rr
to 4 4 ^ .
with 89c still undecided. Before the debate, the figures had been 45 r > for Carter. AV/c for Ford, with \3r'c undecided
The Harris/ABC poll had precisely the
same pre-debate spread between the two
major candidates—459c to 42<~c for Carter, with 59c for Independent Candidate
Eugene McCarthy. 19c for Lester Maddox and 79c undecided. A n earlier Gallup sounding gave Carter 47 r f. Ford
419c, with the rest for other candidates
or undecided.
The first round of two respected polls
in crucial states also favored Carter. The
N e w York Daily News gave the Democrat 539c to Ford's 449c—but Fords
strength is in the suburbs and upstate,
where voter turnout is generally heavier than in N e w York City, where Carter is far ahead. The Chicago Sun-Times
shows Carter ahead 51.19c to 47.59* in
Illinois, but T^ord appears to- b^gainmg.
Since the prize is still anybody's, neither candidate seems willing to try for
a haymaker that could miss—and leave
his own jaw fully exposed.
Nowhere was such zero-hour caution more conspicuous than in the Phi
Beta Kappa Hall at William and Mary
College in Williamsburg. Va. Before the
debate, a W*rule-Jdouseaide^ told _the
President. "The name of the game is not
blowing it." Both Ford and Carter did
their best to avoid a gaffe, but the result
was something less than inspiring. "It
was another case of Mr. Ready v. Mr.
Steady." said California's Republican
vice chairman Mike Montgomery. "I
score it a negative draw—zero to zero."
T
he debate probably d i e no: persuade many voters to switch from
one candidate to the other. Most
surveys, however, gave Carter the
edge in the final confrontation. In a snap
poll by Yankelovich. 33% rated Carter
the winner. 26% Ford, and 419c called
it a toss-up. A Roper survey for the Public Broadcast Service showed Carter the
clear winner by 4 0 % to 29<7c. with 319?
viewing the encounter as a standoff. On
the other hand, a n Associated Press telephone sample o£.1^27jvoters^gave_Ford
ihe^victory. 35.5% to 33%. The A.P.
sample also gave Ford the edge over
Carter in the overall race for the first
time, 49% to 459c—though the wire service conceded that there had been problems with its sample thai might have
distorted the results.
On balance the last.debate looked
like a marginal victory for Carter, at
best. The University of Chicago's Norman Nie found both men "extremely
careful not to step on a single toe and
y?
y
not to make a single error, and I don't
think people are particularly attracted
to that." Marquette Uni\ersity's Wayne
Youngquist lamented that neither came
out with anything new. making it "e\en
harder for voters to make up their
minds." But Stanford Sociologist Seymour Martin- L-ipsev^-ho«gh-t---t4:ve-eeba-te
"will serve to confirm people in their
choices. If "they haven't made choices.
it will probably confirm thern in their
confusion." University of California Political Scientist Aaron Wildavsky faulted Carter for "overpromising" and
noted: "For a second. I though: he-was
going to promise a cure for cancer."
A number o f o b s e r \ e r s complained
about the three-member pane] of newsmen who questioned the candidates.
Said T o m Williams, president of a San
Francisco executive search firm: "I
thought the reporters were somewhat biased in their questions, favoring Carter
The questions to Ford seemed much
tougher." Los Angeles Political Consultant Joe Cerrell. a Democrat, agreed He
feared that viewer sympathies would go
to Ford as a result.
The_candidate_s._on the other hand,
were for the most part exceptionally polite to each other. Before the debate
began. Betty Ford added a grace note
byjea'ving a penciled message on Carter's podium. Wrote the First Lady:
"Dear Mr. Carter: May 1 wish you the
best tonight? 1 am sure the best man
will win. I happen to have a favorite candidate— my husband. President Ford.
Best of luck. Betty Ford/'
Carter adopted a new. casual air of
modesty. He even managed to address
his opponent as "President Ford" instead of "Mr. Ford." Carter vowed that
he would focus.on the issues and not on
the character of his opponent—whom
he at one point conceded to be a "good
and decent man."
W
Jiether this cordiality .will extend into the final days of what
has been a tough, acerbic campaign remains to be seen. The
Ford Committee plans to spend s o m e
S10 million—40 r c of the total for the
President's entire campaign—on a closing medfa blitz that will continue to include spots focusing on Carter's record
as Governor~of Georgia and his supixised tendency to waffle on the issues.
During the debate Ford attributed the
narrowing of Carter's lead tn the polls
to the fact that the Georgian "is inconsistent" and "tends to distort" the truth.
Ford's suggestion that Democrats have
kept unemployment low mainly by getting the U.S. into uars v.as the kind of
statement.that could persuade Carter to
reassess the wisdom of traveling the high
road.
In another head-to-head encounter
tei\\een—trie" Lvvo^aTrrps-lasr-w-eelcT-the
Carter side scored a clear victory. At
the Los Angeles Civic Center, snacking
bystanders at an International Chili Society contest -chose Rosalynn Carter's
tangy recipe by a 4-to-1 margin over Betty Ford's. T h e Ford offering was rejected as too bland.
—For the rest of the week, the two
campaigners kept«their distance. liven
at the Alfred^ E. Smith Memoria+"t>mner in New York, the two managed to
Page 8
• M o n d a y , N o v e m b e r 1 , 197C
7
Television Blitz
«!Ttie campaign has beenc^a long
marathon, and thank God it's ^frhcrst
over, but along the.way. if eliminated
he won the primaries,
-ft .also showed us that, und'.r presBy James Reston
sure, both - candidates make »nistakes
and that press, radib~~afl©UAelevision
A great change has come over the
magnify those mistakes, anr« confront
candidates in the last week of the camthem with dilemmas of the democratic
WASHINGTON
paign. The magical theatrical arts of^
process
almost beyond endurance.
Times Square and the cunning techBut
in
that
process, or so it seems
niques of Madison Avenue, with just Governor Wallace and Governor Reathe right camera angles, voice levels gan, the two men who might have here, they staggered a'ong and dethan they have
and patriotic crowd shots, have sud- carried the nation away from its' mod- serve better marks
1
denly transformed Gerald Ford and erate course in both national and been given,by a crit'eal press that
falls on fumbles, an J by a critical
Jimmy Carter into flawless statesmen. foreign policy.
electorate
that condemns Ford stateThe television blitz is on, and it is
It gave the rejected South a chance ments it doesn't understand and Carexactly like the commercial advertising in 1976. as it ga\e the rejected Roman
Campaign for the l£77 automobiles. Catholics a chance with John Kennedy ter Playboy interviews it never reads.
"Now that's better," say the General in 1£X>0. to get to the pinnacle of poOkay., so the crmpaign was not an
Motors and Carter ads. "When America litical responsibility. In short, the sys- educational exercise on the jssues,
bleeds a better idea. Ford puts it on— tem made room for - the pohticaT~ourand the speech were repetitive dozwheels." says ,the Ford Motor Company. s iders this year, as it did for Wendell ers. but if Carter staggers into "ethnic
And the Republicans say the same, wHlkie in 1940, and Dwight Eisen- purity" or Playboy mistakes, and Ford
even though Jerry usually put* every hower in 1952.
thinks he is in Ohio when he is in
betterjdea on the shelf^
^
qit dramatized at Jeast some of the Iowa, -and-I ifrurates Eastern^ Europe
j
j
by
It is only w h e n ^
of Watergate and; under the iccident7 or stumbles down an"air
and the candidates selling their prod- new campaign finance laws, w a s prob- p | a n e stair* /ay, maybe that's the way
ucts over TV—Joe Garagiola peddling ably more honest financially than any t h e a r € — a H ' ttIe i m p r e c j s e > a jittle
Ford
At Nixon
By JOHN S. LANG
New York Post
Correspondent
CHICAGO.
OR GERALD FORD, the phantom foe
In the campaign is Richard Nixon,
and the President h a s stepped u p his efforts t o outdistance the Watergate shadow.
Without slackening his attacks
on
Jimmy Carter's policies, Ford used h i s
strongest language t o date In describing
Nixon, the rrtan who put him in the White
House, a s "dictatorial."
Ford has all along--sought- t<y put-xtistance between himself and his former
mentor, saying that -when he took office
t w o years a g o there had been misconduct
F
''in—tfcfae- M g h m t L - p I a f t A s "
Dodges—that you begin to appreciate
^Finally, it compelled Mr. Ford and
the good side of alt those tiresome \jr. Carter to make decisions about
primary elections, repetitive speeches, the Vice Presidency, which has beblundering press conferences and con- come, by accident, the Presidency in
troversial debates.
the persons of Theodore Roosevelt,
They were excessively punishing on Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, LynMr. Ford and Mr. Carter and their don Johnson and Gerald Ford in this
famUies^ but at least theyi_^aye__the__c^tiiry; anrf which has given us such
voters a^ more accurate impression of nominees as Spiro Agnew and Bob
the two. men than their contrived ac- Dole and Walter Mondale t o think
ceptance speeches at the nominating about as potential Presidents. You can
conventions, or these heroic TV pic- take your choice.
tares of Jimmy on the fence or the
So maybe the '76 campaign has not
President mouthing patriotic lines to a been alt bad. It showed us that the
circle of adoring black and white Republican Party, which had doubts
about nominating Gerald Ford for Senchildren.
Almost everybody is sneering at the ator or Governor of Michigan, ever
long campaign as a tiresome bor<\ fought him down to the last ballot «t
Jcnocking the debates as a scoreless Kansas City for the Presidential nomtie, and dismissing the two candidates ination.
It showed us that the presiding
as a couple of unsatisfactory dubs, but
elders
of the Democratic Party, inherewith a dissent before the final excluding
their labor leaders, didn't .vant
pensive political pictures on the teleMr. Carter, but accented him when
vision screens.
after months, of campaigning, a .little
exhausted,' confused arid even punchy.
After it's all over, I don't happen
to th*"nk it's a hard call. Mr. Carter's
intelligence, energy, flexibility, his underc,tanding of,'the young arid his capacitv for personal growth _are__so
much greater than Mr. Ford's that
'he decision for Carter seems clear
in this corner no matter the campaign.
Voters can choose as they like—
between the possibility and uncertainty of change under Carter or the
certainty of "four more years" of
much the same under Ford, but they
cannot take guidance from the fraudulent blitz at the end. The campaign
has been fairly accurate in revealing
the qualities and weaknesses of both
candidates, and is a much better guide
than all the huckstering ads we'll be
seeing from now, until next Tuesday.
voiding A Knockout
{Continued
from Page 7)
avoid each other. Carter had been hoping 10 pass up the dinner and spend the
time preparing for the final debate.
When he belatedly accepted the invitation from Terence Cardinal Cooke.
the Roman Catholic Archbishop of N e w
York, the Democrat was penciled in to
speak between the main-course and dessert. Ford's remarks came right after the.
_ Star-Spangled
Banner and before the
soup and salad. While Carter was still
en route, the President departed. Both
provoked laughter with self-deprecating
quips. But Carter also scored points by
reminding the largely Catholic audience
that his native Georgia had supported
Catholics Al Smith and John Kennedy
— a hardly veiled suggestion that N e w
York should return the favor.
A s the'campaign dwlhdled^down To
its final days. Carter seemed to have hit
upon a tone for the wind up—dropping
no-holds-barred attacks on Ford to focus on issues and his vision of the nation's future. While outwardly exuding
confidence. Carter made no attempt to
conceal 4iis main concern: a low voter
turnout that could, deny him the victory
he believes will be his if only his supporters go to the polls. In a workingclass neighborhood in Tampa. Fia.. Carter cried. "There are indications that
over half the American people are not
going to vote! They are saying. I'm a
coward. I'm afraid of the future. I'm giving up on m y nation.' If w e don't participate, the Republicans will be there
fouF more years."
N
either Carter nor Ford has been
able t o arouseahd~excite the VS.
electorate. Confessed Carter: Vm
worried. Fm really worried." Indications a i e that he has every right to
be. Says Carter's New York State cochairman, William vanden fjeuvcl:
"This year there is something completely unpoiiable out there. There is something that none of us is picking up." I n —
California, where Governor Jerry
Brown's lieutenants have been given be^
lated control of the Carter operation.
Campaign A i d e Tom Quinn moaned.
' Wnen you see apatny and iow interest
this close to an election, it's bad for Democrats." The Democratic National Committee's, executive director, Mark Siegel,
observed at week's end. "Right now. it
looks like Carter is going to win an impressive electoral victory. But a^week
from now, w h o knows?"
Even professional oddsmakers were
wavering. East Coast bookies were still
listing Carter as a 7-to-5 favorite, down
from 3-to-l a month ago. In London the
equivalent of $10 bet on Carter wfll return only SI4.44 should he win. A similar $10 bet cm Ford will pay $25 if the
President is elected.
For his part. Ford discovered last
week that he can no longer automatically command free television time.
When he summoned reporters to his second press conference in six days., there
was no live coverage: highlights were excerpted for news programs, as is always
the case with Carter.
Asked to square his determination
to elevate the tone of the campaign with
his recent harsh attack o n Carter as one
who "wavers, wanders, wiggles and waffles." Ford insisted that the description
of his opponent was both "graphic and
accurate." He derided Carter as "naive"
for vowing to end the A r a b boycott of
VS. firms with tics to Israel, something
four VS. Presidents, he said, had been
unable to do. In an apparent contradiction. Ford then added that he was really the first President to do anything (in
fact, he has d o n e very little).
In the campaign's waning days, both
Carter and Ford (or their forces) wiH be
concentrating on the s a m e vote-heavy
territory: N e w York. N e w Jersey and
Pennsylvania, all now leaning slightly to
Carter, plus three critical states that are
now rated as toss-ups: Ohio. Illinois and
California. Both face hectic: grueling
schedules: Ford, for example, will hit
nine states in one five-day stretch and
docs" not plan toTeturnTo Washington
until after he h a s cast his ballot in Grand
Rapids on Election Day.
*
O
O)
<D
*-M
and
/*1atmlr» g
<& *§
«£
ȣ
-si
£
e g
IS
&&$-
m
f^r
has since restored public confidence in t h e
White House.
H i s joust wfth t h e Nixon legacy came
last night in his paid half-hour TV show
beamed through Illinois.
What, a s k e d moderator Joe Garagiola,
is t h e main difference between a Nixon Administration^ a n d a-Ford Administration?
" T h e r e ' s o n e gTeat difference, Joe,"
replied the President. "Under President Ford
there i s no imperial White House. It means
there Is n o pomp, no ceremony, n o dictatorial
authority."
T h a t is t o u g h personal talk, and Ford's
advisers toofc> pains t o stress last night t h a t
Ford's latest anti-Carter speeches have been
directed at Carter's policies, not his
personality.
P a r t l y o u t o f c o n « n that a critical
speech would b e interpreted a s a violation of
h i s pledge t o elevate t h e tone o f the campaign. Ford w a i t e d four days before responding t o Carter's pledge not t o Involve t h e
US.
in any military conflict between
Yugoslavia and t h e Soviet Union.
his speech before the Pittsburgh
Economic Chio- y e s t e r d a y morning; Ford
said Carter's m i s t a k e s were "potentially
dangerous" to the nation's security.
m
CO
• ft
L
•-«£•
*l-
"It w a s a damn carefully worded speech
all the w a y through/' said one ranking Ford
campaign official of the President's response. "We walked a l i n e line."
The official said Ford's advisers had
always planned to use a tough foreign policv
address during t h e last week of t h e ' c a m paign. It is a strategy t h a t worked well during the primaries, when Ford took the last
few d a y s of each campaign to focus or.
Ronald Reagan's inexperience In International affairs.
The strategy had been planned i u s t aft e r the Republican convention, when Ford
huddled with his aides in Vail, Colo. Staffers
s a y that pollster Robert Teeter and adman
John Deardourff both argued that it w a s
necessary in the final campaign d a y s t o
emphasize Ford's experience in dipjomacv.
_ . _Tbey i n s i s t Carter has-^signated t o ' t h e
Russians that t h e y can do as they wish in
Eastern Europe if he is elected—and at a
time when Yugoslavia's President Tito Is aging'and UL
fi;j<
However, t h e advisers s a y Ford is not
expected t o keep hammering at the Issue,
because "in foreign poiiey, when y o u are
President, you h*vr«.to b e more cautious,
more restrained in your statements, campaign or n o campaign."
^
(Continufl
from P a p * 2)
mem rate by about four-tenths of a
point.
Today, there are new Government
programs that create job opportuniare the Public Service Employment
and the CoHege Work Study programs.
Enrollees are counted as employed
even though they are not in marketcreated jobs and many would otherwise have been unemployed. In t h e
absence of these programs, the total
unernploymemV^rate would probably
be several tenths of a point higher.
Other factors may have, influenced
the unemployment data, such a s extension of the minimum wage (employers find it more expensive t o hire
teen-agers in jobs that may not be
worth higher pay), bat the experts
haven't come up with any usable estimates to adjust the unemployment
rate. Ai\drxJSS%e influences w e k n o w
something
about
are
continually
changing in importance.
AH in all, a good guess is that the
unemployment rate comparable t o
20 years ago is probably 2 to 2.5
points less ttan currently reported
more like 1.5 times rather than twice
as high as the 4 percent rate of the
golden mid-1950's.
Alfred J. Telltu former research professor of economics at
Georgetown
University,
is special adviser to the
^-.Tv-ni n; the Census.