The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 2, Ed. 1 Monday, June 30, 1980 Page: 2 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Registration is dangerous move
It seems almost imcomprehensible, but our
generation seems to be complacently accepting
registration and the almost inevitable draft. President
Carter will sign a bill next week ordering registration,
yet not so much as a whimper or a protest has been
heard from this nation's youth.
Perhaps reality has not set in yet. Within the next
month, half of Rice's male population — those born in
1960 and 1961 — will march to their local post office
to inform the government of thier existence and of
their whereabouts or face ten years in jail and a
$10,000 fine.
Granted, registration is not the draft. But it's only
logical consequence is the draft. Therefore,
registration is not really the question. If there is to be
no draft, registration is blatantly stupid. The question
is whether the U.S. should reinstitute the draft.
The answer seems clear. The draft is wrong. The
arguments against the draft have been made so often,
both during the sixties and during the past few
months, that they almost seem trite. But perhaps they
need to be restated anyway.
The draft is a form of slavery. It is forced labor. To
be in the military is to give up many of your basic
Constitutional rights. To deny freedom to defend
freedom is self-contradictory and hypocritical. To
force people to give up these right destroys the
spirit in which the Constitution was written. Those
rights were written into the Bill of Rights to prevent
the government from suspending them whenever it
deems it necessary. Yet, the draft does precisely that.
If a war seems so morally compelling that the basic
rights of this nation's youth need to be taken away,
then each individual should be allowed to decide
whether the reasons are compelling enough for him.
An individual must be responsible to his own
conscience or he fails to be human. If the Nuremburg
trials and My Lai taught us anything, surely they
taught us that.
The draft will not cause a war. But it will make it
psychologically easier for the U.S. to get involved in a
war before we can think twice about it. It can hardly
be denied that the availability of a large pool of
trained fighters in the post-war period fostered a
uthrow-in-the-troops, then-think-about-it" attitude
among our nation's leaders. As a result — lest our
collective memory fades too quickly — we were
incolved in two senseless wars defending petty
dictators from enemies no more authoritarian than
our "allies."
Regardless, registration will not substantially
decrease the time it takes to field a soldier. At best, it
saves seven days out of six months. Registration is
merely a election-year symbol being used by President
Carter to show how "tough" he is.
The fact that the constituency directly affected is
politically small merely serves to emphasize that
point. Carter's action will prove nothing to the
Soviets; indeed, it was only intended to impress
Americans.
Ironically, America has a long tradition of draft
resistance. The first draft during the Civil War raised
less than six percent of the fighting force for the
Union, yet riots were staged in New York that resulted
in some 123 deaths. Similar resistance, although often
not as violent, has been staged during every war since.
The time to act has already passed. But there are
things that can be done. Write your Congressman.
Support the ACLU in its suit against registration.
(The suit will be filed as soon as Carter issues his
registration order on the grounds that the act
discriminates against men. Although it does not
address the basic issue, a favorable outcome
effectively destroys the entire act.) Resist registration
as much as posfible. The time has not yet come,
however, to break the law.
But it may.
—Richard Dees
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
When America's quadrennial
November opportunity for
practicing democracy gets here,
few will take advantage of it
intelligently. After over a year of
polls, primaries, and promenade,
people are tired of the election well
before it arrives. Many will
abstain, some from apathy and
some because of disgust with the
options; many will perfunctorily
vote for a party instead of a man;
and most will reach through a
cloud of thorough ignorance to
cast a vote.
Party-line zealots pose the most
ominous threat. Most choose the
label they will wear for life at too
young an age but adhere to it
fanatically nevertheless. Connally-
Iike flip-flops are heretical. This
mentality, this little mind, values
consistency above all else, no
matter how foolish.
These voters cripple democracy.
Their technique neuters our
primary freedom upon which all
others rest: freedom of choice.
Americans boast that our right to
vote in free elections gives us
control over government. The
key word here is free. Free
elections means more than the
right to go into a booth and pull a
lever. Much more. It is not merely
the vote which makes elections
free; it is the choice. When Sadat
gets over 90 percent of the
Egyptian vote or when the
Kremlin's candidate garners 98 per
cent, Americans do not gasp at the
uniformity of Egyptian or Russian
public opinion; we do not envy
their national unity. For we do not
believe that Egyptian or Russian
voters are free; they only have a
choice A, no B or C. From their
overwhelming mandates we grow
more committed to our
divisiveness, a divisiveness which
presumably manifests and ensures
choice.
Many years have passed since
Americans chose from between
options with profoundly different
consequences. When Hamilton
wanted a monarchy and Jefferson
argued for a Republic, Americans
truly decided between two
disparate options. Yet ever since
Franklin emerged from the room
of cloistered statesmen and
announced that we had been given
a Republic — "if you can keep it"
— the choice between contrasting
options has been, with few
exceptions, non-existent.
Succeeding generations have not
taken advantage of the right
Jefferson asserted to be
fundamental, the "...right to
choose for itself the form of
government it believes most
promotive of its happiness."
In a sense, perhaps, Americans
have chosen to keep the present
system. That tacit decision,
however, is more passive
acceptance of a system than
contemplative evaluation followed
by a reasoned choice. Indeed the
alternatives cannot present
themselves for consideration; the
two-party system crushes them.
While we scorn elections with but
one candidate as dictatorial and
unjust, our system will admit only
two. If two be more free than one,
is three even more so? Was
England with three strong parties
more free than England (or
America) with but two?
Freedom clearly comes not from
numbers but from range of choice.
So the germane issue becomes:
How different are the two
American parties? How broad are
the options? Does either stand for
a new "form of government?"
Hardly. And that is only the
beginning of the problem. Besides
having to choose from among
virtually identical animals, the
salvation, which lies in a new
species, faces massive obstacles.
Most invidious is that barrier
called custom. American tradition
emphasizes that a choice of two is
plenty; more is superfluous.
Politicians belonging to a major
party have an interest in
maintaining this conventional
wisdom, but the unthinking
masses who have little to gain from
such limited options actually
perpetuate it.
John Anderson has posed the
most recent affront to the system.
Not surprisingly, most regard him
as a spoiler instead of a contender.
Voters seem to like Anderson but
will not vote for him because he
cannot win, and he cannot win
because voters — even though they
like him — will not vote for him.
Carter adds to the insanity be
refusing to debate Anderson
because Carter thinks the Illinois
representative is not a contender.
That follows, quite predictably,
since Anderson is running without
the sanction of either major party.
Ultimately though, Anderson
makes a mockery of his own
position by refusing to debate
Barry Commoner who, says
Anderson, is a frivolous candidate.
People suppose that by straying
from the two major parties their
vote is thrown away, wasted. By so
believing these voters establish the
truth of the very phenomenon they
lament. Thus the two-party system
with its party-line adherents
further entrenches itself. Then the
two parties grow inexorably more
similar, and the ways to "waste"
one's vote proliferate as the viable
options narrow. Ostensible choice
will not disappear in America, but
its meaning will become more
farcical. As we pity the shackled
voters in Egypt and Russia, the
enemy we loathe stealthily
approaches behind a disguise of
two options, Republican or
Democrat. Unless we quickly
expose the deception — that
alleged differences between the
major parties are superficial and
shrinking — our system will join
the likes of Egypt's or Russia's in
bestowing nearly unanimous
mandates on guardians of the
status quo.
NOllMPKrHENt
MMWH6-WPV0Ur
NHIMCOHffirffl"
THLiiliPK
< AWf.
EcNSA«3sMT~
'TjAfiDTtic-^bih>naaii
Consider Anderson
When I heard independent presidential candidate John Anderson a
few weeks ago during his campaign swing through Houston, I was
most immediately struck not (as with most candidates) with his looks,
his charm, his image, or even his oratorical skill, but by his willingness
to deal with issues. His has been called a "campaign of ideas;" indeed,
Anderson at his best when explaining and defending his policies.
He, unlike most candidates, seems to prefer discussing specific ideas
and programs to preaching vague general themes as both Reagan and
Carter are apt to do.
Anderson tries to combine traditional Republican fiscal
conservatism with a newly-found social liberalism — a combination
that is perhaps ideal, but one which may be difficult, if not impossible
to implement. It is not, however, probably any more impractical than
some of the plans of Reagan and Carter. Indeed, Anderson's
proposals deserve at least as much consideration as his opponents.
Anderson appeals primarily to precisely those who seek an
alternative to Reagan's short-sighted nostalgia politics and Carter's
even more short-sighted crisis-reaction politics. That appeal, so far,
has come almost exclusively from the young. His Houston rally was
attended solely by college students and young professionals. "Young
people realixe that 1980 is a very important year for them," Anderson
explained in response to the question of News Editor Anita Gonzalez.
"They realize that the decisions made in the next four years will largely
determine what kind of world they will find when they emerge from
the classroom into the world of work."
It is for precisely those reasons, with energy questions coming to a
crisis, with draft proposals hanging in the air, with new forms of
Soviet and American militarism becoming evident, that it is impotant
for our generation to become involved in the electoral process this
year. It is also for those reasons that many of our peers have turned
away from Carter and Reagan and to Anderson. Indeed, a recent
survey at Princeton showed 66 percent of the student body suppoeting
Anderson.
Nationwide, recent Harris and Time/Yankolovich polls show
Anderson with twenty to thirty percent of the vote, perhaps the
broadest support for an independent candidate since Teddy
Roosevelt. Although this early support traditionally dwindles as the
election approaches, Anderson has already established himself as a
viable candidate and should be considered as such. Unlike Libertarian i
Ed Clark and the Citizen's Party's Barry Commoner, Artfferson is nfct
simply attempting to get his ideas heard (although that, of course, is
part of it); he is running of the assumption that he can actually win.
Thus, his lack of major party support, contrary to what Carter and
Reagan will argue, is a poor excuse for voters not to consider him. The
only question should be whether Anderson should actually become
president or not.
State election laws, however, are hindering Anderson's efforts
considerably and the discussion of ideas that has been the hallmark of
Anderson's campaign is now 'buried beneath the moutain of red tape
created by these state laws and the state officials of both major
political parties. The Democratic National Committee has gone so far
as to appropriate $255,000 to challenge Anderson's campaign in the
courts in order to keep him off as many state ballots as possible. With
increasing amount of his time spent handling logistical problems,
Anderson has been unable to concentrate on the differences between
his policies and those of Carter and Reagan — and neither
nominee-apparent has bothered to descend from their respective
mountains to begin the discussion of issues that we need so desperately
for the 1980's. —Richard Dees
~ RICHARD DEES
Editor
DAVID ROSS
Business Manager
Anita Gonzalez News Editor
David Butler Advertising Manager
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
John Heaner Fine Arts Editor
Bob Schwarz Back Page Editor
David Butler Senior Editor
Staff Steve Bailey (from our Minneapolis Bureau),
Franz Brotzen, Donald Buckholt, Chrit Caitaneda, David Dow
Allison Foil. Dianne Frame, Kevin Golden, Ruth Hillhouse, Carol Johnson
Ann Jordan, Matt Mulkr, Tami Rifosin, Karen Strieker
Copyright e 1980 The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, June 30, 1980, page 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 2, Ed. 1 Monday, June 30, 1980, newspaper, June 30, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245442/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.