The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 11, 1980 Page: 2 of 24
twenty four 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:
The debates: Carter's
electoral dilemma
There is going to be a debate in Baltimore a week from
Sunday, but it is not going to be quite what the League of
Women Voters had in mind. Since Anderson and Reagan have
accepted their invitations and Carter has not, the "debate" is
more likely to turn into a two-hour attack on Carter's record
than on a debate of the relative merits of the programs of
Anderson and Reagan.
Traditional politics has advised Carter to avoid the debates
since, as an incumbent who is not running far behind in the polls,
he runs the risk of making a crucial verbal error (as Ford did in
1976 with his remarks about Poland) or of giving his opponents
the opportunity to look as "presidential" as he, thereby lending
them more credibility.
In addition. Carter thinks the debates will substantially help
Anderson's candidacy. Presumably (although there are polls to
the contrary), Anderson will draw more votes from Carter than
from Reagan and, therefore, a strong Anderson campaign
weakens Carter. However, with the League's invitation and
with the boosts Anderson received last week from the Federal
Election Committee (which agreed to give Anderson up to $13
million if he pulls five percent of the vote in November) and the
Liberal Party of New York (whose members recommended the
party endorse him as their presidential candidate), Anderson
has already established himself as the viable candidate Carter
wishes he was not.
Even that development has its ironies, though. If Anderson
does well, wins some states and throws the election into the
House of Representatives, Carter will win the election (since
such decisions are purely partisan and the Democrats are not
likely to lose control of enough state delegations to lose a
presidential vote).
But Carter is not likely to stray far from his strategy of
the politics of the moment. He has demonstrated his ability to
make the strategy work for him very well over the past year. He
played up Iran for every point he could, then dropped it when it
was no longer useful; he made timely announcements of aid to
states just before strategic primaries; and he has said yes-then-
no to debates against Kennedy, depending on his showing in
the polls. The game he is playing now is no different.
Typically, Carter is ignoring the "debates issue." Yet
the debates have been an important issue throughout this election
year and his rejection of them could have dire political
consequences. One need only remember that Bush ruined his
candidacy by insisting on debating Reagan one-on-one and that
Reagan himself lost the Iowa caucuses largely because he failed to
appear in the debates there.
Carter, despite his ravings about Reagan hiding behind
Anderson to avoid a confrontation, is scared of the debates. He
is afraid he will be overwhelmed by two attacks on his record
and will be unable to respond to all of Reagan's and Anderson's
charges. Yet those charges will be made, with or without the
debates, and Carter must answer those charges before he will
gain the confidence of enough of the electorate to be reelected.*
Letting Reagan and Anderson exchange volleys at him next
Sunday without rebuttal could prove disastrous. An effective
response, on the other hand, could clinch the election for him.
That a proven debator like Carter is reluctant to risk a debate
against his opponents is somewhat puzzling. Certainly, he is
not afraid of Reagan, who has gaffed every time he has strayed
from his prepared remarks in the last few weeks: Perhaps
Carter is afraid of the "non-viable" candidate Anderson (who,
after all, became a national candidate after his performance in
the Iowa debates). Ah the irony of it.
—Richard Dees
W
piffless mA MOMENT FROM MV fww w,
gouxi got k fuhnvone
•sonfone close to ¥00 b*ck
home ts -nws VERV MOMENT
mnon&yoo look like an imof
®t98D Tie Anstin A^enaa-Sb-baaii -
Onrtai frfflimaSykicafe
SPANNING THE HEDGES/by David Dow
As a moral philosophy,
socialistic principles do not
terrorize most Americans. The
knee-jerk reaction to the very
mention of socialism comes from
horrible images of totalitarian
repression, which does in fact
dominate virtually all of the
world's self-proclaimed socialist
regimes. There is truly, as Peter
Gay has put it, a Dilemma of
Democratic Socialism.
A socialist party which wants to
gain power confronts a difficult
quandary. By participating in the
democratic electoral process and
hoping to win election, the
socialists struggle futilely to erase
the preconceived notions, to stop
the instinctive knee-jerk at the
mention of "socialist." The other
possibility is to take power, to seize
it regardless of popular mandate.
Some parties, the Bolsheviks, for
example, intend this recourse from
the outset; for others, it may follow
a lugubrious but ultimately
realistic acknowledgement that
campaigns of reason cannot
assuage of obdurate masses who
cling to irrational preconceptions.
These two choices comprise the
socialist dilemma. One is quickly
losing its viability. Ever since the
first political party which claimed
to embody Marx's Utopia opted for
the totalitarian route, the
likelihood of succeeding through
the electoral process has shrunk to
near impossibility. The memory of
Stalin and the continuing
repression in the Soviet Union
persuade capitalist voters that
socialism per se is, or becomes,
totalitarianism.
What Americans fear, then, the
bogey of the preconceived nation,
is not the philosophy of socialism,
but the spectre of rampant
totalitarianism with its repression
and denial of liberty. Yet, and this
is absolutely crucial, the economic
system we cling to offends the very
essence of human liberty and
dignity Americans are so loath to
surrender. While totalitarian,
avowedly socialistic governments
never give shrewd businessmen a
chance to compete in the
marketplace — thereby stifling
freedom and liberty —
governments which espouse
capitalism do. Is that just? Should
a man be allowed to bankrupt
another simply because he is
smarter? Does an innate business
sense entitle a select five percent to
a life of opulence while banishing
the less endowed to the middle and
lower classes? Our law protects the
physically meek from society's
Goliaths by proscribing assault
and theft. And while other
statutes outlaw embezzlement
and computer crimes, intelligence
has a myriad of other lucrative
outlets whereas raw physical
strength has few if any.
Rewarding initiative, diligence,
and hard work make society go.
Russia and her satellites stagnate
economically precisely because
they give the individual no
incentive to produce. Dangling the
proverbial economic carrot before
man's self-interest does not in itself
violate any moral precepts;
however^ when fortuitous
allocation of human qualities
leaves some inherently less able to
pursue their self-interest, that is,
since some men are less intelligent
than others, the potential for
injustice suddenly occurs. And
when the intelligent use their
brains to widen the natural
disparity between themselves and
the less smart, society needs to
intervene.
Defending the right of the
intelligent to use their minds at the
expense of others leads to a curious
anomaly in later generations. An
astute businessman hands a
successful business to his doltish
son while a precocious ghetto child
never gets a chance to develop his
skills. Even if the initial inequality
could be justified, its defense
would necessarily prove the
injustice of the subsequent
situation. At some point, the
government must act.
That is all socialism demands.
Nobody deserves the brains,
brawn, parents, or economic class
which he receives by a whim of
nature. Often the beneficiaries of
nature's accidents do not recognize
that; the victims usually do. At
best, society ought to correct these
injustices; but at the very least,
society must refrain from
exacerbating them.
Nothing makes a totalitarian
regime better able to ameliorate
injustice than a democratic one;
indeed, it is exceedingly clear that
modern totalitarian states care not
a jot about justice. By equating
these regimes with socialism,
however, democratic states
commit a crime as egregious as
totalitarian repression: Demo-
cracies forswear the opportunity to
mitigate grave social inequality.
To the extent we perceive a
concomitant relationship between
socialism and totalitarianism,
there is a formidable Dilemma of
Democratic Socialism. Yet the
perception causes the dilemma.
The only thing socialistic about
those governments we regard as
totalitarian is their disingenuous
claim to being so. Once we see
through the transparency of those
claims, the perception of the
dilemma will vanish; hence, so will
the dilemma itself. Then socialism
will get a chance to produce a just
society.
RICHARD DEES
3C Editor
1HRESHER
Anita Gonzalez News Editor
John VanderPut Managing Editor
Carole Valentine Advertising Manager
Steve Bailey Sports Editor
John Hcaner Fine Arts Editor
Laura Rohwer Photography Editor
Kelvin Thompson Back Page Editor
David Butler Senior Editor
Assistant Editors Bruce Davies, Ruth Hillhouse
Contributing Editors David Dow, Karen Strecker
News Staff Bruce Davies, Allison Foil,
Pam Pearson, Jeanne Cooper. Joan Hope, Matt Dore, Ellen Spraul,
Michael Tinkler, Michael Trachtcnberg, Jay Grob, Sumit Nanda, John Hulne,
Tom Morgan, David Keen, CeCe Clossman, Jonathan Buck
Fine Arts Staff Chris Castaneda, Geoff Spradley,
Scott B. Solis, Thorn Glidden. Andy Hathcock, Deborah Knoff,
Kevin Topek, Mindy Vanderford, and Franz Brotzen
Sports Staff Donald Buck holt, Michele Gillespie,
Duanc Berry. Ken Klein, Jay Grob, Greg Holloway
Art Harold Nelson, Randy Furlong
Production Staff Kathryn Mason, Mike Dishart,
Hank Petri. Pam Pearson, Elif Selvili, Rawslyn Ruffin, Ellen Sproul,
Ann Betley, Vikki Kaplan, David Keen, Lisa Yee, Jeff Zweig, Steve McCall,
Julie Fonseca, Ron Stutes
The Rice Thresher, the official student newspaper of Rice University since 1916, is published on
Thursdays during the school year, except during examination periods and holidays, by the students of
Rice University. Editorial and business offices arc located on the second floor of the Rice Memorial
Center, P.O. Box 1892, Houston, Texas 77001. Telephone (713) 527-4801 or 527-4802. Advertising
information available upon request. Mail subscriptions; SI5.00 per year. The opinions expressed herein
are not necessarily those of anyone except the writer Obviously.
®I980 The Rice Thresher. All rights reserved.
The Rice Thresher, September 11, 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. 6, Ed. 1 Thursday, September 11, 1980, newspaper, September 11, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245446/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.