The Megaphone (Georgetown, Tex.), Vol. 80, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, March 21, 1986 Page: 7 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 18 x 14 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.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:
Some Faculty Response
to Peace Week
The Anti-Nuclear Weapons
Movement: Some Reflections
by William G. Borges
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
The national and international
movements to reduce, or eliminate,
nations’ nuclear stockpiles are not
products of 1980s politics. The
history of arms reductions as a
general goal (among leaders as well as
masses) pre-dates even World War I,
as 19th-century Europeans saw the
existence of the tools of prolonged
war as a clear threat to world peace.
Limitations on various TYPES of
weapons (e.g., poison gas during
World War II) and on modes of
CONDUCT during fighting (e.g., in
protecting civilian populations under
most circumstances) have long been
accepted, and generally honored, by
the world’s major nation-states.
Within the United States, the specitic
goal of nuclear arms reduction is as
old as the Manhattan Project. There
is, I believe, great value in reflecting
on the early anti-nuclear and anti-war
activities, if only to achieve perspec
tive. Furthermore, instead of
isolating the anti-nuclear movement
of today, it might better be viewed in
the context of other recent
movements which were similarly
political in character.
At the conclusion of World War I,
Westerners, particularly Americans,
were extremely committed to
peaceful co-existence. The so-called
“war to end all wars” exacted such a
heavy toll that isolationism became
the preferred policy of many nations,
including the U.S. When Hitler’s
presence made another world strug-
gle inevitable, America reluctantly
engaged in the effort to defeat him.
Since the end of that war the U.S. has
witnessed an ongoing attempt to limit
the warring capacity it possesses; in
recent years, this attempt has focused
on its nuclear capacity.
During the 1950s and 1960s the
U.S.-U.S.S.R. “Cold War’’ centered
on many issues, only one of which
was weaponry. Yet even then there
was a not-so-subtle effort to call at-
tention to the burgeoning arms race.
Movies such as “Fail-Safe”, “Dr.
Strangelove,” and “Seven Days in
May” exemplified this effort, which
was prompted by intellectuals, jour-
nalists and politicians, as well as
citizen-activists. Such movies
depicted the danger of war in this
new age of horrific weapons, and did
so with vigor. Later, especially in the
1970s, various types of statewide in-
itiatives were held on the issue of
nuclear energy (which many
Americans, then and now, confuse
with the issue of nuclear weapons),
and most were successful. Still later,
by the early 1980s, similar initiatives,
this time designed to request national
arms reductions, met with success.
By this time, however, long after the
inception of the anti-nuclear move-
ment, hard opposition had formed.
While the uniqueness of the
nuclear arms race leads many to
believe that it must be analyzed apart
from other issues of the day, it exists
as a political issue and, as such, must
be viewed as an issue of popular
concern-just like so many other
issues. As I see it there are a number
of contemporary movements which,
on reflection, bear resemblance to the
anti-nuclear campaign. That is, it ap-
pears to be unfolding as a major
force within certain circles, and
NOW is facing ITS popular test.
Perhaps the best example of a
movement which began with ferocity
but nevertheless suffered defeat was
that of the ERA. In 1972, when pro-
posed as a Constitutional Amend-
ment, its sponsors were very
confident—and with good reason.
Ford and Nixon) supported it, and it
swept through the Senate and House
of Representatives with huge ma-
jorities. Within three years it had
survived votes in 35 state legislatures,
only 3 shy of the number required for
passage.
By 1970, however, general opposi-
tion to the amendment swelled, and
particular organizations were formed
to oppose it. Granted, its ultimate
defeat reflected not so much popular
opposition as it did the difficulty
associated with Constitutional
change itself. Nevertheless, by 1980,
with two years left before the amend-
ment’s expiration date, opposition to
ERA was widespread. Indeed,
Ronald Reagan, a lone time FRA op-
ponent, swept into the White House
that year.
Other popular movements, such as
those advocating greater abortion
rights for women, affirmative action,
and “consumer advocacy,” met with
similar counterforce. Now, while the
survivability of laws, policies and
programs associated with each de-
pend upon a variety of factors,
popular sentiment continues to play
an important role in containing each
movement. The most pressing task
facing anti-nuclear activists, then, is
not winning the hearts of intellectuals
and influential elites, it’s securing
and maintaining the favor of the
popular masses.
If the objective of the anti-nuclear
movement is to isolate a community
of activists from the popular majori-
ty, and preach to those poor souls
about the horrors of certain politi-
cians and their policies, it is a move-
ment with rosy prospects. If instead
the objective is to convince
Americans that arms reduction is a
safe, sound national policy, the road
confrontational, divisive protesting.
Observations
on Peace
by Stella C'apek
1 hese will be some purely personal
observations about students and the
peace issue on campus. I would like
to open, however, with a recent news
item reflecting some of the dilemmas
and hopes of those working for peace
in the United States. On March 12,
C'hicago-the nation’s third largest ci-
ty and the place of the first controlled
nuclear chain reaction in the
U.S.-joined 109 other locations in
the U.S. which have declared
themselves nuclear free zones (New
York Times, March 13, 1986). The
vote unanimously brought together u
usually rancorous group of
aldermen. As a gesture it has impor-
tant symbolic value, but its implica-
tions are far more concrete. It means
that the city physically disassociates
itself from the weapons economy,
one of the largest forces apart from
moraol and international considera-
tions that influences the outcome of
the peace movement. Reminding the
region of its dependence on the
economic benefits of defense fun-
ding, the governor of Illinois called
the law “stupid and un-American.”
This example reveals our political
landscape. First, peace, while fram-
ed in moral and democratic rhetoric,
is also an issue ot the political
economy of weapons manufacture.
Second, we have experienced, par-
ticularly during the Reagan ad-
ministration, a narrowing and flat-
tening of political rhetoric that in-
vokes patriotic language and easily
reverts to labels of “un-American”;
evil empires and coercing undesirable
bountries to “say uncle” have recast
debates over human issues into a
framework of confrontation between
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Third, the
Chicago example shows a timely
response to the political landscape-
the acknowledgement of personal
responsibility for and connectedness
to larger social structures (lesson
number one in introductory
sociology). A group of people are
willing to take the risk of-appearing
absurd and giving up economic
benefits in order to call attention to a
problem that our existing definitions
of the possible do not permit us to
consider.
I mention these things because I
believe that students involved in
peace issues on campus are making
the same refusals and engaging in a
similar process of innovation that
moves us beyond a given social
script. The script tells us that peace is
politically, morally, economically,
patriotically, and sometimes even
biologically impossible. 1 am
heartened by the diversity among
students who now question this.
Diversity and serious questioning of
all information is a good sign. Ac-
cording to my own observations in
the classroom, the peace issue often
stands out in its ability to mobilize
student interest and activism against
a backdrop of conspicuous silence
over other issues.
Peace is not an easy cause to take
up. It is nbt simple or straightfor-
ward. and the belief in its viability
runs against the gram ol much receiv-
ed wisdom. Furthermore, we exist in
a complex international political
system whose realities cannot be ig-
nored. My own background makes
me painfully aware of Soviet human
rights violations, and I may conse-
quently seem an unlikely candidate
for involvement in peace issues. The
fact that I am involved, and that a
range of students are involved, in-
dicate to me a serious search for a
path towards peace-not out of
naivete, but out of realism. In this
way we rescue the range of silent op
tions eliminated through political
habit.
Young Conservatives
of Texas endorse
AUSTIN-Meeting in statewide
convention at Austin’s La Mansion
Hotel, Young Conservatives of Texas
(YCT) made their endorsements for
statewide office in the Republican
and Democratic Primaries. In the
Republican Gubernatorial race YCT
endorsed Tom Loeffler of Mason. In
the Lieutenant Governors race tHe
endorsement went to David Davidson
of Gonzales. For Attorney General
there were 3 qualified candidates and
no endorsement was handed down.
For Agriculture Commissioner, Bill
Powers of Austin was endorsed, and
in a hot race for Railroad Commis-
sion, Ed Emmett of Kingwood was
unanimously endorsed. For Land
Commissioner YCT endorsed George
Collis.
In the Democratic Primary, few
endorsements were made. In the
crowded race to challenge Mark
White, YCT endorsed Andrew C.
Briscoe of Dallas. In the Railroad
Commission matchup, Sen. John
Sharp of Victoria was endorsed. In
Supreme Court races, Judge Raul
Gonzales and Judge Sears McGee,
both incumbents received the YCT
nod. " v-
Svery year the
Government
publishes thousands
of books. And every
year the Government
Printing Office sells
millions of these
books to people in the
know. Now there’s a
book that tells you
about the Govern-
ment’s “bestsellers”—but it’s not for
sale... it’s free!
It’s our new catalog of a’most 1,000
ofGPO’smos popular books. Books
like Infant Co re, Merchandising
Ytmr job Talents, The Statistical
Abstnu t, Shirting a Business, The
Spare Shutti7 at Work, How to Select
a Nursi, ig H wie, Voyager at
Saturn, an 1 Cutting Energy Costs.
This catalog includes books from
I V (>ov*r*inK'«»
HOOKS
W
virtually every
Government agency.
So the subjects
range from agri-
culture, business,
children, and diet to
science, space,
transportation, and
vacations. And there
are titles on military
history, education,
hobbies, physical fitness, gardening,
and much, much more. There’s even
a special section for recently
published books.
Find out about the Government’s
bestsellers. Send today for a copy of
the book we don’t sell. Write —
New Catalog
PW Office Box 37000
JfcVJishington, D C. 20013
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.
The Megaphone (Georgetown, Tex.), Vol. 80, No. 22, Ed. 1 Friday, March 21, 1986, newspaper, March 21, 1986; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth634545/m1/7/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Southwestern University.