Breaking silence
While seeing the Great Wall of
China, President Nixon echoed his
hopes for a world that contains no
"walls of anv kind between peoples."
Nixon's more than 25 hours in
conference with Chinese Premier
CHou En-lai to date have had cordial
connotations and appear to be the
most dynamic attribute of a foreign
visit by an American president. It has
lasted longer than any other U.S. chief
executive's visit to another country.
In the recent past, the. global
environment appeared to be topped
by a United States and Soviet Union
semi-coalition versus the Red Chinese
nation. The almost cruel silence
mainland China has maintained with
both Russia and the Western world
has all but come to a close. One hitch
remains in the saddle of foreign
negotiations, namely the still assumed
silence between Russia and Red
China.
The United States could wind up
the winner in the long run by being
the only world power in a position to
communicate with the other two
global leaders. China has not in the
past opened any doors to the Soviet
Union. The future also looks bleak.
Ping pong diplomacy scored for the
United States. One can only wonder if
the Russians have a ping pong team
also.
If communication is the key to
understanding, as, is so often stated,
and understanding will lead this
nation i to a peaceful world, then it
appears Americans just may be on a
winning team, so to speak.
The global power triumverate can
progress towards peace and prosperity
if three way communication develops.
Should the Russians and Chinese
choose not to connect a phone
between Peking and Moscow, or set
up a proverbial ping pong table on
their border it will not be the fault of
Americans.
Nixon's Peking trip has opened a
new era for two nations. It is only
desirable that Peking and Moscow
attempt to bring new eras of
understanding between their nations.
While this is being done, maybe
President Nixon will have a chance to
clean up the American domestic scene
and parts of Southeast Asia he has
temporarily forgotten.
Barry Pilger
XS UAUW THE
mm
llWT QP.M-V; .,.
THE TwWlT HOUSE
WRtH IN aTO! , D C
rewfo Grab's msmf
4 VWJ9Zff5X
lilS (jv if way
CTHE DEAL IS . YbUflF AVEE
TO THEi AKVO flwnaM
r. mn" O. Wf. Willi
I ii .
im china;'. T-TrrT 7- rmrzu
"t ijeiiftTTC liaaS hotter
oxrldwaU be the very
indention. it tnalce every
ii&Dg really jre&Uy
. . . I'm Richard Nixon. . .I'm running for re-election. . . I'm
Richard Nixon. . ."
orthur
hoppe
Now that Nixon has taken away their
other issues, the Democrats are talking
about licking him on the economy. "With
any luck at all," say the Democrats,
rubbing their hands, "1972 is going to be
a terrible year."
But what the Democrats have
forgotten - and what Nixon is obviously
counting on is that 1972 is a
presidential election year. This factor
alone will have a major effect on the
outcome. . ... ,
Take the well-known fact that
incumbent presidents are usually
re-elected. The basic reason for this is
they run, generally speaking, in
presidential election years.
And there is nothing to create a
vigorous economic boom like a
presidential election.
Look at New Hampshire. By the time
the primary rolls around on March 7, the
flock of candidates up there will have
poured a good SI million into the local
economy. Along with tourist speed traps
and fining fish and game violators,
presidential primaries rank as one of New
Hampshire's leading industries.
First, let's take a look at where all that
money goes. It goes to the deserving,
hard-working little fellows the sign
painters, poll takers, hall renters, caterers,
waiters and chicken farmers. (Heaven
only knows what would happen to this
nation's great chicken industry if it
weren't for presidential fund-raising
banquets every four years.)
Moreover, most of this is supplemental
income. For example, the reason the New
Hampshire primary is held the first week
in March is that it's still too early for .
spring plowing.
Thus the taciturn, craggy-faced
farmers and their taciture, apple-cheeked
wives ire free to man their little roadside
stands all through January' and February,
selling interviews, cross-sections and polls
to eager out-of-state political observers.
And, of course, New Hampshire is
only the first of two dozen primaries
which bring instant prosperity to
depressed areas from coast to coast. Then
comes the orgy of spending at the huge
conventions where balloon fillers alone
make enough to live on for months. And
these are followed by the incredibly
expensive campaigns between the two or
three major candidates. It's a wonder
they didn't save the railroads.
So the money goes to the poor,
deserving American workers. Now, let us
ask ourselves, where does it come from?
It comes from the rich. Not only do the
rich give and give generously to this
worthy cause, but they're happy to do so.
Take any typical tycoon, Take
Aloysius (Fat) Katz. Katz employs a
score of accountants and tax lawyers to
make sure he never gives a nickel to the
government. But let a presidential
candidate knock on his door and Katz is
overjoyed to press a couple of thousand
on him no receipt necessary.
So while the rich understandably
depise giving to the government, they're
delighted to give to the man who may run
it.
Thus, in presidential campaigning, we
have discovered an ideal way to create
prosperity while taking from the rkn and
giving to the poor and nuking
everybody happy in the bargain. No swore
perfect method of redistributing the
wealth could be imagined.
The only problem is that under our
present system it occurs only once every
four years. Annual presidential campaigns
are a must.
For the way it is now, after we spend a
year redistributing the wealth from rich
to poor, the man who wins usually spends
the next three redistributing it back
again.
Copyright Chronicle Publishing Co. 1972. .
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1972
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN