editorial
The patriot game
President Nixon sallied forth Tuesday for
another round in his seemingly unending
patriot game. The President, since the shaky
settlement of the Vietnam War, has
repeatedly tried to make it perfectly clear
that the Paris Agreement really means "peace
with honor."
Nixon chose the South Carolina General
Assembly as an audience for this first personal
speaking appearance since the signing of the
peace accord. The assemblymen were openly
sympathetic to the President's familiar
message: history will prove that the Nixon
Vietnam policy was right
This reliance upon historical vindication
has become a standard procedure for Nixon
and other executives in their attempts to
explain policies which are otherwise
unjustifiable! This tactic has gained special
prominence as a response to criticisms of
American conduct in Southeast Asis. The late
President Johnson often tried to quiet protest
against the war with similar reminders that
the future may view the U.S. involvement in
Vietnam more favorably than the present.
Johnson's statements changed few minds.
Nixon is more fortunate. A majority of
Americans disapproved of U.S. war policies.
But a majority of Americans also are
unwilling or unready to accept the notion
that those policies were downright
dishonorable. So the current call for a
dependence upon future proof of the
propreity of the American role in the
Southeast Asian conflict is being well-received
by the American public.
In their haste to be rid of the discomforting
consideration of the Vietnam War, Americans
should not allow themselves to
unquestioningly accept Nixon's self-serving
claim that history will regard him as a true
Internationa. statesman. Such re-evaluations
"If you think peace is hell, you should have
seen the war!"
of political or philosophical misfits are indeed
rare, despite the frequency with which recent
politicians have chosen to rely upon such
vindication.
In his South Carolina speech, the President
resorted to another of his now predictable
emotional appeals for unquestioning
American patriotism, with Nixon himself
acting out the role of chief patriot It has
become a regular practice for Nixon to
preface his speeches with tear-rendering
readings of letters from mourning mothers
Some Americans no doubt find this use of
personal expressions of feeling for propaganda
purposes at least somewhat offensive and
dehumanizing.
President Nixon claims "because of what
we did in Vietnam ... the United States can
now exercise more effective leadership in the
cause of world peace" and that our Vietnam
policies have earned us the trust and respect
of both allies and adversaries. The fact is that
several of our allies have publicly deplored
U.S. military action in Southeast Asia. The
respect for America that Is still held by the
world's peoples and leaders no longer seems
to be solely based on ideological principles.
Rather, world respect for the U.S. must be
said to be at least partially founded in the fear
of the weak in the face of misguided power.
The President says that our goal in the war
was to prevent a forceful Communist takeover
of South Vietnam. "That was our goal and we
achieved that goal, and we can be proud that
we stuck it out until we did reach that goal,"
Nixon said. But while the U.S. was defending
the freedom of the South Vietnamese from
outside control, the Siagon government was
slowly but successfully whittling away at the
freedoms of its own people. Some observers
have noted that today the people of South
Vietnam are less free than their counterparts
in the North, or certainly less free than they
were before the hostilities were expanded into
a major conflict. Yet the U.S. support for the
Thieu regime remains publicly unwavering.
Nixon concluded his remarks by saying
that "the chances for us to build a peace that
will last are better than they have been at any
time since the end of World War II." Perhaps
this statement is true. But recent advances
toward international understanding have
come only after it was clear that the
American military involvement in Vietnam
was ending. Social visits to the world's
capitals were replaced by diplomatic missions
only after it became apparent that a peace
agreement was imminent So if the possibility
of world peace is any better today than in the
past that possibility has improved in spite of
the Vietnam War not because of it
r
Tom Lansworth
ERA foes a switch in time saves No. 9
john
vihsidt
The Legislature's Government, Military & Veterans Affairs
Committee, chaired by State Sen. Ernest. Chambers, today
discusses the controversial Legislative Resolution No. 9-a
resolution which, if passed, would rescind Nebraska's
ratification of the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).
Sponsored by the Speaker of the Unicameral, Sen. Richard
Proud, and two other conservative lawmakers, William
Hasebroock of West Point, and Irving Wiltse of Falls City, the
resolution to remove Nebraska from the list of the 27 states
that have ratified the ERA (38 are needed for it to become the
27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution) deserves to fail.
First, LR9 is of dubious legality. Precedent reveals that once
a state has ratified an amendment, it cannot reverse its
decision. Second, and more importantly, the ERA is needed to
NUMB
K9NUMbK
KR9NUMBER9NUMKR9
JMBER9NUMBER9NUMBER9NUM
NUWER9NUMBER9NUMKR9MJMBER9NUMB
BtR 9 NUMISSMMKR 3 NUMBER 9 NuMP NUM0ER3NUM0
f I
J (jS72
insure an end to all forms of discrimination on the basis of sex.
The Legislature's approval of the ERA last year was
unanimous. Proud, Hasebroock and Wilts now appear to be
pleading temporary insanity.
Leading the anti-ERA brigade charge Is Phyllis Schlafly, an
ultraconservativ? author who rode high in Republican circles
when Goldwater headed the party. Schlafly now publishes the
right-wing "Phyllis Schlafly Report" monthly from her
mansion in Alton, III.
Her November newsletter, titled "The Right to be a
Woman," attacks the supposed evils of the ERA and is being
mass-distributed to legislators in her target states. Indeed, her
follower, Sen. Proud, sends copies to all persons writing him In
regard to the ERA. Betty Friedan recently charged that the
John Birch Society and other groups are funding her and in all
probability, she is correct. (In case one is interested in helping
Schlafly, they can send checks to the Eagle Trust Fund at
Alton).
Schlafh's four-page newsletter is laced with hypocritical
arguments and emotionally charged prophecies. She declares
that women and men are different, unequal
"What about the rights of the woman who doesn't want to
compete on an equal basis with men?... the proposed ERA will
wipe out all our laws which guarantee this right to be a
woman," she writes. If the ERA becomes law, "women must
be treated exactly the same as men.,.equally responsible."
That is the whole idea, Schlafly. What is wrong with equality?
Schlafly also uses scare tactics. The ERA is a "radical piece
of legislation devised to force women outside the home."
Sex-segregated rest rooms will be Junked. She says that the
amendment's supporters consist of "women's libbers...out to
destroy morality and the family." It also happens that even
Senate C ' Curtis and Roman Hruska voted for the ERA in
Congress and Patricia Lahr Smith, Republican national
committeewoman from Nebraska and hardly a "women's
libber," is on record as endorsing the ERA.
In case these arguments are not enough to convince one of
the proposed amendment's effects, Schlafly uses another
approach. In the newsletter she sayi that women already
possess equality-"there is nothing in the Equal Rights
Amendment that can give women that which they do not
already have."
She says the ERA is unnecessary because of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of
1972 insuring women equal rights. However, Schlafly doesn't
reveal she opposed both the 1864 and 1972 acts in the first
placel
She says that "women want and need protection." The
ERA will give them protection-protection under the law that
a woman needs in order that she may free herself and become
a first-class human-being, like her male counterpart.
J
page 4
daily nebraskan
thursday, february 22, 1973
