editorial
TfrV -ruv
"UK W
TKK-o
WW
No third party success in '76
In the aftermath of the 1974 elections,
much has been written and said about the
future of the Republican party and the
possibility of a new third "Conservative"
party.
What if the Republican party would fight to
remain the dominant second party? What if
the new Conservative party would ideolog
ically position itself ,too far to, Jh) political
right to win the acceptance of a.,large section
of the American electorate?
What if the Democratic party was able to
retain some semblance of stability through
out the political turmoil? What if...?
mark b 'rasmussen
riant turn
Out of the conjecturing, one political fact
emerges. One man (Teddy Roosevelt, George
Wallace, etc.) or one cause (Free Silver.
Prohibition, etc.) can result in the formation
cf a third party. Neither stimulus can create a
viable and lasting major party.
The only possible exception to this political
axiom would be the Republican party, which
was cemented into an institution, after the
Civil War.
In analyzing the problematic course of a
new Conservative party, the options ,
therefore, can be discussed in terms of two
general scenarios.
One would result in the formation of
nothing more than an ideological splinter of
the Republican right wing. A few votes might
be drawn from the Democratic South for an
election or two, but no widespread Demo
cratic defections would occur.
The second scenario is more promising,
but less likely. Somehow, somewhere, a large
and somewhat diverse body of political minds
would meet, perhaps for a generally oriented
Issues of America Summit similar to the
Economic Summit held earlier this year.
Based on the ideas exchanged and the
contacts made there, a nationwide network or
vSCtanizers? made up, of former Republicans
anoVtomer Democrats would begin to line up
conservative grassroots workers and
sympathizers.
A dramatic breakthrough would be needed
to shock the nation into a bandwagon
acceptance of the new party. The only such
occurrence that would carry the sufficient
impact would be a television address by a
prominent national figure (President Ford?).
The speaker would disavow any ambition to
run for president on the new party ticket,
isolating the new party from any personal
stranglehold.
Scenario No. 2 undoubtedly would bring
about the much needed ideological realign
ment of America's political parties. A
Conservative party would be established,
slightly to the right of center, to oppose
either a Democratic or Labor or Liberal party,
slightly to the left of center. How wonderful
this would all be!
But the happenings described in the
second scenario are unlikely. Great turbu
lence recently has occurred in our political
system. But even greater disturbances would
be needed before enough prominent poli
ticians would put their political lives on the
line in the attempt to form a new party.
Barring unforeseen disasters, we still will
see either a Republican or Democratic
president and Congress take office in 1976.
Dear Editor,
In the food shortage editorial in the Daily
Nebraskan, Nov. 11, one suggestion for
solving the world food crisis was conservation
here in America.
I would like to correct a misleading
statement that was made. The editorial
stated that the ten pounds of grain fed out to
cattle, instead, could be used to provide ten
persons with amounts of protein equal to that
used to produce one pound of beef. This is
untrue.
Corn is the grain most often fed to cattle,
j Its protein content averages between 8.5 and
10.5 per cent. It is deficient in two essential
amino acids. These and six others must be
included in man's diet because his body
cannot synthesize them. Therefore, for a
complete diet, a person would have to eat
foods such as meat, milk and eggs to supply
tryptophane and lysine.
Also, cattle can convert corn to protein
because of their four special stomachs. Man
cannot.
The answer to the food crisis lies in
increasing food production and reducing
population growth. A third, minor factor will
be conservation, as the editorial advocated.
This, however, applies only to Americans to
the greatest extent.
Instead of fasting a meal or two a week,
American first should slop throwing half of
their meal, away every time they eat. The
average American gets to practice eating
three times a day, 365 days a year. After 20
years, that is about 21,900 meals. Surely
after eating so many meals a person knows
what he likes and how muh he can eat.
George D. Kahnk
UNL staff members
evasive about facts
When the heads of UNL offices leave
temporarily, the facts often go with them.
Suddenly, staff members' memories fade.
When asked to supply a fact or figure, they
cannot seem to recall what it was, although
the information might be sitting in front of
i them. '-
- - -Instead, the inquirer is told to ask again,
after the boss has returned from his
convention, crusade or cruise.
Recently, a Daily Nebraskan reporter
called the UNL Career Planning and
Placement Center and asked how many
students had registered with the placement
office last year.
She was told the information could not be
given out because the office director was out
of town.
Another reporter called the Office of
University Housing to find out what this fall's
dorm occupancy rate was. He received the
same answer.
The two examples are not isolated cases.
Campus reporters have received similar
treatment several times since the semester
began.
If the reporters had asked for an opinion or
an interpretation of a fact, the evasiveness
might be understandable. Staff members
easily could say something contrary to their
boss's beliefs or could misrepresent him
unintentionally, causing serious problems.
But, in these cases, the questions
concerned only facts. Although sometimes
controversial, facts cannot be contested.
The answers the reporters sought are
public information. The staff members they
asked probably knew the answers or could
have looked them up with little trouble.
It seems that intimidation was what kept
them from answering. Evidently, only their
chief can disperse nuggets of knowledge.
Perhaps the staff members did not know
the answers. If so, they should have said as
much. They aren't expected to be
omniscient.
Accurate reporting is based on facts.
Reporters can't give readers these facts
unless they themselves have access to them.
Time is the crucial element. A response
three weeks from now will not make the
deadline for tomorrow's issue.
Jane Owens
Editor's note: Information for the editorial
Nation's gun control needs strengthening"
(Daily Nebraskan, Nov, 7) was obtained
chiefly from "Time" magazine. That fact was
mistakenly omitted from 'ticle.
monday, november 18, 1974
daily nebraskan
. A A 4 A A A A A A A 4 4 A 4 4. 4.4 4, 4JA. S JH A 4 ,.. 4 4) t- ...... --. .a dt - w , j
page 4
