Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 13, 1980)
page 4 daily nebraskan thursday, november 13, 1980 o) OD0jiI Extremists re-enter political life News reports in the aftermath of last week's Republican landslide have shown a resurgence of an American tradition: Extremes. The day after the election, left-wing students at the University of California-Berkeley protested at Sproul Square -the site of the first Vietnam War protests. Before the election, a cross was burned in front of the Black Student Union at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass. Besides the irony of Ku Klux Klan activity in traditionally liberal Massachusetts and liberal activity in pro-Reagan California, the actions, individually and separately, should serve as a message about the nature of current American politics. The incidents, although inspired by people with views at opposite ends of the political spectrum, are similar in that they represent poli tical views and actions outside the mainstream of politics. Traditionally, the two major parties in America have adopted and modified such radical views. That is what has kept the two- arty system func tioning strongly. The Democratic party adopted and modified many of the views of the 60s' anti-war protestors, just as the major parties have adopted many of the ideas of the many third parties in our history. No third party has survived for very long. The Republicans were not the first to cry loudly about the size of government. George Wallace long decried government interference in people's lives. His success encouraged major party leaders to pick up the cry. There are several ways to view this phenome non. One was voiced by the chairman of the Soviet Union's Moscow University American Studies Institute. He said last year in Lincoln that the two parties serve the same basic values and must modify radical views to prevent revolu tion. We prefer to take the view that radicals and reactionaries, disgusting as some might be, serve a valuable purpose in the traditional American poli tical system. There always have been and always will be those adhering to extremist views on both ends of the political spectrum. Only when a substantial number of people sympathize with those views does the American public begin to hear about them. The major part ies then can gauge the popularity of those ideas. This year, the major parties were not terribly successful in co-opting views outside the main stream of political thought. The emergence of John Anderson's popularity, the marginal success of the Libertarian and Citizens Parties illustrates this. The Democrats were entirely unsuccessful in bringing home those who might be attracted to a major party willing to pay lip service to their modified goals. The Republicans were much more successful, but not entirely so. They did attract the Moral Majority, which represents a major achievement in co-opting emerging points of view. During the next four years, John Anderson probably will lose out to the major parties, the Libertarian and Citizens parties will disappear, and the Democratic and Republican parties will have their constituencies fully lined up for a two-party showdown. The cross-burners will vote Republican and the unrealistic pacifists will vote Democratic. And the system will endure. U.S. weapons keep neutrality safe Joy is reigning supreme these days in the U.S. Depart ment of Arms Sales. 'if the hostage deal works out," said Director Herbert Koteholder, "it looks as though Iran will get $220 million worth of our weapons and spare parts plus $8 billion in thawed assets to buy some more." "That's good?" I said, ignoramus that I am. "I thought we loathed Iran and they loathed us." (2 ill "True," agreed Koteholder cheerfully. "But we can't let the Iraqis overthrow our worst enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini, or the Russians will move in. And the Ayatollah, who wishes we were dead, needs spare parts for his U.S. Phantom jets." "But he's using those jets to blow up Iraqi oil wells that have been supplying us and our allies," 1 said. "Exactly," he said. "And that's why we had to send U.S. radar planes to Saudi Arabia to defend their oil wells from our own jet bombers. We think of this as neutrality at its finest." "But if we ship more weapons to the Iranians," I asked, "won't that make the Arabs mad?" "Absolutely furious," he said, nodding. "So we'll have no choice but to appease them by selling the Iranians some anti-tank weapons to knock out the Iraqi tanks that are laying waste to the Iraqian oil refineries?" I inquired. "I'm afraid not," he said with a frown of disappont ment. "The Iraqis are using Soviet tanks. Therefore the Iranians will probably want to buy Soviet anti-tank weap ons. After all, who knows better how to destroy a weapon than the country that made it?" "Stands to reason," I agreed. "It shows you the importance of getting in on the ground floor," he said. "If we had sold the Iraqis those tanks, we could have sold the Iranians those anti-tank guns. But we can always sell them a battleship to defend the Persian Gulf instead." "That way," I said, "you could sell the Kuwaitis a couple of American submarines to defend the Persian Gulf from the Iranians' American battleship!" "Good thinking!" cried Koteholder, patting me on the back. "You have now grasped the State Department's new Middle East Policy of Aggressive Neutrality Escalation." I said I was proud to grasp any State Department pol icy. But where would it all end? "Don't worry," he said. "If we can just keep on sup plying all combatants in the Middle East under our Policy of Aggressive Neutrality Escalation, we're bound to wind up as the most neutral nation on the face of the earth." "That's good?" I asked. Koteholder smiled. "And the richest," he said. (Copyright Chronicle Publishing Co. 1980) fl fiEie editor While visiting Lincoln, I happened to read the Nov. 5 issue (of the Daily Nebraskan), and could not resist a chance to respond to a particular letter. I don't care if Jane Pemberton's facts are wrong, the point is I am glad she holds the belief she does, and I only wish more like her would speak out. You remember the experiment done in the 70s, with rats kept in a closed system who kept populating until the experiment ended in disease, starva tion, maternal neglect, cannibalism and homosexuality in male rats? Weil, the FDA can ban chemicals on the basis that they produce cancer in rats and I know many people whose psychology is more like that of a rat than their physiology is. The only horrendous sin which exists, for which we all should wake up and go to sleep feeling guilt for, is the sin of what we the human species are doing to this finite planet. Do you remember the spaceship earth theory? Well, it is not theory, folks. There are just too many of our kind competing with the others who were here first. And I add "first" for those of you believing in the con ventional manner, i.e., Christians, since Adam and certain ly Eve were created after the earth and its inhabitants. For you evolutionists, too, we evolved last, not necessarily making us the ultimate of the evolutionary process, mind you. Do you actually feel justified in believing this divinely inspired planet was placed at our careless disposal? You may consider Mount St. Helens either a natural disaster or a warning, based on your theological beliefs. Either way, just remember that the human species has populated this planet for a very negligible portion of the geologic time clock and has probably developed the potential to spring the clockworks for good. God gave every animal some type of brain, but we seem to be a species which has not developed a potential to use it proficiently. I should make an exception to that, though; those members of the Supreme Court have used their gray matter in deciding that abortion should be legal in the United States. Letters continued on Page S Coach sees red in orange tossers Nebraska Head Football Coach Tom Osborne is unhappy with some of the football fans in Lincoln. Oh, it's not that they aren't cheering loud enough or paying close enough attention to the ballgames. It's those "dadgum" oranges they're throwing. I heard Osborne complain about them during one of his television shows after the Missouri game. Throwing oranges, afterall, is dangerous. Some one could get hurt. Officials have to delay the game while they clean up the mess. Worst of all, the oranges stain the wonderful layer of phony grass in the stadium (although Osborne said the stains prob ably could be hosed off). Considering police effectiveness in stemming the flow of booze into the stadium, it wouldn't do Osborne any good to complain to them. So I have a few suggestions of my own on how he might dis courage these fruit flingers. First, he might try the Iranian concept of be havior modification. Line up a few offenders on the 50-yard line during halftime and shoot them. Of course bloodstains are harder to remove than juice stains, but it would prove once and for all that officials will not tolerate people who endanger the well being of others. If that doesn't work, Osborne might try sending his first team into the stands to pound some sense into these scoundrels. Considering how tough some of the Husker opponents are, a player-fan scuffle would be much more exciting. Osborne could always try to move the Big Eight's obligation from the Orange Bowl to the Cotton Bowl. Tossing cotton balls on the field sounds harm less enough. And he should be thankful that there isn't a game called the Boulder Bowl. Of course, the coach must realize that when he complains, he's only encouraging these Anita Bryant rejects. College students love to defy authority. We'll probably have so much vitamin C on the field from now on that front-row fans will never catch cold if they inhale deeply enough. I sometimes wonder how serious Osborne and others are when they complain about the orange throwers. We went through this little routine last year, when I had season tickets. After one particular tantrum thrown by "concerned" officials, I sat in on a game and watched at least a dozen fans-in my section alone-toss oranges onto the field. I could have cleaned up-literally-had I been a cop. There were almost as many oranges as whiskey bottles in the crowd. But no one was hauled away. Someone wasn't trying very hard. And after the Huskers staged blowout after blow out, Osborne must get a little tired of having to defend charges of running up the score, even while members of the taxi squad and intramural fraternity teams are tacking on more points against limp opponents. So maybe Osborne is trying to put a little excite ment into his television shows. This is difficult to do, especially when he appears on such television stations at 1011 Weak in Lincoln, which features personalities so boring they put viewers to sleep even when the games are exciting. UPSP 144-UoJ Editor in chief: Randy Essex; Managing editor: Bob Lannin; News editor: Barb Richardson; Associate news editor: Kathy Chenauit; Assistant i.ews editors: Tom Prentiss and Shelley Smith; Night news editors: Sue Brown, Nancy Ellis, Bill Graf; Assistant night news editor: Ifejika Okonkwo; Entertainment edi tor: Casey McCabe; Sports editor: Shelley Smith; Assistant sports editor: Larry Sparks; Photography chief: Mark Billingsley; Art director David Luebke; Magazine editor: Diane Andersen. Copy editors: Sue Brown, Nancy Ellis. Maureen Hutfless, Lori McGinnis, Tom McNeil, Jeanne Mohatt, Lisa Paulson, Kathy Sjulin, Kent Warneke, Patricia Waters. Business manager: Anne Shank; Production manager: Kitty Policky; Advertising manager: Art Small; Assistant advertising manager: Jeff Pike. Publications Board chairman Mark Bowen, 475-1081 Profes sional adviser: Don Walton. 473-7301. The Daily Nebraskan is published by the UNL Publications Board Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semes ters, except during vacations. Address: Daily Nebraskan. 34 Nebraska Union. 14th and R streets, Lincoln, Neb . 68588. Telephone 472-2588. Material may be reprinted without permission if attributed to the Daily Nebraskan, except material covered by a copyright. Second class postage paid at Lincoln, Neb.. 68510
