Daily Nebraskan
Friday, April 16, 1982
Editorial
Artist
Page 4
Some of the strongest social statements appear in art.
For example, the pop artists of the 1950s and '60s
abandoned the Abstract Expressionists' search for the in
ner self and took everyday, common objects for their in
spiration. In this way, they gave up exploring the indivi
dual soul to examine society's collective soul.
And thus, Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans, Roy
Lichtenstein's comic strip panels, Jasper John's American
flags and Claes Oldenburg's giant electric fixtures began to
appear in the nation's art galleries.
By elevating everyday America to high art, pop artists
forced Americans to take a hard look at their culture. And
what Americans found was not always pleasing. Pop art,
so full of American symbols, did not always uphold what
those symbols stood for.
Robert Indiana was one of those artists that challenged
the "American Dream." He used geometric patterns taken
from pinball machines and road signs and superimposed
on them phrases from literature, history and Americana.
Snatches of Herman Melville, Walt Whitman and Negro
spirituals found their way onto his works.
Indiana was the man who designed the famous
"LOVE" symbol that was reproduced on countless pos
ters, bags and books. It consisted of a capital "L" next to
a capital "0" set at an angle. These two letters sat atop a
capital "V" and "E" set side by side.
In other works he used lines such as "Just as in the ana
tomy of man every nation must have its hind part" and
"Eat, Die."
As critic Michael Compton wrote, "His work is directly
connected with the "Great American Myths" as he sees
them - food, death, love, etc. - all embodied from 1961
in a kind of painting not derived from the sophisticated
advertisements but from the most blatant and peremptory
signs."
One of Indiana's works is hanging in the Sheldon Me
morial Art Gallery and is part of the gallery's permanent
collection. On the 1961 oil painting are the words, "A di
vorced man has never been the president." Because this
maxim no longer holds true, the painting, once a com
ment on the sentiment itself, now says something about
how attitudes have changed in the United States during
the last 20 years.
Many Reagan supporters, as well as detractors, often
forget that our 40th president is a divorced man. Before
his marriage to Nancy, Reagan was married to actress Jane
Wyman. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But
at one time it would have been terribly difficult for a di
vorced man to have been elected to the presidency. Ques
tions would have been raised about his moral character
and his stability as a family man. Even if he. was fully
NT
qualified to act as president, his private life would have1
been sharply scrutinized .
Who knows, such considerations may have been a fac
tor in Adlai Stevenson's unsuccessful bids against Eisen
hower in the 1950s. After all, Stevenson was not only an
intellectual, but he also was divorced.
In a similar fight, John Kennedy had to show voters his
Catholicism would not affect his work as president. For
tunately, he was successful in breaking that social barrier
despite the Protestant tradition in this country.
But it seems that many such social barriers have weak
ened until they aren't really obstacles for candidates any
more. Perhaps because many Americans are conducting
their own lives on a more liberal and open basis, they are
willing to allow their leaders more freedom as well. Lead
ers today have more leeway to live their lives as they wish,
openly.
But Indiana's work also points out how false the divor
ced -man maxim was even when it was still in vogue. No,
none of our presidents had been divorced before Reagan
took office, but that didn't make them more exemplary
or less human than the people they were governing.
Franklin Roosevelt had a long affair with his secretary,
who was the only person with him when he died. During
the last few years, writers have made scads of money un
covering affairs Kennedy had during his time in office.
Should a divorced candidate be condemned when others
have been less honest and open about their private lives?
Of course, the public didn't know the full facts about
FDR and Kennedy, but it seems we were setting up a dou
ble standard in any case.
It is difficult to argue that divorces and private affairs
harm a public official's performance in office. As long as
officials continue to devote themselves to their work,
what effect can their private lives possibly have?
So why have we ever had standards that deal with pub
lic officials' private lives? Although elected to public of
vice, presidents and other officials are human beings, and
as such they share with the rest of us certain frailities and
faults. As long as those shortcomings don't impair their
ability do their job, why should we be concerned with
them?
As Indiana once said, "It is pretty hard to swallow the
whole thing about the American Dream. It started the day
the Pilgrims landed, the dream, the idea that Americans
have more to eat than anyone else. But I remember going
to bed without enough to eat."
Indiana's point is well taken. And although we may
have come a long way as a society in scrutinizing and criti
cizing officials' private lives, maybe we need to look at
some other "double standards" and "false claims" Ameri
can culture produces. There are still a lot around.
Soviet sabotage snows over American economy
This week the shocking news from a campus organizat
ion: Sinister forces in another hemisphere may be behind
the "freak" winter Americans endured this season. In an
interview with a spokesperson from the College Meteoro
logists for Freedom, whose name is classified for reasons
of national security, I came to understand the real reason
my gas bill went up more than 25 percent this winter.
"We have proof, which we are unfortunately unable to
reveal at this time in the interest of protecting our intelli
gence sources, that the Soviets have deployed huge fans in
ffl Matthew Millea
Siberia for the express purpose of disrupting Free World
weather patterns."
Huge fans?
"Yes, they're hand-cranked by Soviet special forces, all
of whom are well over 10 feet tall, as you might have
heard. The purpose is to bring cold air from the Russian
steppes swooping down on the Great Plains. We also know
now they've begun cloud-seeding operations in a satellite
mode, again designed to wreck havoc upon the freedom
loving people of the Western Hemisphere."
Could you be a little more specific?
"Well it's rather obvious what they're up to actually.
The psychic and economic strain of continual inclement
weather can be incredible. We see this as a deliberate
attempt to undermine the president's economic recovery
program."
You mean the trickle-down theory?
"I don't find that the least bit humorous. Besides the
obvious difficulty our economy's savers and investors
would have in getting to their brokers under such frigid
condition, the Soviet plan was clearly also a blatant
attempt to disrupt the Columbia space shuttle mission.
Edwards Air Force Base was a sea of mud. And, of course,
we can't ignore the fact the Russians envy our way of life.
If they can't tow Southern California away, they can at
least make it rain all the time."
Why haven't we heard about any of this before?
"The existence of public ignorance about such blantly
obvious foreign intervention just demonstrates the white,
male, liberal, pro-Soviet, East Coast, effeminate, pinko
bias of journalism in this country."
Yeah, right. Will they be continuing this in the future?
"Most assuredly. We fear the Soviets might well be
planning to manipulate weather this summer right here in
the Great American Bread Basket. The proper combinat
ion of sun and rain could bring about the dreaded
"bumper crop" Midwestern politicians have been trying to
warn us about."
Why would they want to do that?
"Well, I don't think this or anything, but, see, well,
what they think is that it shows the superiority of their
system. With a bumper crop here in the United States, the
price of grain goes down and banks are forced to foreclose
on farmers. But in Russia, the state maintains the price
and the black market takes care of the excess. The farmers
stay in business you see. Of course, they'd never have a
bumper crop anyway . . ."
The real question here seems to be "Is a weather war
winnable?"
"Well, yes I believe it is. First, you'd have to build this
huge dome over the entire Free World . . ."
Sorry, but we're all out of space. Be here next week
for: Was the E.R.A. a communist plot to subvert the
American patriarchy??????
Rich uncle helping families through tough times
It is no pleasant task to take public issue with the dole
ful accounts in the media these days concerning the finan
ces of various individuals on welfare. Most of these people
are genuinely hard up, even if they are not always quite so
hard up as they claim.
But the ones we hear about on television and in the
newspapers have lent themselves voluntarily to a vast and
highly partisan attack on Ronald Reagan's cuts in our out-
William Rusher
of-control welfare system. They cannot fairly invoke some
sort of immunity to a careful analysis of their claims.
Take the lugubrious story of Sharon Hunt, which was
recently spread across five columns at the top of Page 1 of
the second section of The Xew York Times (the "Metro
politan Report"), with a lona carry-over on Page 5. Under
the headline "Family Tries With Welfare to 'Make Do,' "
reporter Sheila Rule introduced us to this welfare mother,
a "short woman with electric enerjy."' a se!f-pnclaimed
"welfare-rights activist who agreed to discuss her finances
in detail."
The story described how Hunt, her 13-month-old baby
Tanya and her 10-year-old daughter Kayla scrape by on
welfare grants of $340 a month plus $115 in food stamps.
They live in Manhattan, where real estate is notoriously
expensive, so the biggest item in their budget is naturally
rent: $220 a month in a "public-housing apartment"
(another subsidy to Hunt from the skinflint taxpayers,
and a big one, but one not otherwise alluded to in the ar
ticle). The second biggest single item is a private telephone
($42), which Miss Hunt deems essential because "I've
lived without a telephone in the past and there have been
times when I didn't have a dime to call somebody when
my babies and I needed help."
That leaves $78 in cash and $115 in food stamps, and
the bulk of the article describes Hunt's painful efforts to
deploy these pitiful sums economically: deciding whether
to buy ,4what was on sale (or) what her family really need
ed," walking long distances to less expensive stores, clip
ping ad coupons for bargains, signing up for the federal
freehcee program (another subsidy), etc. She is clearly
a resourceful lady, though: She even finds time for politi
cal activity. "Welfare mothers have to organize," she said.
"I've been able to fight for my rights through the help of
the Redistribute America Movement." The group is a
statewide poor people's organization.
Nonetheless, there are certain gaping holes in the Hunt
saga, and it is to reporter Rule's credit that she acknow
ledges two of them: "There was no way to verify inde
pendently that (Hunt) had no other sources of income. It
also could not be determined whether she might have
been able to find a job that would pay enough to get off
welfare" - there being plenty of (subsidized) child day
care centers in New York City that would gladly watch
over Tanya while her mother worked. (Kayla is in one of
the city's free public schools.)
Beyond these questions, certain other gaps bother me.
It is usually necessary for a man to be somewhere in the
picture if babies are getting born, yet there is not a single
reference to any husband or husbands, or even to a boy
friend. Surely there must be some man. somewhere,
whom some court would order to make child-suoport pay
ments'' Continued on Pane 5
