Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (July 21, 1988)
T NdSaskan %4L JL %r JL JL (d JL Thursday, July 21,1988 I _ 1 The Times They Are A ' Changin’ Political Primer I H®MHL i . i The differences between the 1988 Democratic Convention in At lanta and the recently adjourned Party Conference in Moscow seem to have escaped some political analysts. True, lines that were once stridently drawn between the good old American Democratic process — with its hooplah and party hats—and the stem totalitarianism of the Soviet old guard — with its light lips and /om bificd dogma — have become blurred, but there are still some in digenous .characteristics that keep them from being erased altogether. The acute observer can see through the glasnosl to those subtle nuances that keep the Russian Bear from ever caucusing like only don keys can caucus. Here’s a beginners guide to sort ing the two shabangs: 1. “Hrumph”-ing. First of all, Hrumphing isan art form. It’s a time saving device by which politicians and racketeers can simultaneously digest their last meal and express displeasure over the way the pro ccedings arc going. Still, the Demo cratic convention hrumph and the Soviet hrumph arc two very different thing. Both hrumphs stir up the gas tric fluids, but the Soviet hrumph has an edge to it. It’s a hrumph that says, “In the old days, there were camps for upstarts like you . . The Soviet hrumph replaces all verbiage and is the very antithesis of “windbag.” On the other hand, the Democratic con vention hrumph is usually the prelude to a very long, meandering speech about the “purpose here today ...” 2. Girls. At the Democratic Con vention Center, after a long, hard day in the caucus, you can gctgirls sent up to your room. In fact, you can get just about anything sent up to your room —champagne, shrimpcocklails, little boys. At the Soviet conference, you can get slide shows of Democratic party stalwarts wearing bedsheetsand riding each other around their hotel rooms sent up to your room. And vodka. But that goes without saying. 3. Entertainment. The Democrats invited a whole slew of entertainers to perform for the weary delegates. Many of these delegates, being from some dank geographical recess where nothing grows but various species of foot algae., have never seen a Las Vegas lounge show. At last count, however, the Democrats had booked a high school band and a “party don key.' This could cause a rather deli cate situation for, say, the Arkansas delegation who had waited all year to watch Mitzi Gaynor sing “This Land is Your Land” while can-canning with the entire cast of “L. A. Law.” At the Soviet conference, they arc there to work, not waste their time on petty entertainment. But a classical pianist plays in the evening. As he is banging out Bach on his black lacquer Stcinway, he wishes he were watch ing Mitzi Gaynor sing Woody Guthrie tunes. He wishes he were dressed in a bcdshcet and riding a “party donkey"around in the lobby of some big American hotel. 4. Bugs. The Democrats have been suitably paranoid about listening devices ever since Watergate. A See CONVENTION on 5 boston-Austin connection rekindles unpopular nostalaia Michael Dukakis wants us to look fondly back to I960, when another Massachusetts politician joined with a Texas politi cian to win the White House for the Democrats. The idea is that our hearts will go pitty-pat and our eyes will grow moist as we recall the olden and golden days of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. ■p And when we are swept up by this wave of nostalgia, we’ll look at Dukakis and his Texan, Lloyd Bentsen, and burst into a chorus or two of “Camelot.” This has become an .instant cam paign theme for Dukakis and Bentsen, with both of them chirping about a new “Boston-Austin” axis. Bui I’m notsurc how smart that is. There might be a few voters out there who, when they think back to the original “Boston-Austin” axis, might be more inclined to burst into a cold sweat than into a chorus of “Camclot.” Not everyone’s memory is lim ited to television fragments of Ken nedy striking heroic poses and mak ing ringing speeches. Or of the na tional wake when he was killed. There might be those who look back to 1960 and remember that mere were omy a nanaiui 01 Ameri can military advisers in a distant place called Vietnam. But under the Kennedy admini stration, the figure grew to almost 17,(XX) by the end of 1963. And from the time Johnson succeeded Ken nedy until he left office, our military presence swelled to 536,(XX). During those eight years, about 31,(XX) troops were killed in Viet nam. The nation’s economy went berserk with inflation and riots be came a routine part of urban life. So maybe Dukakis and Bcntscn might want to give a second thought to rekindling memories of those Democratic glory years. It’s not ex actly unanimous that they were glori ous. True, they were years that in cluded major victories for the cause of civil rights. But the “Boston Austin” connection doesn’t deserve as much credit as the ordinary civil rights workers who confronted the hard-core bigots and racist institu tions. If anything, the Kennedy admini sirauon nau 10 oe uraggeo into me civil rights battle. The Kennedysand their best and brightest advisers would have preferred that the march ers didn’t march and sit in. All those sit-ins and hymn-singings caused distasteful political problems. It wasn’t until they realized the conflict wasn’t going away and they’d have bigger political prob lems if they didn’t get into the act, that they hurriedly developed the now-legendary Kennedy social con science. To his credit, Johnson’s admini stration created massive social re form programs, some of which even worked. But he made the mistake of thinking he could finance these voic ing programs while also paying for a disastrous war. Nobody can bal ance those kinds of books. So while you can get some hcart plinking film footage our of I960 to 1968, those weren’t years that most of us would want to relive. When the best and brightest are mentioned now, a lot of historians arc asking: “Best at what and brighter than who?” True, I voted for John F. Kennedy. However, 1 used only one hand, since the other was occupied with holding my nose. /vs tar as i could icll, Kennedy had only one thing going for him: he wasn t Richard Nixon. Other than that, his main public accomplish ments were being rich and good-look ing. As it turned out, being rich, good looking and not Richard Nixon was enough to get him elected president. That,plushis willingness to overcome bis disdain for Lyndon Johnson and Johnson’s willingness to overlook his loathing for Kennedy., , Had almost anyone else run aga inst Kennedy, I would have voted for anyone else. Bui I was one of many voters who thought Nixon was a sneak. Why not? Even President Eis enhower didn’t care much for him, and I figured that Ike, one of my heroes, was a good judge of character. Looking back, I realize that it was a bleak choice. When he later got his chance, Nixon proved he was a sneak. But when Kennedy got his chance, he let gangster Sam Giancana fix him up with a leftover bimbo. You won’t find Giancana in the original script of “f’ftfru'lAi ** And in 1964,1 voted for Lyndon Johnson. That’s because he con vinced me and the majority of Ameri cans that Barry Goldwalcr would gel us into a big war. Johnson, a sly one, didn’t tell us that he was planning a big war of his own. So Dukakis and Ben (sen can spare me any further reminders of the old “Boslon-Austin” connection. I’ve never been able to get nostalgic about body bags and tear gas. 01988 By The Chicago Tribune Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.