february 21, 1972
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
1/6
LETTERS
they
accepted,
didn’t
they?
Pomona
N.Y.
DEARSIRS:While
it
is adubious distinction to be invited
to the White House
to
witness the presentation of a medal
to anyone connected with
Reader’s Drgest,
your editorial
slur atDr. Sidney Hook and IrvingKristol was out of
order [Feb.
141
Neither is a right-wing luminary, Both
’
are men who believe in intellectual honesty, parliamentary
procedure, dissent but not disruption, and SQ far as Sidney
Hook
is
concerned, genuine belief that the college
campus
is
not the place where all political problems should
gravitate; moreover, a sincere commitment to the con-
cept that academic achievement ought to be the only
criterion by which one is selected for a university faculty
position.
It is, however, scandalous to witness Billy Graham in
attendance .at such functions.
As for theoutburst of Carole. Feraci, that act canbe
criticized more han praised because she chose the wrong
forum for a well-meaning deed, and one wonders whether
she hasheight to hold an audience captive inhat
niannerand n such setting.
Elliott A .
Cohen
etiquette
Jamaica Vt.
DEARSIRS:For one brief momentCarole Feraci held the
undivided attention of millions
of
TV viewers when she
spoke her piece ata White House dinner given to award
Freedom Medals to he DeWitt Wallaces of the
Reader’s
Dlgest. “If Jesus Christ was i n . this room tonight; -you
would not dare
to
drop another omb,”he said,
re-
ferring
to our
air war in Vietnam. Whenshe was asked
to leave the room, she said, “Certainly,” and left
quietly. . .
A
wealthy New York rea1 estate deaIer was heard
to
say, Throw the bum out.”
And
the Attorney General‘s
gracious wife spouted, ‘‘ hink she-should bel torn imb
from limb.” One 1s forced
to
think of the Vietnamese
country people squatting in caves, dining on ahandful
of
rice garnered
from
fields subjected
to U.S.
bombing and
“free
fire
zone” tactics.
An NBC ommentator spoke of “bad manners.” Can
the moral problem be hldden behind references to
etiquette?
Mark Worthen
Nixon
logic
Pittsburgh Pa.
DEAHSIRS: t his press conference on Feb.
10
Mr. Nixon
said: “There is in my view
. . . a
very great difference
between .
.
. criticizing theconduct
of
the war ‘and criti-
cisms by a Presidential candidate of a policy, o end the war.”
Expanding on this thought, Robert B. Semple, Jr. writes in
The New
York
Times on Feb. 1 1 thatMr. Nixon recalled
how he himself “had not been happy with President John-
son’s conduct of the war.” But Nixon went on to add that ,
in Semple’s words, “after hehad become acandidate . . .
he
had
not attacked Mr. Johnson’s
efforts to
achieve a
negotlated settlement.”
Now
all
this isvery interesting.
. .
Though they enjoy
telling the public how it was a progression of Democratic
administrations that
got
us into Vietnam while it s a Repub-
].can Administration hat
is
pulling
us
out, the ruth is the
Republican Party supported the war from the start. If ever
there has been a bipartisan war it was in Vietnam. And as
for Richard Nixon . .
.
he only thing he did not like about
Johnson’s war policies is that they didn’t go far enough. It
was Nixon who, long before taking office, felt we should
Continued on page 340
EDITORIALS
Question Time
‘Now
that the President and his travelbig troupe ha
returned, we knowwhatwe could reasonablyhave,as
sumedbefore he left-that the main mportance of
journey was the fact that he made it. There are of cou
fringe benefits:
a
direct line of communication; the ho
of
cultural, ournalistic, educational and scientific
Ghanges; the possibiIity of eventual recognition and f
mal relations; and beyond that, trade and ourist opp
tunities. Not least, the trip marks the end of the
Du
determination to prevent any normal relationsbetwee
the UnitedStates and China to the end that Chinamig
eventually.turn away from communism.
~
Nearly
all
the politicians seem inclined
o
applaud all t
with some degree
of
enthusiasm. One exception is Hub
Humphreywho,having uccumbed to unbridled
opp
tunism,
insists on doing
to
Nixon
what
Nixon did to
Democrats in years past-he baits him for “having pul
the rug
out
from under the Nationalist Chinese.”Oth
Democrats are well advised ,‘to put this emptation aside
But here’sone large hole
in
the President’shandlin
of the ssues related to the ,trip, and until that omiss
is repaired the applause should be restrained.
Whats onspicuouslyacking-and it
is
odd t
amidst the flood of comment it hasgoneunnoticed-
-
i s a clear, persuasive state-ment-
of the
.reasons for his tur
about. Part
of
the ethics
of
leadership in a democra
society is to display
a
minimal amount
of
candor; with
it, communicationbecomes a travesty. The Executive
obliged to offer the people, for their understanding a
possiblecomment
and
criticism, some idea
of hbw
reaches decisions ‘on key ssues.
In
the present case,
are entitled to
a
statement of the evolution-assumin
there hasbeen an evolution-of
Mr.
Nixon’s
think
and a definition of the position he
now
maintains.
For
Mr.
Nixon,
personally, this trip would eem
reflect a reversal of political views. Has hechangedhi
mind?
f so,
why doesn’t he say that he has, and expl
why? He has not said that he made a mistake when, wi
conspicuous ack
of
humor, he urged heunleashing
Chiang Kai-shek. He has not
said
that he made a mist
when he embraced the position of the China Lobby.
has not said that he regrets the expenditure of all ho
billions in a vaineffort oencircle, frustrate, annoy a
possibly opple the Chinese regime. He has not said t
he regrets his part in having kept China out of the ,U
and
in
having fashioned those “twenty-two years
of
h
tility”whichhenowclaims credit
for
ending. Re
not said that he regrets the basis of
U.S.
policy owa
China, which was a prime factor
in
setting the stage
the warnietnam. I
What specitically does the President think
toduy
ab
suchmattersas hese?
Has U.S.
policybeenmistakenly
geared
to
the idea
of
containment? Has that ideafaiI
in
the East, as it has failed elsewhere? Was it a mist
tomakeuch xtensive and binding ommitments
Chiang Kai-shek, who is
now
in a position
to
accuse
of
bad faith? Was
it a
mistake to try to keep China
the international doghouse for those twenty-two‘ ybars
-
322
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
2/6
Or,
approaching thematter rom the opposite direc-
If so,
in
what directions, to what extent, and
how reliably? If h e t i n k s that they
not changed, but the situation has, in what respects
hat implications?
It is clearly implied that h e assumes that China does
threaten us today, bu t surely that cannot mean ha t
e thinks China
is
weaker today than it waswhen he,
it as a menace.
f
t he Cv i e s e do
US
oday, because they are preoccupied with
threat to them from Russia, does h e look with favor
this enmity, which contains th e seeds
of
World War III?
Finally, hasMr. Nixon perceived the dangers of
a
in
foreign affairs?
if in fact
it
has oc-
Or is he engaged in
a
rapprocltemerzt with China
n the hope
of
getting us, out of the Indochinese war; if
O
what makes im think that approayh
is
promising?
if we will; indeed, is there any
feasible, exit?
We are not suggesting that the President should p ro-
‘a
humiliating
mea
culpa. Former Sen. Thruston
had he courage
to
say .that hehad been
mis-
about Vie tnah , and
so
did Senator Muskie. It
is
cult for a President, but not even he can claim
from he obligation to explain a. radical change
f course.
Bismarckian, M etternichean politics ‘will no t work in a
is
why Vietnam blew up n the
of
Mr. Nixon’s ,nd Dr.
Kissinger’s
predecessors.
know. In Chinaand he Soviet Union
know butare shy to say so. Here,
nd “how” a nd “when” areperfectly
rds. It is .the President’s obligation to hear
om
the
President
No that he Pr6sident is back, he parties must get
with th e campaign.’ Senator Dole assures us th at Mr.
in several states-
that is, he can be assured that he occasions will be,
. Th e proviso is absurd, and fhe Senator knows
Thereare no nonpolitical appearances in a campaign
If the President were to dedicate a shrine to mother-
i t ’would be a political act. He will make carefuqy
in key states and the calculations
be ’ wholly political.
As
in ’th e past, everything
Mr.
does, s political, including the darker dye he is using
n his hair. He will appear, smile, talk about his “journey
they’ve been had .
Th e President will perform this ritual nd will do
,more-unless theDem ocrats ake he issues to
With
rare exceptions to date, they have not been
so.
To someextent hat is ’ nevitable in the pre-
when the Dem ocrats are runn ing against-
ano;ther, not against
Nixon.
But they make
a
grave mistake by letting him set the
NATloN/March 13. 1972
1 .
IN THIS ISSUE I
I ,
March
13,
1972
EDITORIALS
,322
ARTICLES
326
Florida Primary:
Quite
a
Bit of Everything
Martin Dyckman
329 Fourth Network:
The Public Be Damned
Gregory
Knox
George L . Baker
and
Ronald B. Taylor
Herbert Krosney
332
The Conglomerate Green Giant
336 Promises in the Promised Land
338 Imperialists and Scholars:
The Discontents
o
Stanford
I
Sherman B . Chickering
BOOKS
3 THE
ARTS
341
The Compact Edition
of the
Oxford English Dictionary Robert L.Chapman
342 Barnes:awns David VazdgHt
343 Cooke,
ed..
Moderq
Black
Novelists Jerry H : Bryant
343 Altadena FoothilIs poem) Barbara Hughes
345 Forrester: Worldynamics S Fred Singer
346 Medvedev,
Roy
A.: Let History Judge
Medvedev, Zbores
A. and
Roy
A.:
A Questioc of Madness
Desmond
Smith
347
From
the Balcony poem) Irving Feldmart
348 Davis:‘ The Image
of
Lmcoln ’
in the South
Christopherell
349 Theatre Harold Clurrnan
349
Art Lawrence Alloway
Pyblisher
JAMES J. STORROW Jr.
Edltor
CAREY McWlLL lAMS
Associate Publisher
GIFFORD PHILL IPS
Executive Editor Literary Editor
ROBERT HATCH EMlLE C A P O U Y A
COPYditor. MARION HESS. Poetry Editor, ROBERT HA ZEL;
Theatre, HAROLDL U R M A i ;rt ,A WR E N C EL L O WA Y .
Music
DAVID HAMILTON.
Sclence CARL DREHER. Advertlsmd
M an a i e r ,
MARY
SIMON ClrculatlonManager, ROSE d. GREEN.
Editorial Associate, ERNEST GRUENING
Washingtop, ROBERT SHERRILL; London R AY MO NDI L L I A M S ;
Paris CLAUDE
BOURDET-
Bonn C.dE RY . Jerusalem HERBERT
KROSNEY: Canberra. . FITZGERALD; U.N.’, AN NE Uk KER MA N.
The Nat ion is published weekly (except blweekly in July and Kuqust)
by the NationCom pany and copyright 1972 in the U.S.A. by theNat ion
2-8400.Sekond ;lass postage paid i t New York, N.
Y.
Associates lec 333 Sixth Avenue New York.
N. Y. 10014.
Tel. Cli
SubscriptionPrice: One year I2
50
two years 23 A d d 1 per year
postage for Cana da nd Mexico; 2’otheroreibn ,
Change of Address: It is essential that subscribers ordering a chabge ‘
of address ivew e
weeks’
notice and provlde thelc old as well as
their new aJddrerr. Please give
Z i p
Code numbers for both addresses.
Man uscr ipts. ll work subrnltted
will
be read by theditors. The
magazine cannot, however, be responslble for the return of
unsol~cited
mdnurcripts unless they are accornpanled by stamped, self-addressed
envelopes.
In format ion oL ibrar ies:T h eNat ion is indexed
i n
Readers’
Guide
to
Periodicaliterature Book Review Dlgest, Book Review Index
and
the Publlc Affairs Iniorm atlon, Service.
NATION V o h m eo.
3 4
323
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
3/6
rules for the campaign, while they slug it out in Florida,
NewHampshire, Wisconsin, or wherever theycan find
an audience to watch them bruise one another. However
great or small a chance of each for eventual victory, they
all have a common adversary. ~y can’t they nominate a
team of noncandidates ostart shaping the issues in the
only way in which they can be effectively shaped-by
taking the fight to the President,
as
Senator Kennedy is
doing? 1
Issuesabound: foreign policy in a dozen aspects-the
state
of
the economy unemployment civil rights-the
cities-law and order-ecological damage-mass transit-
educational policy-taxes. And the trade deficit, the pre-
carious state of the dollar, intlation, the cost of living, child
care, and so
on
in an almost endless list.
Now that Mr. Nixon’s animosity toward the media has
turned nto a warm mellowglow (how he fellow can
twist),perhaps he will start holding regularpresscon-
ferencesand answering a few questions. Perhaps,but t
is not likely, unless the opposition leans
on
him. He w ll
continue o float above he issues, taking evasive action
whenever he sees one approaching. He is a very cuttlefish
for sepia clouds of rhetoric.
The campaign is the thing, the ampaign ahead
of
everything else. There sno blinking the act hat he
President has gained votes by his pilgrimage .to Peking,
but votes blow where they list, and i t is up to the Demo-
. crats to begin taking votes away from him. The sooner
they start, the better the chance for their nominee-who-
- ever hat may be;-- - -
. . .
CAMPAIGN ’72
The Vanishing Family
Farm
-
When Facrories in the Field was first published in 1939
I was accused of exaggerating theextent o which the
large-scale corporate farm was making inroads on the trak
ditional family-sized farm. hirty-threeearsater i t
is videnthat, on the ontrary, I grossly understated
the danger. I did not foresee “the tentacles of Tenneco,”
I did not anticipate the present invasion of “conglomerates”
(see article p. 332 ) . It did not occur to me that,, within a
generation,he large-scale corporate arms of theate
1930s
would be hreatened by still largerconcentrations
of power. I t was even more difficult ‘then than now to make
the point that the real issue in the perennial “small farm,
large farm” controversy is one of social efficiency. Apolo-
gists fororporatearming interests-numerous,well
financed (some of them ensconced in comfortable academic
posts), with ready access to the media-insisted that the
large corporate farm was more efficient, Besides, i t spread
economic benefits throughout society, pihcipally n he
form of lower prices for food, Therefore et competition
take tscourse; et he economically fittest survive. But
economic efficiency is a tricky concept. It is wasteful, not
’ efficient, to pay huge subsidies to large corporate arms
as a bonus for not raising crops.
If
one judges agriculture
efficiency in terms of yields per acre, the evidence shows
that for many crops the family-operated farm has the better
record; hat, unhappily, does not insure ts survival. The
truth is the family-sized farm-actually a very flexible
concept-could survive if given a chance; it is done in by
the fact that ,the corporate farms, and more recently
conglomerates, command the power (financial, politi
organizational) to mock the idea
of
fair competition.
This central issue of social efficiency, touched on in
recent California hearings conducted by a subcomm
chaired by Senator Stevenson, will engage the attent
of the Senate Monopoly Subcommittee which on Marc
resumed hearings into orporate gigantism. Dr. Wa
Goldschmidt is scheduled to be a lead-off witness, and o
again we-shall be reminded
of
his study
of
two farm
communities in heSanJoaquin Valley-of Arvin,
rounded by large-scale corporate arms,and
of
Dinu
with its family-sized arms-and of his conclusion t
measured by social and civic criteria, he atter is
better, more stable community.%ut the Dinubas of ru
America, and even the small cities that serve as shopp
and service centers for farming communities, cannot
vive*without the family farm.
A library
of
books, studies, investigations andrepo
has been devoted to the family-sized farm. Over the ye
the phrase has acquired almost sacred overtones, in la
part because generations of.Americans were raised
believe that rural meant virtuous, But today, for perha
the first time, the problem of how to save the family f
may be shaping up as a live political issue. In the past
standard remedy, of both parties, for rural distress
been a ritualistic increase in farm prices in election ye
(Secretary of Agriculture Butz is now urging such a boo
That may qujet-fannunrest o some extent, but
it
will
“save the family farm.” More drastic remedies are need
Fortunately, the current hearings will focus on comp
hensive new legislation sponsored jointly
b y
Sen. Gayl
Nelson (D., Wis.) and Rep. James Abourezk (D.,
S.
Their proposal is not a cure-all, #but it points- in the r
direction. It shouldbe emphasized that today, also
perhaps he first time, the issue
of
the family farmh
broad implications.
For
one thing, the plight of the C
dramatically underscores the need to achieve a better ru
urban balance.
No
longer does expression of a concern
the viability of rural communities sound dull, unen
prising, mildly regressive. In much the same way, ecolo
cal concerns have stimulated
a
reconsideration of
importance of rural America. The emergence of C
Chavez’s pioneering United Farm Workers-it has
signed its first contract in Florida-implies that the in
ests of farm workers must now be considered.
So
too,
spreading popuIarity among small farmers of the idea
“collective bargaining” suggests that a note of realism
entering the endless colloquy about the family farm.
Sedater
Nel& and Representative Abourezk are c
cerned with the economic, social andculturaleffects
small town andrural America of the activities of la
diversified and integrated farming corporations. But so
efficiency as a test of various forms of enterprise ha
relevance that extends beyond agriculture. It would s
stitute for a myopic concern with profits the need t prov
a better life for more people, with sound, long-range pr
pects for social and economic stability and minimal dam
to the environment. That is not a bad test of corpo
responsibility everywhere in the economy. That it is be
applied in agriculture suggests that
a
New Populism, m
sophisticated and relevant than past Populist moveme
324
THE NATlON/March 13 1
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
4/6
may be emerging as a re+ force in American politics. Jack
Newfield and Jeff Greenfield detail the underlying assump-
tions of such a movement and describe a possible program
for t n their A
Populist
Manifesto: The
Making o j
a
New
Majority
published this month by Praeger. The
. present hearings should initiate an ongoing discussion of
the rural and small-town crisis, which is just as severe, in
its way, as the much better publicized urban crisis. The
basic issues-longneglected-should be flushed out in
Campaign ’72, for they,will remain high
on
the agenda
throughout the decade.
National Future Farmers of America Week has just been
observed (February 19-26); the theme this year was
“Youth With a Purpose.” If the
450,000
young men and
women whb belong to hat organization are tohavea
future on farms, then the family farm must be given a
chance to survive. That involves a radical reordering of
policies, programs and priorities. CAKEYMCWILLIAMS
Irkland,
Old
and
New
The tragedy of Northern Ireland offers an example of
the pernicious and persistent effect
‘of
obsolete thinking and
attitudes. In every country, a large section of the popula-
tion seems to have a predilection for using its brains as
a kind of attic for the preservation -of antiques. Just now,
Ireland and England are the prime exhibits.
Witness the “ProvisionaI” Ifaction
of
the Irish Republi-
can Army, the militants, as opposed to the moderate “Offi-
cials” (although the latter also claimed responsibility for
recent acts of terrorism). The Provisionals are, in-thei r
owneyes,men of courage-tough, determined patriots.
But they are so haunted by the past, that for them nothing
has changed since the 1916 Easter rising. These guerrillas
will have no truck with Bernadette Devlin because she
bore a child out of wedlock. Think of that Miss Devlin
has marched, protested, been. to jail once, will probably go
to jail again, has barnstormed in the. United States for
money, but all this avails her nothing. I t is fair to ask:
if
the Provisionals cannot unite with Bernadette and child,
how can they hope to unite Ireland?
But those who consider the “Provos” unreasonable
should take a close look at Edward Heath, Prime Minister
of England, In a
New Y o r k
Tirnes interview with Anthony
Lewis, Mr. Heath made the following points:
Q majority in Northern Ireland “want to remain in the
United Kingdom. . . .” How does the Prime Minister know
this to be true? When did a real plebiscite last offer all’ the
available options? I
1“It is different from a colonial situation. . . .” Is it,
really? If it is not a colonial situation, what are the Brit-
ish troops doing there? The Nation pointed out early that
North Ireland is Britain’s Vietnam. That notion, which
may have seemed bizarre at he time, is now eflectedn
the headlines almost every day.
IThe people in the North are “different in type and
religion. . . .” Thisone takes the prize. Thereare some
Protestants in the South and a great many Catholics in the
North, but as to type, Mr. Heath should be more specific.
The Catholics in the North speak English. They are white.
They have the same genes as other beings. They are strati-
fied in social classes, just like the Protestants. They have
lived as neighbors with Protestants for centuries. I n Som
areas they get along fine to this day. They work well to-
gether: every observer has noted that there is no troubl
in the factories, although the Protestants monopolize the
good jobs. When one
looks
around the world, North Ire
land seems remarkably homogeneous, more so than New
York or Pittsburgh.
1The final Heath dictum i? that those in the North “do
not want to live under a theocratic government.
.
. .” Few
people do, uqless it is their theocracy. Northern Ireland ha
a ,government neither more
nor
less theocratic than that
o
Southern Ireland. The Orange Order is in effect a Protestan
job trust.
Both the IRA andHeath should blow the cobweb
from their minds. It is not as if their tiresome ideas wer
harmless. Blood is being shed in Northern Ireland-arid
in England, too.
The situation is badbutnot hopeless: a new Ireland
seems to be emerging. The recent Labour Party conferenc
at Wexford (South Ireland), thanks in
no
small measur
to Conor Cruise O’Brien’s leadership, adopted a resolution
outlawing all support for the IRA-both the Official nand
the Provisional branches. It also called for an end to th
1937
constitution and *e adoption
of
a new constitutio
which would end all religious discrimination, and establish
nonsectarian principles in the areas of divorce, contracep
tion, education, health, adoption and social’services. Wher
would that leave those hated “Papists”?
The conference condemned (as did the Irish Govern
ment) the IRA’S attempt to assassinate John Taylor, Min
ister of Home Affairs in the North. Bernadette Devlin ha
called the Aldershot bombing “horrifically wrong.” On
speaker said that such acts are destloying the bridge
between Protestants and Catholics.
Wedgwood Bennput it correctly:
’
You cannot intern
ideas.
You cannot’ create consent
with tar and feathers. You cannot dlsperse a dream with
CS
gas or rubber
bullets.
You cannot build a new Jerusalem with gelignite.
And he added: I
I n the gloom that sometimes seems to
envelop
us, we
must
be
clearabout our grounds for optlmism.
Things
havehangedincehe ‘20s. I
But that is a ground for optimism only if the people now
supporting their antique ideas with modern weapons can b
brought to acknowledge the change, and act on
it.
Some Reassurance for
Dr.
K
In the’issue
of
February 21, we ran an editorial ‘whic
discussed Dr. Kissinger’s intimation that the Cooper-Churc
amendment, which temporarily cut off all foreign aid, wa
interpreted by North Vietnam as a signal that the Senat
had abandoned Saigon, and that therefore Hanol was unde
no urgent need ,to talk terms We quoted Stewart Alsop a
wnting, “No one can prove ~ t f course, but it is an articl
of faith
in
the Whlte House that these votes queered th
negotiations,” adding our own observation that no
one
ca
disprove it either, whichmay be why the White Hous
employs the supposition for its own purposes.
Now, Johanna J. Bosch, librarian of the Fellowship fo
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
5/6
\
Reconciliation, sends us a clipping fsom the
Vietnam
Courier (published in English
in
Hanoi), which,as she
says, goes some way to disprove it. The article i s a news
commentary translated from
Nhan
Dan the’ official Hanoi
paper. It takes some satisfaction from Cooper-Church as
evidence that Americans and their elected representatives
are profoundly estranged from the war; no one has ever
denied that the deep cleavage in this country is a support
to our opponents-that is one of the disadvantages a dem-
ocracy suffers when it fights an unjust war. But the article
concludes that: “The Senate vote willaffectonly part of
the military aid pragramme-aids for U.S. agents in Saigon,
Phnom Penh and Vientiane, for,example, being covered
by separate legislations-and Nixon is very likely
to
suc-
ceed in filling the gap,” It seems, thus, that Dr. Kissinger
was unnecessarilyalarmed ‘by ,the possibility thatHanoi
would draw sweepingconclusions from the fact that he
Senators behaved on that occasion as men of conscience.
For what the leaders of North Vietnam may conclude from
the melodramatic visit of Kissinger’sboss to Peking, we
shall have to await a later issue of the Vietnam Courier.
Environmental
Legacy
Architect, environmentalist, journalist and co-founder
of The
Nation Frederick Law Olmsted
1822-1903)
is
perhaps best remembered as he father of Central-Park,
gh he designed sixteen other urban oases, including
This summer, an “Olmsted Sesquicentennial’’ has been
planned to honor his contributions to the Anferjcan en-
vironment, both by his physical creations and by his ideas
on the optimum potential of our man-made world. A
commemorative stamp willbe released and exhibits and
discussions of Olmsted’s work will be featured in many
of the nation’s cities.
Raised in‘an aWuent New England environment,
Olm-
sted had a vision
of
‘a genrtle, reasonable society whose
citizens and their democratically elected represenkatives,
working together, would design the best possible setting
San FranciscokGoldenGate ark. -
-
- -
-
-
’for themselves and their descendants. Fearing the hap-
hazard urbanization in New York, Olmsted designed and
saw through the completion of Central Park. With single-
minded purpose, he’foughtefforts to vulgarize the facility
turning back moves for ‘a race track, world’s fair and a
full-sized ship on the parkland. He vehemently denounced
the prevailing ity political machines, particularly the
Tweed Ring, for making what he called “political job-
bery” out of all possible facets of the park.
What Olmsted wanted, in New York and throughout
the nation, was a planned, civilized-but not inorganic-
environment in which the country’s citizens could thrive.
He called his parks “lungs,” hoping they would offer clean
and clear resuscitation from the foul and hectic qualities
of urban life. He spent much of his adu1.t life preaching
what he called “sympathetic cooperation with nature.”.
That Central Park remains much as he first planned it
in
1858
is in itself a great monument to Olmsted‘s genius
and the endurance of many of hi,s ideas. That the park
is ow unsafe at night and cannot possibly compensate
for the horrorsl
‘of
urban life, especially for the poor,
indicates that even hisvisionwas limited by the back-
ground from which he came.
Speaking of thepark, Olmsted once said he hoped
it would“supply to the hundreds of thousands of tired
workers .
.
.
a
specimen
of
God’s handiwork that shall
be to them, nexpensively, what a month o r , two in the
White Mountains o r , he Adirondacks is, at , great cost,
to those-in easier circumstances.’~ ven i n .Oh,stedls time
more was needed than parks to relieve the plight of the
city’s poor, and more is certainly needed today,
That, however, is not to question Olmsted‘s very real
contributions. The state of our cities would be much worse
without the parks he gave’ them; the fault is not that his
vision was limited but that too any of those who came
after him had no vision at
all.
His work and memory
‘deserve
to
be honored for what theywere, and we can
all be thanldul that’he’ gaveusas much as a series of
parks to retreat o and a vision of life to which we all
should at least partially aspire.
FLORIDA PRIMARY
UOTE A
BIT OF EVERYT’HXNG
DYCKMAN ’
M r . Dyckman s State Capitol bureau chief
for
the Sr
Peters-
burg
Times
Tallahassee
f Florida’s state legislators are open to argument when they
represent the ‘people, they are undeniably ,repre-
ive of them in one demographic regard. Fewer than
the lawmakers were-born
in
the state they serve. Like
the people whoelected hem, hey arean amalgam of
Midwest.
In
the House chamber, the Harvard-polished
I
voice of a Phi Beta Kappa rebuts the draw1of a native
farmer who boasts to colleagues, press and schoolchildren
in hegallery that he comprehends the issue“because
I
was raised on a farm and I know the difference between
manure and peanut butter.’’
With 6,790,929 people-a gain of 1.8 million in a
decade, and more than double the population in
1950-
Florida’s boast of being a unique (yell, yes, there s Cali-
fornia) melting pot has been acknowledged by almost the
entire field of candidates courting its eighty-oneDemo-
cratic delegate votes; or at least the political lift that an
unexpected respectable showingwouldmean. To George
THE
NATIoN/March
13
1972
-
8/9/2019 February 21, 1972
6/6