Page 4 EDITORIAL Friend FISH Times were when the family doctor made house calls as d courtesy because it was the humanitarian thing to do. If you were sick, the lady next door might bring chicken soup and even help with some unattended chores around the house. Most friends were amiable to stop by often enough to forestall any loneliness with their sympathetic concern. In those days, old folks were more than an obligation to be tolerated and their age was respected as wisdom not weakness. % During the past three years, a Back Mountain group called FISH has attempted to replace this nostalgia with action-packed efforts towards good neighborliness. Despite the impersonality of today’s social dealings, this emergency aid organization adheres to the old ways of treating individuals according to their most exclusive needs. FISH owes its success to the volunteer staff manning their ‘‘boats.”’ The dedicated members maintain their endeavors are a worthwhile way to spend time that might otherwise be wasted. Helping others is never in vain, whether it be babysitting, transporting a sick person to the doctor’s office, offering companionship to a shut-in, or comically enough, chasing a mouse from someone’s house. The increasing rate of emergency calls as of late has made it urgent that FISH “cast its nets’ for new volunteers or possibly face extinction. The ~ group cannot promise services it is unable to fulfill, therefore the immediate demand for expanding their staff is highly imperative. In the daily commitment of FISH, the residents of the Back Mountain have found a reliable “friend.” To forfeit such a friend would no doubt be an enormous loss to our community. We are hoping that the people of this area will come to FISH’s aid just as it has come to ours so many times in the past. | £5 The Poet “Truly men hate the truth, they’d liefer meet a tiger on the road.’’---Robinson Jeffers Perhaps the real prophet of our time was the late poet Robinson Jeffers. Cynical, brooding, the the outcroppings of rock along his adopted Cali- fornia coast, Jeffers was perhaps the first to see with utter clarity the threat of sience and techno- logy to Americans. But his warnings were too stern, too bitter, too foreboding for that optimistic time. In Jeffers’ day there were many energetic patriots in the land, and while they sang of an America that was the ul- timate of best hope of western civilization, the poet saw a nation already settled ‘‘in the mold of its vul- garity.” Perhaps he was being unrealistically sentimental when he wrote: “It would be better for men to be few and live apart, where none could infect the other; then slowly the sanity of field and mountain and the cold ocean and the glittering stars might enter their minds.” ~ But in the same poem, which focused on the agonies of World War II, but might have been written in the wake of the My Lai massacre, he spoke with devastating power of what he conceived as the end result of a technological civilization. The triumph of technology, our lust for warmon- gering, the underlying barbarisms of our sophisti- cated urban society---these are things we know far more about than when Jeffers wrote. No surprise, then, that his work won him contempt as well as praise, contempt even from those who praised him most. So we read him again, and now we find that his bitter prophecies are echoed on every hand. Nor bols, as is the fashion with most modern poets. We understand him now, and should have understood him then. As we read we sense the growing pre- sence of a massive doom---not a pretty message, perhaps not an altogether acceptable message even in these apocalyptic times. Perhaps, even now, rather than be haunted by the truth of his pro- phecy, we’d much “‘liefer meet a tiger on the road.” . A 3 a Ei Ret Changes That fattest of all sacred cows, The Great American Majority, whose idea of literature is The Love Machine; whose idea of art is a 50 cent reproduction of Wide Eyed pseudo- children; whose idea of music is muzac; whose idea of learning is the ‘“‘word power” department of The Readers Digest; whose idea of religion is a new hat on Sunday; whose idea of drama is Bonanza; whose idea of philosophy is a football game plan; has now presented the world with its idea of a president, Richard Nixon. Yes 42 million people can be wrong. In fact, they are almost invariably wrong. The ubiquitous mouthpieces of Richard Nixon are fond of calling forth the threatening specter of unruly, unkempt mobs but on election day the only mobs to be seen were the orderly, well dressed ones at the polls. The election day riot was a quiet one and nearly invisible. Humanitarian ideals, democratic principles, dreams of a society free for all its members, shatter without a sound and burn without spark or smoke. On November 7th 42 million Americans went ona rampage, burning and looting their way through the 200 year old streets of the city of America; streets called Law, Balance of Powers, Civil Rights, Human Decency. Every lever yanked for the two headed beast Nixon-Agnew was a heavy brick hurled at the edifice of the Constitution. In unison the maddened crowd chanted its slogan over and over. ‘No, no, no, no....” They were asked to clear the streets so that civil rights might find its way to the blaze of bigotry that threatened to consume the city, and the mob cried ‘‘No.” They were asked to go home to the future, because the future is the only place anyone can go, and the mob screamed, “No.” The mob of the majority destroyed the homes of minorities and of their own children and grandchildren. Affluent looters carried off what liberties they could find. And at days end Richard Nixon was king of TRB from Washington Something very strange is happening in American politics. The two-party system seems to be collapsing. President Nixon got the greatest popular landslide in history on Tuesday but failed to sweep his Republican party into control.of Congress. He lost Congress also in 1968, but then it was ex- plained by the extremely close contest President won without Congress was in 1848, with Zachary Taylor). Now. Mr. Nixon has triumphed spectacularly, yet his party has lost two seats in the Senate and is still a minority in the House. The easy answer is that the public was not voting for Mr. Nixon but against Sen. McGovern and there is a good deal of truth in this. But it seems to us that it goes a lot deeper. The political parties are in disarray and since they are a vital part of our system of government this is bad news. If a political “landslide” is defined as a popular vote over 60 percent then there have been four in American history, all in this cen- tury, as follows: Harding in 1920 with 60.3 per- cent, Roosevelt in 1936 with 60.8 percent, Johnson in 1964 with 61.6 percent, and now Nixon in the over 60 percent club. The differ- ence is that the first three won overwhelming party control in Congress and were able to govern, while Mr. Nixon's curious personal lack of charisma, or popularity, or some- thing, leaves him facing a Congress that is since the power still resides largely in a conservative coalition. Almost certainly this means negativism for a while, and little for- ward movement. This is a travesty of checks and balances; it could mean immobility or paralysis. a smoldering ruins that had once been the American dream. The land of the free was populated by the servile and the home of the brave reeked of fear. And there is no fear more awful than the fear of the future, because the future is a thing that cannot be avoided. It will come, the only question is whether we will be ready for it or not. As 1 watched Richard Nixon making his speeches before and after the election I couldn’t help thinking of T.S. Eliot's: lines, “We are the hollow men-We are the stuffed men.”’ Everything about Nixon is phoney. His every gesture, his every facial expression has been choreographed. He must have special directions written into his speeches. Nixon’s policies are based on a conception of the world that is simplistic to the point of imbecility. Someone, preferably the public, should have informed him that Adam 12 etc. are entertainments, not reliable philosphical treatises. But instead, the public has em- braced his policies in one of the largest land- slides in American history. If only morality the majority was always ‘right’ in a moral sense as well as in a legal sense. Is the public really so stupid, so easily deceived? I think this is only part of the story. It goes without saying that mass culture is on a lesser level than true culture and it seems that a government, elected by mob instinct will be similarly limited. But I think that a large segment of the American people have rallied to Nixon-Agnew because Nixon-Agnew have offered them a convenient means for deluding themselves. If it is to Nixon’s advantage to delude Middle America it is also to Middle America’s advantage to be deluded by Nixon. Middle America will give Nixon the power he so craves. In return Nixon assures his sup- porters that all is well with the world. He absolves them of responsibility. If all problems are attributable to a few troublemakers then there is no need to overhaul society, no need to spend money on realistic social programs, no need to educate children in humanity rather than bigotry. Spiro Agnew sings a lullaby for the suburbs. 0 a # » ™ i § i 3 } ; 1 i “Sleep, sleep..thy father in Washington will protect thee.’” § Those who are too lazy and ignorant to think beyond a flag decal or a bumper sticker are praised as patriots. Intellect, which must necessarily disagree with Nixonge'absudist “truths” is downgraded and mocked. Bigots are encouraged to salve their consciences, to hide behind the pseudo-issue of busing: America, land of opportunity, protector of the downtrodden becomes land of vested in- terests, protector of the affluent. The rich get’ richer.. ; Hi I wonder when George McGovern realized that America was intent on taking ‘the low road? When did he realize that the majority of Americans would rather grow fat ‘in the gutter than rouse themselves from their lethargy and aspire to the kind uf high ideals the country was founded on? ? % Personally, I don’t care what 42 million voters think. This country cannot afford to coddle bigots and ignoramuses. Zigotry is a disease worse than cancer and faily reason can meet the challenges that America will have to meet if it is to survive. I “ America cannot afford to go to sleep, even though sleep may seem attractive to ‘a country tired by 200 years of striving, vir- tually alone, to create a society based on human dignity and rights rather than raw power. ’ “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny,” said Thomas Jefferson, ‘‘is before they shall have gotten hold of us.” He also said, “Timid men prefer th zocalm. of despotism to the boisterous sea ¥ liberty.” Richard Nixon represents fear: He offers an illusory harbor, apart from the unavoidable storms of the world. Life is change. Freedom is a burden. There are at least 28 million people in this country who are willing to face reality, who believe in democracy and the rights of their fellow human beings. It is these people who hold the key to America’s future! The vanguard is never a majority. : Another set of figures bears this out. White House and Congress have been held by rival parties in 10 of the past 18 years, and now there will be at least two more of them. Who does the voter hold responsible, anyway? Mr. Nixon can always blame higher taxes on Congress; Congress in turn can blame the White House. Curiously enough, many voters they seem to like it this way; they want the two branches of government to watch each other. : We are inclined to think that the country is in a state of extraordinary transition and that this is showing up on the series of divided governments in Washington. It would have been evident four years ago but for the third party candidacy of George Wallace. Wallace in 1968, which made the Nixon-Humphrey race a photo-finish. But Wallace got shot last May and was eliminated and most of his votes came to Nixon. What we have now is Nixon plus Wallace, with a demoralized Congress left largely in confusion. What happens to the Democratic party depends largely, we guess, on whether Democrats can restore discipline in Congress. : Most elections stir the blood, lift the spirits, act as a national catharsis; the coun- try feels better after them. But not 1972. This has been the most dismal election we have ever known, with the real issues undiscussed, one candidate in seclusion and the other get- ting nowhere, a smell like a stopped drain from the Watergate affair and the. public largely bored. One thing, we think the lonely Senator McGovern did accomplish. By his direct and passionate charge that the Presi- The people have spoken, not in a whisper, but in a raucous shout that leaves no doubt that George McGovern was not the people’s choice for president of the United States. It would seem that he had a few pals in Massa- chusetts and the District of Columbia, but 17 electoral votes really cut no ice in the elec- toral college and neither political division have been notable for conservatism. Conservatism seems to have carried the day, as most of the Democrats elected to the state and federal offices were careful not to associate themselves with Sen. McGovern’s proposals. For support of his proposals, he support of Moscow, Peking and Hanoi. When you think about it, it is an odd thing that pro- posals approved by the Communists should even win in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Sen. McGovern must have done some- thing wrong and it can be assessed in one word—everything. He really lost the election, or any chance of winning it at the Miami Con- vention of the Democratic Party, when he, of three bad choices by far the worst, seized con- trol of the convention. Sensible citizens among the party hadn’t a chance; Scoop Jackson, who stood for patriotism and common sense being the low man. What has happened to the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, shouldn’t have happened to a dog. Tom and Andrew wouldn’t want any part of it if they could see it today. It has attracted all of the crackpots of the left except Dr. Spock, who obviously felt that he could get more publicity much as the public eye. Its little coterie of Vietcong-minded sen- ators—Kenhnedy, Proxmire, Fullbright, etc. have given the party damaging blow upon damaging blow and have secceeded in almost driving out patriotic and sensible Democrats like Mayor Frank Rizzo and John Connolly. What is going to happen to the party in the future is beyond me. If it continues to side with America’s enemies, I don’t even believe it has a future. recently read a book by a learned Amer- ican professor, who proves to his own satis- faction that a two-party system is the best of all political systems and its survival is essen- tial to our future. I have also seen this view in print, emanating from other sources, so there is a good chance that it is right. Still, I am not So sure. It is plain that voters in the presiden- tial election didn’t think so, because they cer- tainly departed from political loyalty and voted for the man each voter thought was the better candidate. I can see where organized political par- ties are needed to raise money, hire adver- tising people and brainy operators, who take the credit when their side happens to win; but the fact that there are two major political parties seems to me to be happenstance and not necessarily essential. Two parties take in too many different ways of thinking about public questions. If there are to be two par- ties, they should be liberal and conservative instead of a mixture of both points of view as is presently the case. Of course, there is no law against leaving dent does not really mean to make peace in Vietnam we think that he has compelled Mr. Nixon, willy-nilly, to make peace; we simply do not feel that with that deadly indictment pending over him the President can continue the war much longer. The 1968 election showed the conserva- tives in the Democratic party that they tion shows the liberals that they can’t win without the regulars and office-holders. If they are unable to work out some sort of a coalition then the party—which has been the innovator and friend of the little man more often than not in this century—might as well fold. - Mr. Nixon has got his new coalition, typified by George Wallace: the alienated white underdog who is baffled and insecure in the face of turbulent economic, social and racial change, ‘the most revolutionary change that man has ever lived in,” said Walter Lippmann. George McGovern made a gallant fight but his moralism and supposed radicalism turned the blue-collars off. The mood of the country, as we see it, is a desire for stability, and while Sen. McGovern promised reform, Mr. Nixon pledged stabil- ity; he emphasized old virtues—the work ethic, peace with honor, law and order; and at the same time he subtly played on nasty prejudices with complicated code words: no busing, no. quotas, a strict constructionist Supreme Court, and free choice in housing. Though it never surfaced we believe that the race issue was a major hidden factor in the Nixon landslide. So what are the prospects? We caught sight of one when Philadelphia’s Mayor both of them and starting a party to one’s own liking, which has been done frequently enough. That is what Gov. Wallace did and would have done it again, if he hadn’t been in- capacitated by an assassin’s bullet. It has been done before in our political history, but always seems to funnel back into two parties. It’s just that the voters don’t seem to care about parties at all, as I said before. They are not really so stupid and are perfectly able to judge a candidate’s character and person- ality, no matter how hard the advertising copy-writers and photographers work to make their employer look like Abraham Lin- coln. The day of the political boss has evapor- ated. ; And a good thing it is. I hope and pray this election means that the voter no longer votes for a candidate because they share the same religion, come from the same town in the Old Country, belong to the same lodge, the same country club or the same labor union. That Frank Rizzo, Democrat and former strong- arm cop, hailed Spiro Agnew as ‘‘one of the truly great Americans in history.” The Vice President has emerged with his new image; a man who supports all the orthodoxies with a * repressive glint in his eye. His nomination in 1976 seems likely. ; What has Mr. Nixon promised for the four years ahead? Very little, really; he has fought the “election ‘from’ ‘his ‘closet, the equivalent of McKinley's front porch cam- paign conducted by television. ‘There will probably be two more rr on the Stipreme Court making six Nixon appointees in all. The prospect that they will be states- men of stature is gloomy; Harding picked Taft; Coolidge picked Stone; Hoover picked Hughes; Eisenhower picked Earl Warren; but Mr. Nixon does not have men of that calibre around him; his legal associates are Mitchell and Kleindienst. President Nixon could go either way. He is a lameduck President; his eyes should be on history. He can, and has, done credit to himself and America by opening communi- cations behind the Iron Curtain. We hope there will be more of it. : On the domestic side, Mr. Nixon’s chief goal seems to be to keep down taxes. Four blue-ribbon presidential commissions in recent years have all urgently warned the nation that crime, violence, social decay, human waste and racial bitterness are springing in part from a lack of public spending in essential services. There is hardly one such service that is not starved for funds, yet we have cut taxes irghimes in four years. Efficiency, yes; but to miake taxes an absolute issue as Mr. Nixon has done is narrow and demagogic. : from now on, these considerations will not be as important as a candidate’s honesty, in- tegrity, intelligence and patriotism. I don’t look for this Utopia to happen to- morrow, if ever. But I am convinced that we beginning to think of ourselves as Americans; not as Catholics or Protestants, blacks or whites, Welsh or Irish, Jew or Gentile; rich or poor or any of the other labels that have been brought out in order to divide us. This election should convince all of the countries of the world, be they friendly or inimical, that we are not the nation of diverse and quarreling fragments that has appeared to them in news stories and pictures—that we can and do hang together when the chips are down—and that it was a waste of tingf§io try to control us by sending in spies, prop&gandists and agents provocateur to try to divide us. Leave us alone. We'll fight it out among ourselves. Tie DALLASC0ST scription, $6. per year. Call 675-5211 for subscriptions. The officers of the Greenstreet News Co. are William Scranton 3rd; bresident, news; William W. Davis, vice president and general mana Editor emeritus: Mrs. T.M.B. Hicks Editor: Doris R. Mallin News editor: Shawn Murphy , I y —
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers