OCR Text |
Show I would challenge the Republicans to show me a book that deals with reforms within the Republican Repub-lican party. Change is not something that the Republican party is noted for: The name, the Grand Old Party, is proof of that. In the introduction intro-duction to his book, Mr. Galbraith puts this in perspective, "The Democratic Party, not the Republican Re-publican Party, not third parites, is where change occurs and thus where the action is. This follows, in turn, from the deepest political instincts of the American people. It is this instinct that the natural access to political influence by those with a grievance is through the Democrats. It is a party that is open to participation and responsive to pressure. This instinct, during the last century, brought the successive waves of poorer immigrants-Irish, Italians, Jews-into the Democratic Party. It brought the alliance with the unions. It is what, astonishingly, astonish-ingly, made Democrats of black Americans when they moved north to escape tire rigor and repression repres-sion of life under Democrats in the South. It was what, in 1968, caused the young to rally to the city and party of Richard Daley, rather than to Miami Beach. Even the alienated when they get alienated get alienated from the Democrats, not the Republicans." Repub-licans." Mr. Galbraith further explains the difference between the parties in terms of who the leaders respond to. "The Republicans on the whole enroll those who value what is or was. Their leaders accept change tactically or defensively and with an eye on the Democrats. The Democratic Party enrolls those who want change, usually for themselves. them-selves. Leaders respond not with an eye to the Republicans, but with an eye to their followers." I don't see how the College Republicans can say the Mr. Galbraith provides a reason to join the G.O. Party. I would urge you to read the book, because I'm sure that it will prove my point, not the College Republicans' point. College Republicans, are you for real? Don Scheid are you for real or was your letter to the editor in April 9 Chronicle a publicity stunt like the Don't Go sheet was? I'm sure that the people responsible for having the leaflet printed were counting on the reactionaries to get excited and maybe even get motivated enough to go and hear Barry Goldwater, Jr. I guess they know first hand that you can't appeal to a conservative's intellect and I do agree that the Don't Go sheet was anti-intellectual, but it probably was effective in getting people to attend Goldwater's speech. Since the Don't Go sheet had no legitimate sponsor I can only assume that it was put out by the College Republicans. However, I could understand under-stand why they would like to deny it, so I won't push the point because there is a much better case to be made against another leaflet which clearly belongs to the College Republicans. It has their name on it in big bold letters and is actually a pitch to join the CR. The leaflet was entitled "A Democrat Looks At His Party" and has excerpts from John Kenneth Galbraith's book. On the leaflet the title of the book is given as, "Who Needs the Democrats?" but the actual title is "Who Needs the Democrats and What it Takes to be Needed." Granted the difference is probably too subtle for the Republican mind, but I would submit that the RE is a difference. Even if the title did have a question mark at the end, after reading the book I am sure that Mr. Galbraith would answer that the American people need the Democrats. Obviously the College Republicans wouldn't want you to read the whole book so they have taken some quotes out of context to prove their point. I could do the same by noting that Mr. Galbraith says of the President, "Mr. Nixon adds a further very personal touch by proclaiming, with great sincerity, his desire to be clear just before becoming wholly unclear." I |