OCR Text |
Show a enterprise! y the Utah 4 PRAGMATIC DOGMATICS A reform gone wrong by Kent Shearer When the individual contributions to candidates for federal office, its action was hailed as a significant step toward purification of the political process. No longer, most exalted, would our elections be tainted by the influence fat catswho of buy" senators and Reform had triumphed. Reform congressmen. was good. Of the few who demurred to this general verdict, one was Washington Post columnist, David S. Broder. The only thing more 1974 Congress limited to $1,000 dangerous to democracy than corrupt politicians," Broder wrote, maybe politicans hell-beon reform. It now appears that Broders cynicism may have been more prophetic than even he nt umor veer upon I Americans who consider themselves of moderate persuasion. They will find that the fat cats" they hated only have been displaced by the ideologues they detest. There will be more Jesse Helms and George McGoverns, fewer Dwight Eisenhowers and Henry TfORSor I ID HOWTO V , An analysis recently released by Harvard University's Institute of Politics says as much. The Harvard study, based upon interviews with a number of campaign officials, says that li. restriction forces aspirants to focus upon ideological, divisive issues" in order to rai - he money they require. The reason? Political action and other special interest groups are not bound by the spending limits and therefore are able to donate large sums to candidates who support their prejudices. If the Harvard conclusion is correct, it will come as a shock to the vast majority of thought. 60 mr m pi The national atmosphere polarize into a will right wing, left wing confrontation, with our societal cohesiveness itself at peril. Harvards soulution is to case the restriction. It suggests something between a $3,000 and $10,000 limitation. But will even that do? The political action committees now have gathered a full head of steam, and it would seem unlikely that anything short of a removal of any individual limitations at all will counterbalance their thrust. There is, in the meantime, a lesson to be learned from all this. It is that social tinkering in government often occasions unforseen, As a indeed dangerous, consequences. republic, we would do well to heed the w ords of James Cardinal Gibbons who said, Reform must come from within, not from without. You cannot legislate for virtue." fOROor WoU work 03 w Jacksons. br ivl M , MMMI I I FCR60T MV HUSBAUP imiSH-m- u FOR&r p ciftpf&n, FRItW. CUD a. sown. AT' 0)6 OWN on h z The canal treaty and the logic of the right l- ti o CL DC Lil hZ D ' t ,f o o by Parker M. Nielson San Juan County Commissioner Calvin Black wants outsiders to quit intruding in the affairs of his county and region. People from New York. California, Washington and even Salt Lake City, particularly environmentalists, do not live in the area and therefore should not have a voice in whether wilderness areas should be set aside in San Juan County, or the other rural areas of the country or in whether we should build national d power generating plants, or access roads into Local residents know best what should parks and monuments. be done in their area and we should eliminate politicians from process. Such meddling by the East from the decision-makin- g outsiders is a particular blow to local pride. The conservative wing led by Ronald Reagan, and Utah's senators Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch, support Cal Balck in that sentiment on a national level. The Panama Canal issue is another thing entirely. These same champions of the right, spearheaded by Reagan, and Idaho Rep. George Hansen, among others and again supported United States must by Sen. Hatch, take the position that the and reject the proposed treaty between the U.S. and Panama retain our Panama Canal. President Carter is engaged in a coal-fire- by proposing the treaty and Torrijos is a dictator and tyrant about to grab U.S. property. Ratification of the treaty, moreover, will subvert the rights of the U.S. and other friendly nations which use it. forces may object that there Spokesmen for the is a difference between the two issues, and indeed there is. First, federal government has sovereignty over the affairs of San Juan County, but despite the rhetoric about sovereign rights" in the Canal Zone, the 1903 treaty with Panama does not even purport to give us sovereignty in Central America. There is no logical or legal basis for such claims by the treaty opponents. Second, the federal government, and derivatively all of us outsiders" from Salt Lake City, Washington and New York, also have proprietary ownership over the parks and major portions of the land in rural counties like San Juan. We have no jrfifim of ownership in the Canal Zone, however, and even our leasehold interest is based upon a treaty whose validity is considerably less than questionable. Arc we to assume, moreover, that Panamanians lack the capacity to judge what is best for their interests that San Juan County residents arc endowed with? Are Panamanians less entitled to the local pride that results from management of their own affairs than San Juan residents? The mental processes of those on the right on these giveaway scheme anti-treat- y disparate though related issues are indeed a paradox. Are they moved by logic, military necessity and practical sense, or mere chauvanism even jingoism? |