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