University of Virginia Library

Election '72

Schmitz: Household Unword

Congressman John G.
Schmitz of California is the
American Party's candidate for
President. He was selected on
August 14 by the party's
convention in Louisville, Ky.
Thomas Jefferson Anderson of
Nashville, Tenn, is
Congressmen Schmitz's
running mate for this election.

Virtually no one has heard
of any of the things mentioned
above. The name "Schmitz" is a
household "unword," so to
speak; Anderson is even less
known. When you consider
that these men replaced George
Wallace at the head of the most
significant third-party effort
since Teddy Roosevelt's 'Bull
Moose' in 1912, doesn't that
strike you as being a little
surprising?

The public's current
unfamiliarity with Schimitz
and Anderson can be seen as
partly the result of their own
lack of national familiarity; a
goodly part of the
responsibility should also be
laid at the door of the national
media, however.

Compare, for instance, the
coverage given to the
conventions of the three
parties. The Democrats and the
Republicans had cameras and
microphones taking down
every minute of their
conventions, and essentially
the entirety of their
proceedings was presented to
the American people. And the
American party? Five minutes
of the usual evening half-hour,
for the three TV networks, and
much the same proportions for
the radio and press. The
proportions, by the way,
haven't changed much since
then, although Schmitz's
"Issues and Answers" sessions
have helped a little.

The problem, however, still
remains: Schmitz, Anderson,
their party and their platform
all remain essentially unknown,
and that's a pity, because
Schmitz and Anderson are a
reasonably viable, fairly major
alternative to the two
"traditional parties,"
particularly for students.

Students, not just a U. Va.
but all across the country, care
about such things as the
morality of our leadership and
its policies, corruption in high
places, and candor, right?

The two "major" parties do
not have particularly brilliant
records in these regards for the
last ten years or so. And what
about the men the two
"major" parties are running
this time?

Nixon has Watergate hung
around his neck, the Wheat
Deal slipping out of his sleeve,
and a long and "Checkered"
history of similar problems.
McGovern dumped Eagleton,
for starters, after choosing him
without a proper background
check. And isn't it fascinating
that the first "McGovern
article" in this series the CD is
running tries to argue that the
abandonment of stated

policies, principles and
programs in hopes of winning
those who disagree with them
to one's side is not immoral?
Haven't you rather heard it
said that the man with the
courage to stick to unpopular
positions in which he happens
to believe, while running for
office, is the moral man, rather
than the opposite? Conclusion:
neither Nixon nor McGovern
has enough credibility left to
a thimble.

And Schmitz? He has
certainly stood by the position
that he holds that the media
dislike. And he has
never–never–perpetrated
anything like a Watergate or an
Eagleton, nor have his people,
so his credibility would seem
to be reasonably intact.

But what of his policies and
platform? Are they something
students can live with?

If a party has a platform
which: