The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, October 14, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

The President, who only
recently said of the Moratorium,
"under no circumstances will I be
affected by it," has ground his
do-nothing administration into high
gear at the last minute to diffuse
protest to the war. While more or
less holding his ground that
protesters were "undermining the
efforts toward peace," the
President has sacked General Lewis
Hershey, unpopular head of the
draft system; recalled Ambassador
Lodge from the Paris Peace talks
for another strategy conference;
and persuaded Hubert Humphrey,
who differed little in perspective on
the war anyway, to endorse his
peace program heartily. All the
bluster somehow is intended to give
the impression that the administration
is on the move again.

President Nixon has been duly
criticized for his attitude towards
protest of the war, and has said, "I
won't be the first American
president to lose a war." Yet in
contrast to the Nixon press, the
President's reaction to the Moratorium
has been relatively mild. Many
newspapers have attacked the
colleges and Universities across the
nation who have recognized the day,
for "taking part in politics" by
protesting the war. And various
anti-protest groups have announced
their opposition to the Moratorium.

Among these groups are the
YAF, which nominally is a
"libertarian, politically
non-partisan" group, but which
reportedly has purged or ostracized
most of the libertarians within its
numbers and has actually identified
itself so closely with the Nixon
handling of the war as to leave little
difference. On the war issue the
YAF seems particularly hung on a
dilemma, for while several members
and a handbill distributed here
claim the war is just, necessary,
etc., the group has also endorsed
the Nixon policy of gradual
withdrawal. It would seem that to
withdraw, even gradually, is a tacit
admission that the war is wrong, a
contradiction the YAF has not
resolved. The primary difference
between the President and the
Moratorium supporters is means
and timing, not justification; and
the holiday's purpose is to speed up
the withdrawal of U.S. forces to
prevent further loss of American
life.

Without a doubt the most
amusing and ludicrous comment on
the Moratorium came from the
New York Daily News, in a Sunday
editorial entitled "National Disgrace
Day." Its basic premise,
following the Johnson-Nixon approach
to dissent, is that anyone
protesting the war is a Communist-hippy-conspirator
bent on sabotaging
the war effort because he hates
President Nixon. It then urges its
New York city readers to "discourage
and decry the Wednesday
sabotage-the-war project and all
similar performances which kooks,
Communists and their dupes may
stage in the future."

Unfortunately for Mr. Nixon
and his desperate apologists, they
are missing the entire point of the
Moratorium. Or rather, they are
mentioning it themselves but are
failing to recognize it in front of
them: the Daily News said the
peace protesters are those "who
hated Lyndon Johnson on account
of the war and now hate Richard
Nixon on the same account." The
question is not one of hate, but of
peace; and the doves are not
pursuing a vendetta against either
President, but against the war.

This point has eluded the
administration and its press. For
anti-war purposes, the Presidency is
itself irrelevant while the war goes
on, and no sops will change that.
Bravo to President Nixon for
promoting Gen. Hershey away from
the draft system, and we hope to
see more withdrawals quickly; but
they will not stand as substitutes
for peace. No protesters are sabotaging
the war effort because of
their dislike for President Nixon;
they are roasting the President
because of their dislike for the war.
The Moratorium is for peace, not
politics; and the administration's
playing politics will make as little
difference as its request that America's
people stop criticizing the war.

***

Inasmuch as tomorrow is a day
for each American to think about
Vietnam, peace, war, and himself,
this column urges students who
wish to spend their time tomorrow
thinking instead of swallowing
lectures to boycott their classes.
Several alternatives are open, including
lectures and discussions on
the war, a rally at the Rotunda at
noon with Karl Hess, and many
private groups. We hope each
student will take this day and use it
for an education of its own kind,
some insight into the America to
which this University and all its
students belong. And for those in
doubt, we offer the following: any
student on his way to class
tomorrow who thinks better of it
may stop by my room at 8 East
Lawn between 10 a.m. and noon,
and talk about it.