University of Virginia Library

'Agnew: Gesundheit'

Rosen On Politics

By Robert Rosen

Some English scholars maintain
that satire is the product of
bitterness, and there is a good case
to be made for that point of view,
because the McCarthy-Kennedy-Peace
forces are indeed bitter and
have indeed subjected all of the
presidential candidates from
Humphrey to Wallace (if that is a
meaningful digression any longer)
to derision and ridicule. But then, it
may just be that the candidates
themselves are, in fact, ridiculous.
After all, it is extremely difficult
for me to remain bitter when faced
with a Spiro T. Agnew.

Perhaps the frustration of
campaigning for McCarthy in South
Carolina was too much for me,
perhaps this is a lapse in my liberal
conscience, perhaps it's despair,
but, in truth, I can only see the
presidential election of 1968 as a
comedy. One sees the buttons
"Nixon/Agnew" and wonders if
this election is not merely the
climax of the absurd button craze.
How can one generate the same
anger at an Agnew that one does at
a man who should know better,
Hubert Humphrey. It is as if one
were to become equally disgusted
with a child who steals hubcaps and
the adult who rapes and murders.

Agnew has not provided the
only bit of humor to come out of
1968, but he has certainly been the
most active. First, he was
nominated for Vice President, a
hard act to follow. Second, he
called Nixon a "Neville
Chamberlain" at a news conference
but had analogy corrected by
newsmen. Then the Spiro of '68
violated Nixon Campaign
Handbook Rule +1 by calling
names, i.e., he called Humphrey
"soft on Communism." Finally
(this is all I have by press time), he
charged Nixon with "collusion"
where, Nixon had charged collusion
between Southern Democrats and
Wallacites.

Any way one looks at 1968 -
with men of Agnew's quality not
merely in the race, but leading it -
a sensible person cannot lose the
election. He cannot win. But he
cannot lose. Nixon, despite his
jovial sidekick, is anathema.
Humphrey stands for everything
Kennedy and McCarthy fought
against. Wallace? No matter who
loses, the thinking community
wins, and that's not all. There will
be two losers. Imagine! Either
Wallace and Humphrey will both
lose - which is wonderful. Or
Nixon and Wallace will lose: who
could complain with losers like
that? Or - God preserve us -
Nixon and Humphrey could both
lose. In short, it will be a double
victory and only a single loss.

What do the liberals do? Well, as
one letter to The New York Times
exclaimed, "Any country that
could elect Hubert Humphrey,
deserves Richard Nixon." For those
who take their vote seriously there
is only prayer..and the certain
knowledge that four years of Spiro
T. Agnew will be the true (not the
pretended) "Politics of joy."