University of Virginia Library

Perpetuating Perpetrator

We would like to think that President
Johnson's decision not to try again to get one
of his men appointed Chief Justice indicates
his genuine responsiveness to the wants of his
subjects, but we suspect his decision was
motivated more by his realization that this
was one Great Society move which he would
not be able to ramrod through. Whatever it
was that discouraged him from making
another nomination, some of the remarks in
his statement announcing the decision are
certainly interesting.

He says: "We are threatened by an
emotionalism, partisanship, and prejudice that
compels us to use great care if we are to avoid
injury to our constitutional system...the
foundations of government would be better
served by the present Chief Justice remaining
until emotionalism subsides, reason and
fairness prevail."

Without implying any judgment on the
issues from which that emotionalism (of
which everyone is aware) sprang, we would
ask Mr. Johnson if, indeed, it has not been his
tenure of office that has caused most of the
emotionalism and partisanship of which he
complains (it is certainly true that during his
tenure the country has been characterized,
and increasingly so, by such attitudes). More
specifically, we would ask him if it is not
possible that most of the emotionalism and
partisanship has been provoked by certain of
his policies or perhaps by his attitude in
general.

We submit that Mr. Johnson and his
administration are at least as much to blame
as anyone else for the national instability
which he is so quick to criticize. Indeed, we
look to January for the rebirth of the "reason
and fairness" he calls for, at least relative to
the current situation, no matter who wins.
None of the candidates, we feel, would be as
unresponsive to the people of the country as
President as Mr. Johnson has been (even
George Wallace is responsive to somebody)
and it is his unresponsiveness that has brought
about much of the emotionalism he deplores.

Thus Mr. Johnson was perhaps more
accurate than he guessed when he implied that
an attempt by him to secure another
appointment might cause "injury to our
constitutional system." Such an appointment
would be an obvious attempt to perpetuate
"the Johnson way," which is precisely what
so many people are convinced is the heart of
the current threat to constitutional
government. Ironic that the perpetrator of
that threat would be so anxious to warn us of
it.