University of Virginia Library

The Only Choice

The Cavalier Daily endorses today Hubert
Humphrey and Edmund Muskie for President
and Vice-President, respectively, of the United
States. In doing so, we must admit that we
have reached this decision only after a great
deal of thought and reflection, for we had
originally intended too endorse the Republican
Ticket. We are now convinced, however,
that the Republican ticket is nearly as unacceptable
as the American party ticket, and so
the Democratic Ticket is all that's left.

Like everyone else, we are fed up with
President Johnson, his administration, and all
the trappings thereof. His administration has
perhaps done more harm to the morale of a
relatively prosperous country than one would
have thought possible. His administration has
beaten down, literally, all outward manifestations
of the frustration it has provoked.
Unhappily, the convention in Chicago seemed
in many ways an endorsement of his administration,
and, if nothing else, it served to
illuminate beyond a doubt the great divisions
within his party. In other words, it would
seem that the Democrats have done everything
within their power to appear as unattractive
as possible to the American electorate
in this election year.

It is this image that Hubert Humphrey has
been trying to overcome since August. He has
not had to waste much time on his Republican
opponents, for they have been content to
sit back, say nothing, and let the Democratic
image as described carry the day for them.
And it well might have done so, with our
applause, if the Republicans had conducted
themselves in a manner even slightly more
reasonable than they have. Mr. Nixon, however,
has outdone himself with his smugness in
retreating from everything controversial lest
voters be offended. He has been deceivingly
vocal, but he has never really said anything
specific. Even when he discusses his own pet
ideas, such as the volunteer army, he is always
careful to qualify what he says with lots of
"if's" and "maybe's." We could readily accept
this course of action in tranquil times or if we
felt it were motivated by a desire not to make
promises he would not be able to keep, but
we are convinced that it is no more than the
same old evasiveness which counts on the
Democrats' record to insure his election. He
not only refuses to debate Mr. Humphrey on
what were his own terms, he also refuses to
answer specific questions put to him and the
other candidates by CBS news, impersonally
substituting as his answers video tapes of
himself speaking "dramatically" on the matters
involved on previous occasions.

The fact is, Mr. Nixon has, except for
mudslinging here and there, stuck by his
evasive approach with such fervor that we
really have little or no idea of what we would
be voting for by voting for him. We have
heard no concrete proposals or projects (with
the exception of the promise to remove the
Attorney General in order to re-establish law
and order), we have heard only vague
promises to rectify somehow what the Democrats
have done. We have heard nothing from
which we can draw a conclusion on basic
issues such as the war or the racial problem,
we have heard only reiteration of the principles
naturally involved. And in many cases,
we have seen the issues dodged: for example,
the local chapter of "Virginians For Conservative
Government," whatever that is, has been
running a series of radio ads for Mr. Nixon;
one of them attempts to spell out for the
voters what is objectionable about the other
candidates; the part about George Wallace is
concerned only with fiscal irresponsibility and
never mentions states' rights or the racial
situation. That, in a microcosm, is the whole
Nixon approach to this election. It is an
approach that we cannot accept. Our feeling is
that Mr. Nixon, in his consistent unresponsiveness
to the electorate, and to the issues, has
resembled everything unattractive about Mr.
Johnson to a far greater extent than we could
ever have imagined was possible.

And then there's Ted "If-you've-seen-one-ghet
to-you've-seen-them-all" Agnew...

We do not see how any thinking person
could support a ticket as obscure and ambiguous
as this year's Republican ticket in
times when obscurity or ambiguity is so
dangerous, in times when dynamic, concerned
leadership is so essential.

We fear, however, that many such persons
may be tempted to support the Republican
vacuum as a result of their inability to
dissociate Mr. Humphrey from the Johnson
administration in their minds. While this
identity is understandable, we no longer think
it is legitimate. Everyone smiles to remember,
after all, that Mr. Humphrey was hardly a vital
or integral part of the Johnson program.
Further, he has done everything within the
bounds of tact, of good taste, and of his
responsibilities as Vice-President to dissociate
himself from the Johnson administration in
the last several weeks.

The "Conservative Government" crowd
says that he is a product of the Johnson
administration and so its influence must
necessarily govern him. In the first place, we
cannot agree with such an assertion, and, in
the second place, if a President exerts such a
lasting influence on his Vice-President, we can
hardly imagine that Mr. Nixon was prepared
to run this country as it is today by his
placid experience under General Eisenhower.

The shining light in the whole campaign,
however, is of course Edmund Muskie. He
alone of all the candidates is a man with
whom the populous can identify. He alone has
come through the campaign unscarred and
undebased. He alone of the candidates has
demonstrated any responsiveness to, understanding
of, or sympathy with the unhappy
youth of the nation. In this aspect of his
personality he is in stark contrast with his
bungling Republican counterpart. Mr. Muskie's
worth in this area is well-attested to by
his successes with hecklers and by his rapport
with Senator McCarthy.

What it all comes to, then, is this: the
country wants change, and it wants it now.
Mr. Humphrey is unavoidably identified with
everything that needs to be changed, but,
because of his past record as well as his
current attitude, we are convinced that he is
more likely to work for immediate and
significant and relaxing change than are his
cautious, self-conscious Republican opponents.
Further, in these times the country
needs dynamic and strong leadership as much
as it needs change, and it needs such leadership
which is genuinely responsive to the
wants of its citizens. Mr. Humphrey, in
contrast with the evasive Mr. Nixon, has
demonstrated beyond doubt his capabilities in
these respects. In fact, his overshadowing of
Mr. Nixon in this area is outdone only by his
running-male's overshadowing of his Republican
counterpart in the same area (and we
must never forget the Vice-President's ultimate
purpose, as unattractive as it is to think
about it).

This is not a year for hedging or for
inaction. This is a year for the truth, no
matter what it is, and for action pursuant
thereto. Hubert Humphrey has not shied from
the truth in his campaign. He will not shy
from pursuing it as President; he will not,
above all, allow the status quo to remain as it
is...and that figures, for who could be better
equipped to change the status quo than one
who has been so painfully close to it? We urge
all our readers to vote for dynamic, confident,
and responsive leadership. We urge all our
readers to vote for Hubert Humphrey and
Edmund Muskie one week from today.