University of Virginia Library

In reply to Mr. Mannix's
"Crook or Clown, It's Still a
Crime," I feel an opposing view
is appropriate.

No one approves of the
political espionage by the
President's Re-Election
Committee. The actions of
Liddy, McCord et al, were
criminal. But to impute those
crimes to Nixon on a guilt by
association basis or because
three years ago Nixon said,
"When I am a candidate, I run
the campaign..." is reaching
beyond the facts of June 1972.
Since the investigation is still in
progress, I would prefer to let
the facts tell the story and
allow the "crook" labels to
adhere at the appropriate time
rather than rely on Mr.
Mannix's Belching Crystal Ball.

Yet Mr. Mannix raises
another point that is thought
provoking. What is better for
effective government, a
shadowy figure in whom
people believe or a moralist in
whom people have little faith?
Reality seems to side with the
former. Although we would all
prefer a high-minded individual
capable of national leadership,
it seems obvious the electoral
emphasis is more on leadership
and less on high-mindedness.

If Nixon had run for Head
Preacher, he would have lost.
But he ran for the Presidency
and won. What we got was a
tough, thick-skinned leader
who distrusts the press and
appears to have a stable of
dirty-tricks artists. These last
characteristics are not good,
but at least he makes decisions
for world peace, economic
stability, and streamlined
government. To me, efforts
toward world peace with
POW's coming off those planes
outweighs the deplorable
Watergate espionage.

The reality of government
like any other human effort is
that government actions never
perfectly mesh with the ideal
framework within which the
actions are designed to take
place. Often political
shoehorns are used to make the
actions fit the framework.
When the shoehorn fails and
the framework is violated, we
all yell "FOUL" and a criminal
action is brought against the
violators. Such is the case with
the Watergate spying. However,
as a result of such unethical
conduct, our outrage should
not be entirely wasted on
moral disapproval and
disenchantment but rather our
outrage should be focused on
ethical motivation.

To continue to harangue
the past action is largely
non-productive. It only serves
to increase the stench of the
dead albatross around the
administration's neck. The
usual course of action in
dealing with dead birds is to
bury them. Out of sight, out of
mind. More productive in
terms of executive and
legislative response and
national betterment would be
to direct our yells of outrage to
reform of the framework that
was violated. Politicians
respond better to live issues
than they respond to dead
birds. This ethical motivation
should take the form of
demands for stricter campaign
controls, free media space and
time, and a more efficient
nomination process

I do thank Mr. Mannix for
reminding us in his indirect
way that morality is an ideal to
be pursued. An immoral nation
will ultimately crumble. Yet
our moral indignation should
be directed where it can be
productive. Calling the
President a crook is not very
high on the productive list.