University of Virginia Library

The Only One

As we reflect on the recent Presidential
campaign on the election day which signals its
close, we arrive (once again) at a number of
conclusions which, to us, are undeniable.

There are three major candidates from
whom most American voters will choose
today, and no one of them can be considered
in any way ideal. In fact, there is little doubt
that the great majority of the electorate will
be casting votes against candidates rather than
for them, which seems to be the natural
course of American national politics these
days. With the realization that most citizens
will be anti-voting rather than voting, let us
consider the rationale for anti-voting in the
various ways possible.

For those who take him seriously, George
Wallace will doubtless receive more anti-votes
than any other candidate. There is no doubt
in our minds that Mr. Wallace voices many
very common complaints with the current
tide of things, and that many of his complaints
may be valid. In fact, if he did not
combine his appealing attributes with his
unattractive ones, we have no doubt that he
would show much more strongly than he will.
A great number of concerned citizens feel
strongly about many of the problems Mr.
Wallace enunciates and denounces so loudly,
but their inability to reconcile themselves to
his more dominant themes will prevent their
voting for him. Whatever the case, Mr. Wallace
has served an important function in this
election in that he has given a voice to a large
minority which feels it has had no voice for
too long, and we can only respect him for it,
even in the context of our distaste for what he
generally stands for. Come December, Mr.
Wallace may find that his membership in this
race suddenly becomes crucial rather than
marginal as it has been.

The Republican party has everything going
for it this year except its nominees. The
Democrats have succeeded in totally disgusting
everyone over the past four years, and the
electorate is more than ready for a change for
the better. The Republicans carried the hopes
for that change to Miami with them, and
successfully dashed them there. Since then,
they have proceeded to obliterate them.

Had the Republicans nominated anyone
else . . .

As it is, they gave us Richard Nixon and
Spiro Agnew, who, the latest polls indicate,
have succeeded in outdoing the Democrats in
antagonizing the populous. Dick Nixon has
been vocal but evasive, vociferous but unresponsive.
He doubtless stands for change, but
what that change is beyond us. We simply
cannot trust him, for we see too much of the
old Nixon within the facade of the new
Madison Avenue product. And as for Spiro, he
has doubtless been treated less than fairly by
the press, but we are convinced that too much
of it all is accurate. The prospects of his
running the country are horrifying.

The Democratic party has everything going
against it this year except for the Republicans'
nominees. Hubert Humphrey is undeniably
associated with everything everyone wants
changed, and his unending efforts to divorce
himself from the Johnson program tactfully
have not been entirely successful. If he were
not associated with the Johnson administration
we feel that he would have an easy
victory, for his record of honest, forceful,
humanitarian, progressive, dynamic leadership
in the past is undeniable. He is probably just
the type of leader the American people would
call for immediately, but because of his
associations of the immediate past, many
hesitate to trust him. Yet he has convinced an
increasing plurality of the populous of the
sincerity of his intentions, and happily so, for
he is just the type of leader the American
people need. The only anti-votes cast against
him will be cast against his party and its
record. That he was able to win the endorsement
of Gene McCarthy, clearly not one of
political expediency, speaks for itself, as does
the endorsement of Ted Kennedy.

A significant factor contributing to Mr.
Humphrey's rise to popular plurality in spite
of it all is clearly his running-mate, Edmund
Muskie. Mr. Muskie has succeeded in outdoing
himself daily in gaining the respect, admiration,
and trust of the public, and understandably
so. He, more than the other candidates,
has demonstrated a keen awareness
of, concern about, and responsiveness to the
legion problems which will confront the next
administration; he, more than the other
candidates, is a man with whom the electorate
can and wants to identify. He is the ideal
candidate of this election, and his presence on
the Democratic ticket more than compensates
for the weaknesses some critics find there.

Once again, then, we express our wholehearted
support for the Democratic ticket. We
are convinced that the fault frequently found
with Mr. Humphrey because of his association
with the Johnson administration is unjustified;
we are convinced of the absolute and
complete sincerity of his motives. And his
running-mate is undeniably unimpeachable.

This year Mr. Humphrey is the one, the
only one.