vol_3_no_1

I

I

•

Z o

I ...~

< .o,... '

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

'page 2

The Daily has inadvertently discovered the most entertaining writer in town, nco-intellectual Brian Leiter. A column of "Leiter-isms" ("abortion opponents are sexua11y frustrated ") could easily fill an empty page here; Leiter columns them selves occup y space on the Daily editorial page that would have greater relevance if left blank .

Serpent's Tooth Pravda , the official Soviet Press. quickly declared Mondale the winner of the first Presidential debate. That's good enough for us.

....

**

In the second Presidential debate Candidate Mondale quotedGroucho Marx, saying, "Who do you believe, me or your own eyes?" He would have done better by q~oting Harpo Marx•••

** "But when these huge deficits went in place until 1981 ., what's called the real interest rates - the spread between inflation and what a loan costs you - .' doubled. And that's still the case today. " - Presidential Candidate Mondale

**

One wonders where the Progressive Student Network's self-proclaimed "International Law Enforcers" are when Reagan ships more wheat to feed the butchers of Afghanistan . Couldn't they at least picket?

..

A TTENTION ASSISTANTS:

TEA CHI N G

The Graduate Employees Organization has revealed to T A's that half of their mandatory union dues go to the national union , the American Federation of Teachers . Thus ' your dues will go to push for Walter Mondale, who promises to raise taxes on your pay. Talk about double jeopard y.

In response to a question about the connection between religion a'nd politics, the Candidate proclaimed, "I don't 'deny but I affirm that there's a Democratic Party official s are relationship" between the two. "As a reportedly happy with a "Baltimore poll matter of fact," he continued, "I believe showing Fightin 'Fritz trailing Reagan the reason I'm in politics is because of by only 10 points in Maryland, one of my faith, what • ~~""" .. it teaches me five states that Jimmy Carter carried in about what Christianity should involve ..

1980. ' .. '.:. .......".,.,.,. ..,(., ,' . '. ~ ·}' I .· . ':,. ,: .-'~..) :. ... ~·.·:: f.,·.

"- Ronald R eagan? Nope. Walte-r ;;, ", yk":. ~ .

Mondale, . quoted in the New York Then again, maybe Rep. Bullard The Free Press admi ts that Times on September 8th, 1984. figures that he works for the people. so legislators have misspent public money he ought to control the means of their in the past but promises that the S:llons ** production, and the means of their will behave from now on - as longas the finances, which pay his salary.

The IRS ruled that Vice President people don 't take awa y the Legislature's

**

---

State Representative Perry Bullard was in socialist Spain th is summer and witnessed some successful examples of workers controlling the means of production. In opposing Proposal C, Representative Bullard has not extended this principle to the administration of states, where he thinks the taxpayers should submit to the .discretion of elected officials on the issue of tax collection instead of controlling itthemselves.

...

Bush must pay $180,000 in back taxes .

Maybe he should have used Gerry Ferraro's accountant.

taxing powers. Wouldn't want to throw them into a snit or anything.

. ..

Best wishes to New York -bound Stoney Burke, wh o managed t o entertain Diag crowds in spite of his political ignorance . Those who are most cynical about the American dream are usually those who . like Stoney. are' stil l striving to achieve it .

....

Planned Parenthood claims that fire bombings of aborti o n clinics have increased this year. We at the Review personally oppose all acts of violence committed at abortion clinics. but we wouldn't think of imposing our moral beliefs on others.

...

Speaking of }'lSN. one of their typically massive five-person protests centered around the grave threat of an F-15 replica on North Campus. So, what did PSN do to the replica? Dismantle it? Replace its powerful diodes') Slap NO CODE stickers on it? Tell Aerospace Engineering students that they're "baby-killers?~' Make faces? Was anybody there') Does anybody care')

** Kowtowing to the Regents. At the request of the University of Michigan Board of Regent s. the Michigan Student Assembly ha s joined with them in opposing Proposal C . . '" 'I t-looks as if some mem~n; ofMS A. ' have their eyes set on high er office.

** Serpent's Tooth is compiled hrlht' Slall (~r

The Review.

**

** New York Governor Matio Cuomo, just back from washing his hands of innocent blood at Notre Dame University, will soon explain how his veto of a capital ' punishment bill on moral grounds was not "imposition of personal morality."

@!'lmSAIIP~

~-

~~~1Ct:.

•

**

'TIME AND AGAIN I'M PICKED A51HE FAVORtTE CANDIDATE TO DEAL vUTH THE RUSSIANS. UH,FRlTZM.THAT ENIXl?SEMENT'S AQt\TASS_

National Review reports that 16,000 aborted fetuses, discovered in a dumpster in Los Angeles, cannot be buried because of a judge's injunction.

Pro-abortion groups hailed the decision.

** The Nuclear Free Zone proposal will fine or imprison anybody testing or detonating a nuclear weapon in Ann Arbor. That almost sounds like a new form of deterence.

** John Anderson has thrown his support to WaIter Mondale. We all breathlessly await Patrick Lucey's endorsement.

o

.

I

_""",","~"_''''''''_ _ _'''_~'_N4_'-''~'''''''_'_ ~'''''"

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

THE

Criminal "Lawyers?"

MICHIGAN

REVIEW Publisher

Editor-in-Chief

Brent Haynes

John W. Jacobs

Associate Publishers:

Senior Editor

James P. Frego

Mark Weinhardt

Jonathan P. Dippert

Associate Editors

Assistant Publishers

Hemant Pradhan

Tamara Boskovich

William A. Smith

Rebecca Klekamp

City Editor

Production Manager

N annette Al berts

Mark Vanzant

Campu~

Business Manager

Michael Shields

Michael Perullo

Steve Fretty

Circulation Director

Arts Editor

Joseph McCollum

Erica Goldstein

Affairs Editors

Staff Steve Angelotti

Dawn Anagostou

"Fhomas Arrison

Darcie Brault

Sandra Collins

Gerald Weis

Jean Lesha

Seth Klukoff

David Kilchen

Sarah Myers

Biljara Nostovska

Kendra Orr

Bruce Poindexter

George Reindel

Ian Wen

Ellen Seats

Alok Somani

John Sislin

HONORARY ADVISORY BOARD: C. William Colburn. Peter Fletcher.

Paul W. McCracken, Stephen J. Tomor SUPPORTERS; Gerald R. Ford, Russel Kirk. Irving Kristo!. R. Emmet Tyrrell The Michigan Review welcomes and appreciates letters from readers. Letters for publication must include the writer's name, address, and telephone. number.

We also welcome the submission of articles. All work will be reviewed by the editorial staff and considered in light of its structure and content.

All articles and letters must be double-spaced. We regret that we are unable to acknowledge or return any unpublished material. Those interested in submitting letters or articles should send them to: THE MICHIGA1" REVIEW Suite One' 911 1"orth Uni\Cfsit\ Ann Arbor. M I 4g 109

â&#x20AC;˘

page 3,

The Michigan Rnie\\ h an independent ,tudcnt-run nc\\spapcr at the t:ni\ersit\ of Michigan Anll Arhdr. rhe Re\ iew is in no \\ay repre,entatl\e of t he pol icies or the Opl i on, of 1 he administration. and accept' Ill> mone:from the Llni\er-.ity.

Copyright :;;1984 by The Michigan Review. Inc.

by Eugene Meyer

Trivia questions from the 60's. At which school did the Secretary of Defense have his speech disrupted by constant heckling and a bag of red liquid thrown at him?

At which school did some faculty members encourage any disruption of classes?

Name the campus where, during near riots over grading, including the obligatory takeover of the dean's office, a professor claimed that increased confrontation was not part of the problem, but part of the solution. (This claim was made at a time when professors who tried to hold classes found them disrupted.)

At which school did a professor walk into his class on the first day and announce that this class would be taught from the perspective of the revolutionary vanguard?

Columbia? Berkeley? No. Actually this elevation of ideology over scholarship and promotion of the war of all against all at thc:expense oLCci~ilized values took place not in the 60s, but recently. And it took place, not in a college, but at Harvard Law SchooL In the past couple of years Harvard Law SchocH has come to be dominated by a minority of the far left whose passions go under the name of Critical Legal Studies. This neo-Marxist movement challenges our belief in the rule of law and the importance of liberty. It characterizes the American legal system as an instrument of repression.

Some of their ideas have seen practical expression in a few of the incidents already mentioned; here is one more, also fairly striking. Harvard denied Professor Lea Brilmayer tenure when the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) movement voted against her on bloc apparently because she was insufficiently radicalized. She already had tenure at Chicago where she was viewed as something of a liberaL Soon after the Harvard incident. she took a tenured position at Yale.

Partially in order to focus on some of these goings-on and partially to examine their implications for legal scholarship, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies held a symposium at Harvard Law School examining the topic ~f legal ~ducation in general and the CLS movement in particular. The Federfllist Society is a nationwide organization of conservat ive and Ii berta rian Ja wyers, law students, and faculty founded on principles of freedom and separation of governmental powers. It currently has chapters or contacts at 90 law schools.

At this conference discussion with the

two CLS professors invited symbolized their intellectual position. Professor Graglia of Texas posed an important question: why the rich were allowed to be rich; he offered as a working hypo,thesis that it was because they do societally productive things and that even if their money was redistributed the total would not be that great.

Duncan Kennedy, the CLS principal -guru who suggests law professors and janitors receive equal pay, claimed that, unlike most of the left he loved economic arguments and then proceeded to state that Graglia theory was based on false assumptions which he failed to identify,

the past couple of years Ha.rvard' Law School has come to be dominated by a minority on the far left whose passions go under the name oj Cr,itical Legal StuiJies." , . "/n

The other C LS participant, Richard Parker stressed the difference between communitarians on the left and on the right. On the right, he said, they favor hierarchical communities; Walter Berns asked him for an example of a left-wing non-hierarchical communitiy. Parker first replied he belonged to oneHarvard law school. (This comment evoked laughter because the CLS move.: ment has been loudly advocating abolishing of hierarchies at Harvard.)

When the laughter died down, he said he couldn't think of a ny which was just as well because if he did, people would find something wrong with it.

The conference demonstrated that the danger of the Critical Legal Studies movement lies not in the success of their ideas, but that they may succeed in tearing down the admittedly imperfect ideas which make up the legal fabric without replacing them with anything.

They succeed by psychological intimidation rather than reason.

For example, except for the conference participants few of the Harvard law faculty even stopped by.

At the two previous federalist Society symposia at Yale and Chicago many

See page 9 Eugene Meyer is Executive Direclor af The Federalist SOcietr jin 'Law and Puhlic Policy Studies.

..

.." ...... .

-~"-""""--~".~~,~-~.,,,-.,,.~

page 4

NOVEMBER,

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

19~4

The Jack Lousma Campaign: Can He Win? Does Jack Lousma stand a chance?

The question isn't evenphrased "Will he win'?" Virtually everyone close to this year's race for the U.S. Senate considers him to be a decided underdog. So the question is, does he have a chance? The answer has a lot to do with the nature of big time politics. It is a business for experienced professionals who often prosper by appearing inexperienced and nonprofessional to the voting public. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were both elected by appearing to be political neophytes' unaccustomed to the world of Washington, D.C. But appearing to be a political novice and being one are two different things This election is a test of how easy it is for a bonafide political newcomer to get elected to high office. It is also an experiment in election strategy, a test of whether the newcomer can win with a campaign consisting primarily of a string of television commercials.

I met Jack Lousma in a suite at the Westi~Hotel in Detroit where. he and his oppo~ent;Carl Levin, were h<>lding a joint press conference prior to their debate before the Detroit Economic Club. When I met him the firm handshake, resolute voice, and erect bearing of a military man were unmistakable.

He had been an officer in the Marine Corps from the day he graduated from the University of Michigan, and he spent most of his 25 year hitch as an astronaut. He left NASA less than a year ago and started his run for the Senate'in January, his first real quest for a civilian job. I asked him if he was ready for, the debate, and he gave me a spirited answer that called up the image of a football coach before a big game (in fact he played the sport in college).

Levin showed up a few minutes later and the candidates and about two dozen press people took their places in what _became a very cramped room. It took a few minutes of bashfulness before the reporters started asking substantive questions, and it was clear from the beginning that the press corps was openly suspicious as to whether there were any major differenc es between the candidates on the issues. Although Levin and Lousma bickered extensively about taxes, the deficit, and some budget particulars, they did a generally poor job of dispelling the perception of the press.

In this sense Lousma did poorly in the press conference by failing to distinguish himself as a clear ideological alternative to Levin. The Democrat's strategy appears to be one of moving towards Lousma's position to take the

by Mark Weinhardt

political middle ground in the hope of separating hi!Uself from the effects of a drubbing of Walter Mondale. Their treatment of the national race makes this clear. Levin avoids the mention of Mondale's name like the plague, while Lousma associates his opponent with Mondale whenever he can. Levin admitted at formal press conference and at a student press conference held after the debate that he disagreed with many Mondale positions, and he claimed to embrace parts of the Reagan administration record. He, of course, attributes this to his ideology,· not political expediency.

This strategy frustrates Lousma's campaign officials. They point out that Levin has received the most favorable rating in the Senate from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action for three years running, and that his voting record has been the most hostile to Reagan Administration policies of any in the Senate. In one interview, Lousma went so far as to say that his opponent, "votes the ( Democratic) party line like a robot." Levin is a hard-core, cardcarryi~¥ leftist, Lousma and his people argue, and they fecl they can win if Michigan voters can be educated about this in the face of Levin's scramble to the middle of the road. If they can't get this message across, they will be left with the prospect of hordes of Michigan voters pulling the lever for Ronald Reagan and Carl Levin at the same time.

This is exactly what the polls currently suggest may happen. Most recent polls show Lousma trailing Levin by a margin of around 20 percentage points, despite Ronald Reagan's commanding lead over Walter Mondale in Michigan.

One poll shows that a third of Levin's supporters plan to vote for Reagan.

The day after the debate, I discussed the poll question with Keith Hartwell, a short man with shirt-ad looks who serves as Lousma's press secretary.

Although he acknowledged that his candidate was trailing, he contended that Lousma's own polls, which he woulq not release, showed that Levin's support was :'soft" in the sense that people became much more prone to vote for Lousma once they learned more about the candidates. This was supported by c.c. Cole, an official with the National RepUblican Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, the coordinating agency for G.O. P. Senate campaigns. Like the Lousma campaign, Cole~s organization does not release its own polling information, but she said that Hartwell's perceptions were generally correct and that Levin's support was "clearly not where an in-cumbent could expect to be" at this stage of his career.

After the press conference, the candidates and press corps trooped into a cavernous ballroom to join 1400 other people for a bland meal and The Main Event, the candidates' debate. The format was somewhat Similar to the antiseptic agenda for the now-customary Presidential debates: Each candidate gave a 15 minute prepared speech, and afterwords they each gave brief responses to questions submitted on index cards by the audience. There was no give and take between the participants, and in this sense the real debating

"This election is a test of how easy it isfor a bonafide political newcomer to get elected to high office. " occurred during the press conference, where the candidates had a chance to challenge and respond to each other more directly: The debate was rather anticlimactic as a result, with the question-and-answer session soLtnding more like continuing snippets of the prepared speeches and with the candi-

dates agreeing on nearly half of the audience questions, A press conference for student journalists after the debate was even more stultifying. The students, mostly high school kids, asked vague, simplistic questions that got kid-glove answers, and neither candidate said anything that he hadn't said at least once already during the day.

Through all of the day's events, there was no mistaking which candidate practiced politics fora living. Lousma is articulate and knowledgeable and he came off sincere in his forthright, still somewhat military, speaking style. Yet he lacked the sound and feel of a genuine politician, the ease of fielding questions and articulating positions that comes from some natural gift, or, more often, years of experience. Especially when they were sparring in the first press conference, Levin was glib where Lousma sounded rehearsed, certain where Lousma appeared tentative.

Lousma came off competent and impressive but looking like what he is ..· a nonpolitician seeking a political office.

It's not clear whether this image is an asset or a liability with the voters, but Levin seemed to consider it an asset, and through the day's performance he tried to belittle his own political acumen

. Mark Weinhardt iSlhin;iyear law $fU~ dent and the Senior Editor of The Review.

See' page 11:

-- lAISSEZ FAiRE -, I I

I

I I

THE MYSTERY OF BANKING by MUJT1lY ROlhMrd, A '" l. on blll1kmg, money and credit, inflation, (hd, 286p) 519.9$

I

I I

I I

BEST SELLERS

2 WESTERN LIBERALISM, <d, .., Bnmst<d " MeIboaiIIII.

Imp&slOned ><lecllom from the best of das.sicallibcr.allsm (qpb. SIOpl Regularly SI6 ~ SALE $9.9$

3 HUMAN ACTION by Ludwi& von MIses. A complete, 'Y!>teltUltl<. trea",." ering every major topic of the SClet>c< of ,",onom"", (hd, 88SpI $.37,50

(0'

.. THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF RACE by Tho ..... Sowdl, Pov.erlul attack on liberal beliefs about minoolles, rac"m. ><gregation and aflirmall""" tion. (hd, 312p) 515.9$ _ 5 MODERN TIMES by Paul Johrulon. ProvocRllve narrauve hmory oll~ world from WWI to the I 98Qs , Readable. lhd, 817p) 527,50 •

LOVE AND SEX IN THE PHILOSOPHY

m-

AYN RAND by "atb...itl

Bruckn. Both benefits and hazards, Contams "",eral surprISes (90 mm .ud", SI4.9$

tape)

7

•

FOR A NEW LIBERTY by MUITIIY ROlhbvd, ThIs sw~pin8 mamf""o den"", the basic pnndples of liberty and provides far.reachlng ""Iutlons for current problems. (qpb. 338p) $6.9$ ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Htllry Harlilt. The besl pnmer on fr"" market economics. J\ brilliant "fUlaoon of common ,",onomlC fallaetes. (qpb.

214p) SS.9$

9 FROM BKElTON WOODS TO WORLD INFLATION by Henry Hatlltl. Ex· poses the consequtnces of post-war monetary managemtnt: r""flctlOn of world trade, SUbSidies, towering mternational debt, (hd, Inp) SI0.9$

I

I I I I

I

I

I I I I

I I I I I

I

I

I I

I

I I I I I

10 THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by F.A. H.yel<, Th" timeless clasSiC shows why state planning must undermine boIh political and economic fr~om, lII1d end In ~rfdom, (242pl ~,95'SIl.50

--------------------------Sotlliotal _ _ _ _ ...

PINSe chKi [he n(/t'S and send rJtlJ mUre ad /0

LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOK SERVICE DEPT. MR. 206 MeJ'Cff St., New York, NY 10012 SHIPPING -

b,dd S2 2lliS mall", S) '1) L p~

TOIIII, __ ,,___ ._". __

.'oIame ______ ~_." _______ _ Addre\\_~_

('ltYI StalC'

- ___ ~ ____ ---,. __ ~___

--~- ----~------

__ .. ___ ,~~ ___ ._

~~ ________ ,_._

____ .~_. __ ZIP

---~-

"'"'" - y .... Il10 _ _ • J ....... for dttiwry

I II

~---------------------------\

l

,

<

\

H£A 1

I "'_'~~""'~>oW'<"~::''''l'"','''''-='''';'l'':';l><'''-''''';=''''''" '~

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

.

--

The dual priCing system. which Ticket scalping has made headlines subsidizes student attendance at the recently with the passage of a new games, is responsible for much of the ordinance by the Ann Arbor City scalping. A student buying tickets for Council. The ordinance sets the penalty $6.50 has a built-in incenfive to sell for a for scalping at a $25 civil fine, but the profit at the general public price of police can still arrest scalpers under the $13.00. The University could discourage state law if they choose to do so. Under this practice by enforcing their requirethe existing state law, a scalper can be ment that a student l.D. be shown in fined one hundred dollars and spend up to ninety days in jail. order for a fan to sit in the student sections. This rule is enforced at other Scalping is illegal in many other Big Ten schools, Michigan State among states besides Michigan. The reasons them. The fact that the University is behind these laws are somewhat unwilling to do this indicates that it is obscure. Presumably there are people not prepared to go out of its way to stop who consider the profits made by scalping. The Athletic Department scalpers to be ill-gotten because they are wants a full stadium and ultimately not earned through conventional work. doesn't care how it gets that way.

Also there is really no way for the However, even strict enforcement of government to regulate or tax this form the University's stated policy would not of enterprise which always seems a good eliminate scalping. Indeed, it might only excuse for making an activity illegal. drive up the price of nonstudent tickets Here in Ann Arbor, ticket scalping is in the scalping market and would do as much a part of a football Saturday as nothing to stop transactions between cider and beer. There are several students which account fora major reasons why the University would like share of the tickets that are resold. The to see it eliminated. Allen Renfrew, the . manager of student ticket sales says he is mobile, out-of-the-pocket nature of the business which would make it difficult concerned with "tickets being stolen to tax and regulate. also makes it nearly .and then resold." He also feels that impossible to cur~ail' by Jegisla,tion . .I n students who buy tickets expressly for resale are being unfait:.• to oth~ s ludenl s: . addition. the police have to ~t~h someone in the act of selling a ticket fc;r whose seats are not as close to the fifty yard line as they could be. Mr Renfrew over face value, since most scalpers have a city peddler's license that allows them does not believe that the extra money to legally sell a ticket for up to that gained by scalpers should go to the amount.

Athletic Department, a sentiment that is often attributed to the University.

Ticket scalping has gone on for years Nevertheless, he says that the police unimpeded. One may well ask why the should, "stop what they can," but he City Council passed the new ordinance recoglfizes that the traffic and other at all. After an Ann Arbor News article problems caused by the Michigan about scalping and the lax enforcement football games cause scalping to be a of the law by Ann Arbor police low priority crime. In Mr. Renfrew's appeared before last November's game opinion, scalping,"is not that big a with Ohio State the police made several problem" and it really shouldn't be, arrests. According to City Attorney since the ticket office has seats for most Bruce Laidlaw "That flurry of two or games available on the day of the game. three were the only arrests we've had in As for the impact of outright my fifteen year tenure." One of those legalization on the Athletic Department,. arrested, L.S. & A. senior John he says that such a hypothetical action Haughton, got in touch with "would not hurt that much." Mr. Councilman John Blow(R..:2nd Ward}.

Renfrew admits,"There is Tft') way you're Blow became the moving force behind. the ordinance. ever going to stop scalping."

The city cannot legalize scalping outright. It can decriminalize certain misdemeanors by rep'lacing jail sentenCes with civil fines. The $5 pot law is the most notable example of this.

Blow wanted a $5 fine for scalping also. but met with objections from judges the police, Mayor Louis BeIcher and certain members of the Council. The police, specifically wanted to be able to stop people from running up to cars at intersections in order to sell their tickets, and pushed for a fine of that would be substantial enough to deter '>~-, J .'---..~~.:-.:""':~_~ "~'people from doing this. It has also been suggested that the new ordinance will <~.~~. . ~. ~;:].~M-'; . •' -"~ lead to a crackdown on scalpers .$~~. presumably because a police officer who does not have the time to arrest a :\.

,

•

' ,r

".'-0->-;<,

- -•.•

~--...,,~

•

Scalper~

Scalping the

by Thomas Arrison

page 5

scalper and haul him down to jail does have time to write out a ticket. It remains to be seen whether the police will use the ordinance this way. That's certainly not what Councilman Blow intended when he sponsored it. In any case the ordinance was passed by a 10~1 margin at the September 17 Council meeting.

The "Handicapped Scalper," who works in front of the Union during football weeks. says that over a hundred tickets pass through his hands during a good week. He explains that he must correctly gauge such variables as the weather, the game, the attitude of the students, and the day of the week in order to maximize his profit. If he is wrong about one of these factors he can end up holding twenty tickets at game time or selling them at a loss. The ticket buyer can wait until he is sure he wants to attend during a good week. He

explains that he must correctly gauge such variables a profit by taking the risks that the buyer is unwilling to take himself. Through the broker tickets move from people who don't want to attend the game to people who do, for a price they are willing to pay.

The state may call this a crime, but it looks like straightforward entrepreneurship. Councilman Blow calls ticket scalping a truly "victimless crime" and advocates complete legalization by the state.

Despite diatribes against it and distortions by government. free enterprise exists in a nearly pure form in front of the Michigan Union during football season. The "Handicapped Scalper" explains that he sells a high volume of tickets, and that his business is profitable, "because I give the best deals." ~

Thomas Arrison is a senior in LSA.

:,..'"

Looking for a glamorous career in the fast lane of American Journalism? Get your start at The Michigan Review!

We're looking for individuals interested in:

~?

Writing: - Investigative reporting - Political and philosophical commentary - Movie and book reviews -Humor Art: -Illustrating - Cartooning Business: - AdvertiSing - Subscriptions - Accounting

If any of these projects interest you, let us know. Contact 663-4089.

~~"""(I"M'I_ _~).~~<H;""">lli~"'""","~"''''' '>"''~''W',"''芦 ' '

page 6

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW This Parrot Is Dead Who Will Watch the

..

When he was stumping with Walter Mondale on the Diag a few days ago, Gary Hart did his best to dispel the idea that the nation's college-age youth have turned to the political right. He claimed that the Reagan campaign was dead wrong in its assumption that young people in the voting booth would forsake the national interest (in other words, vote against the Democrats) on behalf of their "immediate self interest."

Hart reminds us of the shopkeeper of the pet store in a famous Monty Python skit about a dead parrot. A disgruntled customer confronts the shopkeeper with a parrot he recently purchased at the store, and despite obvious signs that the bird has passed on, the shopkeeper insists that it is still alive.

Pressed to explain the ani~aL's very lifeless state, he comes up with a host ofludicrous explanations: The bird is asleep, he is "pining," he is bored with the world and doesn't feel like moving.

In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Hart's contention that American youth has retained the liberalism of its predecessors fifteen years ago is no more plausible than the claims of the shopkeeper. The most recent New York Times/CBS News polls on the subject show that people in the 18 to 24 age group support the Reagan/ Bush ticket over Mondalej Ferraro 61 % to 30%. This margin is significantly larger than that for all age groups, which stood at 53%-32% ~n the same polls.

Young Americans are more than twice as apt to call themselves RepUblicans now as they were in 1968. As if statistics weren't enough, the shift to the right by the nation's youth has been documented in that peerless barometer of social trends, Bloom County.

This shift is not, as some have suggested, the product of young peo ple bein~Jess well informed

than they used to be or caring less about politics. Rather, the young electorate is making a choice based on what it has lived through. A person of college age today has clear memories of only two Presidents, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. While no one claims that young people are unambivalently behind Reagan's policies, it is clear that most of them prefer his record to Carter's.

The youth of the 60's were greatly moved by the Viet N am war, a paragon of military futility and national humiliation. It is at best a dim memory for today's youth, and they do not see those negative aspects in today's foreign policy. They are told that Central America is the next Viet Nam, but they are not buying it.

Given the choice, they seem to prefer strength to weakness, or worse, ponderous ind~c~sio~"., The 60's were generally good times economicall):" and young people didn't think much about the economy as a result. Today's young Americans have lived through some of the hardest economic times since the Great Depression, and from this they have formed a determination to protect themselves from hardship in the future. Liberals may call that greed or self interest, but in reality it is a realization that there is no free lunch-that government's doing good things for people has real costs that the economy cannot always bear.

All of this should be ominous news for the Democrats. Studies show.that the vote in the first Presidential election has a heavy influence on the way a person votes during the rest of his life. By losing the votes of the nation's youth now, the Democrats are leaving a legacy that could haunt them for decades. For their own "self interest," immediate and otherwise, Gary Hart and his friends would do well to rethink what they have to offer the nation's young voters, rather than insisting that the parrot is just taking a nap. ~

Watchers.?

Mirabile Dictu! Despite their endless quibbling over the' Proposed Code and Military Research, the MSA and the Regents, August bodies both, actually can agree on something which threatens to limit what really matters to them: power and money, particularly other people's power and money. They, as.... well as the democraticallyminded Perry Bullard, Governor Blanchard. and many other friendly and concerned members of the State Legislature, are hastily trying to "re-educate" those U-M students who are, apparently, too naive to realize the路 horrors which the current Voters' Choice proposal would unleash. No money to higher educa~ipnl.SefiQusdamage to research! AND, most terrifying of all, AN INCREASE IN TUITION!!! "Howl, h9WI, howl, howl..." Well, all of this is really rather silly. The purpose of Proposal C is not to release a Hobbesian brood of greedy monsters who will never, ever, vote to increase taxes for specific priorities, but to ensure that blanket tax increases are determined by the individ uals who pay them-rather than by the government.

Governor Blanchard and Mr. Bullard have argued that the worst of the problems explicit in Voters' Choice is its transfer of power from the State Legislature to the individual citizen,a perfectly reasonable objection.

European aristocrats raised it, inc e s san t I y , p rio r tot he Industrial Revolution. But this argument is, to understate, rather peculiar in a democratic country.

Representative or otherwise, the

function of elected legislatures is to serve the best interests of the taxpayers, not to determine them.

The possibility of "threat" to this University may exist; tuition may rise (when has it not?), but this concern is certainly not as legitimate as the democratic right of citizens to sovereignty over their own finances. While the fact that U-M has reached its stature largely at the expense of the Michigan taxpayer is a marvel, the continued expansion of a college is not, nor should it be, as significant to the practical taxpayer with a limited or moderate income as having more money in a bank account or food budget.

Besides-the people of Michigan, when presented with intelligent requests for specific issues such as education or social services, may not be as penurious as the State Legislature, the Regents, and the MSA accuse.

When elected bodies grasp at more decision-making power, they insult the intelligence of their taxpaying constituents. The bodies which are frantically campaigning to condemn Proposal C resemble wealthy English lawyers in nineteenthcentury Ireland who sought seats in the House of Commons by telling indigent Catholic farmers "Vote for me-I know you really want to support the benefits you receive from Anglican state universities." Voters' Choice prohibits such elitist sophistry. It allows commonsense citizens to regulate for themselves the amount of money they allot to government. "Qui custodiet ipsos custodies'?" Unless better answers than the Bill of Rights exist! ~

The opinions expressed represent the unanimous opinion of the editors.

... to;,j(~ '4'\:";~t'i~....'u;;n~";;''i:IIo4~~'''' ·~~ ''4):"~ ... " -:.~,, >~........~,,,•• ; ~,,·

NOVEMBER, t 984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

The Mondale Campaign: Litany of Limpness Political Commentary

by Seth

Klukoff

Throughout this electiOn" year, the candidacy of Walter Mondale has shown a remarkable ability to wallow in ineptness. Wh y has this occurred? The answer points toward weak, ineffective leadership as well as an inability to stand up to pressure. . America's desire strong leadership by the President when he is under pressure.

This is a necessary trait in the leader of any government. Given his limp campaign, the public's view of Mondale has been consistently negative throughout this election year.

of Nicaragua, are responsible for the shipment of supplies to EI Salvador and Honduras. These supplies of ammunition aid the leftist factions in both countries. Perhaps, in March, Fritz Mondale had not realized that the Sandinistas are proxies of the Soviets and that the Sandinistas are aiding Cuba , Russia's chief ally in the Carribean basin, in the shipping of ammunition. This blatant shift across the ideological cont inuum reflects the hasty abandonment of a previously established belief in response to growing public approval of Reagan's Central American policies .

~I~i IDIDN'T HAVE 'tHE HEART TO T81 HIM THAT'S /IJ1OOG DEMOCRAT5,~

In a Los Angeles Times national poll, conducted last February; 22% viewed Fritz Mondale as a strong leader compared to the 60% who favored Reagan. In a recent New York Times j CBS News poll, conducted September 12 through September 16, 41 % characterized Mondale as a strong leader while 74% chose Reagan .

Walter Mondale's handling of foreign policy issues, most notably Central America and Grenada, reveals an abandonment of a previously- held idea in response to public opinion pressures. In an interview with the New York Times last March, Mr. Mondale had stated that Reagan's approach to Central America "rests on illusions that the challenge is solely from the Soviets and their proxies ." However, in another interview w~h the New York Times cond ucted on September 17, he stated tl)at "there are many more. Cubans and Soviets" in Central America. In the same interview, he stressed that the Sandinistas, the repress ive government

Another 180 degree shift in Mondale's policies involves Grenada.

In a December 26th interview with the New York Times, he asserted that "many of the claims that the Administration made for justifying their intervention were speCUlative and in many cases not bound in truth." One wonders where he was when the photos of the Cuban-built airport , stocked with weapons, were released. in his September interview, however, the Democratic nominee claimed that "I would've used it (military force) to go in there and protect American lives. I would've moved as quickly as I could to get a Commonwealth force in place . .

And moved toward the selection of their own government." Here. he virtually echos President Reagan 's a~sess ment of the situation. One major reason for his flip-flop is the heavy approval by the American public of this mission . To put himself more in tune with the American vot er, he has adjusted his position to meet theirs. On Mondale's reversal of

his stand, Jeff Geller, one of the medical students rescued on Grenada, states: "He (Mondale) has finally realized. in this election year. that the President was right. All of us are safe ... With less decisive leadership in the White House, we might be in da y 330 of the Grenada hostage crisis ."

Two other events reflect Walter Mondale's inability to exert firm leadership and stand up to pressure: his appointment of Bert Lance to replace Charles Manatt as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, along with his 24 hour reversa l of that decision, and his buckling to the National Organization for Women's demand for a female running mate .

Mondale's handling of the LanceManatt affair was mired in weakness.

On Saturday, July 14, with two days until the Democratic National Convention, Walter Mondale dismissed Charles Manatt and replaced him with a political crony from the Carter days: Bert Lance. Mr. Lance. one of the many stains on the sullied Carter record, was forced to resign as Director of the Office of Management and Budget because of an investigation into his personal finances . He was later acquitted on charges of bank fraud.

There are several reasons why Mondale chose Lance. First, Lance was owed a hefty favor for rescuing Mondale in the South after the loss to Gary Hart in the New Hampshire primary. Second, the · appeal. of the Democratic ticket had to be strengthened in the South after the Ferraro appointment. Third, Mondale may have done this to show that he was in total control of the party.

But his decision to choose Mr. Lance also shows a lack of forethought. There are several vital consequences that Fritz Mondale ignored, or did not realize when he chose the former OMB director. The appointment of Lance negated the "sleaze factor" issue, a crucial component of the Democrats' stratagy against President Reagan . The "sleaze factor" stratagem entailed criticizing Reagan Administration officials who were catagorized as "corrupt." Furthermore, Bert Lance's link to the Carter Presidency would obviously hurt Mondale. "Haven't they forgot that Bert is Carter's man?" a Democratic party operative asked.

Finally, removing Charles Manatt, a Californian , would anger Western Democrats and give Mondale even greater difficulty of winning California, Reagan's home state.

page 7

Mondalc's decision to appoint Bert Lance to M"natl's (lost and his reversal of that decision cnraged the Democratic leaders. especially Tip O'Neal and Teddy Kennedy. and angered Big Labor, which has 30 scats on the Democratic National Committee . "As long as Lance is there, I do nothing for Mondale," said the head of a large union local in Ohio. "This campaign has shown an amazing abilit y to accent the negative," complained Robert Strauss, a former Democrat ic National Committee Chairman and a key Mondale supporter. To appease Lance, Mondale gave him the vaguely-defined job of General Campaign Chairman.

Because the Convention would begin on Monday, Mondale was eager to patch up differences and project an image of party unity to the country.

However. Mondale projected an image of himself as an inept candidate who buckled under to pressure. He did not realize th'a t there would be such a heavy backlash of criticism. "It wasn't my intention that any of this would come out , but it did." said an apologetic Walter Mondale on the eve of the Convention. After the Convention, Mondale virtually ignored Lance and. five weeks later, Mr. Lance resigned.

Mondale's refusal to communicate with his "General Campaign Chairman" shows a lack of commitment as well as a yielding to the continued criticism of his association with Lance .

Walter Mondale's selection of his running mate is another example of his bending to pressure and weak adherence to commitment. When the National Organization for Women endorsed him in December, 1983, they asked him to consider a woman in his Vice-Presidential selection process . So Mondale invited Geraldine Ferraro, a Congresswoman from Queens, New York, and head of the Democratic National Platform Committee, Diane Feinstein, the Mayor of San Francisco, and Martha Layne Collins, the Governor of Kentucky, to be interviewed along with others for the second spot on the ticket.

In late June. NOW demanded that Mondale choose a female running mate .

Judy Goldsmith, the President of NOW, stressed that if Mondale did not select a female running mate, they would start a floor fight at the Convention "if necessary."

See page 11

Selh Klukoff is a freshman in Ihe College of Li(eralUre, S cil.'nCl'. and (he An.l· and a sialf \A.'rim· of The Review.

~

""" -_~~ ""'''''''I'-'''~'''''''''''''/'"_I'''''''~'-<-···

page 8

,-"""'"

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

Conlmentary

Our Guardian Angels (please?)

#

by Gerald Weis Ronald Reagan has put forth a bold and impressive new proposal for dealing with the Soviet Union. No one wants a nuclear war, neither theUnited States nor the Soviet Union. Yet the fact remains that the present structure of our world hinges upon the awesome threat of nuclear retaliation. Should one of the two super powers ever launch a first strike, the other will launch a massive and thorough retaliatory strike in which everyone loses. Our security lies on a strong defense and the maintenance of our arsenals of destruction. Neither super power can nor sh.ould trust the either. Our systems are ideologically opposed to one another, and there has always been a wary lack of trust between them. The balance of terror worKS but cannot protect us from an unauthorized or accidental launch should that ever be possible.

Conventiopal arms negotiations talkS depend upon the trust of the parties involved, truit that is lacking. Furthermore current arms talks have limited new systems and quietly overseen the : . removal of old and outdated systems.

They have not brought about any" significant dismantling of major, nonobsolete nuclear systems. Let us imagine for a moment a situation in some imaginary future where the United States and the Soviet Union have managed to halve or even quarter their present nuclear arsenals. In such

"

non- nuclear defensive system that can an event both sides would still distrust achieve up to 95% accuracy, can the two one another. It seems unlikely that super powers agree , on a non-trusting Capitalist and Communist worlds are basis ;to begin to dismantle their capable of alignment and harmony. arsenals of nuclear weapons and turn to One needn't point out how unlikely more peaceful pursuits. such an occurence is. Henry Kissinger once suggested such a reduction would take 50 or more years, were it possible at all. Still in such a scenario both sides would possess the means to cause massive irreparable harm to one another. What would stop us from using those weapons? Only the Mutual Assured Destruction of all involved .

Rather like today, at a lower level.

Perhaps at a lower level a struggling Soviet Politburo might decide the losses ' weren't all that bad and launch a nuclear war. MAD depends on terror, lessen the terror with out any other changes and you may lessen the deterrent effect of MAD. The Soviet Union first violated the What has Ronald Reagan proposed? Test Ban Treaty, it does not abide by the A non-nuclear defensive weapon system Helsinki Accords, and appears to be in that would enable us to destroy up to violation of other treaties. We do nol 950., of all incoming nucle.a rmissiles"in , r'and .. cannottrust the Soviet Union. their boost ~tages. The fact that it will ." Therefore the only proposal put forth so wipe out only 95% and not 100% of all far that fundamentally changes the incoming missiles is not a problem, for nature of the game to eliminate the need we are not going to use it to go to war. for trust is that of President Reagan. A On the contrary, this system (which nation that put men on the moon could likely onlv be designed and built (something the Soviets never did), built in the United States) would be turned the space ~huttle and in fact designed over to our super power adversary. the bomb in the first place should to be Why? Quite frankly because only with able to design a system to safeguard the both sides enjoying the protection of a future of our children. WaIter Mondale

"A nation that put men on the moon, built the space shuttle, and in fact designed the bomb in the first place should be able to design a system to safeguard the future of our children. "

says he wouldn't give this technology to lhe Soviets . He doesn't trust them with the advanced technology that would make the dismantling of nuclear weapons on a n~'Jn-trusting basis. Yet, Walter Mondale wants the United States to{) conclu de an arms freeze and possible weapons reduction treaty with this government based on trusl. The same people who broke the' Test Ban Treaty. There is a great deal of inconsistancy here. Does or does not Walter Mondale want to secure ,the future for our children and grandchildren? If he does, then why doesn't he trust the Sqviets when it comes down to important peace-keeping technology when he trusts them to honor their other commitments? The United States should not entcr into such clearl y unverifiable issues on t he basis of trust.

Clearly there is some danger in living in the nuclear age. It is preferable to live with out nuclear missiles. but as long as there are nuclear missiles in the hands of the Politburo Gerontocracy, I can only feel safe with the knowledge that the United States has its own missiles to deter the Soviets. ~ Gerald Wei.\' is the pen name ()la senior rnajoring in historr and political science.

CLIMB ABOARD! Help-Support .The Michigan Review .

•..•........................•......................•.........................•......•

o I would like more information on The Michigan Review. o Yes; I like The Michigan Review. I am Impressed with

•

alternative direction The Review will provide. You have my support. I also understand a contribution of $25.00 or more will entitle me to a' free one-year subscription. Enclosed is my contribution of: 0$25.00 ....

0$50.00 o Other $100.00 ________ Please note: all contributions to The Michigan Review are are ful1y tax-deductible under Federal statutes.

Further information is available upon request. ,j;~' ~

~ ~,

•.............•......•..........•.•..............••....•............................•

_ ................. ~ ~._ •••

~...-.~~.....o(~...»O.'~~: t.:l'!!~~>mtJo

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER, 1984

page 9

Eagle Attracts Birdbrains

by Kevin Michaels · After 45 minutes, all but a few of the The F-15 Eagle fighter plane, recently protestors had left. The police could displayed on North campus by the U. S. now relax, and the engineers could go to Air Force, resulted in a poorJyclass. The demonstration may have attended, anti-militarism demonstraended, but the debate over whether a tion by the Progressive Student strong defense posture is good or bad Network (PSN). The demonstration, consisting of 15 students, began with a "die-in, "where all protesters pretended to die, as if by nuclear warfare, although they appeared more like victims of Soviet chemical warfare. As they rolled around "dying"on the Aero building parking lot, a gentle applause and laughter broke out among the engineers witnessing the spectacle. But the fun was only beginning.

One of the demonstrators then yelled, "This bomber killed thousands in Viet Nam!" Someone then informed him that the Eagle was a fighter, not a bomber, and wasn't built until after the Viet Nam conflict. What little has not. History has taught us that a credibility the PSN had was ebbing weak defense posture increases the likeliquickly. One of the demonstrators, hood of war. A prime example of this however, appeared to know this . He was Pearl Harbor. But there are some in wore a shirt that claimed the plane was this country, like the PSN, who believe in fact a male sex organ. a strong defense posture will create war.

Some of the people witnessing the fhey have the right to believe that, demonstration then converged around because they are privileged to live in a the protesters to discuss their beliefs and democracy. And they also have the right intentions. S,ome ~r8umeo,s broke out. to a .p eacefut4emonslration, if:. tbey \n one argument, a demonstrator began choose to do so. But what the PSN cursing at an elderly man and woman. doesn't realize is that they demonstrated The man asked that the cursing end; the over the very object that protects their demonstrator refused. Just when things freedom of speech and right to a public could get no worse for the PSN, one gathering. The PSN seems to take these member put a "no code" sticker on the rights for granted. They should speak to aircraft. An engineer promptly removed someone behind the Iron Curtain. The the sticker.

F-15, besides protecting our freedom.

In the arguments that ensued, the protects the freedom of Europe, Israel. protesters displayed little knowledge and Japan. And while the members of of international affairs or military the PSN sleep comfortably in their beds theory. They simply advocated tonight there will be squadrons of Funilateral disarmament. They would IS's on alert around the world to make not respond to the question, "Are we sure they wil have freedom of speech safer with a balance of power or an and the right to public gathering whep imbalance of power?" After an engineer they wake up in the morning. .~ presented various military facts and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ figures to a demonstrator, she replied, Kevin Michaels is a senior in engineer"Do you know what the infant ing and a member otthe Michigan Stumortality rate is in Detroit'?" dent Assemblr.

"After an engineer presented various military facts and figures to a demonstrator, she replied, "Do you know what the infant mortality rate is in Detroit?" "

.llu\

(~\II[\ - :c R T

..

.

Y

"

lLIBtYi '~ . ... - -- ,

,~ --.--J

1'0

_.

REVEl?:

~E>~ /

~ ____ _

"M~~iJ.ICU:~lO~"'~l\.

Lawyers From Page

3

Professors attended some portion of the 'symposium. Likewise. at Yale and Chicago, local students made up at least half of the audience. At Harvard, of the approximately 200 participants, there were only about 40 Harvard studentsalmost all Federalist Society members .

Students have expressed fears in the ..' paS'Hhatthey don 't.wanuoget involved •. with the Society even when they find its activities of interest because of pressure they face from other students. In general, it appears there was a conscious boycott by both students and faculty at Harvard.

Professor Bernard Wolfman, a leading tax law professor at Harvard, wrote the Harvard Record decrying the conference and explaining that having Brad Reynolds as the banquet speaker forfeited the claim of the conference to respectability. He called Reynolds' actions as Assistant Attorney General "bordering on the lawless" and denounced him for "betraying his trust." The speakers at this conference which , in Wolfman's eyes. has no claim to respectability included: Judges Antonin Scalia and Kenneth Starr of the U. S. Court of Appeals; Paul Bator, Deputy Solicitor General of the U. S.; Professors Henry Manne of the Law 'and Economics Institute at Emory, Richard Epstein of Chicago, Walter Berns, Maurice Holland of Indiana, Robert Clark, Hal Scott, Phillip Areeda, Charles Fried of Harvard Law School, Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Glazer o( ,Harvard University, William Kristol ()f the Kennedy School of Government, Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell, Lino Graglia of Texas, Bruce Fein ofothe FCC, Michael Horowitz of the OMB , Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus, and Marshall Breger,' the Special Assistant to the President for the Academic Community . Irving Kristol and Professor Frank Easterbrook were

among those in the audience. But by having as the banquet speaker the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, the Conference lost all claim to respectability.

Wolfman is not part of the Critical Legal Studies movement which only serves to highlight the degree to which the whole left at Harvard is attempting to discourage any conservativelyinclined dissent.

While this conference brought together leading conservative academics, lawyers, students, and administration officials to examine legal education. the question it posed will ultimately be answered by the center of the academic spectrum. That question is: Will the destructive aspects of the radicalism of the 60's repeat themselves in the law schools of the 80's. The CLS is not intellectually powerful. But the history of 60's radicalism combined with the degree to which this CLS movement has already spread to many other law schools serves as a warning that while their ideas should not be taken seriously, their movement does occasion legitimate concern . The most effective answer to such a movement is a counter offensive from the center. This was slow to take place in the 60s. But when radical ideas reach the stage of disrupting classes, these ideas are denying those civilizational decencies which make universities possible.

Professors a nd students alike must say no to t his type of activity . They must do so publicly, When people in a university community wish to present radical ideas , they should be examined rigourously and honestly, But when psychological and physical intimidation buttress these ideas; no cries of "we are doing this for the poor" or "for a just society" should disguise the fact that the speakers are thugs . And it is incumbent on all of us to stand up to thugs . - ~

..-

---------,"-".--'".~--

page 10

-.-..-..--~-.------

NOVEMBER, 1984

THE MICHIGAN RrVIEW

Purge 'em!

by Steve Angelotti

..

tQI.Q\\i,

~ ~.' . ' ,

il' ''" ---"

~

~

U: .4 "'''' y"" 1

'"~ ~ ; , ~1 ~:~~/~~~ t'i~:lJ,.~j.:~" ,,,., ,t·~·"l ", ..

ft

H ~.

-'I

,l\1i:11 aMlN.\.\\ ,'tOUR :..::..::----

1li

~1

lUl'tP ott.FQ\.lC)U

The Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) was founded on the University of Michigan campus in 1972. Due to initially strong student support for the concept, the University granted PIRGIM unique funding privileges. Jhese privileges were in the form of a detac.hable card ·on the registration form which a student could sign in order to contribute to the group.

PIRGIM is the only organization to ever be granted this privileged status by the University of Michigan. PIRGIM has repeatedly sought "str<;mger" fundraising systems, generally those where students must sign a form in order not to contribute to PIRGIM. This is known as a "refusable! refundable" system.

PIRGIM has benefited in the past from the many myths circulated about the organization, its goals, and its funding. These myths are as follows: MYTH I: PIRGIM is a non-partisan "public interest" group.

It is true that PIRGIMdoes not endorse political' candidates, but it does take stands on controversial issues, ranging from opposition to nuclear power 10 supporting gun control a nd •. the 1983 Michigan State income tax hike. In a New Jersey case where a "refusable / refundable" system was declared unconstitutional, Judge Arlin Adams referred to a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) as "a political entity devoted to the attainment of certain fixed ideological objectives."

Many PIRG's are even forced to register as lobbying groups. In reality, PI RG I M is little different from any other special interest group seeking to influence the electorate ~ MYTH 2: PI RG I M works for the entire student body at Michigan .

The corollary to this is, "Therefore, the entire student body should fund PI RGI M." Students, as a whole. do not share PIRGIM's priorities or its positions on issues any more than they support any other group's positions.

PIRGIM no more works for the entire student body than does the Progressive Student Network or the College Democrats or the College Republicans, none of which are ftt-nded through the

,.

University registration system.

MYTH 3: PIRGIM is supported by most students.

In the past, one of the terms of PIRGIM's contract with U of M was that, i n order to maintain its privileges, PIRGIM had to have the support of at least 20% of the students. PIRGIMS's support fell below that cutoff on several occasions. If there were massive student support of PIRGIM in the first place, then students would line up at the PIRGIM office to donate their money, thus eliminating the need for a privileged funding system.

"Two years ago, a group known as the Student Committee JOI/ R ejorm and Progress (SC/?AP) launched a petition drive at the University to end PIRGIM's junding privileges and in one week SCRAPobtai~ed thesig. . natures oj over 7; 000 students. " MYTH 4: PIRGIM's current funding plan is "unworkable."

PI RG I M volunteers must ask registering students if they wish to contribute. This soaks up valuable time PIRGIM members say. If the plan is a waste of PIRGIM's time, why doesn't PIRGIM scrap the current plan and take to the streets with bucket drives, like many other groups on campus? If the current plan is preferable to the usual methods of fund raising, then it is not unworkable.

MYTH 5: The proposed "refusable! refundable" system is the fairest funding system.

In the book, "Action for a Change," which launched the Public Interest Research Group movement, Ralph Nader states that a "refusable i refundable" system can only be fairly instituted with the support of half the student body. PIRGIM had a petition drive in early 1983 in support of this system and obtained only 5,250 signatures. 5,250 is barely one sixth of Michigan's student body and a far cry from fifty percent . Moreover, as noted above, the "refusable i refundable" system has been declared unconstitutional by a New Jersey appellate court.

MYTH 6: PIRGIM cannot survive without a special funding system.

Two years ago, a group known as the Student Committee for Reform and

"t~.E~Etr1000Yn

'iOO·\\OO...\\F.lill..lt51\M(i.•

~~

Progress (SCRAP) launched a petition drive at the University to end PIRGIM's funding privileges and in one week SCRAP obtained the signatures of over 7,000 students. PI RGI M would have survived a SCRAP victory at Michigan just as it survived removal from Michigan State University's registration form. After the MSU "defeat," PI RGIM expanded its fundraising ~fforts from its collegiate base to the East Lansing community. By ~dding voluntary dues-paying members from the surrounding community, PIROI M has greatly increased its revenues.

MYTH 7: Efforts to end PIRGIM's privileges are a College Republican conspiracy.

In SCRAP's heyday PIRGIM made a sudden alarming "discovery:" SCRAP was a conspiracy ofthe College RepUblicans and other "radicals!!"

PIRGIM tried to feed the story to several newspapers, including the Detroit Free Press and the Ne ...... York Times. Not su rprisingly, only the Michigan Daily saw fit to print the story. Less than a month later PIRGIM quietly admitted that the story was false.

PIRGIM's fundraising contract with the University expires this coming March and it' is rumored that PIRGI M is considering a new proposal along the lines of the "refusable / refundable" scheme that has come up several times in the past . Their own mentor, Mr. . Nader, requires majority student sup port for such a plan, but the clear absence of such support does not deter PIRGIM .

PIRGIM's politics are• tilted to one side, as evidenced by its early 1983 forum on Michigan's fiscal crisis; a forum in which every speaker was a proponent of Governor Blanchard's tax h,i. ~~" and in which no opposing views were heard. Some "forum!" PIRGIM arrQ,g antly assumes that its agenda represents all students. PIRGIM thus concludes that all students, except for a few unprogressive malcontents, must fund the organization. Funding privileges already granted to PIRGIM ,

unique among student organizations at this university. are denounced as insufficient. People opposed to the current and proposed funding schemes are not debated with on the merits of the issue offunding, but instead are labelled "Republicans" and other such epithets.

PIRGIM does not have the support necessary to merit its unique fundraising privileges. It is not only appropriate that an outside political group such as PIRQIM be rem'oved from the SYF, it is imperative. Imagine Detroit Edisor: using itS' monthly bills to raise money for the Republican Party.

Would PIRGIM support this idea? The question is not whether PIRGIM deserves a new funding system. The question, rather, is whether any private organization should be granted special fundraising privileges at a public university like the University of Michigan . The answere, quite obviously, is no . ~ , "

Srel'l' Angeloffi. a stall writer al The Review. is a graduaTe slUdt'nl of' physics.

~~ -~-~:

_ _ _~W_ _ _ ~""~1w;,.4'''~",,",,4<''>->'''''''路'".'''<''''~I>''',,,",,<'.''''_.'''"'".

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

NOVEMBER. 1984

page 11

From Page 4 as a result. His prepared speech in the debate and his remarks in the press conference,s contained suggestions that his is not a shrewd political mind; that he is more an everyman like Lousma. This claim was only mildly credible, as he carried himself much too slickly to leave much doubt about who was the pro. In fact, Levin comes from a family of politicians, and he has held elective office since the late 60's.

Lousma spent that night in Ann Arbor:, and the next day' 1 followed him on the proverbial campaign trail to learn more about how the campaign operated. When I arrived that morning at the Holiday Inn on the west side of town, thecandidate was finishing an hour-long breakfast meeting with a handful of contributors. I ran into Keith Hartwell in the hotel restaurant, where he was waiting for the candidate to emerge from the conference room. We chatted a bit . about the previous day's events, and I asked him how he felt about the coverage of the affair in the Detroit papers.

He hadn't read a ny of it. It was going on 9:00 a.m. on the morning after one of the biggest days of the campaign, and t he press secretary had n 't seen a newspaper yet. I had both papers under my arm and I showed him the coverage, which I had already read. He seemed fairly pleased, even though the story didn't make the front page in either paper and received only 16 column inches of text in the News. '", . After Lousma finished shaking hands, we 'lnto our cars and d rove west on 1-94 to a spot west of Jackson where Lousma was to do a radio interview. On this day the campaign caravan consisted of a small, unmarked, four-door Chevy with three occupants: Lousma, Hartwell, and Rick Giecek, a quiet Central Michigan senior distinguishable mostly for his willingness to cruise '1-94 at speeds in excess of 75 m.p.h. Today the

got

campaign was bigger than usual. Hartwell usually stayed at the home office in Lansing, and on the road he spent every available minute on the nearest phone to make up for his absence athis desk.

For months the campaign has consisted solely of Lousma and Giecek crisscrossing the state seven days a week making speeches and handshake appearances.

Sometimes they have a reporter or other hanger-.on with them, but you get the sense from talking to Giecek that the two of them have spent a great deal of time alone.

"(Levin's) strategy appears to one of moving towards Lousma's position to take the political middle groun d ... " The radio interview was at WUFNFM ("Family Life Radio"), a biblethumping station housed in two mobile homes and literally planted in the middle of a cornfield. While the on-air monitor in the station's "offices" gushed with preaching, the news director of the station ushered us into a cramped studio in which he taped the 30 minute interview. He pumped Lousma with questions about all the usual knee-jerk .religious issues- abortion, school prayer, gay rights, etc." Lousma fielded the questions well and supplied mo~t .of the answers the station's audience would look for, with the probable surprises of support for the ERA and opposition to tuition tax credits for private schools.

Carl Levin has turned down the station's requests for a similar interview, and the news director lamented this unsurprising fact as we left the station.

"We'l be praying for you," he said as he waved goodbye.

We drove back to Jackson for an interview with the Jackson Citizen Patriot, and I took Hartwell in my car

to discuss the campaign. As he described it, the campaign is modern politics in the extreme: Aside from personal appearances by the candidate, it takes the form of little more than a television ad campaign. In part this is motivated by the feeling, correct or not, that television is the medium through which the public can best be educated about the differences between the two candidates. "(Television) is where we feel we can do the best" at counteracting Levin's attempt to occupy the political middle, Hartwell said.

The concentration of resources on TV is also rooted in financial concerns.

Despite the popular image of heavily financed Republican candidates, Levin's campaign budget is larger, $2.5 million to Lousma's $2.1 million. In addition, unlike Levin, Lousma had to devote a substantial chunk of his money to a vigorous primary challenge. To make the TV ad effort as large and credible as ampaign has been intentionally pared to'the bone in most other areas.

The extent of this pairing is considerable, sometimes even amazing. If you call the Ann Arhor office of the Republican party and ask abouUhe Lousma campaign, they can tell you nothing.

They have no connectio(l with the campaign, nor does the campaign have any permanent presence in Ann Arbor or anywhere else outside of the.home office, The entire campaign staff, excluding secretaries, co'nsists of fewer than a dozen people, and with the exception of Giecek, they are all located in Lansing. Eleetronic media has almost completely crowded the printed word out of the campaign. No one seems to be writing anything about why Jack Lousma should be a Senator, so it is difficult forthe voter to read much about him or his positions. When the campaign sent me a "press kit," it consisted of a one-page biography, a single photograph, and a

weeks-old speech. None of the usual pamphlets and position papers that political campaigns typically churn out in bulk.

Lousma is relying on the Republican party to make up this void in at least one area, that of voter registration and getting out the vote. Hartwell acknowledged that the Levin campaign was much better staffed, but he said that the Republican party does a much better job of getting out the vote for its ca ndidates than do the Democrats, and Republican campaigns can be smaller as a result. But the polls suggest that many Reagan voters may vote for Levin.

Might the GOP organization wind up drawing voters to the polls to vote for the wrong man? "There might be some slippage there," Hartwell conceded, but there was nothing significant to worry about. Yet, later in the day. Hartwell stated that those ticket splitters would make or break his candidate.

Evidently the hope is that the TV ads will convince the GOP's target Reagan voters to vote for Lousma as well. In fact, the whole campaign is a gamble that a television assault on Carl Levin can overcome any other shortcomings.

Even if the gamble is a good one, it appears to be motivated more by lack of money and personnel than by shrewd political strategy.

After the interview at the Jackson paper. we drove to an apparel factory on the edge of town where Lousma spoke about physical fitness to a lunchtime crowd of overweight women smoking cigarettes. At the end of the'talk I kept waiting for him to pass out some pamphlets or literature of some sort. He never did. I walked up to Rick Giet:ek and asked him what went wrong. Didn't they have some item they usually passed lut, something for the people to show heir families and to make a lasting mpression of the candidate? "No,"he said, "we don't really do that."

From page 7 The preferred choice of Walter Mondale was Diane Feinstein, who would help him immeasu!eably on the West Coast. According to a July 16th article in the Chicago Sun- Times by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, Mondale succumbed to Big Labor's request and chose Ferraro as his running mate. Gerry Ferraro. the Labor Bosses reasoned, is more closely identified with the iniustrial Northeast and Midwest. She would also attract Union families, who supported Reagan in 1980. Once again, Fritz Mondale displayed his remarkable habit of backing down under pressure. He gave into NOW's plea for a female VicePresidential candidate and then fell at the mercy of Big Labor in selecting Geraldine Ferraro.

-A pattern can be detected through these two events of Mondale's Summer of Softness as well as through his wavering on foreign policy. Mondale's trademark is a decision followed by

quick change in response to pres sure.

Thus, If Walter Mondale cannot say "no"toJudy Goldsmith, Tip.O'Neal, or Lane Kirkland, how will he, if elected. respond to Konstantin Chernenko, Andrei Gromyko, or Fidel Castro? Can Walter Mondale, if elected, formulate a foreign policy that will remain CCi)nstant and endure the criticisms of the public?

In an election which will inevitably be a referendum dn leadership and presidential image, Candidate Mondall' has much to lose. ~

From page 12 walks a way from the film feeling slightly cheated. Hopefully. Altman will regain interest in making serious movies again, but until then he has to be viewed as an artist who was not able to make the transition from one period of time to the next. In the future, when a film biographer writes a book on Altman's films, Secret Honor will probablv occupy only a few' of the pages. :

Crossing the Bar

by Gerald Weis On Monday, September 24, 1984, ,Carl R. Proffer died after a two year battle with cancer. He was 46. Professor Proffer was a University of Michigan professor of Slavic Languages and Literature. Carl Proffer's roots in Ann Arbor were deep. he graduated cum laude from the University of Michigan in 1960 and received his Ph.D. in 1963. also from Michigan. His was the first Ph.D. awarded by this university'S Slavic Languages and Literature Department. Carl Proffer began teaching at the Univer~ity in 1970.

Together with, his wife, Ellendea, he founded A~dis Books in 1971. Ardis Books, Ann Arbor's own Russian publishing house, is said to have put the city on the map as a world center of Russian culture. Ardis pUJlishes contemporary and classical路 Russian

literature in Russian and in English.

Through extensive contacts with Russian literary community, the Proffer's were able to bring to light many of the best works of Russian literature. Carl Proffer was instru~ mental in bringing Joeseph Brodsky to the University as poet-in-residence in 1972 after Brodsky was exiled from the Soviet Union.

Professor Proffer most recently taught last winter. despite his illness he was stoic. Carl Proffer was a courageous example of strength and determination. In many ways his untimely illness and death seems to mirror those of the great Russian tragic writers. The staff of the Michigan Review would like to take this opportunity to express our condolences to the Proffer faUilly;-

a

'"

_

"_._"<~,,

.....

~,~,,~"-'~_~.,_~_'_'_~_"

..... _ _

~,

_____

...

~_

~~~~~u~~_~

~

_<~

-

__ '< ____ <_""_'

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

page 12

NOVEMBER, 1984

c u

L T u R E RUSSIAN CULTURE IN THE U.S. Professor Carl R. Proffer, University of Michigan professor of Slavic Literature and co-publisher of Ardis books, died Monday, September 24 1984, after a two-year bout with cancer.

On 28 March, 1984, Ardis Books and the University of Michigan played host to an Open Forum on "Russian Culture in America." The staff of the Michigan Review would like to present the following account of that event in memory of a fine man who will be dearly missed. In doing so we wish to call attention to Professor Proffer's stated wish that the forum become an annual event.

"How many of you knew that Ann Arbor was a world center of Russian publishing?" With these words Professor Ben Stolz officially opened what is hoped to be the First Annual Forum on Russian Culture and America. In a tribute to the work of Carl and Elleridea Proffer and the publish ing of Russian literature in Russian and in English through Ann Arbor's own Ardis Books the University of Michigan was able to play host to a major Russian Cultural event inr-.1arch?f 19~~.P~r~icil'ants includ~d

{Qut emigre路 writers, painter David Miretsky and dancer Mikhail Barishnikov. The four writers; Joseph Brodsky, Sasha Sokolov, Sergei Dovlatov and Yuz Aleshkovsky; all have connections with Ardis Books.

With only a week's publicity, Rackham Auditorium was filled with people from as far away as Detroit.

Of particular interest is that all of the participants (except for Mikhail Barishnikov) were jailed for their exercise of creative expression. It is often hard for an American university student to comprehend being jailed for words spoken aloud, committed to paper, or for brushstrokes on a canvas.

Yet even today, some 67 years after the revolution and some 28 years after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" denouncing the Stalin epoch (two periods of relative artistic freedom) a person can be jailed or committed to a mental institute for expressing views not in keeping with the "Party Line."

Perhaps thi_ is why so many questioned the nature of Soviet censorship and persecution of its people.

Among questions asked were many centering on what disappointments these Russia ns found in American life.

Others focused on whether the Western ,image of drab masses of Soviet citizens, living day to day by their wits, is correct.

Mikhail Barishnikov answered one such question on disappointments in America: '''I'm very disappointed in America (sarcastically) -You see there's all these opportunities." This point was best made by Yuz Aleshkovskv. who declared:

"Americans are profoundly respected by myself and loved by me; but Americans are so terribly keen on checking about disappointments.

Probably it has to dowith the fact that Americans have everything except disappointment. " Another student asked if the KGB was really as bad as Americans are lead t o believe. Perhaps this too shows an incredulity that man can so mistreat his fellow man. Again I quote Yuz Aleshkovsky: "Well in the first place tjle picture is far from a fiction. It is impossible to hype up the real image of what the KGB is all about. .. KGB is not simply an Americanization ... KGB is the atmosphere of existence ... I think the KGB is not as terrible as it is being . painted, it's much worse."

Sergei Dovlatov added the following anecdote on the.KGB: "A student in Boston asked the following question: "Complete freedom doesn't exist anywhere, not in the U.S., and not in the Soviet Union. So what's the difference?"

And the Professor answered: "The difference is that having asked the qllf;stion >,.o\l'~e goii).g to be. flbje to quietly leave the auditorium. And your colleague in Moscow, if he would have asked the same question he would have found himself 15 minutes later in interrogation chamber."" Well one gets the impression that some naivete is involved in the formation of such questions.

"/ think the KGB is not as terrible as it is being painted, it's much worse. " In any event it is clear that although a very large part of the federal budget is spent on defense against the Soviet Union, Americans know very little about the Russian people and Soviet Life. Newspaper accounts are often cut short in favor of "more important" articles on local trash collection and gossip. Indeed the closed nature of Soviet society makes it difficult to learn about the Soviet Union. Yet oftimes Americans as a whole, tend to largely ignore the Soviet Union. Knowledge of English language is by far more widespread in the Soviet Union than that of Russian in our own country, or the West as a whole. (By this I mean among non-Russian Nationals) The University has excellent resources at hand in which to explore the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor, as noted above, plays home to Ardis Books, the largest publisher of Russian literature outside the Soviet Union. Additionally Michigan play~ host to its own Center for Russian and

East European Studies as well as a top flight Slavic Language Department.

Although planned as a way to showcase the great impacts of Russian culture upon America, for many of the most talented Russians are forced to come over to the West, the Forum also called attention to our need to know more about the world around us.

Through the nature of the questioning it became clear that many people simply did not know of the many fine resources here in Ann Arbor through which one can study the Soviet Union.

Professor Proffer will truly be impossible to replace, both as a

by Gerald Weis

professor at the University and in the hearts of those who knew him. It is sad to report his passing, yet it gives opportunity to call for the continuation of the Forum as an annual event: An event to spark people to explore and learn more about a very important part of the world; important both in its cultural impact upon ourselves and in its role as the other super poweL In doing so we would greatly increase the already great legacy left us by the work of Carl Proffer. ~ Gerald Weis is Ihe pen name of a senior majoring in his/orr and polilical science.

Altman's S ecret Honor

by David MiUer Robert Altman is a filmaker who uses perceived reality as a jumping off point for exploration of his own subjective view of the world. During the 70's his films have exposed, through direct parody and symbolic allegory, the narcissism which typified American -society in the 70's. H is films are. to the 70's what F.'ScottFitzgerald's novels were to the 20's, artistrc reproductions of the times in which they were created.

Now however, in the 80's, Altman seems to have lost a subject to reproduce and his importance as an artist has diminished.

Starting with M.A.S.H. in 1971, Altman immediately established himself as a director who chose to manipulate the styles of previously created genres, such as the war movie in M.A.S.H., to create a personal nearly expressionistic view ofw~r. Subsequent films he made in the 70's have al1 taken cinematic cliches (the western story in.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller, the gangster plot in Thieves Like Us) and up dated them, making them not just faithful descendents of their individual ge"nres, but apt social commentary on the hedonism of the "me" decade (the 70's).

But as the narcissism of the 70's gave way to the conservatism of the 80's, Altman's commentary through old cliches seemed out of place. Film in the 80's strives to be an escape from reality, not a reflection of it. So, after the dismal failure of Health in 19 80, Altman turned back to the basics of his art, namely theater.

Streamers and Come Back to the Five and Dime Jimmy Dean. Jimmy Dean both made in 1983, were very basic nonexperimental adaptions of stage plays.

Although interesting in their individual idiosyncracies they were more or less safe exercises in canned drama, neither reflecting back on old film genre nor looking forward to form a new one.

Altman continues this trend of theatrical filmaking with Secret Honor which premiered September 27 at the Michigan Theater.

SeeN!1 1I0nor (filmed at Martha Cooke dormitory) is an attempt to answer an intriguing question posed , from the most intriguing event of the 70's in America: Watergate. Based on the one man stage play by Donald Freed and Arnold Stone we are treated to a view of the "real" Richard Nixon, not the public one shown in his books or seen on the David Frost inte/'views.

Nixon is shown to be a paranoid, nearly psychotic maniac who sees every event which transpired during his administration as part of a conspiracy directed against him.

This premise is so fascinating that Secret Honor should be praised on that idea alone. But Altman does nothing further with this premise. He is completely faithful to the theatrical style in which it was first concieved. By doing this the success of the film rests solely upon the performance of Phillip Baker Hal1 as Nixon. Hall turns in a believable, if somewhat erratic, performance. He underplayes Nixon's psychoses brilliantly in one scene, but then resorts to meaningless histrionics and animal like grunts in the next.

Ultimately, Hall fails to raise his character above the limitations imposed in the script leaving the audience feeling ambiguous towards Nixon, neither pitying nor hating him.

Secret Honor is by no means a bad film,just an unambitious one. Even if it only aspires to be an adult cartoon, it is nevertheless a colorful and funny one.

However, considering that it was directed by the most important American film director of the 70's one

See page 11 David Miller is an LSA sophomore majoring in English.