Word: lardners
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Joining many others, James Lardner apparently read only part of the May 13 New Republic article which I co-authored on the desirability of a third party in 1968 -- or so I would gather from his review in the May 18 CRIMSON...
...reverse the Vietnam policy represented by President Johnson, Dean Rusk, and Walt Rostow, including, if necessary, the President's defeat in the 1968 election. If the goal were simply "How to Remove LBJ in '68," the title supplied the piece by the New Republic, then Mr. Lardner's jibe about the argument being "internally ridiculous" would be correct, for, if that is one's sole goal, the answer is obvious: vote Republican in 1968. However, things aren't that simple...
...fact, contrary to Mr. Lardner's strictures that the argument recognizes the impossibility of electoral success and therefore "fails to inspire" enthusiasm, it is precisely the point that the left must become much more sophisticated in its definitions of "success." It could even be, though I personally doubt it, that the demonstrated willingness of the left to organize a potential third party, might encourage President Johnson to reverse his policy and thus make it possible to vote for him in 1968. Or, it might be decided to run candidates against the President in the Democratic primaries in an effort...
...effect, moreover, of failure at the polls need be "demoralizing" to Mr. Lardner only if he's built up unrealistic hopes in himself and others beforehand. The price Americans pay for failing to have any kind of historical consciousness is that "success" is defined in terms of immediate payoffs and quick victories. I personally would define "success" as beginning to channel the chaotic energy of Watts and Harlem into political institutions capable of bringing organized power to bear against established political groups. Maybe by 1980 "success" would include victory at the polls, but for now goals must be more limited...
...Lardner's own constructive suggestions are notable by their absence, other than to wax vitriolic about the "consummate self-indulgence" of running a candidate for President in 1968. Does he counsel that the left join the Ripon Society in an effort to encourage Charles Percy's nomination? Or do we simply pray, maybe to Luci J. Nugent's "little monks," that an acceptable Republican is nominated? Or, if an unacceptable nominee emerges, and if Johnson has not changed his War policy, do we all get drunk on election day? The most iniquitous form of self-indulgence is a refusal...