Students React to Humphrey’s Speech
Persevere lice
Is Shortcoming
Emerald Editor:
Vice President Humphrey’s speech
last Wednesday brought forth a number
of interesting points for discussion. In
reviewing some of the main ideas pre
sented, a certain number of faults can
be found.
Humphrey's over-glorified policy of
perseverance is perhaps one of the pri
mary shortcomings of the policy pre
sented by the Vice President. Actually,
his use of the term “perseverance” sounds
quite noble to some Americans who pic
ture it as an intangible god-like inner
strength.
In reality, our “perseverance” seems
to be the continuation of a grubby little
war for a number of years. From the
text of Humphrey's speech, I cannot
help but think that we will be displaying
our "perseverance” in Viet Nam until
the end of time or the end of all of Viet
Nam, whichever happens to come first.
"Perseverance” of this type has abso
lutely no place whatsoever in contempo
rary world politics.
Another mendacity concerns the mys
tical elections recently held in South
Viet Nam. The results of which, although
glorified by Humphrey, remain for the
most part unknown and mysterious to
the American people in general.
The Vice President stated that what
ever their decision is, it is "our decision
as well.” If it is a “democracy," Hum
phrey has indicated that the United
States will remain as a protective "um
brella” to ensure the safety of South
Viet Nam from any further Communist
advances.
I believe that in the light of our pres
ent military strategy, this protective
“umbrella" would oiler as much protec
tion as Eve’s leaves, now and well into
the future.
I'm quite convinced that somewhere
in our mighty arsenals of trained lead
ers and fantastic weapons we can
find the wherewithal to defeat a band
of brush fighting terrorists in a reason
ably short period of time.
We have Committed ourselves to the
battle in South Viet Nam and to leave
without first fulfilling this commitment
is sheer folly. A short decisive war is no
more desirable than a long drawn out
war.
However, I feel that a rapid victory is
more prudent than the policy of “perse
verance.”
Humphrey stated, when speaking of
world ailairs, that “none of us can
claim to know all the answers.” The
administration apparently doesn’t know
all of the answers but there is no basis
for using this obvious fact as an excuse
for the condition of our world policy.
The LBJ administration must find an
answer because it is credited with the
responsibility of doing so. However, from
the text of Humphrey’s speech, one can
only gather that the administration is
still looking for their answer, whatever
that may be.
Because of our over-cautious and half
hearted "war effort,” we have carried
on an unpopular war for a number of
years rather than neatly winning the
conflict in a short time.
Due to the indecision of the adminis
tration, we have failed not only the
Vietnamese but the citizens of the United
States of America as well.
Jeff Allyn Reingold
Freshman, Pre-Dent
Fine Sounding
Platitudes
Emerald Editor:
Humphrey’s speech, in so far as it
concerned Viet Nam, was a disappoint
ment. One is left with the impression
that the United States is merely helping
a free people to resist aggression.
The truth is that most of the Viet Cong
are still natives of the south and the
war has many elements of a civil war.
Ky and the ruling elite in Saigon still
represent the least reform minded and
most reactionary elements in the coun
try. And, the “elections” notwithstanding
(no doubt an election held in Viet Cong
controlled territory would show the peo
ple solidly behind the National Libera
tion Front) the Saigon government is
without popular support.
1 do not believe that Humphrey’s fine
sounding platitudes justify American in
volvement in Viet Nam. Even if it were
a clear case of aggression there is no
reason for the United States to take uni
lateral action; that role belongs to the
UN.
I find it difficult to understand how
such speeches as those recently made by
Humphrey square with American state
ments in the UN that we are not fighting
a "holy crusade” against Communism. I
believe that Humphrey failed to justify
our expansion of the war.
David H. Jackson
Graduate, Political
Science
Dealt in Superficialities
Emerald Editor:
As a foreign student I was bitterly
disappointed with two aspects of Vice
President Humphrey’s visit to the Uni
versity of Oregon on Wednesday last;
the nature of his speech and its recep
tion by the student body which largely
comprised the audience.
The speech was consistent in its pro
fessionalism, it was ably constructed and
well delivered. The “old pro’’ in Hum
phrey emerged when he turned the fault
in the public address equipment to his
own advantage. His manner was relaxed
and humor, albeit tinged with folksiness,
appreciated.
Humphrey can be accused of dealing
with superfiicialities, skirting controversy
and playing the “old student.” However
the fact that the Vice President of the
U.S. was allowed to issue meaningless
platitudes for almost half an hour demon
strates that he had at least assessed his
audience’s lack of perception, apathy and
general reluctance to be involved with
major problems.
It was hard to believe that a major war
is being fought in Viet Nam—a war
which threatens global peace.
In a university one usually expects the
left to be well represented; at least this
is true in England. The true radical ele
ment is not the beatnik fringe t>ut a genu
ine reactionary group attempting to pres
surize the complacency of fence-sitting
politicians.
At Hayward Field on Wednesday the
so-called protest group was small and
therefore ineffectual displaying its ba
nality with posters like, “May napalm
burn your fat face HHH.” They barely
deserved Humphrey’s contemptuous de
scription of a “side show.”
I trust that this occasion was not truly
representative of the political climate
here in U. of O. and that the passivity
demonstrated by the audience was a
hangover from the long summer vacation.
John G. Cocking
Senior, Physical
Education
Foreign Student Views
Emerald Editor:
For someone who is not a citizen of
the United States, attending Hubert
Humphrey’s speech was a fascinating
experience—not primarily because of
what the Vice President said, but to
watch the reactions of intelligent Amer
icans to one of their leaders in govern
ment.
There is no doubt about Humphrey’s
ability to speak in front of an audience
and to speak under conditions that were
at times, adverse. He Ls a clever politi
cian—if not a clever diplomat. He can
deliver a speech, the contents of which,
when analyzed, mean very little, and at
the same time emerge having stimulated
favorable reactions from his audience.
As a University student, I was disap
pointed in the content of his speech.
Having opened by flattering the Univer
sity of Oregon and by giving himself a
mental pat on the back, he went on to
say little more than that what he stood
for was good and what we stood for was
good, so together we would make a great
partnership.
Did you notice that halfway through
the speech he began to pound the ros
trum? An old oratorial trick whereby
the methodical, deliberate blows created
an almost hypnotic stimulus which no
one consciously perceived. The pitch of
his voice was perfect. Anyone who has
heard the compliant speeches of Ameri
can diplomats overseas will recognize the
same pleasant tone and measured use of
emotional material.
From what 1 could gather before the
actual speech, there was a comparatively
large section of the crowd who were not
supporters of the Vice President or of
his policies. I am not referring to the
bedraggled minority who made a half
hearted attempt to demonstrate, but to
persons who had come to decisions about
the Vice President beforehand.
Yet, after the opening half of the
speech. HHH could be said to have had
his audience ‘‘in the palm of his hand.”
The faces in the stands took on the ap
pearance of happy, trusting children,
FOCUS
■
R- i' imiihi;ii if iiiunt .•riiiiiiuiiiti....mimiiuitiuiifiuiu«i,>;ir iiii!iiMiaitiiUiUmiit!i':i(iiiiiiHilinmmtiniin(!::<m 'i.i.imm: . Mirimimiiim..- - m
UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItHIIHIIIIIIIIlHIItfllllllllllllllll1'
s. Vietnam
land REfOfiM
-v. i
1
tUi '•*- S-w-Vi*«
V'WE'RE CONSIDERING DECIDING ON PLANNING Jo THINK
Of IMPU/AENNNfi PROJfcCTfcD DESIGNS IN THAT DIRECTION..."
looking up to some paternal figure with
eager, shining eyes, listening to his kind
reassurance that everything will work
out well.
Do not misunderstand me at this stage.
Personally, I am neither for nor against
the government’s Viet Nam policy. In
fact, it means little to me one way or
another. What does concern me—as a
citizen of a small country which is
closely allied to the U.S.—is the readi
ness with which Americans—and highly
intelligent Americans—can be deceived
by an orator who is not even sure of
what he is saying, but who aims at one
thing: to leave the platform knowing
that he has won his audience.
Humphrey had calculated his appear
ance at the University of Oregon to be
a success. It had to be, coming at such a
precarious time, right after the demon
strations in Portland.
This visit, if successful, would certainly
be a feather in his cap. He put all his
faculties into it and won.
Let me close with a word of congratula
tions for the Vice President of the United
States. Never before has so long been
taken to say so little to so many with
such good results.
Heather H. Reyes
Graduate, Journalism
Humphrey
Was Sideshow
Emerald Editor:
Vice President Humphrey said that
those of us who protested his appear
ance here were a "sideshow.” I think
his speech illustrated how completely
he and his liberal friends are the side
show on the world stage.
Clearly, they understand not at all
the revolutionary fervor in such coun
tries as Viet Nam and the Dominican
Republic. To the end they will doubt
less be able to convince themselves that
guerrillas fighting to rid their countries
of U S. occupation troops are "aggres
sors” and that the Kys of their Free
World” are the bearers of “free elec
tions'' and “social reform.”
To the world this brand of "democ
racy” is symbolized by napalm and crop
defoliants. Who needs it?
B. H. Barlow
Graduate, Political
Science
Disgusted at Enthusiasm
Emerald Editor:
I was not so much disappointed by Mr.
Humphrey’s meaningless, hollow-sound
ing words as I was by the enthusiastic re
action of the several thousand spectators.
The Vice President’s exhortations of
peaceful intentions, support of national
self-determination, indefatigible efforts
of the U.S. to seek a peace settlement,
and repeated canting about repelling of
‘outside aggressors” are all belied by
the facts.
However, in a society where public
opinion and chauvinistic proseletyzing
are valued above the more complex tenets
of reason and morality, Mr. Humphrey’s
empty words, echoed locally by the ad
ministration yes-man Robert Duncan and,
apparently Charles Porter, are not too
surprising.
But does that excuse the rest of us?
We don't need to turn to the foreign
press or the liberal or left-wing periodi
cals to get a true understanding of the
crimes the U.S. is perpetrating in Viet
Nam: our mass media publications gloat
about them every day.
The man in the street glows righteously
when he reads of further steps taken by
the U.S. to carry out the destruction of
the culture, topography, and population
of a nearly defenseless, bleeding, agrar
ian country.
At the best Mr. Humphrey is a liar, at
the worst a criminal and a murderer.
But how about the rest of us? What
righteous platitudes do we hide behind
to close our eyes and ears to our rape of
Viet Nam.
The Nuremberg Court refused to expi
ate Germans on the grounds that they
could do nothing. The point was that
the Germans knew about the crimes and
by doing nothing, were guilty. The fact
that their leaders told them what was
right was not a factor. What’s the differ
ence between the Germans’ submissive
ness and ours? I don't see it.
Buzz Wiliits
VISTA Instructor