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(!::