Memo from Leonard Lyons

Jan. 6, 1971

Kissinger After Dark

WASHINGTON (WP)—President Nixon's foreign affairs adviser Henry Kissinger went to California a week ahead of his boss, who leaves for San Clemente today.

Kissinger had taken advantage of those extra days to make the scene in Hollywood. He took out Jill St. John. But she didn't monopolize his time.

He escorted another actress, Joanna Barnes, to a party at the home of Laugh-In's Ed Friendly.

A Smith graduate, Joanna's first film role was the debutante in "Auntie Mame" in 1958. She was a prominent Boston deb herself six years earlier. Her Hollywood career has included a splash across Life magazine's pages as the Jane of a "Tarzan" revival.

She is also the author of a new novel, "The Deceivers" -which Kissinger hasn't read.

ACHTUNG!: Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's foreign policy adviser, may be a "swinger" in Washington social circles but the bachelor obviously cracks the whip at work. Eye hears his staffers keep looking for new jobs. And one may leave quietly in next month, unnoticed by White House press corps.

— Sam Golawyn never relinquished his mantle to his Sammy, Jr. — In Thalberg, Jr. and Brent Wallis showed no interest in following in the illustrious steps of their fathers — Arthur Loew, Jr. and Hays Goetz tried and failed. Danny Selznick is still trying, while his brother, Jeffrey, has turned to finance. . . Which leaves only Leo Jaffe's three sons, Stanley (president of Paramount), Howard (a producer at Columbia), Ira (in Columbia's N.Y. music dept.)MI Frankovich's son, Mike, Jr. (a production assistant at Columbia) and the lo Jack Cohn's son, Robert, and grandson Bruce, both producers, also at Columbia. to carry on the family tradition.

Brenda Vocarro's "Midnight Cowboy" and "I Love My Wife" have sketched her stage salary since her last Broadway appearance in the short-lived "Goodbye People" with Milton Berle. But Oliver Hailey feels that Brenda's current asking price of $2500 a week for her return in "Father's Day" is much, too soon. So Hailey, now at the Wyndham in N.Y., is scouting out good actress like, for instance, Janice Rule. . . . Jill St. John moves on Joanna Barnes is moving in on your territory — and I do mean Henry Kissinger. Mr. K., who doesn't go in for light fiction reading, happened to read Joanna first novel, "The Gay Deceivers," and liked it. Then he met Joanna, courted Arlene Dahl, and liked HER. So now he has another reason to enjoy commuting from Washington to L.A. because Joanna has moved back here from N.Y.

13 3/4
3 3/4
3 3/4
2 2/3
22 1/4
7 3/4
1 1/2
4 3/8
2 1/2
1 3/4
2 3/4
6
6 5/8
3 3/8
1 1/4
1 7/8
4 1/4
4 1/8
2 3/8
3 3/4
9
2 1/4
4 7/8

Hailey
rec-
ops

HUROK CONCERTS

730 FIFTH AVE., NEW YORK 10019

MARTIN FEINSTEIN

PUBLICITY DIRECTOR

ASSOCIATES

DALE HEAPPS

JAMES MURTHA

TELEPHONE CIRCLE B-0500

FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1971

BOX-OFFICE OPENS TODAY

FOR NUREYEV-AUSTRALIAN BALLET RUN

The box-office opens today at the City Center Theatre for the two-week engagement of The Australian Ballet featuring Rudolf Nureyev as guest artist. Presented by S. Hurok, the company will open on Tuesday, January 26 with Mr. Nureyev's production of "Don Quixote." This will mark the first appearance in New York for the Australian dancers.

On Thursday evening, January 28, another program will be presented featuring Sir Frederick Ashton's "Les Rendezvous," Sir Robert Helpmann's "Sun Music" and Mr. Nureyev's production of excerpts from "Raymonda."

The company is under the direction of Dame Peggy van Praagh and Sir Robert. Lucette Aldous of The Royal Ballet is listed as guest artist and will appear opposite Mr. Nureyev. Other members of the company include Alan Alder, Kelvin Coe, Elaine Fifield, Marilyn Jones, Ray Powell, Marilyn Rowe and Garth Welch. The company will remain here until February 7, after which they will resume their current tour which opened in Los Angeles on December 26. It will end in Boston on March 4.

#

KISSINGER, HENRY A./Newspapers and Clipping

JAN 20 1971

Dear Larry:

It was thoughtful of you to send me the
*Der Spiegel* article. I had seen it but an
extra copy to pass among my friends (and
enemies) is always useful. The news that
somebody loves me in Bonn is reassuring
- it is a phenomenon that is increasingly
rare back here.

It's always good to hear from you. Stay
in touch.

Mr. Larry Eagleburger
Office of the Political Advisor
USNATO
Brussels

JLJ:WL:jlj 1/19/71

AUSLAND

Lederessen oder am Telefon zu-
brachten, dominieren heute dicke
Teppiche, gestreifter Chintz und eng-
ische Teetische. Kissingers Büro hat
der Innenarchitekt unter anderem mit
deren blauen Teppich, gelben Vor-
hängen und, als Sitzgelegenheit für
Besucher, mit einem babyblauen
„Loveseat“ ausgestaltet. Es ist das Bü-
ro eines Stars. Das einzige, was hier
noch ein bißchen an Dr. Strangelove
erinnern könnte, ist der kleine graue
Fernsehschirm, der neben einem ab-
hörsicheren Telefon auf einem Side-
board hinter dem mächtigen Schreib-
tisch steht. Vermittels dieses Gräts
kann der Chef sich durch Knopfdruck
in die Büros von acht engen Mitarbei-
tern einblenden. „Big Brother“ Kis-
singer findet das „höllisch eindrucks-
voll“, aber entbehrlich. Als er dem
SPIEGEL das TV-Telephon neulich

Nixon-Mannschaft um mehrere
Haupteslängen. Er ist einfach besser
als seine Konkurrenz in der Regle-
rung. Er kann eine ganze Menge re-
publikanischer Polit-Profis an die
Wand argumentieren. Er ist das intel-
lektuelle Goldstück der reglerenden
Republikaner, das einzige.

Selbst wenn sich dies verheimlichen
ließe — Kissinger wäre nicht der Mann
dazu. Er packt seine Verachtung für
das kleine Karo, das um ihn herum
getragen wird, in subtile Selbstironie.
Wenn er zum Beispiel mit Nixons
ebenso jungem wie unbedeutendem
Pressesprecher Ronald Ziegler zusam-
men vor den Reportern erscheint, dann
macht er daraus bei jeder Gelegenheit
einen Auftritt, der an die traditionel-
len Hickhack-Shows von Bob Hope
und Bing Crosby erinnert. Die Manier,
mit der er sich dann als unwissendes,

gungswahn, und das Angenehme an
diesem Job in der Regierung ist, daß
meine Feinde hier wirklich existent
sind."

Überhaupt läßt Kissinger keine
Chance aus, darauf aufmerksam zu
machen, daß er jede Menge Messer im
Rücken habe; und er trägt sie mit
einer Mischung aus Stolz und komi-
scher Verzweiflung. „Bitte beachten
Sie das Verhältnis echten Vertrauens
und gegenseitiger Unterstützung, das
im Stab des Weißen Hauses herrscht.
In Harvard habe ich zehn Jahre ge-
braucht, mich total mit meiner Umge-
bung zu verfeinden. Ich möchte Sie
darauf hinweisen, daß mir dies hier in
achtzehn Monaten gelungen ist."

Geistreich ist er auch noch, das
kommt erschwerend hinzu. Der Mann,
der bei John F. Kennedy weniger we-
gen seiner politischen Überzeugung als
vielmehr wegen seines schwerblütigen
Stils (oder besser: wegen Mangels an
einer speziellen Leichtfüßigkeit) nicht
reüssierte — in Nixons Washington, wo
man dem Babysitter risikolos ver-
sprechen kann, vor Mitternacht wieder
zu Hause zu sein, hier ist Henry Kis-
singer wahrhaftig „the only show in
town“.

Aber auch dieser vergleichsweise
belanglose Umstand ist unversehens
zur Legende aufgewertet worden. Die
vielköpfige Fama Washingtons hat den
„swinger“ in Henry Kissinger entdeckt
— eben den Bruder Leichtfuß, den
Draufgänger, den „Playboy of the We-
stern Wing“. Dabei mag, vollends bei
rechtskonservativen Republikanern,
eine Rolle spielen, daß er nicht (mehr)
verheiratet, also „zu haben“ ist. Kis-
singer selbst hat, mit charakteristi-
scher Selbstironie, bloß darum gebe-
ten, sein Frauenheldentum dann we-
nigstens als geheim zu betrachten. Er
sei, hat er (auf einer Party in der
Türkischen Botschaft) gesagt, ein
„secret swinger“.

In Wahrheit ist er noch nicht einmal
das. Mit achtzehn Jahren hat er, beim
nächtlichen Adressenschreiben in New
York, das schöne deutsche Flücht-
lingsmädchen Anna Fleischer kennen-
gelernt; sieben Jahre später, 1949, als
er bereits unterwegs war zu akademi-
schen Ehren, hat er sie geheiratet.
Genug Zeit gefunden für seine Ehe hat
er freilich nie, obwohl er es immer
wieder versucht hat. Seine Tochter
Elizabeth ist erst nach zehn Ehejahren
zur Welt gekommen, 1959, sein Sohn
David 1962. Im Frühjahr 1963 haben
die Eltern sich endgültig getrennt, seit
1964 sind sie geschieden. Henry Kis-
singer hat diese Scheidung nicht leicht
genommen. Die Kinder will er einmal
monatlich sehen, nimmt sie auch gern
mit nach San Clemente und teilt ihre
Vorliebe für eine bestimmte „Tour“ im
„Disneyland“, bettetit: „It’s a small,
small world.“

In Washington sieht man ihn zuwei-
len mit diversen Damen um die Drei-
ßig, alle blond, alle größer als er, alle
ungewöhnlich gescheit: Gloria Steinem
zum Beispiel, Kolumnistin des „New
York“-Magazins, oder Nancy McGin-
nis, Tochter reicher Leute aus New
York, derzeit Doktorandin der Ge-

Sicherheits-Beauftragter Kissinger im Weißen Haus: Parodie auf Dr. Strangelove

mit viel Spaß am Spiel vorführte, wa-
ren die Büros der Mitarbeiter bereits
verlassen, und so ließ er auf der Matt-
scheibe nur sein eigenes Konterfei er-
scheinen.

Kein Zweifel, daß Henry Kissinger
Spaß daran hat, sein Bild, sein persön-
liches Monogramm, in den Hervor-
bringungen der Regierungsapparatur
wiederzufinden, deren Knöpfe er be-
dient. Im Scherz gibt er das auch zu:
„Tut mir leid, daß ich nicht kommen
konnte. Ich mußte den Geburtstag
meines Schutzheiligen feiern — Bis-
marck.“ Oder: „Nächste Woche kann es
keine Krise geben. Mein Termin-
kalender ist schon voll.“

Im Ernst überrag der Professor für
politische Wissenschaften aus dem
efeubewachsenen Campus von Har-
vard das aus Rechtsanwaltbüros oder
aus Werbeagenturen wie J. Walter
Thompson rekrutierte Mittelmaß der

willenloses Werkzeug des allmächti-
gen Pressesprechers ausgibt, müßte
jeden, der über ein empfindliches
Sensorium verfügt als Ziegler, zutiefst
beleidigen.

Ganz ungerochen bleibt dergleichen
denn auch nicht. John Mitchell, Ju-
stizminister, Nixon-Intimus und (nur
noch von seiner Frau Martha über-
troffene) Party-Plaudertasche der re-
publikanischen Reaktion, hat Kissin-
ger gelegentlich einen „egozentrischen
Wahnsinnigen“ genannt, „der sich
gern mit Jill St. John (einem Holly-
wooder Sex-Symbol) in den Zeitungen
abgebildet sieht. Aber wenn er wieder
in seinem Büro ist, dann ist er wirklich
ein brillanter Mann.“

Kissinger, nicht maulfaul, hat sich
alsbald (auf einer Party in der Deut-
schen Botschaft) revanchiert: „Man hat
mich des Größenwahns bezichtigt. In
Wahrheit leide ich aber an Verfol-

80

AUSLAND

Schüler Kissinger*
Prügelei in der Mannschaft

Intelligence Corps. Mit zweijundzwanzig Jahren (im Mai 1945) war er Stadtkommandant von Krefeld, dann verantwortlich für die Verwaltung des Landkreises Heppenheim an der Bergstraße. Militärisch machte er als Instrukteur einer amerikanischen Geheimdienstschule in Oberammergau Karriere; letzter Dienstgrad: Captain.

Nicht gut genug für Kissinger. Mit Hilfe eines Kriegsteilnehmer-Stipendiums begann er, nach der Entlassung aus der Army, eine akademische Karriere, in Harvard, als Historiker und Politologe: 1950 Bachelor of Arts (summa cum laude), 1952 Master of Arts und 1954 eine mit dem Sumner-Preis ausgezeichnete Doktorarbeit (Ph. D.) über die Verhütung von Kriegen.

Seine beiden wichtigsten Bücher schrieb Kissinger gleichzeitig; beide erschienen 1957: ein historisches („A World Restored“) über Metternich, Castlereagh und den Wiener Kongreß, das eine gewisse Verehrung für Metternichs Meisterschaft erkennen läßt, Politik sozusagen auf dem Schachbrett zu machen; ferner ein militärispolitisches, eben jene Untersuchung über „Kernwaffen und Auswärtige Politik“, worin Kissinger, entgegen der damals gültigen Dulles-Stra tegie massiver nuklearer Abschreckung, begrenzte Atomkriege für denkbar hält.

So begann die politische Karriere des Henry A. Kissinger — eine Karriere, deren Widersprüchlichkeit nur noch von ihrem Erfolg überboten wird.

Der General Eisenhower, Präsident und Vater-Symbol der Republikaner, konsultierte ihn als Militär-Experten. Der Demokrat John F. Kennedy machte ihn zum Berater in Fragen der nationalen Sicherheit. Das Engagement ging zu Bruch, als Kissinger, ehemal dem Advokat des Einsatzes strategischer Atomwaffen, sich mit Kennedy justament über dessen Projekt einer

multilateralen Atomflotte für die Nato zerstritt — nicht zuletzt deshalb, weil Kissinger dagegen war, die Deutschen auch nur in die Nähe des atomaren Drückers zu lassen.

Als überzeugter Republikaner kehrte er nach Harvard zurück. Von hier aus reiste er, nach Kennedys Ermordung, im Auftrag des Demokraten Lyndon B. Johnson dreimal nach Vietnam und entwarf schließlich einen Vietnäm-Friedensplan für den Republikaner Nelson Rockefelleren, den er im Kampf um die republikanische Kandidatur für die Präsidentschaftswahlen des Jahres 1968 aktiv unterstützte — gegen Richard Nixon.

Es gibt Beobachter des republikanischen Parteikonvents in Miami 1968, die Kissinger, nach Nixons Sieg über Rockefeller, zutiefst deprimiert gesessen haben. Er hielt Nixon damals einfach nicht für fähig, die Nation aus dem Indochina-Konflikt zu lösen und im Innern zusammenzuführen. Frühe Abwerbungsversuche aus dem Nixon-

keinesfalls noch einmal bloß Berater einer Regierung sein werde (wie er es früher war) — ein Weiser ohne Weisungsbefugnis, ein Mann, dessen Ratschlag von der etablierten Bürokratie einfach überrollt werden kann. Für ihn ist die Relativierung der populären These, Wissen sei Macht, eine ärgerliche Erfahrung.

Macht, sagt Henry Kissinger, „ist das größte Aphrodisiacum“. Gemeint ist, daß mächtigen Männern die Frauen scharenweise nachlaufen. Doch der Gag charakterisiert auch Kissinger selbst. Macht auszuüben, stimuliert ihn, bewirkt eine Steigerung seines Selbstgefühls, die keine Kontemplation ihm geben kann.

Aber das alles ist nur die halbe Wahrheit, ist nur der halbe Kissinger — nur die eine Seele in seiner deutschen Brust.

Der andere Kissinger ist Historiker — „und wenn man als Historiker eines begreifen lernt, dann die Vergänglichkeit der Macht, der politischen Strukturen, auch der Staaten“. Er weiß: „Nichts ist schwerer für Amerika, als die reale Möglichkeit des Tra-gischen zu verstehen.“

Der andere Kissinger ist Pessimist. Er hegt tiefe, unausrottbare Zweifel an der weltverbessernden Wirkksamkeit jeglicher Machtausübung. Er vermag nicht zu glauben, daß eine Regierung, und sei es die mächtigste der Welt, überhaupt etwas Entscheidendes am beklagenswerten Befinden der Menschheit ändern kann.

„Henrys Ansichten über sozialen Wandel“, sagt einer seiner alten Freunde, „erinnern mich an Goethes Ausspruch: Wenn er zu wählen hätte zwischen Unordnung und Ungerechtigkeit, würde er sich für Ungerechtigkeit entscheiden. Das gilt auch für Henry — nicht weil er für Ungerechtigkeit wäre, sondern weil er bis ins Mark davon durchdrungen ist, daß es ohne Ordnung keine Gerechtigkeit geben kann.“

Soziale, aber auch institutionelle Veränderungen haben in diesem Konzept der Bewahrung und der Balance nur dann Platz, wenn sie das Gleich-

Soldat Kissinger*
Karriere im Geheimdienst

Lager wies er brück ab — weil er sich überhaupt nicht vorstellen konnte, daß Nixon je auch nur eine Zeile aus seinen Entwürfen übernehmen würde. Aber im Dezember des nämlichen Jahres 1968 akzeptierte er, unter allgemeinem Applaus, die Ernennung zum Sicherheits-Beauftragten des gewählten Präsidenten Nixon.

Warum? Freunde in Harvard meinen, Henry Kissinger habe einer Chance, „so viel Einfluß auszuüben“, noch nie widerstehen können. Er, der Bismarck mehr als Metternich bewundert („Germanys greatest modern figure“), sei diesmal in der festen Absicht nach Washington gegangen, „den Bismarck bei Kaiser Nixon zu spielen“.

Da ist was dran. Der Typ Gelehrter, der nichts weiter im Sinn hat, als aus Tinten und Tuben seine Pandekten satt zu machen, ist Henry Kissinger in der Tat nie gewesen. Er ist nicht nur an der Ansammlung, sondern vor allem an der Anwendung von Wissen interessiert. Er sagt ganz offen, daß er

* Oben: In Fürth, vor der Auswanderung. Mitte: Als amerikanischer Sergeant, 1945 auf dem Obersalzburg.

Kissinger-Eltern Paula, Louis Inkognito in der Küche

82

AUSLAND

verneinte. Dann, sagte Nixon, sollen
die Herren bleiben, wo sie sind, und
erst herüberkommen, wenn etwas zu
entscheiden ist: „Ich will mich nicht
von einer Menge taktischer Überlegun-
gen behindern lassen, die nicht meines
Amtes sind.“

Der Mann, mit dem allein Richard Nixon noch reden will, nachdem Henry Kissinger ihm die Optionen präsentiert hat, ist Henry Kissinger. Ihn fußt er, wenn er das Für und Wider im Dialog abwägen will, wenn er Zweifel hat, wenn er mehr Informationen braucht. Und erst, wenn die Entscheidung praktisch schon feststeht, zieht der Präsident sich zurück, um sie — einsam — zu treffen.

Solche Nähe zu Nixon bedeutet für
Kissinger Glorie und Gefahr zugleich.

Die Glorie tarnt er fürs erste mit der gewohnten Selbstironie: „Heute morgen war ich allein mit dem Präsidenten in seinem Büro; da beugte er sich über den Tisch und sagte: Henry, ich würde Ihnen ja gern meine Pläne für Vietnam enthüllen, wenn nur nicht soviile Leute im Zimmer wären.“

Den Platz so nahe beim Thron aber
teilt Kissinger, Spaß beisetel, mit nie-
mandem. Keiner seiner Stabshelfer
hat direkt mit dem Präsidenten zu tun,
alle Pläne und alle Entwürfe erreichen
Nixon in Kissingers Namen. Und der
kann im vertrauten Kreise ganz schön
sarkastisch werden, wenn jemand bei-
spielsweise behaupten will, der Ro-
gers-Plan für die Befriedung des Na-
hen Ostens stamme tatsächlich von
Außenminister Rogers und sei nicht
etwa in Kissingers fabelhafter Denk-
fabrik ausgearbeitet worden.

Der Vorwurf, zum „Ein-Mann-
Außenministerium“ der Nixon-Admi-
nistration geworden zu sein, fällt für
Kissinger bestimmt mehr unter Glorie
als unter Gefährdung. Wohl weist er,
zu Recht, darauf hin, daß William Ro-
gers als alter und vertrauter Freund
Nixons jederzeit direkten Zugang zum
Präsidenten habe und obendrein auf
den Plenarsitzungen des Nationalen
Sicherheitsrats Einspruch erheben
könne, wenn er der Meinung sein soll-
te, die Auswahl der Optionen sei ma-
nipuliert. Aber Kissinger braucht die
Optionen gar nicht zu manipulieren.
Nixon fragt ihn sowieso irgendwann
nach seiner Meinung. „Und wenn ich
sage, ich mag Option A lieber als Op-
tion B“, konzediert Kissinger kokett,
„dann macht das schon großen Ein-
druck auf ihn.“

Die Gefahr der Nähe zu Nixon liegt
für Henry Kissinger denn auch eher
darin: vor lauter Einfluß nicht mehr zu
Einsichten zu kommen; immer mehr
Macher zu sein und immer weniger
Denker.

Angetreten hat er dieses Amt mit
dem Auftrag, vornehmlich langfristige
Planungen anzuregen. Heute kümmert
er sich fast nur noch um Probleme der

Tagespolitik, oder er betreibt aktuelles
Krisenmanagement*. Er ist mehr und
mehr zum Juniorchef der Exekutive
geworden. Seine Entscheidungsbefug-
nisse wachsen. Aber im Unterschied zu
den Ministerien, die er überspielt,
bleibt er, als Beauftrager des Präsi-
denten, der parlamentarischen Kon-
trolle des Kongresses weitgehend ent-
zogen.

Als er das Amt antrat, war auch
nicht die Rede davon, daß er der
außenpolitische Sprecher der Regie-
rung sein und mit der Presse Umgang
pflegen solle. Heute reist er sogar
durch die Lande und verklart eigens
zusammengetrommelten Provinzre-
dakteuren die „Vietnamisierung“ und
die „Nixon-Doktrin“. Er macht das
glänzend, denn er ist ja der eigentliche
Urheber. Aber er macht es, teils aus
Takt und teils aus Taktik, nur anonym.
Man darf ihn nie mit Namen, immer

lektuellen, die ins Regierungsgeschäft
gehen, ihr nur zu gern erliegen: „Die
haben dann plötzlich bloß noch einen
Ehrgeiz — möglichst perfekte ,opera-
tors', Funktionierer, zu sein“, und hal-
ten „computerization“ schon für poli-
tische Planung.

Nicht so Kissinger. Er ist nicht nur
besser als die Konkurrenz, er ist auch
skeptischer. Die „Polarisierung zwi-
schen Leuten, die nur denken, und
Leuten, die nur handeln“, hat er kurz
vor seinem Amtsantritt in einem
SPIEGEL-Gespräch gesagt (SPIEGEL-
4/1969), „ist eine der Kernfragen un-
serer Zeit. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich sie
lösen kann. Ich allein werde es nicht
können.“

Natürlich nicht. Aber auch sein „Sy-
stem“ wird es nicht können. Selbst
Mitarbeiter Kissingers und ihm wohl-
gesonnene Reglerungsbeamte geraten
in Verlegenheit, wenn sie sagen sollen,

Krisenmanager Kissinger im Lagerofern des Weißen Hauses: „Es ist unmöglich“

nur als „Regierungskreise“ zitieren,
kann sich also auch nicht auf ihn be-
rufen. Die stenographischen Nieder-
schriften dieser „background-brie-
fings“ kann nicht einmal der Auswär-
tige Ausschuß des Senats einsehen,
auch nicht auf ausdrückliche Anforde-
rung.

Als Wissenschaftler aber lebt Kis-
singer seit bald zwei Jahren bloß noch
„vom Kapital“. Er liest mehr Geheim-
berichte als der Präsident, aber für
Bücher reicht die Zeit in der Regel
nicht; letzte Ausnahme, an die er sich
erinnern kann: die Memoiren des
Albert Speer — der für Hitler ja nicht
nur Baumeister, sondern zuweilen
auch so eine Art Kissinger gewesen ist.
Der Akademiker, der Historiker Kis-
singer aber, der als Exempel für einen
besonders schwierigen Verhandlungs-
fall immer noch gern „the Schleswig-
Holstein question“ zitiert, hat Pause.

Diese Gefahr sieht Kissinger genau.
Er weiß auch, daß die meisten Intel-

ob die amerikanische Außenpolitik in
irgendeiner entscheidenden Frage klä-
rer formuliert oder anders ausgeführt
worden wäre, wenn es kein „Kissin-
ger-System“ gäbe. Die meisten neigen
dazu, die Frage zu verneinen oder in
die Feststellung auszuweichen, gewiß
sei man, dank Kissinger, in einigen
Fällen besser vorbereitet und einge-
hender unterrichtet gewesen.

Nicht verhindert hat das „Kissinger-
System“ die neuerlichen Bomben-
würfe auf Nordvietnam; auch nicht
den — miserabel vorbereiteten —
Handstreich zur Befreiung amerikanis-
scher Kriegsgefangener.

Aber das liegt nicht am „System“.
Das liegt eher an jenen unverhofften
Gemeinsamkeiten von Henry Kissin-
ger und Richard Nixon. Beide haben
den Kommunisten nie getraut, beide
haben im Kalten Krieg ihre ideologi-
schen Schlachten geschlagen. Und seit
der Kalte Krieg zu Ende ist, sind sie
beide die Sorge nicht losgeworden, in

* In Krisenfällen reduziert sich das, aus Zeitgründen dann nicht mehr funktionsflüssige, „Kissinger-System“ auf die „Washington Special Action Group“, einen notfalls in Permanenz tagenden Krisenstab, zusammengesetzt aus Staatssekretären, dem Geheimdienstchef und dem Chef des Generalstabs. Vorsitzender: Henry Kissinger.

DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 52/1970

87

AUSLAND

ihrer Bereitschaft zur Entspannung
mäßverstanden, in ihrer Entschlossen-
heit zur Verteidigung des freien We-
stens unterschätzt zu werden. Der
Versuchung, den militärischen Muskel
spielen zu lassen, fallen sie schon des-
halb immer wieder anheim, weil sie
beide so finster entschlossen sind,
Amerika nicht als „pitiful, helpless
giant“ erscheinen und sich selber
nicht vor den Augen der „schweigen-
den Mehrheit“ herumschubsen zu las-
sen, schon gar nicht von diesen Roten.

Das „System“ wiederum hat, nach
Kissingers eigener Definition, bislang
mindestens drei Probleme politischer
Planung nicht lösen können.

Erstens die Frage der Prioritäten:
„Als Wissenschaftler konnte ich mich
mit einem Problem so lange beschäft-
tigen, bis ich glaubte, es im Griff zu
haben. Hier (in der Reglerung) habe
ich die Probleme erst einmal in der
Reihenfolge ihrer politischen Dring-
lichkeit zu ordnen.“ Das fällt einem
Wissenschaftler schon schwer genug.
Obడeinreiner gerät „gelegentlich alles
durcheinander, und man kriegt plötz-
lich ein Problem vor den Kopf ge-
knallt, das eigentlich erst weiter unten
auf der Prioritätenliste steht, das man
zwar erkannt, für das man aber ein-
fach noch keine Zeit gefunden hat“.

Zweitens das Problem, die Absichten des Gegners richtig zu erkennen: „Es ist unmöglich“, gesteht Kissinger, Geheimdienst hin, Geheimdienst her. Was zum Beispiel hat die Russen bewogen, in offenkundiger Verletzung des zuvor von ihnen akzeptierten Nahost-Waffenstillstands ihre Raketenbasen am Suezkanal vorzuverlegen? Kissinger gibt zu, daß ihn dies ratlos gelassen hat. Für ihn ist es geradezu „die Tragödie der Außenpolitik, daß die Skala möglicher Handlungen so groß, die Kenntnis aber, auf die solche Handlungen sich stützen, so begrenzt ist“.

Drittens die Frage, ob und wie die
intellektuell gefundenen Lösungen in
die Tat umgesetzt werden können.
Hier hat Kissinger die Bürokratie
nicht überholt, im Gegenteil: „Außen-
seiter glauben, eine Anordnung des
Präsidenten wird immer ausgeführt.
Unsinn! Ich verbringe eine Menge
Zeit damit, mich darum zu kümmern,
dafür sie auch wirklich ausgeführt wird.“

Bloß falsche Bescheidenheit ist es
also nicht, wenn er sagt: „Ich weiß
nicht, wie lange man diesen Job ma-
chen soll. Man muß schon sehr an der
Sache interessiert sein, sonst wird man
verrückt.“

Die größte Gefahr der Nähe zu Ni-
xon ist für Henry Kissinger deshalb
die Entfernung von seiner akademie-
schen Basis. Eins bedingt das andere —
mindestens solange in Vietnam noch
gekämpft und an den Universitäten
dagegen protestiert wird. Mit anderen
Worten: Kissingers künftige Karriere
als Akademiker hängt unmittelbar mit
einem ehrenvollen Abzug der Ameri-
kaner aus Indochina zusammen.

Es gibt da Zeichen, die Kissinger
schrecken. Der ehemalige Außenmini-
ster Dean Rusk zum Beispiel hat sich
mit einem Lehrauftrag für Interna-

tionales Recht an der, gewiß nicht ge-
rade führenden, University of Geor-
gia abfinden müssen (was Kissinger
glättet). Und auch der Präsidenten-Berater
Walt Rostow, ehedem Wirtschaftspro-
fessor am ehrwürdigen, Harvard un-
mittelbar benachbarten „Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology“, ist nach
seinem Abschied aus dem Weißen
Haus dort nicht mehr aufgenommen
worden; nur die University of Texas
in Austin hat ihn noch nehmen wollen.
Seither fragt Kissinger die Damen, die
ihm umschwärmen, ob sie sich wohl
auch in Texas oder in Arizona wohl
fühlen würden.

Daß aus solchem Scherz alsbald bit-
terer Ernst werden könnte, ist Kissin-
ger spätestens in den Tagen nach der
amerikanischen Invasion Kambos-
dschas klargeworden.

Kissinger hat nie gesagt, und tut es
auch heute nicht, daß er Nixon zu dem

Die Professoren aber lehnten das ab,
da sie nicht in irgendwelche Geheim-
dienst-Hintergründe einer Affäre ver-
wickelt werden wollten, die sie mora-
lisch verurteilten. Dies, sagte Kissin-
ger, schließe dann freilich jede Mög-
lichkeit aus, die Kollegen zu einer Re-
vision ihres Urteils zu überreden.
„Also“, berichtet Tom Schelling, „sagte
ich ‚Danke, Henry‘, und wir gingen.“

Für Kissinger war das „eine
schmerzliche Begegnung“ — und bei
weitem nicht die einzige. Aller Ter-
minnot zum Trötz (und kaum bemerkt
von der Öffentlichkeit) lud er sich in
den schwierigen Wochen nach der
Kambodscha-Entscheidung mehrmals
nicht nur ehemalige Kollegen zu
Streitgesprächen ins Weiße Haus,
sondern vor allem auch Studenten. Es
ging ihm dabei weniger darum, den
Dissens zu bekämpfen, als vielmehr
die Entfremdung — zwischen Staat
und Studenten, Kissinger und Campus.

Disputant Kissinger, protestierende Studenten (in Washington): Zurück nach Harvard?

Einmarsch geraten habe. Er drückt
sich da bewußt unklar aus. Allenfalls
sagt er: „Es war ein haariges Problem,
und Für und Wider waren annähernd
gleich verteilt.“ Im übrigen könne man
aus dem Umstand, daß er nicht zurück-
getreten sei, ja Schlüsse auf seinen
Standpunkt ziehen. Aber die linken
Studenten und die liberalen Professo-
ren hatten eigentlich erwartet, daß er
aus Protest gegen die Invasion zurück-
treten werde.

Im Mai dieses Jahres erschienen
zwölf ehemalige Harvard-Kollegen bei
Kissinger im Weißen Haus, um ihm
(und anschließend der Presse) zu sa-
gen, sie seien über die Kambodscha-
Entscheidung derart schockiert, daß
sie die Beziehungen zu ihm abbrachen
wollten. Tom Schelling, Wirtschafts-
professor aus Harvard, schildert Kiss-
singers Reaktion so: „Er saß da und
hörte zu. Er fragte, ob wir vertraulich
weiterreden könnten, damit er die
Entscheidung besser erklären könne.“

In Wahrheit würde er, kehrte er
heute nach Harvard zurück, kaum noch
Schwierigkeiten mit den Kollegen von
der Fakultät, allenfalls Konfronta-
tionen mit den Studenten zu gewärti-
gen haben. Er hat Freunde in Harvard,
die sich die (wahrscheinlich übertrie-
bene) Sorge machen, daß dann Studen-
ten mit Plakaten demonstrieren gehen
könnten, auf denen Henry Kissinger
ein Kriegsverbrecher genannt würde.

Ob er zurückkehren will nach Har-
vard oder ob er in Nixons Nähe bleiben
will — das muß er in diesen Tagen
entscheiden. Denn wenn der an das
Weiße Haus ausgeliehene Professor
Kissinger nicht bis Februar seine
Lehrtätigkeit wiederaufgenommen hat,
verliert er seine ordentliche Professur.

Er wird wohl in Nixons Nähe bleiben
— mit seinem Einfluß, seinen
Zweifeln, seiner Selbstironie und sei-
ner stillen Befürchtung, „zu enden wie
Walt“.

Oder wie Strangelove.

DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 52/1970

89

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

FEB 2 1971

Dear Lionel:

Thank you for your letter of January 9
enclosing your article for "The Spectator"
on the Heath visit.

I am glad to learn that even though advancing
years account for your reluctance to start a
book, they are unable to hold down the mighty
pen you wield in other areas. My own writing
is held to a minimum these days, but not
through choice.

It was good hearing from you. Please keep
in touch.

Mr. Lionel Gelber
The Europa Hotel
Grosvenor Square
London, W. 1
England

jlj 1/28/71

Translation

of an article by Axel Springer

DIE WELT, 12.1.1971

NO "ERSATZ" FOR RIGHT AND LIBERTY

The year before us is a year of destiny
for Germany, for Europe. For 1971 will
decide the fate of the new, and yet al-
ready aged Ostpolitik of the west German
Government.

By the end of 1970 this policy had got
out of breath; pierced by the pinpricks
and bayonet stabs from east Berlin, chilled
by the cold douches from Moscow and at the
same time heated by the shooting in Danzig
and Stettin. Fatigued by the small, middle
sized and lastly the great steps in unre-
warded rapprochement and one-sided changes.

This year we will know whether what was
well meant was also well done.

The decision stands and falls in Berlin.

If it is to stand and not to fall, Moscow
and east Berlin will have to dismantle
the crisis lever. They will have to withdraw
the claim that west Berlin lies on the
territory of the "GDR" and is an independent
political entity; they will have to confirm
the superior responsibility of the Soviet

2

Union also for civilian traffic on the
access routes, and recognise the political
ties and the bonds joining west Berlin
with the Federal Republic.

For if Moscow and east Berlin fail to do
all of these there will be nothing which
could rightly be called a "Berlin settle-
ment." And if there is not such a settle-
ment, there will be no success for this
Ostpolitik but, instead, Berlin will be
jeopardized.

The old year ended with the traditional
words of enmity from the mouthpieces of
that "other side" to whom the Federal
Government is offering partnership. The
year ended with malice and chicanerie at
the checkpoints, and again, it ended with
shooting at the Wall in Berlin - which
the Federal Government respects as a
reality - shots at a fugitive, shots from
East to West.

But so long as negotiations proceed, at
least they do not shoot? Negotiations are
proceeding, and the shooting goes on. Is it
"primitive anti-communism" to say this? This
catchword has been heard frequently again
lately. It is aimed at all who are concerned
to warn.

3

But it misses. So long as Communists preach
and use primitive violence, so long as world
revolution remains the distant and immediate
goal of communist policy, so long is resistance
against communism a matter of judgement,
steadfastness, of the attitude to right and
justice - a matter of survival in freedom.
The right to resist wrong is a basic right
of free society.

This resistance is didated not merely by
emotion
feeling but also by understanding. It is
neither intelligent nor wise to belittle
the shots fired at Polish workers and the
harrying of Soviet intellectuals as the
self-defence of a system in difficulties,
the SED-s invective against "social demo-
cratism
in the Federal Republic as insigni-
ficant propaganda, and the obstruction of
traffic to and from Berlin as mere tactical
episodes.

Such self-decei<br>helps the adversary, who
does not become a partner merely because he
is given the name. In reality there is no
sign of partnership. Nobody could reveal or
a
give a credible prospect of even/community
of interests by the end of the past year.

4

The attempt at technical contacts is
justified. It is sensible to examine what
is possible, what impossible - whatever
the result of the test. But to overload such
attempts with ambitious hopes is the reverse
of sober and risks dangerous disillusionment.

It is of course still more dangerous to feed
the hope that reconciliation with the peoples
of the East (the most important and natural
ultimate aim of all reasonable people in this
country) can be achieved with a policy of
understanding and appeasement towards the
governments those people are exposed to.

It is dangerous to forget who actually stands
on the other side.

It was dangerous to assume that the summit
conference of the east bloc states would
bring the SED regime to reason and to build
bridges to the Federal Republic - dangerous
because it was an illusion, as events soon
showed.

It is altogether dangerous to pretend to
descry between Moscow and its vassals, es-
pecially its satraps in east Berlin, dif-
ferences which are just not there, for the
stage managers in the Kremlin are masters of disguise.
Metteur en scène in the Kremlin are virtuous
easting directors as well.

5

It was dangerous to overlook the difference
between the Polish people and the communist
Government in Warsaw, for the fatal lesson
followed at once.

It was dangerous to prophesy progress in the
ambassadors' talks in Berlin for the end of
the past year, for these prophecies awakened
hopes whose destruction costs strength to
resist.

NOT FORGETTING THE ADDRESSEE

It simply must not be forgotten that the
addressee of the Ostpolitik is a power which
for very obvious motives desires the political
death of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Anyone who forgets or denies this is pursuing
not only moral disarmament but also a policy
of defencelessness in the cause itself. The
cause is not the defence of untenable legal
positions on yellowed paper. It is the cause
of right and liberty for today and tomorrow,
which are weakened by persistent casting of
doubt.

Woever fails to make right and liberty the
measures of politics prepares - though perhaps
involuntarily - their end. Nothing has changed
this knowledge since the Weimar years.

Germans have never had the right to be the schoolmasters of other nations. And if they ever had it, then it would have been forfeited in the era which ended 25 years ago. But this frightful phase of wrong done in the name of Germany imposes on the generation now responsible a special duty: never again to make a pact with wrong! This generation's perceptiveness has been sharpened by the wrong of their own historic guilt, and it should be least disturbing where new guilt of others resembles the old German guilt.

It was a dictatorship which involved the German people in wrong. They are dictatorships to which the Federal Government is stretching out its hand. In this light it particularly concerns the Germans when the Nobel Prize winner Solzhenitsin is declared an enemy of the Soviet people, and when the young writer Amalrik suffers in the Siberian winter for having called out for freedom. Or when Jews are refused the right to travel. Or when the state of Israel has its life endangered with the help of Russian rockets and Soviet diplomats.

German ears most of all should have burned and hurt when the cry for help rang out for resistance to the trials of Russian Jews whose only crime was attempted escape in despair at an inhuman ban on their emigration.

7

And it strikes the German conscience when Czechoslovakia, which suffered under German conquest a third of a century ago, now suffers under Soviet occupation and under the policy of its creatures. It takes only small steps to cross the border between cooperation and complicity.

The wrong is committed within and on the borders recognized by the treaties of Moscow and Warsaw. What has happened and is happening there compels all politically-minded Germans to take a stand, to maintain morale and to examine whether under these conditions a policy of understanding, adjustment, of appeasement can be possible or even only just, with the governments responsible.

The communist governments which the Ostpolitik addresses are violent because of their weakness. This weakness alone, if nothing else, would force them to refuse to build a bridge to the West. The past year brought abundant evidence of this.

The new year will bring the proof. It will bring disappointments to all who believe anything different.

8

This price for repeating old experiences
will be high enough. It would be fatal to
pay it with the loss of credibility as well.
To this credibility belongs - inconvenient
as it is - confrontation, maintained for as
long as the realities on the other side
require it.

This calls for patience over years, perhaps
over decades. But it takes a long wind to
run with the course of history. The shortwinded
cannot keep up.

Year after year the lines will be switched
and reswitched. May it be hoped that in 1971
what was groundlessly endangered by wrong
routing in the past year can be brought back
on the track.

From "DIE WELT", January 12, 1971

NEW YORK POST, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1971

Max Lerner

ON KISSINGER

I can't bring myself to believe it is real. This whole business about an East Coast Conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger has to be a publisher's come-on for a political suspense story to appear soon. Doubtless it will be called "The President's Adviser Vanishes."

When asked to put up or shut up Edgar Hoover has put up—if not the actual evidence then at least a grand jury indictment. Let's wait for the evidence, to see whether there is a core of substance to it, or whether the whole cargo should be sent back to harbor in the suspense buff's Heaven—which is the only Heaven I am likely to get to.

Meanwhile the spotlight dwells on Kissinger himself, as if he needed this extra lagniappe of attention. Any plan, real or fanciful, to kidnap him rests on the valid assumption that he is Nixon's one indispensable man.

Never in American history has a President depended so strongly for his global policy on any one man not his Secretary of State. And never have the basic assumptions of President and adviser fitted together so well.

To understand why, you have to read his first book. "A World Restored" (Grosset and Dunlap), about Europe after Napoleon, subtitled "The Politics of Conservatism in a Revolutionary Age." It is almost intolerably brilliant in style, shot through with paradox and with sentences that balance contrasting phrases like a juggler. Here is a graduate student's thesis, bouncing out of Harvard like the man himself, a

direct challenge to the easy liberalism of the Roosevelt-Truman years.

The author dares to set up Metternich, the baleful figure of power politics, as one of his heroes, and Castle-reagh (whom Shelley described as a "murderer") as another. He asks how these men managed to deal with the new revolutionary power of France, how they managed to build the coalition that twice overthrew Napoleon, how they then set up a concert of powers which—except for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870—sustained the peace in Europe for a century, until World War I.

The answer is that Metternich was concerned with two obsessive ideas—stability and legitimacy—which he used in order to keep the convulsive revolutions from shattering his world. To get stability he tried to keep Europe in an equilibrium, or power-balance. To get legitimacy he linked the Great Powers in a Concert of Europe, each supporting the others. It strikes us now as a rickety structure, but the fact is that it lasted.

Kissinger is critical of Metternich for failing to understand that the equilibrium is not static but constantly in motion, and requires some kind of counter-motions to keep it stable. But while he turned in his next three books to the politics of nuclear weapons systems, he never lost the initial insight he gained from studying Metternich and later Bismarck—that life is tragic, and power inevitably part of it, and chaos always around the corner if you allow political passions to play Hell

with the power-balance. No President-ial confidant on foreign policy has ever studied history so hard or knows so much about the nature and ways of power.

He has of course been under attack. Several recent major articles in the monthly magazines have taken his personality to pieces, bit by bit, depicting him as poseur and calculator, as a sleight-of-hand man who operates with mirrors, as opportunist and faithless traitor to the causes liberals hold dear. Since I know him only slightly, I have no reason either to resent or defend him. If someone outside of Nixon has to have that much power in fact, if not formally, I am happy it is someone who has his knowledge, coolness, and sense of the limits of power.

As for his being a conservative, I suspect that it lies not in him but in the role of the developed nations today. No Great Power can do anything except try to maintain a measure of world stability, lest all humanity go up in smoke. The best Kissinger passage on this was in a Daedalus essay of 1966, reprinted with two others in a little book called "American Foreign Policy" (Norton), where he speaks of the style of the prophet and the style of the statesmen—the first dedicated to "creating reality" from his dogma and his pipeline to ultimate truth, while the other is content to "manipulate reality."

Kissinger follows the second tradition. This doesn't mean he is wholly piecemeal and pragmatic. He has attacked the day-to-day makeshift pragmatist in foreign policy. He believes in long-range calculated policies. He quotes Metternich: "Because I know what I want and what the others are capable of, I am completely prepared." It is a better description of Kissinger than any I have encountered.

REED J. IRVINE

11120 NICHOLAS DR.
SILVER SPRING, MD. 20902

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Newspaper clipping

February 7, 1971

Editor
The Evening Star
Washington, D. C.

Sir:

Mary McGrory concluded a recent column on the men who have been accused of plotting to kidnap Henry Kissinger with the statement that a comment by Mr. Kissinger on the plot "caused some observers to wonder if enforced companionship with the Berrigans might not be the best thing in the world for him."

In other words, "observers" known to Miss McGrory think that it would be a good thing if the Berrigans were to succeed in kidnapping and holding Mr. Kissinger, and Miss McGrory quotes their views without any sign of disapproval.

I presume that this is another of Miss McGrory's unsuccessful attempts at humor, but surely kidnapping is too serious a subject for humor. Miss McGrory's taste is deplorable, and I regret that the editors of the Star permitted the publication of this remark.

Similar letters sent to four other papers that carry the McGrory column.

Similar letters sent to four other papers that carry the McGrody column.

Reed J. Iraine

Stucrersly hours

tion of this remark.
tate it deplorably, and I regret that the editor of the Star permitted the libplic-
umon, put anely kigusbund is too serious a subject for him. Miss McGrody's
I breathe that this is another of Miss McGrody's uncessful attempts at
Miss McGrody quotes their views without any aim of graspingly.

turing it the Berridgea were to succeed in kigusbund and holding Mr. Klaasunder, and

In other words, "opponents" know to Miss McGrody think that it would be a good
with the Berridgea might not be the best thing in the world for him."

Mr. Klaasunder on the blot "earned some opponents" to wonder if he endorsed combative
of blotting to kigusb Henry Klaasunder with the statement that a comment by
Mary McGrody concurred a recent column on the men who have been accused

Sir:

Washington, D. C.

The Evening Star

Editor

February 7, 1971

KISSINGER, HENRY V.
SILVER SPRING, MD. 20002
1150 NICHOLAS DR.
REED J. IRVINE
Kings - Life

Harvard has money problem

By Joel Havemann

With its traditional in-
telligence, wit and dignity —
plus a heavy dose of nostalgia
for the good old days before
student disruption — Harvard
University came to Chicago
Friday.

There was Nathan M. Pusey,
the retiring president, and
Henry A. Kissinger, President
Nixon's foreign affairs ad-
viser, who resigned from the
Harvard faculty only a week
ago. Plus six of the most dis-
tinguished professors and
deans.

They came to address about
400 Harvard alumni and
friends at the Sheraton-Black-
stone Hotel, where a room was
decked out for the occasion
with two enormous "Harvard"
banners in the traditional
crimson.

Among the many alumni,
with their names and gradu-
ation years on the lapels of
their dark suit jackets, was
Pusey, who wore a dark,
three-piece suit but no name
tag.

In his speech, Pusey de-

plored the disruption that has
plagued Harvard for the last
two years and called for a
"reaffirmation of the old
truths" that guide universities.

Labeling disruptions as
"childish, unpleasant and dis-
couraging," he recounted his
accomplishments as president
for 18 years "despite the
disruptions."

"Harvard continues an in-
credibly rich and wonderful
place, a place that arouses
dreams in people," he told the
Harvard Club of Chicago
audience.

Before his dinner address,
Pusey told a press conference
that he did not deserve his rep-
utation of aloofness from stu-
dents and their social con-
cerns.

"All through the 1950s I was
very close to the students,"
Pusey said. "There have been
some students from whom a
lot has been heard with whom
I had no contact, and they con-
tributed to my image as a
frosty, reserved individual."

As for the decline in student
disruption this year, Pusey

said apathy was not the only
reason.

"Students have come to see
the foolhardiness and in-
effectiveness of these demon-
strations," he contended.

Pusey said money, not stu-
dent unrest, appeared to be
Harvard's greatest headache,

"It's hard to see how we can
get through the decade without
a significant increase in feder-
al aid," he said. "And we'll
need just as great an increase
from the private sector."

He praised Derek Bok, the
40-year-old Harvard Law
School dean who will become
president after July 1, as a
"magnificent, energetic young
man."

The luncheon speaker was
Kissinger, who insisted that
his speech go unreported in the
press because, he said, only
the President may speak pub-
licly on foreign policy.

Surrounding the banquet hall
during his speech were Secret
Service men who were ob-
viously nervous about the al-
leged plot by six radicals to
kidnap Kissinger.

KISSINGER, HENRY A.
NEWS-
CLIPPING

PLAYBOY

March 10, 1971

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Radical intellectuals are attacking a whole
generation of liberal leaders, questioning
their courage, their integrity, indeed their
validity.

In his article, "The Death of Liberalism"
PLAYBOY, April 1971, Jack Newfield names the
radicals' "villains." He also gives us his
prescription for righting injustice in the
U. S. A.

If you would care to comment on his thesis,
the editors of PLAYBOY would be pleased to
hear from you.

ACS:mdr

Encl.

THE PLAYBOY BUILDING • 919 N. MICHIGAN AVE. • CHICAGO 60611

REPRINTED from PLAYBOY MAGAZINE, April, 1971

THE DEATH
OF
LIBERALISM

a radical journalist contends
that the old-line liberals—
obsessed with cold-war
anti-communism, big
government and unworkable
social programs—have misled
and misgoverned america

opinion By JACK NEWFIELD

©1971, Playboy

THE OLD LIBERALISM is busy dying. As a
theory, as a tradition, as a set of institu-
tions, as a group of leaders, liberal anti-
communism has become a God that failed.
Liberals such as Hubert Humphrey and
Nelson Rockefeller have become part of
the problem—worn-out fig leaves cover-
ing the naked emperor's private parts.
The New Deal has become the status
quo; the old solution has become the
new problem.

Let me be precise about who the liber-
als and the liberal center are: I'm talk-
ing about the Peace Corps, the Alsop
brothers, the A. D. A. (Americans for
Democratic Action), Bayard Rustin, the
A. F. L.-C. I. O., *The New York Times*.
I'm also talking about the Ford Foun-
dation, the Office of Economic Op-
portunity and the Ripon Society—all
self-proclaimed pillars of liberalism. There
is also the liberalism of those "tough-
minded" professors such as McGeorge
Bundy, Walt Rostow, John Roche and
Henry Kissinger, which has become
indistinguishable from the kill-ratio logic
of the Defense Department computers
that predicted the last Viet Cong guerrilla
would die 20 months ago. The liberalism
of respectable institutions such as Com-
mentary magazine, Freedom House and
New York's Liberal Party has become a
barrier to social change, a dead hand on
the present, preventing the liberation of
new ideas, new programs, new move-
ments, new myths. After zigzagging am-
biguously through the Thirties and
Forties, the American electoral left fell off
the track entirely about 1950, and we are
still paying the backbreaking price.

We are paying that price in Vietnam,
the war that began in Harvard Yard,
where Bundy, Rostow, Kissinger, Pat
Moynihan and John Kennedy all spent
so many fine, formative hours. We are
paying that price in a trade-union lead-
ership that stands to the right of *The
Wall Street Journal* and the Catholic
Church on most public issues. (One can-
not help but notice how much the C. I. O.
deteriorated *after* it cleansed itself by
purging Reds and radicals in the late For-
ties.) And we are paying that price in the
unnatural isolation of the student, black
and anti-war movements of the Sixties,
which were forced to start from scratch,
bereft of immediate historical fathers.

The crucial point is that during the
Fifties, liberalism lost its will to fight
and accepted the basic economic and
foreign-policy assumptions of the right.
And this pulled the center of gravity of
American politics decisively away from
the left. What has happened these past 20
years is not that the country has grown
more conservative but that **liberalism**
has grown more conservative. By failing
to organize F. D. R.'s "one third of a na-
tion ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished," by

remaining silent during Joe McCarthy's
attack on the Bill of Rights and by getting
us into Vietnam, liberalism did the work
of the right while claiming to represent
the left.

Now we must move beyond and
transcend the Cold War liberalism of
military intervention (Bay of Pigs, Do-
minican Republic, Vietnam) by becoming
peaceful internationalists once again.
And as historians such as Howard Zinn,
Christopher Lasch and Staughton Lynd
have pointed out, we must go back and
rediscover the deeper roots of the indig-
enous American left in fragments of the
Populist, feminist, black, Socialist and
Progressive movements of the late 19th
and early 20th Centuries.

No insurgent movement has ever suc-
ceeded that was rooted in hatred of its
own country—a fatal mistake of which
parts of the New Left (Weathermen,
Yippies) are guilty. By retrieving the
banner of the left as it was before it was
corrupted by the Cold War, we offer the
post-linear kids something inside their
own nation with which to identify, so
they won't have to import exotic fantasy
notions of revolution from North Korea
or Bolivia. By restoring the old dignity
to the Populist attack on monopolies and
abusive corporations and banks, we can
take liberalism out of the soft suburban
living rooms and place it on the side of the
workingman—the unskilled factory work-
er, the waitress, the gas-station attend-
ant, the dishwasher, the taxi driver, the
small farmer. And by reconnecting with
the old Populist passion for participation
and decentralization, we can begin to end
the liberal's romance with bigness and
centralization. The agrarian Populists had
a healthy skepticism of organization and
remote power, a skepticism that was
abandoned by liberalism in its delusion
that all human problems can be solved in
Washington if you hire enough experts
and bureaucrats and pay for enough Rand
Corporation studies.

If something lasting went out of liber-
alism during the Fifties, then there had
to be a deeper reason than just the Cold
War, or McCarthyism, or that the unions
purged all their rebels. That reason was
that the central intellectual formulations
of liberal anti-communism were mistaken.
I don't say that the liberal leaders of the
Fifties were badly motivated or uncom-
monly corrupt, or that any large numbers
were caught in the web of conspiracy
woven by the CIA spider. All I argue
is that their judgment was bad, and their
mistakes have had grievous historical
consequences.

They were wrong, first, in their total,
fanatical anti-communism, which permit-
ted no possibility for change in the Sovi-
et bloc and blinded them to terrible
injustices within their own society and
within the so-called Free World. Philos-
opher Sidney

He not busy being born is busy
dying.
—BOB DYLAN

Hook, the archetypal liberal anti-Communist, was able to write in the *Partisan Review* in 1952: "I cannot understand why American intellectuals should be apologetic about the fact they are limited in their effective historical choice between endorsing a system of total error and critically supporting our own imperfect democratic culture. ..." That was never the stark either/or choice intellectuals faced. There were always the independent alternatives of democratic radicalism, or neutralism in the Cold War, or support for the great movements against colonialism then being spawned in the womb of the Third World from Cuba to Algeria to Vietnam—movements almost all the NATO intellectuals ignored in their elitist preoccupation with white Western Europe. And one does not make this case now with the cheap wisdom of hindsight. In fact, there were American intellectuals at the time—men such as C. Wright Mills, Dwight MacDonald, Paul Goodman and Norman Mailer—who did resist the tide of fashion and held onto a saving remnant of independent radicalism.

The second conceptual mistake the Fifties' liberals made was "the end of ideology" mischief, popularized by Daniel Bell's book bearing that unfortunate axiom. Bell's theory expressed the remarkable idea that all the great structural problems of America had been solved, and all that was required now were small adjustments, some minor technological tinkering with the soft machine at the top.

The foolishness of this notion has been proved many times by the mass movements and social dislocations of the Sixties. But the same problems were all there during the Fifties, too: between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000 poor people, the growth of the arms budget, McCarthyism, the oppression of women, imperialism, migrant farm workers, slums, the destruction of the environment and, most clearly, the systematic racism of the South. But the intellectuals didn't care to look. Professor Bell's book was published in 1960, five years after Martin Luther King's bus boycott in Montgomery baptized the Southern freedom movement. Yet in Bell's large index, there are only four passing references to blacks, the longest one dealing with crime statistics. And none referred to the civil rights movement.

"The end of ideology" now seems to have been merely an autobiographical epitaph for a generation of weary socialists who lost the capacity to imagine new insurgent movements taking root within tail-finned chrome America. It was an elitist generalization totally inapplicable to blacks, to the Third World or even

to the generation of Americans in high school in 1960.

The third false premise of the Fifties was that—since only “pockets of poverty” remained—the next great question facing liberals was the “quality of civilization.” They argued that the new issue confronting liberalism was identity and fulfillment in an affluent mass society. But the issue that faced liberalism in 1956, and still faces it today, is the ancient one of unequal distribution of wealth, power and land within America. Liberals have become absolute geniuses at inventing fads and fashions to evade this fundamental question of wealth and poverty. They have made ecology, the abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee, the admission of mainland China to the United Nations, busing to achieve school integration, better TV programing—almost anything else—their central concern in their efforts to avoid facing up to the economic question the Populists had put first on the agenda of justice. The direct conditions of poverty—unemployment, rotting housing, inadequate health care, no land, no education, debts, foul sanitation—remain the heart of the problem. The pop sociologists might call it a “spiritual crisis” or a “crisis of confidence,” but what it all boils down to is too many poor people.

The last false pillar of Cold War liberalism was the idea put forward by Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol and many others that the urgent need for a united front against Stalinism had made all the traditional distinctions among left, right and center obsolete. Again, I think this was an overreaction to the undeniable evil of Stalinism. One could oppose the Soviet Union without surrendering all sense of proportion, without equating America with nirvana and without equating the Soviet Union with all other varieties of socialism. But the fact is that certain distinctions between left and right endured through the Fifties, and endure today. The left has always had a sense of outrage against poverty and injustice, and the right has always defended order and property out of a sense of tradition.

During the Fifties, many liberals (who called themselves socialists) became conservatives out of guilt for having once been Marxists. They went straight from one failed God to a bright new religion called anti-communism without the slightest flirtation with doubt or agnosticism. Major intellectual figures such as Hook and Reinhold Niebuhr became no less dogmatic as anti-Communist liberals than they had been as socialists.

The most dramatic measure of the liberals' near-total capitulation during

the Fifties can be seen in their response to the witch-hunts of Joe McCarthy. Here is a controversy in which the liberals should have appeared at their best: Liberty and reason were under assault by an anti-intellectual demagog. But the record of the liberal intellectuals during this stormy period is scandalous. Some, such as journalist James Wechsler and literary critic Granville Hicks, gave the names of former Communists to McCarthy's committee. Others wrote articles in liberal magazines agreeing with McCarthy's goals and questioning only his methods, while attacking his victims; they viewed McCarthyism as a necessary evil.

Irving Kristol could write in the March 1952 issue of *Commentary*: "There is one thing the American people know about Senator McCarthy; he, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist. About the spokesmen for American liberalism, they feel they know no such thing." As late as July of 1954, Alan Westin wrote an essay in *Commentary* warning that the Communists were exploiting the issue of McCarthyism, and the following month critic Leslie Fiedler wrote an essay for *Encounter* mocking "the loud fears of the intellectuals" and then swinging into an all-out attack on the radicals.

If the intellectuals defaulted so shamelessly, how much resistance to McCarthyism could reasonably be expected from the professional politicians? Not very much. It seems almost unnecessary at this late date to document the default once again, but reading the faded yellow newspaper clippings of the early Fifties, one aches for a chance to replay history with a few pinch hitters.

When "the greatest deliberative body in the world"—the Senate of the United States—passed the historic bill making it a crime to be a member of the Communist Party (the Communist Control Act of 1954), one Senator voted in the negative: Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. All the heavy liberals—Humphrey, Morse, Douglas—voted yes.

In February of 1954, the Senate voted to appropriate an annual subsidy of $214,000 for Senator McCarthy's investigative committee. This was two years after tail gunner Joe had accused the Democrats of "20 years of treason" and called Adlai Stevenson a "Communist dupe." But only one lone vote was cast against the appropriation—by J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

In July of 1953, the Senate passed a new McCarran Bill, which, in effect circumvented the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The bill compelled witnesses before investigative committees to surrender their constitutional right against self-incrimination, to testify on the basis of immunity from prosecution; in other words, to inform. Only ten Senators voted

against this bill, most of them conserva-
tives such as Stennis of Mississippi, Kerr
of Oklahoma and McClellan of Arkansas.
Only two liberals joined them: Herbert
Lehman of New York and John Sher-
man Cooper of Kentucky. The others,
such as Humphrey and Douglas, all went
along, still trying to prove their own
anti-communism.

In foreign policy, most of the liberals
were mute as the CIA helped over-
throw the leftist government in Gu-
temala; mute at the CIA's intervention
in Iran; mute about the support for
Chiang Kai-shek, Batista, Diem, Trujillo
and all the other "free world" dictators;
mute as the arms budget grew geometri-
cally. And without the intellectuals to
provide a better example, without sus-
tained criticism and analysis from the left,
the liberal Democrats enlisted as privates
in the Cold War to prove themselves
as tough-minded and "realistic" as John
Foster Dulles. But they were too clever
by half.

When they woke up, the permanent
war economy and the military-industrial
complex were an impregnable reality.
Their own anti-Communist rhetoric be-
came the official justification and sanc-
tion for Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs.
And a new generation wanted to hold
them accountable for their actions.

What I've tried to say here is not that
the liberals should have acted like radi-
cals during the Fifties but that they
didn't even act like liberals. They
weren't true to their own tradition of
Jefferson, Holmes and Brandeis. They
didn't take any risks in defense of free-
dom and reason once the McCarthy jug-
gernaut got rolling. They informed and
compromised and voted freedoms away
just like the moderates and the reaction-
aries. And that's what all the jabber
about "the end of ideology" and "new
consensus" was really all about.

Something else, something much less
obvious, also happened to liberalism dur-
ing the Fifties. It wasn't just that the Big
Ideas of the old liberalism were wrong.
It wasn't just that the politicians flunked
the test of McCarthyism and that the
intellectuals fought the Cold War as
mindlessly as the generals. But the Dem-
ocratic Party, the essential instrument
of liberalism, began to abandon the
working masses and became suburban
and elitist. And it did this during a time
when the grinding cycle of poverty still
persisted beneath the surface of affluence,
during a time of a flagging economic
growth and two mini-recessions.

The Populists had attacked the bank-
ers and special interests with a holy
passion. The Progressives had assailed the
monopolies and the big trusts. F. D. R.
had attacked the "economic royalists."
Harry Truman had made the "pluto-
crats" a central issue in 1948. But Adlai
Stevenson kept himself aloof from the
issue and after him Lyndon Johnson

and Hubert Humphrey bent over back-
ward to show they weren't the slightest
bit antagonistic to big business. And this
trend away from the blue-collar worker,
away from the people who worked with
their hands, began in the early Fifties.

On the issues of the Cold War and
civil liberties, Adlai Stevenson conducted
himself better than most public figures
of his time. He was an attractive man of
personal taste and decency. His cam-
paign speeches, often drafted by John
Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesin-
ger, danced with wit and elegant phrases.
He was a magnificent Tory. But begin-
ning with Stevenson's two Presidential
campaigns, the Democrats began the
slow process of disengaging from the
needs and hopes of the white lower mid-
dle class. Part of it was Stevenson's patri-
cian style, the impression he gave of not
really liking people or politics. And part
of it was programmatic. Stevenson didn't
talk much about economic problems—
what the pols like to call "bread-and-
butter issues." He was very good defend-
ing the United Nations or proposing a
nuclear-test-ban treaty; but one rereads
his old speeches, looking in vain for
sustained passion over raising the mini-
mum wage, or attacking price-fixing by
giant corporations, or building more low-
income housing, or pushing tax reform
to help families earning under $10,000
a year.

In 1954, Irving Howe wrote an excel-
lent essay in *Dissent* that tried to deflate
the Stevenson cult, then so powerful
among literary and liberal intellectuals.
"Stevenson," Howe wrote, "was the first
of the liberal candidates in the post-
Wilson era who made no effort to align
himself with the plebeian tradition or
plebeian sentiments. . . . Just as Steven-
son bewitched the intellectuals by mim-
ing, from on high, their political impulses,
so did he fail to attract very much en-
thusiasm among the workers. By and
large, they voted for him, but with little
of the fervor they felt for Roosevelt and
Truman. . . . Truman was one of the
plebes, and after his triumph over Dew-
ey, there was a remarkable elation in the
Detroit auto plants. . . . A striking char-
acteristic of Stevenson's campaign, as dis-
tinct from Roosevelt's or Truman's, was
that he did not speak in the name of the
poor or the workers. . . . The conserva-
tive press was always delighted to praise
him for not indulging in Truman's
'demagogy'; that is, for not employing
Truman's 'anti-plutocrat' vocabulary."

Howe correctly pointed out that "Tru-
man was, if anything, slightly to the left
of Stevenson." But the intellectuals fell
in love with Stevenson for reasons that I
cannot fully understand even now. Part
of it might have been Stevenson's world-
weariness, his civilized stance of being
above politics—beyond ideology—that the
intellectuals identified with. Part of it was

surely Stevenson's personality, a compel-
ling mixture of reason and wit. What is
so hard to understand is why the liber-
als and intellectuals didn't lavish their
affection on Stevenson's great rival, Estes
Kefauver, a better liberal and a better
politician. Kefauver, who stood in the
tradition of Southern Populism, did talk
about the things the workers cared
about, and if he had been nominated in
1952 or 1956, I think the Democratic
Party might not have begun the process
of alienating the white workers who now
vote for Wallace and cheer for Agnew.

Kefauver, bereft of polish or style, or
the tragic quality the intellectua's saw in
Stevenson, fought hard for the people
Dos Passos liked to call "the working
stiffs." Kefauver led the fight to prevent
the "private power crowd" from taking
over the Tennessee Valley Authority. He
attacked the steel industry and the auto
industry for overpricing. He beat the
giant drug lobby and made the big com-
panies lower the prices of medicines for
the sick and the aged. In 1950, Congress
passed the Celler-Kefauver Act, an anti-
trust law, and, in 1962, Kefauver got Con-
gress to tighten the pure-food-and-drug
laws. In the Senate, he opposed the sen-
iority system and, in what was perhaps
his most famous crusade, he went after
the Mafia in 1950, even though it embar-
rassed a lot of big-city Democrats and
helped retire Mayor O'Dwyer of New
York City.

But Kefauver was poor, and his cru-
sades antagonized all the powerful inter-
ests that share control of the Democratic
Party. His crime-busting hearings upset
the big-city machines. His maverick vot-
ing record frightened the party regulars.
His folksy, coonskin-hat style turned off
the intellectuals. So he was never nomi-
nated for President, even though in 1952
he went directly to the people and won
13 primaries and lost one, and came to
the convention with the largest bloc of
delegates. He had run that spring in the
New Hampshire primary and defeated
President Truman, who had not yet an-
nounced his decision not to run. But
at the convention, the big-city leaders,
the unions and President Truman and the
party establishment helped nominate
the man who had not entered a single pri-
mary—Adlai Stevenson.

From 1960 to 1968, the liberal Demo-
crats had a chance to govern again. But
throughout that whole time, they were
unable to think up a single large pro-
grammatic idea that ventured beyond the
formulas of the New Deal. It required
Richard Nixon to propose the Family
Assistance Program. Liberalism became a
set of bureaucratic routines to defend,
rather than a new vision to fight for. In
fact, the blue-suited army of liberal bu-
reaucrats and technocrats found ways to
make things even worse for the working
stiffs.

They made things worse, first, by building up ghetto hopes with a symphony of speeches promising an end to poverty. But when the poverty program turned out to be just another patronage hustle (which is precisely what happened—the money went to bureaucrats, sociologists and contractors), the disappointed hopes fell back into rage and the aroused expectations of a better tomorrow exploded in the streets.

In August of 1970, Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon finally blew the whistle on the poverty hucksters. She said that billions of dollars intended for the poor had been diverted into private research companies "more interested in profits than poverty." Much of the money, she said, went to $100-a-day consultants, "many of whom used to be high-level Government officials in Washington." She added: "Since 1965, OEO has spent over $500,000,000 on studies conducted by experts on research and evaluation of the poor. Most of the anti-poverty money never gets in the hands of the poor."

The liberal Democrats also made things worse by ignoring the very real problems of the millions of white workers who earn between $5000 and $10,000 a year. These families are not part of the media's "affluent society." Although they see all the products of that abundance—cars, appliances, jet planes—each day on television, the only way for them to share the affluence is to go broke. The white lower class saw no new anti-poverty programs launched in their run-down neighborhoods. In New York City, John Lindsay set up neighborhood task forces for all the black and Puerto Rican communities in 1966, but he didn't start them in low-income white sections until after he began to run for re-election in 1969. What the liberals failed to do, while they had the chance to govern, was devise programs such as national health insurance, or a guaranteed annual wage, or air-pollution control, or free day-care centers, programs that helped blacks and poor whites alike. Instead, they pushed piecemeal programs for blacks (busing, for example)—programs that didn't work.

By promising and not delivering to the blacks and by forgetting the low-income whites, the liberal Democrats managed to anger and polarize both halves of the other America. Although in power for eight years, they failed to make any significant improvement in the day-to-day life of America's 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 poor. Blue-collar whites and slum blacks competed bitterly for the same scarce jobs and the same scarce admissions to colleges, while the aerospace corporations, the oil industry, the insurance companies, the defense contractors, the conglomerates and the large banks continued to make immense profits. And

the Federal regulatory agencies—the ICC, FCC, FTC, FDA—continued to be dominated by the very industries and corporations they were supposed to be supervising in the name of the consumers. And all the while, the sullen resentment among the people we would come to call the Silent Majority began to rise and swell. They might not have gone to Harvard, but they could see what was going on.

They saw those liberal professors drafting plans that would make the sons of steelworkers and the daughters of secretaries bear the brunt of school integration, while the professors' own kids were going to exclusive private schools or all-white public schools in the suburbs. They saw the liberal bureaucrats construct all those anti-poverty programs for Watts and Harlem but none for the white sections of Akron or Utica or Gary. They heard the Kerner Commission tell them the number-one problem in America was "white racism," while their children couldn't get into college, and they owed money on the house, and there were layoffs at the plant. They saw the faddish media romanticize the Woodstock Nation while ignoring their own culture of bowling alleys, Merle Haggard and stock-car racing.

The elitism of the liberal intellectuals reached its apotheosis with Eugene McCarthy's campaign in the spring of 1968. Not since the first campaign of Adlai Stevenson did the liberal eggheads so adore a living politician. Everyone, it seemed, from George Kennan and Murray Kempton to Simon & Garfunkel, was on the hustings stumping for Clean Gene.

I campaigned hard for Robert Kennedy that spring for several reasons, the most important being that he understood that poverty was the heart of the matter. He communicated his passion to the white working masses, and this made it possible to forge a new majority of the victimized. Kennedy, like Kefauver, offered liberalism a second chance to stand again with Roosevelt's "one third of a nation," ironworkers as well as Indians, cops as well as *chicanos*. McCarthy, on the other hand, wasn't comfortable in the company of the poor—black or white. He twice told audiences in Oregon that "the educated people vote for me, and the less educated people vote for my opponent, and I think you ought to bear that in mind as you go to the polls here on Tuesday."

Shortly after Robert Kennedy was murdered, Paul Cowan wrote a piece for *The Village Voice* describing George Wallace campaigning in the small textile towns around Boston. He quoted several of the Irish Catholic workers who had come to cheer Wallace as saying that they had originally preferred Robert Kennedy. He quoted one Wallace enthusiast as say-

ing of Kennedy, "He wasn't like the other politicians. I had the feeling he really cared about people like us." Cowan, who had not supported Kennedy, concluded by writing, "I realized for the first time how important Robert Kennedy's candidacy had been. He was the last liberal politician who could communicate with white working-class America."

The conventional wisdom, from *The New Republic* to the *National Review*, now has it that the ethnic workers have moved to the right in backlash against student demonstrators, hippies and blacks. Although that, of course, has been a factor, I don't believe it's been the major factor. The workers have gone to the right because the old liberalism has made their life worse—worse with inflation, worse with bureaucracy, worse with Vietnam, worse by ignoring them and making promises to the blacks. And quietly laughing at their life style ("greasers, hicks, Philistines") all the while.

Yet the record shows that when new-style Populists have attempted to talk directly to the blue-collar class, they've been remarkably successful. The white workers are open to a fresh alternative to Wallace, but old-fashioned liberals can't provide that alternative because their past record of mistakes robs them of credibility.

In 1968, I watched Robert Kennedy win the Indiana and Nebraska primaries. These are not liberal states. He won by standing up and shouting in places such as New Albany and South Bend, Indiana, standing up in the town squares with his shirttail hanging out and his hair flopping into his eyes and shouting about taxes and war and priorities and local control. And he won every backlash county in Indiana that had gone for George Wallace in 1964.

In 1969, 44-year-old Pete Flaherty was elected the new mayor of Pittsburgh, a tough steel town that is not known as a bastion of reform. He won in a campaign that forged a coalition of blacks, students and low-income whites behind his attacks on the "Mellons and Carnegies," the "union bosses" and the "corrupt political machine." The day after Flaherty was elected, with 59 percent of the vote, *The Pittsburgh Press* carried this description of his headquarters: "At one stage in the night, the oldest person to be found in a Flaherty voting room was 19 years old. Typical of the youthful Flaherty followers was Barbara Lembersky, 19, a Pitt student from Squirrel Hill. She had been typing, stuffing envelopes and talking up her man for months. 'I like the way he responds to people' was the reason she gave for her loyalty. And then there was the 55-year-old man who voted for Wallace for President, and then threw his support to Pete for mayor. 'I just wanted

to rock the boat,' he explained."

In November of 1970, despite all the predictions of a national right-wing trend, economic liberals William Proxmire and Philip Hart were returned to the Senate and John Gilligan was elected governor of Ohio. Bella Abzug, Father Robert Drinan and Ron Dellums were elected to the House. Those candidates who sounded most like they were running for sheriff of Tombstone—California's George Murphy and Illinois' Ralph Tyler Smith, for example—were soundly defeated.

Let me try to be more concrete about what I mean by a new Populist program. The enormous wealth of America is unequally distributed among its citizens: Twenty percent of American families earn between $1000 and $4000 a year, and 75 percent of these families are white. Our laws and institutions—from expense accounts to bail and the cost of lawyers and doctors to the influence of lobbyists to the tax structure—all favor the rich. We have an economic system that housing expert Charles Abrams has described as “socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.” This is how Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas put it in his book Points of Rebellion: “The great welfare scandal of the age concerns the dole we give rich people. Percentage depletion for oil interests is, of course, the most notorious. . . . When we get deeply into the subject we learn that the cost of public housing for the poorest 20 percent of the people is pica-yune compared to the Federal subsidy of the housing costs of the wealthiest 20 percent. . . . The 1968 Report of the National Commission on Civil Disorders tells us that during a 30-year period when the Federal Government was subsidizing 650,000 units of low-income housing, it provided invisible supports, such as cheap credit and tax deductions, for the construction of more than 10,000,000 units of middle- and upper-class housing. . . . Like examples are numerous in our tax laws, each marking a victory for some powerful lobby. The upside-down welfare state helps the rich get richer and the poor, poorer.”

The litany of tax injustices is endless. As we know, there are millionaires who pay no taxes at all, while poor people sometimes go into debt to pay their taxes. Yet this tax system grew more unequal when liberal Democrats such as Kennedy and Johnson were in power. It would seem to me that the first plank in a new Populist platform would be a radical restructuring of our tax laws; an end to Government subsidies for giant corporations and industries; an increase in corporate, real-estate, inheritance, stock-transfer and bank-assets taxes; and the reduction of taxes for all families earning less than $10,000 a year. The bene-

ficiaries of such reforms would be mostly blue-collar families, whose lives now can be wrecked by sudden illness, death, unemployment or divorce. Recently, such families have voted their fears because so few politicians have offered the counter-vailing incentive of a larger share of America's affluence. The only possible way to compete with a Nixon or a Wallace, who appeals to their racism and paranoia, is to appeal directly to their pocketbooks, to their self-interest.

In this bewildering time of simultaneous inflation and recession, I find it incomprehensible that no Democratic Presidential candidate has mounted a campaign to raise the national minimum wage to $2.75 or $3.00 an hour. (The Louis Harris public-opinion survey of August 27, 1970, showed that "21 percent of the nation's households have experienced a layoff, or a cut in overtime, or a reduction of the regular work week. Coupled with rises in the cost of living, this cut in take-home pay has led 30 percent of the American people to conclude that their standard of living today is lower than it was a year ago. . . . Young people in the $5000 to $10,000 income bracket report having been hardest hit.")

Let me suggest two more forgotten areas where a Populist movement might do some good. One is the alphabet soup of Federal regulatory agencies. Many of them were started during the New Deal to protect the ordinary consumer from price fixing, inferior products, misleading advertising and other corporate abuses. Ralph Nader and his Raiders have now published three books on these agencies and they contain all the evidence—hard, cold facts—anyone needs to prove that these bureaucracies have all been failures.

A book on the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), by Robert Fellmeth, documents how the ICC has become "an elephant's graveyard for political hacks," how the public is excluded from the decision-making process, how important studies of transportation problems have been suppressed, how railroad mergers are rubber-stamped, how conglomerates cheat the consumer, how truck-driving safety regulations go unenforced, how rate bureaus encourage monopolistic price fixing. A report by Nader Raiders Fellmeth, Edward Cox and John Schulz asserted, "There is little doubt that tooth pastes, mouthwashes, deodorants, cleansers, soaps and so on are priced between five and twenty times their cost of production. The American people must eventually grow tired of paying one dollar for a tube of tooth paste that costs no more than 15 cents to make."

Nader's associate John Esposito has revealed that Consolidated Edison of New York pays its board chairman more in salary in a single year than it spent on pollution-control research in the past five years; and another associate,

James Turner, has claimed that Caltec Citrus paid a fine of $6000 when it was charged with adulterating and watering its orange juice. Estimated company profits as a result of this practice were $1,000,000.

The point seems clear. Many huge corporations are cheating consumers, mostly low-income people, and the Federal regulatory agencies aren't doing much about it, though such protection is supposed to be their only function. If some ballsy liberal politician, armed with these facts, would go to the white workers in Gary, Indiana, or Muskegon, Michigan, I think he would find a receptive audience. But instead, most liberals repeat the stale slogans of the New Frontier and the New Deal, and pander to the backlash by promising to "stop codding criminals." Meanwhile, they coddle the corporations, which are stealing much more—and getting away with it.

Another problem area the unions and the traditional politicians have ignored is industrial safety. According to the Department of Labor, 2,000,000 injuries and 14,000 deaths occur every year in the workplace. And according to Nader, who is preparing a book on the subject, many companies suppress or underestimate their accident statistics. Nader says, for example, that a large beryllium producer warned a company doctor that he would be fired if he published a report on beryllium poisoning among employees of the factory.

Many of the deaths and diseases that strike industrial workers are caused by the environment they work in. Steelworkers get silicosis, a condition that causes paroxysms of coughing. More than 100,000 of the country's 1,000,000 textile workers have contracted byssinosis, or brown lung disease, caused by inhaling cotton dust. And many thousands of coal miners suffer from pneumoconiosis, or black lung.

Unions such as the United Mine Workers (U. M. W.) have been as much accessories to this slow murder as the mineowners and the politicians. According to the August 17, 1970, Newsweek, "The generally unimpressive industrial record in the U. S. has a good many causes, none of them reflecting much credit on those responsible. Union leaders too often are willing to barter safety for a wage hike. Employers tend to try to coax a little more life from worn-out and unsafe machinery. State safety standards are too often antiquated and ineffective, and there aren't enough inspectors to enforce the ones on the books."

A tax system that favors the rich and punishes the poor, Federal regulatory agencies dominated by rich corporations, and factories and mines that killed more Americans in 1969 than the war in Vietnam: These are a sorry bunch of monuments to be left by the liberal Democrats,

who have governed us for so much of the past 40 years.

The remedies are as obvious as they are radical. In Galbraith's concise and precise words, the cures lie in "taxing the rich, regulating private enterprise and redeeming power and policy from military and civilian bureaucracy."

Amen.

I'd like to conclude with a few personal notes. I used to be a liberal anti-Communist myself. My first vote, at the age of 22, went to John Kennedy in 1960, and my first enrollment was in New York's Liberal Party. But I quickly began to learn the limits of that school of politics. Liberal pundits have often attributed the alienation of my generation to a variety of causes, from the bomb to the murder of John Kennedy. But, in fact, it was Kennedy's policies that began to make me a radical.

On the mild April night on which Cuba was invaded in 1961, I was a copy boy on the late New York *Daily Mirror*. I was in the wire room when the first bulletins about the landing at the Bay of Pigs arrived, heralded by jingling bells on the A. P. machine. I couldn't believe it. Fidel was a hero to me. How could J. F. K. do it? I felt so enraged, so betrayed, that I burned the first five takes of copy, and was, of course, fired on the spot. The next few days, I stayed home and watched Adlai Stevenson, then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, lie his head off about America's role in the invasion. And so I began to learn what liberalism was all about.

In the next year, I heard Bob Dylan singing at Folk City in the Village. Then I met Tom Hayden and became a charter member of SDS. I began to read the books and pamphlets of C. Wright Mills. I met Bob Moses and Chuck McDew and the rest of the first generation of SNCC organizers. And I got the flash that there was something out there, beyond the frontiers of the New Frontier, that was more humane, more gutsy and more creative.

I spent the rest of the Sixties getting disappointed by established liberals. When we officially launched SDS in June of 1962, Michael Harrington and the old-time socialists in the League for Industrial Democracy Red-baited us, changed the lock on our offices on East 19th Street and prohibited us from distributing our founding manifesto, the "Port Huron Statement." We were hardly much more than militant liberals then, and the Port Huron document didn't even mention socialism, or imperialism, or violence. But anti-Communist paranoia strikes deep in the Old Left. We called only for "nonviolence" and the "realignment of the political parties" and "participatory democracy," and echoed Mills's

idea of the university as the new catalyst of social change. But the oldtime socialists on the L. I. D. board treated us the way the sweatshop owners treated union organizers in the Twenties—they locked us out and called us Reds.

In August of 1964, I stood on the honky-tonk boardwalk at Atlantic City in a vigil for the domestics and poor farmers of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (M. F. D. P.), who asked to be seated instead of the racist regulars, who were really for Barry Goldwater anyway, at the Democratic National Convention. We held up pictures of the martyred Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner, and sang freedom songs all day and all night. For a few heady hours, it seemed that the M. F. D. P. had enough votes inside the credentials committee to force an open floor fight in front of the television cameras. But then the liberals were informed by L. B. J. that Humphrey might not get the nomination for Vice-President if they didn't quell the M. F. D. P. rebellion.

The choice was clear—stand with the poor, semiliterate blacks of rural Mississippi or stand by Hubert Horatio Humphrey. The liberals chose Humphrey. One by one, they came before the M. F. D. P. caucus in an old church, urging the delegation to accept a symbolic compromise of two voting seats at the convention. Bayard Rustin, Walter Reuther, Roy Wilkins, Wayne Morse, Joe Rauh, they all made this spineless pitch. There was no floor fight. The 11 votes on the credentials committee melted away under the pressure. And Fannie Lou Hamer went home to Ruleville, Mississippi.

Then came the invasion of the Dominican Republic, black power, student power, the escalation of the war in Vietnam and, finally, the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. Hubert Humphrey and George Meany always seemed to be playing tackle for the other side. The 1968 convention was the clearest example of the corruption of the old liberalism. There was Hubert, finally being nominated for President on the votes of union delegates, and on a pro-war platform. There was Hubert, being advised by Bayard Rustin, and being courted for the Vice-Presidential nomination by Muskie, Fred Harris and Shriver. And there were the police, beating up kids, medics, reporters, anything that moved, on the streets. There was Hubert, making a florid acceptance speech that didn't even mention the Chicago police, making it behind weapons carriers and barbed wire; and a few hours later, there were the police, beating up Eugene McCarthy's staff inside their hotel rooms. It was like a phony apocalyptic ending to a bad big-budget movie.

But there was to be a crazy coda—the Chicago conspiracy trial. In February of

1970, five of the Chicago Eight, later called Seven, were convicted in a "compromise verdict," and all eight were put in jail by Judge Julius Hoffman on contempt charges. We didn't know then if they would be released on bail. Along with my friends Paul Cowan and Paul Gorman, I dropped everything I was working on and began to visit and telephone any liberal I knew who had some influence, in an effort to organize public pressure for the defendants' release. Of the eight, I regarded only Hayden as a close friend, while of the others, I considered Jerry Rubin, for example, personally and politically obnoxious. But I thought it was a question of civil liberties, and that influential liberals would respond on that basis.

I phoned Ted Kennedy twice, but I couldn't interest him in making any kind of statement, even the most moderate one on the narrow issue of bail. Gorman got the brush-off from Eugene McCarthy, for whom he wrote speeches during the 1968 campaign. Cowan called columnist James Wechsler and was given a lecture on how the defendants and their lawyers had behaved so miserably, how they "wanted to lose," how "their antics were disgusting."

It was like watching an instant replay of the Fifties, when the collapse of the vital center made McCarthyism possible. Now the liberal center was caving in again, as soon as things began to get a bit rough.

In the months immediately after the conspiracy trial, the middle continued to disintegrate under the energetic attack of the right. The television networks were intimidated by Agnew's speeches into defensive banality. *Commentary* published an article by Walter Goodman implying that Agnew's demagoguery in the 1970 campaign marked the harmless outer limit of Nixonian repression. Tom Wolfe published an influential article that, in Pete Hamill's apt words, "made it fashionable to sneer at the oppressed." And Hubert Humphrey repudiated his former support for gun-control legislation.

When black and *chicano* and Indian militants get jailed and shot, it's an invisible event, and the center doesn't even feel obliged to organize a defense committee anymore. Can anyone remember the names of the two blacks killed at Jackson State? Or even the white student killed by police at Santa Barbara?

I am not an ideologue. There is no single system of thought that seems nearly adequate to me. I'm much more comfortable dealing with the concrete than with the abstract. I can define myself only as a radical and as a democrat, as an activist and a skeptic. I have tried to argue here that the old orthodoxy of Cold War

Liberalism is used up, that it is a dying
hand on the present. I have also suggest-
ed that we need to rediscover a usable
past within America to help chart a
radical future.

If I have learned anything these years
since the night I burned the first news of
the Bay of Pigs, it is that movements
make history; movements with ordinary
citizens, and not organizations or per-
sonalities. People in motion generating
energy move time forward. There are a
variety of such mass movements in the
American experience that we might iden-
tify with and learn from: The American
Revolution itself, with its models of Tom
Paine and Sam Adams. The abolitionists,
the Populists and the socialism of Eugene
Debs. Susan Anthony and the feminist
movement that won the vote. The black
radicalism of W. E. B. Du Bois, Malcolm
X and Martin Luther King. The literary
radicalism of Henry Thoreau, Walt
Whitman, Mark Twain, Lincoln Steffens
and Heywood Broun. And an older lib-
eralism, symbolized by Fiorello LaGuardia
and Louis Brandeis, committed to liberty
and equality, before it became spoiled by
McCarthyism and the petty compromises
of power. And a tradition not recently
much in fashion—the wobblies of Joe
Hill. Perhaps we should confront Nixon
and his band of Babbitts from behind the
banner the I. W. W. displayed during the
triumphant textile strike at Lawrence,
Massachusetts, in 1912: "BREAD AND ROSES
TOO."

JOYCE HABER

MAR 15 1971

# Capital Way to Spend a Weekend

WASHINGTON—I haven't visited Washington since Lucy Johnson Nugent's confectionery wedding, when I found our capital anything but confectionery. Solemnity lay over the city and fear—our First Family was doggedly guarded—and the free, witty life-style of the late John F. Kennedy that still haunted the White House like a lone patch of brightness—a puzzling, unwel-come shade.

Returning, I discovered that President Nixon has set his imprimatur on the capital firmly and surely. The past no longer intrudes on the present, no longer hovers over day-to-day doings. The fated Kennedy brothers — JFK and RFK — have taken their rightful place in the hearts and minds of people. They are here to be reckoned with, and they are here in the annals of history.

My host for the weekend was Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's much-talked-of assistant for national security affairs. I don't know whether he carries more weight, as Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.) charged, than the secretary of state (nor am I sure that that is a relevant issue chosen, as it was, with an election year upcoming). But I do know that Dr. Kissinger, apart from being a very gracious host, is one of the authentic lights of this administration. He was recently cited by Peter Maas as one of the two "celebrities" in government—the other being the President's special assistant and writer, William Safire.

## Both Men Are Charmers

Maas said that Washington types are always eager to charm their visitors by producing Safire and Kissinger at parties. Both men are charmers indeed. Mr. Kissinger produced Mr. Safire and his English wife, Helene, at one of the parties he gave for us. It was a lunch at Washington's San Souci, an excellent restaurant that's only a diamond's (or a Safire's) throw from the White House. It has been said that whenever there is an international

crisis, Dr. Kissinger turns up there with another pretty lady for lunch.

The crises in this case were Laos and the Middle East: the pretty lady was stately New York socialite Nancy Maginnes. Nancy is a staff researcher for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Dr. Kissinger is a man who's as intrigued by the beauties of New York and the New Hollywood as I am by the politics of the old Washington. Joan and Tom Braden, former California residents, joined us for lunch. Tom is another top celebrity in government circles: He's one-half of the syndicated political column, Mankiewicz and Braden.

The press of Washington, unlike that of Hollywood, is big on the social scene. You never attend a social gathering, no matter how small, without meeting a handful of pressmen. In fact, the conservative veteran political columnist Joe Alsop runs one of the very "A" salons in D.C. Alsop gave a black-tie dinner on Saturday night, and included among his dozen guests were two liberal journalists, Braden and Clayton Fritchey. Fritchey is the one-time chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former executive assistant to President Truman.

Henry Kissinger

## Ambassador of Goodwill

The Alsops live in a breathtaking Georgetown Townhouse. Joe designed it himself, with its antiques and indoor-outdoor gardens. The Robert McNamaras were there; George Shultz, who does wonderful things with management and the budget; Charles Whitehouse of the State Department, who's just returned from a stint in Vietnam and is reliably rumored to be in line for higher things, and Winton M. ("Red") Blount, the postmaster general. The Blounts are Alabamans, and fun. Mrs. Bount imported three Alabamans to paint their house in Washington. They stayed with her for three months, all the time complaining: "I wouldn't live in this city for anything, M'am."

Another night found me talking to Hollywood's ambassador of goodwill, Jack Valenti. Jack, the head of the Motion Picture Assn., had just got word from Jim Aubrey, Metro's president, that MGM was withdrawing from the alliance of major studios. Jack was understandably worried about the studio's attempt to save money in this year of depression. Jack claims, in fact, that the MPAA saves the studios millions of dollars despite the dues they pay.

Sally and Peter Peterson are newcomers to the administration. Pete, as head of Bell & Howell, was one of the country's outstanding businessmen. He quit his high-salaried job to become President Nixon's assistant for international economic policy. Another diner at Washington's Jockey Club was Dr. Kissinger's former student, Guido Goldman, a very eclectic fellow who knows all about contemporary painting and teaches political science at Harvard.

away from the role of the media to questions of more specific interest to the Philharmonic, and that he had himself talked longer than the four invited panelists together.

Informal post-panel discussion was focussed on the irony of Fleischmann's role, considering (a) that ACSO had been formed in large part because of concern by smaller orchestras in the state that the national league was more responsive to big-orchestra problems than to their own and (b) that the smaller orchestras in California are always nervous about the supposed empire-building proclivities of the larger orchestras.

Other relatively tangential and/or unconvincing representations Friday were made by spokesmen for American Youth Per-

forms (a youth concert series sponsored by American Airlines) and the Standard Oil Company (sponsors of the Standard school broadcasts) — 'tangential because of the lack of immediate relevance of youth concerts to the pressing problems of adult orchestras, and unconvincing because of corporate predilection to support activities as notable for their publicity-value as for their artistic and educational importance.

Lawrence Foster, newly appointed music director of the Houston Symphony, opened the proceedings with some liberal, laudable remarks about symphony orchestras and society, not obviously tied to any of the themes the workshop's planners may have had in mind.

## 'Julius Caesar' Will Open Citywide Run

Charlton Heston stars as Mark Antony in American International Pictures' new version of Shake-

speare's "Julius Caesar" due citywide on March 24. The cast includes Jason Robards, John Gielgud, Richard Johnson, Robert Vaughn, Richard Chamberlain, Diana Rigg.

LOEWS

WILL NOT BE SHOWN ON HOME TV FOR A LEAST 5 MONTHS!

FIRST TIME IN COLOR!

**FRAZIER vs. ALI FIGHT PICTURES**
**BATTLE OF THE CENTURY!**
Direct from Ringside-The Thrilling Highlights!

IN ADDITION TO REGULAR FEATURES - AT REGULAR PRICES!

NOW!

BALDWIN
LOS ANGELES
293-7164

COLUMBIA PICTURES, DANIEL SENATORE and MARINA CICOGNA present

## INVESTIGATION OF A CITIZEN above suspicion

MON. thru FRL • 6:00 • 8:00 • 10:00 PM
SAT.-SUN. 2:00 • 4:00 • 6:00 • 8:00 • 10:00 PM
LAST 2 DAYS!
ACADEMY MEMBERS. Your 1971 card will adult
you to any performance

THIS YEAR'S CANNES FILM FESTIVAL WINNER: Jerg's Special Grand Prize and International Critics' Prize

WINNER OF ITALY'S HIGHEST FILM AWARDS: David of Denatello Awards for Best Picture and Best Actor

ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEE
BEST FOREIGN FILM

...EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT...

Loews' CREST
1204 WESTWOOD BLVD. WESTWOOD
474-7666 • 272-5876

A girl in love has enough problems

Warner Bros. • two Carto Path production

Sophia Loren

Marcello Mastroianni

## The Priest's Wife

TECHNICOLOR®
MOSCOW Warner Bros. & Kinety Company

EXCLUSIVE 2-THEATRE ENGAGEMENT
2nd GREAT WEEK!

Loews BEVERLY HILLS

206 N. BEVERLY DR. - BEVERLY HILLS - 275-4464

Daily 6:30 • 8:30 10:30 PM

Sat., Sun. & Holidays: 12:30 • 2:30
4:30 6:30 • 8:30 • 10:30 PM

Loews TITAN

NUTWOOD-COMMONWEALTH-FULLERTON-871-5515

Continuous Performances

Mon. thru Fri. from 6:45 PM
Sat. & Sun. from 12:45 PM

## "STUNNING...DAZZLING...CHILLING!"

## "KRAKATOA"-AN ENGROSSING YARN OF HIGH ADVENTURE AND WIDE APPEAL!"

- Kevin Thomas, L.A. Times

THE BIGGEST ACTION-ADVENTURE 2-FOR-1 SHOW OF THE YEAR!

AN AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES INC. AND CINEMAS INC. PRESENT

## "KRAKATOA EAST OF JAVA"

TECHNICOLOR®

meets

G

12 Part IV—Tues., Mar. 16, 1971

Los Angeles Times

JOYCE HABER

Tough Audience Previews Series

WASHINGTON—Hollywood had come to Washington only hours before my arrival. Universal's new CBS series (come September) starring David Janssen as a treasury agent had just been screened and enthusiastically received by a very tough audience, members of the Treasury Department.

Joyce Haber

Gwen Cafritz, the perennial Washington hostess, hosted a black-tie opening of the American Art Business at the Corcoran Gallery.

Los Angeles was represented in the show by the work of accomplished artists like Sam Francis, Edward Ruscha, Robert Irwin and Edward Moses. These events, plus CBS' controversial special, "The Selling of the Pentagon" (rather unpopular in government circles), were the major topics of party conversation.

Again, to prove that D.C. is interested in Hollywood, I was frequently caught in discussions of Pauline Kael's recent, intriguing two-parter on the making of "Citizen Kane"—which is really a profile of that movie's late writer, Herman Mankiewicz. The story ran in the New Yorker. Not the least reason for the fascination in Washington is the fact that Mankiewicz was the father of lawyer, D.C. columnist (and former RFK press chief) Frank Mankiewicz.

At my husband's and my request, Henry Kissinger—and his ever-present security men—drove us to see the Kennedy graves at Arlington. I discovered to my surprise and a bit of shock that Universal has the tour concessions in our capital. Those same buses that cart you over the Hollywood lot to see Gene Barry alive here take you to Gen. Lee's ex-residences.

Hillside Burial Site

We joined a throng of hundreds, mostly people of 40 and under, many with children, to climb the hillside to the simple stunning slabs that mark the burial sites of J.F.K. and two of his children. Nearby, on the grass, and marked by a white picket fence, is the grave of Sen. Robert Kennedy. It bore flowers donated by a Boy Scout troop in Cleveland and a primary school in Atlanta.

Then Dr. Kissinger, who once worked for J.F.K., was our guide on a personal, universal (not Universal) tour of the White House. I saw the President's private theater, the room where he has screened "Love Story," "Patton" (twice) and "Around the World in 80 Days" (five times). The chairs look most uncomfortable. I think the movie industry should get together and donate some sofas and easy chairs to the White House.

The new official portraits of J.F.K. and Jackie by Aaron Shikler are hanging in the Green Room and the lower gallery, respectively. Jackie's is everything any

man could wish. She looks misty, romantic, reedlike, aristocratic, and beautiful all at once. J.F.K.'s is wistful, mysterious, a bit too remote, perhaps, for its official purpose. But both are extraordinarily distinctive, and possessed of a style that is truly Jack and Jackie.

Mr. Shikler, in short, can paint my portrait anytime.

A Pro-Am Ski Classic

Meanwhile, back in California, my man Paul was driving for hours (along with Marylou and Mike Connors, Natalie Wood Gregson and her Richard, Hugh O'Brian and Maggie and Clint Eastwood) to reach Bear Valley. Some three tortuous hours by car from Sacramento, Janet Leigh and her husband Bob Brandt were hosting a celebrity Pro-Am Ski classic which was underwritten by Benson and Hedges, the whole presumably to give a puff of new smoke to the community. Aspen Bear Valley not!

Janet bounced around in elegant black silk Hotpants, crying not to worry about whether her new TV comedy pilot made CBS' fall schedule (sorry, Janet, it didn't).

The voluptuous star must have been reminded that her career was launched from a ski lodge where she was working as a waitress when Norma Shearer discovered her.

The top celebrity skiers were Natalie and Richard, perhaps because they went to Bear Valley a week early to practice. That dashing Clint Eastwood kept crashing into the snow all through the Grand Slaloms. He may have been regretting that he ever left his snazzy house in Carmel to drive down for the snowfalls. Desi Arnaz IV provided his own dash with a smalshingly anonymous young chic who bore no resemblance to new mother Paty Duke.

The crowds were dazzled by the on-skis and off-slope antics of a quartet of (former) TV luminaries, now snow swingers—Adam (Batman) West, Jim (Lancer) Stacy, Peter (Bracken's World) Haskell and Ron (Tarzan) Ely. All in all, says Paul, there was plenty of snow and sun and skiing for everyone; with the exception of TV's Mannix. Mike and Marylou, non-schussers, didn't take to the runs: They were just along for the lifts.

But the soft folk-rock sound has now become a major trend in the music industry and there is an increasing number of promising duos (including Brewer and Shipley) beginning to receive attention. This week's Troubadour engagement should provide some indication of how far the group is going to go and how fast.

## 4 ACADEMY AWARDS

INCLUDING: BEST ACTRESS Sarah Miles
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR John Mills

Notable moves by both companies, Capitol has named Artie Mogull as vice president and head of artists and repertoire while MCA Records has named Joe Sutton to the new post of vice president of artists acquisitions and development. Mogull replaces Carl Engemann who resigned to become president of Independent Recording Studios.

The appointment of Mogull, one of the first personnel moves made by Stan Gotikov since assuming the post.

### uo at Troubadour

ROBERT HILBURN

### Seals and Crofts D

Jim Seals and Dash Crofts, who made their debut as a duo at the Troubadour in the fall of 1969, return to that West Hollywood club tonight as headliners in what is

Los Angeles Times

Tues., Mar. 16, 1971—Part IV 11

DUNHILL SUIT SETTLED, OF COURSE: The week after two of his record company's top selling groups, Steppenwolf and Three Dog Night, sued him for back royalties and personal damages, Dunhill Records president Jay Lasker was taking it in good stride.

"You know how the record business is," he said at a party for Dave Mason and Cass Elliot. "We'll meet with the attorneys for a while, then shake hands, pose for the photographers and you'll see us all smiling in the trade publications." I'm not sure there were any photographers on hand, but Lasker and the groups had a reconciliation party last week and the official announcement came Monday. All is well. The parties have jointly announced a new agreement that "not only settles past differences but gives a new impetus to a broader relationship between the parties." Pictures, presumably, will follow.

### cancer Identified With Towoda Unit

In a photograph in Monday's Times, Tunji Vidal was incorrectly identified as being a dancer with the R'Wanda Afro-American Dance Group. He actually

appears with the Towoda African Dance Ensemble, which performed over the weekend in "A Panorama of Ethnographic Dance" at El Camino College.

## PACIFIC WALK-IN THEATRES

FIRST TIME IN COLOR!

### FRAZIER vs. ALI FIGHT PICTURES
BATTLE OF THE CENTURY!

DIRECT FROM RINGSIDE—
THE THRILLING HIGHLIGHTS!

From Cinerama Releasing Corporation

WILL NOT BE
SHOWN ON
HOME TV FOR
AT LEAST
6 MONTHS!

NOW SHOWING!

PACIFIC THEATRES

PIX Hollywood 464-6113

WILTERN Los Angeles 387-6147

PARADISE Westchester 776-0300

GARMAR Montebello 723-2133

WHITTWOOD Whittier 943-8312

STATE Long Beach 437-2721

RITZ San Bernardino 888-5317

ENCINO Encino 784-8233

(Call Your Local Theatre for Details)

IN ADDITION
TO REGULAR
FEATURES—
AT REGULAR
PRICES!

SONG OF NORWAY

Presented by 70MM
Color by De Luxe

TONIGHT AT 8:30

Tickets now on sale at Box-office or by mail, plus all
Myntal Ticket Agencies. For theatre party and group
lines Phone 464-9196.
ALL SEATS RESERVED

PACIFIC'S CINERAMA DOME

SUNSET near VINE-HOLLYWOOD-486-3401

CHILDREN UNDER 12 YEARS OF AGE $1.50 ANY SHOW! ANY TIME!

TONIGHT AT 8:30 PM • TOMORROW AT 2:00 & 8:30 PM

NOMINATED FOR

By Arthur Hoppe

# He's rooting against U.S. in Laos

The radio the other morning said the allied invasion of Laos had bogged down. Without thinking, I nodded and said, "Good."

And having said it, I realized the bitter truth: Now I root against my own country.

This is how far I have come in this hated and endless war. This is the nadir I have reached in this winter of my discontent. This is how close I border on treason.

NOW I ROOT against my own country.

How frighteningly sad this is. My generation was raised to love our country, and we loved it unthinkingly. We licked Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. Those were our shining hours. Those were our days of faith.

They were evil; we were good. They told lies; we spoke the truth. Our case was just, our purposes noble, and in victory we were magnanimous. What a wonderful country we were! I loved it so.

But now, having descended

down the tortured, lying, brutalizing years of this bloody war, I have come to the dank and lightless bottom of the well: I have come to root against the country that once I blindly loved.

I CAN rationalize it. I can say that if the invasion of Laos somehow succeeds, the chimaera of victory will dance once again before our eyes — leading us once again into more years of mindless slaughter. Thus, I can say, I hope the invasion fails.

But it is more than that. It is that I have come to hate my country's role in Vietnam.

I hate the massacres, the body counts, the free-fire zones, the napalming of civilians, the poisoning of rice crops. I hate being part of My Lai. I hate the fact that we have now dropped more explosives on these scrawny Asian peasants than we did on

all our enemies in World War II.

And I hate my leaders who, over the years, have conscripted our young men and sent them there to kill or be killed in a senseless cause simply because they can find no honorable way out — no honorable way out for them.

I DON'T ROOT for the enemy. I doubt they are any better than we. I don't give a damn any more who wins the war. But because I hate what my country is doing in Vietnam, I emotionally and often irrationally hope that it fails.

It is a terrible thing to root against your own country. If I were alone, it wouldn't matter. But I don't think I am alone. I think many Americans must feel these same sickening emotions I feel. I think they share my guilt. I think they share my rage.

If this is true, we must end

this war now — in defeat, if necessary. We must end it because all of Southeast Asia is not worth the hatred, shame, guilt and rage that is tearing Americans apart. We must end it not for those among our young who have come to hate America, but for those who somehow manage to love it still.

I DOUBT that I can ever again love my country in that unthinking way I did when I was young. Perhaps this is a good thing.

But I would hope the day will come when I can once again believe what my country says and once again approve of what it does. I want to have faith once again in the justness of my country's causes and the nobleness of its ideals.

What I want so very much is to be able once again to root for my own, my native land.

JOYCE HABER

WASHINGTON—I haven't visited Washington since Lucy Johnson Nugent's confectionery wedding, when I found our capital anything but confectionery. Solemnly lay over the city and fear—our First Family was doggedly guarded—and the free, witty life-style of the late John F. Kennedy that still haunted the White House like a lone patch of brightness—a puzzling, unwelcomely shade.

My host for the weekend was Henry Kissinger, President Nixon's much-talked-of assistant for national security affairs. I don't know whether he carries more weight, as Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.) charged, then the secretary of state (nor am I sure that that is a relevant issue chosen, as it was, with an election year upcoming). But I do know that Dr. Kissinger, apart from being a very gracious host, is one of the authentic lights of this administration. He was recently cited by Peter Maas as one of the two "celebrities" in government—the other being the President's special assistant and writer, William Safire.

## Both Men Are Charmers

crisis. Dr. Kissinger turns up there with another pretty lady for lunch.

Henry Kissinger

## Ambassador of Goodwill

The Alsops live in a breathtaking Georgetown Townhouse. Joe designed it himself, with its antiques and indoor-outdoor gardens. The Robert McNamaras were there; George Shultz, who does wonderful things with management and the budget; Charles Whitehouse of the Stae Department, who's just returned from a stint in Vietnam and is reliably rumored to be in line for higher things, and Winton M. ("Red") Blount, the postmaster general. The Blounts are Alabamans, and fun. Mrs. Bount imported three Alabamans to paint their house in Washington. They stayed with her for three months, all the time complaining: "I wouldn't live in this city for anything, M'am."

Another night found me talking to Hollywood's ambassador of good will, Jack Valenti. Jack, the head of the Motion Picture Assn., had just got word from Jim Aubrey, Metro's president, that MGM was withdrawing from the alliance of major studios. Jack was understandably worried about the studio's attempt to save money in this year of depression. Jack claims, in fact, that the MPAA saves the studios millions of dollars despite the dues they pay.

away from the role of the
media to questions of
more specific interest to
the Philharmonic, and
that he had himself talked
longer than the four invit-
ed panelists together.

Informal post-panel dis-
cussion was focussed on
the irony of Fleischmann's
role, considering (a) that
ACSO had been formed in
large part because of con-
cern by smaller orchestras
in the state that the na-
tional league was more re-
spective to big-orchestra
problems than to their
own and (b) that the smal-
ler orchestras in California
are always nervous about
the supposed empire-
building proclivities of the
larger orchestras.

Other relatively tangen-
tial and/or unconvincing
representations Friday
were made by spokesmen
for American Youth Per-

forms (a youth concert se-
ries sponsored by Ameri-
can Airlines) and the
Standard Oil Company
(sponsors of the Standard
school broadcasts) — tan-
gential because of the lack
of immediate relevance of
youth concerts to the
pressing problems of adult
orchestras, and uncon-
vincing because of corpor-
ate predilection to support
activities as notable for
their publicity-value as for
their artistic and educa-
tional importance.

Lawrence Foster, newly
appointed music director
of the Houston Symphony,
opened the proceedings
with some liberal, laudab-
le remarks about sympho-
ny orchestras and society,
not obviously tied to any
of the themes the work-
shop's planners may have
had in mind.

speare's "Julius Caesar"
due citywide on March 24.
The cast includes Jason
Robards, John Gielgud,
Richard Johnson, Robert
Vaughn, Richard Cham-
berlain, Diana Rigg.

"KRAKATOA'—AN ENGROSSING YARN OF
HIGH ADVENTURE AND WIDE APPEAL!"

— Kevin Thomas, L.A. Times

"KRAKATOA
EAST
OF
JAVA"

TECHNICOLOR™

C-57

meets

G

"CUSTER OF THE

LOEWS

FIRST TIME IN COLOR

NOW!

BALDWIN
LOS ANGELES
293-7164

COLUMBIA PICTURES,
DANIELE SENATORE' e MARINA CICOGNA present

MON. thru FRI. • 6:00 • 8:00 • 10:00 PM
SAT. • SUN. • 2:00 • 4:00 • 6:00 • 8:00 • 10:00 PM
LAST
2 DAYS!

ACADEMY MEMBERS. Your 1971 card will admit
you to any performance

THIS YEAR'S CANNES FILM
FESTIVAL WINNER: Jury's Special Grand
Prize and International Critics' Prize

WINNER OF ITALY'S HIGHEST
FILM AWARDS: David of Donatello Awards
for Best Picture and Best Actor

EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT

Loew's CREST

1262 WESTWOOD BLVD. WESTWOOD
474-7866 • 272-5876

Warner Bros. • www • a Carlo Ponti production

Sophia
Loren

Marcello
Mastroianni

The Priest's Wife

TECHNICOLOR™

From Warner bros.
A Kinney company

GP

Loew's BEVERLY
208 N. BEVERLY DR. • BEVERLY HILLS • 275-4484

Daily 6:30 • 8:30 10:30 PM

4:30 6:30 • 8:30 • 10:30 PM

Loew's TITAN

— Charles Champlin, L.A. Times

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

RUSSIA AND RADIO LIBERTY

SIR—I understand that the work of the two American-supported radio stations, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, which are based in Munich and broadcast to the countries of the Communist world is shortly to come under discussion in the United States and that certain changes are proposed in their status.

The first person to raise the question of the sources from which these stations are financed was Senator Clifford Case, but now Senator William Fulbright has raised his voice against their very existence.

The statements made by these two Senators were greeted with delight by the official Soviet propaganda machine, which, could scarcely have dreamt of receiving support from such high quarters. A logical consequence of this was a "trial balloon" in the form of an official protest by the Polish Government to the West Germans about the continued presence of Radio Free Europe on German territory.

I could say a great deal about how essential a part of life and how great a source of hope for Soviet citizens is Radio Liberty, whose broadcasts I listened to regularly until I left the Soviet Union in the middle of 1969.

But my views on this subject may very well be considered biased. Let me therefore quote from a Soviet newspaper, *Komsomolskaya Pravda* for May 29, 1971. Discussing the conclusions which Soviet propagandists should draw from the work of Radio Liberty, the paper said:

> The reports which we publish must deal more frankly with the unfavourable features and developments in our society. It is always better for us to analyse them ourselves than to wait for commentaries by various "voices" [i.e. foreign radio stations] which reach our public in one way or the other, directly or by roundabout

means. Our reports on events in the West should be less superficial. Talk of the "bared teeth of savage imperialism" fail to impress many people in these days. We must go more deeply into things for our young people.

This unexpected comment by a Soviet newspaper contains everything—an admission that Radio Liberty provides true factual information, confirmation that it reaches a wide circle of listeners and, moreover, the statement that the Soviet Press compares very unfavourably with Radio Liberty.

The above quotation makes it quite clear that Soviet propaganda does not provide information of an "unfavourable" nature and that it limits its account of life in the West to talk of the "bared teeth of imperialism."

On top of all that we cannot avoid the conclusion from what the Soviet newspaper says that, if it were not for the broadcasts by Radio Liberty (the station most violently attacked in the article), Soviet propaganda would continue unhindered in its work of deceiving the population with rosy pictures of life in the Soviet police-state and denunciations of "imperialism" in the West.

Were it not for Radio Liberty it would never have occurred to them to revise, however little, their Stalinist ideas.

It is at first sight a strange situation: American Senators cast doubt on the value of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, while the Soviet Press has no doubt at all about their effectiveness.

But it is really not so strange, because the Soviet propagandists know precisely what those radio stations transmit and how their broadcasts are received, while American Senators permit themselves to make very far-reaching declarations without having very much information at their disposal about the subject under discussion.

A. ANATOLI (KUZNETSOV)
London, N.W.3,

GENERAL

ND18/CO1-7

filed 8/7/74 KISSINGER, HENRY A./Newurope & Clapp

Henry) Reference my M.E. article recently
Deceased, this brief comment on some
State Dept. reaction of which I have heard,
may be of interest.

With Compliments

Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Buzzard, Bt., C.B., D.S.O., O.B.E.,

Todd House, West Clandon, Surrey.

Clandon 597
(048636)

Like our F.C.O., the State Dept. seems to agree my Function of guarantees. But - also like our F.C.O. - they prefer a Form which I fear will not prove enough, or sufficiently sound Militarily, to-suade Gen: Dayan to accept the withdrawal demanded. as in matchall. this may be due to their Chiefs of Staff not being fully and respons- ibly involved. (I listed many other reasons for the increased effectin- U.N. 'name' not being attached to it.)

Their reluctance to espouse Forms of guarantees while pursuing the interim arrangement, does not seem to allow for Egypt's reluctance to surrender the right to re-open fire until Israel links that arrange- ment with a commitment to full ultimate withdrawal - which the State Dept: admits Israel cannot do without guarantees. And if the interim arrangement fails, guarantees may then come too late to gain a final settlement in time.

Immediate public ventilation of the Function and urgency of guarantees seems necessary, with the immediate preparation and diplom- atic discussion of all possible Forms of them. No one can foresee which will ultimately prove necessary or acceptable. Only the 'maximum' (demanded by Egypt) is likely to break the deadlock on either the interim or final settlement.

A. W. Buzzard. 1st Aug: '71.

attempts to an-
his order must be
neck out and go
certainty.

because the staff of
the Study of
studying riots,
social unrest for
believe we are in
some answers.
to say can't be cer-
cise with generally
standards. The
to give whatever
to our effort to
from fairly system-
many episodes of

Walter Cronkite un-
or even use it to receive printed copy.

The key word is "interactive." With pre-
ent one-way TV, the viewer just sits and watch-
es. With a two-way system, he can react to
what he sees and the tube will react to his reac-
tion.

Engineer Kenneth Stetten, designer of a two-way system now being tested in Reston, Va., by the Mitre Corp., also talks about "de-alienation."

"By de-alienation, I mean establishing reasonable substitutes for the interactive communications that people miss when their surroundings change from a small community to a large urban community," he says. A few examples:

*   **IT IS** Kentucky Derby day. You key in the correct code and watch the horses walk across your screen. After placing your bet by punching more keys, you watch the race.

*   **IT IS** election day. You haven't had time to follow the issues in the city council race. So

Punch the code for
egories, flashed on
code for "government
egories appear, an
In two or three
phone number of
charge of trash pic

It would mea

## On Final

*   State Economy
*   South Florida
*   Stocks of the World
*   New York Stock Exchange
*   American Stock Exchange

## Yes to Crowd During Election Campaign

# Mexico
## Nurtured

By JIM DAVIS
Special To The Herald

Historian Daniel Cosio Villar pronounced the concepts of Mexico's 1910 Revolution dead more than a year ago and wondered aloud: "Why the Mexicans, being such courtly people, hadn't bothered to bury the

That same feeling is prev-
today among many Mexican int-
tuals who believe the ideals of
Revolution (always written wi-
capital "R") have been twisted
yond the breaking point.

But Mexico's newest pres-
Luis Echeverría, disagrees. The
lution is most definitely alive a
good health, he maintains.

This is a common stand for
can presidents, but Echeverria
to make it with more vigor
many of his predecessors. In his
gural speech Dec. 1, 1970, he
clarèd:

"The Mexican Revolution was celerate its pace. While we have

## Saturday Review

Editor - Norman Cousins

Publisher - William D. Patterson

Associate Editors

Irving Kolodin • Horace Sutton

Associate Publisher - Richard L. Tobin

President
John J. Veronis

### Managing Editor
Roland Gelatt

Science Editor
John Lear

Book Review Editor
Rochelle Girson

Travel Editor
David Butwin

Copy Editor
Peter Nichols

Education Editor
James Cass

Poetry Editor
John Ciardi

Art Editor
Katharine Kuh

General Editor
Hallowell Bowser

### Layout & Production
Pearl S. Sullivan

### Editors-at-Large
Cleveland Amory • Alfred Balk
Henry Brandon • Harrison Brown
Charles Frankel • Frank G. Jennings
Peter Schrag • Paul Woodring

### Contributing Editors
Goodman Ace • Hollis Alpert • Jerome Beatty, Jr.
Henry Hewes • Arthur Knight
Martin Levin • Rollene W. Saal
Robert Lewis Shayon • Zena Sutherland
Walter Terry • Margaret R. Weiss

### Chairman
Nicolas H. Charney

## Good News on the Arms Front

In the long and dreary history of the postwar arms race, two developments have run counter to the dominant negative trend. The first was President Kennedy's 1963 agreement with the Soviet Union to ban atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The second was President Nixon's 1971 order to destroy America's stockpile of germ and toxin warfare weapons. The historic nature of the nuclear test ban has been widely recognized. Yet the destruction of the bacteriological stockpile may be even more significant. The aboveground test ban halted only one aspect of the nuclear arms race, albeit the most important one. The end of atmospheric testing did not mean that all testing would cease, or that stockpiles of nuclear weapons would be eliminated or even reduced.

President Nixon not only halted further development of biological weapons; he unilaterally destroyed the nation's existing stockpiles. There was nothing nominal about the President's action. An expert on germ warfare was quoted by *The New York Times* as saying "it would take ten to fifteen years" to rebuild the Army's capacity in the bacteriological field.

What gives the President's decision its major significance is that it overturns some sacred theories of military planners. First, there is the matter of the traditional opposition of "hardliners" to unilateral action. In all previous efforts to slow down the arms race, any notion involving initiative or calculated risk was denounced as a dangerous and soft-headed approach to the national security. It was said that the Soviet Union would have no incen-

tive for entering into arms-control agreements if the United States were to undertake unilateral measures. We now see that the destruction of the bacteriological stockpiles not only did not prevent an agreement with the Soviet Union but swiftly produced a treaty with far less complication and folderol than has attended any arms discussions with the U.S.S.R. in twenty-five years.

It is unfortunate that some critics have tried to downgrade the President's initiative on germ warfare by saying that bacteriological weapons are of speculative value at best since they raise the danger of possible rebound infection. This is true, but no more so than the same argument applied to radiological weapons. What was done by President Nixon, and, perhaps even more, the way it was done, is a major achievement, one that should serve as a stimulus to further initiatives in slowing down the arms race. This would appear to be a good time, for example, to undertake fresh consideration of a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons. The old arguments favoring underground tests should be recognized for what they are —special pleading by the military bureaucracy rather than sensible reasoning in the national and human interest. It is contended that only on-the-spot inspection can provide assurances against secret violation and that, since the Soviet Union refuses inspection, a treaty is therefore neither possible nor feasible. Such an argument is obviously intended for public consumption only, since it has little standing in the scientific community. Instrumentation for remote detection of secret tests is

so highly developed that it is specious in the extreme to justify underground testing because of the claim there is no way to verify compliance.

Scientists are currently debating the possible seismic effects of the scheduled underground nuclear tests on Amchitka Island, off western Alaska. We laymen have no way of knowing whether the explosions could trigger earthquakes or damage the ecology of the area involved. It is enough to note that the question is being seriously debated by competent authorities.

But even if it could be established that the chances of an earthquake or other harmful ecological effects are nil, the case against underground testing would be no less powerful and urgent. The government of the United States has declared itself against proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has given great emphasis not just to radiological dangers but to the terrible consequences of a general distribution of nuclear bombs in a world rife with tensions. Having called on other nations to forgo nuclear weapons altogether, the United States has by that fact assumed certain obligations of good sense and restraint in its own policy. There is more than a minor element of hypocrisy and Big Nation arrogance in our urging nuclear forbearance on others while rushing ahead pell-mell ourselves.

Perhaps the most compelling reason of all for calling off the underground tests, however, has to do with the President's plan for holding discussions with the Chinese leaders. For the past twenty years, there has been an element of unreality in almost everything said or done about arms control. So long as China was not included in any basic agreements, there was a cavernous hole in any design to control the world arms race. Few items on the President's agenda, therefore, are more vital to human security than the need to obtain Chinese acquiescence in world disarmament efforts, among which control of nuclear weapons is high on the list. A universal ban on the testing of nuclear weapons—whether in the air, underground, undersea, or in outer space—would be a towering achievement for world peace and sanity.

President Kennedy's American University speech of June 10, 1963, calling for an end to the Cold War, helped to clear the way for the Test Ban Treaty later that year. Similarly, the statements of President Nixon and Secretary Rogers about the need to normalize relations with China sets a stage for arms agreements that could have profound historic significance. It is difficult, indeed, to think of any single development that could have a greater bearing on the prospects for world peace.
—N.C.

16 ETAOIN SHRDLU CMFWYP VBI

VB CMFW SHRDL ETAO SR/AUGUST 28, 1971

THE SUNDAY TIMES

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Thomson House 200 Gray's Inn Road London WC1 Telegrams Sunday Times London WC1 Telex 22269 Telephone 01-837 1234

7 September 1971.

Dear Henry,

You can see, even on my holidays I can't help thinking
of you. I am enclosing a clipping which might interest the
Iron Chancellor II.

Europe, I find, is very agitated about the US hard
line on monetary problems, but I think it's useful and
sobering experience. I met one of the younger Indian
publishers last night who is convicted that a war between
India and Pakistan has become unavoidable and that it will be
beyond Mrs Ghandi's powers to prevent it. This would
confirm your own fears !

I am off to Zurich tomorrow to meet up with Muffie.
After a brief stop with one of the Zurich gnomes we'll
submerge ourselves in ancient history and then on the 26th
for three days to Bucarest and back to London.

My book outline has aroused much enthusiasm and great
interest among my editors and publishers!

TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

KISSINGER, HENRY
KISSINGER, HENRY A.

Dear Henry and Judy:

Many thanks for sending the clipping of my
son from the "Herald Tribune." I was pleas-
ed to hear from you, and glad to see the
article. I don't think I can afford to pass it
along to him though; he's developing too strong
a taste for publicity.

Please stay in touch.

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Pillsbury
5 rue de Lille
Paris 7e, France

jlp:12/4/71

KISSTINGER, HENRY A.

JAN 2 1 1972

Dear Graham:

Many thanks for your note of January 4 and
for the article (with translation) from La
Stampa. I am highly honored, though I al-
ways did think the Italians are a little mad.

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness. Please
stay in touch.

The Honorable Graham Martin
American Ambassador
Rome

jlp:1/20/72

CHE UMSCHAU WELTWCHE-VERLAG KARL v. SCHUMACHER + CO. AG 8021 ZÜRICH TALACI

# Plädoyer für Toleranz

VON HANS O. STAUB

«Ich missbillige, was du sagst, aber ich werde auf Leben und Tod für dein Recht kämpfen, es zu sagen.»

Voltaire zugeschrieben

Dunkles Mittelalter steigt aus den Tiefen der Geschichte: öffentlich soll der Freiburger Moraltheologe Pfürtner seine liberal aufgeschlossenen (aber durchaus nicht revolutionären) Sexualthesen widerrufen. Dunkles Mittelalter scheint einzubrechen: mit Akribie (und etlichen Steuergeldern) lässt die Schweizer Bundesanwalt-schaft umständliche Quellenvergleiche anstellen, um einen erotischen Roman aus China der Verdammung preisgeben zu können. Ist der Scheiterhaufen gerüstet, um den Ketz er zu verbrennen, das Autodafé bereit, um die Bücher zu vernichten?

Zwei Fälle: sie hätten geringe Bedeutung, wenn sie nicht Symptom wären. Die Obrigkeit, ob weltlich oder religiös, masst sich an, die Probleme der Gesellschaft von 1972 mit Methoden längst versunkener Zeiten zu bewältigen und für das Individuum denken oder entscheiden zu wollen. Der Vorwand für solche Arroganz ist stets der gleiche: der «verunsicherte» Mensch von heute bedürfe wieder der geistigen Lenkung, brauche den durch die etablierte Autorität verkörperten «directeur de conscience».

Darin steckt Wahrheit — eine halbe aber bloss. Dass der Zeitgenossen «verunsichert» ist, bedeutet heute Gemeinplatz: traditionelle Werte sind in Frage gestellt, Idole gestürzt. Und vor allem: der Mensch unseres Jahrzehnts ertrinkt in einer Flut von Information, die ihn jeglichen Sinnes für Prioritäten beraubt. Verhältnisblödsinn ist die Krankheit dieser Zeit. Die Massenmedien, die elektronischen vor allem, helfen ihm kaum, selbständig wieder Gewichte zu setzen. Besonders das Fernsehen verzerrt, weil vom Bild tyrannisiert, die Wirklichkeit. Das Fernsehen auch,

das immer mehr der echten, vertieften Auseinandersetzung ausweicht, gaukelt in seiner Sucht politisch verbrämt, alberner Fragespielchen seinem Konsumenten falsches Wissen, falsche Urteilsfähigkeit vor. Es gewöhnt dem Menschen das Denken ab statt an. Andere Massenmedien wieder, gewisse Boulevard-Zeitungen, spielen bewusst mit der Verunsicherung: sie fördern die Stimmung des Ungewissens, weil sie hoffen, den Leser damit kommerziell und politisch «in den Griff» zu bekommen. Das deutsche «Bild» ist Meister dieser schwarzen Kunst; unheilschwangere Sprüche: «Die Welt ist verschlossen, sie besteht aus Dunkelheit und Geheimnis», bange rhetorische Fragen: «Was ist los auf dieser Welt?» stürzen den Leser in noch tiefere Verwirrung. Sie machen ihn empfänglich für jene sogenannte «Lebenshilfe», die in Wirklichkeit Manipulation der Masse mit billigsten vereinfachenden Schlagworten ist.

Der Zensor, der Grossinquisitor, der falsche Massenmissionar als Mensor des Menschen von heute — sie sind alle gleichermassen unannehmbar. Die Fähigkeit, andere zum intellektuell differenzierten Mitgehen anzuleiten, setzt differenzierte Geister voraus, die ihrer selber sicher sind. Gerade dieser Eigenschaft aber können sich jene weltlichen und kirchlichen Autoritäten, die sich eine sittliche Macht- und Lehrstellung anmassen, kaum mehr rühmen. Die Konfusion einer staatlichen Zensurbehörde, die sich in kleinlichen Verboten verhaspelt, die Hilflosigkeit eines Bischofs, der sich bemüssigt fühlt, wegen eines Universitätsvortrags Rom zu bemühen, zeugen davon, dass die selbsternannten «directeurs de conscience» ihrerseits zutiefst verunsichert sind. Sie, die (vielleicht in guten Treuen) glauben, die weltliche oder kirchliche «Ordnung» mit einer einzigen absoluten Wahrheit erhalten zu können, gleichen verzweifelt ihren

erbittertsten Gegnern — jenen anarchristischen Aktivisten, die sich ebenfalls anmassen, die Froschperspektive ihrer eigenen begrenzten Erkenntnis zum Allgemeingesetz zu erheben. Der autoritären Intoleranz der einen entspricht die antiautoritäre Unduldsamkeit der andern.

Toleranz ist in der Welt von 1972 längst ein diffamierendes Wort geworden. Es wird bald dem «faulen Kompromiss», bald der Zersetzung von «law and order» gleichgesetzt. Auch dies gehört zur Krankheit der verunsicherten modernen Gesellschaft: man scheut überall — auch in der Schweiz — das Gespräch. Jurassische Separatisten und «Béliers» weigern sich, auf die Einladung der «Weltwoche» hin mit Antiseparatisten auf «neutralem Boden» zu diskutieren. Der Vertreter der obersten Zensurbehörde des Landes «findet keine Zeit», ernsthaft über seine grundsätzlichen Probleme Red und Antwort zu stehen; der Student der äussersten Linken schreit den Andersdenkenden kurzerhand nieder, und ein weltbekannter Schriftsteller schliesslich will nicht mehr mit jenen Medien und Publikationsorganen zusammenarbeiten, die seine Antagonisten einmal haben zu Worte kommen lassen...

Es wäre wohl an der Zeit, jenes Voltaire zugeschriebene klassische Zitat wieder zu Ehren zu bringen. Denn Toleranz bedeutet Vorbedingung für die dringend nötige offene Auseinandersetzung, die ihrerseits einziges Heilmittel gegen die Aengste des verunsicherten Menschen unserer Jahrzehnte ist. Dies aber bedingt, dass man endlich des Menschen Mündigkeit wieder anerkenne. Und dass man aufhöre, den Zeitgenossen für einen Trottel zu halten, den man durch das obskure Parteichinesisch einer verworrenen neuen Pseudophilosophie blendeden könnte oder durch die Sittmandate einer verwirrten Autorität gängeln müsste.

MIT MENSCHEN IN OSTDEUTSCHLAND
Sicherheitsplan für Europa, die sich soweit gegen die
unverdächtigte Verwaltung der Bundesanstalt für
CAROPA AG CH-0403 ZÜRICH, Postfach 196

Dieses Inserat erschien Ende November 1971 in mehreren grossen Zeitungen Westdeutschlands.

«Fluchthilfe gegen Bargeld.» Die Bundesanwaltschaft in Bern, unterstützt von Westberliner Kollegen, witterte hinter dieser dubiosen Anzeige sogleich verbotenen Nachrichtendienst, denn «es wäre nicht das erstmal, dass der DDR-Spionage-dienst mit unkonventionellen Methoden versuchen würde, die Namen potentieller Republikflüchtlinge ausfindig zu machen», erklärte der «Weltwoche» Fürsprech Otto Hänni von der Bundesanwaltschaft.

Parallel zu diesen Ermittlungen schalteten sich die Zürcher Strafverfugungsbehörden ein: «Es ist unsere Pflicht», erläutert Bezirksanwalt Dr. Hermann Suter, «sogleich nachzuprüfen, ob sich hinter der Fassade der ›Verwandtenzusammenführung‹ nicht ein grossangelegtes Betrugsmanöver verbirgt.»

Bei der Caropa AG an der Ackersteinstrasse 116 in Zürich-Höngg nimmt man diese Verdächtigungen gelassen hin. Hans Ulrich Lenzlinger, Direktor dieses Finanz- und Treuhandunternehmens, findet den ganzen Wirbel «einfach lächerlich»: «Trotz mehreren Hausdurchsuchungen haben die Bundesschnüffler kein einziges Indiz gefunden, um ihren Verdacht zu erhärten. Sie haben deshalb auch schon zum Rückzug geblasen.»

«Wir tun genau das, was wir versprechen», betont Walter Bürgin, rechte Hand von Caropa-Chef Lenzlinger. «Gegen 27 000 bis 55 000 DM, je nach Finanzlage des Kunden, organisieren wir die Flucht der gewünschten Person aus dem Osten in die Bundesrepublik. Betrug von unserer Seite ist unmöglich, denn unsere Kunden sind durch einen hieb- und stichfesten Vertrag bestens geschützt. Das Honorar wird zwar im voraus kassiert, um unsere Forderung zu schützen, wird aber auf einem Sperrkonto auf Eis gelegt. Erst nach erfülltem Auftrag können wir kassieren.»

Schutz, die ihm ins heikle Handwerk pfuschen. «Aeusserste Diskretion ist in diesem Metier, das absolut legal ist und gegen kein einziges Gesetz verstösst, das erste Gebot. Trotz allen Versicherungen, die uns abgegeben worden sind, hat aber Bern oder Zürich nicht dichtgehalten. Wie kommt es sonst, dass ein deutscher Journalist den Namen eines Vertragspartners kennt, von dem ausser uns nur die Polizei etwas wissen kann? Solche Indiskretionen können die Sicherheit der Flüchtlinge in der DDR aufs schwerste gefährden!»

Allerdings handelt die Caropa AG mit ihrer Fluchthilfe-Organisation, die nach den Worten ihres Anwalts Dr. Paul Geiger «durchaus legal ist und auch den humanitären Auffassungs- und unseres Landes entspricht», nicht aus philanthropischen Beweggründen. «Für uns ist das ein Geschäft wie jedes andere. Wir kennen eine Methode, wie man relativ sicher Leute aus der DDR herausschmuggeln kann, und wollen damit Geld verdienen, sonst gar nichts.»

Direktor Lenzlinger will deshalb auch nichts von den Befürchtungen des Bundesanwaltschaft wissen, seine Tätigkeit könne zu internationalen Verwicklungen mit der Bundesrepublik oder der DDR führen.

Dass für die Bürger der DDR, die keine reichen Verwandten im Westen haben und sich deshalb wohl oder übel mit ihrem Schicksal abzufinden haben, die Bespitzelung durch die Polizei mit Sicherheit verstärkt wird, wenn im Westen Fluchthilfe-Organisationen öffentlich Reklame machen; dass eine solche Tätigkeit die Bemühungen um eine Liberalisierung im Verkehr zwischen Bundesrepublik und der DDR, wie Passierscheinabkommen oder erleichterte Ausreisebestimmungen, erheblich gefährden kann, das kümmert den Caropa-Boss nicht.

Ihm geht's nur ums Geschäft. Stölz kann er deshalb verkünden, dass die Caropa AG soeben der «Bunten Illustrierten» das Recht verkauft habe, über die nächste Fluchthilfe-Aktion eine Gross-Reportage zu veröffentlichen.
Ch. L.

Ch. L.

so formulieren liesse: «Moralische Bedenken in Ehren, aber man muss realistisch denken. Mehr lässt sich einfach nicht erreichen.»

Warum dann nicht diese Lage offen zugeben, eventuell sogar unwirksame Sanktionen aufgeben, aber sich gleichzeitig scharf vom Smith-Regime distanzieren? Geht es der Londoner Regierung um Erhaltung einer fiktiven Machtspäre, wo sie — wie der Kompromiss zeigt — doch ohne wirkliche Macht ist? Oder geht es um wirtschaftliche Interessen? Aber Tabak ohne das Aroma von blutigem Negerschweiss sollte doch sicher schmecken.

Wie explosiv diese als unveränderlich geschilderte rhodesische «Realität» in

Rabenau

Wirklichkeit ist, haben die Erfahrungen der Pearce-Kommission gezeigt. Smith' rabiate Rassisten und ihre ach so britische Polizei können die zwanzigfache Mehrheit der Afrikaner nicht auf die Dauer in Schach halten, nachdem sie einmal aus dem politischen Schlaf erwacht ist. Auch eine Verbindung mit Südafrika könnte nur aufschiebende Wirkung haben — vorausgesetzt, dass Pretoria gewillt ist, sich zu seinen Apartheid-Problemen noch fünf Millionen rhodesischer «Kaffern» aufzuhalten.

Sicher ist: wenn Rhodesiens schwarze Mehrheit ihre Grundrechte durch Gewalt erkämpfen muss, wird sie dabei keine Glacéhandschuhe tragen. Sollten wir in wenigen Jahren Photos aus Rhodesien sehen, die unser Blut erstarren lassen, wird man in Europa und vor allem in London kein Recht zur morali-schen Entrüstung haben. Denn, so hören wir ja schon jetzt, man muss eben realistisch denken.
J. V.

## Unwahre Geschichte von Hans Gmür: Bernhard und

«Was sagen Sie zum Sieg von Bernhard Russi? Zum Triumph der Marie-Theres Nadig? Zum gloriosen Abschneiden unserer Schweizer ganz allgemein?»

Flinke Kollegen von Presse, Radio und Fernsehen haben sich diese Schicksalsfrage bereits von sämtlichen Verwandten und Bekannten der ruhremischen Nippon Fahrer von Andermattern

Bundesrat Bonvin lächelte verschmitzt.

«Ich bin sehr glücklich! Die Anzahl der Schweizerinnen und Schweizer, die in den letzten acht Tagen den Telephon-Weckdienst beanspruchten, ist so gross, die Flut von Glückwunschatelegrammen und -telephonaten so gewaltig, dass ich vielleicht sogar auf meinen Entscheid

«Diese Siege helfen mir enorm. Jetzt kann ich auf internationalem Parkett ganz anders auftreten.»

Auch Bundeshaus-Novize Furgler war, soweit ihm das sein wohltemperiertes Otschweizer Naturell erlaubte, enthusiastisch:

«Als Handballer und Mit-Spitzen-sportler kann ich aus tiefstem Herzen

Kleine Auslandnachrichten

Streit um alte Briefe. (ap) Die französische Post nimmt ein Bündel uralter Briefe zum Anlaß, gegen den Baggerführer René-Joseph de Grevellec gerichtlich vorangehen. Es handelt sich um 540 Briefe, die während des Krieges zwischen Frankreich und Preußen vor 101 Jahren mit Hilfe eines hermetisch abgedichteten Zinkbehälters in das belagerte Paris befördert werden sollten. Der ungewöhnliche Briefkasten war damals der durch Paris fließenden Seine anvertraut worden, in der Hoffnung, daß er vom Flußwasser in die Hauptstadt getragen und dort durch besondere Netze aufgefangen würde.

Die Briefe trieben fast 100 Jahre in der Seine auf und ab, bis de Grevellec sie zufällig am 6. August 1968 am Ufer der Seine erblickte. Die französische Post, erpicht auf die wertvolle Sendung, will sich nun vor Gericht ihr Monopol auch auf die Beförderung 101 Jahre alter Briefe bestätigen lassen. Falls das Gericht sich dadurch nicht beeindrucken läßt, gedenken die Postjuristen auf ein Dekret aus dem Jahre 1669 zurückzugreifen, das Flußtreibgut zu Staatsbesitz erklärt.