Viewing page 94 of 95
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR "First the blade, then the ear, [[image]] then the full grain in the ear"® Thursday, August 8, 1974 The Monitor's view Opinion and Commentary PUBLISHED BY THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING SOCIETY Politics and presidency As the first shock of President Nixon's Aug. 5 disclosure subsides, both Republican and Democrats have a fresh opportunity and obligation to exert the moral leadership which has been newly dramatized as missing at the top. They must subordinate partisan advantage to the national good as they do their part to restore integrity to their country's highest office. If there were any doubt that such restoration is necessary, it has been dispelled by the President's own words confirming that the White House cover-up of Watergate was not an invention of special prosecutor, the grand jury, the press, or the House Judiciary Committee. In many instances, of course, national and party interests overlap. Only the conscience of a Republican can tell him whether his motive for seeking presidential resignation is primarily to hasten a return to proper leadership - or to avoid having to vote on impeachment and having to campaign under the Nixon shadow. Only the conscience of a Democrat can tell him whether is motive for opposing resignation is primarily to carry throughout the constitutional impeachment process which has been so well begun - or to keep a discredited leader dangling over Republican candidates. This newspaper reaffirms its position that resignation would not be the best presidential response to the urgency of restoring leadership. But if Mr. Nixon continues to tough it out, America's basic equilibrium during the whole Watergate ordeal assures that the nation could cope with even the further wrench of a Senate trial. Indeed, if carried through with the bipartisan conscientiousness displayed so far, the process need not have a shattering effect but a uniting and constructive one. Public and politicians need to remember that the object of either resignation or impeachment is not mainly punishment of an individual but safeguarding an office. With Republican defenders of Mr. Nixon now taking the lead in asking for resignation, it cannot be said that he is being hounded out by his enemies. With Democrats backing Mr. Nixon's stated preference for the impeachment process, it cannot be said that opposition pressure is inhibiting his choice of a full trial. As for voting an impeachment or conviction, Mr. Nixon's admission of culpability may have undercut his staunchest defender- but it has also assured that anyone can vote against him, if conscience so dictates, without the onus of party disloyalty or partisan bias. Vice-President Ford has wisely seen that he can detach himself from defending Mr. Nixon now without such an onus. It is incumbent on both parties to aid a speedy and orderly transition of leadership, continuing on the impeachment route as promptly and efficiently as possible if the President does not choose the equally constitutional course of removing himself from office. May a high standard of politics be maintained whatever Mr. Nixon decides to do next. [[/right margin]] New vote for Kissinger It was a foregone conclusion. But we are nonetheless happy that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has unanimously cleared Secretary of State Kissinger of allegations of lying about his role in wiretapping newsmen and government officials from 1969 to 1971. Dr. Kissinger says he no longer sees any reason to resign his office because of doubts raised in the press about his credibility. Since we never thought matters would reach such a pass, we cannot express relief. But we do take this opportunity to restate our strong support for the Secretary and his able and often brilliant conduct of foreign policy. At the same time it should be noted that the committee's investigation centered only on the narrow issue of whether Dr. Kissinger misrepresented his role when he stated during testimony last year that he did not "initiate" the 17 wiretaps. Its report states that its purpose was not to look into the wiretap operation per se or to rule on the legality of the wiretap program. There is no doubt the committee was eager to avoid probing this broader and far more important issue. With the presidential crisis rushing toward a climax and anxiety mounting abroad over its effect on American diplomacy, there was no desire to do anything which might call into question the actions of the Secretary of State or bring about his downfall. We shares the view of so many that Dr. Kissinger is a most needed national asset now and we hope he will remain in office even if President Nixon is removed. However, many questions about the entire wiretap program remain unanswered and warrant full scrutiny. The White House has always maintained that the taps were conducted to stem leaks of national security information to the press. Yet probes by the Judiciary Committee shows that some of the taps did not have legitimate national security objectives but were used for political aims and carried out in violation of the Constitution. Even the White House claim that the wiretaps, made without warrants, were legal at the time is in dispute. No less a jurist than the former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg contends that the taps were illegal and that the "national security" argument is not sustainable. The Senate committee, noting "discrepancies" between FBI documents and the testimony of participants in the inquiry, says "probably it will never be possible to determine exactly what took place" and it is impossible to resolve every question about the wiretap program. That may or may not be so. But we would stress the urgency of congressional efforts to probe wiretap practices and pass legislation that will safeguard the protection which the Constitution gives to the privacy of every citizen. Foreign students in U.S. The historic role of American universities as alma maters to a long list of leaders and public servants throughout the world appears to be overlooked by a new United States Immigration Service policy drastically restricting summer and part-time jobs for foreign students. America itself would be a big loser if many of these students are forced to abandon their education here and return home before graduating. Their presence in classrooms and campus life across the country has enriched the education of any number of American students, while the foreign students themselves have gone home with a deeper appreciation and understanding of America. The contribution this process has made to international diplomacy is incalculable. Of course, Pakistan's Prime Minister Bhutto (University of California) and the Philippines Foreign Minister Romulo (Columbia) probably wouldn't have been affected by a job cutoff. But a host of lower officials, journalist, and educators of humbler background in their countries might never have made it through. As U.S. education officials point out, the number of foreign students needing summer or part-time work to help support themselves is minuscule (not more than 20,000) compared to the employment problem in this country. They maybe be competing for certain jobs with American students - but not for the kind of regular employment needed by Vietnam verterns and minorities whom the government says it is trying to protect. We urge the U.S. Immigration Service to reconsider its policy. 'I wonder how he did it' [[image]] Jackson and the trade bill by Alton Frye Washington Few legislators can match the performance of Sen. Henry Jackson. A vigorous critic of the administration's strategic arms control policies, he has proved to be an equally powerful opponent of the pending trade bill. For more than a year the administration has delayed the bill rather than ace[t a Jackson amendment which conditions credit and most-favored nation (MFN) status for the Soviet Union on Moscow's willingness to relax controls over emigration, particularly for Jewish citizens wishing to migrate to Israel. Through these actions, Senator Jackson has established a controlling position with regard to further evolution of Soviet-American relations. He has also provoked the ire, if not the enmity, of the Soviet Government. There is no doubt that the threat posed by the Jackson amendment has given U.S. diplomats added leverage in their effort to persuade Moscow to allow a freer flow of Jewish emigrants. The Senator's unique role has brought him into active participation in these diplomatic exchanges. Jackson has quite deliberately exploited his bargaining power, while hinting at some flexibility in the matter. The Soviets have offered a number of quiet concessions, but they predictably denounce the Jackson amendment as intrusion in their domestic affairs. For some time Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and others have been groping for a way to defuse the Jackson bombshell. A number of senators resent being boxed in by a proposal which they support only at considerable risk to the détente they favor, and which they oppose only at the peril of losing the favor of Jewish constituents. One problem with the amendment as presently framed is its "once and for all" quality. To obtain MFN treatment, the Soviets would have to undertake explicit commitments to liberalize emigration rules for the indefinite future. Conceding that Senator Jackson's ploy has induced a healthy tension in Soviet-American diplomacy, the objective should be to sustain that tension into the future. It is too much to expect the granting of MFN, a largely symbolic act, to produce enduring humanitarianism in Soviet policy. A lever of far greater promise for influencing the Soviets is control over credits to finance expanded Soviet-American economic activity. The Senate will shortly consider extending the authority of the Export-Import Bank, currently operating under month-to-month authorizations. Sen. Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, a strong supporter of the Jackson position, has authored committee provisions to regulate credits to Communist countries. While the Illinois Senator disavows any intention of undermining the Jackson amendment, the Export-Import Bank bill could be the vehicle to break the deadlock over trade legislation. Slight modification of Stevenson's language would permit the Congress to review and, if necessary, to veto major credit arrangements with the Soviet Union. The President could be required to submit for congressional scrutiny each credit over $10 million, together with a report on currently developments in Soviet-American relations, including trends in Russian emigration practices. The credits could go into effect only if neither house of Congress disapproved within 30 days. This arrangement would enable Congress to maintain its oversight of the political evolution between Moscow and Washington. Knowing it would have the opportunity periodically to review credit proposals - matters more important to Moscow than MFN - Congress could drop the Jackson amendment. Such a device would serve both Congress's institutional Interest in keeping its hand in the action and its political interest in keeping the pressure on Moscow to deal gently with would-be emigres. A new approach would be welcomed by the administration. And it would relieve the anguish of Jackson's cosponsors who find themselves trapped by necessary politics into unwise policy. Ambassador Charles W. Yost is traveling. Dr. Alton Frye, substituting, is a senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations.0 © 1974 William R. Frye Desegregation and politics By David L. Kirp In the Detroit school desegregation decision, the Supreme Court majority showed an unwillingness to break open the political and emotional hornet's nest of cross-district busing. In constitutional terms, the court's Bradley v. Milliken decision is puzzling. Two-thirds of Detroit's students are black, a percentage likely to increase dramatically in the near future. While Detroit had attempted - through teacher assignment policies, attendance zoning, and the like - to wall off blacks and whites, even the abandonment of these practices will not make possible real integration within city limits. There are just not enough whites to go around. The lower courts concluded that only by including the suburbs in a desegregation order could integration in Detroit actually take place. Moreover, the 14th Amendment applies to the state, not just to school districts the state chooses to create. There was evidence that the state of Michigan, through housin and zoning policies, had contributed to the metropolitan area's racial polarization. And, as Justice White observed, the court "ignored the legal reality that constitutional violations, even if occurring local were committed by governmental entities for which the state is responsible . . . ." The majority offered no persuasive rebuttal to these arguments. It stressed the importance of "local control over the operation of schools . . . ." The point is factually questionable: the amount of power actually exercised by school districts varies considerably from state to state. It is also Misleading, for it ignores a host of decisions - concerning such matters as abortion and the death penalty- in which the court has consciously overridden local determinations that it found to be constitutionally offensive. The court was also worried about the substantial administrative changes that metropolitanization would have necessitated. The difficulties involved, including arrangements for financing and governing the new district, are evident; they are not, however, constitutional difficulties. Indeed, the court admitted as much in noting that, where proof of deliberate state wrongdoing was clearly shown, metropolitanization would be a permissible remedy. For those concerned about equal educational opportunity in the cities, viable legal and political remedies remain. For one thing, suites seeking to integrate city and suburban school districts could still have effect. The standard of review developed in last year's Keyes decision suggests that few cities could justify prevailing segregation. Although desegregation confined to city boundaries may not help Detroit or New York much, those communities are the exception: there remain many cities, such as Boston and large suburban districts, such as Maryland's Prince Georges County, where integration is feasible. Also, the decision might lead minorites to seek a more active role in governing urban school systems; that has already begun to happen in Atlanta. Such developments seem all to the good. These cheering notes are not much help to cities that are nearing insolvency and are - or are becoming - overwhelmingly black. The politics of compromise that characterizes the Detroit decision leaves them in the cold. After last year's Rodriguez decision, they can make no constitutional claim on the state for an equitable share of education dollars. And now, after the Detroit decision, they cannot count on their neighboring communities for help. These cities are left to their own devices, and few options remain that have not already been tried and found unsuccessful. Bradly was doubtless a politically prudent decision. But its costs, measured in terms of human potential, may well be great. Professor Kirp teaches at the Graduate School of Public Policy and School of Law, University of California (Berkeley). Readers write The two-dollar bill To The Christian Science Monitor: A recent Focus column reported a growing sentiment for revival by the U. S. Treasury Department of the two-dollar bill. I for one am in favor of reinstating it. I liked the old two-dollar bill. I was not among those who complained about it as being unnecessary or a nuisance and so were responsible for its discontinuance. To me it was a handy intermediate denomination between a one and a five, and it would be the more so today because of the diminishing value of the dollar. If the two-dollar bill is revived, it would be a good time to do something which Canada ad various other countries have long since done: distinguish different denominations by different colors. I have not understood why the Treasury Department has not favored the practice. Certainly it would eliminate the confusion which can too easily occur when all bills, whatever their denomination, are green. Culver, Ind. John F. Roos Letters expressing readers' views are welcome. Each receives editorial consideration though only a selection can be published and none individually acknowledged. All are subject to condensation. Choosing future vice-presidents By Allan E. Goodman America's Agnew-Ford experience in losing one vice-president and selecting another raises a good many long-term questions about the vice-presidency itself. Any thinking about how to improve the system should begin with the fact that established practice does not necessarily follow the Founding Fathers' intentions. Was a vice-president actually intended to become president when called upon to fill a president's shoes? Or was he to become only "acting president" until the election of a new president? Scholars still debate what the Constitution really means in Article II, Section 1, when it says: "In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same (the duties or the office?) shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then act (emphasis added) as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected." In spite of the passage's ambiguity, eight vice-presidents have succeeded to the office of the presidency — not just its duties — and have been recognized as presidents, not acting presidents. Americans apparently owe this unratified interpretation of their Constitution to Daniel Webster, who, as ranking Cabinet member on the death of President William Henry Harrison, persuaded his colleagues that President John Tyler should become President for the remainder of the term for which Harrison had been elected. Even though this became the accepted practice, and even though a number of vice-presidents were later elected president in their own right, nothing has been done either to change the role of the vice president or to assure that he is prepared for succession. Some, ignoring the ambiguity of the Constitution, argue that because the vice-president is a creature of politics accompanying the presidential nomination, he will be experienced enough to any event to succeed the president. Such a position, however, ignores the statements of those vice presidents who became president complaining of how woefully ill-prepared they were. That many later performed, brilliantly is, it seems to me, entirely a question of luck. Many vice-presidents who, by good fortune, did not have to succeed to the presidency would have been disasters; some who did not become president performed poorly. Others argue either that the vice-president be given more to do and at all times be fully privy to the decision-making within the administration or that we have more vice presidents. The latter suggestion, first made in 1881, was ultimately rejected for fear that it would encourage rather than abate interparty politics, providing an unwitting president with a shadow cabinet. The former suggestion is usually made every four years during the summer and fall and, thereafter, quickly forgotten. Finally, most of the handful of scholars who have written on the subject tend to suggest the creation of an assistant president, appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such an assistant president could, given the ambiguity of the Constitution, act for the president and succeed him. Proponents of this viewpoint virtually give the vice-president up for lost as a creature of politics and devote their attention to the specification of which particular jobs the assistant president should, under law, be required to fulfill. A current candidate for assistant president of the United States would, for example be Henry Kissinger. And, indeed, an assistant president might well carry the very portfolio Dr. Kissinger now enjoys. Now we have another alternative growing out of the confirmation of Gerald Ford. Why not have the vice-president always designated and selected with the advice and consent of the Senate or the Congress after the president is elected? This would not violate the spirit of the Constitution on the question of succession. Such a procedure would also simply substitute one electoral college for another. This procedure would provide needed time for the president to investigate the background of his choice, and encourage him to make good pledges to create in cooperation with Congress an effective job for the vice presidency. Just as other executive branches are established by congressional charter, a similar document could be worked out to establish the scope of the vice-presidency. Then, should Americans ever be faced with the question of succession they could have a clear choice between a vice-president whose job background, and preparation are well known and who is accepted as legitimate, as is Mr. Ford, or one who would only act for the president until the special election, suggested in the Constitution, was held. Should a president-elect die before he is inaugurated or the vice-president is confirmed, the Speaker of the House would be eminently qualified to organize such an election. For, as we have so vividly and dramatically seen in the past year, the prerogative of automatic succession is too much to give to a position that otherwise does not call for qualities, accountability and experience we demand of our presidents. Mr. Goodman is chairman of the Department of Government and International Relations at Clark University, Worcester, Mass.
Transcription Notes:
image: cartoon of Nixon reading newspaper with heading "FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE CLEARS KISSINGER"
