LETTERS

EDITORIALS

they accepted, didnt they?

Question Time

Pomona, N.Y.
DEARSIRS:While it is adubious distinction to be invited
to the White House to witness the presentation of a medal
to anyone connected with Readers Drgest, your editorial
slur atDr. Sidney Hook and IrvingKristol was out of
order [Feb. 141. Neither is a right-wing luminary, Both
are men who believe in intellectual honesty, parliamentary
procedure, dissent but not disruption, and SQ far as Sidney
a
genuine belief that the college
Hook is concerned,
campus is not the place where all political problems should
gravitate; moreover, a sincere commitment to the concept that academic achievement ought to be the only
criterion by which one is selected for a university faculty
position.
It is, however, scandalous to witness Billy Graham in
attendance .at such functions.
As for theoutburst of Carole. Feraci, that act canbe
criticized more than praised because she chose the wrong
forum for a well-meaning deed, and one wonders whether
she hastheright
to hold an audience captive inthat
niannerandin
such setting.
Elliott A . Cohen

etiquette
Jamaica, Vt.
DEARSIRS:For one brief momentCarole Feraci held the
undivided attention of millions of TV viewers when she
spoke her piece ata White House dinner given to award
Freedom Medals tothe DeWitt Wallaces of the Readers
Dlgest. If Jesus Christ was i n . this room tonight; -you
would not dare to drop anotherbomb,she
said, referring to our air war in Vietnam. Whenshe was asked
to leave the room, she said, Certainly, and left
quietly. . . .
A wealthy New York rea1 estate deaIer was heard to
say,Throw the bum out. And the Attorney Generals
gracious wife spouted, I think she- should bel tornlimb
from limb. One 1s forced to think of the Vietnamese
country people squatting in caves, dining on ahandful of
rice garnered from fields subjected to U.S. bombing and
free fire zone tactics.
An NBCcommentator
spoke of bad manners. Can
the moral problem be hldden behind references to
etiquette?
Mark Worthen

Nixon logic
Pittsburgh, Pa.
DEAHSIRS:At his press conference on Feb. 10 Mr. Nixon
said: There is in my view . a very great difference
between
criticizing theconduct of the war and criticisms by a Presidential candidate of a policy,to end the war.
Expanding on this thought, Robert B. Semple, Jr. writes in
The New York Times on Feb. 1 1 thatMr. Nixon recalled
how he himself had not been happy with President Johnsons conduct of the war. But Nixon went on to add that,
in Semples words, after he had become acandidate
he had not attacked Mr. Johnsons efforts to achieve a
negotlated settlement.
Vietnam.
Though they enjoy
Now all this isvery interesting. ,
telling the public how it was a progression of Democratic
administrations that got us into Vietnam while it is a Repub].can Administration that is pulling us out, the truth is the
Republican Party supported the war from the start. If ever
there has been a bipartisan war it was in Vietnam. And as
for Richard Nixon
the only thing he did not like about
Johnsons war policies is that they didnt go far enough. It
was Nixon who, long before taking office, felt we should
(Continued on page 340)

. .

...

...

..

.. .

322

Now that the President and his travelbig troupe have

returned, we knowwhatwe
could reasonablyhave,assumedbefore he left-that the mainimportance of the
journey was the fact that he made it. There are of course
fringe benefits: a direct line of communication; the hope
of cultural,journalistic, educational and scientific ex-
Ghanges; the possibiIity of eventual recognition and formal relations; and beyond that, trade andtourist opportunities. Not least, the trip marks the end of the Dull&
determination to prevent any normal relationsbetween
the UnitedStates and China to the end that Chinamight
eventually.turn away from communism.
Nearly all the politicians seem inclinedto applaud all this
with some degree of enthusiasm. One exception is Hubert
Humphreywho,havingsuccumbed
to unbridled opportunism, insists on doing to Nixon what Nixon did to the
Democrats in years past-he baits him for having pulled
the rug out from under the Nationalist Chinese.Other
Democratsarewelladvised
,toput this temptation aside.
Buttheresone large hole in the Presidentshandling
of theissues related to the ,trip, and until that omission
is repaired the applause shouldbe restrained.
Whatisconspicuouslylacking-and
it is odd that
amidst the flood of comment it hasgoneunnoticed- i s a clear, persuasive state-ment- of
.reasons for his turnabout. Part of the ethics of leadership in a democratic
society is to display a minimal amount of candor; without
it, communicationbecomes a travesty. The Executive is
obliged to offer the people, for their understanding and
possiblecomment and criticism, some idea of hbw he
reaches decisions on key issues. In the present case, we
are entitled to a statement of the evolution-assuming
there hasbeen an evolution-of
Mr. Nixons thinking
and a definition of the position he now maintains.
For Mr. Nixon, personally, this trip wouldseem to
reflect a reversal of political views. Has hechangedhis
mind? If so, why doesnt he say that he has, and explain
why? He has not said that he made a mistake when, with
conspicuouslack of humor, he urgedtheunleashing
of
Chiang Kai-shek. He has not said that he made a mistake
when he embraced the position of the China Lobby. He
has not said that he regrets the expenditure of all those
billions in a vainefforttoencircle,
frustrate, annoy and
possibly topple the Chinese regime. He has not said that
he regrets his part in having kept China out of the ,U.N..
and in having fashioned those twenty-two years of hostilitywhichhenowclaims
credit for ending. Re has
not said that he regrets the basis of U.S. policytoward
China, which was a prime factor in setting the stage for
in
the war
I
Whatspeciticallydoes the President think toduy about
suchmattersasthese?
Has U.S. policybeenmistakenly
geared to the idea of containment? Has that ideafaiIed
in the East, as it has failed elsewhere? Was it a mistake
tomakesuchextensive
and bindingcommitments
to
Chiang Kai-shek, who is now in a position to accuse us
of bad faith? Was it a mistake to try to keep China in
the international doghouse for those twenty-two ybars?

.the

Or, approaching thematterfrom

the opposite direction, does the President now hold that the Chinese have
changed? If so, in what directions, to what extent, and
from our viewpoint, how reliably? If he t h i n k s that they
have not changed, but the situation has, in what respects
has it changed, and with what implications?
It is clearly implied that he assumes thatChina does
not threaten us today, but surely that cannot mean that
; he thinks China is weaker today than it waswhen he,
among others, pictured it as a menace. If the Cviese do
not. threaten US today, because they are preoccupied with
. the threat to them from Russia, does he look with favor
on this enmity, which contains the seeds of World War III?
Finally, hasMr.
Nixon perceived the dangers of a
black-and-white, Manichean attitude in foreign affairs?
When did this enlightenment occur, if in fact it has occurred? Or is he engaged in a rapprocltemerzt with China
in the hope of getting us, out of the Indochinese war; if
SO, what makes him think that approayh is promising?
We can get ourselves out, if we will; indeed, is there any
other feasible, exit?
We are not suggesting that the President should pronounce a humiliating mea culpa. Former Sen. Thruston
Mortonhadthe
courage to say .that hehad been mistakenabout Vietnah, and so did Senator Muskie. It is
more difficult for a President, but not even he can claim
1 immunity fromthe obligation to explain a. radical change

of course.
Bismarckian, Metternichean politics will not work in a
society like ours. That is why Vietnam blew upin the
faces of Mr. Nixonsa,nd Dr. Kissingers predecessors.
People want to know. In Chinaandthe
Soviet Union,
they also want to know, butare shy to say so. Here,
however, cwhyyyand how and when areperfectly
.respectable words. It is .the Presidents obligation to hear
them and tu respond,
I
I

Leaning om the President

No& thatthe Pr6sident is back,the parties must get
on with the campaign. Senator Dole assures us that Mr.
Nixon will make some appearances in several statesif, that is, he can be assured thatthe occasions will be,
nonpolitical. The proviso is absurd, and fhe Senator knows
it. Thereare no nonpolitical appearances in a campaign
year. If the President were to dedicate a shrine to motherhood, itwould be a political act. He will make carefuqy
calculated appearances in key states and the calculations
will be wholly political. As in the past, everything Mr.
Nixon does,is political, including the darker dye he is using
on his hair. He will appear, smile, talk about his journey
for peace, raise his arms in semaphoric exuberance, and
depaqt, leaving many voters feeling that, like Chiang Kaishek, theyve been had.
The President will perform this ritualand
will do
nothing ,more-unless theDemocratstakethe
issues to
him, somewhat along the lines suggested in the editorial
above. With rare exceptions to date, they have not been
doing so. To someextentthat
isinevitable in the preconvention phase, .when the Democrats are running againstone ano;ther, not against Nixon.
But they make a grave mistake by letting him set the
THE

IN THIS ISSUE

I
I

March 13, 1972

EDITORIALS
,322

ARTICLES
326 Florida Primary:
Quite a Bit of Everything

Martin Dyckman

329 Fourth Network:

The Public Be Damned

Gregory Knox
332 The Conglomerate Green Giant
George L . Baker and Ronald B. Taylor
336 Promises in the Promised Land
Herbert Krosney
338 Imperialists and Scholars:
The Discontents of Stanford
Sherman B. Chickering
I

BOOKS &3 THE ARTS

341 The Compact Edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary
342
Pawns
Barnes:
343 Cooke, ed.. Moderq Black

Robert L. Chapman
David VazdgHt

Novelists
Jerry H : Bryant
343 Altadena FoothilIs (poem)
Barbara Hughes
345 Forrester: World
Dynamics
S. Fred Singer
346 Medvedev, Roy A.: Let History Judge
Medvedev, Zbores A. and Roy A.:
A Questioc of Madness
Desmond Smith
347 From the Balcony (poem)
Irving Feldmart
348 Davis: The Image of Lmcoln
in the South
Christopher
Dell
349 Theatre
Harold Clurrnan
349 Art
Lawrence Alloway
Pyblisher
JAMES J. STORROW Jr.

Edltor
CAREY McWlLLlAMS

Associate Publisher
GIFFORD PHILLIPS

Executive Editor
ROBERT HATCH

Literary Editor
EMlLE CAPOUYA

MARION HESS. Poetry Editor, ROBERT HAZEL;

COPY
Editor.
Theatre,
HAROLD
CLURMAi;
LAWRENCE
Art, ALLOWAY.
Music DAVID HAMILTON. Sclence CARL DREHER. Advertlsmd
ROSE d. GREEN.
Manaier, MARY SIMON, ClrculatlonManager,
Editorial Associate, ERNEST GRUENING
Washingtop, ROBERT SHERRILL; London
RAYMOND
WILLIAMS;
Paris CLAUDE BOURDET- Bonn AdERY.
C.
Jerusalem HERBERT
6 FITZGERALD; U.N., ANNETUkKERMAN.
KROSNEY: Canberra.
C.
The Nation is published weekly (except blweekly in July and Kuqust)
by the NationCompany and copyright 1972 in the U.S.A. by theNation
Associates lec 333 Sixth Avenue New York. N. Y. 10014. Tel. C l i
2-8400.Sekond
;lass postage paid i t New York, N. Y.
SubscriptionPrice:
One year $I2 50 two years $23 Add $ 1
postage for Canadaand
Mexico; $2other
foreibn
,

Change of Address: It i s essential that subscribers ordering a chabge

of address ive
lwe
weeks notice and provlde thelc old as well as
their new aJddrerr. Please give Z i p Code numbers for both addresses.
Manuscripts.
All
work subrnltted will be read by the
editors.
The
magazine cannot, however, be responslble for the return of unsol~cited
mdnurcripts unless they are accornpanled by stamped, self-addressed
envelopes.
InformationtoLibraries:TheNation
is indexed i n Readers Guide to
Periodical
Literature
Book Review Dlgest, Book Review Index and
the Publlc Affairs Iniormatlon, Service.

NATION:

per year

V oNo.
h m 11
e 234
323

NATloN/March 13. 1972

rules for the campaign, while they slug it out in Florida,

NewHampshire, Wisconsin, or wherever theycan find
an audience to watch them bruise one another. However
great or small a chance of each for eventual victory, they
, all have a common adversary. ~y cant they nominate a
team of noncandidatestostart
shaping the issues in the
only way in which they can be effectively shaped-by
taking the fight to the President, as Senator Kennedy is
1
doing?
Issuesabound: foreign policy in a dozen aspects-the
state of the economy-unemployment-civil
rights-the
cities-law and order-ecological damage-mass transiteducational policy-taxes. And the trade deficit, the precarious state of the dollar, intlation, the cost of living, child
care, and so on in an almost endless list.
Now that Mr. Nixons animosity toward the media has
turnedinto a warm mellowglow (howthe fellow can
twist),perhaps he will start holding regularpressconferencesand answering a few questions. Perhaps,butit
is not likely, unless the opposition leans on him. He will
continueto float abovethe issues, taking evasive action
whenever he sees one approaching. He is a very cuttlefish
for sepia clouds of rhetoric.
The campaign is the thing, thecampaign
ahead of
everything else. Thereisno
blinking thefactthatthe
President has gained votes by his pilgrimage .to Peking,
but votes blow where they list, and it is up to the Demo. crats to begin taking votes away from him. The sooner
they start, the better the chance
for their nominee-who..
.
.
..
- everthat may be;-- -

CAMPAIGN 72
The Vanishing Family Farm

When Facrories in the Field was first published in 1939

I was accused of exaggerating theextentto
which the
large-scale corporate farm was making inroads on the trak
it
ditional family-sized farm.
Thirty-three
years
later
isevidentthat,
on thecontrary,
I grossly understated
the danger. I did not foresee the tentacles of Tenneco,
I did not anticipate the present invasion of conglomerates
(see article p. 332). It did not occur to me that,, within a
generation,the
large-scale corporatefarms of thelate
1930s would bethreatened by still largerconcentrations
of power. It was even more difficult then than now to make
the point that the real issue in the perennial small farm,
large farm controversy is one of social efficiency. Apologists for
corporate
farming
interests-numerous,
well
financed (some of them ensconced in comfortable academic
posts), with ready access to the media-insisted that the
large corporate farm was more efficient, Besides, it spread
economic benefits throughout society, pihcipallyinthe
form of lower prices for food, Therefore let
competition
takeitscourse;letthe
economically fittest survive. But
economic efficiency is a tricky concept. It is wasteful, not
efficient, to pay huge subsidies to large corporatefarms
as a bonus for not raising crops. If one judges agriculture
efficiency in terms of yields per acre, the evidence shows
that for many crops the family-operated farm has the better
record; that, unhappily, does not insureits survival. The
truth is the family-sized farm-actually
a very flexible
concept-could survive if given a chance; it is done in by
324

the fact that ,the corporate farms, and more recently the
conglomerates, command the power (financial, political,
organizational) to mock the idea of fair competition.
This central issue of social efficiency, touched on in the
recent California hearings conducted by a subcommittee
chaired by Senator Stevenson, will engage the attention
of the Senate Monopoly Subcommittee which on March 1
resumed hearings intocorporate
gigantism. Dr. Walter
Goldschmidt is scheduled to be a lead-off witness, and once
again we-shall be reminded of his study of two farming
communities intheSanJoaquin
Valley-of
Arvin, surof Dinuba,
rounded by large-scale corporatefarms,and
with its family-sizedfarms-and
of his conclusion that,
measured by social and civic criteria,thelatter
is the
better, more stable community.%ut the Dinubas of rural
America, and even the small cities that serve as shopping
and service centers for farming communities, cannot survive*without the family farm.
A library of books, studies, investigations andreports
has been devoted to the family-sized farm. Over the years,
the phrase has acquired almost sacred overtones, in large
part because generations of.Americans were raised to
believe that rural meant virtuous, But today, for perhaps
the first time, the problem of how to save the family farm
may be shaping up as a live political issue. I n the past the
standard remedy, of both parties, for rural distress has
been a ritualistic increase in farm prices in election years
(Secretary of Agriculture Butz is now urging such a boost).
That may qujet-fannunrest to some extent, but it will-not
save the family farm. More drastic remedies are needed.
Fortunately, the current hearings will focus on comprehensive new legislation sponsored jointly by Sen. Gaylord
Nelson (D., Wis.) and Rep. James Abourezk (D., S.D.).
Their proposal is not a cure-all, #but it points- in the right
direction. It shouldbe emphasized that today, also for
perhapsthe first time, the issue of the family farmhas
broad implications. For one thing, the plight of the Cities
dramatically underscores the need to achieve a better ruralurban balance. No longer does expression of a concern for
the viability of rural communities sound dull, unenterprising, mildly regressive. In much the same way, ecological concerns have stimulated a reconsideration of the
importance of rural America. The emergence of Cesar
Chavezs pioneering United Farm Workers-it
has just
signed its first contract in Florida-implies that the interests of farm workers must now be considered. So too, the
spreading popuIarity among small farmers of the idea of
collective bargaining suggests that a note of realism is
entering the endless colloquy about the family farm.
Sedater Nel& and Representative Abourezk are
concerned with the economic, social andculturaleffects on
small town andrural America of the activities of large,
diversified and integrated farming corporations. But social
efficiency as a test of various forms of enterprise has-a
relevance that extends beyond agriculture. It would substitute for a myopic concern with profits the need to provide
a better life for more people, with sound, long-range prospects for social and economic stability and minimal damage
to the environment. That is not a bad test of corporate
responsibility everywhere in the economy. That it is being
applied in agriculture suggests that a New Populism, more
sophisticated and relevant than past Populist movements,
THE NATlON/March 13, 1972

may be emerging as a re+ force in American politics. Jack

Newfield and Jeff Greenfield detail the underlying assumptions of such a movement and describe a possible program
foritin
their A Populist Manifesto: The Making o j a
New Majority, published this month by Praeger. The
. present hearings should initiate an ongoing discussion of
the rural and small-town crisis, which is just as severe, in
its way, as the much better publicized urban crisis. The
basic issues-longneglected-should
be flushed out in
Campaign 72, for they,will remain high on the agenda
throughout the decade.
National Future Farmers of America Week has just been
observed (February 19-26); the theme this year was
Youth With a Purpose. If the 450,000 young men and
women whb belong tothat organization are tohavea
future on farms, then the family farm must be given a
chance to survive. That involves a radical reordering of
policies, programs and priorities.
CAKEY
MCWILLIAMS

Irkland, Old and New

lived as neighbors with Protestants for centuries. In Some

areas they get along fine to this day. They work well together: every observer has noted that there is no trouble
in the factories, although the Protestants monopolize the
good jobs. When one looks around the world, North Ireland seems remarkably homogeneous, more so than New
York or Pittsburgh.
1The final Heath dictum i? that those in the North do
not want to live under a theocratic government. . . . Few
people do, uqless it is their theocracy. Northern Ireland has
a ,government neither more nor less theocratic than that of
Southern Ireland. The Orange Order is in effect a Protestant
job trust.
Both the IRA andHeath should blow the cobwebs
from their minds. It is not as if their tiresome ideas were
harmless. Blood is being shed in Northern Ireland-arid
in England, too.
The situation is badbutnot
hopeless: a new Ireland
seems to be emerging. The recent Labour Party conference
at Wexford (South Ireland), thanks in no small measure
to Conor Cruise OBriens leadership, adopted a resolution
outlawing all support for the IRA-both the Official nand
the Provisional branches. It also called for an end to the
1937 constitution and *e adoption of a new constitution
which would end all religious discrimination, and establish
nonsectarian principles in the areas of divorce, contraception, education, health, adoption and socialservices. Where
would that leave those hated Papists?
The conference condemned (as did the Irish Government) the IRAS attempt to assassinate John Taylor, Minister of Home Affairs in the North. Bernadette Devlin has
called the Aldershot bombing horrifically wrong. One
speaker said that such acts are destloying the bridges
between Protestants and Catholics.

Wedgwood Bennput it correctly:

You cannot intern ideas. You cannot create consent
with tar and feathers. You cannot dlsperse a dream with

The tragedy of Northern Ireland offers an example of

the pernicious and persistent effect of obsolete thinking and
attitudes. In every country, a large section of the population seems to have a predilection for using its brains as
a kind of attic for the preservation -of antiques. Just now,
Ireland and England are the prime exhibits.
Witness the ProvisionaI Ifaction of the Irish Republican Army, the militants, as opposed to the moderate Officials (although the latter also claimed responsibility for
recent acts of terrorism). The Provisionals are, in-their
owneyes,men
of courage-tough,
determined patriots.
But they are so haunted by the past, that for them nothing
has changed since the 1916 Easter rising. These guerrillas
will have no truck with Bernadette Devlin because she
bore a child out of wedlock. Think of that! Miss Devlin
has marched, protested, been. to jail once, will probably go
CS gas or rubber bullets.
,
to jail again, has barnstormed in the. United States for
You cannot build a new Jerusalem with gelignite.
money, but all this avails her nothing. It is fair to ask: if
And he added:
the Provisionals cannot unite with Bernadette and child,
In the gloom that sometimes seems to envelop us, we
how can they hope to unite Ireland?
must be clearabout our grounds for optlmism. Things
But those who consider the Provos unreasonable
the since
changed
have
20s.
I
should take a close look at Edward Heath, Prime Minister
But that is a ground for optimism only if the people now
of England, In a New York Tirnes interview with Anthony
supporting their antique ideas with modern weapons can be
Lewis, Mr. Heath made the following points:
brought to acknowledge the change, and act on it.
QA majority in Northern Ireland want to remain in the
United Kingdom. . . . How does the Prime Minister know
this to be true? When did a real plebiscite last offer all the
available options?
1It is different from a colonial situation. . . . Is it,
really? If it is not a colonial situation, what are the BritIn theissue of February 21, we ran an editorial which
ish troops doing there? The Nation pointed out early that
discussed Dr. Kissingers intimation that the Cooper-Church
. North Ireland is Britains Vietnam. That notion, which
amendment, which temporarily cut off all foreign aid, was
may have seemed bizarre atthe time, is nowreflectedin
interpreted by North Vietnam as a signal that the Senate
the headlines almost every day.
had abandoned Saigon, and that therefore Hanol was under
IThe people in the North are different in type and
no urgent need ,to talk terms We quoted Stewart Alsop as
religion. . . . Thisone takes the prize. Thereare some
wnting, No one can prove ~ tof
, course, but it is an article
Protestants in the South and a great many Catholics in the
of faith in the Whlte House that these votes queered the
North, but as to type, Mr. Heath should be more specific.
negotiations, adding our own observation that no one can
The Catholics in the North speak English. They are white.
disprove it either, whichmay be why the White House
They have the same genes as other beings. They are stratiemploys the supposition for its own purposes.
fied in social classes, just like the Protestants. They have
Now, Johanna J. Bosch, librarian of the Fellowship for
I

Some Reassurance for Dr. K.

\
Reconciliation, sends us a clipping fsom the Vietnam
Courier (published in English in Hanoi), which,as she
says, goes some way to disprove it. The article i s a news
commentary translated from Nhan Dan, theofficial Hanoi
paper. It takes some satisfaction from Cooper-Church as
evidence that Americans and their elected representatives
are profoundly estranged from the war; no one has ever
denied that the deep cleavage in this country is a support
to our opponents-that is one of the disadvantages a democracy suffers when it fights an unjust war. But the article
concludes that: The Senate vote willaffectonly part of
the military aid pragramme-aids for U.S. agents in Saigon,
Phnom Penh and Vientiane, for,example, being covered
by separate legislations-and Nixon is very likely to succeed in filling the gap, It seems, thus, that Dr. Kissinger
was unnecessarilyalarmed by ,the possibility thatHanoi
would draw sweepingconclusions from the fact that the
Senators behaved on that occasionasmen of conscience.
For what the leaders of North Vietnam may conclude from
the melodramatic visit of Kissingersboss to Peking, we
shall have to await a later issue of the Vietnam Courier.

Environmental Legacy
Architect, environmentalist, journalist and co-founder
of The Nation, Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903) is
- perhaps best remembered asthe father of Central-Park,
although he designed sixteen other urban oases, including
-- San FranciscokGolden
Gate
Park.
- - -- - -This summer, an Olmsted Sesquicentennial has been
planned to honor his contributions to the Anferjcan environment, both by his physical creations and by his ideas
on the optimum potential of our man-made world. A
commemorative stamp willbe released and exhibits and
discussions of Olmsteds work will be featured in many
of the nations cities.
Raised inan aWuent New England environment, Olmsted had a vision of a genrtle, reasonable society whose
citizens and their democratically elected represenkatives,
working together, woulddesign the best possible setting

for themselves and their descendants. Fearing the haphazard urbanization in New York, Olmsted designed and
saw through the completion of Central Park. With singleminded purpose, hefoughtefforts to vulgarize the facility,
turning back moves for a race track, worlds fair and a
full-sized ship on the parkland. He vehemently denounced
the prevailingcity
political machines, particularly the
Tweed Ring, for making what he called political jobbery out of all possible facets of the park.
What Olmsted wanted, in New York and throughout
the nation, was a planned, civilized-but not inorganicenvironment in which the countrys citizens could thrive.
He called his parks lungs, hoping they would offer clean
andclearresuscitationfrom
the foul and hecticqualities
of urban life. He spent much of his adu1.t life preaching
what he called sympathetic cooperation with nature..
That Central Park remains much as he first planned it
in 1858 is in itself a great monument to Olmsteds genius
and the endurance of many of hi,s ideas. That the park
isnow unsafe at night and cannot possibly compensate
for the horrorsl of urban life, especially for the poor,
indicates that even hisvisionwas limited by the background from which he came.
Speaking of thepark, Olmsted once said he hoped
it wouldsupply to the hundreds of thousands of tired
workers . . . a specimen of Gods handiwork that shall
be to them, inexpensively, what a month or, two in the
White Mountains o r , the Adirondacks is, at, great cost,
to those-in easier circumstances.~Even in .Oh,stedls time.. . .
more was needed than parks to relieve the plight of the
citys poor, and more is certainly needed today,
That, however, is not to question Olmsteds very real
contributions. The state of our cities would be much worse
without the parks he gave them; the fault is not that his
vision was limited but that too &any of those who came
after him had no vision at all. His work,and memory
deserve to be honored for what theywere, and we can
all be thanldul thathe gaveusas much as a series of
parks to retreat to and a vision of life to which we all
should at least partially aspire.

FLORIDA PRIMARY

QUOTE A BIT OF EVERYTHXNG

MARTIN DYCKMAN

Mr. Dyckman is State Capitol bureau chief for the Sr. Petersburg Times,

Tallahassee
If Floridas state legislators are open to argument when they
claim to represent the people, they are undeniably ,representative of them in one demographic regard. Fewer than
half the lawmakers were-born in the state they serve. Like
the people whoelectedthem,they
arean amalgam of
accents and backgrounds from throughout the South, East
and Midwest. In the House chamber, the Harvard-polished
326

voice of a Phi Beta Kappa rebuts the draw1of a native

farmer who boasts to colleagues, press and schoolchildren
inthegallery
that he comprehends the issuebecause I
was raised on a farm and I know the difference between
manure and peanut butter.
With 6,790,929 people-a
gain of 1.8 million in a
decade, and more than double the population in 1950Floridas boast of being a unique (yell, yes, there is California) melting pot has been acknowledged by almost the
entire field of candidates courting its eighty-oneDemocratic delegatevotes; or at least the political lift that an
unexpected respectable showingwouldmean. To George
I

THE NATIoN/March 13, 1972