CAMPAIGN '80 * *j
at the height of his capacities.
But I am genuinely appalled at the
thought of Ronald Reagan — simplistic,
irascible, impulsive, and reactionary —
in command of our nation and its nuclear
strike force until 1989.
I will vote for Carter on Nov. 4 with-
out any hesitation or apology. I see no
other rational choice.
Chandler Davidson is chair of the sociology department at Rice University. This
article originally appeared in The Texas
Observer on October 17, 1980.
'He wants to eliminate every vestige of Toryism in Washington."
BY JEFF DAIELL-
Most presidential elections have been decided on one or more of three fundamental issues : peace, prosperity or freedom.
This election will be no different: Jimmy
Carter is talking peace, Ronald Reagan is
talking freedom, and both they and Anderson are talking prosperity. It's hard to
believe any of the three can do well on
any of those issues, however.
On peace: Reagan's itch to send in the
Marines is well-documented, and both
Carter and Anderson favor expanding the
American military presence abroad.
On freedom: Carter's record could be
summed up by Jefferson: "He has erected
a multitude of new off ices, and sent hither
swarms of officers, to harass our people,
and eat out of their substance." Reagan
has shown little tangible sympathy for civil rights or the women's movement. Anderson repudiated his "Christian nation"
moves of a few years back, but has shown
a reflexive tendency to look to Washington
for answers to virtually any problem.
On prosperity: Carter doubled "the
Misery Index" to a point where fiscal responsibility is defined as 10 percent inflation and a boom these days is being
laid off instead of fired. Reagan's record
in California is one of higher taxes, more
government spending, and an expansion
of the bureaucracy; don't let his rhetoric
hide the facts. Anderson is talking about
a federal budget of $946.2 billion four
years from now. The 48 percent increase
in spending would have to be financed by
either higher taxes or more inflation.
So, if you want peace, desire prosperity, and long for freedom,for whom should
you vote in 1980? If you hold those values
I urge you to vote for Ed Clark, the
Libertarian nominee for president.
Let's take these issues one at a time.
Peace: Ed Clark's Libertarian platform
calls for a noninterventionist foreign policy, coupled with free trade between the
United States and the rest of the world. By
noninterventionist, Clark means we would
no longer interfere in the affairs of other
countries; no more military expeditions
to the Domim'can Republic, no more engineered coups in Chile, no more assistance
to the SAVAKS of the world. Clark has
called for a $50 billion cut in defense
spending in the first year of his administration, since a full 68 percent of our defense budget goes toward defending other
countries, we could cut that much and
more. (Prosperous industrialized democracies like Japan and West Germany spend
a much smaller percentage of their respective Gross National Product on defense than do we; it's time we spent less
to subsidize them). The defense of the
United States would be strengthened by
redirecting our expenditures into programs and materials better suited for defending ourselves.
Clark would start closing down our
foreign bases and eliminate our military
foreign aid programs. The Libertarian
platform calls for an end to foreign aid to
communist countries (and others); it has
been to a large extent American assistance
over the years that has kept the Soviet
government, our biggest challenger, afloat.
With China and Japan from the East and
increasingly rebellious former satellites
on the West, Russia is unlikely to threaten
world peace directly.
With a defense oriented strictly to protecting the United States, a smaller military — and thus a volunteer Army — would
be quite acceptable. This would not only
promote peace on the part of the United
States, but would eliminate one of the
communists' main tools for whipping up
violence elsewhere in the world. With a
cut in defense spending, and an end to
American interference abroad, Red agitators could no longer talk of "CIA devils"
and "American violations of national
self-determination." With no U.S. bugaboo to point at, people around the world
would increasingly recognize Soviet inter-
Ed Clark of the Libertarian Party is
the peace candidate in 1980, promoting
policies that will ensure a secure peace
for us and for the younger Americans
who would be the victims of a new draft
should our "bipartisan" foreign policy produce yet another war.
And prosperity? A vote for Carter is a
vote for the last four years; a vote for
Reagan is a vote for the eight years before
that; a vote for Anderson is a vote for a
blending of the two. But voting for Ed
Clark is a vote to break away from the
politics of privilege and favor that has led
us into double-digit inflation, high unemployment, and economic stagnation.
Clark knows that inflation is caused ,
not by "greedy unions" or by "selfish
businessmen," but by deficit federal
spending. So Clark is demanding a balanced federal budget; his budget for 1981
would cut federal taxes by $180.7 billion
and federal spending at $201.4 billion,
balancing the budget at around $425 billion.
Clark's call for free trade would tend
to lower prices for American consumers,
while his deregulation efforts would protect American jobs; his tax-cutting would
end the process whereby the incomes of
poor and moderate income Americans is
redistributed to government contractors
and special interests, and his elimination
of the American military presence abroad
would improve our balance of trade.
To move toward quality education,
surely a key to prosperity, Clark is calling
for a tax credit, of up to $1200 per year,
for contributions to the education of a
child. Thus, parents who see their children
trapped in public schools which do not
teach could then afford to send their
children to a competing school. Small
companies, which cannot compete with
big business in salaries, could then afford
to subsidize the education of their employees' children as a fringe benefit. No
longer would poor children be consigned
to inferior education because their parents' property taxes are lower, and no
longer would poor homeowners, and
elderly homeowners on fixed incomes,
be crushed by the rising costs of the ineffectual public school bureaucracy.
All in all, then, Ed Clark, the Libertarian nominee, is the candidate for those
who wish for prosperity in the 1980s and
the chance for a better life for their
Freedom is the value that gave birth
to America 204 years ago, despite the
Tory claim that the state could make our
decisions better that we could. Today, it
seems the Tories have reclaimed the upper hand and are trying to turn back the
clock and return us to the days when a
centralized authority ran our lives. Despite
Carter's lip service to human rights abroad,
he is busily erecting even more ministries
than King George foisted upon us.
Reagan , even aside from his inability
to grasp that blacks, women, and Hispanic Americans have problems succeeding under the status quo, has a record
of expanding, not reducing, government's
role in our lives: higher taxes, higher state
spending, a bigger bureaucracy.
Anderson, while making the appropriate phrases about civil liberties, has
shown no real inclination to give you and
me a little more space in making our
Ed Clark has that inclination. He wants
to end the laws telling us how to act (and
with whom) in our bedrooms. He wants
to end the drug laws which prompt so
much violence and theft. He wants to end
the prostitution laws which make it so
easy to victimize helpless women. He
wants to cut our taxes, to let us decide for
ourselves how to spend the money we —
not the IRS, not the Pentagon, not the
The Libertarian platform calls for an
end to discrimination on the grounds of
race, religion, sex, national origin, or sexual preference at all levels of government.
Clark has come out strongly for the Equal
Rights Amendment. He opposes reimpo-
sition of the draft. He wants to remove
barriers to employment and to entering
the business community which government has erected to protect its favored
friends. He wants to eliminate every vestige of Toryism in Washington, to restore
the radical concept of independence and
banish the reactionary philosophy of government dictate.
Ed Clark is the freedom candidate
this year, the candidate for those voters
who consider themselves adults and demand to be treated as such, even by the
fat cats of the federal establishment.
Peace, prosperity, freedom. Three
good reasons to vote for Ed Clark of the
Jeff Daiell is the former Harris County
chair of the Libertarian Party and a former
candidate for the Houston City Council.
'The simple ABC's will do. Vote for anybody but Carter."
BY ED FALK
The election of a President of the United
States on November 4 is the single most
important decision facing the world today. How we Americans vote will have a
direct impact upon the lives of every single
human being on this earth - the millions
of people behind the Iron Curtain, the
Bamboo Curtain, the Berlin Wall; the
homeless refugees jn Vietnam, Cambodia,
Laos; the enslaved people of Cuba, Dominican Republic, or Haiti; and, perhaps,
most important of all, our American comrades who are being held prisoners in Iran.
Our decision should not be based on
party loyalty, peer or corporate pressure,
single issues, union endorsements, or the
backing of political action committees
(PAC's) or similar groups — but rather on
a true analysis of both the issues and the
consequences of our decision at the polls.
It is through an examination of the issues
that I urge our votes be cast for Ronald
Reagan for President of the United States.
As I see it, the issues can be defined into four broad areas and the involvement
of the executive branch in each vis-a-vis:
(1) local (2) domestic (3) national and (4)
Normally, we do not associate the
presidential campaign with local issues
other than patronage, federal aid, pork
barrelling, or taking a local case to the
U. S. Supreme Court. But during the past
four years, we Americans have seen the
vilest abuse of the executive branch of
the United States government intruding
into local affairs since reconstruction
days — the civil rights cases not withstanding. I will cite just two examples.
The City of Houston's charter states
that the people of Houston have the right
of initiative and referendum. Well, 50,000
legal voters of Houston gathered and
signed petitions in August 1978 to have
the City of Houston place on the ballot a
tax referendum. But the White House in