Op-Ed 1973

Prospectus, Parkland Community College: Commentary on Johnson and Nixon

Prospectus
Parkland Community College  - Illinois’ Finest Juco
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS    13 FEBRUARY 1973   Page 3

Commentary on Johnson and Nixon
by Ken Segan

Nixon recently unveiled his new economic plans for the nation, and the world. They include the following: The elimination of:

1) The Office of Economic Opportunity,
2) funds for public libraries,
3) regional medical facilities  and local mental health facilities,
4) the “Depressed Areas” program (begun with President Kennedy),
5) no new funds for the National Defense Education Act, (begun with Eisenhower),
6) the Public Service Employment Program,
7) Nixon’s own program for $2,400 assistance for families in poverty as well as curtailment of food programs for poor and elderly,
8) abolishment of consumer affairs office and 9) continued freeze on home purchase subsidies for poor and aid for new sewage and other water quality projects. At the same time, a 6 percent boost for defense, totaling 81.1 billion – 30 percent of the budget, and 3.1 billion for space projects, an increase of 74 million over last year.

As usual, we have in power a president who is concerned exclusively with an increase in funds for more instruments of death and destruction, and the absurdity of more men in capsules in outer space.  While his proponents argue he is a “man of peace,” the man who negotiated a Vietnamese cease-fire, it is clear that he is insensitive to criticism, a man of deception, lies and distortion. He is surrounded by propaganda-oriented advisors and public-relations men of the worst sort, and he has openly encouraged (via speeches and television) repression, white racism, and a continuation of division in America.

Whereas the late President Johnson questioned his own policies, felt remorse about them (but continued them nevertheless), Nixon is without any qualms. He is his own god. That is the essence of the problem – he is beyond censure, adverse criticism, or reproach.

It is apparent that certain aspects of life (though few and far between) for the American populace were different during Johnson’s administration than they are now. Food programs, including school lunches, which were initiated by Johnson, are now on their deathbed. Legal assistance to the poor has been hit hard. Nixon gets credit for the SALT Talks, even though begun by Johnson. However, the high medical costs, aid to financially crippled corporations, funds for our cities, drug addiction, rising food prices, all these and more, for the list goes on and on – have no changed.

In areas of foreign policy: Both presidents gave unequivocal support to fascist regimes, such as Greece, Brazil, South Korea, etc.; believed wholeheartedly in armed intervention and occupation; have supported barbarous and atrocious  acts on behalf of other governments (such as Pakistan in Bangladesh; Nigeria in Biafra, etc); defied United Nations sanctions to aid colonialist or minority governments such as Rhodesia, U. of S. A., Portuguese territories. I shouldn’t omit our destruction of Indochina: the heaviest bombing in the history of the world, defoliation, massive displacements of populations, the uprooting of a culture. For those criminal acts, Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara, as well as Nixon and his collaborator Kissinger, could be tried (and convicted) under the same charges that resulted in the execution of a Japanese general by the U.S., and high Nazi officials, by the International Military Tribunal, at the close of World War II. Meanwhile, Congress still finds itself as  a rubber stamp or a debating society.

The point of my article is this: I can barely discern any difference between a Nixon or a Johnson. That leads to the question of whether or not any president, within the framework of what he has to work with, and whom he has to work with, can bring about any overall changes in our society. The complexity and size of the “military industrial” complex, and its huge role as a decision-making power in our vital lifelines, along with its foremost goal of making money, make it apparent that the business interests are not going about, nor do they care about creating an adequate, decent society for all.

Therefore, our economic system is totally inadequate to deal with our new, social and revolutionary technology. And Nixon still thinks he can response to overstepped technology with technology – Vietnam being a case in point: rebuilding it after destroying it!!

What to do from here is what I pose to you. I welcome comments and criticism on this article.