WHICH PARTY FOR LIBERALS?

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Liberals of the country seem deeply committed this year to nothing quite so much as to their own destruction. (Anihilation is perhaps the better term). One wonders whether the so-called "liberal" takes gratification from the certainty that his political adversaries will go to the grave with him.

For that is what the liberal movement is courting--disaster, both for itself and for the nation. (Which is more important? one wonders.) To insist that there is no difference between Kennedy and Nixon is not only suicidal: it is to obscure the difference between life and death. When has the Republican Party stood for truly liberal ideals? Even Governor Rockefeller asks only for bigger and better bomb-shelters.

In which party is located the principal support for SANE? The Republican Party? In which, the principal support for United World Federalists? The Republican Party? True liberals (often called "thinking liberals)--those who stand for a negotiated disarmament and for greater use of the United Nations--would do well to think about these questions. Unless revolution is contemplated--and there is something ludicrous in the thought of the HRLU taking to arms.--the liberal movement ought to get used to the idea that there are only two candidates. Liberals must realize that effective lobbying can be carried out only through one or the other of the major parties, not in defiance of them both. Nixon and the Republicans have already made it clear that they will not listen. Kennedy and the Democrats may listen--if approached, not if ignored. Nobody will listen if the liberals merely sit back--"above politics"--and refuse to contribute in any meaningful way to the fulfillment of a liberal program--refuse, indeed, to do anything but cry out, "Timor mortis conturbat me!," while at the same time inviting destruction through lack of meaningful effort to prevent it.

The choice is clearly between life and death; there are no other choices. Only a dubious liberal could ponder a possible third alternative--annihilation through inactivity. Is this really what Harvard's (or the nation's) liberals want? Daniel Markewich '62