LEVINSON ON THE LEFT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Joining many others, James Lardner apparently read only part of the May 13 New Republic article which I co-authored on the desirability of a third party in 1968 -- or so I would gather from his review in the May 18 CRIMSON.

There were two parts to the argument of the article. First, the primary objective is to develop a way to reverse the Vietnam policy represented by President Johnson, Dean Rusk, and Walt Rostow, including, if necessary, the President's defeat in the 1968 election. If the goal were simply "How to Remove LBJ in '68," the title supplied the piece by the New Republic, then Mr. Lardner's jibe about the argument being "internally ridiculous" would be correct, for, if that is one's sole goal, the answer is obvious: vote Republican in 1968. However, things aren't that simple.

The article goes on, secondly, to express great fears about the future stability of this country's politics, that, indeed, the continued existence of traditional constitutional democracy as we know it is threatened by the inability of the present party structure to respond meaningfully to the demands of certain excluded groups, in particular the urban Negro. And the election of any Republican (for any Republican will staff his administration primarily with other Republicans) will be a blow to the prospects of solving America's domestic problems. If that is the price that must be paid to extricate this country from Vietnam, the costs should still be kept as low as possible.

In fact, contrary to Mr. Lardner's strictures that the argument recognizes the impossibility of electoral success and therefore "fails to inspire" enthusiasm, it is precisely the point that the left must become much more sophisticated in its definitions of "success." It could even be, though I personally doubt it, that the demonstrated willingness of the left to organize a potential third party, might encourage President Johnson to reverse his policy and thus make it possible to vote for him in 1968. Or, it might be decided to run candidates against the President in the Democratic primaries in an effort to get him to remove himself voluntarily by withdrawing.

If, as I suspect, these two strategies would fail, then at least there would be an organization in being that could be equipped to run a campaign on a national level. It is vitally important to envision such a proposed peace-and-civil-rights bloc as flexible and able to swing its support in different directions depending on where it might do the most good. Options are kept open not by waiting to organize but by waiting to commit our resources until other, more moderate, strategies are tried out.

The effect, moreover, of failure at the polls need be "demoralizing" to Mr. Lardner only if he's built up unrealistic hopes in himself and others beforehand. The price Americans pay for failing to have any kind of historical consciousness is that "success" is defined in terms of immediate payoffs and quick victories. I personally would define "success" as beginning to channel the chaotic energy of Watts and Harlem into political institutions capable of bringing organized power to bear against established political groups. Maybe by 1980 "success" would include victory at the polls, but for now goals must be more limited.

Mr. Lardner's own constructive suggestions are notable by their absence, other than to wax vitriolic about the "consummate self-indulgence" of running a candidate for President in 1968. Does he counsel that the left join the Ripon Society in an effort to encourage Charles Percy's nomination? Or do we simply pray, maybe to Luci J. Nugent's "little monks," that an acceptable Republican is nominated? Or, if an unacceptable nominee emerges, and if Johnson has not changed his War policy, do we all get drunk on election day? The most iniquitous form of self-indulgence is a refusal to think seriously about political strategies that might help change an unacceptable "reality." Sanford V. Levinson Tutor,   Department of Government