The Peace Election that almost was

One of the American left's most galling frustrations today is the movement's nearly complete exclusion from viable political expression. Most radicals agree that the tactical value of direct action - demonstrations, pickets, civil disobedience - has almost if not entirely run its course as a focus of agitation, It is time for a new tack and increasing leftist discussion of the possibilities of an independent, broad-based radical political ei may indicate that such a development is in the works. A recent/cofgressional election in New York City re-empkasised the futility of hoping for a dissenting movement within the old party structure.. For a fleeting moment early in the campaign there were visions of at least an anti-Vietnam war referendum but, sadly true to form, the American politico's sui_ generis compulsion to consensus transformed it into a - "me too" affair of the usual type. leftist and "peacenik" hopes were aroused when the Republican nominee, Theodore Kupferman. launched his campaign calling our Vietnam involvement "a tragic mistake" and urging unilateral withdrawal of troops. Orrin Iehman, the Democrat and Greatsocietyman, countered with the precise ambiguity of the American liberal: While he had grave reservations about the wisdom of the war, adminstration objectives were essentially honorable and President Johnson was, after all, in the midst of his "peace offensive" and deserved the warm support of all patriotic Americans, Iehman did not run on a "Hawk" platform, With admirable dexterity he left himself the opportunity to join the war's critics if and when things get hot enough in the future. But Kupferman had performed the unspeakable in establishment politics. He had committed himself to a critical position. Or had he? As the election sized up to be a close one, Kupferman got nervous. Whenhis co-partisan, Senator Javits, returned from sizing up Southeast Asia, Kupferman retracted (the American euphemism is "I was misunderstood." ) his early stand, On the basis of Javit's researches (or his political advice), Kupferman announced that he too supported adminstration objectives especially, of course, the president's sisyphian labours for an honorable peace, So much for the "peace candidate,” With both candidates standing on identically unprincipled ambiguities, several peace groups in the district withdrew their previous endorsement of Kupferman and, days before the election, urged a write-in vote: "Peace," The new Kupferman won narrowly on February 8, polling 44,225 votes to Iehman's 43,230. (The "Drop it anywhere quick" Conservative polled 7,810). The "Peace" votes are legally invalid and there has been as yet no official disclosure or informed estimate as to their number, Probably there were not many. Something like the left voters of Hull who apparently optioned to avert a Tory victory as worse than their tacit approbation of Wilson's toadying to Washington, most anti-war voters in New York's 17th District likely gave up on the "Peace" write-in as futile and went to Kupferman in memory of his repudiated stand or even to Lehman in memory of their traditional party. So in the en there was no "peace referendum" and another chance at some sort of political expression which might have been noted by the great opinion sampler in the White House was done in by establishment conformism. The American left is accustomed to frustrations and seems amenable to lessons. Perhaps Kupferman's liberal shilly-shallying will have some educational as well as therapeutic value for use