3 Page 4 November Signpost 7, ] 980 Vague Political Double-talk Discussed | Marty Martinez Business Manager Julie Sumner Asst. Business Manager Tracy Socwell Salesmen Mark Jensen Mike Drake Scott Blanch Production Manager Don Williams Layout and Art Rick Jones Hamid Janversan Dave Petersen The Weber State Signpost is published by the Media Board during fall, winter and spring quarters. The Signpost is published Tuesday and Friday except during examination and vacation periods. Letters to the editor are encouraged. We reserve the right to edit for libel and to fit available space. Names of authors need not be printed. but for legal reasons they must be on the original letter. Names will be withheld only in the case of a justifiable reason. Opinions expressed on the editorial page do not necessarily represent those of the studentbody, the administration, the WSC Media Board or that of the Signpost staff. Subscription price: $20 per school year. The office is located in the east side of the Union Building across from the games area. The mailing address is Signpost, Weber State College, no. 2110, 3750 Harrison Blvd., Odgen, Utah, 84408. feesches have aut of which® we just literally emmerged, mauled by is well- Liberal has not buzz words locks our minds always from political rationality. No longer do we judge political condidates by their platforms, but by the wit and charm of their little poster slogans such as ‘‘a man you can trust,’’ or ‘‘a strong, conservative voice in government.’’ When a candidate proclaims the thunderous judgement of ‘‘liberal’’ upon his left-of-center- opponent, we are too prone to take his word for it and mumble, “that good -for--nothing liberal is un-American.’’ Of course, that ‘‘left-of-center’’ candidate may very well be incompetent and less than patriotic, but we voters had better have more concrete anarchy and disorder. While it is true that liberalism, or democracy, only evidence than the heated denouncements of a political opponent. Am I a raving ‘‘liberal’’ who would give an ICBM base to Castro, the recipe of Colonel Sanders’ chicken to Brezhnev, or freedom to James Mason? Certainly not. The fact that I assert that each idea should be articulately and accurately defined without hiding behind non-commital buzz words does not mean that I support so called ‘‘liberal doctrines.’’ It merely means that I want us to be frank and candid, especially in our political debates.I see more evil in closing the mind to new issues and interpretations to the opening of Pandora’s box. We must not allow ourselves to be swayed by arguments that are logically anemic, factually naked, and dependent upon name calling. To do so would prove 18th century emperors to be rade who mistakenly said ‘‘the masses are igthat norant. They cannot be trusted to make their own political choices.’’ after the violent overthrow of the existing reactionary regimes, liberalism thrived, helped to build a_ better world, and is_ healthy throughout the Western world today., But why all this pedantic babbling about the entomological evolution of the overworked word liberal? Because I fear that the misuse of liberal and other meant anyone in the Democratic party. Much like today’s conservatives, who regard their opponents as dangerous innovators, eighteenth century monarchists considered Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin dangerous liberals who unsurped the governing authority of the‘‘divine right’’ kings and gave it to the doleful masses. European monarchs insisted that those ‘‘insane liberals’’ would plunge the world into t \ nurtured — G. 0.P. Gains Show Voters Want Change by Charlie Pomerleau -A short six years ago, in the ae of the Watergate scandal that culminated with the resignation of President Nixon, the imminent death of the Republican Party was predicted. That year saw a large number of Democratic candidates elected as the nation expressed it’s dismay over the corruption that was rampant in the Nixon administration. It appeared the two-party system was in jeopardy unless something rose from the ashes of Republicanism. Well, as Mark Twain once said, ‘‘Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.’? The same can now be said of the Republican Party. Reports of their demise were premature, as evidenced by the results of the 1980 election. Not only has Republican candidate Ronald Reagan gained an astounding victory by sweeping Jimmy Carter in the Electoral College, but Republican Senatorial candidates have defeated a number of incumbent Democratic liberals. The list of losers includes McGovern of South Dakota, Magnuson of Washington, Bayh of Indiana and Church of Idaho. Closer to home, local five-term Congressman Gunn McKay lost his re-election bid to Republican challenger James Hansen. The sweep of conservatism appears to be quite widespread in this election year. This indicates a desire on the part of the American people to be done with the policies of the liberal Democratic Party and especially those of Carter. The loss of U.S. prestige in the world that has been accentuated by the events of the last four years has made a considerable impression on the people. This election shows that a majority wants to solidify America’s (|) TH-TH-TH-THINK THeEH-THAT* R-R-RekEa- (7% G-GAN W-W-WOULD M-M-M-MAKE = AHHH G-G-G-@oop pPR-PR- PRRR-,; UMMM, -- e EADER / Be Soe BR bor: ae o— es Pyorld standing mand regain the respect we once enedi. Perhaps Reagan can do this, now that he has conservative backing in the Senate and an apparent mandate from the people. This election is also a repudiation of the economic policies of the Carter administration. It is clear these policies, characterized as they were by high inflation and unemployment, were not satisfactory to the American public. In this area lie the greatest hopes for the Reagan administration, and ~ perhaps the greatest possibilities for it’s downfall. This is not intended to be a defense of the Carter policies, but could any President have handled, the effects of the large increases in energy costs the Carter administration was faced with? The cost increases had severe effects that rippled through the entire economy. The cost of all petroleum-based goods rose, and in an marketplace that has so many of these goods the inflation was bound to occur. The cost of energy also made the gas-guzzling cars produced by Detroit much less attractive to the American consumer and contributed significantly to the unemployment that wracks that city. What could Ronald Reagan have done to prevent or at least soften the effects of these problems? The decision of the people at the polls is irrevocable for at least four more years. They have handed the ball to Presidentelect Reagan and his conservative team, and expect them to move us ahead on the football field of life. Whether they go for a big gainer or fumble is now up to them. They have what appears to be solid backing from the American people. We should all give whatever support is needed for them to accomplish all that we desire of them. THAT'S FOR EASY YoU a To a SAY!! \ Fritz 6 (0) go Karen McCracken Jonathan Morrell John Donahue. | Dorothy Alsup Bryan Lange Bryan Shiffer Columnist meaning but inarticulate conservatives who see issues only in the perspective of light and dark, left and right, and I’m _ right or you’re wrong.’’ While some issues can be easily resolved by normal discussion, most controversies regarding the complexities of national and local government cannot be comprehended in this simplified and _ polarized light. \ Editor-in-chief Maggi Holmes Managing Editor Sandy Downey News Editor _ Michael Bouy Features Editor Wendy Moore Sports Editor Ron Bevan Photo Editor _ Charlie Pomerleau Copy Editor Maureen Lewis Reporters Shonda St. James by Dave Struve In the wake of a long and tedious season of campaign speeches, debates, innumerable flyers and pie-inthe-sky promises, the last matter we wish to discuss is politics. But before we shelve that subject for another two years and move on to normal life, lets focus our attention upon one of the more irra’ tional aspects of political double-talk: vague terms which trigger emotional responses, or ‘‘buzz words.’’ One of the most abused of these words is the term liberal. I dislike the word liberal, not so much because of its meaning of generous, progressive, imaginative, and free, but because of its twisted use by demagogues as an omni-condemnatory word used to describe the political attitudes of any individual more innovative and non-traditional than themselves | This word, expecially during the barrage of campaign