Debate Against Princeton Journeys the Rocky Road

The Harvard and Princeton debating teams argued to an eloquent "no decision" last night on the resolution "that Nelson Rockefeller should be the Republican candidate for the Presidency in 1968."

"Rockefeller represents a synthesis of liberalism and conservatism," said Jack Smiley, the first affirmative speaker for Pinceton. "His virtues are as innumerable as his dollar bills."

Princeton based its case on Rockefeller's achievements in state legislature and his commitment to the rights of the individual. "He has made major strides forward in civil rights, labor relations, aid to education, and low income housing," said Smiley.

"Princeton people are always impressed when someone supports civil rights," replied Steven P. Goldberg '69 for the Harvard team. Goldberg went on to attack Rockefeller's stand on Vietnam, citing his praise of the American Legion for "its unrelenting vigilance against atheistic communism."

George Bustin, Princeton's second speaker, contrasted Rockefeller's belief in "modern federalism" to "President Johnson's consensus politics." In the Great Society, Bustin said, "the individual finds himself a twitch in the convolutions of a giant bureaucracy."

Speaking second for Harvard, Ira G. Greenberg '68 replied that Johnson also is committed to the individual, "just as he is committed to the laborer, the businessman, he housewife, and the Negro."

In response to criticism of Rockefeller's foreign policy, Bustin said "What we need is not one hawk, but two. Then Hanoi would know where we stand." As the audience hissed, Bustin asked, "Would John Quincy Adams hiss? Would Woodrow Wilson hiss? I think not."