News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
Two Harvard braintrusters sniped across the political fence at each other's party platform last night, although few Harvard students were there to see the show. The Student Council-sponsored debate took place before a near-empty Mallinckrodt lecture hall.
A key adviser of Richard Nixon, Lon L. Fuller, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, hit hard at the Democratic farm program. He said the system of controlling the market by issuing farmers marketing allotments makes for a "static farm system, unable to respond to change in soil, crop, or market conditions."
He contrasted this market orientation with the Republican emphasis on acreage controls and the need to retire whole farms, rather than portions of farms.
Calls Program "Socialistic"
Under the Democratic program, Fuller declared, the farmer would be committed to one crop, unless the government reissues its marketing allotments every year, or makes these negotiable. In either case, the result would be "socialistic in a very real sense, since any government bureau would have to assume quasi-judicial powers" in deciding what compensations and what revisions to give each farmer.
"Henry Wallace and FDR considered this same scheme, and decided it was unworkable," Fuller said.
Democrat Seymour E. Harris '20, Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Political Economy, conceded that his party's farm program "is not so hot," but added that both parties have "lousy" farm proposals. Nixon aims to "get people off the farms," while the Democrats are working to give both the consumer and the man who wants to stay on the farm a break.
Harris Urges Aid Increase
Turning to depressed areas and urban renewal, Harris, who helped write the Kennedy-Douglas area development bill, declared that massive Federal aid is vital, for "depressed areas account for 1/3 to 1/2 of our unemployment." And it is an absolute minimal necessity "for slum clearance to equal the rate of growth of our slums." The Republican bill for depressed areas amounted to $50 million in aid, he said, while the Kennedy-Douglas bill offered $250 million.
Nixon's voting record on urban renewal indicates where he stands, Harris declared: "he's against everything."
Fuller Backs Nixon Program
Fuller pointed out that the Republican principle of matching grants for area and urban development "is an attempt to restore local initiative." He admitted that state and local authorities are in bad financial trouble, but praised Nixon's concern over "the drying up of initiative at the local levels in this country."
Other members of the panel were John Kessel, professor of Government at Amherst and executive director of the Massachusetts Nixon Committee, and Greg Potvin, a former Democratic candidate for the senate from Idaho.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.