In Support of the March

For several months, many critics of the administration's Vietnam policy have displayed a remarkable ignorance of, or distinterest in, tactical questions. Sunday 8000 opponents of the war paraded through Oakland, carrying placards with such resounding and imprecise slogans as "Stop the War in Vietnam" and "End Johnson's War." Their purpose, according to Jerry Rubins, leader of the Berkeley Vietnam Day Committee: "We march today to demonstrate our victory and our right to march through Oakland.

Now no reasonable man would question that right, and it is heartening that unreasonable men who run Oakland have been rebuffed by the court in their effort to bar the parade. But what has all this to do with ending the war? Winning legal duels with local biginigs hardly influences the national public opinion. Those who wish to change public opinion should attempt to prevent it from polarizing sharply on the war issue, for that would almost certainly see the bulk of the population rushing to the defense of Flag and Country. Marches and large demonstrations almost always aggravate division of opinion.

But only almost always. Under two condition a forth-right demonstration can alter public opinion without inflaming it. First, the protestors must advocate precise and realistic proposals. Second, the public itself must be sufficiently unsure and confused to listen. For the November 27th March on Washington, these conditions exist.

Sanford Gottlieb, coordinator of the project, has stressed that "this is not a protest march but a march to make positive proposals." The proposals: an end to bombing in North Vietnam; a halt in the U.S. military buildup in South Vietnam; a declaration of willingness to negotiate with all parties, including the Viet Cong, to arrive at a coalition government for South Vietnam; reaffirmation of support for the Geneva agreement of 1954. These proposals represent a broad liberal consensus and do not invite sensationalistic press coverage.

The second condition, public willingness to listen, also seems a good possibility. For several weeks the nation's press has heavily criticized the administration for its lack of candor and sincerity in handling foreign policy crises. It is now common knowledge that, as late as last spring, the President was uninterested in negotiations. And, last week's fighting in the Central Highlands proved that the policy of air strikes, North and South, has failed in its purpose of creating a conciliatory attitude in Hanoi.

We therefore support next week's demonstrators, both for the program they propose and the moderate tone they plan to assume. Some groups on the left find the proposals and tone insufficiently militant. Under pressure, the march's organizers have reluctantly allowed SDS members to carry signs advocating an immediate cease fire and withdrawal of American troops. We hope this unfortunate concession will not be repeated with factions even further to the left. For if it is, a promising attempt at creative dissent will distintegrate into just one more exercise in defiance and frustration.