CLARK CLIFFORD
CLARK CLIFFORD
BREAKTHROUGH on the "new image" front. Johnson finds relief and relaxation in the dog world. According to White House publicity, the stray mongrel attached it-
self to the president's daughter and son-
in-law in Austin, Texas, and was "readopt-
ed" by his new master last August. The
pooch's name is Yuki, not just plain Ky.
DOG LOVERS, TOO, CAN NOW LOVE JOHNSON
The team of photographers assigned to the White House, which includes some of the top men in the field, long ago listed Johnson as their "least liked" president. He isn't photogenic like Kennedy, doesn't have a rubber face like Eisenhower, and isn't amiable like Truman. Moreover, he puts such restrictions on them that they can do little to work up the raw stuff into something palatable. The result -- up to recently -- was no great photograph of Johnson.
Two "memorable" photographs were all that could be listed: "Old Scarbelly," the one showing Johnson exhibiting the scar of his gall bladder operation; and "Old Dog Lover," the candid shot of him hoisting his pet beagle by the ears.
While "Old Scarbelly" may have
endeared Johnson to people who have
had operations -- and there are quite a
few of those in the United States --
"Old Dog Lover" was a disaster. It
brought all kinds of indignant letters
from dog owners and be-kind-to-animal
types.
All this has now been remedied.
Whoever has been working Johnson over,
remodeling his image, hasn't forgotten
the voters who own dogs. (There were
804,400 dogs registered as to breed in
the U.S. in 1966 and an incredible nun-
ber that managed to evade the census
takers.)
First of all, that patrician-
looking beagle was ousted from No. 1 position in the kennels. A very plebian mongrel was given the post. It was trained to be responsive to the president and began to be included in photographs of the president.
All this attention to the problem finally paid off with a great photograph. It must have been a memorable session. Johnson, playing with his pooch, was conmpletely relaxed and oblivious to the world, to the delight of the cameraman and the group of laughing admirers who watched the president put on the act.
The extraordinary photograph, together with others like it, was reproduced in the February 20 issue of Look magazine (from which we lifted it).
Look also provided an accompanying "text" by William Hedgepeth, giving all the facts about the "New top dog at the White House." This admirable bit of prose, which at times reaches a poetic level, will undoubtedly do much to help establish the new image of Johnson as a real human being, a simple, lovable guy, after all, who finds that man's best friend is a dog. To help in this laudable work of image creation, we are providing the full text as follows:
"First, the grayish-haired one rares back his head and goes, ‘aroof, arwuf, arwuf.' Next, picking up the cue, the smaller, white-haired one cocks his head at a similar angle and answers, ‘awf, arff, arwuff.' Finally, with both voices pitched in harmony, the two unleash a single, soulfully melodic, loud 'Aroo000000000000000000000' -- that conjures up pictures of bedraggled coyotes wailing away through a hot night in the windblown Texas flatlands. Then the duet ends to the applause of whoever happens to be present in the office. Downstairs, in the meantime, some among the crowd of tourists -- who may be wondering whether the noise they've just heard was a faint air-raid alert or McKinley's ghost -- are assured by the nearest White House guard that 'No, Ma'm, it's just the President of the United States and his favorite dog howling together.' Back in the President's office, little Yuki, who is not only the new mongrel-in-chief among White House hounds but also omnipresent companion of LBJ, gobbles up a rewarding shower of candy ‘dog kisses.' The President, too, feels a certain rewarding comfort: No ‘credibility gap' or communication problem here, at least. And to any guests present President Johnson is likely to brag of his mixed-breed new lodger, 'He even speaks with a Texas accent.'
"'Yuki!l' the bellow echoes through the White House. 'YUK-EEE!' -- almost loud enough to wake up workers in the Executive Office Building next door. Then the President falls silent. So everyone knows the dog's in his office -- all's right with the world. Sure enough, there's Yuki, well-scrubbed, spry and all set to show off for a visiting flock of 6th-grade spelling-—bee champs or a roomful of African diplomats or a venerable Head of State. 'That darn mutt,' mutters one White House aide, ‘is beginning to feel his position around here. He's got no inhibitions about going up to kings or anyone.' Ubiquitous Yuki, former stray, was adopted by Luci and Pat Nugent at an Austin, Texas, service station, then readopted by LBJ last August. Since then, the furry Texan has become preeminent White House hound-in-residence -- overshadowing Freckles, Dumpling, Edgar, Little Chap and Blanco -- as well as perennial co-traveler with the President. More significantly, their private talks in the Oval Office have added to recent speculations that not only is Yuki top dog to the Chief Executive but benign counselor and confidant as well.
"What with the social, economic, military and miscellaneous problems presently facing the nation, it is reassuring at least in some circles, to know that our President counts such a politically sagacious hound-courtier as part of his official family. LBJ is sometimes said to have difficulties with the press; Yuki -- who astutely attends all of his master's news conferences -- is careful to court the favor of the White House reporters. 'The newsmen love him,' exults a press secretary. ‘They always go out of their way to pat him on the head and rub his ears just the way he likes. And photographers all say he's very cooperative and photogenic.' In addition, in his role as the President's most faithful follower, Yuki seems to have a shrewd eye toward enhancing LBJ's ‘image' in the diplomatic world. Among an officeful of foreign dignitaries, who may be influenced by adverse reports on the Chief's popular standing, Yuki will often leap into the Presidential arms in a dramatic counterdemonstration of affection. Traphes Bryant, a White House electrician who has doubled as official dog-keeper under both Kennedy and Johnson, suggests that Yuki's earlier career as a stray may possibly have included a stint as a trained carnival dog. With so many former show-biz types now getting into politics, it seems increasingly likely, therefore, that as soon as the dog once known as Hey, You! Let Go and Beat It can meet the constitutional requirements on age, his future career might well include a term or so on his own as an officeholder."
Would anybody like a fresh dog biscuit to go with that?
THE MOST POWERFUL WORLD OF OUR TIME
By Peter Weiss
(The following speech by Peter Weiss, author of Marat-Sade, appeared in the September-October 1967 issue of Tricontinental, the theoretical organ of the Executive Secretariat of the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The wellknown German playwright made the speech especially for Tricontinental.]
*x* * *
We are discussing the relationship of the politically engaged writer with the Third World and with the underdeveloped countries.
To begin with I want to change the wordings; I do not like the expression "Third World," I do not like to speak about "underdeveloped" countries. The expression "Third World" is based on class-thinking, it qualifies a third class of world, it does not express what this "Third World" contains. It seems to be a world which is sort of hanging on to other worlds which in turn look upon themselves as more important. But this "Third World" makes up the most powerful world of our time. We have to choose a new expression for it; we would call it the "revolutionary world" or the "world of liberation struggle," or call it by a name which shows the militant, the dynanic, the explosive character of this world. From it the great changes will issue, the changes we will have to live through during the following years. I do not want to call those countries which are now rising and which are struggling to build up their new societies, their new attitude towards life, underdeveloped countries; they are not underdeveloped in comparison to the so-called developed countries. They do not have, of course, the same level of industrialization and technical equipment, but they have reached something which many of the so-called developed countries have not reached yet; they have dynamically changed or are on their way to changing their society in a more complete manner than that which changes have brought about in the Western societies. I mean, of course, changes through revolution. I mean Cuba, Viet-Nam, North Korea, Algeria, the liberated zones of Guinea.
These nations have freed themselves from dominating classes, they have freed themselves from oppression, they have freed themselves from exploitation; they have established the dignity of man; and only this can be called development in our time. We should call the revolutionary countries, developed countries, and the Western countries, which still
adhere to a society which is based on
class formation and exploitation, under-
developed.
For example, Viet-Nam and the
United States of America: in comparison
to the U.S.A., Viet-Nam is a developed
country. The society of the United
States contains atavistic, reactionary
antihumanitarian elements: racism is
alive, powerful groups are ruling over
the majority of the nation.
There are those who come from
Western society to lend a helping hand
to the so-called underdeveloped world.
They often believe they find backward-
ness there. They forget what such back-—
wardness [is]; they forget it is they
who have won their power, their supe-
riority, their technical development
through the exploitation of these coun-
tries.
Such being the case, the back-
wardness is not the fault of these
countries. It is the fault of the West-
ern ruling classes, who, by no other
means than colonialist oppression, and
by exploiting the people of the "Third
World" to the marrow of their bones,
built up their enormous power.
This is very often an unconscious
attitude on their part, though it is an
attitude which carries weight in their
relationship with the peoples of these
countries. Often the visitor says he
does not understand what is happening
in these countries; he says the peoples
of these countries speak a different
language. With false superiority he
looks down upon them from his high tech-
nical standards, looks down upon a coun-
try which is in the first phase of de-
veloping higher standards of dignity.
How can a European intellectual
find new means through which to manifest
his solidarity with the revolutionary
world?
Writing, in itself, can be a very
potent activity. It is not only you who
write; there are many elsewhere working
for the same aims. All of them together
make up one extensive universal front.
This front is part of the active revo-
lutionary struggle. Much in the same
way as the guerrilla fighter uses his
gun decisively, the writer ought clear-
ly to define his standpoint. He must not
hide anything. It is not enough to send
to those who are fighting in the hills
some warm words of friendship; you have
to show them your militant and political
support.
Often the question is raised of what you can attain with a work of art, with a book, a poem, a painting, a play; and you ask yourself the question, if it could ever have the effect of the machine gun in the hills. Often I see the superiority of the guerrilla fighter over an intellectual who is content with voicing his solidarity.
But as the war is fought on many fronts, every front on which you fight the enemy can be a strategic point. There might arise situations which compel you to change your attitude and become directly militant. In many countries this is the only solution.
In Western European countries there is still great value attached to writing. As far as I am concerned, writing has been a process in which I became conscious of myself and of the world I am living in. By writing I educated myself, by writing I developed my political thinking. By developing myself, I, asa writer, secure the possibility of influencing others.
In Europe, I see a great obstacle for revolution in the passive attitude of the workers. We do not reach the powerful masses of the workers, we are only in touch with groups of militant intellectuals, and that is not enough. This we felt very strongly: the lack of a revolutionary attitude on the part of the workers in capitalist society, the lack of their direct protest, their direct participation in the struggle of the revolutionary world. Too often we see that the workers in capitalist society only fight for their own immediate economic development.
Yes, they are fighting, too; they are fighting to change their situation; they are not fighting for the entire change of their society, nor do they speak about the change of the entire world, in which all societies would have to change. They are still limited in their consciousness of the necessity of global revolution.
As long as the intellectuals make up small elites without direct collaboration with the working masses the result of their work will be limited. Every revolutionary knows a revolution is not won by an elite; a revolution is won by the masses of workers and peasants in the country.
To whom do I address myself in my plays? Is my audience made up of the bourgeoisie rather than proletarians?
Of course, this differs from one case to another, as my plays have been played in both capitalist and socialist countries. In capitalist society, the theater is mostly a form of the bourgeois
world, the working class does not regard
the theater as its own form of art. They
feel alienated in front of the stage...
This turns out to be entirely different
in socialist.countries, where a quite
new audience is attending the theater,
and where the theater is owned by the
populace. Here the theater is duly appre-
ciated, the theater belongs to the popu-
lace; it is not an institution which has
been built up by a privileged class for
the pleasure of the privileged class.
As a dramatist, I have been award-
ed the possibility of reaching both the
population of a classless society, and
of a bourgeois society, reaching it by
being aggressive with it, by being pro-
vocative with it. Of course my goal is
to address myself to a conscious audience,
an audience which is made up of people
who share my political standpoint and
who wish to undertake a political analy-
sis of their times, the times they are
living in.
I do not know how it is for other
writers. There are good plays which
should be comprehensible for all soci-
eties, for everybody. But I am sure I
would write in a different way if I lived
in a socialist society, and I mean
through and through a socialist society,
where there would be no need to criticize
society, where my writing would be part
of a common constructive work, where I
should deal with the problems and con-
flicts underlying a new attitude toward
life.
The plays I have written until
now are the result of my milieu, the
result of the world in which I have
grown up.
The situation of a present-day
socialist writer differs from that of
the time in which Brecht lived. The
fight going on then between fascism and
communism was more simple than the fight
going on today, in which the socialist
world is a very complex world and con-
tains many different aspects. There is
the question of the necessity of world
revolution, there is the difference
between the technically highly developed