To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The third part of your "Johnson for President" was an excellent example of that fine liberal principle. "Extremism in the defense of moderation is no sin." Surely not even the CRIMSON believes that "It is inconceivable that a vote could be cast-for the Republican candidates."

I find it interesting that your editorial writer believes himself qualified to judge on the intelligence with which Goldwater urges conservative views, even though your writer is almost certainly ignorant of most of the arguments supporting those views. I am judging him from my observations of Harvard liberals; while there are some who know something about the views of their opponents, they are few and far between. Indeed, I have found it interesting throughout the campaign to hear the liberals accusing Goldwater of badly representing the conservative cause. Surely it is strange that the conservatives, who have a good deal more at stake than the liberals, and who presumably know more about conservatism, have not complained.

I am also interested by your editorial writer's abilities as a mind reader. He is apparently able to tell not only what his own conscience says about the test ban treaty, but also what Goldwater's conscience says about it, for he refers to Goldwater's "unconscionable vote on the test ban treaty." (Unconscionable: Not guided or controlled by conscience). David D. Friedman '65