To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

A sign on one of the freshman dorms in the Yard read "RFK for President--McCarthy for Sec. of State." Silly as it was, it indicated a number of things. First, most of the students who are against the war and have hitherto supported McCarthy will now flock to the sure winner, the only man who can get us out of the mess. Second, it showed that we have come to realize how important the office of Secretary of State is, that it dwarfs the Vice-presidency. And third, it revealed a naivete about what things will be like once Bobby is in office. The Secretary of State under Robert Kennedy will not be McCarthy, whom we all cheer: it will be McGeorge Bundy, who was hissed so roundly only a week ago for his defense of the administration's Vietnam policy. And the same people who hooted at Bundy will now rally to support the candidate who will make him the second most powerful man in the country (If not the world).

It was an odd coincidence that the New Hampshire primary should have taken place just as Bundy was delivering the Godkin Lectures. For there was Bundy, the man who will be carried along to the very top by what began in New Hampshire, telling just what he was going to do when he got there. What was this major criticism of the structure of our government? --Not enough power for the man at the top cabinet rank and not enough independence of these men from congressional control. Perhaps Bundy is right with respect to domestic policy. Bundy's recommendations would amount to giving the Secretary of State even more power than the office now affords, and freeing the Secretary and the President even more from the control of Congress. But this is just what McCarthy has been campaigning against. The President and the Secretary of State now have too much power in the setting of foreign policy. Bundy would wrest away what little authority Congress now has in this area by giving more fiscal power to the executive branch, including the power of tax--within limits of course, but limits that would probably be great enough to support a major escalation of any given war.

I have no doubt that Robert Kennedy, if elected, would somehow get us out of the Vietnam War. But it does not follow that his election would mean a basic change in our foreign policy. So far as I can tell, Robert Kennedy shares Bundy's views (just as John Kennedy did). These views are that we should use our power abroad wherever and however we can, provided we can get away with it; that we should support our financial interests abroad even by miltary means; and that we should discourage and fight all forms of communism to whatever extent it is practical to do so--even if this means supporting right-wing dictatorships and working against all revolutionary forces throughout the underdeveloped world. This was John Kennedy's policy, and we have every reason to believe that it is Robert Kennedy's. This is the policy that led us into Vietnam.

If Senator McCarthy is serious about changing our foreign policy, I think he should look beyond the present campaign and beyond Vietnam. Kennedy will be carrying the anti-Johnson message to the country. There is no need for McCarthy to echo him. Instead, McCarthy should hammer away at the issue where Kennedy is as weak as Johnson--our foreign policy in general, as opposed to our Vietnam policy in particular. Though it is inevitable that McCarthy will bow out of the campaign eventually, his staying in at this point could be of crucial importance to our country if (and, I think, only if) he will present this issue clearly and forcefully to the electorate. George Lakoff   Lecturer on Linguistics