tv 1984 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN March 20, 2016 10:45pm-11:46pm EDT
the united states and things like that. as president of the college democrats, i think those are the most important things for this election cycle. voting for hillary because sheep seems more knowledgeable and she has helped the environment before. she has been secretary of state and she has always been in the inner workings of the white house and knows how the game goes. ♪ untilcer: in each week the 2016 election, american history tv brings you archival coverage of presidential races. debatehe 1984 democratic between walter mondale, general gary hart, and jesse jackson. it is best remembered for the question on the deaths of the policy proposals.
he asked, where is the beef? a slogan from a popular wendy's tv commercial. the vice president finish the primary season with the lead in the delegates but he did not secure the nomination over senator hart until he democratic convention in july. he then lost the election to ronald reagan. with the president winning 49 out of 50 states. this session is courtesy of the league of women voters. >> good afternoon. i'm the president of the league of women voters. welcome to the league's second presidential debate of as we 1984. have done in previous presidential election years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of general election debates. so that you can make side-by-side comparisons of the candidates and their views. john chancellor is our moderator for today's debate.
>> thank you. the gentleman in the league, when they sponsored -- there were eight of you, and now there are only five. , four of view -- and you have not done as well as you would like. let me describe your positions. jesse jackson, if he doesn't get any percent of the vote, he will lose his eligibility for federal campaign matching funds. mr. mcgovern is down to one state. he may withdraw. mr. glenn has not scored a victory and the polls don't put him in a strong position. mr. mondale's hopes for a quick and decisive lead have not been fulfilled. i believe i heard him use the word "clobbered" to describe his defeat. [laughter] >> mr. mondale's hopes have not been fulfilled. he is a man with ideas for the
future but his opponents say it is tinsel. lame' with no substance. now, onto the substance. mr. jackson, you have a lot of experience in civil rights. now that your campaigning in the south, you have been hitting the civil rights theme very hard, saying that you're better than your opponents on that issue. does that tend to narrow your candidacy? there are a lot of white voters who did not rally. have you reached the point where your support will come exclusively from blacks? >> in new hampshire, i got better than four of my opponents. in vermont, we got 8% of the votes. so we have an inclination of voting support in new hampshire. mr. hart and mondale can appreciate the fact that they will be driven out of business. all of them. secondly, curb the military budget and use military sources to help end the deficit and revitalize the america.
new presencet a but not a new reality. that affects everybody. the voting rights act is the most pivotal act of the century. there is a plan to enforce the voting rights act to win the primary. so the questions of social justice and peace and sharing power with women are critical to my agenda. >> thank you. mr. mcgovern, you have been critical of gary hart recently. he was your campaign manager when he ran for president. -- when you ran for president in 1972. [laughter] it is his talk about the future, about the opportunities for a new generation, much different than what you are saying in 1972? mr. mcgovern: first of all, i think i trained gary too well.
i have really been thinking over that whole business of 1972. let me say, as one who is great special affection for gary hart and who will certainly support him if he is the democratic nominee, that i do think some legitimate questions have to be asked when the issue is posed. as gary has. he says the election as a contest between the past and the future. now, i am not sure what the past means in those terms. i am very sensitive about this as gary knows because i am an , old history teacher. i have always revered the past. but does the past include george washington and thomas jefferson? does it include kennedy and the human rights policy of president carter? if it does, i'm glad to come here and defend the past and declare it as a good guide to the view chair. >> thank you.
mr. glenn, we saw you in iowa. you described yourself as a businessman and an experienced senator. but last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero astronaut and a tough marine. you have been all of these things, admittedly it is in your record, but can you really decide what sorts of person you have been? >> i don't think i have changed my views. what you are talking about is the experience factor, which i have pointed out. i have been 10 years in washington and have passed major legislation. i know how washington operates. but in addition to that, who was going to provide the jobs for the future of this country? who knows the best from the white house, i have started for small businesses of my own. international corporations. one third of our agricultural production gets sent overseas. american jobs depend upon that. it is so important for the future. we talk about the future and i have been working in the future
all my life. i was in the military, healthy -- helping to design the equivalent for the future. i think those are very valuable additions, in addition to just being lifelong political entities. and so i think i have that extra dimension that would give a good dimension for the white house in making those decisions you have to make. >> thank you. mr. mondale, your new theme is, what you see is what you get. no hairspray. [laughter] >> you are saying, i am what i am. you say you have resisted suggestions to change your image. that approach may seem a bit short on actual issues and you to accuse your opponents of running issue list campaigns. campaigns.ss
mr. mondale: that is the point of the comment. substance is all that matters. are we right on the arms control issues? do we see that as a central issue of our time? do we have a strong plan to get the deficits down? and restore america's competitiveness? to educate this next generation. do we have the guts and the commitment to restore a sense of fairness? that is what i am trying to say. we do not elect momentum. we don't elect images. we elect a human being. and we better pick someone who knows what he's doing. who is committed to the strongest elements and one who sees the experience and knows what he is doing. >> thank you. finally, mr. gary hart. one thing i hear people say is that i don't know much about gary hart. i like his style, i like his looks. isn't there some truth that your campaign is more impressionistic than theirs? you are spending more time just being gary hart than outlining things in your election?
mr. hart: that is a very good question at this stage in the race. let me point out 2 facts. i have been a united states senator for two years. when george mcgovern said, he doesn't know what the new ideas are, i have to remind him that last fall, i send them a copy of -- i sent him a copy of a book that i wrote and a stack of position papers about that high. i think i have the campaigns of all these other people. the other thing is, these primaries are happening fast. i oppose the weight of this calendar was set up. on the record, in the fall of 1982, i told the hunt committee not to do this. toish i had three weeks campaign in florida, three weeks to campaign of georgia, and three weeks to campaign and alabama. because i am convinced, the ideas that i have to move forward would sell down here exactly the way they have in the
rest of the country. so i would hope in the future, when we nominate the president, and we give each candidate time to become better known and each of these states. >> thank you. i would like to go on to specific questionings. gentlemen, the figures on the american economy show that the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from the recession of the 1950's. the country is in better shape right now than it was four years ago economically. four years ago when the democrats were in the white house. i base that on the misery index. the public's expectation on inflation and unemployment. four years ago, the misery index stood at 20. today, the misery index is down to 13. so i'm going to ask each of you in random order, why should somebody vote for the democrats? things are getting better. i would like to start with mr. mondale. the misery index was first used in 1976. mr. mondale: as a matter of fact, i think it is now clear
that we have a misery index that we haven't seen in a long time. we see the interest rates rising dramatically. we see the stock market going down dramatically. now we see a resurgence of inflation. we are now predicting maybe 8% by the end of the year. we have a good chance, if this continues, to choke off economic growth. more than that, the effect of these policies has been to give is the worst trade year in the industry. a trade imbalance. 3 million-4 million jobs lost as a result of that. these enormous deficits, as far as the eye can see, it guarantees that long-term sustainable healthy economic growth is possible and we are loading our kids with a trillion dollar bill that they have to pay with interest. it is the worst deliberate major economic mistake of modern times. >> i will go to mr. gary hart.
mr. hart: two points. as he has accurately stated, this generation and this government is doing something that we have not done for 200 years in this nation's history. that is to steal from our children's future to satisfy a reagan recovery into the greed of a handful of people in this country. number two, the misery indicator doesn't measure the anguish of our children who are desperately afraid of the nuclear holocaust, of the woman in alabama who wrote to me saying that she fully supported my efforts to get our marines out of lebanon, and her son was one who did not -- who did not come back. the anguish of our citizens who are afraid of toxic waste polluting their water supply. people who don't have a job beyond that and the 9 million structurally unemployed people who are unemployed fed ronald reagan has no plan whatsoever to
put back to work. this president is not addressing the fundamental problems of the economy. >> would you address the question i proposed. why the democrats? john glenn: the misery index of our children, i would like to know what that is going to be. we are talking $200 billion year deficit and we are letting that drive interest rates up and we are driving down exports. we are increasing the misery index for our children. anyone can live on borrowed money for a while. but there are things that have to go into that index for the future. this administration has taken a very short view on that, also. this is caused by cutbacks in education. it goes beyond high school, getting a decent education. i have put forward a three-part program of volunteers for america, where our young people being assured of getting a college education. we are talking about the difficulty in investigating in new plant equipment here.
we are talking about cutbacks in research. the japanese-germans are increasing their research while we are cutting back. it is not just an economic matter. it is economic matters for the future that will cause our children to live in economic misery index that should not be there lot. we can do better than that. >> mr. reagan has done something that i didn't expect a conservative president to do. he has bought us an artificial recovery for some people. by spending $200 billion a year more than he takes in. i'm sure some of the viewers listening think we are making partisan judgments here today about the president, but his own economic advisor, the chairman of economic advisers has said that this deficit is a time bomb that is going to go off after the election.
it will drive interest rates through the ceiling and that is the end of the recovery. he has also said what is covering -- what is causing the deficit is a wild inflation with military spending. it is an extravagant military spending binge that goes way beyond any defense requirements that we have. and secondly, it is inefficient and unjust law that is permitting billions of dollars to go through the loopholes to the highest income corporations in the country. jesse jackson: my concern is that we feel the tragic pain of the misery index rising but democrats will not make a difference if we go in the same direction, just a little slower. if mr. hart and mr. mondale cannot show at our convention, they then add to the misery of women who need to become empowered. >> could you go over that again? i got kind of lost.
jesse jackson: what i'm saying is that our connection is not 50% female. 70% of all cultures live in a house with a woman. , we areonsider as commitment to cutting a to american education and extending a two el salvador, we are extending that misery they can only arise in poverty. >> now we get into a few minutes of freewheeling in which you are at liberty to attack each other. let me try one thing. aren't most of you actually for an increase in tax spending? >> i am not. i think this can be done without touching anything that is important to our national defense. i am a bomber pilot in the second world war.
i would not advocate anything that i thought touched the essential defense of this country. but some of the most thoughtful people have looked at the military budget and say it is loaded with waste and costs and noncompetitive bidding. if we had somebody like lee i toke up as the secretary of defense, and he would do for the pentagon what he would do for the chrysler motors, we could have a good tough defense for at least 20-25% less money. then you have the money to do other things. >> i suspect jesse jackson is not out of phase with that question. >> it requires that we at this point have some kind of congressional oversight that allows us to become managed. right now it is unmanageable. the no-bid contracts -- i support the need for troops in europe. there are 50,000 troops in japan.
this would help to share some of the burden. if we can cut the defense by at least 25%, the budget, not the defense, that is the money for new ideas. >> we have two cutters. i understand the position taken by the other three. this is for cutting what the president has requested in addition. but you still would favor a certain increase in the defense budget? am i right? >> let me answer this. i am for reducing the reagan military buildup by $150 billion in the next 4-5 years. i spell that out in great detail.
i'm the only member of the group who has 10 years of experience in the armed services committee. i will to you why i disagree with george and jesse. one is that we have to increase over ronald reagan what we paying our military personnel to retain the most skilled personnel among other things to avoid going back to a very fear non-style draft. secondly, even after spending $650 billion in the last three years, the pentagon admits we have fewer combat ready divisions than we had in 1980 under the carter administration. that means ronald reagan is plundering the readiness counts of our conventional forces for a procurement those up which will make as weaker. >> before we go on, maybe we can find a way to make this more understandable. you present is asked for a 13% increase this year in allocations for defense? that is a 13% increase?
what would your figure b? in that context? >> minus about 4%. >> if we can keep it to that, it will make more sense. >> not to argue with senator hart -- >> why not? [laughter] >> he wrote a dissenting opinion in which he seemed to say he wanted as much or more military spending as mr. reagan. but we make my point. one of the realities of the modern presidential leadership is that as much as we want to bring the defense budget down, and i do, as much as you want to get rid of weapons systems that don't buy us defense, as much as we need a tough system of testing and warranties, as much as we need arms control to help bring down pressure, the
inescapable fact is that the soviet union, it is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly in cambodia and afghanistan and elsewhere. and at present, the united states has you everything to manage the budget sensibly and wisely. he cannot fail to effectively discharge the national security interests of our country. that is a tough balance. but the president must do it. >> can you give me a percentage? >> about 4%. >> i am at about 6%. my two colleagues on the right feel here, that we could cut our defense establishment beyond all reality as far as keeping the security of the country. i have proposed cutting $50 million out. i have specified where that would be. it would be in the rapid deployment force.
for the soviets, it has been relentless since the cuban missile crisis days. the former vice president would cut the cruise missiles and the foreign troops. he would cut the m1 tank. he would cut much of the volunteer army. i propose that would leave this country emasculated. the only thing to pull back from has been the trident missile and the cruise missile. mr. hart opposed the -- the patriot hellfire, the missiles, we've country program of leadership in washington that is taller is better. rather than stressing our technology. that is a fundamental difference between us.
i'm saying that every single thing we put out there has to work and work properly. but we cannot go back to a smaller, simpler day warehouse we wind up matching our numbers of, versus the soviets, as opposed to using what we have done in every war, which is to use every technology to keep from using so many people out there. to put distance between the enemy with technology. i have fought in the wars. i know what it is like to want the best technology because my life depended on it. so i do not agree with these smaller and simpler approach. >> let me respond, if i may? >> now we have four out of five hand up. it goes gary hart, jesse jackson, mcgovern and mondale. you are on. >> what senator glenn doesn't address is the need for more
units of all these things. weekend afford more when the each cost $3.5 billion. we are behind the soviets and we are falling behind in almost every category because we are worshiping technology. i want to use our technological superiority to produce conventional weapons that work in sufficient numbers to defend the interests. >> you can make it being prepared to kill and be killed by the russians. if we negotiated and traded and use technology and we wouldn't have to prepare to fight, we could prepare to live. they are alive because we decided not to kill them. it is uncivilized behavior. we need to begin to use our minds.
we need to go another way. it is a waste of money killing people in the caribbean or central america or in lebanon. if we save the money we are used killing people there, we could cut the budget without cutting defense. use our minds and go another way. >> one thing that is clear here today is that there is no new idea coming from the side over here. >> what we've got is the same old argument. the russians are coming and there are about to jump on us. you can be very sure that the same argument is being made over there. the americans are gaining on us. both of these superpowers are literally scaring each other to death. each side is arming in the name of defense. each side is piling up more and more of the weapons of destruction at a time when our society is deteriorating.
president eisenhower, who knew more about these matters than any other president since world war ii put it this way, if the military spends too much, it actually weakens the country. by depriving us of other sources of national power. education, housing, transportation. these are things that also have to do with our national strength. and i think we need a leadership that is trying to get the russians to the bargaining table by $1.5 trillion, we need the common sense to say we are ready to bargain right now. reagan has taken this unjustified buildup.
they have walked out. on the arms negotiations. >> i agree that the idea of building up arms to scare the russian so then they will agree with whatever we want will fail. i want to be understood as being totally committed. the annual summit conference the efforts to reduce tensions, i couldn't agree with you more. on the other hand, and i don't want to misinterpret what you said. the soviets are using their power in the polls and in cambodia and in afghanistan. in syria and in ways that are irresponsible and are dangerous. >> how are you going to stop that with another 4% in military spending? or another 40%. that won't change their relationship to poland or other areas. >> i think we need to have a sensible defense. it is a question of balance. but, the point i wanted to respond to john glenn is that i am from a strong defense. let me give you an example. you have singled out my
opposition. it has been a gross distortion. >> know it is not. i am for a strong defense. the b-1 which i opposed i support the south because it is a modern movement that will move us to the next century. here, it it is probably the most respected single specialist in armed services in our country. i am against the mx but i am for -- i think the navy has to be scaled to proper proportion and i would be for strengthening nato. those are strong and responsible positions. >> it reflects the realities of the world as i see them. >> make a response as brief as possible. otherwise we could spend the whole day on this topic. >> i'm the only one who is put this forward as we try to scale arms down.
it enforces the nuclear act so we prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. it involves other weapons in the state. that is a five-point program. we had a debate which you will recall two years ago. he talks about the cheaper carrier. it shows a fundamental lack of understanding as how it works. you have to have a whole task force that gets out there. and the fact is, you are trying to present airpower at sea and it comes out to around 126 for the big carriers. as opposed to $249 for gary's proposal. we argued this on the senate
floor and i won that debate decisively. so that is what i see, a lack of understanding. you don't have the experience to know how these functions. >> everybody is sneaking in on gary. [laughter] >> there is a thing about this argument. pros and cons. we talk in terms of engaging and we are to have less inventions. >> this has confused the people. he has cut lunch programs out and cut back through stamps. while he cuts away food from
children, you are gathering to argue about prayer and premeditated prayer. >> you are talking about prayer. and what is concerning about that is that we have the obstruction of a prayer. you pray for the food you're about to receive. >> and in this sense -- involve the other nuclear weapons states in those negotiations. that is a five point doable program. gary mentioned the carriers.
every single man, woman, and child in the soviet union would die instantly. what are we going to achieve building further than that? enormous cut in this escalation the president has on the drawing board? george, you will agree there are differences between strategic and nuclear weapons. if are going to bring nuclear we must ask for conventional forces and pay the people that run them. i don't see inadequate way of staying in and make a career of defending this country with threatening or frightening the russians.
these enormously costly systems there would be enough money to do the things you want to do. >> wise john glenn attacking me for all the cuts i want to make? the reason is john glenn is further along than you are. [laughter] >> the last word on the subject, we have to go on. sen. glenn: just a little one. the cost increase, and you pointed out, very correctly, jesse -- or george, i guess -- was commenting about the increase in nuclear. i do not think we need an increase in nuclear. what i support is the idea of upgrading and making certain our conventional forces are adequate so, we pray god, never reach that nuclear threshold and have any temptation, on either side, to go to nuclear warfare.
mr. chancellor: we are now, gentlemen, going to change the subject. [laughter] mr. chancellor: i want you all to listen to this, because you have all thought about sleeping in the white house. [laughter] mr. chancellor: it is 2:00 in the morning. you are upstairs in that bedroom, sound asleep, and the phone rings. an airliner from czechoslovakia, a communist country, enters american airspace directly across some s.a.c. missile bases it is headed for colorado springs and the north american air defense command. american fighters have tried everything they can do to stop it, short of shooting it down. shooting across its bow, all of that. they look in. the lights are on, and it is full of people. there you are on the phone at 2:00 in the morning. what will you do? i would like to start with senator hart. sen. hart: if the people that they looked in and saw had uniforms on, i would shoot the aircraft down. if they were civilians, i would
let it keep going. mr. mondale: i would share the same judgment. as we saw with the korean airline situation, when you shoot down an innocent civilian aircraft -- these things have markings. you do not have a civilian aircraft flying around with military potential unless that military potential is obvious. when that is the case, it seems you take every reasonable precaution to avoid the kind of crisis and embarrassment and humiliation of the heartache surrounding korean airlines. if, in the judgment of the president, this could be a potential attack, that is something else. but what are the odds of your good question ever occurring? do you really believe if the soviet union was after us, they would fire up an old 707 and go putting across the air? [laughter] mr. mondale: or do you think they would take modern stuff and let it all go. i think it is a wonderful
hypothetical, it's ridiculous. [laughter] mr. chancellor: does anybody disagree? we have some disagreement. sen. glenn: i think there is such a fundamental lack of understanding by saying we are going to go up and peek in the windows to see if they are wearing military uniforms. sen. hart: that was chancellor's statement. he said you look in and see people. [laughter] sen. glenn: you said you're going to peek in. sen. hart: that's what he said. that was chancellor's question. sen. glenn: i've flown wing on these airplanes. you do not go up peaking in the windows. [laughter] sen. glenn: i think one important element is very important, quite seriously. that is if we had an adequate intelligence service, which some of the others on the platform have supported cutbacks on in the past -- i've wanted to expand the service. then we would know more about with the soviets are doing.
if we had an adequate satellite system that tells us where that airliner came from, what information there is about what was loaded on the airplane, what was sent in to the base where it took off. there's a lot of information. it is not as simplistic as you make it. mr. chancellor: i'd like to go to you. just briefly, if you can. rev. jackson: i think the answer to that question is fritz's finest hour. [laughter] mr. chancellor: thank you for the brevity of your response. mr. mcgovern: i think what this hypothetical example points out, and all due respect to you, i think it is ridiculous, but what it points out, as well as the korean jetliner incident, fundamentally, is the necessity of better communications between washington and moscow. one of the great tragedies of the last three years is that the president of the united states
has not even talked for 60 seconds with the leader of the other superpower. two of their leaders have died during the time president reagan was in office, without even meeting our president. if we had systematic, regular talks between the president of the united states and his counterpart in the soviet union, it is possible we could have avoided the korean jetliner incident and this hypothetical matter you posed. if world war iii comes, it will be because of a communications breakdown. mr. chancellor: you are all democrats. which means that you are the political heirs of franklin delano roosevelt. when he became president, the u.s. began to change. the federal government took over many of the responsibilities of the states and cities. we have had half a century of continued federal involvement in
people's lives. it seems to some of us it has grown much since those years. the election of 1980 may have changed that. at least many republicans thinks so. if one of you wins the election, will there be less federal involvement or will it be a return to the way things were before reagan? i wonder, mr. mondale, if you'd start. mr. mondale: i think it's essential that the president lead us with a strong federal government to solve those problems that are essential to our future. number one, get the deficit down dramatically. if we do not do that, we cannot have a healthy economy. number two, have an assertive, strong american trade policy. this is the worst trade year in american history. all through georgia, and alabama, and florida, farmers, industrialists -- alabama has 13.5% unemployment. there's a lot of people left behind. a lot of that is principally because of the trade disaster. we need a renaissance of education and learning in science and training. if this next generation is going to be able to defend themselves
and compete, they need the support. finally, we need a president who leads us toward justice. i mean enforcing the civil rights act, ratifying the equal rights amendment, standing up for social security and medicare. the country must be fair. the history of america is when a president lead us towards fairness and towards our future, it can be done. sen. hart: two comments, mr. chancellor. i have made an issue out of the need of a new generation of leadership. i mean primarily those who have come in to the political life and leadership in the past decade. that is because there is a strong antigovernment feeling. i fundamentally disagree with
ronald reagan when he says he loves our country but hates the government. i do not hate the government. we ought to have leaders who ask people what they can do for their country, using the best instruments of our government. that there is a fundamental difference, for example, between vice president mondale and myself. that is i think we can meet the basic human needs and commitments of the people in this country by restoring entrepreneurship. 90% of new jobs in this society have come from small businesses. the dedication of the democratic party to minority people in the south and elsewhere should not just be jobs. it should be the opportunity to own and operate businesses that create jobs. mr. chancellor: mr. glenn? mr. mondale: can i respond to that? mr. chancellor: we'll come back to you. mr. mondale: what is new about coming out for entrepreneurs? when i hear your new ideas, i am reminded of that ad -- "where's the beef?" [laughter] mr. mondale: let's keep going. [laughter] mr. chancellor: wait a minute, he is going to tell you where
the beef is. sen. hart: if you would listen, i think you would know it is here. one of the other differences, by the way, is if a president goes back into office, and one of us must, to save the country, you cannot go back. so committed to a handful of constituency groups that you cannot make this economy grow again, that's again a major difference between myself and mr. mondale. mr. mondale: wait. i told you what i was going to do -- get those deficits down, educate the next generation. those are not special interest groups. i said i would stand up for -- against special interests -- [laughter] support social security and medicare. what is wrong with that? sen. hart: nothing is wrong with that. mr. chancellor: i would like to move on. mr. jackson and then mr. glenn. rev. jackson: critical to the role of government is to be a balancing wheel between big labor and big management. the government has to assume
basic responsibility to enforce the laws. the voting rights act, for example, is not being enforced. democrats are reluctant because we want to reconcile the interest of the boll weevil and the cotton. you can't have both. georgia, for example, right now -- 30% black. 18 years after the voting rights act. 10 congresspersons, zero black. supreme court, 0. appeals court, 0. 159 sheriffs, 0. 22 majority black counties without one black elected official. the government must enforce the law. and not equivocate in the face of local considerations. on the other hand, while we focus on what the government does, the private economy is $3 trillion. 5 of every 6 jobs is in the private economy. for that $700 billion tax break to corporations, they must be obligated to reinvest in this economy, retrain our workforce, and not export our jobs to slave labor markets abroad. we can no longer allow these corporations to take this money, replace people with robots, without any sense of an adequate transition. that is a strong, central government that is a balancing
wheel. mr. chancellor: mr. glenn. sen. glenn: when i was a boy in new concord, ohio in the great depression, we estimate we had about 51% of the people at or below poverty level. fdr came in. my dad went to work on wpa. we had a lot of programs, but fha at that time. it helped a lot of people. we estimated a few years ago only 9% of the people in this country were at or near poverty level. that is a record of social revolution in this country. it didn't happen with socialism, fascism, or communism. it happened with good, solid democratic programs. we can be very proud of those. we went a little too far in some of those programs. we have to correct those. now you're talking about intrusion of government. there are areas where we have some very major differences. i spelled them out between myself and mr. hart a couple of days ago. e.r.a. he said he would use that -- and i'm for e.r.a. proud that ohio lead the way with that. he said e.r.a. -- he would use the power of the federal government to withhold projects -- sen. hart: no, i did not --
sen. glenn: yes, you did. i will read it to you. let me read it, if i have enough time. mr. chancellor: you can read it on the next turn around. sen. glenn: fine. but he said he would withhold federal projects. that is flat wrong. when you are going to intrude into people's lives in that basis with federal projects. he set an industrial policy that said he wanted to make choices in credit and allocate those things. and that intrudes the federal government into business. mr. chancellor: i am sorry. but if you can take that out of your closing statement -- we have not heard from george mcgovern about the federal role. mr. mcgovern: there are two types of concentration of power. one is too much federal concentration. the other is too much corporate concentration of power. on the federal side, president
reagan has increased the percentage of gnp now being taken up by the federal government. the reason is obviously the dramatic increase in military spending. he has cut nutrition and education, the environment. things like that. those cuts are less than the increase in the interest rate on the federal debt since he took office because of the escalating deficit he has brought on. on the corporate side, we have had more, huge corporate mergers in the last three years than any previous time in american history. enormous oil companies taking over others to the point i think it is a call on all of us to see what we can do to strengthen antitrust laws. mr. chancellor: do you, democrats, think the private sector, as the president often says, can pick up the slack in federal government programs?
mr. mondale: i think that a private, healthy economy is indispensable to everything. if you do nohave a growing, healthy economy with entrepreneurship and small businesses, we will not solve anything. the key is to make sure that the prosperity and entrepreneurship is found in minorities as well. there is a lot we can do through the small business administration, tax incentives, federal licensing laws, to make sure more black, hispanic, women, and other minorities can participate in fullness of the profit making. and through training and education make certain that people who are now being left behind are made part of this process. that depends on a private, healthy economy. that is why you have to get the deficit down and get going with an environment where we can
prosper. rev. jackson: when i was in operation push, we challenged corporate america. when reagan cut down on aid, we began to move toward trade. burger king, for example, made the judgment to build a plant in utah and alabama as part of our agreement. they hired 200 people. they were stocked from small farms that were run out of business by guaranteeing a market of 5 million pounds of cucumbers a year. if a company does that, they ought to get a tax incentive. if a corporation puts a day care center at its plant, which allows the mother to come to work and spares welfare, that ought to be a tax incentive. if there is a tax investment and uses that money to reinvest in our economy and retrain our work force rather than closing plants and sending workers abroad, the use of tax incentives as leverage for urban development is a creative use of tax investment rather than leverage. mr. chancellor: senator hart.
then after, we have time for one more response before i have to ask you to go into your closing statements. sen. hart: in the almost 10 years in congress for me, vice president mondale has pulled about a half-dozen of my thousands of votes to say i am not for this or that. one was a vote for osha. vice president mondale knows i am as committed to a safe workplace as he is. the vote is this -- it was towards the big difference. it was to exempt from certain people work requirements. small businesses who have 10 or fewer employees. and farmers who employed fewer than five people. it was that bureaucracy and paperwork that drove the democrats out of office in the 1970's. we can have a safe workplace for people without driving small business people and family farmers off their land or out of their business.
mr. mondale: i saw the vote but have never mentioned it. what i talked about was, where unlike some senators, you refused to vote on a windfall profits tax which, if successful, would have given the oil $250 million. sen. hart: there you go again. mr. mondale: secondly, i talked about your $10 a barrel tax. that is the worst idea in this campaign. sen. hart: that was a carter-mondale initiative. mr. mondale: oh, no. i have had nothing to do with that, it is the worst idea. carter is not for it. nobody except you is for it, and you are not talking about it anymore it is so bad. half a million people lose their jobs. america will become the highest cost producing area in the country. talk about intrusion and destruction of jobs and entrepreneurship and position in international trade. this is a disaster. i do not think you thought it through. sen. hart: let me respond.
mr. mondale: let me finish my point. rev. jackson: this is a bad idea. [laughter] mr. chancellor: i am terribly worried. you either have a choice -- i am sorry, but the clock is inexorable -- of having a chance to say what you want to say at the end or squeezing it at the very end. so senator, can you say it in 25 words or less? sen. hart: less than that. i voted for a carter-mondale tariff on imported oil. i was only one of 15 senators who had the courage to support this administration. and i proposed a windfall profits tax of 100% on old oil owned by the big oil companies in this country. that goes beyond carter-mondale.
mr. mondale: this is a complete distortion of what he did -- can i have 25 seconds? sen. hart: that is not a distortion. mr. mondale: when we needed you, you were wrong. sen. hart: that is not right. mr. chancellor: i will ask you now, if we can get your reasoned closing statements. we will all take a breath. sorry, senator mcgovern, but we have to do that. the first one we asked, preordained by lot, the first one who goes is senator hart. sen. hart: i have no idea how the primaries and caucuses will come out next tuesday or beyond. i obviously hope that i will be successful. i hope so for several reasons. george mcgovern talked about the great leaders of our past, democratic or otherwise. my values are as deeply rooted in those leaders and that past and those ideals as any person on this platform, indeed, in this country. but it is interesting the
leaders he mentioned represented something else than just ideals and principles. they represented change. when this country has had the change, it came to this party. for those who had a policy and a set of ideas and a vision for this country's future. that is what this campaign is about. i think that's why people are responding to it all across this country. we cannot go back. to achieve the highest ideals, values, and goals of this country, we must have new leadership and a new approach and a fresh start for the country. mr. chancellor: thank you. mr. jackson. rev. jackson: if we have new leadership to replace old leadership but going basically in the same direction, not sharing the ticket with a woman, increasing the military budget, resisting a real commitment to enforcing the voting rights act, that is a new face or a new name by an old game. we need to go another direction. our party has to be the party of conscience. the fact is under reagan, there are 5 million more people who are poor. 3 million of whom are children. now up to 15% of our nation.
it will be 41 million by the end of this year. there must be a commitment to lift those votes stuck at the bottom. we must reduce the military budget without reducing our military defense. use that money to create a future for our children, that they may be able to lay bricks and not throw them. if we give our children a chance, it will give our nation a chance. i remain convinced we will suffer, but suffering breeds character. character breeds faith. and in the end, faith will not disappoint. we must pursue those values. mr. chancellor: mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: since gary and fritz have been objected to being called a front runner, i hope they will let me take that label with me back to boston. franklin roosevelt once said that the presidency is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. that is true. that means the next president will have to seek, above all else, our salvation from nuclear annihilation.
second only to that, we have to learn, in this great country, to quit intervening in these third world revolutions, whether it is el salvador or nicaragua or lebanon or wherever. unfortunately, in the name of fighting communism, we have embraced virtually every scoundrel around the world willing to wave an anti-communist banner. [applause] mr. mcgovern: the time has come for the united states to once again assert in foreign policy not what we hate and fear but what this great country is for. that ought to be the goal of the next president. mr. chancellor: thank you. sen. glenn: george brought up we have not had more of an opportunity to talk about foreign policy. that is so important, what happens around the world. but i do not agree with gary that this is a generation gap of some kind. we go ahead as a nation and
always have in the past. we have the best interest of all of our people. of the young, the middle-aged, the elderly. we have concerns for everyone within our society. the south has the opportunity to set that course next tuesday. it is a unique opportunity for leadership in the democratic party and leadership for our nation. i see myself as a moderate, the only moderate left here. i do not believe in this politics of momentum that seems to be abroad. politics of stampede. i hope the people of the south will slow down, think about the issues, and the position we have taken on the economy and education and research these things. then vote about what you know we
have actually proposed. we can control the destiny of this country. we can be number one again. george mcgovern, a few weeks ago, said he did not want people to throw away their conscience. i say do not throw away your common sense either. your vote next week -- i guarantee you i will give you a presidency you can be proud of again. mr. chancellor: thank you, senator. mr. mondale: in the south and throughout the country, we are about to participate in super tuesday. the most important question is whether the president you want is someone who will ensure our national security and will work for peace. that takes someone who knows what he is doing. this may well now be a two man race between myself and senator hart. >> i disagree with that. [laughter] mr. mondale: if you look at the records, i think something is disclosed. a few days ago, senator hart said that if persian gulf oil were interrupted that the allies would be on their own and they could not look to us for help. in my opinion, that is naive. all history teaches us we must stand together as an alliance and work together for the security of the western world.
some time back, he was asked whether cuba was a totalitarian state. he said no. that is wrong. it is a communist dictatorship, and a president must know the difference. he has had a record on arms control, which is weak. we need a president who will push forward and provide the leadership of this country needs for our national security and to achieve the peace. mr. chancellor: i want to thank you all. we have come to the end of this. as i think the reverend jackson said -- did you not just say, a minute ago, "suffering breeds discipline"? rev. jackson: no, suffering breeds character. mr. chancellor: suffering breeds character. and you have all such terrific characters because of the suffering you have gone through. the next league of women voters debate will take place in pittsburgh, april 5. we are not supposed to take sides on this. i suppose it would be nice if all five of you could join the league of women voters there.
but who can say. as you say, reverend jackson, "suffering breeds character." and this is a business that does it. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> during campaign 2016, c-span
takes you on the road to the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. >> all weekend, american history tv is joining our cable partners to showcase the history of montgomery, alabama. to learn more about the cities on our current tour, visit www.c-span.org. we continue with our look at the history of montgomery. >> if you think about the timeline of a modern-day civil rights movement, the beginning of that movement being 1954 brown versus board of education and the apex of the movement be the assassination of dr. king in 1968, the freedom ride is right in the middle of that history.