tv 1984 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN March 26, 2016 11:00am-12:01pm EDT
i believe i've heard him use the word "clobbered" to describe one of his defeats. a man with ideas for the future but his opponents say it is tinsel. now, onto the substance. mr. jackson, you have a lot of frontline combat experience in civil rights. now that you are 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 in new england who did not coalition.ur rainbow 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. we have an inclination of voting support in new hampshire.
mr. hart and master mondale -- mr. mondale can appreciate the fact that they will be driven out of business. secondly, curb the military budget and use military sources to help end the deficit and revitalize the america. they do not represent a new direction. that affects everybody. the voting rights act is the most pivotal act of the century. unless they have a plan to enforce the voting rights act to win the primary, they do not deserve the vote. 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 inn you ran for president 1972.
[laughter] john: is his talk about the future, about the opportunities for a new generation, much different than what you were saying in 1972? mr. mcgovern: first of all, i think i trained gary too well. 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. 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'm very sensitive about this because i am an old history teacher. i have always revered the past. but does the past in close -- include george washington and thomas jefferson? include roosevelt and
kennedy and the human rights policy of president carter? if it does, i'm glad to come here and claim the past. and defend it as a good guide to the future. john: thank you. mr. glenn, we saw you in iowa. and new hampshire. you described yourself as a businessman and an experienced senator. but last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero astronaut and tough marine. you have been all of these things but can you really decide what sorts of person you have been in different parts of the country? mr. glenn: i don't think i have changed my views. what you are talking about is the experience factor. i have been 10 years in washington and have passed major legislation. i know how washington operates. 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 is sent overseas. we talk about the future and i have been working in the future all my life. i was in the military, healthy -- helping work on designing some of that equipment for the future. i have experience in the business area. i think those are very valuable additions, in addition to just being solely lifelong political entities. that gives a dimension that would give a good dimension for the white house. on making those decisions that you have to make. john: thank you. mr. mondale, your new theme is, what you see is what you get. no hairspray. [laughter] john: you are saying, i am what i am.
-- have resisted changes that approach may seem a bit short on actual issues and you accuse your opponents of running less campaigns. 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? do we have the guts and the commitment to restore a sense of fairness? that is what i am trying to say. we don't elect images. we don't elect momentum. we elect a human being. we better pick someone who knows what he's doing. who is committed to the strongest and most important elements and one who sees the experience and knows what he is doing.
john: thank you. finally, mr. gary hart. one thing i hear people say is that i don't know much about gary hart. is there truth to your that you arearges spending just more and more time hart?gary instead of outlining things in your election? hart: that is a good question at this stage in the race. let me point out to 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 the book that i wrote and a stack of papers about that high. i have the campaigns of all these other people. the other thing is, these primaries are happening fast. i opposed the way this calendar was set up.
i wish i had three weeks to campaign in florida and georgia 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, that we give each candidate time to be known. john: thank you very much. i would like to go on to specific questionings. the figures on the american economy show that the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from the recession since the 1950's. the country is in better shape right now than it was four years ago. i base that on the misery index. the public's expectation on inflation and unemployment. four years ago, it was in the 20's. today, it 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. as an indicator of how people feel. would you care to address that? 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. they are not predicting 8% by the end of the air. -- they are now predicting 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 economic policies has been to give us the worst year in the industry. a trade imbalance. jobs lost as a result of that. these enormous deficits, as far
as the eye can see, it guarantee 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 economic mistake of modern times. john: i will call on mr. hurt. -- 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. 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 me saying that she fully supported my efforts to get from
-- to get our marines out of lebanon and her son was one 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 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 of this country. john: why the democrats if things are doing well? >> 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're 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. the misery index is caused by
cutbacks in education. it goes beyond high school, getting a decent education. i have put forward a three-part program of young people being assured of getting a college education. we are talking about the difficulty in investigating in -- investing in new plant equipment here. we talking about cutbacks in research. the japanese and 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. we can do better than that. mr. mcgovern: 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 the council of economic advisers has said that this $200 billion 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 causing this enormous deficit is a wildly inflationary and extravagant military spending binge that goes far 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. reverend 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 they would not share that a woman, they add to the misery of women who need to become empowered. what i'm saying is that our convention is 50% female. 70% of all cultures live in a house with a woman. if they maintain a commitment to raise the military budget, they can do nothing about the deficit. they go in the same direction, just a little bit slower. i consider us spending $150 billion a year to help europe when they can defend themselves now, we are extending the misery. the misery index is on the ride. -- rise. things may be looking better but the folks stuck at the bottom are saying things are much worse. john: now, we get into a few
minutes of freewheeling. you are at liberty to attack one another. [laughter] just try one thing. aren't most of you actually for an increase in tax spending? reverend jackson: i am not. cut -- 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 -- touching anything essential to the 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.
john i suspect jesse jackson is : not out of phase with that question. reverend jackson: 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. they are better able to help share some of that burden. if we can cut the defense by at least 25%, the budget, not the defense, that is the money for implementing new ideas. john: we have two cutters. as i understand the positions taken by the other three, cutting what the president has requested in addition. favor awould still certain increase.
>> i am for reducing the reagan military buildup right when 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 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 best buildup -- procurement buildup that will make as us weaker. john: before we go on, maybe we can find a way to make this more understandable. the president asked for a 13% increase this year in allocations for defense? that is a 13% increase? >> minus three point 5%-4%. >> if we can keep it to that, it will make more sense. >> not to argue with senator hart -- >> why not? >> he wrote a dissenting opinion in which he seemed to say he wanted as much or more military spending as mr. reagan. but, let me 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 bidding, testing and warranties, as much as we need arms control to also bring down pressure, the inescapable fact is that the soviet union, it is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly in poland and cambodia and afghanistan and syria and elsewhere. the president of the united states has you everything to 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 billion out. i have specified where that would be. it would be in the rapid deployment force. certain parts of that. the buildup of the soviets has been relentless. 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 two of those he has pulled back from has been the trident missile and the cruise trident submarine and the cruise missile.
mr. hart opposed the patriot hellfire, the mlrs missiles, suggesting simpler 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 simpler time when 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
hands up. it goes gary hart, jesse jackson, mcgovern and mondale. you are on. mr. hart: what senator glenn doesn't address is the need for for all these things. we cannot afford more when the y 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. reverend jackson: 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.
the fact is, we can wipe out the soviet union with warheads p we have 10,000. they are alive because we decided not to kill them. who can kill each other the most ? 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 -- using to kill people there, we could cut the budget without cutting defense. use our minds and go another way. mr. mcgovern: 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
they 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 these 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. a balanced economy. 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 that insteadof -- of trying to get the russians to
the bargaining table, we need the common sense to say we are ready to bargain right now. reagan has taken this unjustified buildup. they have walked out. >> 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, but the soviets are using their power in poland, in cambodia and in afghanistan. and in syria. in ways that are irresponsible and are dangerous. >> how are you going to stop that with another 4% in military spending? 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. andnse and arms control -- sense and arms control. 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 my position on that is the same as sam nunn's here in georgia. he is probably the most respected single specialist in armed services in our country. i think the navy has to be scaled to proper proportion and i would be for strengthening nato.
those are strong and responsible positions. coupled with an arms control position that reflect the realities of the world as i see them. john: your response? >> i'm the only one who is put this forward as we try to scale arms down. it enforces the nuclear act so that -- enforcing the nuclear nonproliferation 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 of how seapower works. you have to have a whole task force that gets out there.
you are trying to present airpower at sea and it comes out million 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 to years ago. -- two years ago. that is a lack of understanding. you don't have the experience to know how these functions. john: i will let you -- unless you want to sneak in on gary. reverend jackson: everybody should be sneaking in on gary.
[laughter] reverend jackson: the thing about this argument, pro and con, about a strong defense, the more we talk in terms of engaging in real trade, the less we will have these tensions. reagan is vulnerable. we talk in ways that confuse the people. that he has cut breakfast programs out from children. he's cut lunch programs out. he has cut back on food stamps, the rural farmer and the urban consumer. he cuts away food from children. he argues about premeditated prayer. here is a man who does not go to church got us arguing about prayer. [laughter] [applause] rev. jackson: what that says is that he has not prayed in so long, he has forgotten the structure of a prayer. you do not pray for food that just left, you pray for food you're about to receive. [laughter] reverend jackson: what we should do is pray to remove the man who was removing the food. he is vulnerable in the levels of the misery index. the people are hurting. the people who are not unemployed have fewer benefits and less food and less medical care. our base are those votes stuck at the bottom.
so, let's talk about a strong defense, but our domestic tranquility and internal stability will save the nation from the inside out. mr. mcgovern: could i ask just one question, john? every gentleman on this platform knows that if we let fly just 10% of the nuclear weapons we have targeted on the soviet union, every single man, woman, and child in the soviet union would die instantly. what are we going to achieve, building any further on that? what are we trying to do with a 4% increase? why not a cut in this enormous escalation the president has on the drawing board? sen. hart: let me respond. george is a former bomber pilot. you will agree that there are differences between strategic or nuclear weapons and conventional ones. if we are going to bring nuclear weapons down, we must to have
-- we must have adequate conventional forces and pay the people who run them. i do not see paying an e-5 or that's all i'm talking about. mr. mcgovern: i agree with that. unless we can make modest increases in training and pay scales -- if you cut the nuclear systems as substantially as they should be, they would be enough money to do the things you want to without an overall increase. sen. hart: why is john glenn attacking me for all of the cuts i want to make and you are attacking me for not cutting more? [laughter] mr. mcgovern: the reason is that john glenn is further off than you are. [laughter] mr. chancellor: this could go on all day, but it's alright with me. last word on the subject. then 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 atta, 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 not have 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] [applause]
♪ announcer: during campaign 2016, topan takes you on the road the white house as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. announcer: coming up next on the presidency, washington post journalist bob woodward reflects on abraham lincoln's legacy and how it has affected his successors including richard nixon, ronald reagan, and barack obama.
this focuses on president relevancy,ontinued 100 years after his death. this is about one hour. >> i am the dean of the college at the university of illinois. on behalf of the law school and the university, i am pleased to welcome you to the beautiful auditorium where the first lecture in a new series hosted by the college of law is entitled the new lincoln lectures, what lincoln means in the new 21st century. we will, over the next few years, bring in 10 or so diverse thought leaders to reflect openly on lincoln's legacy and continuing relevance 150 years after his passing. we are eager to hear from woodward, but i want to take a few minutes to say a bit more
about the lecture series. people ask why the law school has chosen to focus on president lincoln. that is easy, he is probably america's greatest lawyer. he played president, legislator, military strategist, newspaper owner, etc. -- but at his core he was a constitutional lawyer who to our collective good fortune was there when the nation needed someone to understand and preserve the law of the land so it was government of the people, by the people, for the people and it would not perish from this earth. why focus on lincoln now? after hisand a half death? many of the themes of his life and his death -- the treatment non-citizenship, the government and the state, the scope of executive power --
dominate discourse today almost as much as in lincoln's era. we are in the midst of the presidency of another tall resident whois would not have been possible without lincoln. the same states as lincoln. there are big questions about whether that coalition can in ndure to transfer power to the key aid of the twice elected president. today the grant and illinois born hillary clinton. these mentions of illinois raise a third question, why here? the university of illinois between springfield and chicago is lincoln's university. as we are prepared to celebrate our own centennial next year, we must never