tv Reel America CBS Face the Nation with George Wallace - 1968 CSPAN April 14, 2018 10:27pm-10:56pm EDT
back at the 1968 presidential campaign. former alabama governor george wallace ran as the nominee of the american independent party. he appeared on cbs face the nation. the self-proclaimed law and order candidate discusses what he feels are the failures and successes of the two parties. >> governor wallace, is your real ambition to win the presidency or is it to get enough votes to pick and does go to the white house? governor wallace: my real preference is to win and win outright. if you will follow me around in the country and see the reception we're getting from one and of the country to the other he, you can see we have a chance of winning the election on november 5 at the polls. washington, face the
nation. a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with george wallace, former governor of alabama and former candidate of the american party. you will be questioned by cbs news correspondent, a syndicated columnist of publishers hall and cbs news correspondent. we will resume the interview in a moment. governor, despite your own optimism about your chances, every poll, every indicator of a national opinion shows you yourself of no hope to win the presidency. your critics contend you are deliberately adopting the role of spoiler trying to throw the election into the house of representatives. how would you answer that? mr. wallace: at least we have critics and they are paying attention to our movement. members of both parties have said we must join together to headed bymovement
george well is. of course, george wallace is one individual but i'm speaking for many millions of people in our country. i might say there are many polls that i have one. a radio and television pullout way from new bedford to massachusetts, syracuse, new york, all point to honolulu. i have one on television and radio. the other polls you are talking about show we have doubled our strength, since april of last >we are just now getting into the campaign. if you follow me around the country, we are getting a larger crowd than even the candidates for the two other existing major parties. as witness to our ohio trip yesterday, we had larger crowds than those who came out to witness the arrival of candidates for one of the party,
republican and democratic nominations. we can win the election and that is the purpose of running. to spoil the chances of the republicans and democratic party , and neither of them are giving the american people a choice. you just said you thought you could win. could you indicates the states? >> i think we will win every one of the border states around tech less, oklahoma, and all the way up into the free state of maryland. we have an excellent chance of states like pennsylvania, oh jersey -- new jersey, ohio, michigan. we have an excellent chance in states like nebraska and connecticut and new england. -- we aree are what running well in all of the state, even the western states. i think we will win the southern border states and several of the
states in the midwest -- we are and a good chance to in california. we also have an excellent chance in new york, whether some people believe it or not. we receive more mail than the state of new york than any state in the union. are therer wallace, any conditions under now which you would withdraw before november. gov. wallace: there are no conditions under which i would would draw -- would withdraw from the presidency. i was on last year and i was set and this all to be a lesson to one of the two national parties. issue give the american people of a choice, not only platform, but candidates. since then have they not given the american people a choice, but both leaderships joined together in the passage of the so-called fair housing law which is really the greatest attack on private property in the history of our country. ,very aspect of the nomination along with the leaders of both parties in congress joined
together to pass this anti-property ownership law. if a platform, was given to the american people by one of the parties that suited me, it had to be a 100 and 80 degree turn from the president's position of the leadership of the two parties. >> but in your speeches as recently as last week, you occasionally said, this is not an exact quote, regardless of what happens in november, we will change trends. gov. wallace: yes, i'm saying that. i say that right now. the fact that we are having the largest crowds, to motorists tumultuous supp ort is making both parties sit down and think. making members of the congress whether or not we must change our position. so this movement is going to help change trends in the country.
>> are you talking then about possible spoiling? gov. wallace: a change in trend will not spoil anything. it will correct things. that is exactly what we are in the race for, change directions in our country because neither one of the two national parties are given people a choice in change of direction. observation of last february when you contended that your campaign role could be that of a spoiler. gov. wallace: who said that? >> this was in the new york times and you having quoted that. gov. wallace: i said that? >> you said that. gov. wallace: i don't know exactly all of the quotes that i make it press conferences and the context at which that statement was made, but let me say this, i guess i'm in the race to spoil, but not to spoil
in the sense you are talking about. it spoil the chances of both parties on making the president. that is what we are doing. whon say this, and anybody goes for national coverage on a national democratic party, will be throwing their vote away. >> governor, let's try it this way. according to the new york times, if the election we,hrown into the house, that is you, have all to gain and nothing to lose. you apply -- you implied a deadlock could cause confessions whoever's electoral votes combined with yours would add up to 70. if you're thinking along those lines and thinking change. gov. wallace: the context in which that statement was made came about as a result from a question of a member of the press and audience. i've never voluntarily said we are going to throw it into the house and that is our purpose.
the question is asked by members thehe press, if hypothetical question and speculated question, if neither one of the two parties get a majority, what would be your position? i always answer, the hypothetical question, by saying if that happens, and there always is that probability when ,here are three or more running because it takes up floor akes a majority to win, then it would wind up in the house unless it was settled in the electoral college. delightful college meets first, and therein lies the solution that is election of the president. be number onell in the electoral college instead of number three. when i was trying to say when we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, is that if i were not a candidate for the
presidency, one of the two major international -- major parties would win the election and they are tweedledee and tweedledum. so my running for the presidency, and even if i did not win, we would be in no worse position had i not run. everything to gain and nothing to lose. >> let's ask another hypothetical question based on the premise of you winning presidency. what would you do about riots? gov. wallace: the first thing i would say as the president, i would get my moral support to the police and firemen of this country. , a first thing i would do is continuation of the breakdown of law and how it exists in the district of columbia where we are talking today, features of people murdered in the streets, i would use the office of the presidency and in view of the fact that this is a district of columbia. if i had to call federal troops into this city, i would give my support to the police in
the country. i would ask congress to pass legislation that did away with decisions at the courts that handcuffed the police. and i would say, we will have law and order. when i said that, in my indicate thatd the politicians and leaders of the largest cities of our country, especially that the people of our country are sick and tired of the breakdown of law and order and they, in turn, in my judgment, would tell the police to enforce the law. and in my judgment, enforcement of the law would bring about a restoration of law and order in this country. that is as opposed to the billions of dollars proposed by the social engineers. when somebody goes out and begins looting and burning a building down, which endangers the health and safety of everybody, that is a good way to stop it, hit them on the head.
let the police knock somebody in the head, for breaking a plate or assaulting a person on the street throwing a firebomb. i think they would be getting out light. if i were the president of the united states, i would take what was necessary to prevent what happened in the city, if we had the order to knock the heads of many people. when you do that, you will satisfy the majority of all races in this country because it is not a matter of race, it is matter -- it is a matter of anarchy. and as a consequence, we don't have any faith in the streets of our countries right here in washington dc. . >> you talked about reversing trends but there are a lot of people against the trends that feel the result of your actions or the things you say is to speed up and accelerate this trend.
governoror called you -- chief aider and a better eight or and him better -- gov. wallace: you are quoting something said four years ago. he hadn't said that lately, as he? what you think about the principle? is a writer's opinion. i think he is a fine man. that i'ml me responsible for what happened in los angeles, and what happened in detroit, i was not there. i was not the chief aider and imbeder, we didn't have any breakdown of law and order in that state. we had demonstrations. what breakdown of law and order came there? we had demonstrations that put
water on people interested folks. >> what happened after the march? gov. wallace: one woman was shot on the highway by some thugs, people were shot in washington , asy day in philadelphia well every day. nobody got hurt in the march. we had 35,000 people. you cannot say known got hurt in the march. i'm talking about the march 7 march. . gov. wallace: who got hurt? >> i would estimate conservatively that at least 15 were hurt. gov. wallace: 15 out of 35,000 people, did one of them have to go to the hospital? >> yes sir. gov. wallace: one person went to the hospital, eight person got hit at the bridge, not a single person got killed involving the march. week, 50 are killed in los angeles, 50 are killed in destroyed, and people got their heads skinned when they were's 35,000 people there.
in washington dc, people got killed, hundreds of thousands .ot injured, let's take your word for it, 15 got hurt. washington, over 1000 got injured. in one day. the breakdown of law and order is certainly not been in alabama, it has been in washington, new haven, other places outside of alabama. i would be glad to take your figures. >> i'm talking about one day governor. we can go further into the -- there were other killings. there was 100 the complete jurisdiction of the federal government, one person was killed on the highway which was very tragic. when i compare that one person with how many was killed in
washington, detroit, los angeles, so comparatively speaking, we have had peace. this is generally accepted in the press that we have had these. [over talk] >> i think send the urban was trying to make, his point was that what followed after that -- gov. wallace: let me say th is, over five years ago -- >> is it right or wrong what followed after 64 -- gov. wallace: every time somebody once a law passed, they go out and do something. we had martin luther king tragically assassinated and they used that as an excuse to pass anti-property laws on housing. what followed after that? there's always somebody able to say that some reason exists because of some law. i can say to you, if i become the president, we are going to
maintain law and order in the nation's capital. it will be good moral support for law and order dropping united states. some people can go to work, ride the subways in transit systems. >> you repeatedly objected to be called a racist. gov. wallace: yes or. >> you don't regard yourself as a racist? gov. wallace: no i do not. i think the biggest bigots in the world are the ones i call other folks bigots. i have more negro folk in the , and i wouldion say they grow citizens would not have voted for my wife if they considered me a racist or my wife a racist. >> when you are inaugurated you said segregation forever. gov. wallace: i said that in the
context of alabama's public school system. when i said that i was honest. when i come to washington dc and see these folks talking one way, and moving to virginia and maryland, when i see all these bridges over the potomac river to expedite the rush away from , i'm being facetious about that, but you sure have a lot of bridges because you have to expedite the rush away from the nations capital. only six members of congress got their children into public schools in washington. all these pseudo-liberals and intellectuals here, who are hypocrites have moved away. >> let's address this question to yourself, what do you mean and you say senator gates -- >> i mean in the public school system. sir, you see, segregation, you don't understand. there has been more mixing in association and togetherness in
alabama the net has been in york since you have come to washington dc. we did have a social separation in the school system because the werel system of the south in the social center. we can instead we would have a separate school system and we were honest about it. >> i don't doubt your honesty. i'm talking about the meaning of separation. i'm trying to play up the hypocrisy of folks in the country and nations capital -- >> i'm not relating them. i'm talking about your position, what would you do. gov. wallace: if i were president i could care less what the people of alabama and california do in their school system, i say you run your school yourself. we are not going to use federal .ummy -- federal money if you want to do it in chicago, philadelphia, you do it.
i would advocate only do these domestic institutions be run by the people in philadelphia. and in st. louis and los angeles. they could then have the type of school system they want. >> we have federal laws that apply to all of the nation, not just the philadelphia laws. what would you do about the laws? gov. wallace: we don't have any laws that go as far as atw guidelines. those guidelines transcend the civil rights law. we will obey the law and the law of this country does not say you have to transport little children from one neighborhood to another. the civil rights law expressly prohibits that. beyond what the law says and i would stop that and ask congress to change some laws that have taken over the public school systems of new york, philadelphia, chicago, and turn them back to the people there. blackt want any separate and white in the country, in the sense of separatism that you are talking about.
we have had more togetherness in alabama then you have in washington dc. this is a segregated city here because of the hypocrites have moved out. >> that i switch you to another subject? gov. wallace: this is a hypocrite capital of the world. youovernor, you have said had a chance to be president, and maybe we should address ourselves with the questions that a president would have to deal with. what would be your approach of the nuclear arms race, the nonproliferation treaty? gov. wallace: i hope and pray the step in the non-dissemination of nuclear information is honest. >> noninformation. but wallace: noninformation the weapons themselves. that it is an honest effort to the people that must sign. of thatbe in favor
step, provided we had adequate inspection programs, adequate safeguards to see the treaty was not violated. >> does the treaty satisfy you as it is now? gov. wallace: i'm not exactly sure whether it satisfies me or not, but i would say this, it is a step in the direction of dialogue. that we like to say, between the great powers and great nuclear powers. matter of giving to atomic nuclear weapons to other countries, and to prohibit that is good provided we have adequate safeguards. >> do you think the safeguards are adequate? gov. wallace: i'm not sure whether they are or not. are adequate that is one thing, if they are not, that is another. that under the treaty, a nation can withdraw within a certain notice to the other signatories which really means it is not all that binding. i am for doing something
concrete in the spread of nuclear weapons as far as protecting the national interest of the united states. >> as a matter of vietnam, around the campaign trail, people that support you say they like your skin on vietnam. yet your stand is rather simple. could you say how we should solve that? gov. wallace: i said in my speeches, there is no simple solution. onon't impugn the motives the top issue, because it is an exasperating experience. i say we should have not gotten in by ourselves, that we should have had a long talk with our communist allies and insist they help us in some amount because we have helped them so much with our money. that is water over the dam and we are in vietnam, whether we like it or not. whatever we do should be in the interest of people over there. i pray the peace talks are successful.
once they get me on the propaganda states, that we can have an audible piece through diplomatic negotiations. onehis fails, there is only conclusion to rely upon, one method to rely upon. that is the joint chief of staff. couldy thought the war become polluted military with conventional weapons, that is what i would support. then bring the american serviceman home. >> let's take a step by step, sir. you have not mentioned, as other candidates have, whether or not this country should insist on some sort of recognition of the national liberation front, how do you feel about that? gov. wallace: the sad experience and layoffs where you have had coalition government, in which the viet cong or the communist terrorists are involved, that you lay the groundwork for the real takeover for the country by the communists. i would be even later.
i am against the terrorist groups being involved in the --ernment by negotiating through negotiations, by giving them a place in the government. i don't think they deserve to be in the government, and if you let them be represented in the peace talks and set up a government with them having an equal voice, or a voice with the other groups in south vietnam, you're really setting the basis for a takeover from the viet cong. >> do you see any hope for political settlement without any recognition from them? gov. wallace: i don't know you.ly -- i could not tell i don't know the president knows, or the republicans know, i think we will have to wait and see what comes out of the paris peace talks. it,an pray and hope about
but if they do not get a settlement, and audible wetlement, in my judgment, ought to lean on the joint chiefs of staff and have a military conclusion in southeast asia and bring the american serviceman home. and we should also stop the folks in this country from advocating communist victory, and building morale of the communists. >> how? gov. wallace: by indicting a professor that makes a speech calling for communist victory and is printed in a communist world. that aids the communists. you're right to say get out of the war, but you do have a right to call for a communist victory and every man on the street is sick and tired of it. ofgovernor, we have run out time. thank you so much for being here. >> today, george wallace, former government -- governor of
alabama was interviewed by andon benton, joseph kraft, a cbs news correspondent let the questioning. face the nation originated in color from cbs washington. sunday on 1960 eight, america in turmoil, conservative disenchantment with the size of government, and when he gave the rise of richard nixon and a presidential victory, ronald reagan made his debut as a presidential candidate foreshadowing the revolution to come. mary, the american presidents in the eyes of voters and historians. a george washington university
watch 1968, america in turmoil. conservative politics, live unday at 830 -- 8:30 a.m. sunday night on afterwards, david corn and michael isikoff with their book "russian roulette." the election of donald trump and putin in the war. book is the of the 2013 miss universe pageant in moscow. >> flies that the starting point? >> if you are looking for a moment that the trump russia story comes together, it is there. moscow, donald trump in and he is there to preside over the miss universe pageant. but what is his real agenda?
business deal, to build a trump tower moscow, and secondarily, a part of that is to meet vladimir putin. we talked a moment ago of how to build a tower, you needed putin's permission. to do anything in moscow really, trump had to hook up with an oligarch. with thisady in bed corrupt regime, he started tweeting out immediately, will putin be my new bff? announcer: watch afterwards, sunday night at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span two's book tv. year, c-span eschewing cities across the country exploring american history. next, a look in our recent visit to norman oklahoma.