Skip to main content

tv   Reel America The Nixon Answer in Michigan - 1968  CSPAN  November 3, 2018 8:01am-8:57am EDT

8:01 am
september 30, 1968 live campaign broadcast from detroit. he answers questions from michigan citizens. on to win the three-way election, defeating humphrey and george wallace. >> the panel members are -- the detroit free press from detroit. stanley, the editor of the police daily news from detroit. the director of the ecorse community center. mrs. janet claver, a housewife and former schoolteacher from ann arbor. a graduate student and former quarterback at the university of michigan from ann arbor. a dermatologist from grosse pointe park. a public relations counsel from
8:02 am
detroit. that is our panel. and now, here is your moderator, budd wilkinson. bud: now, it is my pleasure to introduce a that i have known, respected, and admired for many years. richard nixon. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. hey, john. thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you very much bud wilkinson, i thank all of our television audience. everyone who hears bud wilkinson
8:03 am
abche commentating on sports remembers his great oklahoma team, but i am glad he is on my team. bud wilkinson. [applause] it looks like we are in a winner city. i was taking the tigers and the world series and the lions doing so well. let's hope a little of that rubs off on me while i am in detroit. [laughter] and two other celebrities in the audience i would like to introduce before we go to our panel -- we have the governor of michigan, governor george romney. [applause] and then we have two of, i think, the greatest campaigners mrs. georgery, romney and mrs. richard nixon sitting on either side. [applause]
8:04 am
the other day when i was in salt lake city, i mentioned that general eisenhower once said he was talking about politicians on the fact that they were so different. there was one thing he thought most successful politicians have in common, and that was the ability to marry about themselves. i pointed out both governor romney and i did that, of course. and then my two daughters, tricia and julie. [applause] they have just arrived here from a campaign appearance in buffalo. they are getting their fair share, a baptism in fire. they have a little heckling, but they learn to handle that. and anyone in our family learns how to be heckled. now we want to go directly to the questions. i know we have a panel that will have a number of questions. we will have a full hour for those questions. >> mr. nixon, you up and saying under your government you
8:05 am
would not pour billions of dollars into programs that are not working. i wonder if you will be more specific and tell us which programs you will repeal? mr. nixon: i was talking about ones that deal with poverty in cities. i'm referring to many of the poverty programs, particularly the job corps program. i'm referring to some of the approaches to public housing, and i am referring to programs in the field of welfare. when you're talking about repealing, i am not saying we just go down and cut out all of those programs. what i am suggesting is in the field of training for jobs, for example, and we pour billions of dollars into the job corps. it was a very well-intentioned program. but what happened? only two of 10 got jobs to which the tribute to the job corps training for, and it cost $11,000 to train each one of them.
8:06 am
i think the better approach is to give a tax credit to private enterprise to train me foro train the unemployed real jobs. i would substitute that for a substantial part of the job corps program. let's take the field of housing. substituting mandated federal housing, housing in which we in effect take the tenants and they become a colony apart, a people apart from the rest. i like the approaches that a number of democrats, as well as republicans -- people like chuck percy and the late robert kennedy have suggested, and i have recommended in which we have a tax credit for private enterprise to build private housing that will be owned by individuals, but also the opportunity for people to live -- for people who live in toh-rises the opportunity
8:07 am
own their houses. with that ownership will come the pride and the dignity you are not going to get living in public housing. this is the approach i am speaking of. over the past four years, we have seen billions of dollars poured into programs for a federal approach to our problems. what we need now is to move away from that approach. to enlist private enterprise and enterprise in building housing, providing job training, and providing the opportunity for individuals to move up and become owners and managers and , not just workers. that is the approach i would take. [applause] mr. monroe? mr. monroe: mr. nixon, you spent a number of years as the vice president of the united states , right? then you lost an election, lost
8:08 am
in the southern united states, lost an election in california, and today the republican body -- what is the differs between the ixon and old nixon? governor monroe, the new nixon is a little older. he does not have quite as much hair, as my wife points out. but i think the best answer to that question is when an individual whether it is in politics or education, when he ceases to grow, to change to meet changing conditions, then you can be sure he no longer will be living with the generation of which he is part. i would have to say at this point, and i'm very proud of this, over the last eight years,
8:09 am
i have had a chance to travel through the world, study the problems of the world. and not as a participant, but someone sitting on the outside looking at them. i believe i have found some solutions. they are new solutions for the new world. they are not the only solutions of 30 years ago, most of which mr. humphrey is advocating. their new approaches to those , just as i answered the question to mr. arnett. i believe that i can bring these solutions to these problems, solutions to problems in our cities, solutions in the problem affairs,reign solutions to the problem of restoring respect for law, respect for order, having that with justice and progress. that is what i would say is the new nixon, as far as i understand it. [applause] >> mr. nixon, because of widespread demonstrations and
8:10 am
disruptions on american campuses, there seems to be quite a bit of pressure on campus administrators to get tough and crack down on student rebels. what is your view of this dissent in society and on the college campus. mr. nixon: i am for it. as i look back over the 190 year history of our history, i find dissent is a great instrument of change. it is an instrument of progress. that is what distinguishes a free society from a totalitarian society. things that are wrong, we are not frozen anin them. on the other hand, we have to recognize it can be an instrument of destruction if it does not follow a certain rule that we should all understand, provided we look at our american political system. i have traveled to a number of campuses and i have had a number
8:11 am
university and college students say when i point out there should be peaceful dissent and not breaking the law and they say, don't you believe in the american revolution? i say i certainly do. , but those who participated had no peaceful way to redress their grievances. they had to have a revolution in order to do it. our founding fathers had the genius to set up a system that provides a method for peaceful change. only once in the history of our country, the civil war, did that not work and then we had to resort to warfare to resolve our differences. but when you have a system that provides a peaceful method to change what we don't like, i do not believe there is any cause that justifies breaking the law or engaging in violence. i think we should get that across to all americans. i think it's essential to get that across particularly in the college campuses, because those who come from the colleges and universities will be the thought leaders in the future. they have to go back to their
8:12 am
communities and make clear that while we believe in vigorous dissent, on the other hand, when we engage in violence, break the law, we destroy the very system we are attempting to build. when we look at our colleges, universities, and campuses today, the great majority of students would support the proposition i have set forth. i noticed yesterday in the paper a rather violent demonstration in seattle, washington conducted by the students from the universities in that area against hubert humphrey. i think that was an appalling situation. some of those students demonstrated against me too. ,that is something different, i will have to take it. for the president of the united states to be submitted to that kind of attempt to shut down the -- shout down the media, that is the difference. if anyone wants to raise a question, heckle in the great american or british tradition,
8:13 am
that's one thing. but when he shouts, and shouts, and shouts and tries to deny to the majority the right to listen, then you ought to stop him and stop them is affectively and fairly as you can, that's what i think. [applause] >> mr. nixon, i was invited here because i'm a senior citizen. i'm not retired. but i have worked with retired people. talked to as many as i could in such a short time. you would be surprised at the letters that did come here. i am not going to read all of these letters, but i would like to read one. mr. nixon, it is addressed to you. last week, vice president humphrey announced that if he were elected president he would increase social security by 50% across the board.
8:14 am
it is suggested that these increased benefits may be considered by you and you might be a larger increase for the lower and needy bracket in a reasonable increase for the balance. the amounts to be determined, of course, by the economic position of both. what do you think, she asks? mr. nixon: let me say what i think about social security and what i think about this proposition, and what i think we can do and ought to do. i could say let's raise social security benefits 100%. then it would cost $30 billion. instead of neither is possible $15 billion. at this point. what is possible is this. we have got to stop the rise in the cost of living 20 million people over 65. there are 20 million over 65. most of them live on pensions, life insurance, or social
8:15 am
security. they have seen, but suppose that someone for years ago -- 4 years ago had $10,000 -- that is cut to $9,000 as a result of the increase in inflation we have had in this country. i think we ought to have a new fiscal policy and washington, d.c. in which we stop the rise in the cost of living so that when an individual earns a dollar and puts it into social security, or life insurance or , pensions then he gets a dollar's worth when he retires five or 10 or 15 years from now . and that would be, it seems to me, the most effect of thing we could do for those living on social security right now. stop the rise in the cost of their living and stop the , reduction of capital in their pension. second, we ought to provide as the republican platform advocates, and this is the result of mine and others who recommended it, we got to provide for an automatic increase in social security
8:16 am
benefits whenever the cost of living goes up. we should do that. third, as and when the economy of this country gets to a place where we can afford to do more without destroying the value of our dollars, then of course, we should increase social security benefits. let's understand one thing. this is a rich country and this country should be generous with the needy, anyone who cannot care for themselves. generosity, when it goes to the point of destroying the value of our dollars, when it raises the prices of the things that we buy, raises our grocery bill, raises our clothing bill, that's not real generosity. that is robbing the poor. that is robbing the aid. we should stop that kind of robbery and reestablish the value of our dollars across the country. [applause]
8:17 am
doctor? mr. nixon, many of my colleagues in the medical profession are greatly concerned about medicare and what it is doing to the medical profession. they are concerned, especially on the potential harmful effect it may have on the quality of medical care to the individual patient. my question is, what specifically is your stand on medicare, and do you intend to curtail it or increase it? mr. nixon: let me be specific on a broader subject of interest to your colleagues and others who may be the subjects of medicare or other assistance. first, i support the medicaid program. i did when we were in the eisenhower administration. and i support the medicare program. however, i disagree with vice president humphrey on a key issue. he has advocated, as you know extending this principle of
8:18 am
--ealth insurance to principle of compulsory health insurance to everybody. i do not want to have happen to the quality of medical care in the united states but is happened in britain. i made a study the other day of what happened in britain. one third of all the medical school graduates in britain last year left great britain to practice somewhere else because the quality of care had come down and because of the red tape of their compulsory medical care program. i want it to be good medical care. that is why i want to keep the doctors free from government control as much as we can. that is why i proposed to the extension to compulsory health insurance on that basis. for the older and elderly people, medicare, i think that is appropriate and the kind of program i support. there is one other point i should make. when we talk about how to extend medical benefits in this country, we have to recognize
8:19 am
that before we do any further extending we have to get at the other end of the funnel. i like that some figures. there's a shortage of 50,000 , 75,000in this country nurses, 600,000 hospital employees, and the reason for that -- and this was another figure that was rather astonishing to me -- in the last 10 years, the number of hospital visits has gone from 15 million to 150 million, in other words a tenfold increase. my administration will move frontally on this, we need a massive program for more doctors, nurses, and hospital personnel so we can provide adequate care for those who are on medicare. i do not want to have our older people simply feel they have the right to go to a doctor and have
8:20 am
bad medical care. let's give them good medical care. that's the kind of program i would have. [applause] mrs. clyburn? mrs. clyburn: mr. nixon, i'm sure you know that lots of people are concerned be are moving to another era of the repression of ideas, another search for the internal enemy, and i wonder as president what steps you could or would take to spare us another time of accusations, irresponsible accusations, hysteria and fear of the old joe mccarthy time? in the first instance, you can only judgment by his record. i would point out with some pride that during the years i served on the house un-american activities committee, i conducted a major investigation, the hiss case. it is forgotten now, 20 years ago. that was one that was rated as a
8:21 am
fair, objective investigation. in my view, it's the responsibility of the president of united states to see that this great engine of dissent is not suppressed, suppressed by choking it off for by the -- or by the blanket of consensus, because that's the only way we are going to get the spark of creative activity that we want. and as i pointed out a few days ago, i felt the white house is tself should welcome should go , out and try to get differing points of view expressed from our young people, people in all walks of life, so we can get a better mix of ideas and superior ideas by having them compete with each other. the only line that i withdraw in terms of dissent is in regard to the basic question as to whether
8:22 am
the individual involved is engaged in activities that are ill legal or aiding an enemy of the united states in a very specific sense. by that, i do not mean the loose charge that that individual or this individual in marxism or communism or so forth. it does not concern me a bit that the teacher wants to talk about marxism or communism. we need to know more about marxism, communism, and socialism. where you draw the line is where the individual says i am not just going to teach the student about that, but i'm going to advocate for the interest of a foreign government be placed above that of the united states. then you have to look at the foreign government, if it is involved in military activities against the united states. [applause] >> mr. nixon, we have a division
8:23 am
of the world into two ideological spheres. communistic block and the free world. as a president, will you try to cheap this so-called balance of power or raise the iron curtain, ofe recently we had the case checklist of ocular -- checklist czechoslovakia. mr. nixon: as president i would , do everything i could to lift that iron curtain a little bit, to give some opportunity for the freedom of choice to exist. you notice, i use that deliberately. one cannot, at this time, with the two nuclear giants facing each other, we cannot save the united states will move in with its forces in czechoslovakia to prevent what the soviet union
8:24 am
did there. on the other hand, certainly the united states, when an incident like that occurs or is attempting to prevent such an incident occurring in some other country, the united states in policy, its trade diplomatic policy, has got to stand firmly with the right of these people to choose their own way. for is the reason, example, why i took the position i did. i am against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. as president, i expect to implement it after it is approved by the senate. when senateieve caec -- troops are in czechoslovakia that they
8:25 am
, approve of what happened there. that is where we can indicate that we have concern. i remember, incidentally, the most emotional experience of all my travels abroad. the country of your ancestors, the polish people. i will never forget after my travels with mr. khrushchev. we stopped in warsaw. 150,000 polish people came out. they threw flowers on the car. they stopped it many times in the heart of the city and they , long live the united states, long live poland. that was 10 years after poland lifted the iron curtain. and there are people like that in the world, the united states, while we must not do something that will set off a nuclear confrontation we must also make , it clear that our thoughts are with them and we are going to use our economic and diplomatic strength to support their
8:26 am
freedom of choice whenever they want it. that's what i believe in. that's the kind of administration we will have. [applause] >> mr. nixon, you propose the idea of a volunteer army as a possible alternative to the draft. i believe this has been rejected by the defense department as being too expensive. also, would not such a conception of a volunteer army preempt the united states from an active involvement in world affairs? mr. nixon: let me explain my concept of an all volunteer army. first, the timing. second, the type. the department of defense traditionally opposes any step that would tend to reduce what they think -- and this is their job -- reduce what they think is their capability to defend the united states.
8:27 am
as i look at the world in the future, the united states is not going to be again involved and what i would call a korean, conventional-type war. if war comes in the future, i believe it will be a nuclear war , and that will be the job of the next president his major avoid that from happening. or it will be the kind of war we have with vietnam. look at vietnam. governor romney has pointed out very eloquently on occasion, when you look at vietnam today is not a conventional war. it is a primary war for people rather than territory. ine important is what we do nationbuilding. a traditional draft army is not the best kind of army to do this job in vietnam. what you need is a highly trained professional force of armed forces to do the fighting, and a highly trained civilian force of nation builders to work
8:28 am
in other parts of the country. what i would do is this, i would not take any step until after the war in vietnam was over. once it was over, i would move toward the volunteer army. i would get enough people in the army by raising the pay to competitive rate with what they might to get in industry. it would cost money. i agree. it would cost between $3 billion and that is why it cannot come $5 billion. until after vietnam is over. this will be part of the peace dividend. but we would get a better army, better fitted for today's needs, highly trained professionals, ready to move in. on the civilian side, i would have a civilian group on a volunteer basis that could move in for nationbuilding when it was not a warlike situation. i believe this solution would provide a better defense than the united states currently has. when you look on the plus side
8:29 am
of it, it would remove from over the heads of thousands, perhaps a million or two, young americans the fact that they cannot plan their lives because of the possibility of the draft hanging over them. there are, of course, things to be said for universal military training, for the present system, but i think the volunteer system is the best system for what the united states will need militarily ahead. it will cost money, but the money will be worth it, in my opinion. [applause] >> mr. nixon. i am going to ask you a hypothetical question. i think you are capable of answering it. a few days ago, vice president herbert humphrey was making a speech in one of our major cities. and he mentioned the question
8:30 am
around demonstrating on the streets. looting. we ought to recognize that this is all america now. he only mentioned 2 peoples names, and i am not a supporter of them ralph brown and stoker , carmichael. is it your believe they are responsible for all the unrest in america tonight? mr. nixon: of course not. no. the ralph brown's and stokely carmichaels are the spearheads of deep resentments that go beyond their way out revolutionary attitude. when you look at the resentments in america, for example in the black community, when you look at the resentment in america on the campuses, you cannot categorize them in terms of -- if these are communist led there , are some communists and it perhaps were people like the ralph browns and stokely carmichaels, is much bigger, no
8:31 am
question. >> what we deal, as president of the united states, do to eliminate that? jobs and justice to eliminate all that unrest? mr. nixon: what you have to do is this. you see, people like the browns and carmichaels, the destructive revolutionaries -- they have no plans. some in the hippie group are the same. you ask them what they are for. they are not for anything. they are just against. that is the modern trend. they are just against. what you must do is withdraw spearhem, and their carriers. fromay that you withdraw them, their spear carriers, is to give them another cause, something which is meaningful, something where we can be for something.
8:32 am
when we talk about law and order -- which i am strongly for, because i cannot think you cannot progress without order and i do not think you can have freedom without order -- you must couple that with justice and progress. the hope that the individual can get out of that ghetto, only if he has that hope that he is going to be less susceptible to the revolutionary elements of -- revolutionary arguments of the ralph browns and carmichaels. when you talk about the revolutionaries, they are saying to these young people, to black americans, mexican-americans, look, you have nothing to lose. the system is against you. that is not true. this is a great country. the system is not against you. we have to make the system work, and as that system works better, these revolutionaries are not going to have anybody to lead. [applause] >> mr. nixon, in michigan, and i suspect elsewhere, public education seems to be in dire
8:33 am
straits financially. what would you do as president of the united states to alleviate the situation? mr. nixon: you are certainly right, mr. arnett, that this is not only true in michigan. i found this and all of the panel shows i have been on -- california, at one point or another, this question comes up. what i redo first is this i , favor the approach we suggested in our platform of block grants to the states for education and other particular activities for which the state has major responsibility. i also favor as if and when we get the revenues for that purpose a federal tax sharing with the states so the states will have more funds with which to handle not only the problem you mentioned of education, but the problems with pollution,
8:34 am
traffic, many other problems which are involved. finally i have favored in still , do favor the federal programs for aid to education. defense aidll the to higher education, the two -- the a to elementary education. i feel very strongly that when the federal government does provide a that we must be extremely careful to make sure that federal control of what is taught in our schools is avoided. i want the decisions as to what will be taught in the schools to be made by local school boards and not some bureaucrat in washington, d.c. [applause] >> mr. nixon, there seems to be a growing communist influence on
8:35 am
campuses, cities, and in political conventions. if you were to become president, what specific legislation would you enact to curb this communistic influence and spread in our country? mr. nixon: i have given a lot of thought to this. i'm not an expert in this field. i studied it for 20 years. i do not see any specific legislation that could currently be adopted that would be helpful to curb this activity that would not get us into difficulty in the field of going over the line and suppressing real dissent. it is a fine line if you are talking about ideas or actions. i do think there could be enforcement of a law on the books. i should point this out. there was a law on the books that was passed by the last congress that makes it a crime to go across state lines for the
8:36 am
implementing a riot, and i think that that law could be very effective in curtailing this type of activity. and that law has not been used effectively as yet. it may be the administration will have to move on it. >> the warren court has struck most of the federal and state laws concerning the control of congress. if you become president and chief justice warren retires, would you select a man with similar views? [laughter] mr. nixon: well, anyway -- [applause] mr. nixon: i can see that he, like most doctors, is a very direct man. well i had my disagreements with the chief justice on some cases -- as a matter of fact, most 5-4 decisions like miranda. i think the 4 were right and the
8:37 am
5 were wrong. i think lawyers can disagree on such things. but, on the other hand i am not , going to join the group that says impeach warren or and or that sort of thing. he is certainly one who has interpreted the law the w way that he thought it should be interpreted. my general standard -- and this is going to surprise you. i think felix frankfurter stated at best. felix frankfurter was a liberal, as you may remember, and yet felix frankfurter in his last 10 years in the court was a strict constructionist. it was his view that the congress has the right of responsibility to write the laws and it was the court's response ability to interpret the laws and he did not feel the court should move over into the legislating fields. i believe in that kind of appointment. i am not so concerned about whether a man is a liberal or conservative. i am more concerned about his
8:38 am
attitude toward the constitution. i believe our courts -- i believe very definitely in our division of power. i think that our courts should interpret the law. i don't think they should write the law. the people elected to represent in congress have that responsibility. [applause] >> this goes back a bit. is not education. you have said that you are in favor of using federal funds to strengthen local police forces, and i wonder if under those circumstances then the federal government would have some responsibility to see that the local forces recruit and hire so that they have fair representation of black officers? and i also wonder if federal
8:39 am
funds would be used for intensive training, if it is necessary to carry on this fair representation? mr. nixon: my paper which came out here sunday -- and i am delighted to see it was carried in the papers and that you read it -- my idea was for a broad federal report -- approach, but you may recall i also said, we do not want a federal police force. i do not want the federal government setting up a police force, which will move its tentacles across the country into local law enforcement problems. the problems differ in different cities. i believe the closer that responsibility can be to the people, the better. i did refer to the idea of setting up a national council on law enforcement in which you have the attorney general and other cabin off officers working on this problem just as the national security council operates on foreign security problems.
8:40 am
just like the board of economics works on economic problems. as far as training people is concerned, what i am recommending here is a national academy for the training of officers. now, that national academy for the training of officers would be available to police officials , state and local police officials, from all over the country. it would give them the very best training. it would, of course, be open to all individuals without regard to race and creed and color, just as we would do with any other federal government activity. and i believe by raising the level of training through this national academy, it would have a remarkable effect of raising the level of not only the quality of those serving in police forces, but also eventually their pay. but we have to get down to is this. it's a question of pay, it's a question of training, it is a question of quality. now you come to the precise question should the government , go to the city of detroit and
8:41 am
tell the city of detroit you don't have enough negro officers? no. then you are getting into heavy-handed decision-making by bureaucrats in washington. what you need to do is have your federal academy with an absolutely open admission for erese who are trained th but i do not want the federal government to try to parcel out , in each city how it is going to be broken down in its police force. >> you mean that all the way around? mr. nixon: what i believe is this. the very fact that we have this national academy would without exception have the effect of not only upgrading the people in our police forces, but representing all segments of the community. let's face it. why is it that many cities have
8:42 am
put a number of negro police officers on the force? it is not because they are trying to be fair to negros. because when they're are on the force they do a better job. i believe that training and indoctrination at the federal level will have an effect. [applause] >> mr. nixon, what is your opinion about the resignation of the ambassador, especially while the general assembly is in session? [laughter] mr. nixon: well, i suppose, i am tempted to make a political comment here, but, after all, ambassador ball had a distinguished record at the u.n., and has a distinguished record in the practice of the law, and now that he has decided to be a subordinate on a political campaign, i think i
8:43 am
will leave him alone. [applause] mr. nixon: your point is with regard to the u.n.? >> that's right. mr. nixon: i thought i might get into that. but the moment i say what others have been saying, that this was a very difficult time to leave the vacancy of the u.n., it would put me right in the arena with mr. ball. he told me that some people said some unkind things about me. i will let others judge what he did on the u.n. i am not going to judge him. i will say after i win the election in november, i hope he has a good law practice in new york. [applause] let's start over here again,
8:44 am
then head around. >> thank you, mr. nixon. i am of the opinion we need a debate in this country. i think that you and mr. humphrey should get at the vietnam and other questions -- mr. nixon: i think mr. humphrey is having a great time debating himself. >> you are prejudiced, mr. nixon. if you do not want to debate with the third-party candidate, whose name shall not be mentioned, why don't you get your friends in the house of representatives to pass a special law permitting you and mr. humphrey to debate? mr. nixon: have you ever looked at the membership on the committee? it is always amusing to me when people say, why don't i get the republicans to do something about the debate? let's remember, the senate is to-one democratic. the house is 3-2 democratic. and anytime that hubert humphrey, with his great influence, wants to debate, i would think you would be able to get the democrats to pass it. i think that my power in terms of what i can get the republican
8:45 am
members in the house to do is greatly overestimated. it is senate republicans as well as democrats insisting on the three-man debate. that is the problem. they are not opposing the debate. isy are saying that wallace getting 21% of the polls -- i'm sorry, i should not have mentioned his name. [laughter] mr. nixon: they are insisting that they cannot go back to their constituents unless they provide him an equal chance. >> but if you got your friends and mr. humphrey got his friends, surely you would have enough friends to bring this thing on. mr. nixon: i don't think he has that many friends. [laughter and applause] >> to get back to international politics, mr. nixon, you have soviet friendship and
8:46 am
cooperation in solving some of the hot spots in the cold war. how specifically do this? mr. nixon: first of all, we start with reestablishing the strength of the united states' bargaining position and its credibility. i will make a major statement on nato. here again you will find , governor romney feels strongly about it, too. we have to talk to our friends force inhat strong europe solidified before we can have meaningful talks with the soviets. i think it has been a mistake to talk over and around the europeans to the soviets. i think we can do that. we start with a program perhaps to get britain to europe, have a communication and a program, and i begin with that. second, we have to ensure the military position of the united states is adequate that we are
8:47 am
credible and we can go in and negotiate, as kennedy said in his inaugural, we must never fear to negotiate, but we should never it negotiate in fear. when we have done that, what we will find is it appears the soviet is not going to want to talk about anything. because after all let's look at , it. in vietnam, the soviet union feels it is hurting us more than it is hurting them. why should they talk about vietnam? when they look at the mideast, czars, longssians, before they ever thought about communism. czar gone, they have naval influence in the mediterranean. why should they talk about cooling it in the mediterranean? as for castro, he is cutting the money, but he's causing us trouble. over on the east, the soviet
8:48 am
union looked around the nuclear gun barrels. i believe the soviet leaders do not want a nuclear war. that we have in common. i believe when we have reestablished our strength, there should be a very carefully planned series of meetings between the president of the united states and the leader of the soviet union. and that series of meetings should deal with all of these problems. you cannot settle them all in one summit. take them off one by one, but all on thed they are plate. if the soviet union sees the danger of their continuing to support forces of aggression in the mideast, if they see the danger of a confrontation, they may hold back some, but they will not see that danger unless they hear it directly from us, in my opinion. i would say that in other areas,
8:49 am
too. in other words, the soviet union 's interest in avoiding a world war is greater than their interest in expanding communism, as great as that is. we have got to make it very clear to them if they continue to probe in areas like the mideast or western europe, that the possibilities of world war a -- the world war are very great. i don't mean that in a threatening way. only by sitting across the table from them can this come across and then i think we can have a meaningful dialogue. [applause] mr. nixon: mrs. claver, i think was up first. >> this relates to what you were just talking about. am i correct in your earlier answer and what you have said now, that your delay in signing the nuclear proliferation treaty is to use this as a bargaining tool with the soviets and to show solidarity with czechoslovakia? mr. nixon: my purpose in
8:50 am
delaying signing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is the soviet union at the present time, having just violated not only the treaty it had with czechoslovakia, but the whole sense of treaties generally and the u.n. charter, which has so when it comes to violating the borders of other countries having done all that, , for the united states to put its arms around the soviet union nuclear a nonproliferation pact, i think, would the widely misunderstood, not just in czechoslovakia. but, in all of western europe. the point that we have to make clear to the soviets is we will engage in negotiations. we are glad to agree where our interests are reciprocal, but we are not going to ignore a breach
8:51 am
of a treaty and then sign one with them. they have to indicate to a certain extent that they believe in treaties. that if they have one with us, they will carry it out. think they will understand that much more effectively. prime minister eaton put it very well when he said he learned in the 1930's that when you ignore such gross breaches of international agreements and simply go on as if they had not happened that you pay a very great price for it. [applause] >> mr. nixon, today, much attention, encouragement, and support are given to the indigent, the defectives, and the rehabilitation of the criminals. middle-class people, who represent hard-working, responsible, law-abiding
8:52 am
productive people appear to be forgotten and they are carrying the heaviest burdens in supporting the sector. now, if you became president, what attention, encouragement, and support would you give this middle-class? after all, they are being suppressed by inflation and high taxes. mr. nixon: first, let me say that there are a lot of forgotten people in the united states today, and i would suggest those who are not making -- not breaking the law, those who do pay taxes, who go to work, who support their churches , schools, those who believe in this country -- and that includes black americans, white americans, the great majority of americans -- are entitled to an accounting. an accounting as to why we cannot have the first civil right of all americans, to be free from domestic violence in this country, to be protected. why it is not possible that if we do work and save money, that
8:53 am
when we retire five or 10 or 15 years later, that that money we saved is going to be worth what it cost us to earn it rather than having the government change that. on that score, i think the president must represent all the people. think you have to make it clear he don't have to break the law to get attention from the federal government. makes one thing very clear. i do not believe in dividing americans. it is more in the interest of the whole country. if we do that, we will have a much better government. [applause] mr. monroe, we will give you last question. mr. monroe: you mentioned letting ambassador ball to
8:54 am
practice law in new york. if you were elected president of the united states, what do you - thurmanlet senator practice? [laughter] mr. nixon: when you mentioned senator thurmond, i first suggested both of our parties, the republican party and the democrat party has its northern and southern representatives. i just noticed a picture the other day with hubert humphrey with his arm around mr. maddox in georgia, and i suppose that mr. maddox's views on civil rights are as different from mr. humphries as senator thurmond's are from mine. one thing may i make very clear. as senator thurmond pointed out, he"meet the press" completely disagrees on my views on civil rights. i have always supported civil rights. i will continue to in the future. he pointed out his choice for vice president was ronald reagan. his second choice was senator tower. it was not governor agnew.
8:55 am
i was the one who made the final choice on the vice presidency. i should say that in both of our major parties, there should be room for individuals who disagree. i am glad that i have been able to bring together in our party but we will have to set and thegreement and i will make final decision. we have governor rockefeller, governor romney, great leaders in the progressive or liberal wing of the party will stop we also have senator tower, senator thurmond. but one man has to make that decision. when it comes to basic issues, the president of the united states will make them. i want to get the input from the whole country. i don't want to divide this south,, north versus black versus white, liberal versus conservative. get everyone talking and
8:56 am
you can get a better representation of where people are feeling in this country and where we want to go. [applause] >> i would like to thank all of all of you and the panelists. mr. nixon, we have time for one short question if i might ask it. as a football coach, i would go in at halftime and wonder about the complacency factor. what you think about that? mr. nixon: let me make one thing very clear. i have watched your teams. i've seen them play in the orange bowl. you were a great third-quarter team. not the first half. when it got to be third-quarter, fourth-quarter didn't matter. i have seen it a number of times. now we are just entering the third quarter of the campaign. we will roll it up now. as far as complacency is
8:57 am
incerned, if you liked duly somebody said humphrey is going 1948, to come back like truman did. well, i just don't believe it. matter of fact, a lot of things are different. it's one thing to give them hell. it is something else to give them humphrey. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] during the cold war the u.s. information agency produced a number of films promoting american democracy. next, autumn and cardboard narrated by actor lee marvin. this uses the california governor's race between ronald reagan and pat brown to show how every two years autumn is the season of campaigns and elections in the united states. ♪ >> october begins, the color in the competition.

33 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on