The Debate

     As the 1960 presidential campaign approaches its climactic weeks, every thinking voter wants to know where the rival candidates stand on the leading issues. Next week, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy begin their series of dramatic confrontations on nationwide TV. But Newsweek proposed to both candidates that they put their viewpoints on the record, in the reasoned light of the printed word. Both Nixon and Kennedy agreed to answer identical questions dealing with all the great issues - domestic and foreign. Their debate begins with the answers of Vice President Nixon (below). Next week Newsweek will publish Senator Kennedy's answers, already submitted, to the same questions.

     Q. Do you believe the campaign will hinge primarily on domestic issues? If so, what ones? Or on foreign issues? If so, what ones?

     NIXON. The campaign should, and I believe it will, turn on the overriding challenge of our time - the keeping of the peace without surrender of territory or principle, and the strengthening and expanding of freedom everywhere in the world. I believe the people will choose the candidates who by experience, temperament, and knowledge seem best fitted to accomplish these great tasks.
     Next is the related issue of how we can best keep America militarily, economically, and spiritually strong. Here the parties and the candidates sharply differ - the Democrats relying in most areas on Federal authority and action, the Republicans on the independent spirit and initiative of the individual citizen. I expect this issue to grow in importance as the campaign moves along.

     Q. Do you think any propaganda campaign Khrushchev has made or is likely to make will influence the election? What and how? If Khrushchev should invite you to a summit conference, under what circumstances or conditions would you accept?

     NIXON. I am quite confident that the American people are not now, and never have been, fooled by Khrushchev's propaganda and that they are not in any way going to allow it to influence their decision in a presidential election.
     I have suggested in the past that summit conferences are of questionable value in dealing with the problems raised by the Communist challenge to peace and freedom in tie world. There are always exceptions to any proposition and I would not say - as President Eisenhower would not say - that I would not, if elected President, attend a summit conference under any circumstances. Certainly such a conference will not come about on Khrushchev's invitation or, in fact, the invitation of any single head of a major government.
     If another such conference were to be held, after the spectacle Khrushchev presented to the world at Paris, it would require a great deal of preparation at normal diplomatic levels.
     I would certainly have to know that the Soviets had serious reasons to negotiate and were not simply trying once again to use a summit conference for propaganda or to lose their own Kremlin power problems.

     Q. Do you believe that any modification is necessary in this country's position regarding Red China and the Nationalist Chinese Government on Formosa? If so, what?

     NIXON. Recognition of Communist China and support for her membership in the United Nations must wait for a basic change in her foreign policy. As long as the Chinese Communists continue their present hostile and aggressive policies toward the free world and refuse to live in peace with the family of nations, there can be no question of our recognizing them.
     At the present time Chinese Communist policies are the opposite of what we would find acceptable as a basis for establishing diplomatic relations. The Red armies are seeking every opportunity to stir up world tensions for the purpose of advancing their aggressive ambitions.
     For example, there is the Chinese Communist aggression against the United Nations in Korea, the brutal suppression of the revolt in Tibet, the attacks along the Indian border, Peiping's cry that she will expel the United States from the western Pacific by force, and the continued insistence that Red China has the "right" to seize Taiwan by force.
     The Chinese Communists openly argue that atomic war is inevitable and will lead to final Communist victory.
     Some ask why we do not recognize Communist China so that we can begin talking with her and perhaps settle our differences.
     It is not necessary for us to recognize Red China or support her admission to the United Nations in order to communicate with her. We can do this through channels which already exist. Even now we are negotiating at Warsaw with the Red Chinese diplomats for the release of Americans the Communist Chinese hold prisoner.
     Others say we should change our attitude toward Communist China. Perhaps, they say, if we extended recognition, the Chinese Communists would be mollified and would abandon their aggressive foreign policies. Such thinking, in my opinion, is based on a serious misconception of the Communist character and intentions.

     Q. What would you do about Castro?  Would you, for example, permit anti-Castro groups to use Florida as a base to overthrow the regime, just as he himself used Florida as a base to overthrow President Batista?

     NIXON. I will address myself to the basic problem raised by this: I believe that the United States should continue to work within the framework of the Organization of American States regarding the Cuban problem, or any other which threatens the security of this hemisphere.
     We must recognize that there is no quick or easy solution to the threat raised by Castro in carrying out his extremist revolutionary policies and in his apparent desire to aline Cuba with the Communist bloc.
     There is no doubt that at the start the majority of the Cuban people supported the overthrow of the oppressive Batista regime and applauded the announced aims of the Castro revolution. But the methods used by Castro to carry out his revolution in complete disregard for international law - or even Cuban law - have alarmed many of his countrymen.
     Our policy toward Cuba should be governed by two basic guidelines. For one thing, we should undertake to meet the problem in concert with our sister Republics of Latin America. For another, we must now put the world on notice that under no circumstances will we tolerate Communist intervention in the Western Hemisphere. We must realize that the use of force against Cuba, or any other sister republic, except in defense of our vital security, is bound to reawaken Latin American fears of this Nation as an aggressive colonial power.
     Historically, the Cuban people and the American people have enjoyed a close, personal relationship which the present Cuban regime seems determined to destroy. Recognizing the depth of this traditional friendship, our Government, under the leadership of President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Herter, has followed what I believe to be a wise policy of restraint and forbearance in dealing with Premier Castro.
     There are grounds for hoping that if given the opportunity and the time, the people of Cuba will find their own way back to freedom and democracy.
     We must give them that opportunity. We must increase our efforts to mobilize hemispheric unity against those policies which threaten a foreign takeover in our own backyard. We must step up our efforts so as to get across to the millions of people throughout Latin America the idea that we share their aspirations for a better life. The new aid program offered by this administration to help less fortunate American nations raise their standards of living is a sound step in the right direction. This was accepted by 18 of the 19 Latin American Republicsall but Cuba - at Bogota.
     Inevitably, I believe, a program of patience and firmness will restore the firm bonds of friendship between the Cuban people and the United States.

     Q. The turmoil in the Congo seems likely to spread to other newly formed nations in Africa. How should the United States deal with the problem?

     NIXON. The U.N., with full U.S. cooperation and support, is dealing with the problem, so far with more success than seemed likely under the conditions in which the Congo was suddenly almost cast adrift into independence - without adequate preparation.
     I would hope that both the colonial powers and the U.N. would speed up training before these new countries are promoted to international responsibility. We must, on our part, exercise wisdom and understanding and patience, as well as greatly stepped-up training help to see that not chaos but responsible freedom results.
     Obviously a situation as volatile as this one, and resulting from the lack of preparation I have cited, may be some time in stabilizing.
     However, I will point out that the Soviet Union has neither contributed to the assistance of the emergent Congo nor to world opinion of the Soviet Union by its policies of naked opportunism in the situation. The whole world can see that the Soviets are trying to convert the plight of the Congolese to the advantage of their Communist designs.
     A few more such incidents as this and there will be very few neutrals left.

     Q. Given the certainty that southern Democrats will filibuster any civil rights bill proposed, is there anything you think you could do, by Executive order or Executive action, to further civil rights for Negroes?

     NIXON. In the civil rights area, I would as President carry forward in spirit and action in the pattern that has brought such great progress these past 8 years. By Presidential leadership of public opinion, by a fair, firm, and full implementation of laws already enacted, by example within the executive branch, and by advocating new laws as needed (as, for instance, those my opponents rejected in Congress a month ago), I would expect America to achieve in the future advances commensurate with the historic ones that have already been accomplished.
     But I do not concede, in the first place, that civil rights laws cannot be passed; recent history disproves this. And second, I emphasize that on this area, especially, one must choose between mere talk and practical achievement. As chairman of the Government Contracts Committee for a number of years, I have sought practical results. This way works. I would continue, as President, in the same pattern.

     Q. In view of the case of Martin and Mitchell, do you believe any reorganization is necessary in our security or intelligence setup?

     NIXON. Yes. Our security and intelligence establishment should always be under review because of their vital importance to the Nation's survival.
     In my opinion, for example, it would be desirable to have all applicants for jobs in top security or supersensitive agencies screened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
     Review of the security establishments should always be undertaken with maturity and responsibility and, above all, it should be done with full recognition of the rights of our citizens.

     Q. To what extent do you believe the religious issue may influence the results of the election? You frequently have expressed your opposition to raising the religious issue. What about the activities of supporters of yours like the Reverend Dr. Norman Vincent Peale and the Reverend Dr. Daniel Poling?

     NIXON. I regret even the asking of this question. Senator Kennedy and I are in agreement, I understand, that this matter has no place whatsoever in this campaign and that, in an attempt to keep it out, neither he nor I would comment further about it. I will continue doing my best to abide by this and can only assume he will do likewise.

     Q. Given recent advances in agricultural technology and in fertilizers, is there any way to prevent farm surpluses from continuing to stack up? If so, what?

     NIXON. The problem of surplus farm production must be dealt with from both sides: Imaginative and constructive use of existing surpluses, and sensible rebuilding of present farm programs to prevent their reaccumulation. I believe both of these aspects can be accomplished and, in the course of this campaign, I have and will continue to set forth my views as to lines of action on which we should strike out in order to do so. It will require some fresh thinking and a willingness on the part of all concerned to lift the farm problem out of the ditch of partisan strife.

     Q. Some economists believe the Nation is slipping into a recession. Do you agree? If the problem does exist, how would you handle it?

     NIXON. The American economy is operating today at a record level of output, jobs, incomes, saving, and spending. Conditions are highly competitive and inflationary forces are being restrained. I do not believe we are slipping into a recession, as far as I can see ahead.
     The course of the economy next year will be heavily influenced by various factors yet to emerge, such as the reaction of buyers to new model cars, the response of homebuilding to increasingly available mortgage money at lower rates, the volume of capital expenditures by business, political and economic developments abroad, and also by the policies of the new administration. I am confident that we have it in our hands as a nation to make the economic future bright.

     Q. What would you do about such depressed areas as the West Virginia coal fields?

     NIXON. For the economy as a whole to move forward vigorously, the problems besetting areas of chronic unemployment must be vigorously attacked. This attack must, of course, be launched primarily by the people of the communities and States affected, but the Federal Government has a proper role. The administration has presented to the Congress for several years a sensible program for Federal assistance to local efforts in such areas for attracting new industries, for retraining workers in new skills, for providing needed facilities. Progress has been blocked by opposition maneuvers in Congress to turn this well-conceived effort into a typical big, do-it-from-Washington operation. The Federal Government's role in this task of reconstructionso vital to many communities - will succeed only if it supplements, not supplants, local efforts.

     Q. Many critics of American society believe there has, in recent years, been a weakening of the Nation's moral fiber - a preoccupation with material values, a reluctance to make necessary sacrifices in the face of the Communist threat, and so on. Do you agree? To what extent do you believe the White House could counteract it?

     NIXON. Not only do I not believe that the moral fiber of America is weakened, I do believe very deeply that this despair about America's inner strength and external prestige reflects a lack of faith and understanding. It is wrong factually and is hurtful to our country inthe eyes of the rest of the world.
     Americans have never hesitated to make whatever sacrifices were required for peace, security, and freedom, nor will they today. To confuse the evidence of their economic success with a lack of moral and spiritual values is a gross error. Self-valuation has its proper place, but preoccupation with it runs the danger of producing a paralysis of the national will.
     President Eisenhower has given, and I shall try to continue to give, the kind of leadership that the people of this Republic have a right to expect in terms of their own moral and spiritual strength.

The Debate

     Before John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon began their series of dramatic confrontations on nationwide TV this week, Newsweek proposed to the candidates that they put on the record their viewpoints on the leading issues of the day "in the reasoned light of the printed word." Both Kennedy and Nixon agreed to answer identical questions dealing with all the great issues of the campaign-domestic and foreign. Their debate, in print, began in last week's Newsweek, with Vice President Nixon's answers to those questions. Now Senator Kennedy answers the same questions. See below.

     Q. Do you believe the campaigns will hinge primarily on domestic issues? If so, which ones? Or on foreign issues? If so, which ones?

     KENNEDY. Foreign issues. But it is my judgment that we cannot carry out an effective foreign policy unless we are moving with more vigor here at home. Our strength abroad reflects in some measure the strength of our domestic economy. An accelerated economic growth, better educational opportunities, a true extension of civil rights, decent housing for all our citizens, and the other domestic programs of the Democratic Party all have an effect upon our international relationships.

     Q. Do you think any propaganda campaign Khrushchev has made or is likely to make will influence the election? What and how? If Khrushchev should invite you to a summit conference, under what circumstances or conditions would you accept?

     KENNEDY. No. I doubt that the American people will let Nikita Khrushchev choose the next President of the United States. On this issue Republicans and Democrats are united. I am certain that no matter who is President during the next 4 years, his objective will be to advance the cause of freedom against the forces of international communism. Secondly, only if such a meeting offered a real hope of success would I feel justified in attending a summit meeting with Nikita Khrushchev. An invitation alone would not be enough. Any meeting at the summit must be planned carefully with sufficient assurances of good faith at the secondary level to justify a belief that the meeting would contribute materially toward ending world tensions. For the present there seem to be no areas of agreement by both sides strong enough to justify the hope that a breakthrough can be achieved on the major questions that divide us. However, I believe we must be alert to any changes in this situation.

     Q. Do you believe that any modification is necessary in this country's position regarding Red China and the Nationalist Chinese Government on Formosa? If so, what?

     KENNEDY. I do not see any evidence that Red China desires to live in comity with us. In fact, she is moving in the opposite direction. Therefore, I do not advocate recognition of Red China. I would continue to meet our treaty obligations to Formosa.

     Q. What would you do about Castro? Would you, for example, permit anti-Castro groups to use Florida as a base to overthrow the regime, just as he himself used Florida as a base to overthrow President Batista?

     KENNEDY. I do not think it is in the national interest for a presidential candidate to answer this question at this time. I will confine myself to saying I would encourage the forces of freedom in Cuba and elsewhere to the maximum extent possible.

     Q. The turmoil in the Congo seems likely to spread to other newly formed nations in Africa. How should the United States deal with the problem?

     KENNEDY. Certainly the United Nations can be used to provide a basis for political stability and freedom. In addition, we can expand our efforts along the lines of the program of "education for African freedom" which I suggested, make use of the Development Loan Fund to assist these nations, and encourage technical exchanges and assistance. There is no question of the need or of the urgency. We must shake off the inertia and get started.

     Q. Given the certainty that southern Democrats will filibuster any civil rights bill proposed, is there anything you think you could do, by Executive order or Executive action, to further civil rights for Negroes?

     KENNEDY. In view of the fact that two civil rights bills have passed the Senate in the last 3 years, I would be reluctant to agree to the "certainty" suggested by the question. However, even in the absence of legislative action there is much that can be done to eliminate discrimination. The Civil Rights Commission made a number of recommendations dealing with housing and Government contracts which can be initiated by Executive order. In addition, a purposeful program can further civil rights for Negroes in all forms of Federal activity. I believe the President has a responsibility to use the moral and legal authority of his office to assure every citizen he can exercise his full constitutional rights.

     Q. In view of the case of Martin and Mitchell, do you believe any reorganization is necessary in our security or intelligence setup?

     KENNEDY. Our security arrangements and our intelligence facilities must be subject to constant examination and constant revision. Until the conclusion of the current congressional studies I intend to withhold judgment as to where the fault lies - if there is any fault.

     Q. To what extent do you believe the religious issue may influence the results of the elections? Do you agree with Senator Henry Jackson that, although Vice President Nixon keeps saying he doesn't want religion discussed, others within the Republican Party are pushing the issue? (Editor's note: The second half of this question was put in different form to the two candidates in order to raise specific partisan questions.)

     KENNEDY. I hope that religion will not have any effect upon the election. The constitutional provision that there shall be "no religious test for office" is wise, and I am hopeful that the American people will agree. As to the next part of the question, I would agree that the leaders of the Republican Party have indicated that they did not want religion discussed. I have no personal knowledge concerning the activities of others in the Republican Party on this issue.

     Q. Given recent advances in agricultural technology and in fertilizers, is there any way to prevent farm surpluses from continuing to stack up ? If so, what ?

     KENNEDY. Farm surpluses can be controlled by a program of "supply management." The specific procedures to be used must vary with the commodity involved. Product diversion seems to be suitable in such commodities as fluid milk and oranges, whereas land retirement seems suitable for feed grains. In addition, we must expand such programs as food for peace, domestic distribution of surplus commodities, and agricultural research. I am confident that the surplus problem can be solved in a manner that will permit us to use our agricultural abundance to benefit all mankind.

     Q. Some economists believe the Nation is slipping into a recession. Do you agree? If the problem does exist, how would you handle it?

     KENNEDY. Whether or not it is true that we are slipping into a recession, I would agree that we face serious economic problems whenever unemployment reaches its present level. Where there is an unemployment rate of 6 percent, that area is officially regarded as an area of "substantial labor surpluses." Today the unemployment rate for the entire Nation is nearly 6 percent. Whether or not this signifies a recession, it is cause for immediate action to prevent any serious economic dislocation from reoccurring. This can be done (1) by a program of special assistance to hard-hit areas such as was contained in the bill that was vetoed by the Republicans; (2) by developing our great public resources which make at possible for private enterprise to grow and prosper; (3) by a program of educational assistance which will produce the skills and creativity which a growing America needs; (4) by encouragement of loan programs to business; (5) by fiscal and monetary policies designed to stimulate private investment and eliminate artificial Republican restrictions on the supply of money.

     Q. What would you do about such depressed areas as the West Virginia coalfields?

     KENNEDY. The bill twice vetoed by the Republicans offers a good start toward overcoming the economic dislocation in such industries as the West Virginia coal industry. It would provide Federal assistance for modernization and conversion, it would help retrain employees, it would assist the communities to rehabilitate themselves. The coal industry has special problems. These can be helped by Federal encouragement of maximum use of all our energy resources. A study such as I have suggested by a national fuels policy committee would undoubtedly reduce burdensome and duplicatory Federal regulations. In addition, an expansion of coal-research activities would undoubtedly assist both the industry and the national economy. The present slippage in steel production is, of course, inadvertently affecting coal.

     Q. Have recent international developments necessitated any change in the Nation's defense program? What?

     KENNEDY. The power of the Soviet, the militancy of the Red Chinese, the disputes over Berlin and Formosa, all indicate that we live with danger. I believe that the next President should recommend a reorganization of the Pentagon, a concentration on those missile programs that offer the maximum prospect of success, a strengthening of conventional forces, and a development of a greater airlift capacity, so that we may be ready for limited wars as well as for any challenge by any nation to our military strength.

     Q. Many critics of American society believe there has in recent years been a weakening of the Nation's moral fiber - a preoccupation with material values, a reluctance to make necessary sacrifices in the face of the Communist threat, and so on. Do you agree? To what extent do you believe the White House could counteract it?

     KENNEDY. I believe that the President, as the spokesman for the people, has the responsibility of placing before the people the unfinished business of our society, our national goals. If this is done, I believe the people will understand and respond.