"FACE THE NATION"

As broadcast over the CBS television network, October 2, 1960;
CBS radio network, October 2, 1960

 
     Guest: The Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, U.S. Senator from Texas, Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency.
     Moderator: Stuart Novins.
     Reporters: William S. White, United Features Syndicate; Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News.
     Producer: Michael J. Marlow.

     ANNOUNCER. Senator Johnson - "Face the Nation."
     (Music.)
     You are about to see the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, "Face the Nation," in a spontaneous and unrehearsed interview with veteran correspondents from the Nation's press: Peter Lisagor, chief of the National Bureau of the Chicago Daily News; and William S. White, nationally syndicated columnist.
     Now, here is the moderator of "Face the Nation," CBS News Correspondent Stuart Novins.
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator Lyndon Johnson, of course, is not only the Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency of the United States, he is also running for reelection to the Senate from his home State of Texas. During the last few days he's been campaigning in the South and he's planned an even deeper trip into the South for next week. He is generally felt to be - to have been put on the ticket because of his relationship with some of the Southern States. And he is here now to "Face the Nation."
     Senator Johnson, if this election were held tomorrow, how many of the southern electoral votes would you have, and where would they come from? Have you any idea now?
     Senator JOHNSON. No, I don't. I don't think one can accurately forecast what we'd have tomorrow. But I think we're in better shape in the South than the Democratic Party has been in since the third term in 1940.
     I do not know of one single elected southern leader who has defected. We have had some ex-Governors and ex-officeholders who have gone over to the Republican camp, but in Texas our Governor, our attorney general, all the Members of Congress, and that's pretty true all through the South, I think, with the exception of the Governor of Mississippi, who even refuses to vote for the Republican ticket, we have every single southern Governor supporting our ticket. I have not made the trip through the South as yet, and I'll know more about it after I do.
     I was interested in your comment about my southern travels. I did make a speech in Knoxville the other night, and Jackson.
     Mr. NOVINS. Yes, sir.
     Senator JOHNSON. But most of my time has been spent in States like Nebraska and Missouri and those other States, and I'll go to the South a little later on.
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator, when you talk about having the organize - or having the support of the elected officials, there is a qualification, isn't there, in that some of those officials have said they'll support the ticket but not the party platform?
     Senator JOHNSON. Oh, yes. I think that there is no platform that is ever completely satisfactory to every person. I am sure there are some planks in the Democratic platform that the people of Massachusetts don't like, there are some in there that the people of Texas don't like. I'm sure that even Vice President Nixon is not completely happy with the platform, at least as rewritten by Governor Rockefeller that night up in the Waldorf Towers. You have to understand that a hundred people out of 180 million participate in writing a platform and it is an expression of hopes and it's not - it's like a bill; no bill is completely satisfactory to every person. I would change the "i" or cross the "t" of a lot of bills that we pass. I'm sure the President would do likewise. But the question is, on balance, is it good, and if it's good enough to embrace, do you support it? And we have worked out a platform that we think is a good platform, and I stand on that platform.
     I think that's the Vice President's feeling, too. He had the platform all written, but Mr. Rockefeller turned him around and changed it, and I notice that he and Mr. Goldwater accepted those changes somewhat reluctantly, but they accepted them.
     Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lisagor.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator Johnson, it seems that they've done more than not accept the platform. In the case of the Governor of Texas, for example, he has openly repudiated the platform, as I understand some of the other southern leaders have done. Now, how do you plan to counter this in the South?
     Senator JOHNSON. By carrying the State, which we are going to do.
     Mr. LISAGOR. You are pledged to stand on the platform, as is?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes, I'm running on the platform, as is. And there are a good many Governors that have objections to provisions of it, although, as I recall, they offered a resolution in the resolutions committee that should interest you people, to condemn the platform, and they got two votes, 29 to 2---
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator---
     Senator JOHNSON. So I would say that the hope of the Republicans to carry the South is the - the wish is father to the thought. I would think that the Democrats have a much better chance of carrying Mr. Lodge's Massachusetts or Mr. Nixon's California than the Republicans have of carrying a single southern State, because the South has a long memory and the South can remember what they promised them 8 years ago, and 4 years ago, and what they've got.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, I wonder if I could be a little more specific about the platform. In your own State, for example---
     Senator JOHNSON. Which platform are you talking about?
     Mr. LISAGOR. The Democratic platform.
     Senator JOHNSON. Fine.
     Mr. LISAGOR. There is a strong feeling in Texas, for example, in support of right-to-work laws. The Democratic platform has promised to repeal the authorization in the Taft-Hartley law for right-to-work laws.
     How do you specifically stand on that?
     Senator JOHNSON. I stand upon the platform and I will carry out the provisions of the platform. It will have to be implemented by an act of Congress. That provision, I might say, has been in every Democratic platform since 1948. It was in the 1948 platform, it was in the 1952 platform, it was in the 1956 platform. And I think we make it clear that that is in the 1960 platform.
     Now, Vice President Nixon has been, as I understand his quotations, on all three sides of it, but I think we are pretty clear and definite. Now, I don't know the sentiment of the State, I haven't taken any poll, but my judgment is that we will carry the State of Texas by a rather substantial margin.
     Mr. LISAGOR. And, I'd like to ask you about one more specific in that platform, Senator, and that is the depletion allowance, the oil depletion allowance in which the platform the Democratic platform promises to close the loopholes and specifically refers to that - that one allowance.
     Senator JOHNSON. That is the Republican approach to it, Mr. Lisagor. And let's be objective about this. The Democratic platform - what you have said is what they say---
     Mr. LISAGOR. Well, I have the language here, which I will read to you---
     Senator JOHNSON. That's not - that's not correct at all, because the Democratic platform doesn't mention oil in any respect, and most people don't know that there are 105 depletion allowances. The Democratic platform that the convention adopted pledges itself to close loopholes - period. Now, in a little dicta it adds that such loopholes as extravagant expense accounts, dividend receipts, and depletion allowances---
     Mr. LISAGOR. Which are inequitable.
     Senator JOHNSON (continuing). Which are inequitable.
     Now, last year every Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee voted on that question and all of them voted against reducing the depletion allowance on oil. Now, the Vice President has a little oil speech that he makes when he comes to Houston, or Mr. Goldwater makes when he goes to Dallas, on oil. And they say, "Now, your platform here indicates that you are going to reduce the depletion allowance on oil." Of course, it doesn't, doesn't say that at all. The person that's doing most to reduce the depletion allowance is Senator Williams, a Republican, of Delaware, who would succeed to the chairmanship of the Finance Committee if the Republicans should win in the Senate. He would take Senator Byrd's place.
     Now, he offers an amendment almost each year to reduce it from 27½ percent to 15, but he is overwhelmingly voted down 2 to 1, and I think would continue to be, and I don't think there is any more reason to conclude the Democratic platform is unfavorable on depletion allowances than the Republican. As a matter of fact, the Republican platform says they favor a reasonable depletion allowance and the one that would interpret it would have to be the Congress and their leader in the Congress, Mr. Williams, says that. he thinks 15 percent is reasonable.
     So I would assume that all the oil people ought to really be concerned about the position Mr. Williams takes.
     Mr. NOVINS. A question from Mr. White, please.
     Mr. WHITE. Senator, to go back away from the platform for a moment to the scoreboard, what you have said here seems to indicate that you have a fairly strong conviction that the Democrats will carry the entire South. Is this your prediction about it?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think that is true, as of today. He asked me if I had to decide tomorrow, I don't see a single outstanding southern leader that's been elected to a position of trust by his people who have embraced the Republican Party or the Republican platform. And, had some questions about the Democratic platform, but so far as the Republican platform is concerned, they have many provisions in it that I am sure the leadership of the South would not embrace. And while they can - some of them do enjoy speeches by Senator Goldwater, I do not think some of the provisions that Senator - Governor Rockefeller would recommend would be acceptable, for instance.
     Mr. WHITE. May I go from there to the Middle West, Senator; and preface the question with this inquiry:
     There is an impression among many of us, I think, who watch politics, that the struggle in the Middle West on domestic issues at least, or on basic issues, so-called bread-and-butter issues, is between the Democratic attack on the Benson farm program on the one side, that seems to be the strong Democratic thrust, and between Mr. Nixon's so-called peace issue or the issue of standing up to Khrushchev on the other side.
     Now, the question is this: In your opinion, is the - is the supposed unpopularity of Mr. Benson being altogether blunted, or partly blunted or only slightly blunted by the Nixon issue on the Khrushchev matter?
     Senator JOHNSON. I would say partly blunted. I would say that the Republicans have done a pretty good job of hard selling in an attempt to make it appear that Mr. Nixon can best stand up to Mr. Khrushchev. I think that where you hear the other side of it, their argument doesn't stand. It's not a question so much of one individual standing up to Mr. Khrushchev, it's a question of the Government and the country standing up to Mr. Khrushchev.
     Now, if Mr. Nixon's experience in the kitchen is to be considered as the kind of a standing up we want to have our country do to Mr. Khrushchev, then I don't think the people want that kind of standing up. I think that Mr. Nixon has this handicap - all of the people of the country understand that we are going to have a Democratic Congress. Now, the question is: Can Mr. Nixon and the Democratic Congress do more to stand up to Mr. Khrushchev than a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress?
     And I think that when you explain that to them and you get away from the Washington image of the Vice President and see just what decisions he's made in the 7 years and 7 months he's been in office, actually how has he stood up to people - he made a Latin American tour, that's true, and it took the Marines to help him get home safely. Then, he's been to see the Queen, that's true. He had an argument in a Moscow kitchen, but during that period of time Senator Kennedy has had to vote on, I guess, 800 or 900 matters affecting our relations with other nations and foreign affairs. During that period the Vice President has voted only seven times. Now, the question is: Who can take the Democratic Senate and the Democratic House and unite them with the executive department and the Secretary of State and give us the best front toward the world? Who can lead us the best? And when you discuss that with the people of the Midwest or any other place, you blur this a little.
     Mr. WHITE. Let me ask you another rather specific question on, sort of on - scoreboard terms again, Senator. Do you think now that the Democratic ticket will carry the Farm Belt? By that I mean, principally the wheat and corn and hog States?
     Senator JOHNSON. No; I would not predict that it would. Although I have not been in any State that I could with assurance say "This is a Republican State." I think a good deal is going to depend---
     Mr. WHITE. Have you been into Kansas, for example?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes; yes, I have been into Kansas, and had one of the had one of the finest rallies that we've ever had there and, I've been in Kansas two or three times. But, we have a good Democratic candidate for the Senate out in Kansas, in the form of our national committeeman. We have terrific enthusiasm and I think there is a deep feeling among all the farmers that they can't take 8 more years of what they've got in the way of an agricultural program, and I think that's going to show itself.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator Johnson, one of the paramount issues today, I think you will agree, is foreign policy. And President Eisenhower is right now under great pressure in the United Nations to meet with the Soviet Premier, Khrushchev. I wonder if you could tell us how you feel about such a meeting.
     Senator JOHNSON. I think that's a matter up to the President. I would not want to express an opinion that would influence him or prejudice his conduct. He has all the information before him and I would be glad to go along with any decisions that he reaches. He speaks for our country in the field of foreign relations. I think that this is a pretty serious situation we have there. I think the chips are down. I think our people have got to realize the gravity of it, and Mr. Khrushchev is not just doing a lot of clowning, in my opinion. I think that we are in a very critical period and the road ahead is a rather hazardous one. I don't want to contribute to making it more hazardous by any complaints or predictions. But, I think that the people have got to be told they are facts. I don't agree with the administration at all that, or Mr. Nixon, that you shouldn't discuss the issues in this campaign.
     As a matter of fact, I was rather amused at a letter I got yesterday - I was going to release it to the press tomorrow - signed by the Assistant Secretary of State, which bears on whether we should discuss these problems at all, or not. Mr. Macomber says that they gave consideration to postponing the meeting of the U.N. in 1960, just as they did postpone it in 1956 and as they did in 1952, and I presume that they gave consideration as to whether that was in the national interest to postpone these discussions until after the election. But they resolved that it was not necessary to postpone it, so if it's not necessary to postpone Mr. Khrushchev's talks, or Mr. Castro's talks or Mr. Tito's talks or Mr. Eisenhower's talks, I don't know why Senator Kennedy should be silent, and I want to read one important sentence from that letter:

     The possibility of postponement was carefully considered early this summer by the Department, in consultation with Ambassador Lodge. Neither the Department nor Ambassador Lodge saw any serious risk to U.S. interests in proceeding on schedule.
     Mr. NOVINS. Well, Senator
     Mr. LISAGOR. Does that letter ask you or Senator Kennedy not to discuss these issues of national security and foreign policy?
     Senator JOHNSON. No.
     Mr. LISAGOR. How did you come by that letter? Was it in answer to a letter of yours?
     Senator JOHNSON. Yes. We wrote the State Department and asked them if they had considered, in the light of the statements made by the Vice President that we ought to postpone all this discussion, if they had considered postponing the U.N. meeting this year, as they did in 1956 and as they did in 1952, because the indications were that they felt that any discussion of issues would be bad, and it looks like they want to cover up these issues, and I think that's a part of the Republican strategy. I think that they want to hide the failures behind Mr. Khrushchev's talk.
     Mr. NOVINS. May I ask you, sir, you - pardon me - you paint a pretty vivid picture and you have this letter now as evidence to support the theory that there is nothing wrong in criticizing the administration's policies; and yet, you walk out of it. Having done that, you decline to take any kind of position on these policies. You say this is the President's business.
     Let me ask you a question
     Senator JOHNSON. I said on this specific point I wouldn't want to say that I oppose, just for the sake of opposition
     Mr. NOVINS. No; I realize that
     Senator JOHNSON. I'm more constructive than that. You just asked me one question and I told you that that was a matter that I would be guided by his opinion on.
     Mr. NOVINS. Well, let me ask you this question, sir:
     If you and Mr. Kennedy are elected, you'll be inheriting these problems in January.
     Senator JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Kennedy will, as the President of the country.
     Mr. NOVINS. Well, I'm thinking in terms of a ticket---
     Senator JOHNSON. The Vice President doesn't speak for this Nation in connection with our relations with other nations. The Vice President, under his constitutional function, presides over the Senate.
     Mr. NOVINS. Under what conditions would a Democratic administration in January meet with the Russians?
     Senator JOHNSON. Well, you'll have to - you'll have to ask Senator Kennedy that question when he is elected and after he appoints his Secretary of State, and what the circumstances at the moment happen to be.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator Johnson, to what extent would you---
     Mr. WHITE. Let me ask you,, if I may, a fairly specific question again, I think.
     The Republican campaign policy is essentially, I think, one of suggesting that Senator, or that Mr. Nixon and Mr. Lodge are more experienced in foreign policy and more mature in their handling of it.
     How would you reply on behalf of the Democratic ticket to this specific issue, and it clearly is an issue, of which ticket is more experienced and which - toward which ticket people could give greater trust and confidence? How would you reply, yourself ?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think that they have made much of the argument of maturity and experience, and I, I don't think that you can say that they have all the edge or we have all the edge. I would like to present these facts to have them evaluated: The Vice President and Senator Kennedy entered the Congress the same day. Senator Lodge served 8 years in the Senate and has served 8 years in the United Nations. Now, I have served in Washington for 30 years come next year, 24 years of which have been in the House and the Senate, so I don't guess there's a great deal of weight one way or the other on the number of years you've served. Then the question comes - what kind of decisions have you been making? Well, during the last 7 years and 7 months the Vice President, so far as I am aware, has voted 7 times in the Senate and made 7 decisions, and Senator Kennedy has probably voted 700 times.
     Mr. WHITE. Are you speaking now of foreign policy decisions?
     Senator JOHNSON. All kinds of decisions, domestic and foreign - a good many foreign policy decisions. Senator Kennedy sits there on the Foreign Relations Committee each day and has to act on the matters that come before it. Now, so far as I know, the Vice President has not been making those decisions, has not been making recommendations. I have seen where he was going to help get a school bill out of the House Rules Committee, and he was going to put his influence behind some other domestic measures, but I haven't seen where he really made any of those decisions. But I don't think there's a great deal of difference, in all fairness. I think both candidates have had a good deal of experience, 14 years in the Federal Government; Senator Lodge has had 16, and I have had 30. I wouldn't think that just a few good will trips and serve - casting seven votes to break ties in the Senate would be overwhelming evidence of maturity or experience.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator Johnson, the Vice President has made the point, however, that he and Mr. Lodge have participated in the discussions which has led to those great executive decisions in the foreign policy field. You've addressed yourself to the legislative decisions that the Vice President may or may not have taken part in.
     On the basis of his participation in the executive decisions, how would you answer Mr. White's question?
     Senator JOHNSON. Well, I would say that in some of the discussions that the leadership of the Senate, in the 10 years that I have been in that type of work, some of those discussions the Vice President has been in on. I believe he has participated in one or two by making observations. I have never seen him make any strong recommendations one way or the other on them. I know of no important decision in the field of our relations with other nations or the defense of our country that the Congress has not been aware of and has not been consulted, and periodically, before the President takes a trip or after he comes back from one, or before he goes to a conference or after he comes back from one, he calls in the leadership. And in some of those meetings the Vice President has been present, some of them Ambassador Lodge has, but I would say by no means all of them.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Are you saying, then, that you believe that the Republican claims for Mr. Nixon and his own claims for himself have been exaggerated?
     Senator JOHNSON. No. I think that they have 14 and 16 years' experience, compared to my 30 and Senator Kennedy's 14. And I would say that the - the decision of leadership, so far as foreign policy are concerned, rest as heavily upon the leader of the majority of the Senate during the last 8 years as they have upon the Vice President, who breaks a tie.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator---
     Senator JOHNSON. I think they rest as heavily on a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who must vote on all these measures, as it does an Ambassador who is making a speech in the United Nations. Now, I do not want to run down their experience. They have had a good deal of experience in those posts, but I would respectfully submit that the position of leader of the Senate and the position of membership on the Foreign Relations Committee for that period of time is one that ought to equally be considered.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, you spoke of the gravity of the times in the United Nations today. Would you have a judgment on what conditions, if any, the President should lay down before he meets with Mr. Khrushchev ?
     Senator JOHNSON. I think that's a matter that the President ought to determine.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Now, five neutralist nations have asked that this be done through a resolution in the U.N. Would you suggest that he ought not to meet with---
     Senator JOHNSON. I wouldn't suggest to the President what he ought to do or what he ought not to do. He has the information in this field. He has that responsibility. He is the one that will have to make the decision. I would not want to prejudice his action one way or the other.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Well, let me ask you one final question on this point. Senator: Would you - would you believe or judge that presidential politics or the campaign is a factor in this decision?
     Senator JOHNSON. I'm not sure I understand your question.
     Mr. LISAGOR. I mean, would you think that the President---
     Senator JOHNSON. In whose decision?
     Mr. LISAGOR. In the President's decision, whether to meet with Mr. Khrushchev or not to meet with him.
     Senator JOHNSON. I - no, I would credit the President with the best of motives. I have never seen the President play politics with foreign policy. I have a great admiration for the President in that respect, and I think that that is something that. the voters are going to bear in mind, too. We have had divided Government for the last 6 years, and we have done our best to bend over backward and try to meet the President more than halfway. Now, there is no question but what we are going to have a Democratic Congress, and I think it's very important that we not have stalemate Government and I rather doubt that during the administration of Mr. Nixon that the executive and the legislative would work as harmoniously and as cooperatively as they have under Mr. Eisenhower because Mr. Eisenhower has never been a deep partisan, and I think that he has tried to meet us halfway, too.
     Mr. NOVINS. Senator, if we could turn from foreign policy to some domestic problems for a moment: Your ticket has been talking in terms of quite an extended program of social welfare legislation, school construction, teachers' salaries, and so forth. Do you anticipate that this means a rise in taxes, and what kind of a bill is involved here?
     Senator JOHNSON. No; I do not anticipate that it means a rise in taxes. I would think that over a period of before the first administration is out it could mean a gradual reduction of taxes. Our platform pledges a balanced budget, in cases except national emergency. Now, a lot of people say, "Well, how in the world do you do that," and pass the school construction bill? Well, the President's recommended school construction bill, the only thing that kept us from passing one was the House Rules Committee, we couldn't get a single Republican vote on it. Now, the medical care bill, that's one of the most important bills that the Congress has ever been faced with. This year we got 44 votes. We only got one Republican vote, but that was a pay-as-you-go bill, that did not scoop appropriations out of the Federal Treasury, that, did not shovel them out, that provided that each individual contribute one-quarter of his earnings on his payroll, and his employer one-quarter of 1 percent, that half percent would be put in a fund, the Government wouldn't spend anything. Now the bill that was passed with the support of the Vice President and the President and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will probably cost the Federal Treasury and the State treasuries in excess of a billion dollars, whereas, our medical plan would not have cost them 1 thin dime. And the plan that they have proposed will cost a billion dollars but will require a pauper's oath and, in my judgment, a good many States won't adopt it and it's really going to be a disappointment to all the old folks. But it does call for appropriations in excess of a billion dollars out of the Federal and State treasuries. That's - we would take that money and we'd use it for other purposes.
     Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, the Republicans have put a price tag on the Democratic platform of something between $13 and $18 billion. As you know, the, Vice President did this himself the other day. In the light of that, how can you say that you expect the taxes to be reduced in the first four - in the first term of a Democratic President?
     Senator JOHNSON. I say that that could follow, and I would hope it would follow. Now, on the Vice President's price tag, he's not very specific about that. First, I would say it's phony; that's the first thing. Second, I'd say the Vice President knows very little about the Democratic platform or he wouldn't have made a statement like that. Third, I would point this out, that during this administration the Agricultural Department has spent more money in 7 years than they have spent in the entire 70 preceding. They are spending $6 or $7 billion a year now to run farmers off the farms, they've increased their employment by 40,000 people. Now, you can't tell me that Jack Kennedy is going to sit around as President very long without cleaning out that situation.
     So we are going to effect economies. Jack Kennedy likes to be careful and prudent and he is a cautious man, and he is not going to be a wild spender, and my judgment is that you, if you will read the Democratic platform, instead of the Republican propaganda sheets you will see that it pledges a balanced budget except in cases of national emergency.
     Mr. NOVINS. Well, Senator, thank you very much indeed for coming here to "Face the Nation."
     Thanks also to today's news correspondents: Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News; William S. White, nationally syndicated columnist.
     This is Stuart Novins. We invite you to join us next week at this same time for another edition of "Face the Nation" when, from San Francisco, our guest will be the Republican vice presidential candidate, Henry Cabot Lodge.
     Our program today originated in Washington.
     ANNOUNCER. "Face the Nation" was produced by Michael J. Marlow. Associated in production, Ellen Wadley. Directed by Bill Linden.
     Today you saw the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Senator Lyndon R Johnson of Texas, "Face the Nation."
     Hal Stepler speaking.
     This has been a public affairs presentation of CBS News.