As broadcast over the CBS Television Network, October 9, 1960;
CBS Radio Network, October 9,1960.
Guest: The Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, Republican
nominee for the Vice Presidency.
Moderator: Stuart Novins.
Reporters: Robert E. Lee, Ridder Publications;
Neil MacNeil, Time-Life.
Producer: Michael J. Marlow.
ANNOUNCER. Henry Cabot Lodge - Face the Nation.
[Music.]
From San Francisco you are about to see the
Republican vice presidential candidate, Henry Cabot Lodge, face the nation,
in a spontaneous and unrehearsed interview with veteran correspondents
from the Nation's press:
Neil MacNeil, from the Washington bureau of
Time magazine;
Robert E. Lee, from the Washington Bureau
of the Ridder Publications.
And now, the moderator of "Face the Nation,"
CBS News Correspondent Stuart Novins.
Mr. NOVINS. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Republican
nominee for the Vice Presidency, has been campaigning throughout the West
for the last several days. As a campaigner he has spoken out on many political
issues; as the recently resigned Ambassador to the United Nations, his
campaigning coincides with a period at the U.N. when his party's policies
have been put to severe tests. Mr. Lodge is here now to face the Nation.
Mr. Lodge, you and Mr. Nixon have taken the
position that American prestige among the uncommitted nations of the world
is greater than that of the Communist bloc or any other country. And you
have said, I believe, sir, that the best test of that is at the United
Nations. I wonder how you explain yesterday's vote at the U.N. on Red Chinese
membership when not one of the 16 new nations voted to support the U.S.
position, when in fact Laos and Malaya, who had voted with us last year,
abstained this year, and Cuba and Ethiopia, who had abstained last year,
voted with the Russians this year.
Mr. LODGE. Well, the first thing I would say
is that we won. After all, that is the ultimate in any contest in a forum,
is---that you win. Secondly, there are always fluctuations in the vote
on this motion. As you know, it's a procedural motion not to discuss, it
doesn't get into the substance, it's quite inconceivable that the Communists
could ever get a two-thirds vote to expel the Nationalists and to seat
the Communists.
This was a motion that we could lose and still
the Communists couldn't get in. I think it's very natural for these new
countries from Africa not - to abstain on a motion of that kind.
On the question of Hungary, for example, we
had a vote of 60 to 10, which meant a great many Afro-Asian countries voted
with us. We can't ever expect to have an automatic - automatic voting support,
and we shouldn't. What I've said is that we have never been defeated. I
have said that no resolution aimed at us has ever passed, even on the U2
case, when some people, not I, thought that our position was weak. The
Communists' attempt to condemn us was defeated. That is what I have said.
And the vote yesterday doesn't in the least bit vitiate that.
Mr. NOVINS. You said we have won and I think
the question has been raised by observers at the U.N. whether it wasn't
a kind of Pyrrhic victory, whether we won a battle and lost a war. Haven't
we in our voting in the last few weeks isolated much of the potential friendship
of some of the neutralist countries?
Mr. LODGE. Oh, no; we won. The Communist Chinese
are not coming in this year. That is what we were trying to do and we accomplished
it. We won, in the sense that we condemned the Soviet's attempt unilaterally
to intervene in the Congo. We won, in the sense that we defeated the attempts
of the Communists to elect a Czechoslovak stooge as President of the General
Assembly. We won, in the sense that everybody turned their backs on Khrushchev's
attempt to isolate and destroy the Secretary General.
Those are victories for us. Those are defeats
for Khrushchev. And no amount of logic shopping or torturing of words could
alter that.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. MacNeil.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, on the vote yesterday,
34 nations voted against us. A year ago 29 nations voted against us. Eight
years ago, when, before the Eisenhower administration took control of the
Government, only 7 voted for the recognition - for the admission of Communist
China.
Mr. LODGE. This isn't---
Mr. MACNEIL. A sign of erosion of our power?
Mr. LODGE. This isn't the admission. This
is the motion, shall we discuss. This is a very strong motion. This is
the strongest motion you can make. The question of admission would take
two-thirds. We have never even gotten to that.
Mr. MACNEIL. Well, then---
Mr. LODGE. That shows you how strong our position
is.
Mr. MACNEIL. Well, hasn't our vote been getting,
reaching a smaller and smaller margin of safety of just the question of
discussion?
Mr. LODGE. It's been going up and down, but
as I said to Mr. Novins, even if we lost the motion, yesterday, the Communist
Chinese still could not get in as long as we could muster a blocking third.
And nobody who knows the United Nations can possibly doubt our ability
to muster a blocking third for almost as long as we want to. We are in
a very strong position on this.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lee.
Mr. LEE. Mr. Lodge, on another question involving
Communist China, Vice President Nixon seemed to be saying the other evening
in his television debate that we should defend the offshore islands of
Quemoy and Matsu. And yet you have said that we certainly should not telegraph
our punches and draw no lines as to regarding what we will and what we
will not defend.
Now, do you - are you and Mr. Nixon in agreement
?
Mr. LODGE. Yes. I was differing with Senator
Kennedy when he said that we ought to draw a line and make it clear that
we did not wish to defend Quemoy and Matsu. I am opposed to drawing those
lines because you give your opponent the initiative.
Mr. LEE. Well, did not Mr. Nixon distinguish---
Mr. LODGE. Just a minute; let me finish the
answer to your question.
I think we made a mistake when we drew a line
in Korea, and I think events proved that we did. I don't believe we ought
to telegraph our, punches. I don't believe - I think we ought to keep our
opponent in doubt, keep him guessing. I think it's better tactics. And
I don't think Mr. Nixon has said anything that's contrary to that.
Mr. LEE. Well, he said that if we did give
them up, we'd start a chain reaction because the Communists aren't after
Quemoy and Matsu, they're after Formosa
Mr. LODGE. He said we shouldn't - we shouldn't
say that we were giving them up, yes.
Mr. LEE. Doesn't that imply - that we are
going to defend them?
Mr. LODGE. No, it doesn't. That's the whole
essence of the shadings and these distinctions that take place in diplomacy.
No, it doesn't imply that. It implies that you are not telling what you
are going to do but you are not going to give them up. It makes a negative
decision but it doesn't indicate the positive course you are going to follow.
You should never do that.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, you talk about shadings
of diplomacy and some of our neutralist friends, or at least those who
have been called neutralist in the United Nations, have raised a question
about whether there weren't shadings of diplomatic policy involved in the
lack of invitation from the White House to people like President Nasser
of the U.A.R. and Tito of Yugoslavia and Gomulka of Poland to come and
visit with him and to see the United States.
Mr. LODGE. Well, I think you are under a misapprehension.
They did visit with President Eisenhower.
Mr. NOVINS. Those were quick visits at New
York, most of them.
Mr. LODGE. Yes, yes. There's nothing wrong
in this thing with President Eisenhower in New York.
Mr. NOVINS. You don't think it would have
been more cordial and perhaps would have helped lay a stronger basis of
relationship with those countries
Mr. LODGE. Well, President Eisenhower has
done, I think, more entertaining of chiefs of state than any other President
we've ever had. To receive a chief of state in Washington is quite a business.
It leads into staying at the Embassy and visits to and from, and all kinds
of things
Mr. NOVINS. What about Camp David?
Mr. LODGE. What is that?
Mr. NOVINS. What about Camp David?
Mr. LODGE. Camp David can be part of it, that
adds to the - to the difficulties. And when you invite one man why don't
you invite the other, and so on. I think President Eisenhower handled it
just right. He was in New York, they were in New York, he invited them
to visit him in his apartment. I think he did it the right way.
Mr. NOVINS. The basic question I think that
I am trying to get at, Mr. Lodge, is whether we have used all our opportunities
that were presented by the presence of these heads of state in the United
States, whether we have used them as effectively as we could have used
them.
Mr. LODGE. I think so. I think - I think President
Eisenhower put himself out, and I think, of course; he's a unique world
figure, I think he always does well whenever he represents us. I think
it was well handled.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr.---
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. MacNeil.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, one of the major issues
being drawn by Senator Kennedy is our relative strength, militarily, against
Russia. If - and I say an "if'' - if the United States were dangerously
weaker than Russia, would you regard it as the party's responsibility for
the American Government to say so publicly?
Mr. LODGE. I think we are much stronger than
Russia, I am sure of it. We are much stronger than Russia in every way.
I think we should never tell our opponent anything we don't have to. I
think that's basic.
Mr. MACNEIL. You mean---
Mr. LODGE. They never tell us anything and
they have a secretive system which gives them a certain advantage over
us, because we have a very public system.
Mr. MACNEIL. Well, do you say that we should
remain secretive in this area, too?
Mr. LODGE. I don't think - I think we should
tell our opponents just as little as we possibly can - consistent with
American ideals and with the free press, and all that. But consistent with
that, I think we should tell our opponents just as little as possible,
keep them guessing, keep them wondering.
Mr. LEE. How can the American people support
congressional appropriations for strength if they don't know the score?
Mr. LODGE. I like that - I anticipated that
question. I said, consistent with our institutions---
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge---
Mr. LODGE. And you can get a very good record
of secretkeeping with Congress. I've seen some very good records established.
I remember on the Foreign Relations Committee when Senator Vandenberg was
the chairman, we had 2 whole years without a single leak of any kind.
Mr. LEE. But can you be sure that the American
people will blindly follow their congressional leaders if they don't have
the facts?
Mr. LODGE. No, you can't.
Mr. LEE. Don't you agree - that it takes a
very great---
Mr. LODGE. That's why - we cannot - we cannot
have as much secrecy as a dictator can have. I think we ought to have as
much secrecy as possible, consistent with our institutions, yes.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, how, on that point,
sir, can the American people now be sure that we are, as you say, stronger
than the Russians?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I think they can be sure,
because it's - I think it's inconceivable to the American people that General
Eisenhower would neglect our defenses. I just think no American believes
that.
Mr. MACNEIL. But you said you would be secretive
about it.
Mr. LODGE. I said the details, I would be
secretive as to just how our military strength is deployed and how it's
organized and what it consists of. Oh, I would, yes.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, you said in a broadcast
this last week from Los Angeles that you felt that a summit meeting now
might be a dangerous thing. I wonder if you would explain what you mean
by that; dangerous in what way?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I think with Mr. Khrushchev
saying that he doesn't like President Eisenhower, that he doesn't like
the U.S. Government, it obviously would just be asking for trouble to try
to have a meeting with him.
Mr. NOVINS. Do you think there is a possibility---
Mr. LODGE. It's as simple as that.
Mr. NOVINS. Do you think there is a possibility
that both Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kennedy may be taking such a strong position
during the campaign about standing up to Khrushchev that it will eliminate
the possibility---
Mr. LODGE. No.
Mr. NOVINS. Of either one ever sitting down
with him to discussions?
Mr. LODGE. No, I certainly don't. If there
is one thing with Khrushchev, you can talk as tough as you like and he
talks as tough as he likes, and it doesn't make the slightest difference,
when you meet privately.
Mr. NOVINS. I wasn't thinking about Khrushchev's
reaction, I was thinking about the reaction of the American people.
Mr. LODGE. No, I don't think so. I think the
American - I don't think that would happen. But you don't need to worry
about talking tough to the Russians, making the Russians feel bad---
Mr. NOVINS. I didn't suggest that.
Mr. LODGE. Communist training.
Mr. NOVINS. Yes. I didn't suggest that.
Mr. LODGE. No.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. MacNeil.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, Vice President Nixon
has announced that if he and you are elected, he will put you in charge
of the nonmilitary phases of the cold war. Two years ago, on April 2, 1958,
President Eisenhower rejected a similar proposal to put Vice President
Nixon in charge of the Nation's psychological warfare. He did so on the
grounds it would be impractical and be incorrect on constitutional grounds.
Do you feel there is any constitutional question
involved here?
Mr. LODGE. No. I think Vice President Nixon could, if elected
President, could put me in charge of all nonmilitary activities in the
world struggle, and do so perfectly constitutionally under his Presidential
powers.
Mr. MACNEIL. Would this, in a campaign where
the Republicans are stressing the leadership of their candidates, be, in
effect, an abdication of President Nixon's, provided he is elected, powers
as President, responsibilities as President?
Mr. LODGE. It would be a proper use of the
Presidential power. It would be no abdication of the Presidential power,
because of course the Vice President would be working under the President.
Mr. MACNEIL. You disagree, then, with President
Eisenhower---
Mr. LODGE. I haven't read President Eisenhower's
statement, and I'd have to read it to tell you.
Mr. LEE. Mr. Lodge, you know, of course, that
the Republican platform promises that if the party is elected there will
be created a top position to assist the President in national security
and international affairs. Well, now, is that the job that Mr. Nixon has
in mind for you, and how could he put you in a created position like that?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I can illustrate it this
- I think a rough sort of precedent for what Vice President Nixon has in
mind can be found in the Department of Defense, under which you have the
Army, Navy, and the Air Force. Well, now, in conducting foreign affairs,
you have the State Department, with traditional diplomacy in foreign relations,
which is very important. Then you have economic questions which affect
foreign affairs. And then you have cultural information activities which
very broadly, with a lot of exceptions, corresponds to the Army, the Navy,
and the Air Force. And the idea is to group that so that in this shrinking
world we can get quick positions, quick decisions out of the U.S. Government,
so that we can take the initiative and hold it. That, I think, is what's
involved.
Mr. LEE. Wouldn't that be a rather time-consuming
job. That ought to be a full-time job, oughtn't it? And how would you find
time to preside over the Senate?
Mr. LODGE. It will take a lot of time but
- it will take a lot of time, but if you have a good staff, and so on,
I don't think it ought to be an impossible thing to do.
Mr. NOVINS. What does that do to the Secretary of
State, Mr. Lodge?
Mr. LODGE. The Secretary of State will have his
hands full. This will take care of the things that are not now within his
direct jurisdiction and which often impinge on foreign relations. I think
the Secretary of State would welcome this.
Mr. LEE. Would this - excuse me just a minute
- would this mean that you would plan to spend less time with your duties
as Presiding Officer of the Senate, say, than Mr. Nixon has?
Mr. LODGE. No. About the same, I gather -
about the same.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, what would you do
if you were put in control of these nonmilitary phases? For example, are
you satisfied with our Foreign Service?
Mr. LODGE. I think the Foreign - I think there
are very - there are many excellent men in the Foreign Service, and I've
had a lot of them work with me at the U.N.
Mr. MACNEIL. Would you make any changes?
Mr. LODGE. I think it could be better. I think
we could stress languages more than - than we are doing. I think we ought
to make a tremendous effort to recruit the very best people we can find
for it, because this is the. very front line.
Mr. MACNEIL. Would you make any changes in
our soft loan policy to underdeveloped countries?
Mr. LODGE. I would have a - I would like to
see us move more and more in the direction of foreign aid being conducted
on a multilateral, that is, a multinational basis, either under the U.N.
or some other international organization, because we get much more for
our money. We get about $7 of results for every dollar we put in. We are
completely protected against any programs that are against United States
foreign policy and we don't get the blame for going in and being tactless
and telling people they can't do this and they can't do that. And we get
the credit for helping an altruistic U.N. activity. I think much could
be done if our, if the $4 billion that we now spend roughly for economic
aid abroad was 20 percent, 25 percent, of a great world effort, which it
isn't now, you could do spectacular things in raising the people in the
underdeveloped countries above the level of misery - that they are in now.
Mr. MACNEIL. Would you use this in any way
to correct the present imbalance in our foreign trade?
Mr. LODGE. Well, no, that's - I wouldn't say
that was a nonmilitary activity of the cold war.
Mr. MACNEIL. What would you do to correct
that? I assume that would be---
Mr. LODGE. Well, I'd talk to the Secretary
of the Treasury about that.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, you said this last
week that you thought it would be intolerable for Cuba to become a base
for international communism. Do you feel that it is not now such a base,
and what would you do about it?
Mr. LODGE. I don't think it is at present
an active base of Communist imperialism. No, I don't. I think if that happens
that the members of the Organization of American States will have to deal
with it. I am opposed to our dealing with Cuba on these things unilaterally.
I think it's very bad psychology for a great big powerful English-speaking
country like us to deal directly. I think it's better for the Spanish-speaking
countries in Latin America to deal, as I think they are doing. I think
future historians may well say that the turning point in the Cuban crisis
came when we got it into the Organization of American States.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, this past week Khrushchev
at the United Nations made a proposal for a special General Assembly that
would deal only with disarmament. This would come some time after you and
Mr. Nixon would be in office, if you were elected.
How would you treat such a proposal?
Mr. LODGE. Well, we are always ready to talk
about disarmament. One of my last official acts in August was to get a
meeting of the Disarmament Commission and try to get a - and succeeded
in getting a resolution through urging the powers to start talking. Now,
when I offered this motion, the Soviets let it be known around the building
that they would boycott the meeting if it were held. So then it was held,
and they came. Then they let it be known that they'd vote against the resolution.
Well, the resolution came up and they didn't vote against it, they voted
for it.
Mr. NOVINS. Well, do you think the Assembly
is a logical place to have such a meeting, or would you prefer the smaller
groups, either the 10-man Commission or some new Commission?
Mr. LODGE. Well, as a practical matter, if
you - if you had a meeting of the Disarmament Commission, which is all
the nations of the U.N., you know, or the Assembly, which is roughly the
same thing, there is nothing to stop a group of two, one or two or three
nations from meeting in a committee room or meeting up in the Waldorf,
trying to get an agreement.
Mr. LEE. Mr. Lodge, if I may change the subject,
sir, you've been talking quite a lot this week and earlier in your campaign
about civil rights. And you suggested that Dr. Ralph Bunche would be an
excellent Ambassador to the Soviet Union. And you suggested also that this
would give some of the new and underdeveloped nations, where there are
many colored people - proof that we do not talk out of - proof that we
do practice what we preach, as you put it. Don't you think it would be
even more proof if, say, there were a Negro member of the Cabinet?
Mr. LODGE. Yes.
Mr. LEE. Would you suggest that to Mr. Nixon?
Mr. LODGE. I'd like to see that, myself. I'd
like to see that. Well, I wouldn't hesitate to do it at the proper time.
I don't - I think Mr. Nixon very rightly doesn't believe in talking Cabinet
before election. I think that's a good thing to do after you are elected.
Mr. LEE. Well, you are talking ambassadors,
sir.
Mr. LODGE. I know I am, but I am just giving
my own personal views, but I'd like to see a Negro in the Cabinet very,
very much.
Mr. LEE. Do you have anybody in mind who might
be suitable?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I haven't got a precise candidate,
but I will say right now that I think Ralph Bunche is one of the three
or four greatest living Americans; leaving out any question of race, I
think he's a credit to all of us. What he did in Palestine, what he has
done in the Congo is of the very highest quality, and one of the reasons
that our young men of military age are not facing a second Korea in the
Congo is because of Ralph Bunche, and I think it's tremendous.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, as a Senator you voted
against crop insurance for wheat farmers, against 90 percent of parity,
and for a hundred million dollar cut in soil conservation. I wonder, are
your views now the same as they were then?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I think Senator Kennedy and
I voted more or less the same on those questions, as Senators from Massachusetts.
And, with the passage of the years, I have grown to see the solidarity
of interest that there is between the farmer and the city man more than
I did then.
Mr. MACNEIL. On a point, another problem before
the electorate is the question of school construction. On this you and
Senator Kennedy disagreed in your votes. You voted for a $300 million program
and for the use of that fund for the purchase of textbooks and bus service
in parochial and private schools. Do you still support that?
Mr. LODGE. Yes. I - if you are taking a private
schoolboy into the Army and a public schoolboy into the Army to operate
a guided missile, you want the private schoolboy to be just as good at
mathematics as the public schoolboy; you want him to be just as healthy,
if the public schoolboy gets glasses, he ought to get glasses; if the public
schoolboy gets a hot lunch, so should the private schoolboy. As far as
the United States is concerned, in this national defense, in this moment
of crisis, the - it draws no line between the private schoolboy and the
public schoolboy.
Mr. MACNEIL. On this point, sir, objection
has been made to use of Federal funds on two points: (1) For the payment
of teachers' salaries, and (2) on the use of any funds for any religious
denomination.
Mr. LODGE. Well, I would believe, in the first
instance, certainly to limit your Federal financial help to school construction,
realizing that that would liberate local funds for teachers' salaries.
Mr. LEE. When you say "first instance," do
you mean that it might be necessary to - pay teachers' salaries later?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I'm not going to foreclose
myself, I will take a - as I say, 2 years then I'd take another look at
it. I am not going to foreclose myself for all eternity.
Mr. LEE. You are not disturbed, then, about
the moral aspects of it as an invasion---
Mr. LODGE. Well, I - I think it's better -
yes, I do think, I am somewhat concerned about that, I do think it's better
to keep the control of how teaching shall be done, and all that, local.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, I am a little curious.
As Mr. MacNeil pointed out, that one of your votes while you were a Senator
was in favor of Federal - the use of Federal money for the purchase of
textbooks to be used in schools. I can't understand why that is moral and
paying teachers' salaries somehow is immoral. How do you draw the line?
Mr. LODGE. I didn't - I've never - you've
used the word "moral." I haven't. You are trying to put a word in my mouth.
Mr. NOVINS. I don't want to do that. Let's
just---
Mr. LODGE. I never brought the word "moral"
into it at all.
Mr. NOVINS. All right.
Mr. LODGE. But what I say is that when a motion
is before me, as a U.S. Senator, on a program that involves the distribution
of textbooks, to exclude the children in private schools, I say, no, I
say that the United States of America has the same interest in a private
school child, knowing his arithmetic, as it has in a public school child.
Mr. NOVINS. I wasn't raising the question---
Mr. LODGE. There wasn't any question of morality.
Mr. NOVINS. I am not raising the question
between private schools and public schools, I am raising the question of
the use of Federal funds for the purchase of textbooks. As opposed to funds
for teachers.
Mr. LODGE. The textbooks would be decided
on locally.
Mr. NOVINS. I beg your pardon, sir.
Mr. LODGE. Under that legislation, the textbooks
would be - what the textbooks were, wouldn't, were not to be decided on
federally.
Mr. NOVINS. Well, wouldn't teachers be decided
the same way?
Mr. LODGE. Well, doesn't---
Mr. NOVINS. Isn't the selection of teachers
local, and the guidance of teachers local ?
Mr. LODGE. That's right; that's right. And
the decision on textbooks is local and the construction of schools is local
and the child is local, but the Federal money goes to the buildings and
doesn't go to the teachers.
Mr. LEE. Is it your point, then, that it really
doesn't matter much where the money comes from, so long as the facilities
are made?
Mr. LODGE. No; I think it's better, as I said,
and I am not going to be twisted out of this---
Mr. LEE. I am not trying to twist it, sir;
I am not quite sure---
Mr. LODGE. It's better in the first instance
to use Federal funds for buildings and to liberate the Federal - liberate
the local money for teachers' salaries.
Mr. LEE. And with a 2-year cutoff, before
you take another look.
Mr. LODGE. Well, I'll take another look -
listen, under our system of government, we take a new look at everything
every 2 years because we have a brand new Congress every 2 years.
Mr. MACNEIL. Mr. Lodge, Vice President Nixon
has said that Senator Kennedy is immature and naive. Do you feel on the
basis of the past two public debates they had on television that either
Senator Kennedy or the Vice President is naive or immature?
Mr. LODGE. Well, that involves a question
of adjectives. I think that - I think that Vice President Nixon showed
a much greater sureness of touch on these great foreign policy questions.
Mr. MACNEIL. He appears to have lost the first
debate, however.
Mr. LODGE. I don't know how you tell who wins
or who loses. You are asking me what I think, and then you are telling
me what you think, and I am interested in what you think but I'll tell
you what I think.
What I think is that Vice President Nixon
showed a greater sureness of touch. I think Senator Kennedy in the past
has shown a tendency to take what the Communists say at face value, which
I think is a mistake. I think when Mr. Khrushchev says he's breaking off
the summit because of the U-2 incident, you can be sure that it isn't because
of the U-2 incident that he's breaking off the summit. Senator Kennedy
tended to accept that.
I think that Vice President Nixon has shown
more talent, more ability, more maturity on foreign policy questions; I'll
put it that way. Now, that doesn't mean that I think Senator Kennedy is
immature or naive, I just think that Vice President Nixon has got---
Mr. MACNEIL. You would disagree, then, with
the Vice President on that point?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I don't know what he said,
and I am not going to say I am not going to comment on what the Vice President
said, even though I have great admiration for you, simply on what you say
that he said. I would like to see what he said before I comment on it.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, you have spoken high
words of praise while you are here in California for Chief Justice Warren
and for the school segregation decision of the Supreme Court. You have
also spoken at other times about the importance of not having segregation
in this country in terms of international reactions. I wonder what you
would do, sir, to implement more than a token implementation of the Supreme
Court decision, if you and Mr. Nixon are elected?
Mr. LODGE. Well, I would - I would treat it
as an urgent matter, that every human being in this country be treated
on their individual merits, regardless of any consideration of race, creed
or color. And I would do it not simply as a matter of good international
politics, not simply because four-fifths of human beings are not of the
white race, and judge us that way, not simply to win the competition with
the Communists, although it would help us, I favor doing it because our
national purpose is that all men are created equal and we ought to want
to carry out our national purpose, whether there were any Communists or
whether there were not.
Mr. NOVINS. Well, does this involve any specific
acts of the Federal Government that you could foresee?
Mr. LODGE. It involves - it involves legislation,
it involves action by the Executive, it involves all the things that need
to be done.
Mr. NOVINS. Do you think a Republican administration
could get it with a Democratic Congress?
Mr. LODGE. They could have a much better chance
because Vice President Nixon is a man of tremendous intellectual force,
great persuasive capacity, his party is united on this issue; the Democratic
Congress, where there were 2 to 1 majority, with both the leaders there,
were unable to get anything done at all. So you can only conclude that
the leaders have no followers.
Mr. NOVINS. Mr. Lodge, thank you very much
indeed for coming here to face the Nation.
Thanks also to today's news correspondents
To Neil MacNeil, of Time Magazine; and to
Robert E. Lee, of the Ridder Publications.
This is Stuart Novins.
Next week there will be no television version
of "Face the Nation."
We invite you to join us 2 weeks from now
at this same time.
Our program today originated in the studios
of KPIX, San Francisco.
ANNOUNCER. "Face the Nation" was produced
by Michael J. Marlow. Associated in production, Norman Gorin. Directed
by Bill Linden.
Today you saw the Republican Vice Presidential
candidate, Henry Cabot Lodge, face the Nation. Bill Harpel speaking.
"Face the Nation," which will be seen Monday evenings
beginning November 14, has been a public affairs presentation of CBS News.