REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON,
NATIONAL TELETHON, ABC NETWORK, SOUTHFIELD,
MICH.,
NOVEMBER 7, 1960
Vice President NIXON. Good afternoon to everybody
in the East, in the Midwest, in the South, and good morning to those who
are still on Pacific time in California and the West.
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity
to visit with you through this telethon. I realize that many of you have
favorite programs at this time, but it seemed that this was an opportunity
which we could not miss to allow, for the first time in the history of
American politics, the American people to question a candidate for the
Presidency; and consequently we have scheduled 4 hours of telethon today,
as you probably have been told by your announcer. I will not go into the
details. I understand that they will indicate to you where you can call
and how you can get your questions in to our moderators so they will be
asked of me during the course of the program.
I would like to say a word with regard to
what I've been doing the last few days. I suppose, of course, you've been
reading about it, but I would say, first of all, that this has been and
will be the busiest last day of campaigning of any campaign in America's
political history.
I flew down from Alaska last night - in fact,
we flew all night - and we started this morning with a meeting in Madison,
Wis. I just returned from a great meeting here in Detroit at the Ford Auditorium,
with a tremendous overflow crowd and a downtown motorcade.
And after we finish this 4-hour telethon,
I'm going to fly to Chicago to appear there on the final election eve broadcast.
On that broadcast, incidentally, I will appear with President Eisenhower
and with Cabot Lodge, and I think our families also will be present on
that broadcast.
Then after that, the day is still not over.
We will fly on out to California and we'll be welcomed there with a torchlight
parade at the Ontario, Calif. Airport. So you can see it has been a rather
busy day.
I also would like to tell you just a word
about the intensity of the campaign itself. When I visited Alaska and spoke
there yesterday, this was, in a real sense, a historic occasion. This is
the first time in the history of the United States that any candidate,
either Republican or Democrat, has visited all the 50 states. Of course,
President Eisenhower couldn't have done that because there were only 48
States when he ran in 1952 and 1956. But this year I have visited all 50,
and I am the only candidate of the two running who has done so.
It's been a great experience, an experience
that I will never regret because it gives an opportunity to a candidate
to see all of the States of this country, to know the problems of the Nation,
and then be able better to understand those problems.
As I have traveled through the country, incidentally,
I find that our people are much more united on the views that they have
with regard to what leadership they want in Washington than you would imagine.
Normally, you know, we think that people in the North think differently
than people from the South and the East and the West and so forth, that
we are rather sectionalminded. But I find, for example, whether it is in
Hawaii or in Maine, people are concerned about such issues as the peace
of the world, how we keep the peace, how we extend freedom, extend it without
war. I find that's true North, East, West, and South, that that is the
overriding issue of the campaign.
I find also that, as far as our people are
concerned, the interest in this campaign is perhaps higher than in any
in which I have ever participated or any that I can recall in America's
history, and I think this is good.
I think that certainly we always have bad
government whenever it's government in which people do not participate
- participate adequately.
And the fact that so many thousands of people
- hundreds of thousands or, for that matter, millions of people have come
out to see both me and Senator Kennedy I think is an indication that the
American people have a real interest and concern about their Government,
and the decision they make tomorrow will be a decision that they make rather
than one that's been dictated by simply a party label or one that is dictated
by some organization to which they belong. And that's the last point I
make before we have the questions.
If there's one thing I can emphasize above
everything else, it is that this is such an important election, since we
are selecting not only the President of the United States but the leader
of the free world, that it is vital, absolutely vital that we put America
first rather than party first, that we put America first above every other
consideration and that you, the voters of this country, think not in terms
of, for example, the, party label I wear and you wear.
If you are a Republican and I'm a Republican,
that isn't enough reason to vote for me, and the same is true of my opponent:
If you are a Democrat and he is a Democrat, that isn't enough reason to
vote for him. What we need is the best. man that either party can produce
in these times.
And that is my message to you as we open this
historic telethon. And now I am ready for the questions, and I think one
of our moderators is ready to step into the set for the purpose of asking
the questions.
QUESTION. This first one is a telegram from
Ralph Miller. Incidentally, I feel it is obviously unnecessary to explain
the detail of the procedure to you, but I think for the benefit of those
at home and those who will be calling later, the moderator will read the
question and then the question will be handed to you.
This is from Ralph Miller, in Carmi, Ind.,
and the question is:
Would you use a veto in the United
Nations Security Council to prevent the admission of Red China to the U.N.?
Vice President NIXON. Well, to Mr. Ralph Miller,
my answer to this question is that I certainly would use the veto in the
Security Council under present circumstances.
Let me put it this way: We cannot say at this
time that Communist China will never qualify for admission to the United
Nations, but at this time it is engaging in acts which disqualify it from
admission to this organization. For example, I think many of us forget
often that the United Nations Charter has a specific provision indicating
that it is an organization of peace-loving peoples.
Of course, some people will say, "Well, now,
if that's the case, how did the Soviet Union get in?"
And the answer, of course, is they were charter
members.
Now, Communist China simply can't qualify
as a member of the United Nations as a peace-loving country. It can't qualify
because it at the present time is in defiance of the United Nations in
Korea. That is why our American boys are still tied down there.
It is in defiance of the United Nations in
the Formosa Straits where it is, in effect, waging military action against
a member of the United Nations.
We know the story of Tibet.
Well, taking one example that is very close
to home, to people here in the United States, they still, violating all
canons of international law, keep prisoners, civilians from the United
States, and we've been negotiating with them for years, as a matter of
fact, to get them to change their policies.
And so this is my answer: That until the Chinese
Communist Government changes its policies, until it in effect cleanses
itself of its present deficiencies, we could under no circumstances agree
to its admission to the U.N.
And although I would be reluctant to use the
veto, because America has never used it, I think that the principle is
so important here that we would have to use it to keep a nation out that
simply can't qualify as a peace-loving nation.
QUESTION. Thank you, sir. These first, by
the way, are telegrams. I only mention that to indicate that the telephone
messages haven't been compiled as yet.
This is from Mr. and Mrs. Earl V. Fisher,
Monroe, La. Question
It is our considered opinion that
Kennedy refused to buy Telethon time not because he does not have the money
but because he would not have adequate time to retract his imprudent answers.
Do you concur?
Vice President NIXON. Well, of course that's a
rather leading question.
QUESTION. It certainly is.
Vice President NIXON. I don't know what was
in his mind for not buying the telethon time, but I would only suggest
that this is the first time I ever heard that Senator Kennedy didn't have
the money to get what he wanted. I would suggest that's not the real reason.
QUESTION. No, I would imagine not.
This is from Chauncey Williams and Bradley
A. Walker, Stamford, Conn.:
We have two questions which we consider
basic to this Nation's future. In over 180 years our Nation has grown from
a wilderness colony to the most powerful nation on the earth. We all know
that this great demonstration has come from free men working together in
freedom. This reflects the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, one of whom,
Thomas Jefferson, said: "The best government is the least government."
Do you believe this is true? Also, do you
believe that big government means small people?
Secondly, do you agree that President Eisenhower,
having established himself as the world's leader of all nations and the
hope of all mankind - would you be willing during these troubled times
to appoint President Eisenhower as an adviser to your cabinet on international
relations and as a world ambassador at large to assist your government
in our international relations?
I am sure that we reflect the prayers and
thoughts of millions of Americans in declaring yourself favorably on these
questions.
QUESTION. It is quite a long one.
Vice President NIXON. Yes. That would require
quite a long answer too, if I could adequately answer it in the time that
we have.
Let me just touch the high points, because
it does certainly deserve some response on these very key questions.
First I would say with regard to the quote
from Thomas Jefferson that I'm very proud of the fact that the platform
that my party adopted at Chicago is basically much closer to the philosophy
of Thomas Jefferson than the platform which was adopted by the Democratic
Party at Los Angeles.
Their platform went all the way toward centralized
big
government, toward having lack of good faith in individuals, toward weakening
the States and weakening the responsibilities of local government.
It is my philosophy now, and it is the philosophy
of our platform, that the Federal Government has great responsibilities,
but that the closer you can keep government to the people, the better,
and that wherever possible you should let individuals do for themselves
rather than requiring government or having government move in.
QUESTION. This is from Dr. J. T. Denoski,
Benton, Ill.
Explain why it would be dangerous
to lower prevailing interest rates. Do big interest rates favor big money
people as Kennedy says?
Vice President NIXON. Well, the problem of interest
rates, of course, is one that is tremendously complicated and one that
it is very easy to demagog on. For example, Senator Kennedy has said over
and over again in this campaign that we should have low interest rates,
but what does he mean, 3 percent, 2 percent, 1 percent?
When you carry it to its logical extreme,
why have any interest rates at all, why not just let the people borrow
money with no interest? You see what I mean?
In other words, interest is the cost of borrowing
money, and that cost must vary according to how much money is in circulation,
what the demand is, and if you get the Government, and I am speaking particularly
now of the President of the United States, manipulating interest rates
for political purposes, you will then find that the value of your money
is going to go down.
Let me put it another way: Too often, I think,
that when we are in government we talk in terms of these theoretical concepts
and fail to illustrate, but think back a moment. You remember the Truman
years. Up until 1951 Mr. Truman had the power to, in effect, manipulate
interest rates through political control of the Federal Reserve System.
Now when he exercised that power, and as he exercised it, the result was
disastrous for the country, because that was one of the major factors in
reducing the value of our dollar in that period. You remember.
In the period from 1945 to 1952, the 7 Truman
years, the value of the dollar went down 50 percent. This was the cruelest
thing that possibly could have been done to, particularly, people who lived
on fixed incomes. I know, for example, people on pensions, on social security,
as you must, who suffered terribly because their income stayed the same
and yet the money, what their income would buy, went down. It was also
cruel as far as the wage earner was concerned. For example, in the 7 Truman
years we found that wages went up, but, on the other hand, we found that,
as far as real income is concerned, the wage earner at the end of 7 years
was no better than at the beginning, because prices went up just as much.
Now one of the reasons for this inflation,
one of the reasons was the interest rates were manipulated and kept at
artificially low levels. When you do that, that means that the money supply
is increased beyond the point that it should be, and that means that you
are going to have inflation.
The other reason, of course, was that. Mr.
Truman had a policy of deficit spending - the Government spending more
than it took in - and this also inflates the currency and reduces the value
of your dollars; so just to summarize, I have taken a little more time
on this because it is a very controversial issue and one that is difficult
to understand. After all, I want to be elected just as Senator Kennedy
does. If he says that he is for 3-percent interest rates, why wouldn't
I say I was for 2 ? The reason I don't, I know it is bad for you, I know
it is bad for the people particularly on fixed incomes; I know it is bad
particularly for those who are wage earners who are trying to balance the
family budget, and I can assure you that, as far as I can, as President
of the United States, I am going to adopt the kind of policies that are
sound and that will avoid inflating the dollars, and that means reducing
the value of what you earn and what you are able to buy.
QUESTION. The next question is a telegram
from Kenneth Plummer, R.F.D. 2, Casanovia, N.Y.:
If elected, will the policy of buying
Cuban sugar at world or subsidized price be endorsed by you in 1901 ?
Vice President NIXON. This question, incidentally,
reminds me of one of the benefits of this kind of a program, Lloyd. This
word that you had a little difficulty with, Casanovia, that is one of those
cities that I have never been in. I thought I had been in virtually every
city in the United States, so this gives a chance to people who normally
wouldn't get to some of our meetings to question and see the candidates
in person.
Now, with regard to the buying of Cuban sugar,
as you know, up until the time Castro began to adopt his anti-American
policies, Cuban sugar was subsidized by about 2 cents a pound. The reason
for that was we wanted to assure the United States having a constant sugar
supply.
Now when Castro began his anti-American policies,
and I mean by that his confiscation of our properties in that area, of
the properties of our private individuals who are American citizens, and
his very violent attacks on the President and on the American Government
itself, the Congress very properly, at the instigation of the President,
and upon his recommendation, took away this subsidy, so I would say briefly
here that if Castro and/or whatever government succeeds him, changes its
attitude, then we will change our attitude with regard to Cuban sugar,
but as long as Castro takes the attitude that he does, of violent opposition
to everything we stand for, I certainly don't want to have the American
people paying 2 cents a pound extra for sugar in order to help a man who
is really an enemy of the United States.
QUESTION. This is a telegram from Chauncey
Williams and Bradley A. Walker, Stratford, Conn.
We have two questions which we consider
basic to this Nation's future. In over 180 years our Nation has grown from
a wilderness colony to the most powerful nation on the earth. We all know
that this great demonstration has come from freemen working together in
freedom. This reflects the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, one of whom,
Thomas Jefferson, said: "The best government is the least government."
Do you believe this is true? Also, do you believe that big government means
small people? Secondly, do you agree that President Eisenhower, having
established himself as the world's leader of all free nations and the hope
of all mankind, would you be willing, during these troubled times, to appoint
President Eisenhower as an adviser to your Cabinet on international relations
and as a world ambassador at large to assist your government in our international
relations? I am sure that we reflect the prayers and thoughts of millions
of Americans in declaring yourself favorable on these questions.
Vice President NIXON. That is a question, incidentally,
that we got on the previous part of the program, but which you very properly
reread, because I didn't get to answer but about a third of it because
of the time cutoff. I did answer the question with regard to Thomas Jefferson,
and indicated I was proud of the fact that my party represents the true
principles of Thomas Jefferson as stated, that the best government is the
least government, certainly in the broad sense; recognizing the fact that
government has some very real and great responsibilities. Responsibilities,
for example, in the field of national defense, responsibilities, for example,
with regard to the economy, in putting, certainly, a floor as far as security
is concerned, but no ceiling on opportunity.
If I might sum up in a few words, my general
economic philosophy, but when we look at the problem of President Eisenhower,
the second part of the question, I certainly believe that whoever is the
next President should make use of President Eisenhower's tremendous popularity
and his talents in the international field. He is a man of infinite good
will. There are some men who have this almost mystical quality of being
able to command when he goes to other countries an affection which simply
exceeds our bounds, and I would say that it would be a very great mistake
if President Eisenhower were not used to the full. I have discussed it
with him. He will be available for some journeys abroad, particularly to
the Iron Curtain countries. I have already discussed that, and he is willing
to do that, and I would also think that his advice ought to be sought.
I would seek it, and I would hope that if I did not win that my opponent
would seek it, because he is one of the wisest men that we have in the
world today, and he has been through so much experience that his advice
would be extremely helpful in any international crisis.
Vice President NIXON. I just find, Cabot,
I have a question for you. They just rushed it in here. It says: "On TV
your children looked happy and very lovely. As a successful parent and
future President" - wait, this isn't for you; this is for me - "please
tell us how we can inspire our children with the important goals they can
achieve."
I will answer that later. Let's see where
the questions are for Cabot Lodge.
Let me ask you one. What do you find to be
the issue that most concerns the American people at the present time as
you travel in your campaign ? What issue above all the rest?
Mr. LODGE. What concerns people the most is
peace. I think they are tremendously grateful for the fact that we have
had no U.S. battle casualty since President Eisenhower brought the Korean
war to an end.
Whenever I mention the fact that we have a
United Nations force in the Congo, so that young Americans of military
age today are not thinking about going to the Congo the way they were thinking
about going to Korea in 1950, people always express great approval.
I think the people realize that the President
of the United States has control over weapons which could devastate the
earth, that he makes decisions which affect every human being in the world,
and that they want a man who is mature, who is deliberate, who is contemplative,
who is studious, and who approaches these questions never in a spirit of
rashness or impulse or impetuousness.
That I think is what they want, and that is
the feeling that I get from having campaigned vigorously all over this
country.
Vice President NIXON. I find exactly the same
thing as I have been traveling around the country. I, as you know, just
completed 50 States, Alaska yesterday, and I couldn't agree more that that
is the problem of greatest concern.
I find, too, however, that while our people
want peace, they are most interested in not simply keeping the situation
as it is, with this terrible threat and danger hanging over us. The people,
in other words, want us to take the initiative; too, shall we say, encourage
and to strengthen the instruments of peace, the instruments of freedom
around the world.
And I know that you and I have discussed this,
and as you know I intend to give you some responsibilities in this field.
I wonder if you would tell some of our listeners
just briefly what you think we can do with regard to strengthening the
United Nations and the American position generally in winning the peace
and in removing the terrible danger of war which hangs over us at the present
time.
Mr. LODGE. I think the people look to the
U.S. Government not only to keep the peace and prevent the Communists from
extending their power, but to lead the world up onto a high plateau, a
new high ground, where the cold war will be behind us and where lasting
peace will be established on a dependable basis, so the people won't be
living their lives under the shadow of the fear of war all the time.
Now there are many ways to get at that, but
certainly we must be stronger in America - militarily strong, economically
strong, strong in making our democratic institutions work for the benefit
of the people, strong in the example which we set to the world that we
practice what we preach.
We can build up the power and the influence
of the United Nations in many ways. Certainly one way is the administration
of economic aid abroad on a multilateral international basis.
I think you could increase the number of United
Nations guards, which could be very useful at trouble spots.
Then, I think what you have in mind, which
is to given the Vice President the direction of the nonmilitary aspects
of the world struggle, could put us in a position to get a quick position
on matters involving many different Government departments. This in turn
would enable us to take the initiative and put the Soviets on the defensive.
It would put us in a better position to get
quick agreements with our allies, and generally to seize and to hold the
initiative as long as the Soviet Union insists on forcing this cold war
on us. I believe that eventually we are going to end this cold war, and
we will end it through the power of our ideals, with our military and our
economic strength, of course, always in the background.
Vice President NIXON. Well, I certainly couldn't
agree more, and I have often said during the course of this campaign that
it would be presumptuous for me to talk about my own qualifications as
against my opponent. But I can certainly talk about my vice-presidential
running mate.
To all of those who are viewing or listening
in this audience, I believe you will agree that no one could have done
a better job than Cabot Lodge has done for America in the last 7½
years, fighting for the cause of peace and freedom at the United Nations.
That's why I don't intend to let him
be a Throttlebottom. That's why I intend to give him even more duties than
President Eisenhower has given me, particularly in this international field.
Because I am confident that he, working just
as much as he possibly can - on a full-time basis, at times, incidentally
- will be able to negotiate to take the initiative, not just to keep things
as they are, but to take the initiative to extend freedom and to strengthen
the instruments of peace.
There's only one thing I would add in this
respect. As we take this initiative, we must remember that we have a lot
of people on our side. I have often said that when we consider our problems
in the world, we sometimes overlook those factors that are favorable to
our cause.
Sure, there are world leaders - the Communist
leaders in Russia, the Communist leaders in China - who are determined
to conquer the world by any means, if possible; by war, even, if necessary.
Now, on the other hand, we have to bear in
mind that as far as the people are concerned - and I can speak certainly
of the people of the Soviet Union, the people of Poland, two Communist
countries that I have visited - there isn't any question but that they
are on the side of peace. They want peace.
And we in America must be very careful always
to identify the leaders and separate them from the people. The Russian
people, in my opinion, are a peace-loving people.
I think that's one of the restraining influences,
incidentally, on Mr. Khrushchev. One of the reasons why he cannot be even
more belligerent than he is, is that his people do not want war; they do
not want it under any circumstances. They have seen it, they have suffered
from it. Every place I went in Russia I was very touched to have veterans
of World War II come up and in some instances throw their arms around me
and say, "We are for peace. We want friendship with America. We want friendship
with all the world."
These are common citizens, ordinary citizens,
not Communist leaders that I'm talking about. So it means something. It
means that we, as far as our principles are concerned, are on the right
side, because the people are on our side.
And, with this factor going for us, if we
simply represent the ideals of people at their best, we can win this struggle
- win it, and win it without war.
QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, I do have several
questions for Mr. Lodge here.
Mrs. Charles A. Potter, 345 Roosevelt Place,
Grosse Pointe 30, Mich.; housewife.
Isn't it true that the prestige of
the United States was at its lowest in 1917, 1941, and 1950 when aggressors
attacked the United States?
Mr. LODGE. I would say to Mrs. Potter that our
prestige was very, very high on VJ Day. Then we had this hasty demobilization
of the Army and the withdrawal of the Army from Europe, which I think everyone
all recognizes to have been a great mistake, and the Soviets came in and
filled up the gap, and that raised their prestige by that, amount.
Then, in 1949, the Soviet exploded the atomic
bomb, which of course was a gain for them; and then in 1952 they developed
the nuclear warhead.
Since then I think our prestige has been going
up, partly because our military strength is known to be so great that it
would inflict total devastation on any country that chose to attack us.
And then I think there is confidence that
our word is good, that our motives are noble, and I think there's great
respect for us.
There isn't any better place in the world
to determine the prestige of the United States than the United Nations,
where you have the representatives of all the governments of the world
- carefully selected men, men with long experience in international politics
- and it is an interesting fact that the United States has never been defeated
in the United Nations.
It is an interesting fact that even on extremely
delicate questions, like the complaints of Cuba, for example, or the RB-47
reconnaissance case, the Afro-Asian members of the council, the so-called
neutralists, uncommitted countries, voted with us. That simply wouldn't
be possible if our prestige was low.
Prestige and popularity are not the same thing.
When the Communists foment a riot against one of our officials in some
foreign country, it doesn't mean that our prestige is low. It means that
the Communists don't like us. That's an entirely different thing.
You can easily avoid having the Communists
do that if you follow the foreign policy which the Communists like, but
of course in that case our opponents would accuse us of appeasing the Communists.
So the question of popularity doesn't come into it.
A country as big and as strong as we are cannot
expect to be loved, but it can expect to be respected - and we are greatly
respected.
QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, I have a question
from Mr. Dan Griffin in Flint, Mich. He identifies himself as a factory
worker. His question is:
What will you do to try to avoid a depression?
Vice President NIXON. Well, let me say, first,
to Mr. Griffin, that I think we ought to set the record straight about
whether we are going to have a recession or a depression. When I was here
in Detroit, just a few days ago, I was rather shocked to see a headline,
a headline - when I was in Michigan, I should say, I was not in Detroit,
I was in upper Michigan - I saw a headline to the effect that Senator Kennedy
predicted a slump, and that later on he made a statement to the effect
that he would consult or be willing to consult, if he was elected President,
to consult with President Eisenhower as to how to handle this slump or
recession if one should come. Now, that is a very roundabout way of reasoning
on a very, very serious subject.
But in the very same paper in which he predicted
a slump, there was another headline saying that new car sales were at an
alltime high in the United States.
Now, my friends, you have a recession or a
slump when? When people lose confidence in the economy, when they quit
buying cars and refrigerators and everything else. When people have confidence,
when they are buying, this means that you don't fear a recession. Somebody
is wrong here. Either Senator Kennedy, who is predicting the slump, or
millions of Americans who are buying more new cars than ever in history.
Who are buying more, investing more, saving more than at any other time
in history.
My answer to Mr. Griffin, one, is that there
is not going to be a recession;
Two, no political candidate is going to talk
this country into a recession. The people have confidence in it; and
Three, as far as I am concerned, I would use
the full force of the Government, if we did have evidences of a business
downturn, to fight this slump. We can't go into detail on it, but to fight
it, fight it effectively, because I know what it means, I know what it
means to families when they are out of work, I know what it means when
families do not have enough income, and under no circumstances would I
fail to use the fiscal powers of the Government, particularly the taxing
powers and every other possible power to see to it that we did the necessary
things that would avoid a slump in the United States.
I want to make it clear again to Mr. Griffin,
we are talking about a theoretical recession. There is none now, and there
isn't going to be one, in my opinion.
QUESTION: This is from Mr. Harry Lipper, Hollis,
Long Island, N.Y.:
Will social security be increased in 1960-61
?
Vice President NIXON. I don't know what Mr. Lipper
means by being increased. I do know this, that I have a program, a program
which I announced a few days ago as part of my campaign plan for extending
social security coverage to approximately 2 million people not presently
covered, and also to increase the benefits for certain categories, particularly
widows, where there at present is an inequity in the system. As to whether
or not there would be an increase in the benefits voted by the Congress,
we could not say at this point.
I would say finally that certainly we should
increase social security benefits as the economy continues to grow and
as we have the funds available for that purpose, because all of us in this
country want to see to it that, as we reach retirement age, we are able
to live easily, and certainly I couldn't have a stronger feeling on that.
That is why I am for extending the program to the 2 million not presently
covered, and I want to say, incidentally, on that score my opponent has
no program, for extending social security.
One other point I want to make on this score,
John, social security is something that most Americans have investments
in, and there is one thing that we all have to remember, and that is what
would wreck social security, what would wreck pensions, what would wreck
our futures is for the Government to break faith with the American people
and allow the value of the dollar to go down as it did during the Truman
years. I am not going to let that happen.
My opponent's program, unfortunately, of huge
Government spending, of artificially paid low-interest rates will inevitably
result in reducing the value of every social security check. I think this
is wrong. I think this is cruel, that's why I oppose it.
QUESTION. This one is from Alfred Ball, Jr.,
Willow Grove, Pa. He says:
What is your stand as far as helping
small businesses?
Vice President NIXON. To Mr. Ball I have announced
a program for small business which, on a program of this type, wouldn't
be possible to go into detail. Let me indicate, first, how I feel about
the subject generally.
You know each of us in political life has
certain, what you might call, pet ideas and assistance to small business
is one idea that I have always had a strong feeling on, because I came
from a small business. My father had a small grocery store, a general store
and service station.
I think small business is the lifeblood of
a free economy. I think it's essential that we do everything we can to
see to it that small business isn't choked out.
There are several things that can be done.
One, of course, you have to have fair but certainly effective enforcements
of the antitrust laws so you do not have big business choking out small
business.
Second, you have to have tag and credit policies
by Government which will particularly enable small business to move forward.
Third, small business has got to get its fair
share of Government contracts.
Fourth, I think it's essential, as far as
small business is concerned, that we think of what we can do, what we can
do generally to encourage our, people to invest their money in small business
as well as the big businesses, and in this respect I have announced programs
that I think will be effective on that score.
All in all, let me say this: Small business
has fared extremely well in this administration. It is going to fare better
in the next one, because we have a farsighted, aggressive program in this
field. It's one that I could not have a deeper conviction on, because I
believe, if our economy is going to continue to be free, if it's going
to continue to grow, we have got to constantly feed in the lifeblood of
the new ideas which only small business can adequately provide.
QUESTION. From Mr. or Mrs. Leon Chapin, 907
Davison, Tuscoma, Ala. She asks
Are you for or against the TVA ?
Vice President NIXON. Well, that's an easy question.
I am for the TVA. I am for reclamation projects generally. I think the
Federal Government has a responsibility to see to it that the vast resources
of America are adequately developed. Now, that doesn't mean that the Federal
Government does the whole job. Where the job can be done by private enterprise
more efficiently, then it should be done by private enterprise. Where the
best job can be done by State government more efficiently, then it should
be done by State government. Where the Federal Government is the only instrumentality
that is big enough to do the job, then it ought to do it.
TVA is a project of that type. I am not only
for it, I voted for it, and I should point out, incidentally, that my opponent,
coming as he does from New England, has consistently opposed the TVA and
reclamation projects. He says he is for it now, and I take him at his word.
Coming from the West, I am for reclamation, and we westerners have a very
strong feeling about the responsibilities of the Federal Government to
develop our national resources.
QUESTION. This one is from Dr. William R.
Delzel, Stamford, Conn. It says:
Kennedy offers no help to retired and needy
doctors because they do not have social security. Will your social security
plan include aid to aged and needy physicians?
Vice President NIXON. I don't quite get the
point of this question, but let me guess what the doctor means.
There are two plans for medical care for the
aged. First is the Kennedy plan. The Kennedy plan provides that all people
on social security who have social security will be required to buy compulsory
health insurance. Now, the difficulty with that plan, however, is that
it leaves out about 3 million people in this country who don't have social
security. They get no protection at all. These are people over 65.
My plan for medical care for the aged covers
all people, not just those on social security. It covers all people over
65. But it is not compulsory. It makes it possible for anybody, including
Dr. Delzel or anybody else who wants health insurance, to get it, but it
does not require him to have insurance against his will.
This is the American way to do it. I think
it is a much more effective way. It's a broader program. We provide more
benefits, and I'm particularly glad to get this question because there
is no more vicious statement that's been made in this campaign by Senator
Kennedy and some of his colleagues than that we oppose medical care for
the aged.
It is they who have an inadequate program.
They don't even take care of the 3 million people who in many instances
need medical care, medical insurance after 65.
We have a program that covers everybody and
covers it more adequately. And so I say we're for it and they're against
it, if we want to put it in black and white.
QUESTION. The next question is from Samuel
Funk, Illinois, and I believe the town is Hammond. He identifies himself
as a farmer:
What will be done to get rid of the
farm surpluses, to get the farmer out of the price squeeze that was due
to the runaway inflation policy?
Vice President NIXON. First, we have already talked
about inflation a lot on this program. And I have a program that will keep
the dollar sound. It will not allow inflation.
If the farmer is concerned about the cost-price
squeeze - and he certainly better be because it has been very rough on
him - the one thing he must not do is to support my opponent, because his
program inevitably has to lead to higher prices or higher taxes or both.
You can't spend $15 billion a year more to pay off those promises that
he's made all over the country without taking it out of somebody, and that
means the American people.
Now, as far as the surpluses are concerned,
I have a new program in this field, a program that I am confident will
get the surpluses off the farmer's back and off the back of the market,
and that means that farm income will move up.
What it will do: First of all, we are going
to have a new program for disposal of foods abroad through the United Nations,
and Cabot Lodge has worked with me on this program, and I think it will
do a tremendous job in this field.
Secondly, we're having a new program for converting
our grains to proteins, to foods, for example, that can be used in other
forms and that at the present time cannot be disposed of.
For example, at the present time we have surpluses
of wheat. We have surpluses of corn. The corn and wheat market are saturated.
On the other hand, if you convert the wheat
and the corn into meat, canned meat, it may be that we can find markets
for that. So this conversion program is one that will move very effectively
on the surplus front.
I can't cover it all. I covered it in a major
speech in Iowa. I only say this: I'm confident that my farm program will
be one that will get rid of the surpluses. It is going to cost some money
to do it, but it's far better to spend more money now getting rid of the
surpluses and less later by letting them continue to hang over the market
and hang over the taxpayer and hang over the farmer, because as long as
these surpluses stay with us, it's going to keep farm income down. We've
got to get rid of them, and that's why I have a crash program to do it.
QUESTION. This one is from Mrs. Zack, I believe,
1630 Hubbard, and it has a city, Livonia, no State:
Is it necessary to treat Castro as a little boy, and why?
Vice President NIXON. I will say that the question
somewhat answers itself. Castro - let me say it in all fairness: The Cuban
people needed a revolution. The Cuban people are wonderful people. You've
been there, John. You know how wonderful they are.
The Cuban people have never had a decent government.
They just have never had it. They never had an honest government in Cuba.
And it was time that they had a revolution.
But the last thing they needed was a Communist-directed
revolution, and that's what Castro has given them. And I'm confident that
they will assert themselves and that they will get the progress with freedom
which they deserve, and with honest government.
As far as Castro is concerned, we've got to
treat him like a little boy because that's the way he's acting. But I think
the Cuban people in their good time will see to it that they do get leadership
which represents the true ideals of the Cuban revolution.
QUESTION. This one is from Mr. Hayes in, I
believe, Howard, Calif.
If the Chinese try to take the offshore
islands, will you oppose it with military force or do you have another
way of handling it?
Vice President NIXON. My answer to that is that
we must never make the mistake that was made in Korea, and that is to indicate
in advance that we are not going to defend an area which is free.
The moment you do that, the Communists move
in, because this is the way they always operate. Weakness invites attack
with them.
So as far as the offshore islands is concerned,
our policy - it is President Eisenhower's policy and it is my policy -
is that at the present time it is clear that the Chinese Communists consider
the offshore islands only a stepping stone to Formosa. We have a treaty
with Formosa. We cannot keep our treaty with Formosa unless we also have
the right to defend the offshore islands.
I think as long as we make it clear that we
are not surrending the offshore islands, the Chinese Communists will not
attempt to take them.
But if we once indicate that we are changing
our position, that we're vacillating, that we might change it, they will
move in like that, and when they move, we have to move in.
This is from Mr. Charles Sunnona, in Detroit
here:
How would you, Mr. Nixon, handle the
unemployment in and around the Detroit area?
Vice President NIXON. Well, I can suggest one
way to handle it, and that is to elect a new governor in Michigan.
One of the problems in Michigan is that you
have a tremendously skilled labor force here. You have tremendous resources,
plants, and the like.
But due to the kind of State government that
you have which is one of the most disgraceful governments in the whole
country, it's run business out of Michigan. It's discouraged business from
coming into Michigan.
And by electing Paul Bagwell Governor of Michigan
- and I say this to this national audience - I think that you are going
to find that Michigan then will get its right share - rightful share of
the new business which should come to Michigan with all of its skilled
employees.
As far as the interim period is concerned,
of course we have got - we must handle our unemployment insurance in a
way that it will adequately cover all of those who are unemployed, and
we must extend the system - and I have advocated this - extend the system
to fill some of the loopholes that presently exist.
But the long-range solution is to get more
business into Michigan so that you can provide the jobs.
QUESTION. This one is from Leo McFadden, 1722
Union Street, Kalamazoo:
Do you approve of the Negro sit-in
demonstrations in the South?
Vice President NIXON. I have often answered that
question, and I appreciate the opportunity to restate my views on this
television program.
The objective of the sit-in demonstrations
- that is, to require that there be no discrimination in the department
stores and other stores between - as far as color or race is concerned
- I think is one that all Americans who are devoted to constitutional principles
would have to approve, and I approve them, certainly. In other words, let
me explain it this way: I was talking to a friend of mine recently with
regard to this problem, and he was telling me the problem that he ran into.
It happened that he was talking on the subject
with his own children. He was a Negro. He said: You know, it's very, very
difficult to explain to a Negro child at a certain time when he lives in
the areas where there is this kind of discrimination - to tell him that
he can go into a store and he can buy a package - a loaf of bread, but
that he cannot sit at the counter and eat lunch or he has to stand.
Now, how do you explain that? How do you explain
that when the President of the United States, for example, has Negroes
for dinner at the White House?
It is wrong. It must be changed. And, consequently,
we have to understand that those who engaged in the sit-in demonstrations
had great provocation.
Now, as far as how we are going to handle
the problem is concerned, I think there is an effective way to handle it,
and that we're on the way. The Attorney General of the United States sat
down recently with the heads of all of the chainstores operating in the
Southern States, and they agreed voluntarily to change their policy.
This is the way to get action. This is far
better than to try to get action through any kind of mob violence or anything
of that sort.
And so, consequently, I think this is the
kind of leadership we should have in the next administration, where we
bring the people in that are involved in these situations and see to it
that they recognize that it is their responsibility as American citizens
not to practice prejudice and discrimination in matters of this type.
QUESTION. This is from Hadley Wine, 20011
Marlowe, Detroit, Mich.:
If you come into power, how will you get your program
completed if there is a Democratic majority?
Vice President NIXON. Well, there is a very good
answer to that, President Eisenhower has done very well with a Democratic
majority for the last 6 years. The situation with regard to the Congress
is very simply this: Congressmen, of course, are Democrats and Republicans,
but they are Americans first, and where the country is concerned, I have
found that Republicans and Democrats alike, when great issues are involved,
will vote for those particular proposals that they believe are in the best
interests of the country, and to the extent that a President., if I should
be President, represents what is best for America, he will be able to get
the support of Congress, whether it is Republican or Democrat.
QUESTION. This is from Mrs. T. Golvia, 16236
Burwood, Birmingham, Mich.:
You never had it so good. What do
you intend to do about all the people out of work?
Vice President NIXON. Well, the answer to that,
of course, is that in the United States we must continue to expand our
economy so that the people out of work can get real jobs, and we have made
tremendous progress in that particular area over the last 7½ years.
Now, this question obviously indicates that
the questioner thinks that the situation today is bad, compared to what
it was in the past. Let me point out something: In the 20 years before
this administration came to power, we never had prosperity with peace at
the same time. We always had, when we had a relatively high employment,
it was either during wartime or as a result of war. I can spell it right
out. In 1939, for example, after 7 years of the first administration, we,
found that there were 9 million Americans unemployed, and it took the war
preparation to bring us out; and then again in the Truman administration,
we find that it took the Korean war to pull us out of what was then the
recession of the 1949-50 period.
What we have done in the Eisenhower administration
is that we have developed policies that have brought high employment but
without war, and I can assure you that we are going to do everything we
can to expand the economy, to continue to see that those Americans who
want to work will be able to get work.
My last point is this: Look at the unemployment
figures. They are going down every month. We find that they reached the
level of three million three, just the other day, and I believe they are
going to continue to go down with the kind of leadership we can give.
QUESTION. If I appear from time to time to
indicate approval, it is because I do.
This is from Mrs. Don Robinson, 4440 Eastway
Drive, Lansing, Mich.:
Who made the decision whether Mrs.
Nixon would travel with her husband on the campaign or stay home with the
children?
Vice President NIXON. Well, I can say that that
is a very good question from Mrs. Robinson, and as is usually the case,
our family is just like every other American family, we make those decisions
jointly. There is no dictation in our family, and my wife is with me on
this campaign because she always has. We, for example, started in 1946;
you remember, Bob, you live out there in California, and in 1950 she traveled
with me, and in the 1952 campaign and in the 1956 campaign. It is very
difficult, I want to make it clear, it is a very hard decision to make,
because we miss our girls, particularly in this age, 12 and 14, when they
are growing up, and they have so much to tell us, so much that we would
like to hear and like to share, but on the other hand, my wife feels that
it is her responsibility, also, to contribute as much as she can to this
campaign, and I can tell you that she is a great campaigner. You spoke
a moment ago about how I was feeling and whether I was getting tired. I
do get tired sometimes, and I get a cold, but I have never known in all
our travels abroad and at home, my wife, Pat,, ever to get tired. She should
be the one running rather than me.
She certainly has made, I think, a lasting
and deep impression on the American public. She has certainly been magnificent
through it all, and I think with the little knowledge I have of 12 and
14-year-old girls, I am sure they understand Mommy being away at this particular
time.
QUESTION. This is from Mr. White, Warren,
Mich.
What is your stand on the 32-hour
workweek?
Vice President NIXON. Well, the 32-hour workweek
just isn't a possibility at the present time. I made a speech back in the
1956 campaign when I indicated that as we went into the period of automation,
that it was inevitable that the workweek was going to be reduced, that
we could look forward to the time in America when we might have a 4-day
week, but we can't have it now. We can't have it now for the reason that
we find, that as far as automation is concerned, both because of the practices
of business and labor, we do not have the efficiency yet developed to the
point that reducing the workweek would not result in a reduction of production.
The workweek can only be reduced at a time when reduction of the workweek
will not reduce efficiency and will not reduce production.
Now, as we move into heavy automation, and
this is going to take some statesmanship, may I say, on both the part of
business and labor, you can't blame it all on labor, you can't blame it
all on business, they both have to get together. The "make work featherbedding"
has to go out, and some business' reactionary policies have to be changed,
as well. This is one of the reasons why I intend, on an industry-by-industry
basis, to have the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Commerce work
with the major industries in this country to see how we can hasten automation,
because automation is going to make the difference as to whether we maintain
our position in the world of leadership economically. As we hasten automation,
the workweek can be reduced, but until we do, it cannot be.
QUESTION. From Mr. Vatz, 7703 Patton, Detroit,
Mich.
Please comment on Mr. Kennedy's statement
that we are using only 60 percent of our steel capacity.
Vice President NIXON. Well, my answer to that
is that as far as steel capacity is concerned, that when we compare the
steel capacity that we have today with what we had, say, 5 years ago, that
that 60 percent is the production of more steel now than then. The question
is not how much capacity you use. The question is whether you are producing
enough steel to meet the demands of society. For example, when we get into
all this argument about economic growth that we have been hearing about,
people point to the fact that the Soviet Union is building more steel mills
than we are, more railroads than we are. Well, of course, we already have
our steel mills built, we already have our railroads built. This is no
indication of relative progress.
Now, as far as steel is concerned, the rate
at the present time, of 60 percent, is low for a variety of reasons; competition
with other kinds of products which replace the steel that are in competition
with it, also as a result of the steel strike, the heavy buying immediately
afterward and now a dip in the production, but I will say this, as new
car sales increase, and there is evidence that they are going to continue
to go up, and that this will be the best year in history, steel production
is going to go up, too.
QUESTION. From Mr. Eugene Pervis, 12132 North
Martindale, Detroit, Mich., factory worker
What was the reason for voting as
you did in breaking the tie on Federal aid to education?
Vice President NIXON. Well, that vote I would
like to explain to Mr. Pervis and to our listeners, was a key vote, a key
vote showing the difference in philosophy between Mr. Kennedy and myself.
The bill for Federal aid to education that the President asked for would
have provided funds for school construction.
Now, the Congress, the Senate in this instance,
tried to adopt an amendment to the bill which would have had the Federal
Government also directly subsidize teachers' salaries. Now, why shouldn't
that be done? Well, let me tell you, first of all, it should be done if
that is the proper way to get teachers' salaries up, because they should
go up. Our teachers in many areas are inadequately paid. There is nothing
more important than paying them what they need. You spoke of our two girls
a moment ago. Their teachers spend a lot more time with them than we do,
and I couldn't feel more strongly on the subject, but the difficulty is
this: The moment that you have the Federal Government directly subsidizing
our teachers throughout this country, you have, and you are inviting the
Federal Government to control what the teachers teach. This we must not
have, because the essence of freedom of education in this country is local
control; so that is why my Federal aid to education program is one that
limits the aid to school construction and operations, but how does that
help to aid the teachers, you say? Well, obviously it is very clear. If
we have a school district, and any school board member will understand
this, it has a budget, a budget for construction, a budget for operation,
a budget for salaries. If that particular district gets assistance on its
budget for construction and operations, that relieves funds for teachers'
salaries but, by keeping the Federal Government out of the business of
directly subsidizing teachers' salaries, that means you leave the control
of what is taught at the local level, and that is where it belongs. The
moment you get the Federal Government controlling centrally what is taught
in the United States, you are on the road, in my opinion, to the loss of
freedom in this country. And that is why I voted against it.
QUESTION. Mr. James Rutledge, 928 Railroad,
Lansing, Mich.:
What would you do about minimum wage
laws?
Vice President NIXON. That's a very general question,
and I don't know what exactly Mr. Rutledge is referring to. I would answer
the question, hoping that I am hitting the point, and if it doesn't, if
he will call back in, we will give this question priority.
I have answered the question by saying that
I favor the raising of the minimum wage to $1.15. I also favor extending
coverage to 3 million people not presently covered.
Now, let's look very practically at what happened
in the last session of the Congress - this so-called Kennedy-Johnson session.
They had a minimum wage bill in that session of the Congress. They rejected
this bill, which could have passed, and they tried of course to get through
a bill which would have extended coverage to more people and which would
have raised the minimum to $1.15 this year and to $1.25 next year.
Now, let me say this. The question isn't whether
I am against or for $1.15 or $1.25. After all, this is an election. As
I said several times, I want to win. My opponent wants to win. Why don't
I say, "Let's have a dollar and a half?" Why not a $2 minimum wage? Why
not $5 ?
And here you get the basic economic principles.
If you raise the minimum wage, in my opinion - and all the experts confirm
this that I have talked to in the Government - above $1.15, it would mean
unemployment; unemployment, because there are many industries that could
not pay more than $1.15 without cutting down their work force; $1.15 can
be absorbed, and then at a later time we could move to $1.25 as the economy
moves up.
QUESTION. This is from Casper Ersburgs, Grace
Lutheran Church, Albion, Mich.
What do you think the United States
could do and should do to help the Baltic countries - Estonia, Latvia,
and the Lithuanian regions - regain the freedom they lost when President
Roosevelt was trading favors with Stalin?
Vice President NIXON. I would say he is rather
prejudiced on this particular point, and prejudiced in the right way.
What can we do with regard to these countries,
so many of whose citizens live in the United States - former citizens,
whose racial background and national background are from these countries
- what we can do is limited by a factor that everybody will understand.
The United States. the free world, wants freedom
for the captive countries. But we cannot become involved in a civil war
- a revolution - in these countries. Why not? Because what it would do
would be to destroy what remains of these countries and probably destroy
the world in the process.
Now, what hope does this leave them? Through
evolution - evolution; that means through peaceful change - we are confident
that the peoples of the captive nations of Eastern Europe will eventually
get the freedom that they want and that they deserve.
That's why I have advocated a program of having
President Eisenhower as well as other former Presidents visit these countries,
to keep the hope of freedom alive.
That's why, at the conference table, in dealing
with Mr. Khrushchev, I would never agree to what he is constantly urging
that we agree: that we draw a line through Europe and say that's his side
of Europe, and they remain forever captive. The moment we do that, freedom
is dead there.
What we have to do is constantly negotiate
with Khrushchev to get him to take his iron control off of these countries,
and I am confident that in the end this can be accomplished if we continue
to stand as firmly forthright as he stands forthwrong.
QUESTION. From Joyce Herring, 925 Northwest
Fourth Avenue, Homestead, Fla.; teacher:
Specifically, what kind of financial
aid program do you have planned for helping top students through college
who are not financially able?
Vice President NIXON. This is a good question,
and I'm delighted to spell out my program here, because here again we have
a basic difference in the approach my opponent takes and that I take.
First, let's begin with the principle. America
cannot continue to waste the talents of able young Americans who have the
ability to go to college but who can't go because they don't have the money.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
I was talking to Father Hesburg of Notre Dame
last February when I was there to receive the Notre Dame Americanism Award.
He told me something that I found hard to believe, but this brings it home
That over a hundred young men who were valedictorians of their high school
classes applied for scholarships at Notre Dame last year that couldn't
be taken in; they didn't have enough scholarships.
Now, what can we do about it? The easy answer
is to say: Well, this is a problem that the Federal Government has to take
over; we'll just have Federal scholarships and loans, period. But that
wouldn't be the right answer.
And so I have a program that approaches it
from three different standpoints.
1. We will have Federal scholarships for some
students, too, who do not have the funds and could not borrow the funds
or pay it back, and these would be the exceptionally good students.
2. We will have a program of loans for students
who will want to borrow money and who would be able to earn the money to
pay it back.
But, 3, there's one other thing that we can
do. I know that there are many parents in this country who did what my
parents did. They worked hard in order to put five of us through school.
And I think that we should have a program of tax deductions and tax credits
to parents, or others who do pay expenditures for their youngsters to go
to college.
This, in other words, encourages the traditional
American do-it-yourself rather than letting the Government do it.
So this three-pronged program - the Government
doing it where individuals can't do it, but encouraging individuals through
tax credits and tax deductions - I think will do the job.
Overall, we will see to it that every young
American who ought to go to college does go to college, so we don't waste
the talents of a potential great scientist, engineer, lawyer, doctor, or
shall we say motion picture-television star.
QUESTION. I address this to Henry Cabot Lodge.
This is from Mrs. William Boomfield, 706 Fairway Drive, Royal Oak, Mich.:
What are your feelings toward nations
wanting to remain neutral in cold war? How can we help them?
Mr. LODGE. Mrs. Bloomfield, I would say that there's
nothing inconsistent with the best interests of the United States in countries
not wishing to get committed in the struggle which the Soviet Union forces
on us.
I believe in the case of India, for example,
that our relations with India, which have improved very much in the last
few years, are in a satisfactory state.
I think we've got to recognize that the world
is a very diverse place. Each nation is really a separate proposition.
You can't broadly divide the world into your opponents and your allies
and the neutrals. It isn't that simple.
I think we can have very good relations with
countries that are not allied to us, and I believe that many countries
which are not allied to us would, in case the world struggle got worse,
find themselves on our side.
QUESTION. This is from Allen McGovern, 3175
Helen, Detroit
What would you do to lessen the tension that
now exists between the Arab countries and Israel?
Mr. LODGE. Vice President Nixon has announced
that if elected he will give me the job of trying to get an overall settlement
of what is known in diplomacy as the Palestine question - that is, the
relations of Israel with her Arab neighbors - and that would involve the
resettlement of the refugees, it would involve the waters of the Jordan,
and all these pertinent questions.
Now, I'm not going to say that that's going
to be an easy thing to do, because we know it's full of very stubborn difficulties.
But I will say that when we got a resolution
through the United Nations General Assembly in February 1957 by a two-thirds
vote, which is hard to get, which stationed a United Nations force in the
Gaza strip, and at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, which had been these
disorderly and violent places which caused so much trouble, we showed that
it was possible to make some progress and to get at some of the basic causes
of the difficulty.
Because we never would have had a two-thirds
vote in the General Assembly if the Arab States had been opposed to it.
After the last 3½ years we have had
nothing like as many incidents involving Israel and their neighbors coming
into the United Nations as we had before. So, while the situation is still
far from satisfactory and there are still many things that are wrong with
it, nonetheless it is better than it was 3½ years ago. That gives
me courage to make a really literate, energetic attempt to try to get a
settlement of the question.
I can't promise that you will get results,
but I certainly think an attempt should be made in the best of good faith,
and that the United States should be willing - and in the Nixon administration
the United States would be willing - to make contributions if there was
any prospect at all of bringing about a settlement.
QUESTION. Thank you, sir. I glanced at the
next question, and found that it was quite similar to the previous one.
However, with your kind forbearance, I would like to call attention to
it, simply for the reason that the person who sent it in, I think, would
like to know that it had been given consideration. It is from Rev. William
H. Shobert, Hillsdale, Mich.:
How do you feel about the new nation of Israel,
and what do you suggest to help the Arabian refugee problem?
The next question is from Mrs. Norman Hodgman, 2363 North
Cedar, Hope, Mich.
Why would you be unwilling to apologize to Khrushchev
for the U-2 incident?
Mr. LODGE. Well, apologies are not in order
when activities of that kind are discovered. In the last week the FBI arrested
two Soviet Communist spies in New York who had been making an aerial survey
of the city of Chicago, the only purpose of which would be to facilitate
the job of somebody who would want to bomb the city of Chicago.
Now, the Soviet Union has not apologized for
the two spies, and I predict that they are not going to apologize. The
Soviet Union didn't apologize when we caught Colonel Able, the notorious
Soviet spy, in New York.
Apologies are not expected in a case of that
kind. Moreover, I don't consider that any President needs to apologize
for taking steps to protect the United States against surprise attack.
You don't have to do that.
Now, the prestige of our country would be
much more adversely affected if nations thought that we were not taking
steps to protect ourselves and the free world from surprise attack. If
we had followed that advice and had apologized to Khrushchev, nations all
over the world would have wondered if we weren't losing our nerve and if
we weren't losing our courage.
Moreover, to apologize to Khrushchev for the
U-2 flight would have accepted at face value Chairman Khrushchev's statement
that he was breaking off the summit meeting because of the U-2 flight.
Now, the truth of the matter is, I'm sure,
that he did not break up the summit because of the U-2 flight. He broke
up the summit when he discovered that he couldn't get his way at the summit;
when he found that he couldn't get what he wanted on Berlin; when he found
that American solidarity with our allies was so great that he would go
home emptyhanded.
Then he decided to break up the summit, and
he looked around for a pretext, and for at least 2 years he had known of
these flights over the Soviet Union, and he decided to use that as the
pretext.
I think Senator Kennedy was in error when
he suggested that President Eisenhower express regrets. Moreover, I don't
think Senators should express opinions publicly on delicate diplomatic
crises like that. I think if the Senator has advice to offer the President
he can go and see the President and offer it to him in private.
I did that once when Franklin D. Roosevelt
was President, and I did it once when Harry S. Truman was President, and
I'm sure that President Eisenhower would have received Senator Kennedy,
although I don't think he would have taken his advice on apologizing.
QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, would you care
to comment? I know you have many times before this particular time.
ANSWER. Bob, I think that Ambassador Lodge
has answered the question very well. I would only add this one point: that
not only was that not the reason for Khrushchev's breaking up the summit
conference - he knew about the flights, there's no question about that,
whatever - but also we have to realize that thus is a tactic that he uses.
I think that what we often forget is that
Mr. Khrushchev does not react like the leaders of the free world. Chancellor
Adenauer, President de Gaulle, Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Nehru, and the rest react
altogether different.
Mr. Khrushchev is a man who uses the conference
only for a purpose, and that purpose is to accomplish his objective. In
this instance he wanted to get his way about Berlin. When he saw he couldn't
get his way about Berlin, then he was determined to find some way to get
out of it, or to embarrass the President, and that's why he did it.
The moment the President had given in, the
moment he had expressed regrets and apologized, it wasn't the fact that
a President can't apologize if something is wrong, but the moment that
he had it would have been the wrong tactic - the wrong tactic because it
would have encouraged this fellow to ask for more.
If we could only get it through our heads
that whether it is Quemoy or Matsu, or whether it is apologizing or expressing
regrets, or whether it is admitting Communist China to the United Nations,
that you must never, in dealing with dictators, give in to their blackmail,
to their demands - because that makes them demand more, and then there
will come a time when you cannot give in, and that's when war comes.
So that's why President Eisenhower's policy
of being firm but not belligerent has brought peace; and that's why Cabot
Lodge and I will be firm, not belligerent: and we think we will keep the
peace.
QUESTION. Mr. Vice President, I have a question
from Mr. Deigei, from Champaign, Ill. It's a student, college student.
In the 1952 campaign you said that
our military position had deteriorated greatly; why do you object to Senator
Kennedy making similar statements today?
Vice President NIXON. For the very reason that
then it was true and today it isn't. In 1952 our military position had
deteriorated, it deteriorated because we, for example, to use one, in the
field of missiles, we had no missile program worthy of the name until President
Eisenhower became President.
Today, when Senator Kennedy says that our
military position is deteriorating, it's not true. We are the strongest
nation in the world. We have the ability, the resources, and the determination
to maintain that strength. For him to run down the strength of the United
States doesn't help us at home and it hurts us abroad.
QUESTION. From Mr. Eugene Jerkowitz, Melvindale,
Mich.:
How do you find time for a 4-hour
telethon when you can't find time for a fifth debate with Senator Kennedy?
Vice President NIXON. That question really ought
to be asked of Senator Kennedy. The rather comedy of errors leading to
the discussion of the fifth debate, I don't think are worth recounting
on this television program. I at least will go into it to this extent:
I had set aside the day, Monday the 31st;
had no schedule whatever for that day. That was the day we were talking
about for a fifth debate. I had assumed that we were going to have one.
I also had suggested, and the networks had
agreed, that the public wanted to see the vice presidential candidates
on the debate as well. Well, for some reason Senator Kennedy's representatives,
and apparently he himself, were very reluctant to have Senator Johnson
with them on the program. They indicated finally that they might be willing
to have him but the moment then that, we started to move to the final conclusion
to have the debate on Monday, they started a calculated program to break
up the negotiations and they succeeded. They didn't want to be on the program.
I am confident the reason that Senator Kennedy
didn't want the fifth debate, he wanted to talk about it, but he didn't
want it, as he just didn't want to be seen with Senator Johnson in some
of the Northern States. He accomplished his objective in that respect.
I would like to say, incidentally, I am always
proud to be seen with my running mate anywhere in the country, North, South,
East, or West.
QUESTION. This is from Megs Freeman, Walloon
Creek, Calif.:
Are you a strict father?
Vice President NIXON. Not as strict as I should
be, for a very good reason. Earlier in this program somebody asked, about
leaving our youngsters at home while Pat, my wife, and I campaigned. When
you are away from them a lot, as I am, such as when you are on a world
trip and you are away a month or so, and you go on a campaign trip and
see them only once a week, you have a tendency to spoil them to an extent
when you go home.
My wife, who is a former schoolteacher, is
also strict but very kind, and I would say, I can say with pardonable pride,
that our two youngsters are not spoiled but any credit goes to her rather
than them. I do spoil them.
QUESTION. This is from Mr. Manning at Tufts
University, Medford, Mass. There seem to be two questions. The first is
- I will do them both at the same time, as they are connected
Do you feel Senator Kennedy has conducted
an honest and fair campaign, and why do you feel Johnson is taking a back
seat in the Democratic campaign?
Vice President NIXON. I won't comment on Senator
Kennedy's tactics in this campaign. I think that the verdict of the voters
will decide what the people think.
I will say with regard to Senator Johnson,
the reason he is taking a back seat is that Senator Kennedy put him there
in the back seat. I want to make it clear he is not a back-seat driver.
He is having apparently nothing to say whatever about the tactics of the
campaign, and if Senator Kennedy is elected he will have even less to say.
The situation apparently is one that is quite embarrassing to both of them
at this point.
I would only add again that the whole problem
of whether a campaign is fair or not is one that has to be determined by
the voters themselves. I have tried to campaign on the issues. I know that
Senator Kennedy has stated the issues as he sees them. I think he has distorted
the record in many, many respects. He claims that I have.
You have got to decide.
QUESTION. This one is from Mrs. William Patterson
in Ardmore, Pa.:
Does Mr. Nixon favor some Federal
scholarship aid to the extent of guaranteeing a college education to those
bright enough to benefit by it?
Vice President NIXON. We touched on that question,
John, a little earlier. I have a three-prong program which I will not go
into in detail as I did earlier. I think there should be Federal scholarships
for those students of particular exceptional ability who cannot afford
to go to college otherwise, and who cannot get loans or pay them back if
they did get them.
I think we should also continue the student
loan program where students who want to borrow money are able to do so,
who want to go to college. I think this should be supplemented, or should
be supplemented with a program or programs of tag deductions to parents
who pay the expenditures for youngsters to go to school. This kind of a
program will cover the exceptional pupil and get all the young people of
ability to college.
QUESTION. This is from George Davis, of Miami,
Fla.:
How do you account for the fact that
a great number of labor leaders have endorsed Senator Kennedy as their
choice for the next President?
Vice President NIXON. Well, I would only suggest
that the same leaders of labor, and these are the political labor leaders,
also endorsed Mr. Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, so this is not new. I think
the reason they have endorsed him is, in a nutshell, that as the CIO announced
in Washington, shortly after his Labor Day speech, he has a 100 percent
voting record. On 33 votes, from the time he came to the Congress in 1947,
he voted right, as they say, 33 times.
Now, I want to make very clear how I feel
about this. As I said to I he International Association of Machinists and
repeated when I spoke to the Convention of Carpenters, I will always be
a friend of labor, labor leaders; and labor leaders as well as members
of unions will always find the door of the White House open to discuss
problems and to present their point of view. But whether it's a leader
of labor, or leader of business, whether it's a leader of a farm organization,
I do not believe that the President of the United States can be a captive,
in effect, that he can be 100 percent down the line for this group or that
group as against the interests of another.
Let me just spell out why that is necessary.
As you know, I had played a prominent part in settling the steel strike.
I remember those negotiations. Now in settling that strike Roger Blough,
the president of United States Steel, and Dave McDonald, the president
of the Steelworkers, both made demands that I could not accede to. I had
to recommend a settlement which neither one of them liked, but it was a
settlement which was in the best interest of the country. I could not have
recommended such a settlement, I couldn't have accomplished it if I had
been in a position where I owed my election, in effect, to the support
that they had received.
I am not suggesting that Senator Kennedy hasn't
voted, say, 100 percent down the line with the labor leaders' position
out of conviction, but I do say when you've got that kind of a record it
does indicate a tendency to go overboard for one group in the economy as
opposed to others. I think that is bad. I think it is bad for labor. I
think it is bad for business. I think it is also bad for the country, because
the President of the United States must be President of all the people,
and when the labor leaders are right he can be for them. When the business
leaders are right, he can be for them. Where either of them are wrong,
he has to be independent enough where he can represent the business interests
of the country.
QUESTION. This is from Lodge Main in St. Paul,
Minn.
Barring any change in conditions abroad,
what do you consider the matter of prime importance upon which the President
should take immediate action after the inauguration?
Vice President NIXON. Well, that is a matter of
a very general question, of course, which could be asked and answered in
a variety of ways. I would say that the matter of major importance that
I want action upon, and this does involve foreign policy, is to break the
stalemate on the testing of atomic devices.
Now why do I want to break that stalemate?
At the present time, Mr. Khrushchev and his colleagues are filibustering,
and the result it that they may be cheating, but what is more important
from the stand point of the United States and the free world, we are not
able to go forward at the present time with a - one of the most exciting
programs in the history of science, and that is the testing of devices,
nuclear devices for peaceful uses. Atomic dynamite, for example, which
would build harbors, dig canals, remove the tops of mountains and discover
ores that neverl have been available before.
We've got to move forward in these peaceful
uses, and that is why I intend to have Ambassador Lodge, at the first possible
opportunity, go to Geneva and attempt to break this stalemate so that we
can move forward in this program with underground tests which involve no
fallout whatever.
QUESTION. This is from a young Republican,
William Wharton, in Jersey City, 13 years old. Mr. Lodge, he wants to know
what you intend to do with the situation in the Congo.
Mr. LODGE. In the Congo is the United Nations
force, which is the most elaborate and advanced attempt at international
action that I think has ever been taken. I believe it is vital to have
that force there. I believe it is vital to maintain a doctrine of nonintervention
with regard to the Congo so that the big powers will not come in.
I believe the United Nations has to continue
to maintain its interest and its activity with regard to the Congo until
that country can truly stand on its own feet. That is what I think should
happen.
I think if you once start opening up these
countries to intervention by one country, then other countries come in
to protect themselves, and you are liable to have another Korea and another
war. And that's what we must avoid.
QUESTION. Here is one from Mrs. G. Tim, Jr.,
in Constantine, Mich. She is a housewife
Are you going to push disarmament
with Russia ?
Mr. LODGE. We must never give up on disarmament.
The last official act that I performed before resigning as U.S. representative
to the United Nations was to carry out an instruction of President Eisenhower
to get a meeting of the Disarmament Commission in August, at which a resolution
was passed urging the parties to get together and resume their conversations.
I don't think we can ever give up the attempt to move forward on disarmament.
I also think we can never give up our insistence
on inspection, that disarmament must be honest and controlled disarmament.
We cannot agree to disarm ourselves and have no assurance whatever that
the other man is disarming too.
This is the thing that involves the very safety
and life and death of a nation, and we've got to look at it in that way.
While I think we must insist on inspection,
we must also never give up in the attempt to move ahead.
QUESTION. Thus is from Mr. Tom Smith, in Columbus,
Ohio.
What is your exact stand on the Berlin
question?
Mr. LODGE. I will say to Mr. Smith that we have
pledged our word to the people of West Berlin. We must keep our word. If
we ever broke our word to the people of Berlin, it would tarnish and vitiate
every agreement that we have made all over the world. So that is the first
point.
I believe consideration should be given toward
introducing the United Nations into the Berlin question, not as a substitute
for the troops that are there but as a supplement thereto, in addition.
I think we might use some of those excellent
United Nations guards whom anybody who has visited the United Nations has
seen, of the blue gray, light gray uniform. We can use some of those men
to man the checkpoints.
I think it's possible to set up an organization
similar to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine
to arbitrate incidents that may occur along the borders, but those things
would be in addition to the forces that are there now.
But certainly what is fundamental is that
we must keep our word. It is a great pity that such a mistake was made
after the war that West Berlin is an island completely surrounded by Communist
territory. A man who buys a house lot knows better than to buy a lot where
it has no right-of-way out onto the street. Yet that is what has happened.
And we are in that position and we must keep faith.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Vice President, do you have
a comment on that?
Vice President NIXON. This is a pretty critical
question, John, and I do have a comment.
I want to make it clear that I completely
share my running mate's, Ambassador Lodge's, views on this.
I would add just this one point, that whenever
we can get the United Nations presence in Berlin or in the Congo or in
any other of these critical areas, it helps our case immensely.
When the United Nations has to act unilaterally,
or even when we act with one or two other countries, there is always the
possibility that we will not have the world opinion which is such a tremendous
force for peace on our side. And so Ambassador Lodge's suggestion about
supplementing the Berlin garrison with the U.N. presence, I think has great
merit, and it's an indication of our whole attitude toward the United Nations
and its functions.
We must strengthen the United Nations, strengthen
it because as we strengthen the United Nations, it means that when we have
these situations like the Congo and Berlin, that we are strengthening the
very instrument of peace which will avoid war.
Mr. PAYNE. Now I have a nonpolitical question
for Mrs. Lodge from Mrs. Joseph Brandon in Louisiana:
What is your formula for raising children
and grandchildren?
Mrs. LODGE. Well, with my children I'm afraid
that I was much stricter. With my grandchildren I do anything my grandchildren
want, and that's why my children are rather loath sometimes to leave them
with me.
But I think with one's children, one brings
them up to the best of one's ability. One has to have a certain amount
of discipline. One has to have a point where, when you say, "Go to bed,"
they go to bed.
But with one's grandchildren, you can say,
"Go to bed," and if they don't go to bed immediately, you can say, "That's
all right," because that is your prerogative as a grandmother.
Mr. PAYNE. This is for Mr. Lodge from Mrs.
Leah Peters, Gidding Avenue, Baltimore:
If elected, will your administration
make a greater effort to abide by United Nations' decisions; thus to abide
by a stronger world government?
Mr. LODGE. I will say to Mrs. Peters that the
United States does abide by United Nations' decision. I don't know one
United Nations' decision that the United States doesn't abide by.
There are other countries that don't, and,
of course, the worst offender of all is the Soviet Union, which is in disregard
of many United Nations' decisions, which also is in default on some of
its financial obligations, notably the support of the United Nations' force
in the Gaza Strip and the United Nations' force in the Congo.
But the United States does abide by the United
Nations' decisions and receives great credit and respect throughout the
world for doing so. That is one of the things that makes our prestige as
high as it is.
Mr. PAYNE. This one from Mr. Charles Moore
in Tucson, Arizona
What happened at Yalta? Was it Roosevelt
and a Democratic administration that allowed this blunder, the Russians
gaining such a strong foothold in Europe?
Mr. LODGE. Well, the Russians didn't carry out
their part of the bargain, and we made the great mistake, I think, of this
hasty headlong demobilization of our army and withdrawal of our army from
Europe which left this vacuum into which the Soviets came and which also
weakened our ability to negotiate.
If we'd maintained an army of a certain strength
- I don't mean the strength that it was on V-E Day, but really a big strong
army there, we would have been in a bargaining position.
As Winston Churchill says, "We are armed to
parley." And we should have kept a strong army in Europe while the parleying
was going on, and then I'm sure that the Eastern European countries wouldn't
have been abandoned as they were to their fate.
I think history will record the hasty demobilization
of the U.S. Army as one of the great blunders of history.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Vice President, would you like
to comment on that,, sir?
Vice President NIXON. Yes, I would.
I would like to say that one of the difficulties
as far as Yalta was concerned and the other agreements that have been so
disastrous, was not the agreement itself, but the fact that the agreements
were not self-enforcing. There was too much trust, too much confidence.
I have one anecdote that I think will illustrate
my point very well. I was once talking to an expert in Soviet affairs,
and this was at the time when people were wondering whether Mr. Khrushchev
really meant it when he said he was for peace, when he changed his line,
you recall, from the war line to the peaceful coexistence-peaceful competition
line.
And I asked this other expert, I said, "Do
you think Mr. Khrushchev is sincere in his desire for peace?"
And this was his answer. He said, "That kind
of a question is one that indicates a fundamental difference between the
Communist and his approach to problems and the non-Communist."
He says, "You can't use the word 'sincere'
to describe a Communist, Mr. Khrushchev or anybody else."
He says, "A Communist is a materialist."
He says, "You can no more describe a Communist
as being sincere than describe this table" - this desk on which I am pointing
right now - "you can't describe that as being sincere, because they think
solely in materialistic terms."
Now, what does he mean by that? He meant simply
that as far as Mr. Khrushchev is concerned and the Communist leaders, that
they do not think in idealistic terms. They think solely in materialistic
terms, solely in terms of their own self-interest.
And, therefore, when you make agreements with
them, whether it is in disarmament, whether it is about Berlin or anything
else, you must be sure that those agreements are self-enforcing. You cannot
make agreements simply on the basis of trust, on the basis that you think
they are sincere and that they're going to carry them out.
Mr. PAYNE. This is meant for Mr. Lodge, from
Mr. D. B. McCloy, St. Petersburg, Fla.:
Mr. Lodge, will you tell the people
the role Mr. Nixon played in driving the Communist spies out of our Government.
Mr. LODGE. I think he played a very big role.
I think as a member of the House, he took a leading part in exposing the
penetration of our Government by Communist spies, and that started the
whole process which resulted in getting rid of them. I think he's a major
figure in that whole business.
Mr. PAYNE. This one is from Miss or Mrs. Rita
Murray, Milis, Mass.
"Why did the Eisenhower administration
- or why didn't the Eisenhower administration interfere in the Hungarian
revolt?"
Mr. LODGE. Well, to have interfered in - to have
prevented the Soviet Army from coming into Hungary - that is what you are
talkabout - would have involved the use of force, and nobody, I think,
believes that it was possible to use force in central Europe like that
without triggering off allout nuclear war, which, of course, would have
been as disastrous for the world as well as for the Hungarian people.
We did proceed to get a condemnation of the
Soviet Union in the United Nations General Assembly by the climactic vote
of 60 to 10.
The whole Communist cause in Western Europe
and other places was tremendously damaged. We did not let the Hungarian
question die. One of our last actions before resigning was to get inscribed
on the agenda for debate again this year.
But, unhappily and tragically, the only way
to have prevented the Soviet Army from coming into Hungary would have been
to have a war, and nobody would have wanted to do that.
QUESTION. The next question, Mr. Vice President,
is from Mrs. Arthur Wilkinson, 301 Papermill Road, Orland, Pa.:
There are many other citizens not
eligible for social security that are voting for Mr. Kennedy because they
think he is going to give them old age medical assistance. How do you stand
on this issue?
Vice President NIXON. Well, any elder citizen
who does not have social security should certainly not vote for Mr. Kennedy
if that is what they want, this medical assistance program, because that
is the major difference, or a major difference between Senator Kennedy's
program and mine. I want you to know why I feel so strongly on this, one
of these reasons, there are personal reasons, I know for many of our positions
on issues. I remember the year my father died in 1956. He had some very
serious operations. My mother that same year had operations. The doctor
bills ran over $3,000. They were able to pay them, but it was difficult,
difficult. On the other hand, I know that for many people who are in their
older years, they have these catastrophic illnesses, and these are proud
people that have worked hard all their lives. They have to go on relief
or charity in order to get the medical assistance they need, so I want
something done. I want something that will be effective, but I want something
that will also see that the medical care that we have in this country,
which is the best in the world, remains independent, remains free of Government
control.
Senator Kennedy's plan is a compulsory plan.
It would compel everybody who has social security to participate in the
plan and have compulsory health insurance.
My plan is a voluntary plan. It provides that
anybody who wants health insurance over the age of 65 will be able to get
it, and the Government will supplement the cost to the extent he is unable
to pay, but that no one who does not want it will be forced to have it
against his will.
Now as far as this question is concerned from
Pennsylvania, that is the key point. You see, Senator Kennedy's plan covers
only the people who have social security, and that leaves out 3 million
of our 15 million citizens over 65 who need help the most, and I say that
that is an inadequate plan. That is why I say you should vote for us, if
you really want a complete plan, one that covers all of our citizens over
65, and one that leaves a choice; they can have private insurance if they
want it., they can have Government insurance if they want it, but nobody
is forced to have it if they don't want it. That is the American way to
deal with this problem.
QUESTION. Mr. Klittenoff, Long Beach, Calif.,
asks the question:
Republicans are known for big, big
business; Democrats for smaller man. Is this true?
Vice President NIXON. I would only say that big
business grew more during the Truman years than certainly it did in the
Eisenhower years, compared with small business; or putting it in the reverse,
small business has received more encouragement, has done better during
the Eisenhower years than in any administration prior to this time. Why
is that? Because we have had a comment for small business, we have encouraged
small business. The. difficulty is that when you have an administration
that tends toward looking toward developing big government and big labor
and big business, inevitably small business is what suffers.
Our program is one that, in effect, says,
"We are not for big business or small business. We are for good business,
big or small. We need both in this country," but as I have indicated time
and time again, it is absolutely essential if our economy is going to continue
to grow that we encourage small business, and that is why my program, which
is far more effective than that offered by our opponents, is one that every
small businessman in America would endorse.
QUESTION. Doyle Miller, 135 Riverview Avenue,
Indianapolis, Ind., identifies himself as an 18-year-old
Should the voting age be lowered to
18 because we are old enough to fight?
Vice President NIXON. That isn't the reason for
it. I think the voting age should be lowered to 18. I have always supported
it since the proposition has first been suggested. It is 18, you know,
in the State of Kentucky at the present time. The reason why I think 18-year-olds
should vote, however, is not because they are old enough to fight.. It
is because they are smart enough to vote. As a matter of fact, I have been
really tremendously impressed by the way our young people in the teens,
even below 18, but certainly 18 and above, have such an interest in world
affairs and in government affairs today. I can say this, they know a lot
more about the world and a lot more about government than I did at that
age, and I think they are ready and qualified to vote, and, therefore,
I favor lowering the voting age to 18.
QUESTION. From Richard Stern, 215 Main, Johnson,
N.Y.:
What are you going to do about Communist
infiltration in Cuba?
Vice President NIXON. The only thing we can do
about Communist infiltration in Cuba and remain true to our principle of
nonintervention in the affairs of other countries, which is a basic and
cardinal American principle, one we must never violate, because once we
violate it, then we have no reason and no ground at all to object to the
Soviet Union and its policy of consistent intervention in the affairs of
other countries. The only way that we can handle Communist influence in
Cuba is the way we are doing it, and that is by quarantining Mr. Castro's
government who - in effect, cutting off economic relations with them, and
trade with them, and also cutting off political and diplomatic relations
with the Cuban Government.
Now why do I say this will work? I say it
will work because in the end the economy of Cuba does depend, to a great
extent, upon its relations with the United States and the other countries
in this hemisphere. This will bring the necessary, I think, pressure upon
the Castro government, and they will either have to change their ways,
or the people, of course, will change the government, but on the other
hand, the people of Cuba must do this. The United States must not intervene
in Latin America, in any one of these countries, because we would lose
any friend we have in Latin America if we did. That is why Senator Kennedy's
suggestion that we intervene, in effect, was met with such shock and outrage
throughout Latin America. We got away from this. We were building the good
neighbor policy on the basis of nonintervention, and Senator Kennedy with
one fell swoop, one very unfortunate off-the-cuff, rash statement, shook
the whole hemisphere by what he said of giving direct aid to the so-called
anti-Castro forces in Cuba. Here again, I would just like to add, the important
thing to bear in mind is not the end we seek. The end we seek is all the
same. Everybody is against communism, everybody certainly wants to see
that Castro either changes or that he is out, but on the other hand, the
means to the end is terribly important. The United States must not intervene,
and, in effect, dictate to another people what kind of a government they
are going to have.
QUESTION. From William J. Driscoll,
509 West Eighth, Dubuque, Iowa, identification, tavern keeper:
What will you do if elected President about
the racial problems we have in the South? Do you have a plan that will
cope with the problem?
Vice President NIXON. The racial problems in the
South are ones that are extremely complex and extremely difficult and no
one could suggest that he has a plan which would solve the problem. The
problem is going - we are going to make progress in solving the problem
only through the right leadership, not only in government but also among
all leaders, opinionmakers in the communities, in the South as well as
the North.
I would like to have one other thing: The
so-called racial problem is not just a southern problem. It is a northern
problem, too. It is a problem in the big cities of the West and the East
and the North and the central parts of this country, and it certainly doesn't
help the racial problem for people in the, North and East and West to simply
point the finger at the South and say, "Why don't you do something about
your problem," when we don't do anything about ours. What I am really trying
to say is this: That this problem of equality of opportunity for all Americans
is one that is the business of all Americans. It isn't. something you can
say, "This is for the President to do; this is for the Government to do;
this is for the Congress to do."
We have laws in the books now which are adequate,
if they were followed, and we can pass new laws, but, it would not solve
these problems in and of themselves.
I can say that, as far as I am concerned,
I believe that the next President of the United States must give very strong
and vital leadership to the forces of good will in the South and in all
parts of the country who are attempting to make progress in providing equality
of opportunity for employment, in handling the school problem, and all
the rest. I believe that this is essential and, as the President, I would
give that kind of leadership, but I would not suggest to the questioner
or anybody listening that I have a solution to the problem which is going
to solve it overnight. I think I may say that we have got to move forward,
and that we will move forward, and one last point I would like to make,
there has been a lot of talk during this campaign to the effect that we
don't care about civil rights and that our opponents do. Well, I have two
answers to that. One, the record. We have made more progress in this administration
in this field than in the previous 80 years, and we have done it in the
right way. Second, my answer is that we care by reason of our platform,
by reason of the fact that both of our candidates are people who are dedicated
to this proposition, that we will handle this problem, handle it effectively
and see to it that we make progress toward the goal that all Americans
seek. The other ticket cannot say that.
QUESTION. This is from Ted Huysell, Sigma
Chi Fraternity, Columbus, Ohio. It says there's a group of 300 students
all watching. The question is:
How does Mr. Nixon feel toward Britain's
bitterness in regard to our position in the Suez crisis?
Vice President NIXON. Well, I think the position
in Britain on the Suez crisis is one that has changed considerably since
the time when the United States felt it was necessary - and I think we
did the right thing - to move into that crisis and stop the use of force
in that area.
At the time there wasn't any question that
a lot of bitterness developed. But since this time the relations between
Britain and the United States, between France and the United States, and
between Israel and the United States have improved tremendously, and I
don't think they could be better than they are today.
QUESTION. This is one from Mrs. Walter Davidson,
in Columbus, Ohio
I am a Negro American. If elected,
what would you do for my people so they'd be able to live in a decent house,
have a decent job they are qualified to do, and live in all sections of
the country, as do other Americans?
Vice President NIXON. I believe that the civil
rights platform of the Republican Party is far superior to that offered
by our opponents. Theirs is a platform which promises a great deal, but
theirs is a platform which they will not produce on.
They proved it in the special session - the
so-called Kennedy-Johnson session - in which they even refused to take
up some of the very modest proposals that had been before the Congress
earlier this year.
I can only say that in this field, to our
Negro Americans who are listening: Look at the record. On the record you
will find that we produce on our promises; that we don't make wild promises
that we can't keep, but the promises that we do make in this field we produce
on.
We made the greatest progress in the last
8 years in history, and we are going to move forward in progress under
our leadership.
I would suggest that you look very carefully
at the other ticket, having in mind, in effect, that it has a split personality
on this problem - a very split personality, I might suggest.
QUESTION. This is from Mrs. Betty Larson,
in Chicago, Ill.:
Do you think we should care for the
starving overseas when we have 17 million here who are starving?
Vice President NIXON. First of all, the statement
that there are 17 million Americans starving or 17 million Americans, as
Senator Kennedy puts it, who go to bed hungry in the United States is absolutely
false. It is one of the most irresponsible statements he has made during
the course of this campaign.
He said that he based it on a report of the
Department of Agriculture. Do you know what the report was? It wasn't that
17 million people were starving in this country. It was that 17 million
people or a certain proportion of the people in this country had an unbalanced
diet.
I remember very well, incidentally, when this
report was brought to President Eisenhower's attention - the report that
Senator Kennedy had said that 17 million people go to bed hungry every
nigh - he was there at a Cabinet meeting, and he said, "I go to bed hungry
every night, but it isn't because I'm starving; it is because I'm on a
diet."
As a matter of fact, let's keep the record
straight. There are people who do not have adequate diets. There are people
who do not have as much as they should to eat. But let's also get it in
balance. I have been to 55 countries, including the Soviet Union, and the
American people have the best living standard in the world. There are less
people in this country who have inadequate nourishment than in any country
in the world, by proportion.
We can do better, and we are going to do better,
but let's not run America down in the process of correcting the deficiencies
that we have.
As far as helping people overseas is concerned,
let's remember this: That it's always been the American tradition to have
concern for not only the unfortunate here, but for the unfortunate abroad.
This is one of the reasons we are honored in the world. It is one of the
reasons why we must continue to hold high that standard of humanitarian
concern for the problems of other people.
I do not mean by that that we ignore the problems
at home. We must do both. But let it never be said that the great, strong
United States and our people had no concern for people abroad except as
it affected their own selfish interests. If we ever fall into that pattern,
we will find that the people of the world will turn away - and they should.
They will turn away from us, and turn to those who offer them progress,
even at the cost of freedom.
QUESTION. This is from David Smith, in Charleston,
W. Va., and he is a college student
What are your plans for the depressed
areas of West Virginia and many of the States of the Union?
Vice President NIXON. We have an excellent plan
for depressed areas - one that will really do the job, where the Kennedy
plan would not.
Here is a place where they use in effect a
shotgun. They would have a big pork-barrel plan which would cover the whole
country and would provide less for West Virginia and important parts of
Pennsylvania where you really do have these what you call depressed area
problems than our plan would provide.
Our plan provides for more assistance and
will do the job. So here again they promise more in terms of the money
they would spend, but they would do less in terms of handling the problem.