Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Become Better Acquainted With Richard Nixon. Compilation of his biography, speeches, and statements covering important issues. Issued by Nixon Volunteers. 122 pgs. [Brochure], n.d.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127330
label
WHSF: Returned, 47-2
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127330
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 47-2
description
This file contains:
Become Better Acquainted With Richard Nixon. Compilation of his biography, speeches, and statements covering important issues. Issued by Nixon Volunteers. 122 pgs. [Brochure], n.d.
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26127330
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0ce9ebfead6d2571
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
47
2
n.d.
Brochure
Become Better Acquainted With Richard
Nixon. Compilation of his biography,
speeches, and statements covering important
issues. Issued by Nixon Volunteers. 122 pgs.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Page 1 of 1
HIS BIOGRAPHY
INTERVIEWS
IXON "OFF THE RECORD"
RECENT SPEECHES
AND HIS STATEMENTS
COVERING
IMPORTANT ISSUES
OF OUR DAY
Become Better Acquainted With
RICHARD
NIXON
VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE
UNITED STATES
INCLUDED-HIS FRANK ANSWERS
TO QUESTIONS ABOUT
COMMUNISM NATIONAL DEFENSE POLITICS
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
SOCIAL WELFARE
NATIONAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE
LABOR
CIVIL RIGHTS
Issued By NIXON VOLUNTEERS
Peter M. Flanigan, Director
Box 7398, Washington 4, D. C.
The Nixon Family
Tricia Julie Dirk Tat
A BIOGRAPHY OF
RICHARD
NIXON
VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Richard Nixon of Whittier, California, was elected 36th Vice President
of the United States on November 4, 1952, and reelected November 6, 1956.
Born in Yorba Linda, California, on January 9, 1913, the second of Hannah
and Frank Nixon's five sons, he learned from his Quaker parents the principles
of hard work and a devout and gentle faith which have been responsible for his
brilliant service to his country. His mother comes from a long line of Irish
Quakers who emigrated to the Pennsylvania colony from Dublin before the
Revolutionary War. His paternal great-grandfather, an enlisted Ohio volunteer
in the Civil War, is buried at Gettysburg.
He grew up in the Quaker community of Whittier, where his parents oper-
ated the kind of modest enterprise which is a landmark in hundreds of American
communities-- combination filling station and grocery store with living accom-
modations in the rear. As soon as they were old enough, the boys helped out in
the business. Life was not easy for his parents, but by industry and the well-
known Quaker thrift they managed to provide a comfortable though far from
lavish home. Personal tragedy became an early experience when a younger
brother died of meningitis, at the age of seven, and his older brother died of
tuberculosis at eighteen after five years of illness.
Mr. Nixon completed elementary and secondary schools in Whittier and
finished second in his class at Whittier College in 1934. He was awarded a
scholarship to Duke University Law School where he received his LLB in 1937
with honors.
After being admitted to the California Bar, Mr. Nixon joined a firm in
Whittier for the general practice of law. Within a year, the firm's name became
Bewley, Knoop and Nixon. That same year Mr. Nixon met Patricia Ryan, an
attractive Whittier school teacher, when they were both performing in a little
theater production. They were married on June 21, 1940. They have two
children, Tricia, born during his first campaign in 1946, and Julie, born in
1948.
After practicing law in Whittier for five years, during part of which time
he was Deputy City Attorney, Mr. Nixon joined the legal staff of the Office of
Price Administration in Washington. After five months with OPA, he was com-
missioned in the Navy as a Lieutenant (j.g.) and was assigned to active duty in
August of that same year. He served in the South Pacific for thirteen months
with the Combat Air Transportation, where he earned two South Pacific battle
stars and two commendations. Mr. Nixon was later assigned to Stateside duty
at Alameda, California as Officer in Charge of Transportation, and finally he
served with the Contracts Termination Section of the Bureau of Aeronautics.
He was discharged as a Lieutenant Commander in January, 1946.
Just prior to his discharge from the Navy, he was approached by a citizens
committee to oppose incumbent Congressman Jerry Vorhis, a five-term
Democrat who had been winning elections with little opposition. A series of
debates, largely concerned with war-time economic controls, created wide
interest in the District and Mr. Nixon defeated Voorhis by 15, 592 votes.
Mr. Voorhis afterwards wrote, "Mr. Nixon will be a Republican Congress-
man. He will, I imagine be a conservative one, but I believe he will be a
conscientious one. "
During his first year in Congress, he spent two months in Europe as a
member of the Herter Committee to study the Marshall Plan. He also partici-
pated in the drafting of the Taft-Hartley Labor Relations Act. By 1948, his
popularity and hard work earned him the nomination of both parties for another
term under California's cross-filing system.
Mr. Nixon attracted national notice for his work on the House Un-American
Activities Committee in exposing Alger Hiss. Not often mentioned are the
reforms in the procedures of that committee which he introduced to protect
the rights of the individual. At that time he said, "It is essential also to be
extremely careful in this field, where a man's reputation can be destroyed by
accusations of Communist affiliation, to distinguish between an individual who
is a voluntary participant in the Communist conspiracy and one who innocently
may have had contact with it. "
His record as a Congressman, and his ability to present his ideas with
clarity and directness, enabled him to defeat Congresswoman Helen Gahagan
Douglas, the 1950 Democratic nominee for the Senate, by 700, 000 votes.
Perhaps the greatest testimony to Mr. Nixon's character and ability was
Dwight Eisenhower's selection of him as his running mate in 1952 and again in
1956. During his tenure the Vice Presidency has been transformed from what
a former Vice President and President, John Adams, described as "the most
insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination
conceived" to an office of great responsibility and public significance.
At the request of President Eisenhower, the Vice President has under-
taken precedent-breaking responsibilities.
In addition to his Constitutional duties as President of the Senate,
Mr. Nixon is a statutory member of the National Security Council, actively
participates in Cabinet deliberations, and presides over meetings of both in
- 2 -
the absence of the President. With a friendly dignity which has brought
credit to his country, he has visited over fifty countries throughout the world
as the President's personal representative, and the experience gained from
these travels has enabled him to recommend and help put into effect many
significant changes in foreign policies. He is Chairman of the President's
Committee on Government Contracts, which seeks to eliminate racial and
religious discrimination in the employment policies of firms having contracts
with the Federal Government. He is also Chairman of the Cabinet Committee
on Price Stability for Economic Growth.
As a spokesman for the Administration, Vice President Nixon has few
peers. His understanding of Communism, based on experience, has made
his voice among the most effective in stating the alternative to Communism
which America offers the world.
The Vice President of the United States is a man of firm judgment with
a quick and questioning mind, and a warm sense of humor, whose career has
been marked by a tremendous capacity for work, great personal courage, and
devotion to the principles on which this Nation was founded.
"We must revive to the fullest our pioneer spirit of adven-
ture and growth--the vision that developed a continent--we must
make known throughout the world the exciting fact that the
American Revolution which captured the imagination of the world
180 years ago did not end at Yorktown but that it is a living, vital
idea today; that it is the idea which we believe can most surely
satisfy the aspirations of people for economic progress, individual
freedom and national independence."
(--From an address by the Vice President
before the 50th Anniversary Conference of
the Harvard Business School Association--
September 6, 1958.)
50660NVIM119
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 3 -
"Off The
Record"
RICHARD
The following statements of the Vice President's
NIXON
views about politics and other matters are in-
cluded in the final pages of the book,
RICHARD NIXON: A POLITICAL AND PERSONAL
PORTRAIT, and were taken from interviews and
conversations with the author, Earl Mazo.
POLITICS AND LEADERSHIP
Politics is an art and a science. Politicians are, in the main,
honorable, above average in their intellectual equipment, and effective
in getting action on problems that less practical people only talk or
write about. An individual has to be a politician before he can be a
statesman.
Political success comes from a combination of hard work and breaks.
But unless you have the guts to take chances when the breaks come your
way, and the determination and stamina to work hard, you will never
amount to much more than a political hack and a perennial "almost-ran"
in your political career.
As to my whole outlook on being "controversial" I am aware that
when you take strong positions on issues, knowing that the public may
not at that particular time support the positions, you run a great political
risk. In the short run it may result in your defeat. But in the long run
it is the only way to build a sound party position.
The political leader is important. Whether Republican or Democrat,
it is his responsibility when running for office to study the issues, to
determine what he believes to be in the best interest of the country, and
then to take strong positions and to try to win the people over to his point
of view. If leaders do not do that, the country will drift in its policies
into following mass thinking that will represent in some instances the
lowest common denominator. Considering the great problems that we face
in the world, that is inadequate. Our decisions must represent not the
lowest common denominator but the best thinking that America can produce.
I don't think that you can lead from a position of vacillation. If you are going
to lead, you've got to decide in advance whether the issue is one that you feel
is worth fighting about. If it isn't, then you take no position at all. But if it
is worth fighting about, you've got to take a clear-cut position and get all of
the advantage that comes from being out in front.
I am practical in the sense that I don't believe in fighting windmills. I
don't believe in taking on issues simply for the sake of a fight. I believe a
leader must always conserve his resources for the battles that count. He
must not fritter away his energies by getting involved in every little
struggle that comes along. In relatively unimportant matters a good public
servant, an effective politician must compromise and should compromise to
avoid bloodletting. He must look at the major objectives of his administration
and keep them always in mind. He must never become involved in a fight on
a minor issue which might prejudice his chance to win on a major issue.
That is one of the best rules a politician could follow in political campaigns,
too. It is one of the reasons Lyndon Johnson is so effective as Democratic
Majority Leader of the Senate. They talk about Lyndon being a compromiser.
But I admire Lyndon, although I don't agree with him on some things, because
he is always able to keep in mind the major objectives. He will compromise
on some things, but in the end he gets the major part of his program through.
In an election campaign party unity is essential. If I were asked how I
can go out and support all Republican candidates for Congress if, in some
instances, individual Democrats are better qualified, I would be very frank
to answer that what you have to consider is the fact that ours is not a
government of individuals. It is a government of majorities, of a group.
An individual by himself can accomplish virtually nothing. I know that for
the party to be an effective instrument of government it needs to control
Congressional committees and the House and Senate organization.
I don't believe in dividing Republicans into classes, such as "Modern
Republicans, 11 any more than I believe in dividing Americans into classes.
I have no desire to throw out of the Republican Party those who happen to
disagree with me on certain issues. By the same token, I have very strong
convictions as to what I personally believe the Republican Party should
stand for and the course it should take. What I try to do, and what I believe
every good Republican or every good Democrat should do, is work within my
Party for the adoption of those views.
I believe that, once the majority within a party makes a decision, the
best interest of the party and the nation is served if the party unites in
- 2 -
support of that decision. I recognize there should be exceptions. Some in-
dividuals, as a matter of principle, feel so strongly on certain issues that
they would be going against everything they stand for if they supported the
position of the administration or the party majority. I understand and
respect that point of view. But not the view of those who say, "I can't follow
my party on this issue because it is politically inadvisable. "
Anyone who attacks his own party will get publicity at the moment. But
in the end, if his party or his administration goes down, he will go down with
it. There are very few Borahs, Norrises or Hiram Johnsons in American
political history. Though it may appear, in the heat of the moment, that one
who bucks his party represents and is attuned to current public sentiment,
history shows that most candidates are saddled with the records of their
party and its administrations whether they like it or not. The man who de-
liberately weakens his party almost invariably ends up by weakening himself.
If there is more than one bona fide candidate for a nomination, the only
way you can find out which is the strongest is to test them in a field of battle.
That is preferable to having the bosses pick the candidate. Primary contests
can be kept on a constructive basis if opponents for the party's nomination
direct their fire against the program of the prospective nominees of the
other party, instead of against each other.
The line I draw between permissible and nonpermissible campaign
tactics is a very simple one. The candidate's record is public property in-
sofar as it indicates the position he might take on issues while in the office
which he seeks. Now, this means his record in terms of all the votes he
has cast if he has held public office, all the speeches he has made, all the
organizations to which he has given his support. All matters of this kind
which bear upon or might indicate his philosophy should be discussed openly
and frankly by the candidate and by his opponent. I draw the line, however,
on anything that has to do with the personal life of a candidate. I don't believe,
for example, that a candidate's family is fair game. I never went along with
those in the Republican Party who criticized Mr. Truman on the ground that
he had Secret Service agents go with Margaret Truman when she took a trip
to Europe. I have never gone along with those who criticized
President Roosevelt because of some aberrations of some members of his
family. It seems to me that the troubles of a man's family are, frankly,
none of the public's business. But as to the record, that has got to be
mercilessly exposed to light.
Television is not so effective now as it was in 1952. The novelty has
worn off. There is a very early point of diminishing returns in using
television. Both parties did much of it in the 1956 campaign. People
probably got tired of seeing favorite programs thrown off for political
speeches. I believe in personal appearances and think the personal touch
- 3 -
is still the most effective way of campaigning. I believe in a campaign of
motion. I also think the most effective appearances of a candidate are before
nonpolitical forums where he has a chance really to make converts.
Public opinion polls are having an increasing effect each year on elec-
tions and on the selection of candidates. There is no question but that a great
number of what we call "swing voters" vote for the person they think is likely
to win. Once this bandwagon psychology starts, it is very difficult to stop.
That's why public opinion polls can have a very devastating effect on the
course of campaigns. In the 1958 Congressional campaign one of our biggest
problems was that the polls consistently showed Democrats all over the
country leading Republicans. There's no question but that a great number of
people simply believed that and paid very little attention to the issues. I
should point out that polls do not affect the great majority of voters. But the
people they do affect--the ten per cent minority who are swing voters--are
the ones that frequently control an election.
It is obvious that people like to play winners, they like to be with
winners. Winners get favorable treatment. Losers are scorned. I mean,
of course, the great mass of people. Only a few, who are students of
government, bother to find out "Why did he lose?" Nothing in politics
succeeds like success, and nothing hurts more than failure. But it does not
last in either case. A person in political life must expect that he will suc-
ceed sometimes and fail other times. Franklin Roosevelt, one of the master
politicians of all time, suffered a major defeat in his Supreme Court fight.
Truman was hurt terribly by what was probably one of the worst losses in
recent history--the Democratic loss of Congress in the mid-term election of
1946. Everybody wrote him off; all the experts agreed that he was finished.
In 1948 he was elected President on his own. Winston Churchill in 1939 was
completely discredited as far as the voters were concerned. Look how he
came back and then later lost again.
While the "win" psychology is very important, I always have had the
feeling that where the Presidency is concerned, men who eventually come to
the top in both parties are those who best understand the issues and best fit
the needs of the times. I never felt that a lightweight, an individual with
only a superficial understanding of the great national and international issues,
could get the nomination. I don't think one will in either party next time--but,
of course, it could happen. The people who nominate at conventions invariably
select the man they think has the best chance to win. Those who say that
Taft's supporters in 1952 were for him whether he could win or not are wrong.
The Taft people were not just for Taft. They also were for him because they
thought he could win.
- 4 -
SOCIAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM
What is wrong with the old Adam Smith philosophy and what should be
completely unacceptable to any American (and I would say this particularly
to my fellow Republicans) is the idea of the survival of the fittest. Let's put
it this way: The fittest should survive, and also the fit should survive. Those
who are "unfit" you have to have a social consciousness about, to take care of
them. The "survival of the fittest" assumes "the hell with the rest of them. "
This is wrong, morally and socially, apart from being completely wrong
politically.
Unless the system in which you have political freedom proves that it is
the most effective in bringing about economic progress, Communism is going
to gain increasing adherents throughout the world. We have to bear in mind
this essential fact: the terrible poverty and misery that so many people suffer
cannot continue to be endured. They know there must be a way out, and they
are going to take the way that they think is the quickest and surest, in the
long run.
The fear of a temporary budget deficit should not be allowed to put us in
a strait jacket that keeps us from doing what is needed to insure economic
growth. I am not rigid with regard to the balanced budget in this sense: I
think we should approach the budget problems on a five-year basis rather
than being bound to one year. There are some years--a recession year, for
example, or one where you have a great international crisis--when we all
know that it is inevitable and necessary for the budget to be unbalanced.
There are other years when we can have surpluses to make up the over-all
deficits.
With automation it is inevitable that the working day is going to be
reduced. And I believe that we should plan for that day so that leisure time
can be used not just for what is really the opiate of the people in the United
States--television in its present form-but for developing the tremendous
cultural possibilities- the arts, music, literature--which are possible
when our people have the burden of toil lifted from them.
We should not tie down our scientists to the specific inventions which
military men or political leaders deem desirable. The greatest advances
have been made not when scientists have been told to restrict themselves to
certain objectives but when they had complete freedom in basic research to
explore the unknown.
Basic research cannot be carried out on a crash basis. The practice of
providing huge sums and declaring crash programs only when outside events
generate a sense of urgency is dangerously irresponsible. A truth that we
must never forget is that where new inventions and knowledge are concerned
- 5 -
there are no monopolies by any people or any nation.
There is a great tendency in this country to go to extremes on things of
this kind, and to worship science as an end in itself. It would be most
unfortunate for us to try to ape the Russians, to believe that scientific
materialism produces the best kind of society. I think all elements of
American education--the humanities as well as the scientific--need ad-
ditional emphasis.
The most fundamental weakness in many of our schools is that students
are not allowed to face the challenge of failure. Passing is automatic
The educators say it is more important to help students adjust to one another
and feel the warmth of success than it is to demand rigorous achievement.
This approach does not measure up to the reality of life. When students
leave school they will find that success is not automatic. Knowledge and
achievement will count, not good intentions. In the hard competition of life
they will have to face possible failures.
FOREIGN POLICY
Our position of world responsibility is new, and consequently we are
very impatient every time anything goes wrong in the field of foreign policy.
We assume that every policy, every action must immediately be crowned
with success. We have to grow up in this regard. We must weigh long-
range gains against the short-range defeats that we may suffer.
I would like for us to speak less of the threat of Communism and more
of the promise of freedom. We should adopt as our primary objective not
the defeat of Communism but the victory of plenty over want, of health over
disease, of freedom over tyranny.
Our experience in Hungary is a warning of what we should not do re-
garding the liberation of the Communist satellites. We certainly should not
encourage people to undertake violent revolutions unless we are prepared to
help them, and it isn't likely that we will be because of the risk of a world
war. What we can do and should do is to encourage at every opportunity
those governments which do have the courage to assert some independence
of the Soviet Union.
I think at the present time it is wishful thinking to predict a split between
Red China and the Soviet Union. I believe they are partners with the same
major objectives. That partnership will be bound together not by personal
friendships between leaders but by a common adherence to the belief in the
Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist theories.
- 6 -
LABOR
We have not done nearly enough to encourage rank-and-file union members
and local union leaders to participate and join in the party. I recognize the
fact that at the national level the situation offers very little promise. I
certainly don't intend to tailor my position on labor-management legislation
to meet what I regard as the extreme position taken by the national leaders
because I think it is not in the public interest. On the other hand, I don't
think the Republican Party can make a greater mistake than to write off
organized labor. It would be bad for the Party and bad for the country. We
could not survive as a national party. We already start each election by
virtually conceding a hundred House seats and twenty-two Senate seats to
the Democrats in the South. Therefore we have to win overwhelmingly in the
North and West to catch up. Those are the areas where organized labor and
also unorganized labor are very potent political forces. Too many Republicans
do not realize that in politics unorganized workers tend to justify themselves
with the same issues and same causes as the organized workers. A candidate
who gets tagged as being antilabor thereby incurs the opposition of both
organized and unorganized labor which, on a national scale, can mean sixty-
five million people. There was a time when the Republican Party was known
as "the party of the full dinner pail. " Unfortunately, the depression served
to change that picture and to paint Republicans as "the party of the rich and
privileged interests. 11 The Democrats have very studiously continued in
every election to charge Republicans with responsibility for the depression.
But that issue is receding. In 1956 we got a substantial portion of the labor
vote for the same general reason that we got the vote of other segments of
the population. In 1958 we lost it because of the recession and because the
much-publicized "right-to-work" issue created in the minds of wage earners
generally the impression that the Republican party was antilabor, both
organized and unorganized. It harmed us not only in California and Ohio and
other states where it was on the ballot but also in many states where it was
not.
The trouble with most politicians is that whenever they talk to labor
leaders they only talk about labor. This is a great mistake. When I talk
with Jim Carey or Dave McDonald or others, we talk about the world
struggle. We talk about the economy in general. I don't agree with some
of their ideas. But there are areas of agreement, and I find this group which
represents a very large segment of our society can contribute to solving these
problems. I believe that an administration in developing its policy, even
though you don't have the support of labor leaders, should call them in and
say, "Boys, let's talk this thing over. "
I think both labor and business have a right to get into politics. Rather
than complain about the political activities of labor leaders, businessmen
should devote the same amount of effort to politics to see that their views
are also adequately represented.
- 7 -
CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE SOUTH
I realize that many in the Southern wing of the Democratic Party and some
more conservative elements of the Republican Party believe all conservatives
ought to get into one party, and all liberals or radicals, depending on which
term you apply to the opposite economic philosophy, ought to get into another
party, so we could have a clear-cut fight on the issues. I believe in the two-
party system, and also that there should be room for differing opinions in
both parties. This avoids violent swings from one extreme to another after
elections. For the extremists to take over our two parties would encourage
such trends. Furthermore, the price of such a coalition to the Republicans
would be that we would have to abandon the position that we have traditionally
taken on the civil rights issue. That is too great a price to pay, morally and
politically, even though generally speaking we can make common cause with
Southern conservatives on many economic issues.
There is too much of a tendency to leave the solution of civil rights
problems to those who represent the minority groups on both extremes. If
we are to progress in this field, people who are not members of either extreme
would have to take the leadership.
I think it proper to emphasize that both of our political parties, Republican
and Democratic, have a record in the field of civil rights that leaves much to
be desired. Since the days of Lincoln a great deal of lip service is paid to the
cause of civil rights during each political campaign and at the great party
conventions. The same is true with legislation before Congress and the state
legislatures. We have to admit honestly that too often speeches and statements
supporting an enlightened attitude are made by individuals who know and are
satisfied that nothing is going to be done.
Demagogues who advocate impossible legal approaches to the civil rights
problem do more harm than good, and invariably set the cause back.
The bright Republican hope for making a major breakthrough in the South
has been greatly dimmed by the strong position we have taken on civil rights.
I believe that this is a temporary setback. It means we cannot expect to
crack the South on a broad scale in the near future. But over a period of time
I believe responsible Southern leaders will come to recognize that there are
other issues which are more important to the best interests and to the future
of the South than that one. They will also come to realize that their extreme
position on civil rights is, in the long run, untenable, and it would be best for
all to have a two-party system. But even now we should certainly make an
effort to attract into the Republican Party Southerners who find our economic
philosophy closer to theirs than the philosophy which has been imposed upon
the Democratic Party by its National Committee, the ADA, and certain
national labor leaders--a philosophy which both the President and I have
properly described as radical rather than liberal.
- 8 -
50660NV1M118
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Civil Rights
SCHOOL INTEGRATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS
FEDERAL REGISTRARS FOR VOTING
WORLD ATTITUDE TOWARD U. S.
PROGRESS IN CIVIL RIGHTS
SCHOOL INTEGRATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Q.
Do you feel that integration in the schools of the South is proceeding
at a speed consistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court Decision?
If not, do you recommend any measures to facilitate integration?
A.
To indicate that the integration program was proceeding at a speed
consistent with the Supreme Court Decision I think would be certainly
an exaggeration, because as we look at the situation, we realize that
this decision has had an effect in the South--which we should not, of
course, be surprised at--of building up massive resistance in some
areas.
There has been notable progress in several states. I could
mention Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and North Carolina in some
instances. As far as the future is concerned, I believe that the
current program of the Administration is the proper one.
I believe the recommendations that the President has made in his
civil rights message will provide the kind of stimulus and leadership that
is needed to bring adherence to this decision.
In the final analysis I know that it is very easy for people in political
life to come before a northern audience and say those southerners have
got to do more about integration.
I think it is well to say here that all of us have got to recognize that
this problem of racial relations is not just a southern problem; it is a
northern problem too, and it is one that all of us have to recognize isn't
going to be solved by a Supreme Court Decision or by a new commission.
It is basically going to be solved in the minds and hearts of people.
People in positions of responsibility and leadership, business leaders,
educational leaders, people in politics as well, have to provide the kind of
leadership which will create the climate in which we not only have a law
on the books but we have the will within the minds of the people to obey
this law.
It's a long-range process. It is not going to come overnight. I know
of no law that would be the solution either in the South or for similar
problems that exist in the North. But I do know that when we consider
the economic waste of segregation or prejudice, when we also consider
what is the most important--the moral issue involved--and when we
consider the devastating effect that examples of discrimination and in-
tolerance have on our relations abroad, every American of good will
should take upon himself the responsibility in his own community not to
look at the other fellow but to see what he can do in his own community
to develop the will for finding a solution of the problem of equality of
opportunity for all Americans.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question
of the Economic Club of Detroit in Detroit,
Michigan, February 15, 1960
FEDERAL REGISTRARS FOR VOTING
Q.
Mr. Vice President, on last September 8 the Commission on Civil
Rights recommended certain items of legislation, and among these was
one which I quote: "In cases where it is determined that State Registrars
have refused to register voters because of race, religion or national
origins, the President should be authorized to appoint a Federal Registrar
who would register voters until state officials are ready to resume the
- 2 -
task on a non-discriminatory basis. 11
I would like to ask you, Mr. Vice President, do you support or
oppose such legislation?
A.
As I think all of you are aware, the problem of civil rights has been one
that has been under consideration in Washington over the seven years
that this Administration has been in power.
We believe that in handling this problem we have made some progress
without going to extremes, and yet, progress which I realize is subject to
criticism by some who, for honest reasons I am sure, believe that other
approaches would have been more in the national interest.
The proposal of the Civil Rights Commission for Federal Registrars
in cases where the local authorities do not carry out the law of the land
or of the state in allowing voters to be registered, are now under con-
sideration in the Administration and particularly in the Justice
Department.
Until the Justice Department and the Administration resolve the
policy question, it is not appropriate for me to comment with regard to
whether or not this particular provision should be enacted into law. I
will, however, give you my general approach to this question, and make
perhaps a couple of points that will put the question in context.
Whatever we may think on the issue of civil rights I believe that the
great majority of Americans will agree that there is no legal, moral or
other justification for denying any American the right to vote.
How this principle can be implemented is difficult. The Civil Rights
Bill which was passed by the last Congress has now proved to have been
at least a constructive step. Witness, for example, the Louisiana case
which was handed down a few days ago. The Civil Rights Commission
has indicated that it believes that in other instances, a Registrar may be
appointed or should be appointed.
Now I recognize that in answering the question in this way, I have
not indicated a personal position, but I think you will understand that
the Vice President of the United States, and for that matter, any member
of the President's Cabinet, has a responsibility not to, in advance,
prejudice a position on a decision that is still under consideration. In
conclusion, may I say that as far as our devotion to the principle of the
right to vote is concerned, there is no question. The only argument
which will be resolved in this Congress is whether the device suggested
- 3 -
by the question is an effective one and whether it is one that will stand
the test of constitutionality.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question
by a student-faculty panel at the University of
Florida in Gainesville, Florida
January 15, 1960
WORLD ATTITUDE TOWARD U. S.
Q.
Vice President Nixon, we're well aware of your goodwill trips abroad
into many nations, and we realize that you've traveled extensively in
countries where people are other than white.
We wonder what their feeling is about the United States as a leader
in the world and our situation of more or less limited integration.
A. I recognize that the problem of integration in our schools, for example,
is a difficult one in the South. I recognize too that it is not just a
Southern problem. In the North, the West, and all over this country
there are problems involving segregation and the like. Moreover, it is
not particularly appropriate for some of those in the North to point their
fingers at the South without, of course, dealing effectively with the
problem in their own back yards. But, I also recognize, as I have said
many times publicly, that no law can be written that is going to solve
this problem in one year, two years, five years.
We know that a law is only as good as the will of the people to obey
it. That is why when people talk in a very difficult field such as civil
rights, in terms of a legal solution which goes beyond what is attainable,
they are simply talking with, I would say, the most naive attitude
possible.
And so, we have the two extremes. On the one side there are
people who say, "This situation is bad. Let's pass a law which will
resolve it. " On the other side there are people who say, "This is a
situation which we should deal with, and there should be no Federal
interference in it. "
I think both sides are wrong. I think the position that the Adminis-
tration has taken is correct. We believe we must make progress in
these various fields; that we must fit the law to the problem at hand;
that we must not go so far in our legal remedies that we do not honestly
expect compliance with the law that we may pass. I believe that what
- 4 -
the Administration attained in the last Civil Rights Bill and what it has
recommended to the Congress is a program that is attainable, enforce-
able, and would have public support of most people.
Having said this, let me relate the problem of civil rights to my
travels abroad. I have been in nearly every one of the countries of Asia,
to most of those in Africa, to some in the Near East.
In this great complex of countries there are approximately a billion
people, and as you have often heard the world is divided into thirds; a
third in the Communist world; a third--a billion or so--in the free world;
and a third in the so-called neutral world, a term which I question,
because as far as these people are concerned, as evidenced by the
welcome that President Eisenhower received from them, their hearts
are on the side of freedom. There is no question about that.
But these people want economic progress. In addition to that, they
also want recognition of their individual dignity as human beings.
Each of these countries are different in religion, dress, language,
but they are alike in one respect. Ninety-five percent of them are not
white. Every little instance of mistreatment or denial of rights to
citizens in this country who are not white is blown up a thousandfold. I
do not know of anything that does more harm to U. S. foreign policy
abroad than instances of this type.
The answer, of course, is twofold: One, there has to be a better
story told abroad about what we are doing in this field. We have made
some real progress. The very fact that Americans are concerned about
denial of voting rights, denial of adequate education, denial of employ-
ment opportunities to our Negro citizens is an indication of potential
progress in the future.
If the United States expects to retain its prestige in the world we
have to deal with this problem. They do not expect us to solve it
magically because they have it too, somewhat in reverse, but we have
to deal with it; we must be honest about it, and we must do the best we
can.
I would be the last to suggest that I see any easy solution to civil
rights. I can assure you that passing a law is not going to solve it.
Laws can help in certain areas. In the final analysis, it is going to be
solved by the young people who go into the communities in Florida and
throughout the South and throughout the North and the West.
- 5 -
In this area of human relations, race relations, labor relations,
leadership at the top helps, but basically, we have to have men and
women of goodwill at the local level, who recognize the problem, and
then patiently work out these very complex and difficult issues in a way
that will meet the approval of the community.
The very fact that these questions have been asked tonight speaks
well for the future. I am not discouraged about it. I think we have come
a long way, in the last ten years particularly. I believe that the young
people in our colleges and universities throughout this Nation can render
tremendous service in this area and others in providing America the
leadership that it needs.
--Vice President Nixon in response to a question
by a student-faculty panel at the University of
Florida in Gainesville, Florida
January 15, 1960
PROGRESS IN CIVIL RIGHTS
Q.
What do you think about our problems in the South? Do you think we
should just leave things alone and let time work it out, or do you think
that some more Federal Government force should be used to bring about
a solution.
A.
The answer is, of course, we cannot leave it alone. The Federal
Government is not leaving it alone; that is why we passed the Voting
Referee Bill, which was written by the Attorney General of the United
States, and is a very historic bill, which will protect the voting rights
which are the essential for all other rights.
As far as what government policy should be though, there is a
limitation on it. I have many of my friends who say:
This situation in the South is very bad. And might I just say in
that respect, that we in the North and the West should not cast stones
at the South without recognizing we have problems in New York and
Los Angeles and San Francisco and other places as well. The problem
is nationwide; it is more acute in the South, and we should be able to
understand it.
But with regard to the South, people say: Why don't we just pass a
law that will solve all this problem, a law with regard to lunchrooms, a
law with regard to National Fair Employment Practices, etc., etc.
- 6 -
The answer is that, if the law goes further than public opinion can
be brought along to support at a particular time, it may prove to do
more harm than good. What we have to do is to find that delicate
balance, where the law contributes to a solution of the problem rather
than creating greater problems than it solves.
The voting-referee proposal is one; the work of the Committee on
Government Contracts, where through persuasion and an educational
program we convince the people who have government contracts not to
discriminate in employment, is another. We must continue to work, to
give Federal Government leadership, moral leadership at the top of
the very highest quality in order to solve this problem.
But in the final analysis we must remember that Federal law alone
will not solve it. Federal law is only a part of the way, part of the
solution, and in the final analysis it can only be solved by developing the
leadership at the local and state levels, in the church, in the schools,
and, of course, in the information media as well. And our national leader-
ship can help to develop it.
I remember my first day in a course on contracts in law school--I
had a very distinguished professor, Lon Fuller, who is now Williston
Professor at Harvard.
Professor Fuller said: "Now, gentlemen, I'm just going to tell you
one rule about contracts that is more important than all the rest. " He
said, "A contract is only as good as the will of the parties to keep it. "
A law is also only as good as the will of the parties to keep it. It is so
easy to say: Pass a law
and not assume the responsibility which we
have to assume as citizens to develop the will among the people to keep
it. I would hope that all the people here in this audience, when you go
back to your communities, will help in dealing with this problem by
developing in the hearts of people the will to keep the law in a field
like civil rights.
Because, in the final analysis might I say, this is a domestic
problem for us, but there is nothing that harms the United States more
abroad than the spectacle of our failing to live up to the precepts of
freedom at home. It is not easy, and we must not be intolerant of our
friends and neighbors in the South who have this problem. But we must
move forward with progress--but with sensible, achievable progress;
not with demagoguery, but with the hard work and the leadership that
the nation and this problem deserve.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question
by students at Stanford University in Palo Alto,
California, April 11, 1960
50660NVIM120
- 7 -
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Africa
AFRICA AND THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Q.
I wonder if you could state in a few words your policy toward Africa and
toward South Africa.
A.
First, of course, when we look at Africa, we have to understand that we
can no more refer to it as simply one continent with one tradition and one
culture than we can to South America. I say that because most people as-
sume that South America can be described as simply the problem of the
Americas. It is, of course, much more homogeneous, but it is also a
great mistake to refer to South America without recognizing the individual
backgrounds of the different countries.
Now, with that introduction, and ruling out for the moment North
Africa with the problems of the Algerians, the Tunisians, the Libyans,
the Egyptians, and moving to Central Africa where the spotlight now is
focused and then briefly to South Africa.
let me, in a few words,
describe what I believe the policy of our government should be.
First, we must recognize that Africa today is as important in the
world struggle as China was 15 years ago. The Communists recognized
the importance of China 25 years ago and even sooner than that. They
recognized the importance of Africa 15 years ago. The difficulty with
too many of us in the West is that we do not have the sense of history
we should have. The difficulty is that we think in terms of the problems
that can be solved in 5 years rather than thinking in terms of the half-
century or the century as the case might be. And if we continue to think
in these ways, we will go down to defeat before people who have a longer-
range view of history and who plan for the future.
Africa is potentially the most explosive and potentially, as far as
the cause of the free world is concerned vis-a-vis the Communist world,
the most critical area of the world today. Two hundred million people
who live in Africa hold the balance of power and have great natural re-
sources, much of them untapped. New nations are becoming independent
almost month by month, year by year, perhaps ten in the next five years.
Nigeria, the largest one with 30, 000, 000 people is becoming independent
next year. The question is: What will happen to these newly independent
countries in Central Africa or what is generally described as "Black
Africa. 11
The Communists have been trying to anticipate what will happen and
trying to affect it. As I said, they recognized several years ago this
importance. They started to support the anti-colonial forces; they at-
tached themselves to the leaders and those who were going to become
leaders of these countries. To the extent that they could they tried to
orient them towards the Communist way by bringing them to Moscow and
other Communist capitals for education, for orientation, with the result
that they have made considerable progress in this direction.
In contrast our activities have not been as effective, although we
have a better case to sell. But, certainly, the situation is not hopeless
by a long shot. While these countries, in view of their colonial tradition,
have a natural antipathy in varying degrees to colonialism particularly to
the countries that imposed colonial policies on them, nevertheless, the
very fact that during those years they were exposed to the culture, the
traditions, and the principles of free nations, meant that many of their
budding leaders know the difference between freedom and dictatorship.
They would prefer to have economic progress with freedom rather than
to pay for it by giving up their freedom.
We have to recognize that these countries are determined to have
progress and, of course, they need it vitally. Secondly, as far as the
economic system they will adopt to get that progress is concerned, we
cannot expect our form of economy and economic principles to work in
their countries with their high rate of illiteracy and without the trained
technicians we have in this country. Thirdly, we must also recognize
that these people, the leaders of these countries, must be given every
possible opportunity to come to the United States, and to other free
countries, for the training, the technical assistance, the advice that
they need in order to govern their countries and run their economies.
If we give them that choice, they have an alternative, and they will not
go the Communist way, in my opinion. But if we take the attitude that
it is their problem to get rid of their colonial governments and let them
decide it without our aid economically, technically and otherwise, there
is not any question in my opinion but that the virulent, tough-minded,
- 2 -
Communist leaders, those already there and those that will be imported
into those countries, will prevail.
And so this is the stake for us. The United States, and other
nations associated with us, simply cannot leave them to this choice.
That is why in the next few years our program for technical assistance,
our programs of student exchange, of leader exchange, and our programs
of aid through loans to these countries must be stepped up to meet this
problem, so that Africa will not fall under the Communist orbit.
The problem of South Africa, of course, is a very tragic one at the
moment. I know some have been critical of the position of the United
States in the United Nations with regard to condemning the policy of the
South African government toward Negroes. Some who have condemned
us for taking the position we did have said: This is internal interference
in the affairs of this government and if we do this it sets a precedent for
the United Nations to say: What about your problem in the South-why
aren't you dealing with it more effectively than you are?
The answer to that, of course, is that, while we do have problems
in the South, very difficult and grievous ones, they are not the result of
Federal Government policy. The law of the land is to the contrary; the
law of the land recognizes equality of opportunity for all citizens
regardless of race, creed or color. As far as South Africa is concerned,
it has adopted a government policy, which, in effect, denies this equality
of opportunity which we recognize.
What does the future hold for South Africa? In the long run it has
to be worked out and I think it will be. It will not be worked out with
the extremist elements sitting in their trenches firing at each other.
It will only be worked out as men and women of good will recognize that
these two great races have to live together, and over a period of time
evolve the social forms that will meet the problem. I emphasize "over
a period of time" because traditions that have grown up over a century
cannot be changed in a year or two years or three. It will take time
there, just as it is taking time in the United States of America.
In summary, then, as I look at the whole problem of Africa, I do
not think that in the next 10 years any part of the world will be more
important to the free world, and to the Communist world, than Africa.
The Communists know it, we have begun to know it, and I am confident
that proper leadership by the American Government, with the assistance
of our colleagues in the free world will keep Africa from falling into the
Communist orbit.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question by a
student at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California
on April 11, 1960
51860NVIM143
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
- 3 -
P. D. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Economic
Policy and
Philosophy
ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY
POINT OF DEMARCATION
ON FEDERAL AID
THE NATIONAL DEBT
SHALL WE "DIRECT" OUR
PROSPECTS FOR TAX RE-
ECONOMY
FORM TO STIMULATE
ECONOMIC GROWTH
ROLE OF STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES
ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY
Q.
There has been a good deal of discussion in the press, as I am sure
you are aware, of the dimensions of your conservatism and the pro-
portions of your liberalism. This has taken place in the context of
whether or not it would be wise for you to go along with liberal aims
in order to get more of an independent vote, or a shift in the other
direction. Realizing full well the flexibility of these terms and the
danger of using them, I would like to ask you, sir, if you have any-
thing other than a middle-of-the-road comment to make on this
discussion.
A. As you implied in your question, the use of the terms conservative
and liberal have been so distorted that unless we discuss specific
programs it is most difficult to classify and divide by one of those terms.
As far as I personally am concerned, I believe there is probably nobody
in public life today who has, by his votes and by his speeches, more
clearly defined where he stands on the economic issues confronting this
country and the foreign policy issues confronting this country than I
have. I say that having in mind the fact that many of you have written
that that is not the case.
I believe in economic conservatism. I am an economic conserv-
ative because I believe conservative economic policies provide the
surest and best road to progress for the great majority of the American
people.
I have often heard people suggest that, because President Eisenhower,
for example, opposes a program such as the Forand Bill, which would
establish compulsory health insurance for people over the age of 65, he
has no concern for those people and is more concerned about the dollars
that the program cost. My answer to those critics is: Whose dollars are
they talking about? Not his but yours. He has a responsibility to
consider the cost of programs in dollars. He also has a great responsi-
bility to consider the cost of those programs insofar as the results to be
achieved might be outweighed by the damage that would result. What is
the position of a conservative with regard to medical care for the aged,
education, better housing, and to all of the progress that Americans
want? Our position is that we are conservative not because we are
against progress, but because we are for it. We oppose the programs
of our liberal friends, not because we oppose the ends to which those
programs are directed, but because we know the means they advocate,
however well intentioned they are, would in the end cost more than the
results achieved would merit.
As a conservative I think the greatest mistake we could make, and
this refers to both Republican and Democratic conservatives, for
fortunately we have both, would be to leave to those who advocate the
so-called liberal point of view a monopoly of concern for the problems
of people, concern for better health, better housing, better schools,
and all these other things in which people are interested.
As a conservative, I am deeply concerned that the American people
continue to have economic, spiritual and moral progress to the
maximum extent. As a conservative I oppose liberal programs or
radical programs in those cases where those programs are designed
and pretend to meet these ends, but where I know that they will not work
and ultimately would produce more harm than good.
- 2 -
As a conservative, I point to the record of the last seven years, and
I say that, in those seven years when we have had economic conservatism
in operation, the American people have had more progress in building
schools, in building more hospitals, in raising the relative income of
sixty-five million American workers, than they have had in any seven
years in the history of this country.
I think that is a good record. I think we should build upon that record.
The only quarrel that I would have with my conservative friends would
be this: I completely reject the idea that conservatism means that we sim-
ply plant our feet in cement and resist all changes because of our fear of
what change would bring.
The rule of life is change. There is going to be change. Our people
are a progressive people. They want to move forward.
So conservatism at its best must be progressive. It must look at
these great social and economic problems with which we are confronted,
oppose the phony schemes and the panaceas, but come up with con-
structive alternatives which will meet and solve those problems, and
produce for the future, while still preserving the best from the past.
This is middle-of-the-road; it is generalities, but that is where I
stand.
- -Vice President Nixon in response to questions
at the annual meeting of the American Society
of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D. C.
April 23, 1960
THE NATIONAL DEBT
Q. I heard a leading Republican indicate a possible figure of five billion
dollars a year as the amount that the American Government and people
might set as a goal to pay off the National Debt.
I would like to ask you if you think that is an entirely unreasonable
objective?
A. It is a reasonable objective, and an appropriate one. As a goal that can
be attained, it may be very unrealistic. It would be very much easier
for me to say that five billion dollars a year paid off on the national debt
- 3 -
is something we both should and can do, and if we have another Republi-
can President, that is the way to accomplish it.
But I am also aware of the realities of international life, as every-
body in this room is. Next year, fortunately, we are going to be able to
pay off, or apply on our national debt, unless the Congress does things
to the President's budget we do not anticipate, perhaps three billion, or
maybe four billion dollars.
However, the amount that the American people are going to be able
to set aside for paying on their debt will depend to a primary extent on
what happens in the international arena.
Above everything else, the United States must never place itself in
the position, militarily, economically, or otherwise, where those who
would destroy our freedom and the freedom of others, are looking down
our throats. This means that we must pay whatever it costs to maintain
our present level of strength, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, and that means
enough so that in the event of an attack being launched against us we can
destroy their war-making capabilities.
I am unable to say right here today what military costs will be as we
move into the future.
But I will say this. If we do not make progress toward disarmament,
and this state of world tension continues as it is, I can visualize that
those costs, both militarily at home and economically abroad, are going
to continue to remain high.
Oh, yes, we can cut some of our domestic expenditures and we shall
try to do that. We can make government more efficient. But I could
say nothing more misleading to this audience than to assure you that over
the next five years, for example, we can pay five billion dollars a year
of the national debt. We should set it as a goal, but the primary goal
must be the security of America.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions
at the annual meeting of the American Society
of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D. C.
April 23, 1960
PROSPECTS FOR TAX REFORM TO STIMULATE ECONOMIC
GROWTH
Q.
Mr. Nixon, I think it was yesterday you came out for tax reform
- 4 -
if the budget expenditures would justify it. This reform would
essentially reduce taxes to raise incentive. You would cut taxes
in the upper bracket in order to implement private incentive.
Would this not be a discriminatory tax in the sense that the
taxes in the lower income area would remain fixed while the upper
tax brackets would enjoy a mitigation?
A. First of all, with regard to tax reform or reduction, may I emphasize
that throughout this campaign I do not intend to promise the people that
if I am elected they can have either reform or reduction categorically.
Before we can talk about either tax reduction or tax reform, both of
which will result in a reduction of revenue, we have to be sure that we
have met our national security responsibilities adequately.
By national security I mean not only defense, but the waging of the
non-military campaign which I referred to a moment ago in our discus-
sion of Africa. This is the most decisive part of the world struggle.
The battle that is going on there is being won and lost now, and it is one
that we cannot afford to lose.
In addition to that, of course, remember our activities in space. All
of these are activities that must be taken care of before you can even
consider any tax reduction or tax reform. And the reason that you can-
not make any promises in this field is that your requirements in these
matters depend upon the world situation. They depend on new inventions,
and on the cost of space development and of missile production. We can-
not predict what these costs will be even six months from now, so I want
to make it clear that we are talking about a hypothetical question.
If, after adequately meeting all of our national security responsi-
bilities, there is a surplus which will enable us to have a Tax Bill, I
believe that Tax Bill should emphasize tax reform. This tax reform
would have as its purpose the stimulating of economic growth.
How do you stimulate economic growth? You stimulate it by en-
couraging people to invest their savings in industrial plants. One of the
ways we can do that is through adjusting our tax system. On this program
I cannot indicate specifically what should be done, and I shall not until the
campaign comes along. But here are some examples.
You move on the depreciation front. Accelerated depreciation can
be most constructive in stimulating economic growth. You move on what
I would call the counter-productive higher income bracket taxes. These
are counter-productive because at the present time they create what I
would call an expense account economy. I think you know what I am talk-
- 5 -
ing about here. Because taxes are so high, people live off expense
accounts, in effect, and companies have to pay their top officials in terms
of expense accounts as well as in terms of adequate income. Now this is
counter-productive and inefficient. By reducing these rates you lose
relatively little revenue, yet you release capital for investment in in-
dustrial plants. That investment in industrial plants produces progress.
It produces more jobs. It produces economic growth.
Now may I say that what I have just suggested has no political sex
appeal whatever. I am aware of this. The British were aware of it
when they did the same thing a couple of years ago. But I feel that
economic growth is essential in this country, and I think the way to
economic growth is through expanding the private sector of the economy
rather than the government sector. I think government has a responsi-
bility to create a proper climate. We can see that our economy remains
competitive through the enforcement of anti-trust laws, but we can also
do a great deal of good through reforming our tax system and thereby en-
couraging and stimulating maximum investment in new plants which will
produce more goods and more jobs for Americans.
If we could attain a surplus over expenditures in our national budget,
would it not be the wisest thing to meet the public needs for social
services, such as education, housing, urban redevelopment and medical
research, as opposed to giving money back in terms of reform in the tax
structure?
The needs that you refer to can be met only if we have tax income with
which to pay the appropriations which those programs would require.
The programs to which you refer are not in themselves wealth producing.
They meet welfare needs, as you pointed out.
You cannot get the funds to do all of these things in the welfare field
unless you have people in the private sector of the economy producing the
goods for these programs and producing the profits which are then taxed
and which will be used for these purposes.
What I am suggesting, now, is a program of tax reform which would
mean a reduction in revenue at the outset, but would also mean an
increase in revenue in the end, because it would increase the growth of
the economy. What I want to do is get a greater tax base in the end.
And the way to do that is through setting a more realistic tax program.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open-End, 11 WNTA-TV, May 15, 1960
- 6
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Q.
Mr. Nixon, you have repeatedly stated that you are opposed to what you
call "welfare state-ism. " Would you regard social security, the
minimum wage and hour law, T. V. A., the Securities Exchange Com-
mission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and similar
agencies of our government as elements of a welfare state?
A.
No. I regard the programs to which you refer as consistent with the kind
of dynamic private enterprise economy which I believe will provide the
most goods and services for the American people.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open-End, 11 WNTA-TV, May 15, 1960
POINT OF DEMARCATION ON FEDERAL AID
Q.
How and where then, sir, do you draw the line on the proper sphere of
federal aid for social welfare and public need? What is your point of
demarcation?
A. My point of demarcation is this: Wherever the individual, acting alone
or with other people, either in a partnership or a corporation or some
other group activity, can do a particular job, or render a particular
service more efficiently and less expensively than government can, then
I believe that should be the action that we should follow. Whenever the
individual, alone or with others, is unable or refuses to render the kind
of services that the people need or want, then and only then should
government step in.
When government does take steps, I believe it should start at the
lowest level and work up to the highest, rather than start at the highest
and work down. First, we should see if the local government can do it.
Then the state government. And finally, and only as a last resort, the
federal government.
Now the activities that you have mentioned--social security,
T. V. A. --these are all activities which neither individuals working
alone nor the state government could effectively or efficiently handle.
Yet they provide services that should be rendered to the people. Con-
sequently, I feel that the federal government had a right and a responsi-
bility to step in.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open-End," WNTA-TV, May 15, 1960
- 7 -
SHALL WE "DIRECT" OUR ECONOMY?
Q.
If we should work out a disarmament agreement and therefore not have to
appropriate so much for the military, what would you use the extra funds
for Would you put it in the public sector--in other words, more govern-
ment spending, more government projects--or would you put it in the
private sector, more for the individual and the like?
A.
This question is basic, and I would like to say that my answer to it is
categorical.
There is a great debate going on at the present time about our so-
called "affluent society. " There are those who twenty-five years ago,
were talking about the fact that too many Americans did not have enough
to eat, enough to wear, good enough housing and the good things of life,
and that the end of government should be to provide all these things. Now
they are saying that the American people as individuals have too much,
that there is too much emphasis on materialism, too much emphasis on
tail fins, too much emphasis on television, and all that sort of thing
and not enough emphasis on what we call "public needs. 11
The argument goes that because the American people do not know what
is best for themselves, because they would spend too much on these mate-
rialistic things and not enough on, shall we say, science and education and
other things which are just as important and really more important in the
long run, that what we ought to do, since the people do not know what is
best for them, is to have more money siphoned off to government so that
government may determine what is best for the people. But the trouble
with this argument is: What is government? Government, of course, is
people too. I just do not accept the philosophy that Big Brother knows best.
I believe that the government has a real responsibility to maintain an
adequate national defense and to deal with this world struggle effectively,
not only in its military sense but also in the economic sense. And might
I say right there that a portion of the savings from disarmament should
go into the fight against poverty and misery and disease in other parts of
the world. Because, both from the standpoint of humanitarian reasons
and from the standpoint of the self-interest of the U. S., that in the long
run will be more important than the missiles we buy in determining that
struggle.
Once we have taken care of our international obligations, once we
have taken care of our national defense, once we have taken care of the
necessary requirements for education, for those projects which in-
dividuals and states and local government cannot do for themselves,
- 8 -
then I say that I do not believe that the way to a better life for the
American people is to funnel more of our funds to government and less
to people. I have basic confidence that in the long run people are
qualified to make the best decisions about their future. I do not go along
with those who say we should increase government spending in order to
have greater growth of our economy, in order to have a better life.
I say that government should spend as much as it needs to, but no
more, because individuals in our society have the good sense to spend
their money in their best interest and in the best interest of the country.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions
of students at Stanford University, Palo Alto,
California, April 11, 1960
ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Q. I would ask you, sir, how valid is your argument that the state and local
governments are more capable and more efficient than the federal govern-
ment in meeting the costly, complex, and vast problems of our times?
A. The closer you put government to the people, the more efficient and the
more responsive government can be. When decisions are made in
Washington affecting all parts of this diverse country--the people out in
California or in Oregon as well-there has to be a uniformity. But
sometimes diversity is a much better approach. The problems of one
state vary from those of another. So whenever I can advocate govern-
ment at a local level, I do so.
I must say, though, that I do this for another reason too, and not
only for efficiency. I happen to be a Jeffersonian in this respect. I
believe that one of the greatest guarantees of freedom is decentraliza-
tion. One of the greatest potential enemies of freedom, and dangers to
freedom, is centralization of power.
Now in this country we all say, "But nobody would ever dream that
the federal government, with the kind of leadership we have, and with
our checks and balances, would ever be tyrannical. " The answer is,
"No, unless you put too much power in the federal government."
I believe the federal government should have the power it needs to
do the job that it and only it can do. But if the job can be done by a
local or state government, it should be done there.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open-End," WNTA-TV, May 15, 1960
- 9 -
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Education
FEDERAL AID TO COLLEGES
THE NEED FOR LOCAL CONTROL
AND DIVERSITY
FEDERAL AID FOR TEACHERS' SALARIES
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION
THE EDUCATION LOYALTY OATH
FEDERAL AID TO COLLEGES
Q.
Mr. Nixon, during the past few years the major direction of federal
aid to education as an aim has been to capital expansion for educa-
tion such as the Housing Act of 1950, and then in loan and scholar-
ship under the National Defense Act of 1958.
I would like to ask two short questions.
One, do you generally favor an expansion of federal aid to edu-
cation?
And, more specifically, would you favor scholarship and loan
funds to be given with priority to students who were studying in the
arts and humanities?
A. I believe first with regard to the scholarship and loan funds that we should
bear in mind the fact that the national policy with regard to the granting of
such funds was developed as a result of the concern in this country over
the lag in the production of scientists and engineers. In other words, it
was a national security consideration that brought the federal government
into the picture whereby the federal government provided the necessary
funds for closing the gap. (Not a gap between ourselves vis-a-vis Soviet
Union, but the gap which we considered existed as far as our own needs
were concerned in the United States in science and engineering.)
Now, as far as any extension of federal aid to education at the col-
lege level, I would state briefly my position in this way: First, there is
a program which has been carefully worked out by the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare in which the aid, currently limited simply
to the construction of so-called college housing, will be in effect extended
also to the construction of classrooms and to other facilities which make
up a complete college campus.
What the Congress will do with this, I do not know. I do think this is
a constructive approach in which the federal government, through a grant
program and through a guaranteed loan program, will help colleges and
universities throughout the country to meet their budgets and to provide
the necessary funds for construction of these very much needed facilities.
The net result, of course, is that through this kind of aid there is a
very direct effect upon the ability of colleges and universities to take bet-
ter care of the teachers, and to provide more help for the students through
scholarships and the like. I believe that this is an effective program, and
it is, I think, the best approach to this problem.
In my opinion, as far as education is concerned in this country, there
are three needs.
There is a need for buildings.
There is a need as well for better compensation and recognition of
teachers.
And there is also a need for better quality standards. The greatest
and most important of these needs, of course, is standards.
Directly related to that and more important than buildings is, of
course, raising the salaries of teachers. This is a vital need, and cer-
tainly all over the country at all levels of education it is one that our
- 2 -
local communities, our state legislatures and school boards must face
up to and do a far more effective job than we have.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions
at the dinner program sponsored by the
Businessmen's Advisory Committee of the
School of Business Administration of Wayne
State University and the Wayne University
Chapter of Alpha Kappa Psi, Detroit, Michigan
February 15, 1960
THE NEED FOR LOCAL CONTROL AND DIVERSITY
Q.
We hear these days a great deal about the deficiencies of American edu-
cation. We hear, for example, that we are behind the Soviet Union in
education; that they are producing more and better scientists and
engineers; that they have better discipline than we have. We hear that
unless we do something about our educational system we are going to fall
behind in this great economic, spiritual and moral competition in which
we are engaged in the world today. What should our answer be?
Well, our answer obviously should be one in which we recognize the
challenge, because we can never be complacent when confronted by
totalitarian power which can concentrate its efforts in particular areas
that it may select and make breakthroughs which could have great
political significance.
But, on the other hand, in our justifiable concern about the challenge
they present and the areas in which they may have moved ahead because
of this ability to concentrate, we should not make the mistake of trying
to judge our own institutions by their standards.
In other words, the greatest mistake we could make in this country
would be to use the communist yardstick to judge the effectiveness and
the quality of American education.
There are some things we may be able to learn in this process of
self-examination of our educational system today, such as the need for
more discipline, the need for more concentration on science and
engineering where the national security requires it.
But, on the other hand, we should not forget that the needs of a free
society as far as education is concerned are altogether different from
those of the communist or the totalitarian society. We need men and
- 3 -
women coming from our colleges and our universities who are something
more than simply scientific and technical automatons. They must be
people who can assume the responsibilities of citizens in a free society.
That is why the emphasis on the humanities and the emphasis upon the
grave responsibilities that every American citizen has toward his fellow
man here and abroad has been good in our educational system.
In our understandable desire not to fall behind in the technical fields,
let us continue to place proper emphasis on the humanities and on the
responsibilities that we have as citizens in our educational process.
This brings me, of course, to your institutions. We hear a great
deal about what the federal government can do. There are some who
ask: Why can't we have far greater federal responsibility for education
at the primary level, the secondary level and the college level as well?
There are some things the federal government can and should do.
The Defense Education Act is a good example. The College Housing Act
is a good example. I believe that the President's program for aid for
school construction to needy districts is a good example.
But I would also suggest that those who, with the very best of in-
tentions, say that not only should the federal government move into the
construction area but it should also move into the whole area of
subsidizing the operations of our public school system are overlooking
another very important principle that is one of the great strengths of a
free society and of a free country--local control of our educational
system.
The concentration of power is one of the major enemies of freedom,
and that is why it seems to me that any program of federal aid must be
one which recognizes local control.
Another very important principle for us to bear in mind is that the
hallmark of freedom is diversity. We do not want our educational
standards established either in Washington or, for that matter, in the
state capitol, and made absolutely uniform for all of the people and all
of the students in all of the schools.
There is a need for coordination. There is a need for leadership.
But we must recognize that diversity in education, as in every other
field, is one of the guarantees of freedom. The very fact that each one
of your colleges differ in their curricula, in their approach, is one of
the guarantees of freedom.
- 4 -
By your support of private colleges, of private universities, you are
helping our educational system generally, and you are helping to preserve
the principles of freedom in which we all believe.
-Vice President Nixon in his remarks to the
Detroit Committee for Seven Eastern Women's
Colleges, Inc., Detroit, Michigan
February 15, 1960
FEDERAL AID FOR TEACHERS' SALARIES
Q.
Mr. Nixon, how do you explain your recent negative vote in the Senate on
the Federal Aid Education Bill several days ago?
A.
The vote on what you have termed aid to education, as you will recall,
involved an amendment which would have provided direct federal aid for
subsidizing teachers' salaries in the elementary and secondary public
schools of the United States.
I have often expressed the view that there is no more important
problem in American education today than raising the compensation for
our teachers and according them the recognition which they deserve.
I also believe very strongly in another principle, and that is that one
of the great strengths of a free economy is local control of the educational
process. The closer we can have the control and operation of our school
system to the people, the more chance we have to avoid the development
of a centralized all-powerful bureaucracy and remote control of some-
thing as important as what is taught the new generation of Americans.
Our problem in the case of federal aid to education is how do we
reconcile these two problems: one, teachers should be paid more, and
two, the fact that we want local control rather than federal control.
It is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the President and of this
Administration, that there is a way to reconcile it. We believe that the
federal government should limit its aid in the case of education to con-
struction. Because where construction is involved, there is no color of
control whatever. We believe that by limiting aid to a program of con-
struction there will be two effects.
In the plan itself, recognition is given to those districts that make an
extra effort for paying more for teachers than districts around them. In
addition to that, by making money available for construction, it means
- 5 -
that in those states which receive the aid, money can then be diverted
from construction to teachers' pay, so indirectly teachers will benefit.
In essence, my view is that the only proper position for those who
believe, as I do, in the principle of local control of our educational
system--and who also believe that education is of the highest priority
and that raising teachers' salary is essential to realizing that objec-
tive through the Administration's program.
I hope the Congress acts upon it because I would say that if the ap-
proach of the Congress as it finally leaves the Senate and the House is
one which provides direct subsidies to teachers, there will be no aid to
education this year. There will be an issue but not progress in the
problem.
There is a way to get progress in the problem, and that is through
a program which follows, at least in general terms, the President's
recommendations.
-Vice President Nixon at a news conference
in Detroit, Michigan, February 15, 1960
LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EDUCATION
Q. Mr. Nixon, what do you suggest that the citizens and industry do to
follow through more completely on a program of local control and
support of schools?
A. I can speak with some feeling on this score. I understand that as a
result of this dinner, a few scholarships may be available. I can tell
you that if there had not been a lot of scholarships available at the Duke
University Law School, I would not be standing here today. It is only
because there were scholarships made available by people in business
and industry that I was able to go to school, as perhaps is the case with
many of you here.
So, first of all, there is a real responsibility, which the business-
men in this area have recognized as far as this institution is concerned,
to contribute time, energy and money for the betterment of the
standards of teaching, and also to increase the opportunities for young
people to go to school.
Now, let me also refer to another phase of the question with regard
to the support of our local and primary public schools. I often have
people come to Washington, members of some of our great business
- 6 -
associations, who say: We are unalterably against federal aid to edu-
cation, period.
They are honest in this opposition. They are against the school
construction provisions which I favor, which the President favors, and
they say they are against it because they think even that much federal
aid might result in federal control. They say this is a local responsi-
bility.
And then the same people go back and vote against a school bond
that will build the school or provide the necessary funds for teachers.
That is completely irresponsible, and that is the kind of activity that
has to be avoided and has to be worked against.
If we are going to have local control and local responsibility, this
means that the local people have to assume it. It means that the local
people must look at the scale of salaries for their teachers; they must
look at the adequacy of the schoolrooms; they must look at the standards
which are maintained in their schools and then do what is necessary to
maintain or raise them.
It seems to me that by just such groups as The Business Advisory
Committee businessmen who could sit in their individual businesses
making profits and showing no concern at all about the community
around them or the state problems --recognizing they have a responsi-
bility for better education provides an excellent example to people
throughout the country.
I hope that as a result of this great debate--about teachers' salaries
which are too low and about education in general there will be a greater
sense of responsibility on the part of businessmen, professional men and
others in local communities throughout this country who should take the
initiative in raising the standards of American education.
If the local communities won't raise the standards, the inevitable
result is going to have to be, of course, a federal program--and this
most of us believe would be a mistake.
- -Vice President Nixon in response to questions
at the dinner program sponsored by the
Businessmen's Advisory Committee of the
School of Business Administration of Wayne
State University and the Wayne University
Chapter of Alpha Kappa Psi, Detroit, Michigan
February 15, 1960
- 7 -
THE EDUCATION LOYALTY OATH
Q.
The California Democratic Council, Mr. Vice President, adopted a
resolution calling for the immediate repeal of loyalty oaths or, as they
put it, non-disloyalty oaths. What would your reaction be to such a
move?
A.
I assume they might have been referring both to state and Federal law,
and I think I should comment perhaps on a specific case involving the
loyalty oath required for students who apply for scholarships under the
National Defense Education Act.
In my opinion, where a student is receiving assistance from the
government under this Act, he should sign an affirmative oath of
loyalty. After all, the purpose of the Federal program in this instance
is to train scientists and engineers who will, we presume, in the future
work on projects that might have something to do with the national
defense.
On the other hand, I believe that the Administration's position, which
we have announced during the past few months, to the effect that an oath
on the negative side--indicating not only that affirmatively I am loyal,
but saying I also state that I am not disloyal--is superfluous and should
not be required. So, my position is that we should have an affirmative
loyalty oath. I do not believe the negative oath is necessary.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions
from a panel of newsmen on Profile Bay Area,
Station KQED, San Francisco, California
February 19, 1960
60960NV1M125
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. D. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 8 -
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Foreign Trade
And Aid
IMPORTS FROM THE FAR EAST
FOREIGN AID OR MUTUAL SECURITY
FOREIGN AID AND TRADE
IMPORTS FROM THE FAR EAST
Q.
What is being done, and what consideration is being given about the
cheap imports that we seem to be getting into this country. I speak
in particular about textiles particularly from Hong Kong and from
Japan. There have been some instances where manufacturers have
picked their factories up lock, stock and barrel--or taken their
key personnel--out of areas such as Los Angeles, and moved to
Japan to take advantage of the cheap labor. And their goods, of
course, come back into this country to compete against the goods
made here. Would you have some comments upon that, please.
A.
This, of course, is a very complex issue, but I can give you some
indication certainly of what my own thinking is and also what the
Administration's position is with regard to it.
In the first place, I think we have to recognize that the days
when the United States could even consider building a wall of pro-
tection around it are gone so far as our international policy is con-
cerned. At the present time, what we are doing is retaining those
tariff restrictions which are necessary to protect our industries
in those instances where, because of differences in costs and rates
and so forth, there would be a tremendous hardship on industries here
by failing to provide that protection. In the long run, though, the policy
of the United States must be toward more trade in this world rather than
less.
We, of course, are well aware of the fact that as a result of the
imports from Japan, for example, there has been a growing sentiment
in this country among our manufacturers--a and others affected--for
establishing quota restrictions or raising tariff barriers to give pro-
tection to manufacturers here.
Rather than establishing quotas--turning the clock back, in effect,
away from trade rather than toward more trade--we have consulted
with the government of Japan. The Japanese, in instance after instance,
have themselves adopted on a voluntary basis restrictions on the
amount that they will send into the United States, so that this competi-
tive position of our own industry can be maintained. This is not, I
realize, a complete answer to every case of hardship involved, but I
think that when we consider the general problems involved, the United
States position of working toward greater trade with countries through-
out the world is the only sustainable one that we can take in view of our
world responsibilities. We should take that view, however, having in
mind the additional responsibility we have toward our own domestic
industry and make as certain as we can that undue hardship is not
worked upon them in a transition period from one type of production to
another which might have to occur.
Vice President Nixon in response to a
question at a public forum in Fresno,
California on February 18, 1960
FOREIGN AID OR MUTUAL SECURITY
Q.
Do you believe that foreign aid should be a permanent part of our foreign
policy- a long-range program or do you feel it is a temporary stopgap
against communism?
A.
Well, I think I can answer that question by saying that communism is
not temporary.
The communist threat, I think, is going to continue to exist for our
lifetime, and one of the greatest mistakes that we in the Free World
make is to fail to take the long view.
- 2
We Americans are an impatient people. We want to solve all of the
problems with which we are confronted in two years, three years, four
years, five years, and if they are not solved, we say: Let's get a new
program to solve it.
One thing about our communist opponents is that they do not think
in terms of five years or even of this generation. They are willing
to wait. They have dedication. But also they have stamina, and what
we need on our side is dedication, which I am sure we have, but we
also need stamina, even more than they have.
In that connection, as far as the communist threat is concerned,
they have presently ruled out, because of this balance of terror that
exists the old philosophy of Stalin and his predecessor that called for
the use of aggressive force as a means of extending communism.
Khrushchev now says: We challenge the United States and the Free
World to peaceful competition.
What does he mean by this? He means competition economically,
idealogically and in every phase of life except the moral and spiritual,
in which we have an advantage that they are never going to be able to
meet. This competition is going to take place in Africa, and in the
near East. It is also going to take place even in parts of the Free World.
Latin America is getting, of course, its share of attention in this respect.
What do we do about this? The easy thing to do is to say: The
United States should be concerned about its own defenses; we should
not be spending any money helping the economies of India, Afghanistan,
Ghana and these other countries.
If we made that decision, we would be surrendering to the com-
munists much more surely than if we were to allow them not just a
missile gap but a deterrent gap and resign ourselves to it.
Let me tell you why. Today there are approximately a billion
people in the Free World. There are a billion people in the communist
world. There are a billion people in Asia, Africa and the near East
and they represent the balance of power. Where that part of the
world goes will determine the world struggle.
Therefore, it is vitally important that the United States together
with our allies must not leave the millions of people in India and these
other nations with the terrible choice of progress without freedom
or no progress at all. The choice for these people must be progress
with freedom, not progress without freedom.
- 3 -
That is why our program of developmental loans and the rest has
been adopted. It is a relatively modest one. Looking to the future, I
can think of no more important phase of U. S. foreign policy than for
us to continue to work with our allies not only in maintaining our mili-
tary defenses, which will avoid an all-out shooting war, but also work-
ing with them in seeing to it that the countries of the great uncommitted
areas of the world can have economic progress with our assistance,
with our advice, so that they are not confronted with the terrible alter-
native of turning to the communists and becoming communist satellites.
-Vice President Nixon in response to a question at a
program of the Detroit Committee for Seven Eastern
Women's Colleges, Inc. at Detroit, Michigan on
February 15, 1960
FOREIGN AID AND TRADE
Q.
The progress and prosperity and the fate of the unevenly developed
countries in the world, and of some of the other countries outside
the Communist orbit, depend primarily upon two American policies:
one is the infusion of large amounts of foreign capital into the economy
of these slow developing countries; and, two, the maintenance of trade
policies in this country that will permit them to find markets outside
of the Communist regimes. I would like to ask the Vice President to
comment on this problem.
A. As you can imagine, this is a question which could take a great deal of
time. But in order to give you an idea as to my concern in this field
and of my philosophy, let me try to state my position as concisely but
as directly as possible.
I noticed that one of my friends who is a candidate for the office
that I hope to seek talked about the missile gap. I have already stated
to you that I think it is vitally important and necessary that the United
States maintain its military strength at levels which I have described.
However, more important than that, from the standpoint of the freedom
and the security of 170 million Americans, is for the United States to
recognize that our greatest danger is that we will lose the world, not
because of military weakness but because of our failure to mount a
greater effort in the areas of the non-military conflict of the world
struggle.
You spoke of the so-called newly developing countries of the world.
I have visited most of them. I have also had the opportunity to see
- 4 -
parts of Latin America. I can assure you that in Asia, in Africa, and in
Latin America as well, the future of every American is being decided
today. Our missiles are important to avoid a war in the future, or to
win it if it is fought, if it can be won, but to avoid it if possible.
Your question relates to a war that is going on right now. Unless
the United States recognizes the aspects of this war, that it is economic
in character, that it is ideological in character, that it is political in
character, and develops programs to meet it in all these aspects, we
will go down to a defeat which will take longer, but which will be just
as certain as if a great atomic war were started against us at a time
that we were defenseless.
I do not think there is anything more unpopular today than for a man
in public life to get up and say that he is for technical assistance, loans
for countries abroad, so-called foreign aid, and the like. It is much
easier to get up and say, "Well, I am not going to build a dam in Afghan-
istan until we get the one down in such and such a county in Texas. " It
is much easier to get up and say, "Why should we give technical assis-
tance and aid to the hungry in India when we are not doing enough for
those in West Virginia. 11
We are all concerned about the hungry in West Virginia and the dams
in Texas and California, but I can assure you that if we leave to the
people of Africa-- and there will be 26 countries in Africa in ten years,
more than in Latin America--Asia and South America, the grim alter-
native of getting economic progress at the cost of freedom, or not
having it, they are going to take it at the cost of freedom.
The people and leaders of these countries do not want totalitar-
ianism. That is why they received President Eisenhower as they did.
But, on the other hand, they want progress. You have never seen
poverty until you have seen it in some of these countries. So, if the
only way for them to go forward is to get progress without freedom,
that is what they will take.
But it is not necessary to leave them that grim alternative. It is
possible to have progress with and through freedom. I do not mean by
this the tremendously big handout, improperly organized, inefficient,
full of graft. But I mean a sound program, one that is designed to
meet the problems of these countries, one that is designed to fill the
vacuum as the colonial powers move back and as they get their self-
government and their independence. We must enable these people to
see the vision of the future, not just one way but another way, a
vision where they can have progress but still retain independence and
at least a degree of freedom to the extent that they want it.
- 5 -
That is what foreign aid, so-called, is all about in the technical
area. That is what the developmental loans are all about. That is why
I would trust that in this campaign both the Presidential candidates
would lead strongly in this area so that the American people will rise
to this challenge, meet it effectively, and support in the Congress the
funds that are necessary.
I would say one further thing with regard to trade. I had a very
interesting talk recently with several labor leaders who came to see
me and expressed their interest in legislation presently before the
Senate. They expressed their concern about the competition of goods
produced in Japan and other foreign countries by cheap labor. I
said, "Does this mean that the AF of L-CIO, which traditionally has
taken the position of support of reciprocal trade, is now changing its
position?' Their answer was, "No". But they said, "We have to be
more responsible and the foreign nations must be more responsible,
in at least voluntarily establishing quotas so that we do not have
terrible damage and hardship worked upon domestic industries in the
United States. 11
I think they are correct in that respect. I think there must be
developed and negotiated through our State Department voluntary action
on the part of potential competitors in this respect.
But let us make no mistake about it: If the United States should
turn away now from its traditional policy of reciprocal trade, if we
should turn to Japan, for example, and say, "We are going to have to
raise artificial tariff barriers, we are going to have to establish by
law quotas on your production", then you don't have to worry about
Communist China, because Japan will have no choice but to turn that
way herself.
We can win. We can win because, as I have indicated, the leaders
of these nations are oriented our way. They are more at home with us
than they are with the communist leaders. They do not want the grim
drabness and uniformity that anyone who visits the Soviet Union can see
characterizes Russian life.
But, on the other hand, they must offer to their people progress.
We cannot give them the progress, but we can help them develop the
means to provide it, and that is why I feel so strongly that this is just
as important as getting missiles, and that it must be an essential in the
United States foreign policy in the next ten years.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors at Washington, D.C. on April 23, 1960
51860NV1M142
- 6 -
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
International
Communism
KHRUSHCHEV'S RESPONSIBILITY
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
FOR SUMMIT MEETING'S BREAK-
VISITS OF AMERICAN NEWS-
UP
MEN TO CHINA
NON-RECOGNITION OF RED CHINA
CAN WE TRUST THE
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DIS-
RUSSIANS
ARMAMENT NEGOTIATIONS
TRADE WITH THE U.S.S.R.
IS U. S. POSITION BECOMING MORE
UNTENABLE
THE WAVE OF ANTI-
SEMITISM
KHRUSHCHEV'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUMMIT MEETING'S
BREAK-UP
I believe it might be appropriate on this occasion to say just a word
about recent world developments. I do that because I know that, if we
had the time to sit and talk in detail, that the first question from your
lips would be the one that is in the headlines of all the newspapers:
What about the developments in Paris? What has Mr. Khrushchev done?
Is our reaction a proper one? What does the future hold? I cannot cover
that in detail, but since I know that each of you--if we could talk per-
sonally--would ask me that. I'd like to answer it briefly tonight.
First of all, as far as this development is concerned--
Mr. Khrushchev's breaking up the Summit Conference--I will express
the opinion tonight, as I have earlier today to the press, that he has made
probably the major blunder from a propaganda standpoint in his career to
date as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union. And he
does not make many blunders, because I know this man reasonably well,
he is a very astute man, he is very quick on the trigger, he, despite
what you might think, is not one who is given to saying things that he does
not mean in the heat of the moment. He thinks things through coldly and
objectively, and more often than not is using his temper rather than losing
it. But in this instance his using the U-2 incident, not really as a reason
in my opinion, (he said it was a reason), but as an excuse to break up the
Summit Conference, was a major error, and he overplayed his hand in
two respects which I should like to mention.
In the first place, he thought that world opinion would be with him, be-
cause world opinion, in the first two or three days after the news of this
plane being shot down traveled around the world, seemed to be on his side
and he thought, apparently, that he could therefore say that because this
plane incident occurred just before the Summit, that this and this alone
was such a horrible thing and was so shocking to him that this gave him
reason and justification for breaking up a conference which had to deal
with Berlin, with disarmament, with tests and all the other great problems
in which the world is interested.
But the world was wiser than he gave it credit for. And today, start-
ing last night and proceeding through today and probably tonight as well,
all over the world the reaction pours in. And the reaction is one that
certainly should not have surprised him and certainly does not surprise
us, because they saw through this. the people of the world recognized
that here this man, this man who is no babe in the woods when it comes
to espionage activities, perhaps the master espionage director in the
world today, could not have been as surprised or shocked as he claimed
to be, and under the circumstances, then, certainly this could not be a
reason for him to do what he did. And so consequently Mr. Khrushchev
finds that rather than leaving the Summit Conference with a propaganda
triumph, he leaves the Summit Conference as the man that all the world
looks upon as the wrecker of the Conference, the one that torpedoed it.
And so he misjudged world opinion.
He made a second mistake, in my opinion. I think he misjudged his
man in the insult that he gratuitously gave to the President of the United
States. He apparently thought that the President was a man who, when
Mr. Khrushchev confronted him with the alternative of either abjectly
apologizing for attempting to protect the security of the United States
through gaining information which would protect us from surprise at-
tack and then punishing those responsible for it and the alternative of
Mr. Khrushchev breaking up the conference, would back down. Of
course, on the contrary the President stood his ground, as I'm sure all
of the American people agreed he should, and properly said to
Mr. Khrushchev that if he really was concerned about these incidents,
there was a way to deal with the problem constructively and that was to
- 2 -
open HIS country, as we have opened and will open our country, to im-
partial inspection by aerial means through the open skies proposal which
the President made in 1955 and which, of course, he has renewed; this
time inspections to be conducted by the United Nations.
And here again the President, from a defensive position, takes the
offensive. Because the responsibility, then, for blocking the road to an
agreement which would remove, or at least reduce the danger of surprise
attack again rests on Mr. Khrushchev.
And so, I would say finally in this respect that as far as the Presi-
dent of the United States is concerned, his action was justified, it was
the only proper action that he could take and, as a matter of fact, if we
are to talk about apologies it would seem to me that it might well be sug-
gested that Mr. Khrushchev apologize to the United States and all of the
other free nations of the world for his breaking up this conference and for
the thousands of espionage agents which now and in the past he has working
throughout the world and throughout the United States as well.
Now, having said this, what is the line for the future and what will
happen? I can only say that I believe the course for the United States
should be this: We should continue to be firm. We should be firm but
not be belligerent, which has been the President's attitude throughout
his Presidency and which should be the attitude of the United States in the
years ahead. We should make it clear that we are willing to talk and
negotiate, as we have in the final communique, at any time on disarmament,
on tests, on Berlin, any one of these issues that will reduce world tension.
But we should continue to make it clear that surrender, not only of our-
selves but of the rights of free peoples anywhere--including the rights of
the free people of Berlin--is too high a price to pay for a settlement with
the Soviet Union, or any other nation for that matter.
What will his reaction be? We cannot predict that reaction. I can
only say that certainly the course of action for us is clear, and that as
far as Mr. Khrushchev himself is concerned, he has his own problems
and he is aware, as we are, of the catastrophe that might come if he
presses to the point of no return at the diplomatic table or elsewhere.
And so with that, may I conclude this portion of my remarks simply
with these words. These are times in this country when we obviously
are concerned for the peace of the world and for the right of men and
women to be free, for the justice which we enjoy here and which we be-
lieve should be the right of men and women all over the world. As we are
so concerned, let us never forget that we not only need strong and firm
leadership at the top in the President of the United States, but we need
stamina and determination on the part of the people of the United States.
- 3 -
We must recognize the fact that the United States IS a strong nation, not
only militarily, as we are; not only economically, as we are; but MOST
important--strong in our spirit, strong in our will: recognizing that the
great strength of this country is not alone in its arms or in its factories
or in its great wealth, but is in its moral and spiritual strength. This we
must recognize, and if we do, and if we work to build that strength, the
United States under the leadership of its President and its Secretary of
State--whoever that President and that Secretary of State may be--will
be able to continue to lead the free world toward peace with justice in the
world.
May I just add that when we hear these days so much about the United
States being a second-class power militarily, our economy being second-
rate--with the Soviet Union growing faster than we are and about to over-
take us--when we hear that we're inferior in education, inferior in science
and all these other things; then let me say that although we need and should
welcome good constructive criticism, we should not allow it to obscure the
fact that America today is still, and under the proper leadership will re-
main, the strongest nation militarily, economically and morally in the
world today.
--Vice President Nixon at the Testimonial Dinner for
Congressman John Taber, in Auburn, New York,
May 17, 1960
NON-RECOGNITION OF RED CHINA AND ITS RELATIONS TO
DISARMAMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Q. There has been a lot of talk lately about the failing of East-West relations,
and the question raised is whether or not this means there will be any
modification of the policy of the United States toward the recognition of
Communist China and its admission to the United Nations.
A. My answer is--No. I want to go a step further than that though and say
why, because the emotional reaction that most of us would have with re-
gard to the recognition of Red China would be: No, we should not do it.
I think it is essential that we know why we do not recognize a government
which controls 600 million people. Because the arguments on the other
side can be fairly persuasive at times, and they can take in, frankly, a
lot of well-meaning, a lot of well-intentioned people who are just as much
dedicated to American principles, just as opposed to Communism as the
people in this room are.
The reasons, I believe, that it would be a mistake to recognize Red
China and support its admission to the United Nations are: it would be
- 4 -
detrimental to the cause of freedom in Asia--and that means for the whole
world. If Red China is admitted to the United Nations, this means that the
United Nations is in effect saying that it qualifies under the Charter of the
United Nations as a "peace-loving" nation. Does it? At the present time
it is in defiance of the United Nations in Korea. We have American boys
over there on the lines with other United Nations' troops-some of you will
be going there, of course, when your draft numbers come up. In addition
to that, Red China defies the precepts of the United Nations with its bel-
ligerent attitude toward India It certainly was violating all the principles
of the United Nations in what it did with the Tibetans It is attempting to
stir up opposition to governments which are recognized members of the
United Nations through subversive activities. And, of course, as far as
the United States is concerned, it retains- violation of all international
law--prisoners without giving any explanation and without making the
necessary retribution that any civilized nation would make in dealing with
a similar situation.
And so if the United States were to recognize Red China, if we were to
support its admission to the U. N., we would in effect say that from a
moral standpoint we overlook all of these violations of international law
and we take an outlaw nation and give it what it needs and what it wants--
respectability. If we give it that respectability, in my opinion, you can
be sure that its influence in Asia particularly--and the world in general--
will be immensely increased--and it is great as it is. When we deny it
that respectability, at least we are giving support to the proponents of
freedom in Vietnam, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Japan, in India--
all the countries in the Asian and South Asian complex who at best are
having a difficult time maintaining their positions against the subversive
elements who would like to see Communism come to those countries.
And so I say that until Red China changes its policy so that it quali-
fies to be recognized as a respected member of the Family of Nations,
the United States has no honorable course and certainly it can follow no
moral course other than to do as we have been doing in the past: (1) to
refuse to recognize it on our own part; and (2) to oppose its admission
to the United Nations.
Now the question has arisen: What are we going to do about disarma-
ment? What are we going to do about relations with the United Nations,
with this great bloc of 600 million people, if we do not recognize them?
Well, the answer, of course, is: We can have relations with the country
without recognition. We have been, for two years, negotiating with the
United Nations' representatives in Geneva about the prisoners they are
illegally holding. And there can be negotiations on the whole question of
disarmament without our coming to the point of recognizing them.
- 5 -
So, looking way ahead,
if Communist China changes its ways, if it
conforms to international standards, if it desists in these activities which
are reprehensible to freedom-loving people throughout the world, then it
will qualify for recognition and admission to the U. N. Until it does, the
United States should remain firm against such recognition.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions from
students at the University of San Francisco,
San Francisco, California, April 12, 1960
IS U. S. POSITION BECOMING MORE UNTENABLE
Q.
I have a second question. That is about whether or not our position on Red
China does not grow increasingly untenable within the United Nations be-
cause of our Afro-Asian Allies.
A.
And friends, I should say, because many of them are not allies but friends.
Of course there is increasing pressure from some of the newly developing
and newly independent nations of the Afro-Asian bloc. But that does not
mean that our policy is wrong. It means that we must continue to exert
leadership for what we believe is right.
In my opinion admission of Red China to the United Nations now, and
its recognition by the United States could well set in motion a chain of
events in Southeast Asia which would result in the Communization of the
area.
While we do not expect this policy of ours to be continued forever, but
certainly we do have a right and a responsibility to insist that a nation that
asks for admission to the United Nations, or that we intend to recognize,
must comply with the rules. Red China has not done so yet. And so my
answer again is that when Red China changes its policy particularly of
defying the United Nations itself, then and only then can and should the
United States change its policy.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open End, " WNTA Television,
May 15, 1960
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW VISITS OF AMERICAN NEWSMEN TO CHINA
Q.
A final and short question about China. Would you personally favor some
amendment of current State Department provisions which prohibit ac-
- 6 -
credited America newspapermen from visiting China? Should not we open
at least that avenue of information to ourselves?
A.
While I am not too familiar with all the latest changes in this policy, I
understand that about two years ago as a result of a new policy, the
Department of State tried to get some newspapermen into Red China.
Some roadblocks were raised.
As far as I can see, the obtaining of information about Red China
through news sources is helpful and constructive. But we must re-
member that in order for newsmen to enter Red China, the Red Chinese
have to agree to it as well.
MR. SUSSKIND: But you would favor our permitting that, from our
point of view.
VICE PRESIDENT NIXON: I cannot announce or initiate any change
in policy. That is the prerogative of the President and the Secretary of
State. I am simply stating the general proposition that it is usually con-
structive and helpful in relations between nations to get adequate and ob-
jective information, even though we do not have recognition.
- Vice President Nixon in response to questions by
David Susskind on "Open End, " WNTA Television,
May 15, 1960
CAN WE TRUST THE RUSSIANS
Q.
How far can we trust the Russian diplomats in light of their past history
of broken promises and treaties?
A. I think perhaps the best way to answer that question is to give you an
analogy that was presented to me prior to my trip to the Soviet Union.
I was talking to a man who is an expert on Soviet affairs, who
formerly was with the State Department. The question that arose was
put this way: Is Mr. Khrushchev sincere when he says he is for dis-
armament? Is he sincere when he says he is for peace and for peace-
ful competition, ruling out the use of force as a means of realizing the
objectives of world domination by the Communist system?
And his comment was this. He said: You shouldn't even use the
word "sincere" for purposes of describing what Mr. Khrushchev or any
other Communist is doing, because as far as the Communist is con-
cerned his standards with regard to motives are different from ours.
- 7 -
The Communist is a materialist. We in the West basically are
idealists. "Sincere" is a word that describes an idealist. It is one that
does not describe the materialist.
And then he used an analogy. He said: You can no more describe a
Communist motive as being sincere than you can describe a table or
chair as being sincere, because it is impossible as far as the Communist
is concerned for him to think in Western idealistic terms insofar as his
motives are involved.
Now, let us go a step further. On the other hand, he said, this does
not mean that Mr. Khrushchev may not be for disarmament at this time.
It does not mean that Mr. Khrushchev and the Communist leaders are not
for peace. It does not mean that they may not want an accommodation
with the western powers on Berlin and other matters.
It only means that in determining whether or not they want these things
we should not try to look into their motives and say: Well, they are sincere
because they love peace as an end in itself, or disarmament as an end in
itself.
What we must do is to put ourselves in their place. As far as they
are concerned, what is their objective? Their objective was, is now, will
continue to be a Communist world. Therefore anything they stand for in
the field of foreign policy must be designed to further that objective. At
the present time, being for disarmament better serves that objective than
being against it because of their desire to gain support among the uncom-
mitted peoples of the world, and also because they need more consumer
goods for the hard-working Russian workers.
They would like to divert some of their tremendous burden of arma-
ment to consumer goods. And the same would be true with regard to
analyzing whether or not they are for accommodation on Berlin or any
other settlement.
And so the answer to the question is this: I think that it is a very
dangerous and unrealistic attitude to attempt to determine the Communists
motives by our standards.
I think what we have to bear in mind constantly is that the Communist
is a materialist, a realist and a fanatically dedicated individual determined
to do everything that he can that will serve his end of dominating the world
with the Communist system.
If we judge every one of the Communist motives or every one of the
Communist actions in terms of whether or not he might believe that his
- 8 -
action would serve that end, we will be much closer to a true analysis
of what he really wants or thinks at the moment than we would if we say:
Well, has Mr. Khrushchev changed? And has he given up his ideas of
world conquest? Is he sincere in his dedication for peace and his af-
fection for the United States and the American people, et cetera?
This should be our answer: We will meet the Communists at the
conference table. We will discuss disarmament. We will discuss other
outstanding issues between us.
But we will always have in mind that what counts are his deeds rather
than his words.
We must always have in mind that his motives may be different from
ours, because the moment we try to determine them by our standards, we
fall into a great error.
-Vice President Nixon in response to a question at the
program of the Detroit Committee for Seven Eastern
Women's Colleges, Inc., in Detroit, Michigan,
February 15, 1960
TRADE WITH THE U.S.S. R.
Q.
In regard to Mr. Khrushchev's statements earlier last year--about the
U.S.S. R. effort to defeat the United States in an economic war, do you
think that even though he has made these statements that there will be a
lessening or loosening of trade restrictions between our two countries?
A. Mr. Khrushchev in his visit here reiterated his oft-stated position that
they were going to engage in economic competition. He means it and he
expects to compete and hopes to overtake us. --Does this mean that we
will not see, therefore, any program toward relaxing trade restrictions
between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. ?
As long as tensions exist in the world, as a result of aggressive
policies of the U.S.S.R. which brought about trade restrictions, those
restrictions insofar as strategic goods are concerned will have to
remain. Once the U.S.S. R. changes its policies which have created
these tensions, once we can be convinced that there is no good reason
to fear that they will use their power aggressively against us, then the
restrictions on trade and strategic goods can be lifted to an extent.
We should be under no illusions about how much trade could be in-
creased between the Soviet Union and the United States with a lifting of
- 9 -
restrictions, because basically at the present time the question is not
whether the Soviet Union wants to buy things from us, but whether they
have anything to sell to us in return.
Let's take on item, manganese. We used to buy manganese from the
Soviet Union, and then as a result of their policy shortly after the war they
cut off the market from us. We went to India, we went to Turkey and we
developed new sources for manganese. Now at the present time the Soviet
Union would like to sell manganese to us so that they could buy things in
return. After they took the initiative to deny us this product, do we now
turn to the Indians and the Turks and say, "You built these mines up, but
we're not going to buy from you, since the Soviet Union is going to let us
buy from them again?" Of course not.
That is exactly the way I talked to Mr. Khrushchev when we talked
about this point. It is the way other people in foreign policy positions must
talk. In the long run it's the policy of the United States, not only with re-
gard to the Soviet Union, but with other countries as well, that we desire to
lower the barriers which presently restrict trade between countries, because
we believe that where nations trade with each other that this is one of the
most salutary ways to reduce potential tensions between countries.
In the case of the Soviet Union the basic problems are two: one, in
strategic goods, which will continue to exist, as long as their policies are
as they are; and, two, with regard to their ability to develop products that
they can sell to us in return for what they buy.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at the
California Newspaper Publishers Association Convention
in Los Angeles, California, February 6, 1960
THE WAVE OF ANTI-SEMITISM
Q. Do you think that incidents of anti-Semitism in Germany might stem from
the fact that there is anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union? In other words,
could the Communists be stimulating anti-Semitism, since that is a
policy followed in the Soviet Union?
A.
First of all, might I say that the premise of your question is a correct one.
One of the most disgraceful records of anti-Semitism in the world today is
the record of the Soviet Government. It is a record that is not well enough
known but it is one which our experts in the field are well aware of. Second,
I would seriously doubt myself that these incidents in Germany are stimu-
lated from the Soviet Union. It could be, but I doubt it. It would seem to
me it is probably more likely, and here I am guessing, of course, that
- 10 -
some extremist engaged in an incident and then others got the idea and it
spread like bad news will spread through a particular area. It is somewhat
catching. What do we do about it? I think first of all we, in fairness, have
to recognize that Chancellor Adenauer, and the current German Govern-
ment have taken a very statesmanlike and firm stand against anti-Semitism
in Germany and this is one of the most encouraging factors in the whole
scene.
The mass of opinion today in Western Germany is completely against
anti-Semitism and the fact that the reaction to these various incidents was
as strong as it was should be very encouraging to people who are concerned
about anti-Semitic outbreaks there or in other parts of the world. We have
to realize in this whole area of racial and religious prejudice that it runs
beneath the surface. Whenever any instances of prejudice show up, people
of good will must take affirmative steps to see to it that those instances are
very effectively and quickly dealt with. I believe that the attitude of the
German Government has been admirable in this respect and certainly the
attitude of the people in the United States and our Government has been ad-
mirable as well.
Let me close with this thought. I recall that I had brought home to me
what can happen to a country when prejudices which are beneath the surface
are allowed to exist or to get out of hand. I had this brought home to me
when I visited the ghetto in Poland. We went to the ghetto and we saw the
terrible rooms where over 200, 000 people of Jewish faith were killed by
the Nazis in World War II. I saw there, what can happen when this kind of
force is allowed to run rampant and I could appreciate why it is very im-
portant that all of us who believe in freedom of religion and press and
expression must stand firmly against evidences of racial or religious or
any other kind of prejudice and stand firmly for the equality of opportunity
in every respect which has made this country great.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at the
California Newspaper Publishers Association Convention
in Los Angeles, California, February 6, 1960
51860NV1M240
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. D. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 11 -
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Labor
LABOR LEGISLATION
THE STEEL STRIKE SETTLEMENT
LABOR LEGISLATION
Q.
Mr. Nixon, in view of the problems to the country posed by this
steel strike, do you favor any legislation on steps to curb big union
monopolies, as some people call them, or to limit their power, or
to apply perhaps anti-trust legislation to big unions such as the
Steel Workers or the Auto Workers?
A.
Starting with the last part of the question first, anti-trust legis-
lation has often been suggested as a possible remedy for excessive
power in unions as it presently is used to curb excessive power in
corporations.
I think this is an unrealistic view, and that where those who
offer this kind of legislation are concerned, they have not examined
this situation carefully because the problem is very different in the
case of unions than it is in the corporations. I do not think the effect
of anti-trust legislation would be to realize the objective which those
who favor it would want to realize.
What is needed in the case of excessive union power is not a
shotgun approach, but an approach, in which you aim at specific
abuses--in effect, with a rifle.
Now, the Landrum-Griffin Bill, which has been much criticized by
some sections of labor, I think was the proper approach. It struck at
secondary boycotts, at jurisdictional strikes and at internal union
practices in which union members particularly were harmed by the
practice of some unscrupulous union leaders.
But when you attempt to attack the problem with an overall approach
which lumps all unions together, I think it is ineffective and unrealistic
and unworkable.
As far as the power of both union and management are concerned,
the recent steel settlement brought very effectively to the attention of
the country the problem which is involved when we have great power in
our industrial complex concentrated, power so great that a dispute can
go on so long that the public interest is endangered.
As far as I'm concerned, I am currently making a study of this
concentration of power to see what legislative approaches could be made
which would protect the public interest in these disputes from excessive
use of power by labor or by management.
Vice President Nixon at a news conference in
Detroit, Michigan, February 15, 1960
THE STEEL STRIKE SETTLEMENT
Q.
Mr. Vice President, in view of the fact that organized labor reportedly
has never looked on you as a complete friend, how do you explain the
fact that the steel strike settlement, with which you were credited to a
great extent, was publicized as being more or less pro-labor?
A.
It is very difficult, of course, to know why a settlement like that is
characterized as it is. I would characterize the settlement as being
neither pro-labor nor pro-management. It was one, as a matter of
fact, which neither party was willing to make unless we recommended
the settlement that we did.
I should point out in this respect, for example, that from the
standpoint of the union the settlement was 30 percent less in company
costs than the pattern that the union had negotiated without a strike
from the can and aluminum companies. Now this does not mean that it
was not in the best interests of the union to settle--I think it was-that
- 2 -
is why they settled. But I also think it was in the best interests of
management to settle, because I am convinced, and they apparently were
also convinced, that this settlement was less than half as great as the
pattern of all settlements since the war. In the opinion of the steel
companies, it was less than they would have had to pay had they gone
for the Donneybrook of an election on the company's last offer, which
the union was bound to win. Those are the factors that motivated the
management, and I would say the union was motivated by the natural
concern and the very justifiable concern of Mr. McDonald and
Mr. Goldberg--that they did not want to go into another massive
struggle with the men going out on strike again.
Now, one other point I would like to make. With regard to my
relationships with labor, I note some rather amusing comments to the
effect that I threatened the steel companies and got them to settle in
order to gain the support of Mr. McDonald and the union. Of course,
anyone who is familiar with the political situation would know that was
a rather naive view. As I have said since the settlement, Mr. McDonald
is a very active Democrat--I respect him for that--and I expect him to
support the Democratic candidate.
On the other hand, I think it is vitally important that whoever might
be in the office of President of the United States, regardless of what
support he may receive from union labor or any other segment of the
economy, must keep the doors of communication open so that when
situations do arise where his office can be used to settle conflicts, he
can do it effectively. That is what I have tried to do where
Mr. McDonald is concerned and other union leaders. I do not expect
their support, however, for having done that.
--Vice President Nixon at a news conference in
Sacramento, California, February 17, 1960
60960NV1M124
- 3 -
Vice President
RICHARD
His Welcoming Address
NIXON
At the Sixth
Seato Council of Ministers
Meeting
May 31, 1960
I am honored to extend on behalf of President Eisenhower a warm
welcome to the distinguished delegations attending this Sixth Conference
of the Council of Ministers of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. I
know that I speak for all the American people in expressing the hope that
your stay here will be a pleasant one and that your deliberations will
further the peaceful purposes to which this organization is dedicated.
Nothing could have more vividly pointed up the need for collective
security organizations like SEATO than Mr. Khrushchev's conduct at the
Paris Summit meeting. Consequently, I believe it would be appropriate
as this conference opens to consider how the developments in Paris have
changed the international climate and what policies the Free World in
general and SEATO in particular should adopt to meet the new situation.
No constructive purpose would be served by attempting to review in
detail the events which led up to Mr. Khrushchev's breaking up of the
conference. Mr. Khrushchev himself must now be beginning to realize
that he has made a major propaganda blunder--not only in shattering the
world's hopes for progress toward peace by scuttling the conference, but
in claiming that the reason for his conduct was his shock at discovering
that the United States was engaged in intelligence activities to protect it-
self from surprise attack. By this patent subterfuge he has only called
attention again to the most insidious web of espionage and subversion the
world has ever known--the apparatus maintained by the Communist
organization which he heads.
But while it is proper to note that Mr. Khrushchev's hands are not
clean it would be a tragedy to allow the debate over the Summit to de-
generate into a sordid squabble over who spied on whom with each side
defending itself by saying "you're another. "
In the first place, for us in the Free World, the distasteful business
of gathering intelligence in peacetime is not a matter of choice. It is a
matter of necessity for protecting ourselves against surprise attack. For
the Communist nations the use of espionage and subversion in peacetime
has been and is a standard instrument of conquest directed against every
non-Communist nation in the world.
But even more important we must recognize that espionage is only a
symptom of a disease; it is an effect, not a cause of world tension. The
cause is the threat to the peace of the world presented by the agressive
policies and power of the Communist nations. It was this cause that the
Summit Conference was designed to deal with. Mr. Khrushchev must
assume sole responsibility for blocking discussions which might have
produced progress in resolving some of the basic issues which threaten
the peace of the world.
Mr. Khrushchev's conduct since the Summit has been somewhat am-
biguous. His words have been bellicose, intemperate and illmannered.
But his deeds have been restrained.
I think we all will agree that the conduct of President de Gaulle,
Prime Minister Macmillan and President Eisenhower both at and since
the Conference has been exemplary in the face of great provocation. To
respond in kind to Mr. Khrushchev's insulting remarks would serve no
useful purpose. Trading of insults would only result in a war of words
which might raise the temperature of world conflict to the igniting point
which would set off nuclear destruction.
This does not, of course, mean that retreat or appeasement should
be our course. If one fact has become clear in international relations
it is that peace cannot be purchased by weakness and concessions on the
part of free nations. It does mean that we should be guided by one all-
important principle in these critical years ahead if we are to keep our
differences from resulting in war--firmness without belligerency.
As the President pointed out in his report to the nation, diplomatic
firmness must be combined with military strength adequate to deter any
potential aggressor. And despite our disappointment at the results of
the Summit meeting, we must and shall continue to explore every possi-
ble avenue for negotiating the outstanding differences we have with the
Communist nations. The outcome at Paris changes our attitude in this
- 2 -
area in only one respect. While we do not rule out any meeting which
might contribute to the cause of peace, certainly the world will now have
greater confidence in the traditional methods of diplomacy and in discus-
sions in the United Nations than in the summitry on which Mr. Khrushchev
has in the past insisted.
As a result of developments of these past few weeks the necessity of
maintaining SEATO and other collective security organizations is of even
greater importance than it was before. For its part, the United States
in acting as host for the Council of Ministers solemnly renews its pledge
of fidelity to SEATO and its determination fully to carry out its SEATO
commitment.
SEATO was formed when Communist aggression was directly chal-
lenging Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia and other countries of Southeast Asia
and when the unity of the non-Communist countries was by no means so
clear as it is today. In the six years of its existence, overt Communist
aggression has been deterred. But probing actions, indirect aggression
and subversion have continued. We need recall only the events of the
past year--the incidents along the Indian-Chinese frontiers, the rebellion
in Laos stimulated across the North Vietnamese border, the continuing
Communist-instigated violence in South Viet Nam. But while Communism
has not changed materially in these six years, the free countries of the
area have gained greatly in strength at home and in their posture of
preparedness and solidarity.
As we look to the future of Southeast Asia it is interesting to note the
reaction of the Chinese Communist government to the developments at Paris.
Peiping, almost unique among the capitals of the world, has received the
news of Mr. Khrushchev's sabotage at Paris with undisguised satisfaction.
The Chinese Communists have long been openly disgruntled with even the
appearance of peaceful intent by the Soviet leaders. Since Chairman Mao's
100 flowers flourished with the alarming vitality of liberty, the Chinese
Communists have made no secret of their unswerving adherence to the
Stalinist line. As recently as two months before the Summit Conference,
Chairman Mao caused to be published throughout the country his thinly
veiled suggestions that rather than fearing an atomic war, a third world
war might assure his ultimate goal of a Communist world.
The Chinese Communists have seized upon the failure of the Confer-
ence as an opportunity for renewed emphasis on the "orthodox" Communist
philosophy of the need for force as an essential ingredient in world Com-
munist tactics. In the world in which we live today, this emphasis is as
dangerous as it is anachronistic. Fortunately, there are good indications
even since the Paris conference that this view is not shared by
- 3 -
Mr. Khrushchev.
The record of SEATO as a defensive military alliance is an impressive
one. SEATO also has been designed to cope with more subtle threats than
overt aggression, particularly with Communist subversion. Much progress
has been made in the field of exchanging experience and information and in
strengthening our societies against internal dangers. Under Article III of
the SEATO treaty the United States has been able to participate actively
through its several instrumentalities for economic cooperation in common
efforts to strengthen free institutions and to cooperate in economic
measure of technical assistance designed to promote economic progress
and social well-being.
We must recognize, however, that no matter how strong and effective
SEATO and our other organizations of collective security may be, they by
themselves are not an adequate answer to the challenge of Communism in
this last half of the 20th Century. We are always careful to emphasize
that SEATO, NATO and CENTO are defensive alliances. This is certainly
correct in fact, and from a military standpoint it is the only just and
proper function of an alliance.
But economically and ideologically, defenseis not enough to meet the
offensive on which the Communists are embarked throughout the world.
Let us examine the nature of the Communist challenge. The Communists
believe that time is on their side. They believe they are on the wave of the
future because they have a clear purpose--the Communist domination of the
world. Whatever we may think of the Communist idea, it is positive, it is
on the march, and it offers change to millions of people who want change.
Our answer to this challenge cannot be to adopt the antithesis of the
Communist purpose. No one of the free nations desires to dominate the
world. The very essence of our belief is that each nation should have the
right to choose the kind of government and economic system it wants.
And it is a wholly inadequate answer to the challenge of Communism to
adopt as our sole purpose the defense of the non-Communist world against
the change the Communists would impose. This is admittedly a worthwhile
goal in itself for those of us who know the deadly tyranny of Communist
rule and the mirage of Communist promises. But it is not enough for
those who are determined to change their desperate plight.
We are living in what has been called a revolution of expectations. I
have no doubt but that the great majority of the leaders and people of the
- 4 -
newly developing nations would prefer to realize their expectations of
progress toward a better life without losing their freedom and
independence. But if the choice with which they are confronted is pro-
gress Communist style at the cost of freedom or no progress, they will
take Communism.
Our answer, therefore, must be progress with freedom, not only for
ourselves but for other people throughout the world. Let us recognize
that if we are to win this battle our sole and primary aim must not be
the negative objective of fighting Communism. The proud peoples of
Asia, Africa and the Near East understandably resent being treated as
pawns in a struggle between great powers for world domination.
If there were no Communism there would still be poverty, misery,
disease and tyranny in the world. And we who live in more fortunate
circumstances would consider it our obligation as members of the world
community to cooperate with other peoples in achieving the economic
progress to which they are entitled. In other words, we must wage a
war on poverty, misery, and disease wherever they exist because they
are evils in themselves. As we succeed in this grand endeavor, the evil
seeds of Communism will find no soil in which to grow.
This I submit is a purpose worthy of the proud heritage of the peoples
so splendidly represented at this conference today.
60660NV2M201
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 5 -
Vice President
RICHARD
NIXON
in This Letter Discusses
The STEEL STRIKE
SETTLEMENT
COPY
0
P
*
*
u
D
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
January 21, 1960
Mr. Alexander F. Jones
Executive Editor
Syracuse Herald-Journal
Syracuse 1, New York
Dear Casey:
I greatly appreciated your letter of January 5 and particularly the
candor and frankness with which you discussed the steel settlement.
I realize that a number of questions have been raised as to the
settlement and the role that Secretary Mitchell and I played with regard
to it. I think perhaps the best way to answer those questions is to review
the factors which led to our mediation efforts and the alternatives which
confronted us.
As you will recall, just before the President left on his trip
abroad, he said in his television address to the nation: "It is up to labor
and management. to adjust responsibly and equitably their differences.
what great news it would be if, during the course of this journey, I should
receive word of a settlement of this steel controversy that is fair to the
workers, fair to management and above all fair to the American people. "
The first question the Secretary and I undertook to explore was
whether the President's expressed desire for a settlement could be real-
ized without some new mediation action on our part. Our preliminary
discussions with representatives of both sides convinced us that there was
no chance whatever for a settlement unless some new initiative was under-
taken to bring them together.
We, therefore, asked Mr. Blough and other top management repre-
sentatives and Mr. McDonald and other representatives of the union
whether they wished us to attempt to mediate the dispute. While both
sides indicated that they did not feel there was too much hope that they
could reach a negotiated settlement, they agreed that such a procedure
was worth trying and that they would cooperate to the extent possible.
This was the origin of the meetings which took place in my home in which
Secretary Mitchell, Mr. Blough, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Goldberg and I
participated.
At the beginning of these negotiations, the possibilities of settlement
seemed hopeless. The companies' offer was for a wage-benefit package
which the companies estimated would add 31¢ to their costs over a period
of thirty months. In addition, the companies asked for revision of
Section 2B of the contract so that management would have more control
over local work practices which they felt was essential for increased
efficiency.
The union completely opposed any changes in the work practices pro-
vision of the contract. On the economic side, Mr. McDonald at our first
meeting bluntly stated, "I cannot settle with the steel companies for less
than the amount that I received from Can and Aluminum without a strike. "
I think it is important at this point to recall that our negotiations began
the week that he had completed his negotiation of the Aluminum contract.
And the companies' computation of what McDonald contended was the Can
and Aluminum pattern was an increased wage-benefit cost of 52¢ for
thirty months.
In other words, at the beginning of the negotiations, the companies
were offering a 31¢ increase over 30 months as against 52¢ demanded by
the union and the parties were in complete disagreement on the local
work practices issue. During our first few meetings we made very
little progress. At a meeting in my home two days before Christmas,
the negotiations reached a point where both sides refused to move any
further in the direction of an agreement and there seemed to be a hope-
less deadlock.
It was at that point that the Secretary and I talked to Mr. Blough
and Mr. McDonald separately and asked whether they thought it might
be useful if we were to consult individually with each party and recommend
an amount in between their two positions which each would be completely
free to accept or reject if he saw fit.
Both agreed that this course of action might be helpful and after two
days of intense negotiations and discussions and consultation with the
President, we recommended the figure of 41¢ which both the union and
- 2 -
management voluntarily accepted. As far as the work practices issue was
concerned, the best that we were able to get the union to agree to was to
set up a study commission with a neutral chairman.
I realize that a number of questions have been raised as to why we
recommended the amount that we did. I think the answers to those questions
can be found when we examine the bargaining position of each party.
Mr. McDonald came to these negotiations in a stronger position than
the companies. He had just won from Aluminum and Can without a strike
higher settlements than the one he eventually agreed to accept with the
steel companies. Polls that he had taken (and incidentally, the polls the
companies had taken substantiated his claims in this respect) indicated
that the union members would vote down the companies' last offer by a
majority of over 90%. He also believed that if the dispute were not settled
and had to be sent to the Congress by the President he would do better in
a Congress heavily dominated by members elected with union support in
an election year than would the companies. Considering the strong
bargaining position of the union, their agreement to a settlement which
was less than the pattern that they had been able to negotiate with Can and
Aluminum was, in my opinion, a major achievement.
Looking at the settlement from the standpoint of the companies, no
one questions but that they agreed to an amount which was greater than
they thought could be absorbed by increased worker productivity, though
it is entirely conceivable that the rising efficiency between now and 1962
could offset the increase in labor costs during this period. In addition,
the companies failed to win substantial concessions on the work rules
issue. But company representatives have pointed out some of these
positive factors which led them to agree to the recommended settlement.
1. The amount they settled for was lower than any offer they had
been able to get from the union during the course of their negotiations up
to that time.
2. It was less than 1/2 of the post-war pattern in wage-benefit in-
creases in the steel industry. For example, in the last steel contract
the wage-benefit increase was 81¢ for three years as compared with 41¢
for thirty months on this occasion.
3. As Conrad Cooper, the chief negotiator for the companies has
stated, the amount of this settlement was 30% less in company costs than
would have been the case had the Can, Aluminum and Kaiser patterns been
applied to steel. In other words, this settlement rather than setting off a
new pattern of higher wage increases was actually lower than the pattern
in wage settlements already established in 1959 and checked, rather than
increased, the so-called "ripple" of increased wage costs.
- 3 -
4. The cost of living escalator provision, which had resulted in a
17¢ wage increase over the three years of the previous contract, was
finally limited in this contract to a maximum of 6¢ over thirty months.
In addition, it is provided that if the insurance costs which the company
has assumed under the contract prove to be greater than the amount
estimated, the excess costs will be deducted from any cost of living in-
creases which may have accrued.
A basic question which many have raised is whether a better result
in the end would have been achieved had the Secretary and I not offered
our good offices for mediation of the dispute at this time. This, of course,
is a matter of judgment on which there can be an honest disagreement of
opinion. I can only indicate my own appraisal as to what would have
happened had we not acted as we did.
In my opinion, the price the union would have insisted upon would
inevitably have gone up rather than down. It seems only logical to con-
clude that after the union had won an overwhelming victory rejecting the
companies' last offer they would have insisted on an even higher settle-
ment than they accepted at the present time. I also believe that if the
parties had failed to agree after the union rejected the companies' last
offer and the President, as required by law, had submitted the dispute to
Congress any government-imposed settlement that the Congress would
have brought about through compulsory arbitration, plant seizure or some
other government device, would have been higher than the one agreed upon
at this point.
I recognize that there are those who have suggested that it would
have been better in the long run to allow the issue to go to the Congress
so that the Congress could meet head-on the whole question of too much
power in the hands of the union as well as management. I can only say
that any objective observer would have to agree that there could be
nothing more irresponsible than to place before the Congress in an
election year the complicated and potentially explosive issue of labor-
management relations.
In my opinion, the result would not only have been a government-
imposed settlement of this dispute but a real possibility of the enactment
of permanent legislation which would have provided for some form of
government-imposed compulsory arbitration in all major labor disputes.
I don't need to tell you that government arbitration means government wage
fixing and that government wage fixing inevitably means government price
fixing. Once we get into this vicious circle not only collective bargaining
but the productive private enterprise system, as we know it, is doomed.
I would be the last to contend that there could not be honest differ-
ences of opinion as to the wisdom of the course of action the Secretary and
- 4 -
I followed in mediating this dispute. But after weighing all the factors in-
volved, we concluded that our failure to do everything possible to bring
about a voluntary settlement at this time would have been highly detrimental
to the public interest.
As Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability for
Economic Growth, I am acutely aware of the dangers of inflation which
can arise from wage increases that consistently exceed increases in pro-
ductivity. But on the plus side it should be noted that while the wage-
benefit increase was greater than the companies wanted to pay, this was
the first contract since the war in which the increase was such that the
companies did not find it necessary to increase prices at the time the
contract went into force. Whether price increases can be avoided in the
future will depend to a great extent upon how the union and the companies
carry out the President's injunction in his State of the Union message
that. "the national interest demands that in the period of industrial
peace which has been assured by the new contract, both management and
labor make every possible effort to increase efficiency and productivity
in the manufacture of steel so that price increases can be avoided. 11
Incidentally, I believe that one of the constructive results of the
long fight the companies made on the work rule issue was that it focused
nationwide attention on the critical necessity of increasing our efficiency
and productivity if we are to maintain our competitive position in the
world.
As I told the representatives of the major companies and the union
at a dinner in my home after the settlement, the people of the country
will not tolerate another massive struggle of this type in the steel
industry. Their interest, as well as that of the country at large, will be
at stake as they explore every possible means of increasing productivity,
reducing costs, and improving relations between union and management
during the period of this contract.
For my part, I intend to continue my studies of this problem with a
view to determining what legislative action might be taken which would
provide better protection for the public interest in the settlement of
labor-management disputes and at the same time not impair the basic
strength of our private enterprise economy.
With every good wish,
Sincerely,
(signed)
Richard Nixon
and Editorial Correspondence Comment
[REPUBLIC]
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
GENERAL OFFICES REPUBLIC BUILDING
CLEVELAND 1, OHIO
January 11, 1960
the Steel Regarding Strike
C. WHITE
CHAIRMAN or THE DOARD
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Directors, Republic Steel Corporation
Settlement
Gentlemen:
On Saturday morning last Republic executed a new labor agreement with
the Steelworkers Union covering its production and maintenance employees
in its steel and manufacturing plants and a separate labor agreement cover-
ing its employees in its iron ore mines. A copy of the agreement covering
the steel plants and of memoranda outlining the economic changes are
enclosed.
While the steel industry failed to achieve its full goals in the settlement
nevertheless the settlement is a great deal better than the public has been
led to believe from the information which has come out 80 far. The increas
in employment costs of the steel settlement to the steel industry is from
3-1/2% to 3-3/4% per year. We estimate that the Can, Aluminum and Kaise
settlements would have increased our employment costs approximately 4.7%
to 5% if they had been accepted by the steel industry, or nearly 30% more
The vicious cost-of-living escalator clause in the contract, which cost
the company 17¢ an hour during the last three-year contract period, has
than we actually settled for.
been materially watered down in two respects: (1) the maximum cost-of-
living increase that will be involved over the 30-month contract period on
When you consider that the last three-year contract cost the steel in-
wages is 6¢ and (2) against this 6¢, the companies are permitted to charge
dustry 81c per hour, whereas the present one costs 39 over the period,
all costs in increases in the insurance package which may occur during the
you will see immediately that, while we have not fully achieved our objective
contract period. Our people estimate that, on the hasis of past experience,
of settling by an increase of 2. 6% or less (the average productivity gain in
insurance costs will increase over 4¢ during the period, 80 that the net
the steel industry during the last ten years), we have made a material gain
effect should be only a 2¢ increase in cost-of-living.
in reducing wage costs over former contract settlements. As a matter of
fact, increases in employment costs in the steel industry since 1940 have
In addition, as a result of the steel negotiations these benefits have OC-
averaged more than 7-1/2% per year, while the current settlement averages
curred:
out, as I said before, to only 3-1/2% to 3-3/4%, a very material reduction.
The American public has been alerted as never before to:
1. The tremendous power of monopolistic labor unions where one union
can shut down the entire basic industry of the country and endanger the
health and safety of the nation.
2. The dangers to the national economy of wage-push inflation and the
danger of ever increasing employment costs to attempts by American in-
dustry to compete with foreign made steel, hoth in our export markets and
in our domestic markets.
settle num 2. industry with We us and for anything the can industry, less and justify and it would it to their be difficult for them to
were
3. The dangers to the economy of feather bedding and wasteful work
government
coming
up
constituents.
to
a
practices.
the union's 3. And, position officials would felt the be union stiffened vote would on and the win strengthened. companies' handily, with last the offer result which that the
On the local work rules issue while we did not get the arbitration we
cooperate in increasing efficiency and eliminating waste. To me the spirit
of the union leaders at all levels in working out matters in this area is more
in a passed mood would to at be do / inimical about Bill against to convene and hav
ing
desired we did get public pledges from the union leaders that they would
important than language in the hasic contract. We did succeed in keeping
out of the contract any restrictive language whatsoever on our right to make
changes in machinery, equipment and processes--so-called automation
changes.
he road issues with this which and we a in would not make The Vice not President and to seizure Profits, the felt steel of strongly or an industry compulsory prohably industry but pass by to arbitration the all legislation government industry labor it in the was
As Vice President Nixon outlined the situation to us, we found ourselves
in this position: practically the only weapon at our command was the great
of bad legislation. Mitchell could recommend a better settlement, to us then without and probably incurring that at a the worse all end one of the of than
Despite
the
prestige of the President of the United States and his desires to have the
the
risks
settlement made promptly on a non-inflationary basis. This, the
Vice President assured us, he had used to the ultimate in his discussion
recommendation correct his fact that to we that us were the wise reluctant course to do to it, we had to admit that
with Messrs. McDonald and Goldberg to bring the price of the settlement
down from 52¢ to the 39¢ we finally agreed to accept. On the other hand, as
real impression to of see the by him and in action Mitchell. and pursue I had was occasion to accept during the
the Vice President pointed out, we were confronted with these facts:
1. The union had surrounded us by making settlements with the alumi-
in service power the first-hand steel wielded for industry his byucation in practicallab A country. education in precticalabo Incidentally, He <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I must say, my already too, and that the favorable terrific he got a
2
whatsoever In conclusion to do with ever bringing heard about of or this settlement. Joe Kennedy and he said, had a real nothing no One
mended
may
I
say
that
during settlement, the by strike the in my government or opinion, after and that accepted we I am could convinced by have the industry that the was settlement the best
Act. The resumption of operations had, under either the before the strike, recom-
country. to my mind enclosed sums up editorial in good from fashion the the Wall situation Street Journal which confronts of a few days ago
With
this
tors' meeting kindest next regards week, and am looking forward to seeing you at the Direc-
Sincerely yours,
CMW:nc
Enc.
brove
Reprinted From
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
of Wednesday, January 6, 1960
REVIEW and OUTLOOK
The Steel Settlement
There is no use pretending. The
verted to the steel industry's higher
ter. The union had the power. The
steel settlement is not only a political
and different pay scale, would have
country seems willing to tolerate that
meant the equivalent of 47 to 48 cents
power. Given that circumstance, the
victory for the union but it also gives
a big upward thrust to the inflationary
in additional steel wage costs. With the
end was bound to be as it was.
wage-price spiral.
Taft-Hartley vote behind him, and the
There is no use pretending, either,
This is so despite the fact that the
earlier pay package dangling before
that the result will be any different in
the membership, Mr. McDonald would
the future, so long as the same cir-
settlement is, as U.S. Steel Chairman
be under less pressure to settle than
cumstances prevail.
Roger Blough says, "less inflationary"
than others in the past or that the
he had been before.
When the highwayman has a pistol
steel companies may forego price in-
Moreover, the steel companies had
at a man's head, it is foolish prattle to
creases now. For no matter how you
before them the clear prospect that the
talk about how he should stand on prin-
slice it, the new contract adds upwards
absence of a settlement this month
ciple or blame him because he yields.
of a billion dollars to the wage costs
would mean some form of compulsory
Nor is it any great blessing that the
settlement forced by the Government.
highwayman takes, perhaps, a little
of this basic industry, leaves the com-
panies as helpless as ever before waste-
The Taft-Hartley law requires the Pres-
less than he might have demanded-
ident to put the case to Congress, and
although it can, of course, be a relief
ful union work-rules, and gives an up-
ward bias to all new wage negotiations
Congress was clearly in the mood to
if he does. The only protection is for
write a law to force a settlement.
society to take away the instrument of
in other industries.
Further, the contract almost guar-
Such an enforced settlement in the
force.
antees a continuation of the inflation
present political circumstances. as both
So it is equally foolish to think that
spiral in the future. Indeed, the heav-
Mr. McDonald and the steel companies
the steel industry, or any other, is go-
well knew, would be a compromise-
ing to stand fast and hold the line
iest cost burdens will not fall on the
industry until the second and third
something less, perhaps, than the ask-
against the inflationary wage-price
years, which makes the present "no
ing price of the union (about 47 cents)
spiral when it is confronted with a pow-
price increase" promise an illusion.
but a good deal more than the com-
er such as is now held by the labor
And not the least of its evils is that
pany's offer (about 33 cents) or than
unions. All the devices of amelioration
the new contract leaves the American
what might presently be settled for.
which have been suggested in Congress
steel industry, already hard pressed by
So here, then, was a set of circum-
-extension of the Taft-Hartley injunc-
foreign producers, less able to meet
stances that put Mr. McDonald in the
tions, compulsory arbitration or wage
world competition.
cat-bird seat. He possessed a power
fixing by boards-will not ameliorate
Yet after all this has been said it is
held by no other person in the land-
the relentless upward pressure on
also true-given the circumstances that
the power to close down the whole of
wages, on costs and hence, on prices.
a vital industry and to keep it closed
The most such things can do is to
existed at the bargaining table-that
down, if necessary, until both the steel
brake the rise a little if, as happened
this is as good a settlement as the coun-
try had any right to expect. Vice Presi-
companies and the country knuckled
here, a union is persuaded to take a
dent Nixon's efforts have probably
under. Paralysis the country would not
little less than it might have obtained
endure; if the companies didn't knuck-
by fighting further. Indeed, it is a
spared the nation's economy something
le, Congress would settle things for
credit to Mr. Nixon, or somebody, that
worse.
them.
he persuaded Mr. McDonald that it
To unravel this seeming paradox.
and to take the full measure of what
Thus the union leaders had little to
was better to get so much without fur-
the nation has to contend with, it is
lose by waiting. The companies could
ther struggle than to pay that price for
necessary to look for a moment at
do no better by waiting, and might do
a little bit more. We are indebted to
those circumstances surrounding the
worse. The country, economically,
Mr. McDonald's recognition that
bargaining table these past few days.
would surely have fared worse from a
enough is enough.
waiting-it would have had to endure
a resumption of the steel strike and,
The two parties, labor and manage-
in the end, an enforced settlement no
This was not a' "good" settlement
ment, were by no means equal. The
less inflationary than what it now has.
for the industry, for the country-or
union had already closed down almost
It was into this situation that Mr.
even, we suspect, for the steel workers
the whole of the steel industry for a
Nixon stepped. If he suggested a com-
themselves. Even they lost more from
period of four months, and as the New
promise, a "something in between" the
the strike than they will put in their
Year turned it was quite plain that it
two figures, what else was there to
pockets for a long time to come, and
could, and probably would, do so again.
suggest? What else would a Govern-
those who labor in the mills will be the
In the Taft-Hartley election, a few days
ment arbitration board have decreed?
chief losers as those mills are less able
hence, the union members would vote
Arbitration implies compromise, and
to meet the competition of others.
to support the union leaders for reasons
the union's demand was sufficiently
It was simply as good a settlement
of "solidarity," if for no other.
high to insure a big boost from any
as the country has had in steel, or can
Mr. McDonald's union had previous-
compromise.
ever expect so long as the country per-
ly obtained from the aluminum and can
The result was inevitable. Thirty-
mits any union to hold up the country
industries a pay-package which, con-
nine cents, forty or forty one; no mat-
until it extorts what it wishes.
Today in National Affairs
gray area. If those who be-
was a gain in a long-range sense
lieve in this cause keep at it,
for management.
additional progress can be made
Just what the political gains
Steel Heads Say Pressure
with the hope that intelligent
or losses will be remain yet to
people can truly arrest inflation
be determined. The administra-
over a reasonable period of
tion's position is that it acted
Came in Fear of Congress
time."
.
as an informal mediator and
Both the foregoing expres-
that it made no promises about
sions from executives of two
future legislation and gave no
By DAVID LAWRENCE
important steel companies were
sanction to any agreement on
spontaneously made, independ-
WASHINGTON, Jan. 17.-Executives of the various steel
prices. The steel men say pri-
ently of one another, in an in-
vately that each company will
companies have been reviewing what really happened in the
formal review of the contro-
have to decide for itself whether
settlement of the steel strike, and most of them have come to
versy. It is conceded that, while
or not to increase prices and
the conclusion that maybe the final agreement reached was
the industry paid a heavy price
when such prices would go into
not as bad for them as it has been painted.
in the cost of work interruption,
effect.
There is a tendency to agree with what
the drawing of public attention
President Eisenhower said about the pres-
to the basic issue of work rules
©1960, N. Y. Herald Tribune Inc.
sure of "circumstances," rather than the
pressure of government. as the paramount
influence in bringing about the settlement.
The head of one company puts it this
YOUR
way:
"We have been in this wage-price spiral
for twenty-odd years. You can't stop a great
MONEY'S WORTH
wave of that kind dead in its tracks all at
BY SYLVIA PORTER
one crack. We've made a great effort in
the steel business to try to stop it. We made
some mistakes as we went along but, by
and large, we tried our best to slow the
thing down.
Steel's Escalator Stopped
"Fair Step Forward"
Among the listed gains the
The following simple analysis
"Now, the settlement, as actually made,
steelworkers won in their con-
will show you what I mean.
gives an advance of about half in the next
tract is a clause under which
Lawrence
One great victory the union
three years of what we've had in the last
they can get as much as 6
won was that, as of January 1,
three years. That's a pretty fair step forward. The thing that
cents an hour extra in cost-
the companies are paying all
really ended the matter-really, what finally made us capitulate
of-living adjustments late this
the insurance premiums for
-was the politicians in Congress.
year and next.
the workers. No longer will a
"The real pressure that developed was the fear of a Demo-
The chances that the steel-
steel employe share in the costs
cratic Congress and what they would do if they had to meet
workers will get this 6 cents—
of his hospitalization, sickness,
an emergency. If there was a
had settled on the union offer
even if the general price level
accident, etc., insurance: the
threat of a resumption of the
rises substantially-are next to
company will pay the entire
strike, Congress would be pro-
of 15 cents an hour prior to
zero.
the strike, this would have
bill. This is working out to an
posing all kinds of laws to pre-
vent it, and these laws would
meant 37½ cents for a 30-
It's more likely that they'll
average increase in the take-
not be the kind that would
month period as compared with
get 6/10 of a cent an hour than
home pay of the steelworkers
of 6.39 cents an hour, less tax.
be carefully considered or
41 cents in the actual settle-
6 cents. They may get nothing
thoughtfully discussed. They
ment.
at all-even though, I repeat,
The steelworkers also ob-
would be emergency laws
Actual 81 cent-an-Hour
the general price level climbs
tained a clause saying that if
passed in order to force a
"The kind of 15-cent-an-hour
sharply.
and as the consumer price level
settlement of the strike. It was
offer made by the union prior
The agreement to accept a
increases, they're entitled to a
the fear of that kind of law,
to the strike was the same as
ceiling on what cost-of-living
cost-of-living adjustment of no
as well as the threat of the
the 1956 settlement which re-
adjustments the workers can
more than 3 cents on December
steel strike being resumed,
sulted in an employment cost
which most of us thought
of 81 cents an hour for the
get during the term of the
1, 1960, and another adjustment
contract was one of the most
on October 1, 1961-provided
would do a lasting damage to
three-year period. This is ex-
the total of both adjustments
actly what would have hap-
significant concessions made by
our employer-employee rela-
the steel union.
doesn't come to more than
tions and to the whole coun-
pened had we accepted the
6 cents.
try. We would have had a
original so-called '15 cent' offer.
The winning of this cei.ng
But now comes the hooker.
difficult time ever getting re-
The union never counts the
and also of the equivalent of a
Since the companies are taking
peal of the drastic, ill-consid-
related costs of wage increases
"cost-of-living adjustment" for
ered legislation that would
-for overtime, holiday pay,
themselves ranks as one of the
over all insurance costs, they
have been passed."
vacation pay, etc.-nor did they
most significant victories of the
argued-successfully-that they
at that time look with favor
steel companies.
should get "relief" if these
Not Victory, But Gains
at any limitation of the cost-
costs go up. In a sense, they
The head of another steel
Because of the cost-of-living
of-living clause.
are being protected against a
company believes the adverse
angles, it could be that the
"In addition, some writers
climbing cost of living, too, for
nature of the settlement has
painted the picture of the
spendable "package" won by
any rise in insurance costs
been overemphasized. He says:
Kaiser settlement as being more
the steelworkers will turn out
will eat into cost of living
"No one, of course, could
favorable than the industry
markedly smaller than they an-
benefits to which the workers
ever say this settlement was
settlement. This is not true. The
ticipate by the time the con-
are entitled.
a victory for the steel indus-
Kaiser settlement cost about
tract ends.
try, for we did not accomplish
Certainly the steel contract
Will the companies' insur-
our main objectives of a non-
5 per cent per annum as com-
has eliminated a great deal of
ance costs rise?
inflationary settlement and
pared with 33/4 per cent for the
changes in work rules which
industry settlement. The Kaiser
the zip from the cost-of-living
It's about as sure a forecast
wage increase becomes effective
adjustment clause. The escala-
as you could make.
would promote efficiency. Nev-
tor isn't going to be running
When the dates arrive for
ertheless, as Mr. Blough of
July 1 as compared with Dec. 1
United States Steel, pointed
for the industry. Furthermore,
only upward from now on-
figuring what cost-of-living
the industry has an offset
and, if the steel pattern spreads
adjustments are owed the steel-
out, we did reduce the rate of
to other major contracts, one
workers, that 6 cents maximum
increase in employment costs
against the 3 cent cost-of-living
to about 33/4 per cent as com-
clause in excess insurance costs;
force behind the rising price
is going to shrink. The 6/10 of
Kaiser has no such offset. In
level in recent years will be
a cent estimate actually is the
pared with an average of 8
per cent throughout the post-
addition, the industry is settled
perceptibly weakened.
companies' own.
war period. This is no mean
for an extra year which is in
The union isn't likely to boast
The more the union leaders
about it, but in a way the steel-
accomplishment. In addition,
itself an advantage. A settle-
Issued By Nixon Volunteers
Peter M. Flanigan, Director
P.O. Box 7398, Washington 4,
we alerted the public, includ-
ment which was better than the
examine the cost-of-living com-
workers will still be paying for
60660NVI.5 M194
ing the steelworkers. to the
Kaiser, can industry, aluminum
promise in the steel agreement,
their insurance via smaller
importance of the work-rule
or copper settlements was also
the less enthusiastic they be-
cost-of-living adjustments than
issues, and one may hope that
quite a remarkable achievement.
come about it. This is a gain
they otherwise might receive.
this could bring some fruitful
Can arrest Inflation
with a "hooker" in it.
(Distributed 1960 by the Hall
Syndicate, Inc. All Rights Reserved)
results as time goes along.
"So what am I saying? Simply
Lowrence Column Reprinted From
"Some writers contended, for
that this deal was not 'all black'
nor 'all white.' It was in the
NEW YORK WORLD TELEGRAM, Monday, Jonuary 18, 1960
one thing. that if the industry
Porter Column Reprinted From
14
THE WASHINGTON STAR, Sunday, Jonuary 24, 1960
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
National Defense
and Security
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM
PROSPECTS FOR REDUCING THE BURDEN OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
THE NATIONAL DEBT AND OUR SURVIVAL
SPACE PROGRAM AND RUSSIAN STRENGTH
ENLARGEMENT OF THE "NUCLEAR CLUB" AND EFFORTS TO
SECURE AN END TO WEAPONS TESTING
WEAPONS TESTING
INTER-SERVICE RIVALRY
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM
Q.
The headline in our Times Union bothered me: "Nikita Boasts Reds Able
To Lick World, " and I'm interested, sir, in what the Administration is
going to do to attempt to counteract the influence of this type statement
on the U. S. public.
A.
Well, of course, Mr. Khrushchev, as you know, is one who is not
bashful about his own strength. But I would also add this, that no matter
how much he believes his strength is, he, himself, knows, that he
doesn't have enough to knock out the U. S. retaliatory power, and I
can say that he is right. He does not have it, and he will not have it.
Now what kind of a program do we have at the present time? You
have heard a lot about the so-called missile gap--a gap which resulted
from the fact that they began to build missiles before we did, and a gap
that has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. Many people,
when they hear that Mr. Khrushchev may have more ICBMs than we
have, assume this means that we are second and that he can lick us.
This is an oversimplification of a very complicated question. I
think it is more proper to talk in terms of whether or not there is a
deterrent gap, because U. S. strength is not only in its missiles. We
have some very good ones. And we also have strength in our SAC
striking power, which is still a very awesome and powerful force. We
also have potential strength in our atomic submarines which eventually
will be armed with Polaris missiles. We have our bases and our
missiles abroad as well.
As far as deterrent power is concerned, there is no gap today and
there will be no gap under the program that the President has submitted
and will submit to the Congress during this session.
I believe that the amount the President asks for our military
defenses will provide an adequate deterrent to any potential aggressor.
I believe too that this program projected into the future is one which the
American people can support and one which will provide adequate
security.
Every part of the service has particular weapons which it believes
should be included. We can not include them all, and so the President
of the United States has to make the decision as to which are the best
for the needs of this country. In the instance of the B-70, I think the
President's decision that we would continue it on a research basis,
making up planes in the future and then putting them into production
only if we found that they would be an effective instrument in our
arsenal, is a proper one. Because the choice is between the B-70 and
between the missiles.
To those who say, "Why don't we do it all? Doesn't
Mr. Khrushchev do it all?" The best answer to that is his statement
today. He said, "We're cutting back our armed forces on the ground.
We are quitting production of bombers. "
Now some of these statements cannot be taken at face value, but
just remember that in the world today, neither they nor we are going
to do everything. What we must do is to have an adequate force so
- 2 -
that any aggressor will know that he cannot strike without being harmed
in return. We have it; we are going to continue to have it. I am confi-
dent of that.
-Vice President Nixon in response to a question by a
student-faculty panel at the University of Florida in
Gainesville on January 15, 1960
PROSPECTS FOR REDUCING THE BURDEN OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
Q.
Do you foresee the possibility soon of cutting our tremendous war costs
so as to give more money to education and other social services?
A.
The threat not only to the United States but to peoples everywhere who
cherish freedom exists because of the aggressive policies and because
of the military establishment maintained by the Communist Nations. The
United States has no choice but to maintain sufficient deterrent powers so
that no aggressor can feel he can launch an attack without risking retali-
ation in return.
Now, this means that we cannot reduce our expenditures until we
are able to negotiate with the Soviet Union, and with any other countries
that might be in that position, agreements, not only in writing but also
insofar as their implementation is concerned which give us the
assurances on which we can rely. Then, and only then, will we be able
to take such steps.
But until that occurs the answer is that the United States is going
to have to maintain over a period of years high defense expenditures,
high expenditures for mutual security in order to defend the freedom
which we cherish.
I would like to add one final thought. I know that with regard to the
conduct of foreign policy in our attitude toward Mr. Khrushchev there
is a lot of disagreement. It is rather easy to sit on the side lines and
say, "We are too firm and too rigid--" Those charges were made
against Mr. Dulles or "We are too soft--" Those charges were made
against the President when he invited Mr. Khrushchev to this Country.
I would be the last to stand here and say that everything this Adminis-
tration has done and is doing is right and therefore should be continued.
But I do think this position of maintaining adequate military
strength, combined with a diplomacy which is absolutely firm but non-
belligerent, is the only course that we can follow.
- 3 -
Looking to the future, I am confident that if we continue to main-
tain that position that it provides the best chance for bringing about a
change in the attitude of the Communist leaders. As long as they are
convinced that we will be firm, that we are going to maintain our
defenses to defend what we have, they then will see the folly of simply
continuing what we would call a balance of terror in the world. When
they see that, and only then, will we be able to negotiate the reduction
of arms burden.
-Vice President Nixon in answer to a question at the
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Convention in Los Angeles on February 6, 1960
THE NATIONAL DEBT AND OUR SURVIVAL
Q.
We have always heard from certain people that our federal debt can't
go any higher. Yet when it has, nothing very serious seems to have
happened.
A.
There is no question but that the first consideration which must moti-
vate any Administration is the survival of the country, and the United
States can and should do what is necessary to maintain an adequate
defense posture so that regardless of what any potential enemy of the
United States may have, if that enemy should launch an attack, we will
be able with our power that remains to destroy their war-making
potential.
That is the principle that has guided this Administration in
developing our current defense posture and in the decisions also that
we have made with regard to the future.
I realize that there are those who question this. Specialists in
certain areas believe that we should put more emphasis on missiles,
more on airborne alert, more on submarines, more on ground forces
for limited war.
I respect the right of any individual who questions the over-all
decision to express that opinion, but I submit that the decision finally
has to be made by someone who knows what the facts are, who is
experienced, who places this principle of security above other con-
siderations on an over-all basis, looking at the whole complex of
American strength rather than one segment of it.
This is what the President has done along with General Twining
and others who are heads of our armed forces at the Chiefs of Staff level.
- 4 -
And I believe that as far as the decision is concerned, it is one on
which the American people can rely.
Looking to the future, as new developments occur technologically
and as any changes occur in the estimates which we constantly are
getting with regard to Soviet capabilities and intentions, the United
States, of course, must adjust its defenses to maintain at all times
this minimum security which I have indicated.
There should be concern about a debt that continues to go up and
up and up. There should be concern about it because when you do not
worry about it, the inevitable result is that you eventually are going
to find yourself in a vicious circle where the amount you are paying
for interest, for example, will be so unconscionably high that the
amount you are able to allocate to services, the national defense and
the like, will be proportionately less than it should be.
I believe that the United States should do all that is necessary in
this area. But it is the responsibility of a national administration not
to spend more than is necessary, and not to allow the debt to rise if
that can be avoided, because, in the final analysis, all the people of
the United States have a stake in a sound economy.
All the people in the United States have a stake in a dollar which,
earned today and invested in social security, life insurance or
pensions, will bring back a dollar when it is cashed in five, ten,
fifteen, twenty years from now. As far as I am concerned, I think
that any administration, be it Democratic or Republican, would be
taking a completely irresponsible position, an unconscionable position,
to simply, wink at and to laugh off additional expenditures which might
unbalance the budget without national security reasons to do SO. Adding
to the debt has the over-all effect of harming the savings and the
earnings of millions of Americans. I believe that this is a position
which, on sober thought, the great majority of the American people
will support.
We often hear: The only people that care about a sound dollar and
balancing the budget are the bankers and the stock brokers and the rich.
They are the very people that need to be less concerned about it
because they can hedge against inflation. The people that should be
most concerned about inflation, believe me, are the people who have
fixed incomes, the people who work in our factories, the people who
invest their hard-earned dollars for their old age, for unemployment,
for the rainy day, and then find at the time that they cash it in that it
wasn't worth as much as the labor it took at the time they had to earn it.
- 5 -
Just using a personal example, I remember that when I was grow-
ing up, my mother and my father through the years saved their money
to buy a life insurance policy. It was a relatively small one, I must
say, by modern standards, $3, 000 in the New York Life.
I remember year after year how, when those premiums came
around, particularly during the late 20's and 30's, how difficult it was
to meet them. The money that they invested in that policy which my
mother received when my father died three years ago, was worth a
third of the effort that he put in when he earned it.
I think this is wrong, and I think that any Administration, be it
Democratic or Republican, should not allow this to happen if it can
possibly be avoided.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions at the
dinner program sponsored by the Businessmen's
Advisory Committee of the School of Business Adminis-
tration of Wayne State University and the Wayne Uni-
versity Chapter of Alpha Kappa Psi, Detroit, Michigan,
February 15, 1960
SPACE PROGRAM AND RUSSIAN STRENGTH
Q.
Why are we behind in our space program and what is your opinion of
Khrushchev's statement concerning a fantastic new weapon?
A.
Well, keeping this on a completely non-political basis, may I say
first that the reason we are behind in developing the very large size
rockets which are needed to put large payloads in outer space is that
we did little to begin our ballistic missile program until after
President Eisenhower assumed the Presidency, whereas the Russians
began to make an all-out effort in this particular area in 1946 and 1947.
Now I would also point out that the failure of the previous Adminis-
tration to begin their program in time was not entirely political but
was chiefly military in character. At the time the Russians started
their program, we relied on the tremendous striking force of our
heavy bombers which we had in great numbers. Warhead size in those
days was so large, furthermore, that we did not believe it worthwhile
to develop the huge missiles necessary to replace the bomber. The
Soviets, however, did and concentrated on them at that time.
So much for why we are behind and why we are now going all out
to catch up and to exceed. Now, beyond that I would say that no one
- 6 -
knows what weapon they may have, or may have developed. I think
that certainly we should never underestimate our opponents, but it
is also dangerous to overestimate them and underestimate ourselves
because of creating a false impression in their minds as to our
weakness and their strength.
Whatever weapon Mr. Khrushchev has there comes a point with
modern weapons when there are enough--enough to destroy the targets
against which an attack is directed. But whatever weapon he has and
whatever we have in being at the present time, there is no weapon of
which we can conceive, or no complex of weapons which he has, which
are sufficient (in the event even of a surprise attack) to destroy our
retaliatory power and thereby remove the fear that he must have of
what might happen if he starts anything. This is the key point.
As long as Mr. Khrushchev, or any other potential aggressor,
knows that if he starts something he runs the risk of massive retalia-
tion, there will be that deterrent in the back of his mind.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in Miami Beach, Florida, January 16, 1960
ENLARGEMENT OF THE "NUCLEAR CLUB" AND EFFORTS TO
SECURE AN END TO WEAPONS TESTING
Q.
Has or should this nation take steps to prevent or retard the develop-
ment of our atomic arms race among small nations?
A.
The problem of the spread of atomic weapons is one with which the
government of the United States and, for that matter, the other
present atomic powers, have been concerned.
As far as the U. S. position is involved, we believe it is essential
at this time for us to concentrate on attempting to develop with the
Soviet Union--and with Great Britain -a program in which we can find
some method of controlling atomic tests as a first step toward eventual
control of the whole problem of nuclear armaments. Now, unless we
are able to make progress in that area, the possibility of controlling
the spread of the weapons to other industrially developed nations is
very unrealistic.
Obviously the reaction of any other nation that might be planning
an atomic program would be that of France. I think that what the
United States must continue to do is to press for a program of
- 7
controlling atomic tests, which we are doing, having in mind the fact
that our stake here is not only our relations vis-a-vis the Soviet Union,
but also this potential danger in the future.
The offer that the United States-together with Great Britain--has
made in this area of controlling atomic tests is certainly, it seems to
me, a reasonable one, and one that I think the Soviet Union has very
little reason to turn down. Because it would, in effect, stop all those
tests that involve fall-out; that is, all tests in the atmosphere. It would
also stop all underground tests that could be detected. Those under-
ground tests which could not be detected do not, of course, involve any
fall-out. The failure of the Soviet Union up to this time even to consider
the U. S. proposal certainly raises some doubts as to whether they are
interested in making progress in this area. Their position, on the other
hand, is stop all or none. We say that, if you cannot agree on a system
which will be adequate for the inspection of the underground tests--and
that is the problem up to this point--at least, we should stop those tests
in which we know we do have an adequate inspection system.
I think we are on the right track here. It is difficult because the
heart of the problem is this: the United States and other nations in-
volved cannot settle simply for an agreement to stop tests; we must
have an agreement that can be enforced. To make an agreement and
then to have that agreement broken surreptitiously by either side would
increase the danger of atomic war rather than decrease it. If we are
able to find a formula for stopping tests among the major nations, I
believe that the way will be open to stop the spread of the atomic
weapons to other "third" nations, so-called, that you have described.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a public
forum in Fresno, California, February 18, 1960
WEAPONS TESTING
Q.
In light of recent military and scientific testimony on the public record,
do you favor the resumption of selective, underground nuclear weapons
testing?
A.
The position that I take is the position of the Administration with regard
to nuclear testing, and I think it is one that can, and should have, the
support of the American people. We all realize the awesome threat
which is going to hang over the world as long as we continue to build
bigger and bigger nuclear weapons. One of the reasons why there is
such support for discontinuing the tests is that we know that if we
- 8
continue, it may be disastrous not only for us but other peoples as well.
However, our position has been, that nevertheless we would be
rendering a terrible disservice to the security of the United States and
the Free World if we were to discontinue tests without adequate
assurance that other atomic powers will also do so. That is why we
have insisted on inspection. That is why President Eisenhower has
said that the United States reserves the right to resume tests at any
time underground, with notice, unless a system of adequate inspection
is worked out.
Discussions, as you know, have been resumed now at Geneva, and
we hope the Soviet scientists will take not a political attitude, as they
have previously, with regard to what is adequate inspection, but a
scientific attitude. If they do there will be a chance to work out an in-
spection system. But I can assure you that the American Government
position, and this is certainly my strong conviction, must be and will
continue to be, that we cannot have simply and indefinite moratorium
on tests and talking that produces no action. That is why we must
reserve, the right to resume these tests underground once we are
convinced that the chance for working out a satisfactory inspection
system no longer exists.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in Miami Beach, Florida, January 16, 1960
INTER-SERVICE RIVALRY
Q.
What solution do you have with regard to the problems arising out of
rivalry between the various Armed Services.
A.
As you know, in the last session of Congress, a new reorganization
bill was put into effect. I think we have to give that plan a reasonable
time in which to operate, to see what defects will become apparent
during the course of its operation. I will say further that, in view
of the changing technology of modern warfare, I believe we constantly
must re-examine our traditional organization of the Armed Services
and bring the organization up-to-date with the advances in technology.
In other words, I do not believe we should freeze ourselves on the
present organizational pattern--rather we have to keep our minds open
for further modification so that the organization in the future will be
adequate to use the new technology.
- 9
Now this means not only to use that technology, but to use it with- -
out duplication, without destructive competition, and these are
principles that I believe should be applied in this field of organization
of the Armed Services.
- - Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a
public forum in Fresno, California, February 18, 1960
51860NV1M147
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 10 -
A STATEMENT BY
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
REGARDING THE
Administration
Medical Care Bill
For Release
May 8, 1960
The Administration Medical Care Bill deserves the support of all
Americans who recognize the need for better medical care for the aged and
who want to meet that need without adopting a program which would open the
door for socialized medicine, as would the Forand Bill.
It is superior to the Forand Bill in these respects:
1. The Administration Bill provides coverage for twelve and
a half million people over 65 who do not have the resources
or the opportunity to obtain adequate health insurance
coverage.
The Forand Bill provides no coverage whatever for four
million aged people who are not covered by social
security. Over two million of these four million have
incomes of less than $1,000.00 a year. This important
group of two million is covered by the Administration
Bill.
2. Under the Administration Bill those who are eligible
for the program have complete freedom of choice as
to whether they desire to participate in it or to provide
for their own protection on an individual basis.
The Forand Bill compels all those on social security to
participate in the program regardless of whether they
need it or want it.
3. The Administration Bill provides for the use of virtually
all medical facilities and services, including medical,
nursing and other health services, in the patients' own
homes, thereby serving the need of the patient most ef-
fectively and economically.
The Forand Bill would put a still heavier load on already
overburdened hospitals and skilled nursing homes, since
its benefits are available only in institutions. In effect,
in order to get the benefits of the program, those
participating would be forced to go to hospitals and
nursing homes, even when they did not desire to do so.
4. The Administration Bill preserves the opportunity for
private insurers to continue to expand their insurance
coverage for the aged. The Forand Bill would inevitably
curtail the opportunity for continued growth in the
coverage and adequacy of voluntary health insurance and
would set up irresistible pressures for establishing a
compulsory health insurance program for all people
regardless of age --a development which inevitably would
lead to the socializing of the medical profession. Im-
portantly, the Administration program avoids that threat
because of its basic voluntary nature.
5. The Administration program provides a comprehensive
ten-point benefit program which would substantially meet
the costs of long term or other expensive illness. The
Forand Bill provides only a three-point benefit program
limited to the first dollar costs involved in institutional
care and surgery. In a nut-shell, the Administration Bill
offers the best protection against the costs of catastrophic
illness.
The difference between the Administration's program and the Forand
Bill goes to the fundamental nature of our free society. The Forand Bill
and similar plans would set up a great state program which inevitably
would head in the direction of herding the ill and elderly into institutions
whether they desired this or not. Such a state program would threaten the
high standards of American medicine.
The Administration program recognizes the medical problems of the
elderly but preserves our basic American principle -a freedom of choice.
This would permit elderly citizens who need medical care to accept in-
stitutional treatment if they desired and would also enable them to stay
home -a choice which many of them undoubtedly would take--and still
receive the medical care which they need in the advanced years of life.
60960NV1M127
- 2 -
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. D. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Latin America
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD
LATIN AMERICA
LATIN AMERICA AND CUBA
CUBA AND THE SUGAR QUOTA
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD LATIN AMERICA
Q.
Why does Washington continue a policy of friendship with dictators
like Trujillo, Somoza and many others in Latin American countries,
not only the present Administration, all the Administrations.
A.
May I say that I have good reason to know there is some resentment
toward that policy.
The assumption which you very properly pointed out that the
policy of having diplomatic relations with the governments in South
America who do have various forms of what you call dictatorial
government, is not a new one. It is one that has been the policy of
the United States through the years.
It has come under attack in South America. There is also some
question raised on it within the United States. In our diplomatic
relations with countries throughout the world, the United States
generally has had and has today--and I think must continue to have--
diplomatic relations with other countries and with what happens to
be the government in power in those countries at a particular time.
Now, as far as our own devotion to the guarantees of religious
freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the like,
is concerned, there can be no question. We are devoted to freedom
here. We hope that those ideas would be adopted in other countries
as well. But we also have this problem with regard to not only Latin
America but to all countries in the world and it is that there is nothing
they would resent more than for the United States to try to tell them
what kind of a government they are going to have.
That is the reason that in our policies we have had to be careful
and this is particularly true with Latin America where, as you know,
there is great sensitivity about the great "Colossus of the North"
trying to impose ideas of economics and government upon the people
of the South. That is why it is particularly important that we not
attempt to dictate to them what kind of government they have and
whether their government meets certain standards.
What we have tried to do, of course, in our policy is to maintain
diplomatic relations with all the countries of Latin America. We have
attempted also to encourage, where we can, those particular groups
within these countries who stand for the freedoms that we think are
so very important. We think that this policy has worked. Since 1953
we have seen changes in Argentina, Colombia-- as a matter of fact--
in five different countries in South America, a change from dictator-
ship to some degree of freedom and some degree of representative
government. These changes have come about without outside inter-
ference.
When I returned from Latin America I expressed my view in this
way: In our relations with countries that have forms of government
that we may find unattractive or repugnant to us we should have a
proper relationship, a handshake, so-called. For the kind of govern-
ments that do guarantee the freedoms that we think are so important
we should have an embrazo. Again, this must be done having in mind
that basic problem that the United States must not interfere or give
any appearance of interfering with these people and imposing our form
of government upon them. I think it is a sound position and I think it
is one that in the end will be successful in promoting the evolution in
Latin America toward more representative government and away from
dictatorship--and that is the way it is to come.
Vice President Nixon in response to a question at
the California Newspaper Publishers Association
Convention in Los Angeles, California on
February 6, 1960
- 2 -
LATIN AMERICA AND CUBA
Q.
Have you any comment on our present relations with the Latin American
countries
A.
The question is difficult to discuss in general terms because the time
has passed when Latin America can be treated as just one unit. Each
country and each region has separate problems and should be, and is
entitled to be, treated on an individual basis.
Considerable concern is being expressed with regard to our rela-
tions with Cuba. I think all of us realize that what is happening in
Cuba not only affects the Cuban people and the people of the United
States, but also people throughout Latin America. One thing that all
of us in the Americas must realize is that we are truly interdependent
and what helps one country helps all and what hurts one country hurts
all.
Most objective observers would agree that the revolution in Cuba
was one which came about because there were very real objections on
the part of the Cuban people to the policies being followed by the
previous government. There wasn't any question but the revolution
had the support of the overwhelming majority of the people in all walks
of life. It is not for us in this country or in any other country, to
indicate what kind of economic or political system the people of Cuba
should have. This is for them to decide, and the President made that
eloquently clear in his State of the Union message.
It would not be appropriate for me as an official of the United States
Government to comment on whether or not those policies were serving
the best interests of the Cuban people or whether they had the support
of the Cuban people. But it is appropriate, for an official of this
government to comment upon the rights of American citizens that may
be presently affected or potentially affected by the policies of any other
government.
We trust and we hope that the Cuban government and its people
will recognize the justice of our position. If they will see that what
is involved (and this I emphasize) is not only the rights of Americans
and other people outside of Cuba and their property, but the future of
the Cuban people and Cuban economy itself. In that connection there
are hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign investments in Cuba. I
think the interests of Cuba will be served if that investment continues
to flow in, but no one can expect that it will continue to flow to Cuba
when it is not welcome there. There are many other areas in Latin
- 3 -
America which are creating a favorable climate for investment.
Mr. Nixon, do you think it's possible to reconcile the differences
between Dr. Castro and this country? They're becoming wider all
the time.
Yes, I do think it's possible. I've always felt that the Cuban people
and the American people were, shall we say, simpatico, whenever
they have the opportunity to know each other and to work together.
I would hope that within the next few months that Dr. Castro and his
government will be able to work out their revolutionary principles,
as they call them, in a way that they will respect the rights and the
property of not only Cuban citizens, but of Americans and citizens from
other parts of the world who are investing there.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions at his
News Conference in Miami Beach, Florida on
January 16, 1960
CUBA AND THE SUGAR QUOTA
Q.
Are you in favor of reducing or changing the sugar quotas for Cuba?
A.
Not at this time. I realize there are many thoughtful people who say:
In view of what Mr. Castro is doing, in view of the fact that he is taking
an anti-American, belligerent attitude, and in some cases has had cer-
tainly a great deal of communist infiltration in his government, why
don't we cut his sugar quota and give it to some of our friends? The
Philippines want it, Mexico would like to have some, Peru and a few
other countries. In my opinion, the reason that we should not do that
is because it would be counter-productive. We have had great provo-
cation, but we do not think that Mr. Castro represents the true feelings
of the Cuban people toward us. Because Mr. Castro has done somethings
which we think are wrong, we should not punish the Cuban people by
changing the sugar quota. The net result might be the loss of the
Cuban people forever. And so, we have to practice forbearance.
I think that our attitude toward Cuba should be, just as President
Eisenhower stated in his letter to the Chilean students and as a group
of formerly pro-Castro Cubans stated, for realization of the good
objectives of the Cuban Revolution in freedom. We must be for that,
but we must not attempt to impose it upon them; it must come from the
Cubans themselves. The moment we do anything which smacks of
imperialism, smacks of using our economic or political or military
- 4 -
power to force them to change their government, the reaction would
be just the contrary and Castro would become an even greater hero
than he is.
- - Vice President Nixon in response to a question of
students at Stanford University in Palo Alto,
California on April 11, 1960
51860NV1M140
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 5 -
Excerpts of Remarks by
RICHARD NIXON
Vice President
of the United States at the
Lincoln Day Dinner
Sponsored by the Republican State Committee
of Wisconsin in Milwaukee on February 8, 1960
An even greater challenge confronts the Republican Party and the
nation today than was the case in 1860. The issue in Lincoln's day was
freedom for the slaves and the survival of the nation. But the issue
today is, literally, freedom for all mankind--and the survival of
civilization.
Lincoln Day dinners are generally occasions for speeches which are
primarily devoted to praising the past of our Party. We are justly proud
of the 100-year record of our Party and of the magnificent achievements
of the seven years of this Administration. But the times call for more
than resting our case on the accomplishments of the past. Let us resolve
that throughout this year of 1960 we shall direct our major attention to the
future of America and how our Party can best serve that future.
Up to this time, the Democratic candidates seem to be engaged in a
contest as to who can call the worst names rather than who can provide
the best leadership. The issues in 1960 are too important to allow the cam-
paign to degenerate into a name-calling contest. That is why I intend to
continue to ignore personal attacks which may be made on me.
This does not mean that we should ignore attacks on our record. I be-
lieve that the candidates of the opposition party in a campaign not only have
the right but the responsibility to criticize an administration's record wher-
ever they believe it is deficient.
And our record ought to be thoroughly analyzed and thoroughly dis-
cussed because it is such an important test of our capacity for future
leadership.
But the public interest also requires that we effectively answer attacks
on our record wherever we believe they are unjustified. The cliche that
"The record speaks for itself" is true only when no one is speaking against
it. You can be sure that in this campaign we will not make the mistake of
failing to defend our record against those who choose to attack it.
The greatest issue of all--the one that overrides and cuts across all
the others--is the issue of peace, and of national security as the necessary
basis of our quest for peace. We hear these days that America is a second-
class, second-rate power.
Let's consider the facts:
The debate on national defense can be constructive. One of the
strengths of a free society is that our policies are submitted to constant,
searching criticism by those who disagree with them. Criticism can be-
come destructive, however, when by emphasizing alleged weaknesses and
overlooking acknowledged strengths it has the effect of making the United
States appear to be a "sitting duck" to potential aggressors.
Engaging in a "numbers game" in which we compare the number of
missiles, airplanes, submarines or carriers we have with that possessed
by our potential opponents is a completely fallacious method of determining
whether we have the strength we need. The test of the adequacy of United
States military strength is not whether we have as much of each category of
weapons as a potential aggressor, but whether overall we have enough
strength so that, regardless of how much he may have, he knows he cannot
launch an attack which will knock out our retaliatory power and remove the
risk of massive destruction to his homeland.
Not only do we have that kind of strength today but we have a program
which we believe is adequate to maintain that position in the future. There
is no gap in our overall deterrent strength. And what is most important,
Mr. Khrushchev knows this to be the case.
But we must not be complacent. Because of new technological develop-
ments, we shall continue to re-examine our defense posture on a month-to-
month basis. And in doing so, we must always be guided by the fundamental
principle that the United States has the will and the resources to maintain
whatever military strength is necessary to deter any potential aggressor
from launching an attack.
It is particularly gratifying that at a dinner honoring Lincoln's birth-
day, we can point to more progress in the field of civil rights in this
Administration than in any since Lincoln's. And if this Congress adopts
the Administration's voting referee proposal, we can effect the first
significant breakthrough since the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1870,
in guaranteeing the right to vote to Negro citizens in the southern States.
- 2
The struggle for civil rights and for equal opportunity is, of course,
first and foremost a matter of moral principle and of simple justice. But
it involves, as well, the whole of our struggle for world peace. Nothing is
more damaging to the United States in the battle-of-ideas-and-ideals, going
on today in the uncommitted world, than our failures and our shortcomings
in this area.
When we make progress toward our goal of equality for all at home, we
help immeasurably the case for justice and freedom which we present
abroad.
We could make no greater mistake in attempting to meet
Mr. Khrushchev's challenge for peaceful competition between our two
systems than to lose faith in the economic principles which have been
responsible for our progress in the past.
The Communists have found it necessary to abandon many of their basic
theories in order to increase the productivity of their economy. There is a
greater reward for incentive and for superior achievement in the Soviet
Union than in most non-Communist countries today. In other words, they
have found it necessary to turn our way. At a time they are turning our way,
we must not make the mistake of turning their way.
We must reject the discredited theories of those who insist that the way
to get more economic growth is to increase government spending and govern-
ment control of the economy. The way to greater economic growth in peace-
time is not through increasing the size of government but by expanding the
opportunities for creative enterprise by millions of individual Americans.
While government can and must play a supplemental role in creating the
proper climate for economic growth, we must never forget that the primary
source of our phenomenal economic progress has been and will continue to
be private rather than government enterprise.
And just as important, we must insist that this competition be
broadened: it is not enough for us to achieve material prosperity. This is
only the basis for a life of cultural and spiritual growth and development
for the preservation and extension of the freedoms we cherish far beyond
mere comfort and prosperity.
51460NVIM135
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. D. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 3
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
National
Resources
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE WEST
WATER RESOURCES; HYDROELECTRIC POWER
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE WEST
Q.
We are extremely interested in what your position would be on the
further development of water resources of the State of California
particularly, but of all of the West. We would like to know whether
or not the feeling on the part of the Administration the last year of
no-new-starts would prevail.
A.
We're curious to know whether you are going to give over-all
support to the program that the State of California is embarking on
at this moment which, as you know, is a multi-billion-dollar
program, and more particularly, to the phases of that program
that would be federally financed.
In the past and in the future--to the extent that I have a position from
which I can exert influence- -I would use that influence in behalf of
projects which would develop not only the water and power of
California but of all of the Western states.
Projecting California's population into the future, we can perhaps
look forward to 25 million people. These days you often hear the
argument made against reclamation projects to the effect that since
we have all these surplus commodities already, why have projects
that are simply going to produce more?
However when we look forward to the future needs of the popula-
tion of the United States--looking forward 50 years, or even 25 years--
we can see that the present surpluses will be deficits in a very short
space of time. The projects that we authorize and build now will
take up the gap that would otherwise result from the programs we pre-
sently have.
Now, as to how this gibes with our no-new-start policy. The no-
new-start policy was, I think, sound.
First, under this policy, we used the available funds to concentrate
on finishing projects that had already been begun, and certainly we
know right here in California what some of those projects have been
and what they have meant to California. One of the great problems in
the reclamation area is that when we get too many projects authorized,
we do a half-way job on a lot and not a complete job on any.
The second reason for the no-new-start project was that, generally
speaking, in this whole area of government expenditures, expenditures
should go up certainly in those periods when the economy needs the
additional stimulus of government action. But during the period when
the economy already is going at a maximum rate, when we have a
difficult budget problem, then that is the time to finish what has already
been started.
The best answer to the no-new-start argument is that we have six
new starts in the budget for 1961, and I expect more, of course,
whatever Administration goes to Washington, in the budgets ahead.
In a nutshell, if the United States is to retain its competitive
position in this world economically, as well as to provide adequately
for the needs of our increasing population we have to continue to
appropriate federal funds for those projects which cannot be under-
taken because of their size by private interests or by local or by
state interests. That has been my policy in the past and will continue
to be in the future.
Mr. Nixon, you make your stand very clear in regards to assistance
from the Federal Government in developing water projects. What is
your position in regards to these projects after they are fully paid
for by local interests?
It would certainly seem in those instances, where the local interest,
the state, the individuals concerned, who are beneficiaries of the
- 2 -
project, have completely reimbursed the federal costs, that the control
over the future of the project should be under their primary responsi-
bility, and under their primary discretion.
-Vice President Nixon in response to a question during a
public forum in Fresno, California on February 18, 1960
WATER RESOURCES; HYDROELECTRIC POWER
Q.
Do you believe that where hydroelectric power is a part of a multi-
purpose project, it should be developed by government or what is
termed "partnership. "
A.
I believe that the partnership concept, which this Administration has
supported, is a proper one. I believe that if I were to adopt a rule of
thumb on a very complex issue it would be this: That the power should
be developed by that institution which can render the best service to
the people at the lowest price.
Now in some instances this may be private power; in some in-
stances it may be local, public power; in other instances it may be
the Federal Government. But whoever can and will provide it in the
most efficient way at the lowest cost should provide it.
In my opinion, and I realize that many do not share this, to become
involved in theoretical arguments about the relative merits per se of
public power and private power, is not particularly productive. I
believe the important thing is to get projects on their way--and where
the Federal Government can do the job and will do it more efficiently
or better than private power, then the Federal Government should do
it.
-Vice President Nixon in response to a question at a
Sacramento, California news conference on
February 17, 1960
51860NV1M146
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.
- 3 -
PRE-CONVENTION
ISSUES
FACING THE
REPUBLICAN
PARTY
Remarks of
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD NIXON
TO THE
Republican National
Committee
June 11, 1960 Washington, D. C.
Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen of the National Com-
mittee: You know, I have never liked breakfast meetings, particularly
in campaigns, because it's always very difficult to get a crowd to be
enthusiastic early in the morning. But I must say that I've never seen
a crowd as enthusiastic as this one has been, and I appreciate not only
your attendance but your very warm welcome.
I have noted with interest your proceedings to date, and while the
opportunity to meet with each of you individually has not yet been af-
forded me, I understand this afternoon we're going to have three
regional meetings, each one hour long, of the National Committee mem-
bership. Every member will have an opportunity to participate in a
strategy session in which I will take part as well. On that occasion I
hope to see each of you individually, to discuss the particular problems
of your states and your regions, and perhaps to develop some thinking
regarding the campaign. But there are some things that I would first
like to talk about in this closed meeting; some things which are very
close to my heart and to yours as well.
Before speaking of them may I say, first, that appearing before
the National Committee is always a great honor for me. I recall the
first time that honor was accorded me was in Chicago in 1952 when I
was nominated for Vice President. Since that time, on occasion after
occasion, one of the highlights of my service in this office has been my
meetings with you.
I see some new faces here. I see some who were in Chicago then.
I can only say that you, who are the key leaders of our party, carry a
tremendous responsibility in this campaign. And I appear before you
today recognizing what you have done in the past, the responsibilities
you have for the future, and the opportunity that I have to offer some
leadership which will be helpful to you who provide the sinews of battle
which will assure victory.
Now, having said that, let me refer briefly to this pre-convention
period. In the pre-convention period, traditionally, a party does some
soul-searching. We discuss the issues. We discuss those issues in
terms of our record of the past, and we discuss them for the purpose
of developing our platform at the National Convention.
In those discussions it is inevitable and it is constructive that we
have disagreement. Because we have a two-party system in this
country we have to have room within each party for people to disagree.
Otherwise we would need a multiparty system. And so in our two-party
system, whether it is the other party which has some differences, or
- 3
our party, we should expect disagreement on some issues. Those issues
should be discussed honestly, frankly and candidly. Then we can develop
a platform which represents the best thinking of our party--a platform
that will join us on great principles and that will emphasize those things
which unite us.
And may I say in that connection I am confident once that platform is
adopted and once our candidate is nominated at Chicago, that Republicans
will join and gather around the platform, the policies and the candidates
selected. We know, as we go into this year, 1960, that this is a cam-
paign which is going to be close. We know that we have the fight of our
lives on our hands, as I have often said. In this fight we can win. We
will win if we're united. We'll lose if we are divided. I am confident
that Republicans today who are discussing our issues will discuss them
and disagree on them without being disagreeable, so that when we do
come to the convention and when we do nominate our candidate and adopt
our platform we will come out of it a stronger, a more united party than
when we went in. With that kind of strength and unity we will win next
November.
Now, having spoken of those issues on which we may disagree and
on the general philosophy of two-party government in this country, may
I turn to the record of the Republican Party and of this administration
in particular. I know I don't need to say much about that record before
this group. But I do know that during the course of the next few weeks
prior to our convention there may. be questions raised about that record.
I want to state my position on it. I think I can state it in a nutshell
by making a comparison. In 1952 the other party nominated a candidate
who couldn't run fast enough. But he was running away from the record
of his own administration, and with pretty good reason, I think.
This year, 1960, what should the attitude of our candidate be? Let
me express my own attitude.
I've been a part of our administration for the last seven and a half
years. I'm proud of that record, and instead of running away from it I
hope to run on it and to build on it.
Now, do I suggest that our record has been perfect? Of course not.
As the President would be the first to admit, in a government as big as
ours, facing the complex problems that we face in the world, we're going
to be fallible, we're going to make mistakes. But as we look at the whole
record in terms of its results I say that we can tell the voters of this coun-
try proudly that this has been the best administration in their lifetime.
- 4 -
As we look at these eight years of the Eisenhower Administration we have
no need to apologize to the great majority of the American people for our
handling of the great issues. I know that we're sometimes criticized for
emphasizing the fact that we have had peace, that we have had progress,
and that we have had prosperity during these eight years. But let the
critics say what they want. This is the record. And let's continue to
talk about it because the people need to be reminded about it so that they
will not take it for granted. They didn't have it before. They do have
it now. We want them to continue to have it in the years ahead.
Having spoken of that record, I should also add that there are
specific areas in which criticisms have been made. Those criticisms
should be replied to.
I know that one was discussed yesterday very ably by your National
Chairman. And may I say parenthetically that as I stand here beside
him and as I look over this audience and see his immediate predecessor,
Meade Alcorn, as well as Len Hall and other former National Chairmen,
I am sure that we can be proud of all of our National leaders. And today
we can be proud of the fact that Thruston Morton has rendered tremen-
dous service not only as a Senator, but also as our National Chairman.
I for one think he ought to continue to serve as National Chairman right
up to November. I'm not a delegate, but I hope you tell your delegates
that's the way I feel, in case you agree.
Chairman Morton discussed the U-2 incident. There's been a lot
of criticism of that incident. Let's put it in perspective. I think that
reasonable men can disagree about what was said about the U-2. I
don't think that there can be any disagreement about what was done.
What do I mean by that?
I don't believe that we can contend that the President of the United
States was not justified in maintaining an aerial surveillance system in
order to protect the United States against surprise attack. Whether
they are Democrats or Republicans who are considering this I believe
the great majority of the American people approve of the policy and the
program which the President initiated in this area.
But some will say, when you are speaking of those things that were
done, as distinguished from those things that were said: "Well, can't
there be disagreement about the timing of this particular flight?"
We respect those who have raised this criticism, but let me give
you my point of view: First of all, we have learned through very bitter
- 5
experience that where you are confronted with a potential aggressor the
time of greatest danger may be the time when you are negotiating with
him. That was what happened at Pearl Harbor. So today I say the
American people, regardless of party, can be thankful this flight did
take place and that we had a President who put the security of the United
States first.
The President, of course, put it well in his television address. We
are aware of the fact that any time you have a failure in an area as
sensitive as this it is embarrassing, and certainly criticisms are bound
to occur. But let us remember that in the world in which we shall live
for many, many years ahead, we are going to have to make some tough,
close decisions, and in making those decisions, whether our President
is a Democrat or a Republican, the security of America must always
come first just as President Eisenhower has put it first in his handling
of this incident.
Turning also to what was said and what was done, let's look for a
moment at the Paris Conference.
I know there are some who have suggested, certainly with the best
of intentions, but I think with a rather naive understanding of the conduct
and of the attitudes of Mr. Khrushchev, that possibly President
Eisenhower should have made an effort to save the conference by
apologizing to Mr. Khrushchev or expressing regrets for this inci-
dent.
Let me just give you my own viewpoint.
First of all, I think I know Mr. Khrushchev reasonably well. While
I am not an expert on him I have consulted with experts. The great ma-
jority of these, and I share this view, would agree that the U-2 incident
was an excuse and not a reason for what he did and that an apology or a
regret wouldn't have saved the conference. But, more than that, rather
than the President apologizing or expressing regrets, what we have to
remember is that it is Mr. Khrushchev who should apologize to the
President and the whole world for blocking the road to peace.
On the other end of the spectrum, of course, I have noted that some
have suggested: Why did the President sit there in Paris and take all of
these insults without answering back vigorously to Mr. Khrushchev?
May I say that in this respect I think we can be very proud of the
President's conduct for this reason: I know, from experience, having
- 6 -
been in difficult situations like this, both in Latin America and in Moscow,
that it is much easier to lose your temper than to keep it under these
great stresses. I think that we have to remember that in these times the
worst thing a President of the United States can do, be he a Democrat or
a Republican, is to engage in a war of words with Khrushchev or any
Communist leader, and heat up the world atmosphere by answering their
insults in kind. For in doing so, we could reach the igniting point and
set off a nuclear conflict.
Does this mean that we just sit and take it? Does this mean that we
take an apologetic attitude?
Not at all. It means that we stand firm on principle. It means we
recognize that concessions do not lead to peace when dealing with a
dictator, but they lead to war. They only whet his appetite. They never
satisfy it. But while we are firm in our principle we must be non-bel-
ligerent in our attitude. It is this kind of leadership America must have
in these critical years ahead. This is the kind of leadership that the
President was displaying at his best at the Paris Conference.
Just to summarize my attitude in this field I would say this: Reason-
able differences can exist about what was said about the U-2 incident;
differences could exist about what was done. These differences can and
should be discussed in a country like ours, freely and constructively.
But, in conducting these discussions, let's not make the mistake of
playing into Mr. Khrushchev's hands by making it appear that it was
President Eisenhower and the United States who were at fault and by tak-
ing the blame off of his shoulders, where it belongs, for blocking the
road to peace.
This, in essence, is the attitude that I think Americans should have
in looking at this incident. It is one of the most recent incidents in the
Eisenhower record, a record which again I say I am proud to have been
a part of, and which I shall proudly support today and in the months and
years ahead.
Now, if I might turn to the future. I have spoken of our record. In
terms of its accomplishments, we have no apologies. In ordinary times
it would be enough to point with pride to this record. In ordinary times
that would be enough. But these are not ordinary times.
Simply standing on the record as it is, would have been sufficient
in years past when America did not have the tremendous responsibilities
of leading the whole world to peace with justice and freedom. I think I
know something about the challenge that confronts us. I don't need to
tell you that it is a deadly serious one.
- 7 -
I noted with great approval yesterday that Thruston Morton and
other speakers rejected the phony idea that because the Russians may
have moved ahead in one area or another, ours is a second rate country.
That we are second rate militarily, second rate economically, second
rate educationally, scientifically and otherwise.
America is today the strongest country militarily, the strongest
country economically, with the best educational system, the finest
scientists in the world, overall. But we are in a race. We are in front
and well in front. But the only way to stay ahead when you are in a race
is to move ahead. There can be no greater mistake that we as a Party
can make and no greater lack of responsibility we could exhibit than if
we failed to build on the record in the future rather than just stand on it.
Here is the attitude we should have as we look to the future of America
in these next critical years.
This is not the time to go into all the great issues which will con-
front us in the days ahead. Yet, let me give you an idea of one issue
which may be a matter of great difference between the Republican
candidate, whoever he is, and the Democratic candidate, whoever he
may turn out to be. As we consider the competition between our world
and the Communist world we hear a great deal about its economic
aspects. I agree, as I am sure you will, that this is fundamental. We
must recognize that the economic challenge is significant. We must
recognize that while we are now twice or over twice as rich and as
strong and as productive as the Soviet Union, economically, to main-
tain that lead we must move ahead as fast as we can on a sound basis.
However, many critics of the Administration suggest that this
Administration has not been interested in economic growth, and that the
new Administration--particularly if it is a Democratic Administration --
is for economic growth.
Now, let's lay one point to rest right now: We are for economic
growth! They are for economic growth. What is the difference?
Is this a matter of "me-tooism?" Of course not. Our differences
are not in our goals; our difference is in the means. Let's spell it out
a little further. What do they say? Without attempting to pick out what
one candidate says, but looking at all of their speeches and seeking one
theme that runs through all of them, we find this: "We ought to establish
a fixed percentage rate at which the country ought to grow in order to
stay ahead of the Soviet Union. "
Then they say: "How do we do this? Well, first of all we ought to
peg interest rates at artificially low levels. " But we say: "That might
- 8
lead to inflation. " And their answer is: "A little inflation is a small
price to pay for economic growth. " What is the answer to that?
Our answer is that rather than assuring growth, rather than building
the economy that kind of policy would ruin America's economy. Our
answer, further, is that while at the moment this would seem to be at-
tractive, particularly to the gamblers and others who like to build an
inflationary economy, in the long run it would lead to the boom and bust
cycle. It would not mean steady and sure growth for America.
Let's carry the analogy a little further: They also say that the way
to get economic growth at this fixed level is to have the Government do
more.
Now let's see where we agree and disagree in this area.
We believe that the government needs to do everything that is
necessary to keep America's military strength at adequate levels. We
can and should, do and spend, whatever is necessary to maintain the
ability to strike back and knock out the striking power of any potential
aggressors if an attack is launched against us. Going beyond that, we
recognize that the government has its place in those areas where in-
dividuals and the states cannot or will not do jobs that need to be done
to assure progress at home and abroad for America, and her interests.
The basic disagreement that we have with our opponents is that they say
that even beyond these areas the way to get economic growth is for the
government to spend more. I think that here we can draw the line and
draw it clearly. We will continue to draw it during the course of this
campaign.
We reject the idea that the way to progress and growth in this
country, the way to growth of this kind, is for the Federal Government
to spend more. We say that the way to growth and the greatest progress
in America is not through increasing the size of the government expendi-
ture but through expanding the opportunities for millions of creative,
individual Americans.
This is our goal!
Now, if I might turn to one other aspect of that problem: I know that
in our own Party there are those who get into an argument about semantics
and they say: "Well, are we conservatives or are we liberals?" Might I
suggest that these words have been so distorted by usage in the past few
years that I think such discussions are nonproductive and self-defeating.
- 9
What we are concerned about, however, is this: We must distinguish
between our goals and the means of reaching those goals. I would hope
that we, as Republicans, will never forget this. As far as goals are
concerned, the growth of our economy, better schools, better housing,
better health, better security for the American people, we are liberal in
those goals. Our opposition has never had any monopoly of the good ends
and the good goals for America. We must not allow them to say they are
for all the good things, but we oppose them. We do not. We are against
the means that they would use to achieve those goals.
Now, let's turn to the means for a moment. If by conservative you
mean one who believes that the way to progress in America is through a
sound economy, a balanced budget and progress with and through freedom,
without inflation, then you and I and the great majority of the Americans,
I am sure, are conservatives. But, if on the other hand conservatism
means we plant our feet in cement, that we resist all change, that we say
that government has no responsibility and is not concerned with the
people's problems where individuals will not and where states do not or
cannot do the job, then we are not conservatives.
We Republicans stand for progress. We point to the record of this
Administration-- in which more schools have been built, more houses
constructed, and more progress made in creating a better life for
Americans than in any eight years in our history, and we point to the
future and say: "We will do better, we will achieve more than our op-
ponents ever will. 11 Putting it very bluntly, we will produce on the
promises that they are so willing to make! This is what we have always
done, and this is what we will continue to do.
In concluding let me turn to a serious question: What should be the
dynamic of the Republican Party as we go to our convention and move on
to our campaign? I was reading the other day of a visit by a French
Journalist to this country. He visited here in the latter part of the 19th
Century when America was bustling and full of vim and vigor. While
talking to Lewis Cass, the Senator from Michigan, he said: "If America
is like this when she is young, what will she be like when she grows old?"
Lewis Cass answered: "America will never grow old. "
The spirit of our Party, the spirit of America in these critical years
of the Sixties, should be exactly that. We are a young country. We are a
young Party. It is going to take a young country with a young Party, with
leadership which is full of vitality, to meet the challenges of our times.
I hope our Party will be worthy of leading this country. I happen to
believe that this is a country marked for destiny. I happen to believe
that the world needs our leadership.
- 10 -
Perhaps this is a responsibility which many Americans would have
preferred not to have. But it is a burden which has been placed upon us,
which we must be willing to assume. We must have the ability and the
worthiness to bear this responsibility which will be ours in those years
ahead.
As our Party, which elected its first President a hundred years ago,
goes into this campaign, let this be our goal: "A young Party will lead a
young America in building a new world in which all men can have the
opportunity to live in freedom and peace with their neighbors. "
Now at the request of Clare Williams (Mrs. Clare B. Williams,
Assistant Chairman of the Republican National Committee) I would like
to say just a word about the women who are here. Clare handed me this
note a moment ago in which she says: "Can't we do more about getting
more women delegates at the convention?" I am for it. More women
vote than men do, and we need women delegates because of the contribu-
tion that they can make.
Now I am well aware of the
tremendous contribution that women
can make in the campaign. I was
in Melvin, Illinois, just a few
weeks ago for a testimonial din-
ner for Les Arends, the Minority
Whip. We had a great receiving
line. Towards the end an older
gentleman, who was a farmer in
the area, came through and shook
hands with me, and shook hands
with Pat and then came around to
me again, and he said: "Young
fella, I just want to tell you one
thing: There may be some argu-
ment as to who ought to be Presi-
dent of this country, but as far
as First Lady, it is no contest.
Pat Nixon is the one I want. "
Of course, I am a biased obser-
ver. I can't say who ought to be
President, but I am for Pat for
First Lady!
- 11 -
VICE PRESIDENT
RICHARD
NIXON
ANSWERS QUESTIONS
ABOUT
Politics
DOMESTIC GOALS AND
ISSUES IN THE 1960
POLICIES OF THE
CAMPAIGN
EISENHOWER
ADMINISTRATION
COMMUNISM AS AN ISSUE IN
THE 1960 CAMPAIGN
LEADERSHIP AND THE
PRESIDENCY
QUALITY OF REPUBLICAN
CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND
THE PRESIDENCY
1960 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
CONVENTION
TONE OF THE CAMPAIGN
REPUBLICAN NOMINEES FOR
REPUBLICAN POLITICS AND
VICE PRESIDENT
THE 1960 REPUBLICAN
CONVENTION
VICE PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES AND CABINET
PRIMARIES
MEMBERS
DOMESTIC GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE EISENHOWER
ADMINISTRATION
Q. You were quoted yesterday, Mr. Vice President, as saying that after
the Congress has adjourned and after the convention you will feel free
to delineate your position with respect to various issues.
You didn't specify which issues, particularly those which might
differ from the stand taken by the Administration.
Are there going to be very many issues apart from the farm problem
where you have a policy that is somewhat different from that advanced by
the President?
A.
There has been a great deal of comment to the effect that I am trying to
divorce myself from the policies of the Eisenhower Administration.
Nothing could be further from the fact. I happen to be very proud
of this record. I helped to make it. I played a part in developing many
of the policies. I have attended the President's conferences throughout
the past seven years.
I think this Administration has the best record of any administra-
tion in history in its handling of foreign policies so as to avoid war and
its handling of domestic policies so as to stimulate progress and to
build good economic conditions for this country. I am very happy to
run on the Eisenhower record and against a return to the Truman
policies.
Up to this point that is all any Democratic candidate has offered
as far as I have been able to see. If they disagree with that statement
I trust they will show where they stand on the Truman policies, just
as I state my position on the Eisenhower policies.
I say I stand on the record. I emphasize: One, that I think this
record has been splendid; Two, that in general principles, I don't think
there probably are any two men in public life in America who agree
more than the President and I. But; Three, I am not a stand-pat
candidate. I also go further. It isn't enough to say we have done very
well and we are going to stop here. America is a young country still,
even though we are about 180 years old. We are a young people, we
are a progressive people. We never like to stand still. As the
President indicated in his press conference a few weeks ago, it would
be foolish for me or any other Republican candidate to say we have
done well and we haven't a new thought in our heads.
I happen to believe that there are some problems like the farm
problem which this Administration has not solved. There are other
problems, new problems, for which this Administration has not had
an opportunity to develop programs.
For the farm problem, for problems dealing with our cities, for
various other problems, I intend to present to the American people my
own program for the future at the same time that I defend the policies
of the past.
You don't think by doing this you will in effect hand the Democrats an
endorsement of their attacks on the Eisenhower Administration?
I don't for this reason: their attacks on the Eisenhower Administration
- 2 -
are based on a fundamental difference in philosophy.
Let's leave out foreign policy for a moment. Let's look at domestic
policy.
The Democratic candidates--and I say the Democratic candidates,
because there are millions of Democrats who have supported the President
in the past and will vote Republican again because they don't believe their
Party represents their views--say that we need new programs in order to
have progress in health, in education, in power, in all of these various
areas. They set up fine goals, they are for better health, better housing,
better schools, better education for the American people.
Now, every American can support those goals. I am for them just as
the Democratic candidates are for them. But it is here that we depart.
They say that we must always turn to Washington to reach these goals.
We must expand government spending. We must expand the size of the
Federal Government. We must increase its participation in the economy
of this country.
For example, if it is schools, they say that the Federal Government
should embark on a massive program of federal aid to education. If it
is health, all people should be compelled to join a state health insurance
system and so on down the line. The Democratic candidates say this is
the only way to reach our goals. The American people must give up more
of their money to the Federal Government through taxes. The American
people must give up more of their freedom and more of their own lives to
the Federal Government. This is their approach.
What is our approach, the Eisenhower approach and the approach I
take to the problems?
We say, "Yes, the goals are right. We stand for better health and
better housing, for better highways, and for all the things that the Ameri-
can people want. 11 But we should not start developing programs to reach
these goals by saying, "Well, the people can't handle these things for
themselves, we haven't faith in the people. " We say the thing to do is
start first with the individual, then go to the group, and then go to the
states. If individuals can do the job, if private enterprise can do it or
if state government can do it, one or more of them should.
But if the individual action, private action and state action will not
meet these goals, then and only then should the Federal Government
step in with its program.
The reason I stand for this approach is not because I am against
- 3 -
these goals. I am for these goals. Instead I oppose the Democratic
program because I believe it won't work.
I believe ours does, because in the last eight years we have built
more schools and we have built more highways and because the Ameri-
can people have done better in terms of real income than they have
ever done in the history of this country.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions in an
interview by Frank Reynolds on WBBM-TV Program
"INSIGHT" in Chicago, Illinois, May 1, 1960
LEADERSHIP AND THE PRESIDENCY
Q.
Senator Kennedy has said that in 1960 it would require a very vigorous
approach to the presidency. Could you characterize your view in terms
of some Republican President? Theodore Roosevelt or Taft?
A. Well, I read Senator Kennedy's comments, and may I say that I have a
real respect for his analysis of the problems of the day. I think he's
a
very serious student. However, my own study of the American politi-
cal system and of those who have served in the office of President,
leads me to characterize the difference between strong and weak
Presidents somewhat differently from the way he did.
The problem of leadership is one that cannot be put down and de-
scribed in terms of absolute, rigid, black-and-white categories. To
say that one man is a strong leader and another man is a weak leader
may be, on the basis of a whole record, a fair appraisal. But,
whether a man is a strong or a weak leader is determined by the re-
sults of what he has done rather than how he does it. And I think this
is where Senator Kennedy has, to an extent, missed the lesson of
history.
Now, I would agree with him that Lincoln was a strong leader,
Jackson was a strong leader. But I would disagree wholeheartedly with
him that Eisenhower is not. Mr. Truman, in some respects, was a
strong leader. His decision in Korea, his decision with regard to the
use of the atomic bomb, are two examples of strong, decisive leader-
ship. My own appraisal is that it cannot be said that one man is a
strong leader because he pounds the table in order to get things through
that he wants, while the other man is not a strong leader because he
gets his program through by persuasion. Mr. Truman was somewhat
of a table-pounder and he achieved some results that way.
President Eisenhower is a persuader and he, I submit, has gotten
some real results.
- 4
His critics say that President Eisenhower has not been a strong
leader, and yet they object to the leadership which ended the war in
Korea, which handled the crisis in Suez and which made two decisions
in the Formosa Straits. Decisions which, I would say, were contro-
versial partly because they were strong evidences of leadership. His
decision to go into Lebanon is another example of the President's
strong leadership.
In looking at Senator Kennedy's statement, I disagree with his
tendency to characterize leadership too much in terms of the person-
alities of the individual presidents involved rather than in terms of
what they did and what they accomplished.
Now, looking to the '60s. I believe that the American people need
a number of characteristics in their President, whether he be a
Democrat or a Republican. Among these are first, that the President
of the United States be a man who, of course, knows the great inter-
national issues and the domestic issues. Certainly, I think most of the
candidates on the Democratic side could qualify in this respect. They
are students of the international and domestic scene. That knowledge,
it seems to me, must be combined with leadership qualities to gain
support for the views he believes are in the best interests of the
nation.
Now, taking each of the individual Democratic candidates, I think
it can be said that some would gain support through persuasion, some
perhaps through a more vigorous approach, closer to what Mr. Truman
used. In any event, the test of whether a man is a strong President
will be determined by what works.
When we speak of strong leadership, there is sometimes a
tendency for people to say that what we need--whenever some kind of a
crisis comes up--is for somebody to go out and charge and lead the
people in the proper direction up to the mountain top. Now, this is an
understandable temptation. It's rather easy, when a difficult inter-
national issue comes up, to characterize those who may be opposing
your policies as the devils of the worst type and to engage in, shall
I say, rash and impulsive language. But in the '60s--in addition to
knowledge of the issues, in addition to an understanding of world af-
fairs, in addition to the basic ability that any leader must have to gain
support for his policies--the American people and the free world need
in an American President a man who has judgment. A man who in a
crisis will be cool, a man who won't go off half-cocked, a man who
will resist the temptation (and the temptations will sometimes be
great) to give the appearance of leadership when, actually, his speak-
ing out may set off a chain of circumstances that would be disastrous
- 5
to the whole world. So I would urge that those who are looking at this
problem of leadership not be fooled by the appearance; that they look
beyond the gestures, the flamboyant speeches, etc., and they look
actually to what is accomplished. In that respect I think we can make
a more accurate appraisal of what kind of leadership we have.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in Miami Beach, Florida, January 16, 1960
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THE PRESIDENCY
Q.
Mr. Vice President, it is a credo of the country that a candidate need
have no religion. Suppose that a man had no religion--was, in fact,
an atheist. Would his beliefs be an issue?
A. A man who has no religion can be elected President of the United States.
A Communist can be elected President of the United States. But the
fact that a man was a Communist would be an issue because a Com-
munist would not stand for the great principles that most Americans
subscribe to.
As far as religion is concerned, if we read the Declaration of
Independence, if we look at our money, if we repeat the salute to the
flag, we hear the words "In God we trust, " in one form or another.
While we recognize the right of a person to have no religion at all in
this country, I don't believe America can or should have a man as
President who does not have faith in God.
Then too, in the world struggle today, we often hear about the
competition in missiles and the material competition that
Mr. Khrushchev calls peaceful competition between our system and
theirs. Too often in the free world we talk of this competition in
terms of material things alone, and we meet him on his own chosen
ground. We say we are going to build more factories than he can and
better missiles than he can and better televisions and automobiles
than he can, as if that were the whole test. That isn't the whole test
as far as we are concerned. It is only part of it.
While we can beat him economically and militarily, the greatest
advantage that the free world has in this struggle with Communism is
in the moral and spiritual area. We believe there is more to life than
simply good homes and better food and better housing and better
clothing. We believe that man has a spiritual destiny.
Therefore, I think any President of the United States who is going
- 6
to lead the free world and our country in this great struggle with
atheistic Communism must be a man who has a basic belief in God
and stands for religious beliefs.
And may I say in that connection, various opponents who hope to
be the Democratic nominee all share the belief I have, a basic belief
in God. So this is no issue as far as I am concerned.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions in an
interview by Frank Reynolds on WBBM-TV Program
"INSIGHT" in Chicago, Illinois, May 1, 1960
TONE OF THE CAMPAIGN
Q.
Mr. Vice President, as the campaign goes on this year, it is likely to
become--well, pretty rough as they sometimes do.
Now, we have heard a great deal about new Nixons and old Nixons.
Is there a new Nixon?
A.
You know, I often hear that kind of argument being made and I under-
stand it and I don't resent it.
Yet I feel sure that many people who are talking about the new
Nixon never knew the old Nixon.
Going further and speaking seriously on the point, I think all of us
change. I have had a very rare experience of serving under the
President for seven years. I visited 54 countries as a representative
of the President of the American people, I am now fully aware of the
responsibilities that the next President of the United States will have.
As for the campaign, I think it is tremendously important that the
American people hear a hard-hitting discussion of the issues from
both Presidential candidates.
The people must make an intelligent choice. When they go into
the polling booths they must know where both men stand so that they
can choose the man who will lead this nation and the free world in
these perilous Sixties. Because this is the period that may determine
the destruction or the survival of our civilization.
So in this campaign, I intend to discuss these issues. I intend to
point out how I differ with my opponent and I expect him to attack my
policies and my record.
7 -
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions in an
interview by Frank Reynolds on WBBM-TV Program
"INSIGHT" in Chicago, Illinois, May 1, 1960
REPUBLICAN POLITICS AND THE 1960 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
Q. Mr. Vice President, I wonder how you evaluate the so-called "Stop
Nixon" move in New York.
A.
Well, it probably will add some spice and interest to the Republican
race for the nomination. I think it is, of course, perfectly proper for
any individuals, or groups of individuals, who feel that some other
candidate would be preferable, to support him at this time. Between
now and convention time, I think the people will have an adequate time
to evaluate whatever candidate they desire to support against me or
others in the field.
Q.
Do you expect competition, Mr. Vice President, for the nomination?
A. It is hard to say whether competition will develop. I would say that
what has been referred to as the "Stop-Nixon" movement in New York is
perhaps competition. I have noted, for example, that Senator Goldwater
was endorsed by a Republican group in South Carolina. There is only
one thing about political campaigns you are always sure of, and that is,
until the votes are counted there is nothing certain. So I would not be
surprised to see competition, and certainly I would not be opposed to it.
I feel that competition is both right and sometimes very helpful.
Q. Who would you choose for a running mate?
A. Until I, myself, have been able, shall we say, to overcome my compe-
tition, it would be presumptuous for me to indicate who the Vice
Presidential candidate should be. At this time the people will have a
very good chance to evaluate the various prospects for the Republican
nomination, and I myself intend to be watching them so that if and when
I do have something to say about the Vice Presidential nomination, I
can make recommendations which would be based upon the abilities of
the men both as campaigners and as far as their qualifications to hold
the office is concerned.
Q. Do you have any preferences at all in this race?
A. I am very happy to see a number of Republicans in the Cabinet, in the
Senate, in the Congress, and among the Governorships, as well as some
outside of government, that would meet what I consider to be the qualifi-
- 8
cations for Vice President. I would not name any of them now or select
any one over the other.
Q.
Would you accept the Vice Presidential nomination?
A. I have answered that question before. I feel that the two-term provision
for President, for which I voted, was a very salutary and correct
principle to adopt; I think it should apply to Vice Presidents also.
Q. Would you comment on Mr. Rockefeller's statement that he would not be
interested in the Vice Presidency?
A. No, except to say that I think it is perfectly proper for him to take both
that position and the position that he does not want to endorse anybody
for the Presidential nomination until the convention. I think that in both
of these cases he is completely within his rights, and I respect him for
whatever decision he has made. I am confident that when the convention
is held Governor Rockefeller will do what he said when he withdrew from
the nomination race--that he will support whoever is nominated by the
convention.
As far as the Vice Presidency is concerned, certainly he has a right
to decline to run for Vice President, if he desires.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in San Francisco, California, April 11, 1960
PRIMARIES
&
Did it discourage you to run third in the 3-man race in Wisconsin?
A. No, I have studied Wisconsin election returns through the years and, as
you know, they have a peculiar voting law where anybody who wants to
get into a fight can do so. The voter can pick a Democratic ballot if
there is a contest on that side, or a Republican ballot if there is one on
that side. And traditionally Wisconsin voters, when there is no contest
on one side and there is on the other, vote in the contest. I think our
showing was reasonably good considering the fact that there was no
contest on our ticket.
Q. If you had to do it over, would you go in there and campaign?
A. No. I did not see any reason to go in at that particular time in view of
the fact that the contest, so far as delegates was concerned, was al-
ready decided. I also had a very heavy schedule in Washington during
that period and was unable to go in except, I think, I was in there for
the February 12 Lincoln-Day period, but that was two months before.
- 9 -
Q.
Mr. Nixon, what was your reaction to Senator Byrd's request that
West Virginians vote for Humphrey rather than Kennedy?
A. Well, first, I think it might be well to designate which Senator Byrd we
are talking about. Most people think of Senator Byrd only as the
Senator Byrd of Virginia; this is Senator Byrd of West Virginia. Ac-
cording to the news reports that I saw, he is--or has been--a supporter
of Lyndon Johnson rather than Senator Humphrey. The news accounts
indicated that he felt the supporters of all the other candidates should
get behind Humphrey in order to stop Kennedy. He has, of course, a
perfect right to do that. I would only suggest that, since this gives the
appearance of ganging up on Mr. Kennedy, it might have exactly the
opposite result intended. Because if the people get the idea in West
Virginia that all of the candidates are ganging up to beat one, there
might be a reverse reaction in Senator Kennedy's favor.
Q. Mr. Vice President, do you think the results in the West Virginia pri-
mary might indicate the nominee?
A. I certainly do. As far as Senator Kennedy is concerned, a defeat
would not put him out of the race because he has great strength in the
polls and also as far as committed delegations are concerned. A
victory for him would close it out. I think that while there would still
be some motions by the other candidates, if he proves that he can
carry West Virginia after Wisconsin where there were some doubts
raised as to whether or not the religious issue would hurt him, then
nobody can stop Kennedy. I would imagine, for example, that that is
probably why Senator Byrd and others are concerned about West
Virginia.
Q. Which of the two candidates would you prefer to face?
A. I would say that I can answer that question better when I see which one
comes out first at the convention. I know all of the potential Democratic
candidates; I find myself in disagreement in varying degrees with many
of their views, but I consider each one of them to be a very formidable
opponent. I think it will be a hard fight for the Republican nominee,
whoever it is, including me, but I think we can win. Because I think our
record is the most outstanding record that any candidate will have ever
run on, I also believe that on the issues confronting the world and the
nation we simply have a better case to sell.
Q.
Mr. Vice President, in Indiana you are on one side unopposed and
Kennedy on the other side is unopposed in the primary there. Could
that be interpreted as a race between you and Kennedy?
A. Well, it's very likely to be, I would say, just as the Wisconsin
primary.
- 10 -
Q. Well, how would you interpret it?
A. I would not interpret it that way unless both party organizations inter-
preted it that way. In other words, where you have a situation where
a candidate is unopposed, the number of votes he gets is no indication
at all of his strength, because people do not vote unless it counts,
generally speaking. In Indiana, for example, I noted that while there
is no contest for the Presidential nomination, there is a hot contest
on the Democratic ticket for Governor-so there would be a tendency
to draw out more Democratic votes than Republican votes. I do not
say this is going to happen, but I do say that where you have this
situation of no contest in a primary, the strength of the candidate is
not indicated by the vote he receives.
I have a pretty good example right here in California. In 1950,
when I ran for the Senate, there was no contest on the Republican ticket
and there were two candidates on the Democratic ticket. The two
candidates on the Democratic ticket polled over 600, 000 votes more
than I did. Now, the uninitiated from other states, for example, said:
Well, this means that Nixon will lose because the Democrats are
600, 000 votes stronger. But, as you know, in the final campaign I
won by 700, 000 votes. The proof again of the point that where there
is a contest people come out, where there is not they do not.
Q. Mr. Vice President, do you think the change in qualifying in the primary
in California will affect the political activity. in other words, show a
decline in political activity in California
A. I would imagine it would have some effect in that direction. When you
have the cross-filing, there's always a lot of activity on the part of any
candidates to move over and get as much support in the primary from
the other party as he can so that he can carry that over to the final. Now,
when you no longer have that incentive and where you have incumbents
who are unopposed, this means that they won't do much campaigning in
a primary. So the net result is less, certainly will be less activity
than in previous years.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in San Francisco, California, April 11, 1960
ISSUES IN THE 1960 CAMPAIGN
A. Mr. Vice President, would you care to name what you consider the two
or three chief issues of the 1960 Presidential campaign?
- 11 -
A.
The overwhelming issue is the security and survival of the United
States of America. That means all the related issues: national defense,
our foreign policy, and of course the non-military aspects of the cold
war struggle.
When I speak of this as an issue, I do not mean that whoever may
be the Democrat candidate or whoever may be the Republican candidate
will disagree on all of the various facets of the issue. I do mean that
the American people in judging which man they feel should be
President of the United States in this critical period will put as their
first qualification whether or not the candidate is best able to handle
this issue of survival and all of its aspects. They will consider who
is best able from the standpoint of experience, and the policy that he
may advocate during the course of the campaign. In that respect I
believe that it would be very constructive for there to be very frank
discussion of these various issues, because one of the purposes of a
political campaign in this country is to submit national policy to the
closest scrutiny by the voters every four years.
This can be done only by intelligent opposition that hits hard against
those policies that are thought to be deficient. I expect that. I think
our opponents will and should expect to meet that responsibility.
On the domestic scene I would say the issues depend to a great
extent on who the candidates happen to be, because it is rather diffi-
cult at the present time to say what position the various Democrat
candidates will take on some of the domestic issues. They disagree
amongst themselves and so it is difficult for me to say at this point
where they would disagree with Republican candidates.
As far as the domestic issues are concerned there will be these:
One, the role of government in the economy of this Country--and
over-simplifying a very complex problem, the difference that I would
see arising between the Republican and the Democrat candidate would
be that the Republican candidates represent a philosophy that govern-
ment should supplement rather than supplant individuals and private
enterprise. Not all but most of the potential Democrat candidates for
the Presidency believe that government should take a larger role.
They believe that the way to more economic growth is more govern-
ment spending and more government activity than we presently have.
If that is the issue it will be good for the country to debate and to get
a verdict of the people as to which route they want to take. I have
very strong views as to which route we should take. The Soviet Union,
of all countries, is turning our way. They are rewarding incentive in
a system in which everybody is supposed to receive according to his
- 12 -
needs and contribute according to his ability. They are paying more
for those who are the best producers, establishing competition
between the various segments of the economy. At a time they are
turning our way, I don't think there is any greater mistake that we
could make than to turn their way.
I think that the reliance which we have placed on private enterprise
and individual enterprise as the primary source of economic growth
has been proved wise by our history. I think that this is where we
ought to place our bets, looking toward this economic competition in
the future.
Depending upon the candidates- is possible that labor manage-
ment relations could be an issue. It is possible that the area of
civil rights could develop into an issue.
- -Vice President Nixon in response to questions at the
California Newspaper Publishers Association
Convention in Los Angeles, California, February 6, 1960
COMMUNISM AS AN ISSUE IN THE 1960 CAMPAIGN
Q.
Politics is pretty generally viewed as a pretty nasty business. Do you
believe that somebody who uses campaign techniques, such as the
Communist innuendo, is qualified to provide leadership.
A.
When one of our Republican Governors raised a question about
Senator Kennedy concerning his attitude toward Communism, I said
that having known Senator Kennedy, I am convinced there was no
question about his sharing the same views that I did with regard to:
one, the danger of Communism; two, with regard to programs to meet
it.
I believe a candidate's attitude toward Communism, his record on
Communism, his votes, his statements, his associations, by all means
should be discussed in a campaign. The greatest issue confronting the
next President of the United States, the greatest issue confronting
Senators, Congressmen, more important than all the domestic issues
and decisions they will make, is what position the United States shall
take in the world struggle. You cannot make decisions on this issue
unless you understand the issue, unless you have proper judgment and
balance to deal with it. Therefore it is vitally important and it is
necessary that my record, my opponents' records, everybody who asks
to represent the United States in meeting this issue be examined from
the time he entered public life to see whether or not he has shown
- 13 -
judgment, to see whether or not he has been naive. We cannot afford
to have people representing the United States abroad, in the Congress
or in the Senate or the Presidency of the United States, who will be
taken in by Communists, and that is why the record should be discussed
and I intend to discuss the record throughout the campaign and I believe
my opponents should do likewise. I believe that as far as using your
term "innuendo, " which would, in effect, say that because this individual
showed bad judgment, therefore, he is pro-Communist, is concerned,
that, of course, should not be done.
--Vice President Nixon in response to questions of
students at Stanford University, Palo Alto,
California, April 11, 1960
QUALITY OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS
Q.
Do you recall the statement "that quite a few Republicans are resigning
from the Congress rather than run on a ticket headed by you"?
A.
Yes, I saw that statement in this morning's paper. If they are resign-
ing from the Congress, or not wanting to run for Congress, that is
news to me. We have some good, hot primaries throughout the country,
this year, as proof that people want to run for Congress on the Republi-
can Ticket, and I have been most encouraged by the quality of the
candidates for Congress and for the United States Senate that our Party
will present to the public.
I think that the Republicans have fallen off in strength in the
Congress since 1952, while President Eisenhower has continued to in-
crease his strength, because we have not put up as good candidates as
we could in many districts and states. And although I disagree on
issues with many of the Democratic candidates that ran against ours
and won I must admit that some of them were superior as candidates
to some that ran for us.
Now, this year on the Republican ticket we have the best crop of
good, young, intelligent, articulate candidates that I have seen since
1950. The candidates on the Democratic ticket are in for a surprise
this year if they under-rate our candidates. They are good.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions in an
interview by Frank Reynolds on WBBM-TV Program
"INSIGHT" in Chicago, Illinois, May 1, 1960
1960 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
- 14 -
Q.
Mr. Nixon, just last Friday night Senator Keating was speaking in
Grand Rapids, and he said that the main concern of the Republican
Party is that the convention is going to be so sewn up by the time it
opens that there won't be any color in it to attract the people.
Would you care to comment on that?
A.
This is a problem. People in our country always like a good fight,
provided they are not participating in it.
The Democratic Convention, at least at the present time, seems to
indicate that kind of fight. In fact, some have suggested that the new
Sports Arena in Los Angeles will be the forum for the battle of the
century. With regard to the Republican Convention, looking back at
our convention in San Francisco last year, we had a similar situation
where it was pretty well known who the Presidential candidate would
be and relatively well known who the Vice Presidential candidate would
be. It was not as exciting a convention as the Democratic Convention,
but we still won the election, and that is what we expect to do this time.
-Vice President Richard Nixon in response to questions
at a news conference in Detroit, Michigan
February 15, 1960
REPUBLICAN NOMINEES FOR VICE PRESIDENT
Q.
Would you outline for us the type of person--geographical background,
public and private life--you would like to have in a running mate next
fall, without naming any names?
A.
I have consistently declined and will decline today, to discuss the Vice
Presidency insofar as any personal choice is concerned, because I
think it would be presumptuous and premature for me to indicate, before
receiving the Republican nomination, who I think should be the Vice
Presidential nominee. However, I would be glad to say, from a
general standpoint, that my view is that the Vice Presidency has
changed so much--not so much because of what I have done on my
own initiative, but because of the President's concept of the office
and of what he has allowed the Vice President to do and urged him
to do--the Vice Presidency has become so important a part of the
executive branch of the government, that the old methods which both
parties have used at times in selecting Vice Presidential candidates
are now obsolete.
I do not believe that either party should pick their Vice Presidential
- 15
candidate for the purpose of balancing the ticket geographically. I do
not believe that either party should pick him for the purpose of balancing
the ticket, shall we say, ideologically-- conservative, for example,
with a liberal. I do not believe that any considerations of that sort
should enter into it. The primary consideration, of course, must be:
Can the man who is nominated serve as Vice President and potentially
as President if that eventuality should occur? And second, next in
importance, he must be a man who, from the standpoint of his views,
has as close an identity as possible with the views of the Presidential
candidate. I can say from experience that I would not have been able
to do nearly as much as I have been able to do, had the President not
had confidence in the fact that I shared his views on major issues and
that, therefore, he could trust me in carrying out his assignments
abroad and in the United States.
If you have a situation where the ticket is balanced and where you
get, in effect, two conflicting personalities, either ideologically or
otherwise, in the two offices, the Vice President simply cannot be
used in the confidential and very important relationships that have
been used in this Administration.
That gives you an idea of my general philosophy.
-Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a news
conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, February 8, 1960
VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND CABINET MEMBERS
Q.
Have you prepared a list of possible Vice Presidential candidates?
A. I know there is a great deal of conjecture with regard to the Vice
Presidential candidates as a matter of fact, I'm often asked another
question that I anticipate. If I should become a candidate- be
elected what people would I choose as members of the Cabinet. My
answer to all of those questions is the same: My study of the recent
political history of this country indicates that any individual who
before he is nominated--and also before he is elected--makes state-
ments about who will be in his Cabinet if he should be elected, or Vice
Presidential candidate if he is nominated--generally does not get
nominated OR elected, so I'm not going to say anything.
Vice President Nixon in response to questions at a
public forum in Fresno, California, February 18, 1960
51860NVIM144
- 16 -
ISSUED BY NIXON VOLUNTEERS
PETER M. FLANIGAN, DIRECTOR
P. O. BOX 7398
WASHINGTON 4, D. C.