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:
Agenda. Unspecified period or place. 5pgs. [Memo], n.d.
Handwriten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg [Memo], n.d.
Nixon on Nixon. 8 pgs. Only cover scanned. [Brochure], 1958
U.S. News and World Report. Only cover scanned. [Newspaper], 5/11/1959
Remarks of Richard M. Nixon before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. 17 pgs. [Report], 4/18/1959
Photocopy of unspecified newspaper article, Nixon Concentrates on Issues, by William S. White. 1 pg. Not scanned. [Newspaper], n.d.
Press release from the Office of the Vice President concerning the appointment of Herbert Klein as a Special Assistant. 1 pg. [Report], 5/20/1959
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26127362
label
WHSF: Returned, 48-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26127362
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 48-1
description
This file contains:
Agenda. Unspecified period or place. 5pgs. [Memo], n.d.
Handwriten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg [Memo], n.d.
Nixon on Nixon. 8 pgs. Only cover scanned. [Brochure], 1958
U.S. News and World Report. Only cover scanned. [Newspaper], 5/11/1959
Remarks of Richard M. Nixon before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. 17 pgs. [Report], 4/18/1959
Photocopy of unspecified newspaper article, Nixon Concentrates on Issues, by William S. White. 1 pg. Not scanned. [Newspaper], n.d.
Press release from the Office of the Vice President concerning the appointment of Herbert Klein as a Special Assistant. 1 pg. [Report], 5/20/1959
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], n.d.
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg. [Memo], 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
26127362
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0ef830e27989df9f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Agenda. Unspecified period or place. 5pgs.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwriten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg
48
1
1958
Brochure
Nixon on Nixon. 8 pgs. Only cover scanned.
48
1
05/11/1959
Newspaper
U.S. News and World Report. Only cover
scanned.
48
1
04/18/1959
Report
Remarks of Richard M. Nixon before the
American Society of Newspaper Editors. 17
pgs.
48
1
n.d.
Newspaper
Photocopy of unspecified newspaper article,
Nixon Concentrates on Issues, by William S.
White. 1 pg. Not scanned.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Page 1 of 2
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
48
1
05/20/1959
Report
Press release from the Office of the Vice
President concerning the appointment of
Herbert Klein as a Special Assistant. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
48
1
n.d.
Memo
Handwritten notes from Haldeman. 1 pg.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA
ORGANIZATIONAL
Presidential appointees activities
Contact
Intelligence
Communication of party line
Congressional Group Activities
Contact
Intelligence
Speech material
Polls
Newsletters
Congressional Record
Systematic Check of 1960 Attitudes
Key Party Officials
Elected Public Officials
Intelligence
Clippings
State Surveys
Key People
- 2 -
Lines to take on NR
as a Presidential candidate
as a Vice Presidential candidate
Pre-Comvention Organisation
Committees of 100 approach
Neighbors for Nixon
Youth for Nixon
Role and Merits of Citizens for Eisenhower-Nixon people and organization
Planning for 1960 Convention
Committee on Arrangements
Planning on Convention Activities
Legal Research
Presidential preference primaries
(mimeographed sheet in kit)
Delegate selection
Special contact work with following groups
Ethnic
Jewish
Negro
Labor
Farm
Religious
Educational
Veterans
Eggheads
- 3 -
PUBLIC RELATIONS
Russian Trip
Suggestions for trip itself
Fellow-up
Magazines, Books and Articles
Friendly
Hostile
About Others
Follow-up on Maso book
Acquisition of free space for friendly features on a planned basis
Human Interest Stories and Activities
Nixon Family
Manifestations of Genuine Interest in people
Mechanics for handling such items
Pells
Run-down on polls showing strength with voters
National polls
State, local and newspaper polls
Congressional pells
Privately-sponsored polls
Timing
Polls of special groups
- 4 -
Media
Mechanics for more TV and radio appearances
Mechanics for more material in magazines
Film projects
for TV
for partisan rallies
for pre-convention use
for campaign use
TV film clips
Cabinet Committee on Price Stability for Economic Growth
Public relations factors
Special Research and Study
Stockpiling of material on subjects of
Inflation
Unemployment
Russia and Communism
Agriculture
Slogans and Theme for pre-convention and campaign periods
United Republican approach
Letters to the Editor
Assessment of project to date
Preparation of Mailing Lists
- 5 -
Approach and methods for improvement of position with following groups
Ethnic
Jewish
Negro
Labor
Farm
Religious
Educational
Veterans
Eggheads
Public Relations Themes to be Developed
Unique and practically unparalleled qualifications for Presidency
Spokesman for 13 Western States
A man who gets things done the right way
Spokesman for Mr. and Mrs. Average America (not a rich guy)
Capacity to unite America (Americans want this)
Advantages of Democratic disunity
Effective answers to the "I just don't like him" Set
(Here's what one of our friends had to say on this subject recently:
"As you so well know, there is a large group of people who say they
don't like him. You ask them why and they have no real, basic
reason. They say they just don't like him. It is here that the little
research I've done has shown a rather remarkable tendency. These
people still 'don't like' him but now they are beinning to say, 'Well,
I don't like him very well but I think he is the only man who has the
knowledge and ability to run the country in the present crisis in which
we find ourselves.' It seems as though that even among this group,
which would normally vote against him, there is growing a feeling
that the Democrate have no one who could cope with the task of the
Presidency, and that he is the only man in the country with the
stamina, knowledge, and guts to do the job")
long group-have
now distilled list of key guys
omplete mechanism of keeping logs on
attitudes of key people
- fictional post card poll
set up org to conduct listening, post
14 R gov - 10 fork Halfield Stratton position no
send in all dippings
Start listening procedure with advance contacts
committees start in Calif - mid fall
01:00 or 1000
need to prepare a blueprint
fund raising
maybe list 20 names
your for Det RN up college clubs -- frat than secys
Here, for example, is politician Nixon, talking
about the role of the politician in our kind of
society:
"The function of a politician is, after all, to
make a free society work. When I've been
abroad, I've often been impressed by the way
men with good intentions and high ideals but
without political experience tend to fail when
they try their hand at the practical business of
government-take Indonesia, for example, or
Burma. There's a quotation that expresses
what I mean exactly. A German-was it Bis-
marck? No, I don't think so. [Editor's note: It
was Frederick the Great.] It goes something
like this: 'The way to punish a province is to
allow it to be governed by philosophers.'
"You've got to be a politician before you can
become a statesman-a lot of people have said
that before me. In my own case, when I first
came to Washington in 1946, I was a bit naïve
about public service, I suppose, a kind of
dragon slayer. Then when I got here, I was
soon disillusioned. You know, you come to
Washington, you have great ideas, and there
you are in the committees or on the floor of the
House, and you have an inability to implement
your ideas. You see men who are-well, I don't
Richard Nixon and Stewart Alsop
want to sound pious, but less well motivated,
and who know how to play the game, and they
accomplish what they want. Then there are
the Don Quixotes, the idealists-like Jerry
Voorhis, my first opponent, a man of very high
ideals-who never accomplish anything much.
NIXON
"You've got to learn how to play the game,
if you're going to implement your ideas, and
you've got to fight it out. You find often you've
got to take a half a loaf when you want the
whole loaf. The best example of a combination
of idealist and practical politician is Theodore
Roosevelt. When he wanted to get something
done, he would compromise all over the place,
if necessary. Read the autobiography of Bob
La Follette. La Follette throws off on T.R., says
ON
he's not a true liberal because he compromised
too much. But who accomplished more,
Roosevelt or La Follette?"
Alsop said that what had impressed him most
in his reporting for the article was the extraor-
dinary drive and ambition Nixon had dis-
played from boyhood. One of Nixon's law-school
classmates, for example, remembers Nixon as
NIXON
the hardest-working man he ever met. How did
Nixon get that way? Quaker background, fam-
ily, economic circumstances as a boy, or what?
"Well, I suppose it was a mixture of all the
factors you mention. There was always a tradi-
tion of hard work in our family. My grand-
mother on my mother's side was an extraordi-
nary woman-sh came all the way across the
country in an old automobile at the age of
eighty-eight to see me graduate-and she had
a lot of influence on us. She wrote a lot of
On these two pages the Vice President of the
poetry, and in a sort of gentle Quaker way she
was always trying to inspire us all to amount
to something.
United States reveals his aims and ideals with un-
"My mother had a lot to do with my doing
well at school too. She knew German and
Latin, and it was because of her that I took
precedented candor. Post Editor Stewart Alsop
Latin all through high school, and got straight
A's. Then there was my father. He had a tough
time as a boy, very tough. He had to leave
interviewed Mr. Nixon at length when he was gather-
school very early-fifth or sixth grade-and go
to work. He was a fighter. He loved to argue
with anybody about anything. He always in-
ing material for the article that follows.
stilled this competitive feeling in all of us-I
guess I got my competitive instinct from him.
"Both my mother and my father instilled in
us this desire to get going, to be good at not
©
1958 The Curtis Publishing Company
just one thing but at everything. We had a
disciplined family too-always had to clean
MAY 11, 1959
25 CENTS
u.s. News
THAW AHEAD
& World Report
IN 'COLD WAR'?
The United States News
R
World Report R
The
Changing Mood
Of America
A Nation-Wide Report on What
People Are Saying Doing Planning
Remarks
of
HONORABLE RICHARD M. NIXON, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
(and question-and-answer period following)
before the
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS
Presidential Room, Statler Hotel
Washington, D. C.
Saturday, April 18, 1959
- -
THE VICE PRESIDENT: President Healy, my fellow vice presidents, distin-
guished guests, and members and guests of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors:
It is a very great honor for me to have the opportunity to appear at this
meeting tonight. There are a number of thoughts which have been running through
my mind as I have been sitting here surrounded, as I have been, by the president
and the newly elected first vice president of this organization.
I have often read, as you have, Mr. Truman's comments to the effect that
the Republican press is always giving the Democrats a bad time. Well, I can
tell you, as far as this meeting is concerned, it has been just the other way
around.
For example, the prize of the evening, the Clapper Award, goes to a man
that all of us respect as one of Washington's finest reporters, but it goes to
him for writing a story that wasn't too complimentary to Republicans!
Second, I sit between two men, who are not Republican editors; they are
Democrats and proud of it.
As a matter of fact, Turner Catledge said he never saw a Republican until
he was 23 years of age.
(Laughter.)
He said his father took him into town to see him, telling him he was a
rather strange fellow -- and "he was a strange fellow, too," so Mr. Catledge
tells me.
But I must say that I have been very touched by the generous introduction
by your president, who is a gentleman in the great tradition, not only of the
South, but of New Orleans, one of the beautiful cities of the South.
I noted his comments about the Bloody Mary breakfast this morning, and if
I may be permitted to say here what I thought there, I think it is a horrible
custom to have a breakfast at 8:00 o'clock in the morning with Bloody Marys.
Be that as it may, it was an enjoyable affair, and I also noted his comments
about the fact that the polls came out favorably as far as I was concerned with
regard to 1960.
- 2 -
I particularly appreciated what he had to say about the success of the
trips my wife and I have taken abroad -- to South America, and more recently
to England, and I suppose that some of you might have related the success of
those trips to which he referred, to the result of the po11.
I would like to think perhaps that they might have had some beneficial
effect. But I am reminded of the fact that while I have had, due primarily
to Mrs. Nixon being with me, considerable popularity in England and in some
other parts of the world on our trips, a very distinguished man who was
mentioned by Mr. Folliard, Adlai Stevenson, has also been very popular when
he has gone abroad. I would imagine it is quite possible that both of us
would get more votes abroad than we would here in the United States.
In any event, the meeting tonight will primarily be one in which we will
have your questions, and in which you will determine what the leads will be by
the preciseness and the provocative nature of the questions which you will
have the opportunity to ask.
As far as the format is concerned, I have worked it out with your president.
He has in hand some written questions which some of you were farsighted enough
to submit in advance. But I recognize that when written questions are used,
there is not the opportunity for the follow-up kind of questions which result
in the cross-examination which sharpens an issue.
So, as I understand it, Mr. Healy will read a written question, he will
then give the audience an opportunity to ask a question. Since there are no
microphones in the audience, due to the fact that we didn't have time to remove
the tables, I will try to repeat the question.
Incidentally, Mr. Healy paid me a very high compliment tonight: when we
came in, I said "There's a very big crowd," and he said "You ought to be
complimented, it's almost as big as the one we had yesterday for Dr. Castro."
(Laughter.)
Now, before we begin, if I could just say a word about two events of today
-- two news events that I know will be covered by questions, and which I think
you might like to have a comment upon at this point.
I mentioned Dr. Castro's visit, and I am looking forward to the opportunity
of seeing him tomorrow at my office in the Capitol after he has appeared on
Meet The Press.
I also think that it might be appropriate at this time to refer to some of
the comments that he made on Cuban-American relations, and in referring to those
comments I would say, first of all, that I am sure that his visit will serve one
very useful purpose: No one can come to the United States, no one can talk to
American audiences, no one can talk to the officials of our Government, as Dr.
Castro will and has, without going back convinced that the United States
Government and people share wholeheartedly the aspirations of the people of
Latin America for peace with justice, for democratic freedom, for economic
- 3 -
progress, and for the strengthening of the institutions of representative
government.
(Applause.)
It was almost a year ago that I returned from Latin America. And, during
the year since I returned, we have been making steady progress toward these
goals. We have seen some new avenues of economic cooperation opened through
the discussions of the organization, American States Committee of Twenty-One,
and here I think we should give due recognition to the initiative of President
Kubitschek for suggesting this Operation Pan America.
In addition, as you have noted in your papers, and if you listen to
television, you heard on television that the twenty-one American Republics
have now signed the final act of the Inter-American Development Bank which,
when placed in operation, will provide another source of capital for Latin
American development needs. And which, very appropriately and importantly
takes Latin America out of the category of the other areas of the world, the
so-called underdeveloped nations, and properly gives it a special consideration
which is what Latin America should have in view of the special problems which
are theirs and ours because of the proximity and the other ties that we have with
the Latin American nations.
These steps, along with measures that have been taken by many of the Latin
American governments in cooperation with the international monetary funds to
stabilize their internal financial situations, are a positive move designed to
strengthen economies of the Western Hemisphere. I would not suggest that we
could underestimate the seriousness of the economic problem still faced by
Latin America, but there have been major solutions to those problems proposed,
and we are making definite progress in those solutions at this time.
One other comment with regard to Dr Castro that I think is worth making:
He referred to the problem of intervention, and I would say on that score that
the recent flare-ups of tension in the Caribbean area, with reports of activities
in various countries designed to overthrow the governments of other nations,
emphasizes the importance of this principle of non-intervention to which we are
all dedicated in the Americas.
The Organization of American States has played an outstanding role in
maintaining the peace and security of the area. Each country in the Americas
must be assured of the right to develop its political life, free from outside
intervention. That is why the United States announced at Montevideo, 26 years
ago, its willingness to adhere to the principle of non-intervention. That is
why, in the following year the Platt Amendment to which Dr. Castro referred
yesterday was abrogated by agreement with the government leaders of Cuba.
I am confident that nothing has contributed more to the growth of freedom
and democracy in this region than the steadfast devotion of the American public
to the principle of non-intervention, and the United States will certainly
continue to practice and preach that principle in its relations with our friends
in the Americas.
- 4 -
And, one final comment on another piece of news which developed today:
You noted the selection by the President of a new Secretary of State, a
selection which will affect the whole course of American foreign policy in
years ahead.
I would like to say a word about the man who was selected, because I know
him, and know him well, having served with him in the Congress and having served
under him when I was a member of the Herter Committee which studied the Marshall
Plan in Europe in 1947. On the basis of my knowledge of him, there are these
comments I would like to make to this audience tonight.
He is a man, in my opinion, who by background, experience and temperament
is eminently qualified to carry forward Secretary Dulles' policies and principles.
And, those who have had the opportunity to know him, as I have, know him not only
as one of America's foremost students of foreign affairs, but also as a tenacious
and persuasive advocate of his views at the conference table. This means that the
American people can be confident that the interests of this country will be
vigorously and ably represented in any conference in which he participates.
Thank you.
MR. HEALY: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President.
The first question comes from Bradley Black of the Cincinnati Enquirer:
What value to the United States do you expect to be derived from your trip
to Russia?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think, as the President indicated in his statement
when he announced that I was going to the Soviet Union, one of the major values
of this kind of a trip is the opportunity it provides for better understanding
between Government officials and between the peoples of the countries involved.
In this connection, for example, I shall have the opportunity to open the
American exposition. I shall also have the opportunity, I trust, to meet people
in all walks of life in the Soviet Union, as my wife and I have in fifty countries
which we have visited up to this time.
There will probably be an opportunity as well to meet various officials of
the Soviet Union.
I should emphasize that the purpose of this trip is not to negotiate
settlements of differences between our two countries, but there will be certainly
an opportunity to have a frank discussion of those differences and, wherever there
is discussion, whenever there is the chance to meet face-to-face and lay the
differences on the table, I believe that the interests of better understanding
are served and that the possibilities of actions being taken by one country or
another because of miscalculation as to the intentions of that country, are
considerably reduced.
- 5 -
These are the values that I would primarily see as the result of this trip.
MR. HEALY: Mr. Vice President, we have two related questions which I believe
I should ask before we ask for a related question from the audience:
Do you think there are areas of give-and-take between us and the Soviet Union
in the interests of world peace?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: There are certainly areas of give-and-take wherever
there are differences between nations at the conference table. But, I should
distinguish the area of being flexible with regard to tactics and flexibility
with regard to principle.
I know that Mr. Dulles, for example, has often been criticized because it
is claimed that he has been inflexible, yet he has been one of the best negotiators
at the conference table that this nation has ever had, as Secretary of State, and
I would emphasize that as far as his inflexibility is concerned, that it was a
position that he took in firm adherence to and advocacy of the principles of
freedom and justice which not only we in the United States believe in, but in
which people throughout the free world also believe. And, when you are
inflexible with regard to advocacy of principles and standing on principles,
I submit that this kind of inflexibility is what the United States should
continue to want from its foreign policy leaders.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Here is a double question:
Donald Breed of the Freeport, Illinois Journal Standard writes, anticipating
with full approval your visit to Moscow, I still wish to ask this naive question.
What is to be our technique of dealing with an adversary whose code of morals
frankly rejects the obligation to live up to engagements entered into and whose
record is full of broken pledges?
Can you suggest some obligation which Russia will find self-interest in
assuming and respecting?
VICE PRESIDENT NIXON: This, of course, is a very broad question and it
would require analysis of each segment of the world and each conflict or each
point of difference between the Soviet Union and the United States.
I would say that the question itself suggests the answer and the answer is
that you must find that type of agreement in which the Soviet Union will find
that self-interest requires that it live up to the obligation.
Now, this means that we have a long, hard road ahead of us because there
is a record of broken treaties as we know and there are areas where we find
that Soviet self-interest is such that the only kind of agreement that could
be reached would be one which would weaken the position of the free world and
strengthen the position of the Soviet world. But, this does not mean that we
- 6 -
should not continue to try, because there is no alternative to trying to
negotiate which is acceptable either to us or, we would also hope, to them.
That is one of the reasons, for example, that I suggested on Monday of
this week an approach which I think is worth exploring. This would not be
an approach in which we would, as some have suggested, submit all the differ-
ences between nations to an international court of justice for decision,
because being perfectly realistic, as someone has said, where nations are
concerned you can arbitrate rights, but not interest.
On the other hand, there must be some areas where even now we could have
a rule of law in place of a rule of force.
And so, if we are to move along this line, we could suggest that while a
court could not decide what the agreement between parties should be -- we would
not want that, neither would the Soviet Union -- once the parties do make an
agreement, we realize that one of the major causes for disagreement after that
is over the interpretation of the agreement, what the agreement means. That is
why I have suggested that once the parties do agree, they might well write into
the international agreement a provision to the effect that if there is any
difference about interpretation, that difference would be decided by the
international court of justice and that the parties would agree to be bound by
the decision of the court.
Now, some have suggested that the Soviet Union will not accept such a
provision, and others have contended that the United States should not move
this far in that direction because of the risks involved as far as our interests
are concerned.
But, I say tonight that though we must always be careful in any inter-
national agreements we make to see that the interests of the United States are
protected, we have to realize that we must find acceptable alternatives to the
use and the paramount position of force as the means of settling international
disputes.
I do not suggest that this proposal I have made is a complete answer. There
is no complete answer. There is no easy answer. We are going to have, as the
President suggested, tension and disagreement for years and years ahead, but we
must plow forward. We must continue on our part believing as we do in the
rule of law in our own internal relations -- to make positive suggestions in
this line and take the leadership. Only in that way will we have the oppor-
tunity, perhaps, to get the Soviet Union at some time to go along with us,
even part of the way, and only in that way and this is also important, will we
keep before the world the picture of the United States and the free world
standing for, and practicing, the principles of freedom and justness under law,
rather than totalitarianism and force.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Thank you very much, sir.
- 7 -
Are there any questions from the floor related to the Vice President's trip
to Russia?
MR. MAHAFFEY: Mr Healy, I am James Mahaffey of the Texarkana Gazette. I
would like to ask the Vice President exactly what he thinks Mr. Khrushchev meant
when he said, "We will bury you."
MR. HEALY: Mr. J. Q. Mahaffey of Texarkana asks what Mr. Khrushchev meant
when he said, "We will bury you."
VICE PRESIDENT NIXON: If I have the opportunity to see Mr. Khrushchev when
I go to Moscow, I intend to ask him that as one question.
On second thought, though, I can put him on the stand as a witness right
here tonight: Mr. Khrushchev said -- after his statement received large
circulation throughout the United States and the free world -- that he did not
mean that he intended to bury us by dropping atomic bombs on our world and
risking them being dropped on his, but that he intended to bury us by winning
the economic struggle for the world.
I think I can put it in another way by relating to you the attitude Mr.
Mikoyan had when he was here.
I asked him how he thought communism would come to the United States.
I asked him the question first before he started around the United States,
and I asked it again after he had visited Detroit, Los Angeles, and other
great production centers of this country -- after he had had an opportunity
to see the conditions of our workers and the high living standards that we
have.
In presenting the question to him, I said:
"In view of the standard of living of America's workers, in view of what
our labor leaders told you when you were here, do you believe that communism
will come to the United States in the usual Marxist pattern of the workers
rising against the bourgeoise, or the employers and establishing a government
by the proletariat?"
And, his answer was very interesting bearing on this point. He said,
"No, I will have to admit that the condition of your workers in the United
States is such that we cannot rely on that method of bringing about communism,
but of this I am sure: communism will eventually come to this country, and it
will come in this way. It will come when the people of the United States
will look at the Soviet Union and will see that our system is more productive,
more efficient, and does more for people than yours. Then the people of the
United States will at that time turn to communism in order to avoid becoming
a second-class power, economically."
Mr. Khrushchev, of course, would support Mr. Mikoyan in that view, and I
would say the lesson for us is this; not that they said it, but that they
believe it.
- 8 -
Whatever we may think of communism, and we have our attitudes toward it,
very well justified ones, in my opinion, but whatever we may think of it we
must recognize that in Mr. Mikoyan, Mr. Khrushchev, and other leaders of the
Communist world, we have men who are fanatically dedicated, dedicated in two
senses:
One, that their system is superior; and two, believing that eventually it
will prevail.
And, what is why in this country, recognizing that we are confronted with
men who, whatever we may think of them, have faith in their system, we need a
similar faith, a faith in the fact that this system in our country and in other
parts of the free world, with all its faults, has still produced the greatest
prosperity, the greatest freedom that men have ever known.
We must have faith that this is the wave of the future. And I might say,
in concluding my answer to this question, that in the great struggle going on
in the world today, we must recognize that whether it is in South America,
the Near East, Asia, or Africa, there are millions of people who above every-
thing else want a better way of life. They would prefer to have that better
way of life and keep their freedom, but if they cannot get it with freedom,
then without freedom. You can be sure that inevitably if there is no alternative
they will accept a system which promises a better way of life, even if it denies
freedom.
This, therefore, is the challenge to us. You cannot expect to meet and
defeat a great force which is on the move, which is confident, which is
aggressive you cannot expect to meet and defeat it with a force which is
static, which is interested only in holding its own. That is why I have
suggested in the past and I suggest again here tonight that we in the United
States must not only see that our system works here but we must recognize that
ours is the true revolution and we must convey that message more effectively
than we have in the past to the peoples all over the world who want a better
way of life. We must indicate to them by our example and by our interest in
them, that they can have real progress economically but have it in a climate
of freedom without having to turn to dictatorship to get it.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: We are ready to come closer to home now.
I have got to explain that this question was written before that very
important meeting over at the National Press Club this morning.
The question comes from Felicia Patterson of Newsday:
If at the 1960 Republican Convention a situation were to arise where it
would be in the best interest of party harmony for you to accept the Vice
Presidential nomination again, would you be willing to seek an unprecedented
third term as Vice President?
(Laughter.)
- 9 -
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I really ought not to give an off-the-cuff answer to
that question, but I will.
I would only suggest that, as one who voted for the two-term amendment
limiting the holding of the Presidency to two terms, I think it would be
inconsistent for me to seek the Vice Presidency for a third term.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: There is one along the same line from Bill Ulston of the
Minneapolis Star and Tribune.
Would you accept Nelson Rockefeller as a running mate in 1960?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that question should be better put to
him rather than to me.
Seriously speaking, of course, I recognize that there is a considerable
interest in who will be the candidates on both the Republican and Democratic
tickets in 1960.
I anticipated, as a matter of fact, the question tonight as to whether
I might be a candidate in 1960. I intended to answer that question by saying
that this was not the time to make such an announcement or such a decision,
and since I, of course, have not made a decision myself as to 1960, that I
am prepared to announce, it would not be appropriate for me to talk about
who the running mate should be at this time.
May I just add this one point though with regard to Mr. Rockefeller:
I think that the Republican Party is fortunate to have, as a governor of a
major state, a man who has proved that he could get elected when many other
Republicans were losing, and a man who, as Governor of the State, inherited
some very difficult problems and has dealt with them courageously and ably.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Here is a triple-header from Bill McMorrow of Gainesville,
Georgia, John O'Hallis from the Bismarck, North Dakota Tribune, and Louis L.
Harris of the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle:
Do you feel that the Administration is relaxing its demand for immediate,
total integration and if such a trend exists, do you approve?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The question, as I understand it, uses the words
"immediate, total integration."
First of all, I should point out that the Administration's position has
not been, is not now, and should not be immediate total integration.
We have to deal with the facts of life as they are. As far as the
Administration's position is concerned, I believe that it is a sound position.
- 10 -
It is one which avoids both extremes, the extreme on the one hand which says,
"We shall do nothing," which means there will be no progress; and the extreme
on the cther hand which indicates we will do too much, and which might result
in losing ground rather than gaining it.
What we have tried to do is to take what is a firm position in behalf of
progress in this field, recognizing that you can't change in one year, two
years, even five years, customs, practices, that have developed over a period
of almost a hundred years. And I think that as long as we go ahead on this
line, this offers the best hope for eventual solution of what, to all Americans,
is a very difficult and complicated problem.
I would just like to add one personal note with regard to the solution of
this problem in which those in this room can play a part. I remember one of
my professors in law school, a professor in Contracts, made a statement to
this effect, the very first day of school:
"Gentlemen, there is only one rule or one principle you should remember,
if you forget everything else you heard in this course. A contract is only
as good as the will of the parties to keep it."
We could, I think, draw an analogy there and say that a law is only as
good as the will of the people to obey it. But, this does not mean that you
do not pass a law until all of the people are ready to obey it.
It does mean, however, that in enacting legislation in a field like this,
you must recognize that it is the responsibility of public opinion leaders
throughout the country to develop within the society the support for the law,
which is essential if the law is to be effective; and that support must come
from the hearts of the people. And it must come from the hearts of the people
not only because they believe that to obey the law is right, but eventually
it must come because they also believe that the law is right.
I would not suggest this is easy, as I have already indicated, and having
as I do a little Southern background through attending school at Duke
University for three years. But I do know, as I consider this problem,
that from an economic standpoint the United States cannot afford to fail to
deal effectively with problems which result in 17 million citizens in this
country not having the opportunity to develop the skills and to make the
ultimate maximum contribution that they can and should to our economic
development.
I do know, too, that from a moral standpoint we recognize that there is
a great cause involved in this problem, and finally from an international
standpoint, I would add this last point:
My wife and I have traveled, as I have indicated, through many countries
abroad. Mr Khrushchev refers to "burying us." The war that he refers to, or
claims to refer to, has already begun and it is going on in Asia, in Africa,
and the Near East. A billion people live there. They hold the balance of
power in the world.
- 11 -
The question is: Which way will they go?
Economic policies will have a great deal to determine which way they go.
Our diplomatic policies will have a great deal of impact on this question, but
I can assure you, that as much as anything else will be this major factor:
The people who live in these countries are different in many ways,
different religions, different clothing, different housing, customs and food.
But they are alike in one way -- they are not white.
And, having traveled abroad and having spoken to these people in terms of
the traditional beliefs of the United States of equality of opportunity, of
recognizing the individual dignity of a man, regardless of his background, I
can only say that it is most difficult for a representative of this country to
talk one way abroad, and then to explain our practices at home.
Now, finally, I would add one other thought: I think there has been too
much of a tendency to indicate that this whole problem of prejudice, call it
what you will, depending on the point of view, is simply a Southern problem.
It is a Northern problem as well. It exists in our great cities in the North.
It exists in the South. And there are honest differences of opinion about it.
But, I am convinced of this: Considering the interests of the United States
alone, clearly apart from the interests of our Negro citizens, the best
interests of the United States will be served by continuing with a program
which produces steady progress in this field.
And those of you who are the opinion makers can play a great part in
helping this progress to become a reality.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Is there a question from the floor on this subject?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Is there a question from the head table on that,
I was going to ask?
MR. HEALY: No, sir.
Mr. Vice President, will you give us your evaluation, sir, of the importance
of the so-called missile gap in the United States over the next several years as
a factor in the present Soviet bullying attitude? Has it weakened the American
negotiating position?
That is from Bob Easterbrook of the Washington Post.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would say that, as far as the missile gap is
concerned, if the Soviet leaders actually believe there is a gap -- a military
gap as distinguished from missile gap -- this definitely would weaken our
position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union at the bargaining table.
I would say, second, however, that looking at the situation at present,
- 12 -
there is no question in the minds of our military leaders -- as Senator Johnson
himself pointed out after recent hearings he had in this field -- there is no
question but that the United States and the free world today have military
strength which is great enough to meet and defeat any aggressor, if aggression
is launched against the free world.
We believe we have the strength. I think the Soviet leaders probably
believe we have it also. And as long as we have this strength this means that
when our negotiators go to the Foreign Ministers Conference and when the
President goes to a summit conference -- if the Foreign Ministers Conference
develops along such lines that a summit conference will be held -- both the
President and the Secretary of State and the other leaders of the free world
can deal from a position of strength.
They will not have to submit to missile blackmail on the part of the Soviet
Union.
Now, looking to the immediate future, what the missile gap refers to, of
course, is the claim that three years from now, four years from now, if the
intelligence estimates we have on the Soviet Union are accurate, they may have
more intercontinental ballistic missiles than we have. Our answer to that is
that three or four years from now while there may arise a situation where they
may have more intercontinental ballistic missiles, as for example they now have
more submarines than we have, the time will never arrive when our overall
strength will not be sufficient that they could not risk an attack on us without
bringing upon them damage that they would not voluntarily want to bring upon
themselves.
And, I would say also in answer to this question then that if the
determination of the American people, as reflected in the Congress of the
United States and the Administration continues, and if our allies continue to
take the strong stand that they do with us on this matter, that I do not see a
time coming in the foreseeable future in which the United States will be in a
military position, along with our allies, which is such that the Soviet Union
will be able to blackmail us.
And I would say finally that the responsible leaders of this country,
whether they are Democrat or Republican, I am sure will never allow that
situation to come about. We shall do what is necessary to maintain the
strength to deter aggression.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Are there any questions from the floor on this issue?
Mr. Joseph B. Farrell of the Macon, Georgia News asks if the United States
believed there was a serious threat of communism in Cuba, would we do anything
about it, and if so, what?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would say first of all with regard to the threat of
- 13 -
communism in Cuba, and throughout the American hemisphere, that we are all aware
that all of the countries in the hemisphere have an interest in seeing that that
threat does not become so great that the Communists are able to dominate any
government in the hemisphere. And I should point out, too, that this is
traditional in the American republics, traditional since the time of the Monroe
Doctrine. Because for communism to come to any one of the American republics
is the very foreign intervention to which the Monroe Doctrine referred. This
is the reason why we, in our discussions with the leaders of other countries
and with the peoples of other countries in this hemisphere, can honestly say
that we are speaking in their interest when we urge that they join with us in
resisting any Communist infiltration which might result in control of a government.
Now, referring to Cuba, I visited Cuba three years ago. I, of course, did
not have the opportunity on a visit as brief as those we must take, to see as
many people in all walks of life as I might have liked, but I saw a great number.
I would say first of all that the great majority of the Cuban people, based
not only on my visit but also on my study of Cuba and its problems, are not
susceptible to the kind of appeal which the Communists might make.
Or, putting it another way, they might be susceptible to what the Communists
might say in attempting to get power, but the Cuban people, the great majority of
them certainly do not want a Communist government in Cuba.
And, I would say that, looking to the future, that I do not anticipate
that the hypothesis suggested in this question would come about, and the reason
I do not anticipate it is that the Cuban people themselves will not tolerate a
Communist government or a Communist take-over.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Thank you.
Do I see anyone that wants to ask anything further on that?
Mr. H. P. Pickrell of the Albuquerque Journal:
Assuming there is a summit conference this year, do you expect to attend it
along with President Eisenhower?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have noticed conjecture in the papers with regard to
the possible attendance of the Vice President at a summit conference, and I can
only say that there has been no decision with regard to any attendance by the
Vice President at a summit conference.
MR. HEALY: Here we get back to another tough one:
How far should we go in regulating big business?
How far should we go in regulating labor which has become big business?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I could, of course, spend a great deal of time in
- 14 -
answering that question, and I will spend a little because it is a broad question
and I think since it is the first question on economics we have had tonight, you
might be interested in my thinking on it.
Business is big in the United States, and labor is big, and government is
big. And it seems to me that one of the primary functions of those of us in
positions of responsibility is to find ways and means to see that these great
power complexes -- whether they are business, labor or government -- do not
work against the interests of the individual -- that they do not have the
effect of cutting off and discouraging the inventiveness, the individuality
which has been the reason for America's greatness and its progress in the past.
We now come to how you do it.
We have, of course as you know, antitrust laws to deal with the power
complexes in business. To a certain extent they can be effective and in other
areas they are not.
As far as labor is concerned, the Congress is presently debating that
question. A bill is before the Senate, the Kennedy-Ervin bill. The bill has
been amended in committee considerably, and substantially improved. In my
opinion, however, it is a bill which should be further amended by the Senate
itself, amended particularly in this respect: The bill as it presently is
written deals almost exclusively with the internal operation of unions --
providing for union members certain principles of union democracy and pro-
viding control over the expenditures of their funds.
What is needed is legislation amending the Taft-Hartley Act, legislation
amending it which will close two major loopholes, dealing not with the internal
relationships and organizations of unions, but dealing with the relationship
of unions with business and the general public.
And, I refer to provisions which should outlaw so-called blackmail and
organizational picketing and which would strengthen the secondary boycott
and/or hot cargo provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
(Applause.)
It seems to me that it is vitally important for us to recognize that the
function of government is to see that a proper balance is maintained between
the power of business, on the one hand, and the power of labor, on the other.
And the enactment of the Administration bill, I think is the least that should
be done in this session of Congress in dealing with this particular problem.
Now, I could go one step further.
There has been a great deal of discussion about what the Government ought
to do when these power complexes get so big that the decisions they make may
affect adversely the public interest.
We hear, for example, a great deal of discussion these days with regard
- 15 -
to the wage price negotiations that are taking place in the steel industry. You
have noted the President's comments with regard to the fact that the public has
a stake in how these negotiations come out, as well as the parties at the contract
table.
I would only say with regard to these negotiations that certainly there is
a great public interest because whatever your theory about inflation -- whether
you believe that the demand pull has been the primary factor in the inflation
for the past 25 years, or the cost push which seems to have been the major
factor in the last two years -- whatever your theory, there isn't much question
but that when we have had periods of inflation they have generally been
accompanied by periods in which wage increases have exceeded productivity and
so we come to the key question: What should happen in steel?
What we have said up to this time is that the public interest will suffer
if there is a wage increase in steel which is inflationary -- inflationary
either by forcing up the price of steel or inflationary, assuming the price of
steel remains stable, by its effect on other wage scales and thereby forcing
up the price levels in other commodities.
Now, we come to the question which I know immediately will be on your minds.
If the public does have an interest, if there should not be a wage price
settlement in steel which is inflationary, what is the Government going to do
about it?
There have been some very well-intentioned and thoughtful proposals as to
what the Government ought to do.
Mr. Kefauver is having some hearings in which he is attempting to get at
the bottom of this problem.
Others have suggested that before any major industry, like steel, raises
its prices, the Congress should have hearings, and others have suggested that
we need a system in these great, major industries of price controls, failing
to recognize in some instances, that you cannot have price controls without
also having wage controls.
I will say this with regard to the Administration's position at this time.
We think it would be a mistake for the Administration to interfere in the steel
wage-price negotiations because if we do interfere, we set a precedent, and
once you interfere in a wage-price negotiation like this, then in all future
times one party or the other, depending upon what they think they can get out
of the Administration in power, instead of agreeing to settle at the bargaining
table, will push the conflict upstairs. This would not be in the public interest.
Bringing this question to a close, may I just say that certainly all of
those who are participating in the wage-price negotiations in steel must
recognize that if a wage increase which is inflationary does come about, this
will give tremendous impetus to the demand that either the Congress or the
Administration, or both, take stronger steps.
May I also say in that connection the reasons why we in the Administration
- 16 -
believe that we should avoid Government intervention, avoid Government controls
is, one, because we realize that in peacetime it would be very doubtful if they
would work; and two, because it would mean that we would be suppressing the
American economy at a time that we wanted it to expand.
I think a quote from Tolstoy is very appropriate on this point. It seems
to me to point up the weakness of the position of those who say Government
should control the economy in order to serve the people.
As I recall it, it goes something like this:
"I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure
myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all
possible means -- except by getting off his back."
That is exactly the position the Government is in when it does too much;
when you have Government controls trying to help the people where people better
could help themselves if the Government would only get off their back.
(Applause.)
MR. HEALY: Mr. Vice President, I think you have been most generous in
answering our questions.
Would you care to close with a brief closing statement, sir?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: May I say, Mr. Healy, that I do not want you to think
that because I was submitted to a great deal of Southern influence tonight I
intended to filibuster as long as I did on the last question. But I anticipated
there might be some other questions on economic issues, and I do appreciate the
opportunity that has been presented to comment as I did.
The hour is late. I can assure you, as one who has made appearances in
many countries around the world as a representative of the President of the
American people, it is a truly great honor to appear before one of the most
influential audiences in all of the free world today.
I would just like to add a word with regard to a man whom I called on day
before yesterday; a man who has sometimes appeared before this organization;
one who has been criticized by some, commended by others, and written about by
everyone in this organization -- the Secretary of State.
I had approximately an hour's chat with him day before yesterday. I can
tell you that his spirit is magnificent, and his analysis and understanding of
world problems is just as sharp as it ever was.
It happens, as you know from my public statements, that I am one of Mr.
Dulles' supporters and one who admires him. I know too that in this audience,
whether you have criticized or agreed with him, everyone respects him as a
devoted, dedicated man who has, in a real sense, spent his whole life, lived
for this great moment which, because of physical disability, he is unable to
consummate at this time.
- 17 -
One little personal note I think might be of interest. I recall seeing
the Secretary when he returned from his last trip to Europe. I think history
will record that that trip not only was one of the most successful negotiating
missions by a Secretary of State in history -- because bringing together the
American or allied positions as he did by his conversations with Mr. Macmillan,
with Mr. Adenauer, and with President deGaulle was indeed a superb accomplish-
ment but it will also be recognized that it was a truly heroic performance
by a dedicated American.
I can tell you that, having seen him when he immediately returned, I asked
him, because I had known he had been ill when he left, how it had been. He said,
"Well, I found that during the course of the negotiations each day that I never
felt a bit of pain, but at the end of the day," he said, "then it would come
down on me like a great wave."
And, during the entire course of that trip, approximately a week, the
Secretary of State conducting these terribly important negotiations was not
able to keep down a single meal.
And finally one little note, on the human side of a great man. That day it
happened that we were having luncheon in the State Department. I had the usual
chicken and creamed peas that was on the State Department menu, and Mr. Dulles,
as was his custom, had a little scoop of cottage cheese and some fresh fruit,
in this case this particular day I happened to note that the fresh fruit that
he was having was fresh figs which had been flown in from California.
Just in passing, during the course of his discussing with me the situation,
not only in Europe and in Asia as well, I mentioned that my wife, Pat, was very
fond of fresh figs but they were rather difficult to get in Washington.
I went back to my office, came home that night, and at 6:00 o'clock the
doorbell rang. Mr. Dulles' chauffeur was at the door, and he brought with him
a little box, a box in which originally there were 12 figs. Three had been
removed, and a handwritten note to my wife saying that he had heard at noon
that she liked fresh figs and he hoped she enjoyed these from California.
I repeat this story, not because it affects what will happen in Berlin,
not because it will have any bearing on editorials that may be written with
regard to the Administration or on other great issues, but I repeat it because
I wanted you to share with me the knowledge that this man, who is known
primarily for his dogged determination, for his ability to work harder than
almost any man in any Administration could be expected to work, also has a very
sensitive and a very thoughtful human side which those of us who were close to
him were privileged to know.
Thank you, and good night.
(Applause.)
(Whereupon, at 10:45 o'clock p.m., the Press Conference was concluded.)
-
Release from
FOR RELEASE
Office of the Vice President
AM's 5/20/59
361 Senate Office Building
Herbert G. Klein has accepted an appointment as a Special Assistant on the
staff of Vice President Nixon, it was announced today.
Klein, 41, has been granted a leave of absence from his present job as
Editor of the San Diego Union by James S. Copley, Chairman of the corporation
of Copley Press, Inc. Nixon said Klein will join his staff in June, assisting
primarily in work with the press. His first major assignment will be in con-
nection with the Vice President's July trip to Moscow.
Klein, a veteran newsman, has been a personal friend of the Vice President
since 1946 when Nixon first ran for Congress.
Klein has been Editor of the San Diego Union since January. He previously
served as Executive Editor, Associate Editor, and Editorial Page Editor of that
newspaper.
The newsman earlier worked for the San Diego Evening Tribune, the Los
Angeles Examiner, the Iron Age magazine, and the Alhambra (Calif.) Post
Advocate. He met Nixon while serving as a reporter for the latter newspaper.
He has served the fifteen Copley newspapers on assignments both in this
country and in the Pacific.
Klein holds a commission as a Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He
resides in La Jolla, California with his wife and two daughters. He was gradu-
ated from the University of Southern California in 1940.
He has been active in civic work and is an Elder in the La Jolla Presbyterian
Church. He was an American delegate to the 1950 Congress of the International
Junior Chamber in the Philippines.
Klein served as Assistant Press Secretary to Nixon in the 1956 campaign
and as Press Secretary in the 1958 campaign. He directed the publicity for the
Eisenhower-Nixon campaign in Southern California in 1952.
He has served as Chairman of national committees for Sigma Delta Chi,
national professional journalism fraternity. He is a member of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors and Delta Chi Fraternity. In 1958 he assisted
Paul Block, Publisher of The Toledo Blade, in conducting foreign editors from
the International Press Institute on a tour of the United States.
********
J.pushfor more or rent office some space - wants answered todovate
need to dramatije RNappeal arong college
students and young guys
build sale of mago book -and distribute
letters to Look on article- - bring out
Points that are good
RN returns fun moscow at time of gov. conf.
how shed his report to people be handled?
Veed suiple means of hausinitting
incidental untelligence
tecided- - call Loie
PR
Russian hip -
needs to explain why going
have formal press cont w/ TV to explain
on return shld have TVreport
then Overseas Press Club - -W/TV
invite Negu, labor Seporters to go
write magazine report
take Slereo W longhair music - for
Kruschev gift
take lists of americans in prison
in Russia - by to get release
ask why fews not allowed free travel
mago book -
, Sill Key as contact Tn what needs to be done
to report back soon
Motivation study to determine RN profite
Nixon will throw away rule book
might even take neighbor state
for running mate
Prim aries