Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564486",
    "label": "Speeches - Miscellaneous (including scripts), 1964-1974 [November 1967-April 1969]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564486"
}

{
    "id": "118564486",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564486",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Speeches - Miscellaneous (including scripts), 1964-1974 [November 1967-April 1969]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564486",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Governor Ronald Reagan's Speeches"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-009-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-009-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-009-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564486",
    "naId": 118564486,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408624/40-840-7408624-P20-009-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "95698dcaba1fcb9a",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Speeches - Miscellaneous (including scripts),\n1964-1974 [November 1967-April 1969]\nBox: P20\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nINDEX\n1-11-72\nTranscript\nGOVERNOR'S PRAYER BREAKFAST\n2-21-72\nTranscript\nFULTON LEWIS, III RADIO BROADCAST\nDemocratic myth\n2-29-72\nTranscript\nTHE ADVOCATES\nPublic school funds\n3-29-72\nSpeech\nTRUNK 'N TUSK CLUB (Ariz.)\n172 Democratic dandidates' rhetoric: Vietnam\n(Nixon peace proposal): Youth Party Registra-\ntion: Republic VS. Demo. philosophy: minori-\nties: COPE: inflation: RMN Red China Trip\n5-1-72\nSpeech\nCHAMBER OF COMMISS OF THE UNITED STATES\nRelationship of Government & Business:\nfree enterprise: government partnership:\nefficiency & economy: welfare, tax loop-\nhole critics: labor\n0-21-72\nSpeech\nSECOND SESSION, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION\nDemocratic Convention, Democratic platform\npromises; socialized mediciner tax loopholes:\nNixon tax reform: Nixon Vietnam goals; Nixon\nimage with world leaders\n11-10-72\nSpeech\nL.A. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUSINESS OUTLOOK COMP\nVietnam War: War-time to peace-time economy:\ninflation: stable economy: free enterprise\nsystem; corporate taxes, business in America\n12-8-72\nSpeech\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS\nFree enterprise; foreign import threat to\neconomy: tax burden: efficiency and economy\nin government\n5-5-73\nTranscript\nAZUSA-PACIFIC COLLEGE COMMISCEMENT\n6-9-73\nTranscript\nHT. ST. MARY'S COLLEGE GRADUATION\n6-13-73\nTranscript\nJOHN P. KENNEDY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION\nPreparation for young people entering\nsocietal responsibilities (texts identipl)\n7-25-73\nTranscript\nILLINOIS STATE SENATE FUNDRAISER\nParty philosophical differences, exorbitant\ngovernment costs: tax limitation plan:\ngovernment-caused inflation: press nis-\nstatements\n9-9-73\nTranscript\nREPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CALIF.\nWatergate: free economic system; government\nspending: withholding: property tax reform:\nProposition 1\n11-26-73\nTranscript\nINSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS (Sydney)\nCharity: government encroachment, economic\nfreedom: private industry leaders in govern-\nment; government efficiency and economy: tax\nrebates: welfare: freedom\n12-10-73\nTranscript\nSOUTHERN COP CONFERENCE\nWatergate: Southeast Asia: inflation,\nDemocratic political demagoguery: party\nphilosophical differences: accomplishments;\nU.S. 200th anniversary; Republican Party\nresponsibility, POWs (treatment)\n1-20-74\nTranscript\nMEET THE PRESS\nPresident Nixon (impeachment, taxes), RR\nincome taxes: Watergate (tapest logs) :\nconservation: '76 candidacy; energy crieis\n1-25-74\nTranscript\nCONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE\nAmerican heritage; political philosophical\ndivision: growth of government: America's\ndestiny\n2-11-74\nTranscript\nOKLAHOMA GOP FUNDRAISER\nRepublican vs. Democratic Party philosophy:\nWatergate: energy requirements; inflation\n(profit increase); Nixon Doctrine: Southeast\nAsia: government decentralization: adminis-\ntrative reforms) Party expenditures\n2-22-74\nTranscript\nMEURI SAPARI FOUNDATION LUNCH\nWildlife preservation and management, gun\ncontrol, government decentralization: tree\nmarketplace\n3-30-74\nSpeech\nMIDWESTERN REPUBLICAN COMPERENCE\nExcerpts\nRepublican VS. Democratic Party philosophy:\nreal issues; inflation & taxes: bureaucracy\nin government\n4-11-74\nTranscript\nTRUNK \"N TUSK CLUB OF ARIZONA\nInflation: Watergate effect on Republican\ncandidates: Republican vs. Democratic Party\nphilosophy: Middle East: Vietnam: taxes;\nbureaucracy in government: Party contribu-\ntions (financial): welfare reform at national\nlevel\nO and 2\nArizona tax limit proposal; 55 m.p.h. speed\nlimit, Party influence through media purchase:\nGov./Lt. Gov. absence from state: non-support\nof Watergate by Republicans imperative;\ncapital punishment, national defense (Panama\nCanal sovereignty); Party campaign expendi-\ntures, news media praise: Americans looking\nbeyond party labels: rendezvous with destiny\nmisc. SPEECHES\nPSS\nI-N-D-E-X\nt SCRIPTS\n1964-1974\n1964\nSpeech\nA TIME FOR CHOOSING\nPlanned economy; constitutional limitations\nof government\n1964, Ja\nSpeech\nRENDEZVOUS WITH DESTINY\nPlan to curb government spending\n1-4-66\nSpeech\nA PLAN FOR ACTION\nAnnouncement of candidacy for Governor of\nCalifornia\n4-19-66\nSpeech\nTHE CREATIVE SOCIETY\nCitizen involvement in government\n5-15-67\nTV Transcript\nTOWN MEETING OF THE WORLD\nAmerica's image; youth of the world; Vietnam\n10-15-67\nTV Transcript\nISSUES AND ANSWERS\nQ & A - RR as potential candidate for\npresident\n12-4-67\nTranscript\nPRESS CONFERENCE - YALE\nHomosexuality; welfare; judicial appointments\nVietnam; civil rights; open housing; draft\n12-7-67\nTranscript\n0 & A - YALE\nGovernment-academic communication; Redwoods\nstatement; business approach to government\n12-12-67\nTV Transcript\nCBS REPORT\n\"What About Ronald Reagan?\"\n5-26-68\nTV Transcript\nMEET THE PRESS\nOregon Primary; conservative philosophy;\nopen housing; right to work; Vietnam\n6-5-68\nTV Transcript\nJOEY BISHOP SHOW\nLaw and order; individual responsibility;\ngun registration; campus unrest\n6-16-68\nTV Transcript\nFACE THE NATION\nRR as potential presidential candidate;\nPoor People's March; campus disorder\n4-21-69\nSpeech\nCALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS\nSpiritual need of today's student; U.S.\nposition as a world power\n5-4-69\nTV Transcript\nFACE THE NATION\nABM; \"I am a Hawk\"; Vietnam; student\nappointments to Board of Regents?\npornography; sex education; prayer in\nschools; campus disorder\n5-23-69\nSpeech\nNO GREATER INVESTMENT IN FREEDOM\n(Speech to businessmen sponsored by\nIndependent Colleges of Southern Calif.)\nTax credits for tuition; comparison of\nancient Rome to America today; violence\nand dissent in today's youth; academic\nfreedom\n6-11-69\nEulogy\nROBERT TAYLOR FUNERAL SERVICES\n6-13-69\nSpeech\nCOMMONWEALTH CLUB\nThe \"People's Park\", Berkeley\n7-4-69\nSpeech\nOPERATION PATRIOTISM\nIndependence Day Message\n7-29-69\nSpeech\nSEMINAR ON TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC SAFETY\n(Western Govs. Conference, Seattle)\n9-28-69\nSpeech\nBILLY GRAHAM CRUSADE\nWelcoming remarks\n10-22-69\nSpeech\nEUREKA COLLEGE FUNDRAISING LUNCHEON\nTax credits for tuition; academic freedom;\nstudent unrest\n11-1-69\nSpeech\nIN LESS THAN THREE YEARS\n(RSCC, Anaheim)\nAccomplishments of Reagan Administration\n11-6-69\nSpeech\n\"THE NEW NOBLESSE OBLIGE\"\n(Institute of Directors - London)\nBusiness-like approach toward economy in\n/\ngovernment\n11-10-69\nSpeech\nBRITISH NATIONAL EXPORT COUNCIL\nWorld trade; economic development\n2-9-70\nSpeech\nPEPPERDINE COLLEGE\nTax credit for tuition; the importance of\nteaching; constructive participation of\nyouth in the Creative Society\n2-12-70\nSpeech\nLINCOLN DAY FUNDRAISER\nTax reform; welfare costs\n6-5-70\nSpeech\nORME SCHOOL (Ariz.) COMMENCEMENT EXERCISES\nYouth; generation gap; The Establishment;\nenvironment; building America\n10-18-70\nSpeech\nFACE THE NATION\nCrime; taxes, campus violence; regents;\nlaw enforcement; campus unrest; teacher\ntenure; conservative tide\n11-30-70\nTranscript\nFILM INDUSTRY RALLY\nIndustry kudos; runaway films; tax exemption\n12-1-70\nTranscript\n\"THE ADVOCATES\" #\nWelfare (guaranteed annual income) i WIN\nProgram; welfare reform\n1-24-71\nTranscript\nISSUES AND ANSWERS\nRevenue Sharing; welfare (pensioners; public\nwork force) ; taxes, off-track betting; CRLA;\nIndo-China War: '72 presidential candidacy;\nparty image\n9-5-71\nSpeech\nTELEPHONE ADDRESS - YAF NATIONAL CONVENTION\nNational leadership; Red China trip\n9-12-71\nTranscript\nMEET THE PRESS\nRevenue sharing; Nixon economy program;\nRR conservative image; welfare employables;\nAgnew candidacy in '72\n12-7-71\nTranscript\nNATIONAL FOOTBALL FOUNDATION DINNER\nINDEX\n1-11-72\nTranscript\nGOVERNOR'S PRAYER BREAKFAST\n2-21-72\nTranscript\nFULTON LEWIS, III RADIO BROADCAST\nDemocratic myth\n2-29-72\nTranscript\nTHE ADVOCATES\nPublic school funds\n3-29-72\nSpeech\nTRUNK 'N TUSK CLUB (Ariz.)\n'72 Democratic dandidates' rhetoric; Vietnam\n(Nixon peace proposal) ; Youth Party Registra-\ntion; Republic VS. Demo. philosophy; minori-\nties; COPE; inflation; RMN Red China Trip\n5-1-72\nSpeech\nCHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES\nRelationship of Government & Business;\nfree enterprise; government partnership;\nefficiency & economy; welfare, tax loop-\nhole critics; labor\n8-21-72\nSpeech\nSECOND SESSION, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION\nDemocratic Convention; Democratic platform\npromises; socialized medicine; tax loopholes;\nNixon tax reform; Nixon Vietnam goals; Nixon\nimage with world leaders\n11-10-72\nSpeech\nL.A. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUSINESS OUTLOOK CONF\nVietnam War; War-time to peace-time economy;\ninflation; stable economy; free enterprise\nsystem; corporate taxes; business in America\n12-8-72\nSpeech\nNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS\nFree enterprise; foreign import threat to\neconomy; tax burden; efficiency and economy\nin government\n5-5-73\nTranscript\nAZUSA-PACIFIC COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT\n6-9-73\nTranscript\nMT. ST. MARY'S COLLEGE GRADUATION\n6-13-73\nTranscript\nJOHN F. KENNEDY HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION\nPreparation for young people entering\nsocietal responsibilities (texts idential)\n7-25-73\nTranscript\nILLINOIS STATE SENATE FUNDRAISER\nParty philosophical differences; exorbitant\ngovernment costs; tax limitation plan;\ngovernment-caused inflation; press mis-\nstatements\n9-9-73\nTranscript\nREPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF CALIF.\nWatergate; free economic system; government\nspending; withholding; property tax reform;\nProposition 1\n11-26-73\nTranscript\nINSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS (Sydney)\nCharity; government encroachment; economic\nfreedom; private industry leaders in govern-\nment; government efficiency and economy; tax\nrebates; welfare; freedom\n12-18-73\nTranscript\nSOUTHERN GOP CONFERENCE\nWatergate; Southeast Asia; inflation;\nDemocratic political demagoguery; party\nphilosophical differences; accomplishments;\nU.S. 200th anniversary; Republican Party\nresponsibility; POWs (treatment)\n1-20-74\nTranscript\nMEET THE PRESS\nPresident Nixon (impeachment; taxes) ; RR\nincome taxes; Watergate (tapes; logs) ;\nconservatism; '76 candidacy; energy crisis\n1-25-74\nTranscript\nCONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE\nAmerican heritage; political philosophical\ndivision; growth of government; America's\ndestiny\n2-11-74\nTranscript\nOKLAHOMA GOP FUNDRAISER\nRepublican VS. Democratic Party philosophy;\nWatergate; energy requirements; inflation\n(profit increase) ; Nixon Doctrine; Southeast\nAsia; government decentralization; adminis-\ntrative reforms; Party expenditures\n2-22-74\nTranscript\nMZURI SAFARI FOUNDATION LUNCH\nWildlife preservation and management; gun\ncontrol; government decentralization; free\nmarketplace\n3-30-74\nSpeech\nMIDWESTERN REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE\nExcerpts\nRepublican VS. Democratic Party philosophy;\nreal issues; inflation & taxes; bureaucracy\nin government\n4-11-74\nTranscript\nTRUNK 'N TUSK CLUB OF ARIZONA\nInflation; Watergate effect on Republican\ncandidates; Republican VS. Democratic Party\nphilosophy; Middle East; Vietnam; taxes;\nbureaucracy in government; Party contribu-\ntions (financial) ; welfare reform at national\nlevel\nQ and A\nArizona tax limit proposal; 55 m.p.h. speed\nlimit; Party influence through media purchase;\nGov./Lt. Gov. absence from state; non-support\nof Watergate by Republicans imperative;\ncapital punishment; national defense (Panama\nCanal sovereignty) ; Party campaign expendi-\ntures; news media praise; Americans looking\nbeyond party labels; rendezvous with destiny\nL9/1/161\nSIDE 1, December 4, 1967, Press Conference at Yale T.D. on Arrival\nThere is no opening statement or anything so I amgoing\nto suggest that some of the student editors open the\nquestioning because I think that this is what they want.\nQ\nDo you think that homosexuals should be barred from\nholding public office in the United States?\nA\nWell, He wanted to know if he thought whether or not homo-\nsexuals should be barred from holding public office in the United\nStates. I suppose I could only speak for my own state. I do not\nknow perhaps the Department of Parks and Recreation--\nQ\nIs homosexuality either imoral or should be illegal between\nadualts?\nA\nWell, I think that we are getting into an area where we can\nnow debate what is an illness or whether it is an illness or\nnot. I happen to subscribe to the belief that it is a gragget\nillness, a neurosis, the same as many other neurosis and I could\nwish for a cure or good health for those people.\nI\nBut do you think that it should be illegal?\nA\nYou know I really would be speculating and thinking about\nit for the first time right now. Yes, I do.\nI\nMr. Reagan, the reputation that you administration has\nfrom 3,000 miles away is perhaps unfortunately largely a negative\none on all the cut-backs that have been made on welfare or\nwith the universities, I wonder if you could tell us what you\nhave done positively to solve the problems in California\nor, what programs you have put through?\nA\nWell, it is very easy to get that wrong impression not\nonly 3,000 miles away but 3½ feet away from the capitol\nyou can also find some disagreement. But what you have to\nrecognize that the impression that is usual given when\nanyone seeks to restore the economy in government is of some\none a governor for example sitting on a treasurer chest.\nUnilaterially deciding that he is not going to let this\nmoney be spent in some cause or other. And this is not true.\nThe plain simply thing that we xxx all know if we take time\nto think about it is that there are \"x\" number of dollars\ncoming in from the people of the state to a government body.\nAnd the purpose of government or the function of government\nis to allocate those monies for the services that the people\nhave decided are necessary and essential to them. And you\ncome to a point, you establish priorities of course, but\nyou come to a point in which you can give some agency or\ndepartment the money it request is to take it from someother\nagency or department. And some place along the line someone\nhas to make a decision as to how far back you can cut. Let's\nsay police protection or public health. Something of this\nkind to give more money as requested. And each department\nrequests more money than it ever ends up or winds up getting.\nNow, if you have a state that is not asking the people for a\nfair share to pay for the services that they have indicated\nthat they want, then government has a responsibility to simply\ntell the people that they have to pay more money. But\nCalifornians happen to be paying more for government per capita\nthan their fellow citizens in the rest of the country-very much\nmore. So I believe that we have reached virtuely the breaking\npoint. There is very little more that you can ask of the people\nof California. Now it is pretty hard for me to reconcile the\ncriticism what we are doing with regard to cut-backs when at\nthe same time the same publications and the same individuals\nare attacking me on the basis that I asked for the biggest single\ntax increase that has ever been asked in the history of this\ncountry in any state. And the same opposite or opposing\nlegislators who reduced my request by $100 million and then\nhanded me back a budget in which I had to blue pencil $46 million\nworth of spending which they added into the budget after cutting\nthe taxes that I asked for. It makes it a little hard for me\nto believe in their sincereity. Now you have asked what we have\ndone constructively. Well, in the first place, we took a state\nthat was spending more than a million dollars a day over and\nabove the revenue that was coming in. This was in violation\nof our constitution. We can not have a deficit budget in our\nstate. We had to put the state on a sound financial basis.\nThere have been-let me give one example-get talk about cut-\nbacks in the area of mental health. But this ignores the fact\nthat California leads the nation in this regard and leads the\nnation in the method of treating the mentally ill. In California\nwe have embarked some several years ago-I didn't start this-\nembarked in a program of stopping this old fashion concept of\nsimply warehousing the mentally ill-storing them away for the\nrest of their lives. And we started getting those people out\nof the hospital that could be cured and made able to live with\nthe help of the new tranquilizer drugs and so-forth a normal\nlife in their home surroundings. To the extent in the last\nseveral years, we have reduced the hospital population from\n36,000 to around 20,000 and it is continuing to go down. And\nthe cut-back that we made was a cut-back in the staff at the\nhospital level to more or less keep pace with this declining\nnumber of patients but we made also the biggest increase in\nthe history of our state or any state in the funds available\nto stimulate the development of more of this local and\nregional health care centers so that we can even increase the\npace with which we get this people out of these institutions\nand get them back to a normal life.\nQ\nStill though, it seems though you are planning to add on\nany new programs that don't necessarily have to take the\nform of increased taxes but people do not know what you want\nto do or what new things that you want to propose for the\nproblems of the cities, lets say, are the really problems that\nany state has.\nA\nOh, no, this is not true. We have a great many programs.\nWe have a number of them which are buried in the committee in\nthe legislature now.\nQ\nWhat are some of them.\nA\nWell, for example there is going on at this time-right at\nthis moment in California-and has been since I took office, a\nprogram with regard to putting the unemployed, particularly in\nthe poverty pockets of the minority areas, putting them to work\nin private enterprise jobs in industry and in jobs with a future\ninstead of the \"make-work\" type of a thing that SO often is\ncharacteristic of government aid to the unemployed. There was a\nman, an industrialist, in California who right after the Watts\nriot got a number of his fellow industrialist interested in the\nproblem and the excessive number of unemployed in the Watts\narea. And he challenged that this was a problem for private\nenterprise. Private enterprise may not be able to solve all\nthe social problems in the world, but certainly it had jobs\nto offer. And they set out to match the worker or the unemployed\nto the job. Through job training, they cooperated with govern-\nment job training programs. They worked through the state\nemployment office and in a matter of 16 months, they were able\nto put 17,800 of the hard core unemployed in the Watts area\nalone into free enterprise jobs. This man's name was McClellan.\nAfter I was ellected and before I took office, I sought out\nMr. McClellan and asked him if he would take on this chore for\nentire state on a state-wide basis. He is doing this with no\nsalary to the state. We have organized and Bob Finch, Lt. Governor\nhas been put in charge. He is the liason between government and\nthis private effort and Chad McClellan has organized the state\nof California. He.has 2,600 industrialist in the Los Angeles\narea; 1,500 in the bay area of San Francisco; additional hundreds\nin San Diego and in other communities. They are organized-they\nhave set up recruiting offices in the proverty pockets-particularly\namong the minority people. And they are busy seeking out training\nand finding the employables and putting them to work.\nNow, when they get through with this. They are dealing with\nthose people who can be trained and put to work on a job. When\nthey get through, there will be a social problem left then of\nwhat could be called the unemployable. People for one reason\nor another other are not ready at this moment that free enter-\nprise or the private industry could not take on that chore.\nThis will be the task of all of us and we are not neglecting\nit. We are not waiting. But it will be that much easier if\nyou have your problem down to that level. Now, we have done\na number of other things. First of all, I have told you of\nthe mental health thing. It is not true necessarily that we\nare just cutting back. Our so-called Medi-Cal program-the\nMedicaid program-this is article 19 of the Medicare program.\nThis as implemented in about half our state, half of the states\nhaven't as yet, we are all suppose to by 1975. There is not\na state in the union that has implemented this program that is\nnot facing bankruptcy with it and having great troubles. We\ncalled a conference and held a conference with a number of those\nstates and together we are trying to work out and to impress on\nthe federal government what is necessary in their regulations\nto change. To give us a flexibility to deal with this because\ncontrary to what a great many people might feel. I happen to\nbe committed to a belief that no one in this country-no one-\nshould be denied medical care because of the lack of funds. But\nI do not believe, if we have embarked on a wrong course, that\nwe should be wasting our treasure to the point where one day\nwe will have to withdraw this service and not be able to help\nthe people. We have-you asked me in a vast state to start\ngoing down the list of all the things that we have done. WE\nhave formed a-successfully formed a crime foundation that\nbrings together for the first time all the various factors\ninvolved in fighting crime ranging from the legal and the\njudiciary and to law enforcement and the penal institutions\nto treat this whole problem because it is one of the greatest\nproblems confronting our nation today. Run away crime in\nthis country progressing at a rate that is unexplanable to\nany one. I am trying to think of some-we have a program. We\ntried to get it through last year and we are trying again-to\ntake the appointment of judges out of politics once and for\nall. I do not believe that a man should wear the robes of\njudge simply as the result of a pay-off for campaign favors\nand so forth. Now I realize that to a governor this is a\ngreat patronage thing. One of the greatest\nthe\nen\ngovernor can have to/trench himself is the appointment of\njudges. I witnessed this for the last eight years under\nmy predecessor this kind of judicial appointment. In the\nfor\nmeantime, waiting/the legislation that will set up a plan\nthe\nwhereby a joint committee of citizens,/bar and the judiciary\nwill present qualified names to a governor for appointment.\nIn the meantime, I have voluntarily set such a system. Judges\nin California are now appointed. They have to be appointed by\nme but we have such a joint committee in every area and all\nwho are proposed as possibilities for judicial appointments are\nturned over to this joint committee and are screened and they\nsend them back to us with a rating-a score of what\neach group-the layman, the bar, the judiciary-has rated this\nperson and I have chosen from those-the one who gets the top\nrating-in every instance, the judicial appointments that I have\nmade. We have-there are a number of things, but somehow in the\nreporting of my doings, it does not seem to accent the positive.\nQ\nGovernor, last night, former secretary of state, Dean\nAtchinson, said he believed that the negotiations would not\nnecessarily be fruitful in terms of Vietnam, would you agree\nwith that or not?\nA\nYes, as a matter of fact, I read and I assume that it\nbeing the New York Times that Dean Atchinson was accurately\nquoted. The-I agree completely with what he said. And I\nthink the long history of attempts for negotiations with the\ncommunists have indicated that they are long on sound and talk\nand little on accomplishment. He put in far better words than\nI have ever been able to exactly what my views are about Vietnam.\nAnd about the resolving of this conflict.\nI\nDoes this mean that you think that a military solutions is\nthe only one?\nA\nWell, it is, in the extent and in the context in which\nDean Atchinson said it way. And this is that you simply make it\nplain to them that to continue hurts them more than they want\nto be hurt. And that if there is a setting down at a table\nit is because it hurts too much not to and you make it evident\nto them that their aggression-their military conquest-is not going\nto succeed and then as he says, it does not always mean that you\ncome to a surrender with the generals marching forth under a\nwhite flag or of something of that kind. The enemy simply gives\nup the effort.\nQ\nYou are talking about the fading away that we have been\ntold they are going to?\nA\nYes, I believe that this is true and I do not believe\nthat you get them to the table by persuading them-appealing to\ntheir better nature-I think that you get, if there is any--if\nthere is a negotiation as Dean Atchinson may claim. In the\nnegotiations that we have had in the past like at Pan-mu-chaum,\nthe negotiation is just when one way is hurting too much and\nthey are not succeeding they switch over and conduct the war\nacross the table in an effort to get what they could not get\nby force of arms.\nQ\nDo you think that the departure of Mr. McNamara from the\nPentagon will lead to a kind of pressing of our military might\ninto this situation?\nA\nOh, I would not be able to speculate what is behind this.\nIt could range all the way from Mr. McNamara just getting tired\nof what has been going on to a difference of opinion.\nQ\nWould you call for a stronger action?\nA\nYes, as a matter of fact I have. At the same time however,\nI said that I think we are having that stronger action or a large\npart of it in recent months. It was only a couple of months ago\nor less, that I said I believe we had turned a corner. That the\nmilitary effort was giving us a far more optimistic outlook\nthan we are being told. I think all the signs indicate this.\nMy criticism of the conduct of the war has been that through\nescallation over a period of a year and one-half or perhaps\ntwo years, we have reached the point now, that some people\nwanted us to reach in more of a solid trust. For example, the\nAir Force victory bombing plan in which some time ago they\nsuggested 94 targets to be blitzed in a 16 day blitz. Now\nall those targets or virtuely all of them, are now being\nbombed. But their idea was and the military idea was, that\nif this had been a sudden thrust, that this very well could\nhave brought the enemy around, because if it happens all at\nonce in the 16 days which is fater than they can repair, then\nthey may began to think what will happen in the next 16 days.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, Your public statements have established\nyour positions for intensifications of the Vietnam war against\ncivil rights legislation and against big government, on the\nbasis of this record, how do you distinguish your position XN from\nthat of another presidential-possible presidential candidate-\nGeorge Wallace?\nA\nOh, I think that my positions are quite different from\nthose of George Wallace and the way that you put it, there is\na certain amount of over simplification there. Let me say that\nperhaps this one difference is this. There seems to be a\nsay\nténdency and those of the so-called liberal philosophy, as/so\ncalled because I happen to be one who opposes this hyphenating\nof all of us. I think that we have falling into a custom in\nthis country that everyone must be categorized and given a label\nand he is a something hyphen this or that. But, the liberal is,\nif he choses that name for himself, is the most guilty of\ndebating these issues, the solution to the racial problem, the\nsolutions to poverty, all the rest. He is guilty of charging\nthat any one who opposes the method that he suggests for\nsolving these problems, is opposed to the goal as well. I do\nnot think that this is worthy of our country. I think the\nmen and women of good will in this country, and I think that\nmeans most of us, actually are united on goals. I have never\nfound any one who does not want a solution to this problem\nof the minorities, equal opportunity. I have given you my\nposition with regard to medical health. The same is true of\npoverty. It could be eliminated. The argument is the method\nchosen to achieve these results. Now, why can't we as men and\nwomen of good will and the times of great stress, as fellow\nAmericans, sit down in a room together and negotiate on the\nbasis, that we are debating methods proposed? Now, I can be\nunalterably opposed to some particular program, but the-as\nI say, the so-called liberal-greats you not with arguing-\ndefending his methods, he simply the moment you oppose him,\ncharges you want the poor to die in the streets, you want the\nill not to have a doctor and so forth.\n&\nDo you think the Rumford Fairhousing Act in California\nis ineffective or bad method of assuring fair housing legislation\nor of assuring open housing?\nA\nI think that the Rumford Fair-housing Act in California\nruns a very great danger of risk. In attempting to achieve\nsomething that I desire very much and all of should desire,\nit runs the risk of giving the government the power that govern-\nment should not have and could some day come back to haunt us.\nCan be used for other than worthy purposes and this is the\ninfringement on the right of the ********* individual to private\npossessions and the control ownership of those possessions. Now,\nthere is a great difference between the restrictive convenent\nidea and the individual being told what he can or cannot do with\nhis own home. Now, strangely enough, and I know that this will\nsound strange to many of you in view of what you have read. You\nhappen to be looking at someone who spent a life time rather\nmilitantly and emotionally opposed to discrimination and bigotry.\nAs a sports announcer many years ago, when baseball, organized\nbaseball, opened its rule book with a line that baseball is a\ngame for caucasian gentlemen. As a sports announcer, I editorialized\nconstantly against this. I can now point with I sort of told you\nso pride, the wonderful progress that baseball has made because\nMr. Ricky had the courage to do what he did. As I say, I would\nnot knowingly patronize a place of business that conducted its\nbusiness with discrimination and bigotry or prejudice. I would\nurge all right thinking people to do the same. But we must be\nvery careful trying to achieve a noble goal, solve the problem\nthat would at the same time initiate or give away completely,\nsome of the safe guards that have given us our individual\nfreedom.\n2\nDo yo u have any alternative methods of solving the\nproblem?\nA\nYes, and they sound a little vague and indefinite I am\nsure for those people who want positive answers. I believe that\nthere is a certain amount of this that must be solved simply\nthrough leadership and through organizing the people of good\nwill to voluntarily do things. But let me just get back to this\none point. California does not have or allowed the restricted\ncovenent. There are no areas or no neighborhoods where people\ncan ban together and say this is restricted to only a certain\nkind of people or people of another kind can't come in here.\nThis is far different. I heartedly favor that. Because the\nsame thing that makes a restricted covenent, not only morally\nwrong, but legally in my opinion wrong, is the same thing that\nmakes me question the Rumford Act. And that, we have certain\nare\nrights that/ours from birth. Certain rights that cannot be\nsubmitted to a majority rule or vote. And for an individual\nin a neighborhood who ownes a home, to let his neighbors by\nand\nsimply out numbering him, vote a restrictive convenent *x/making\nhim abide by it, is an infringement on his right to his own\nproperty and his control of it. You can not make it any more\nright by making it legal.\n'Q\nSir, you say that you are worried about rights infringements\non individual rights, can you then tell us are you in favor of\nthe selective service as to being oblished?\nA\nWell, this has to be a yes and no answer. For quite some\ntime now, I have been opposed to the peace time draft. And I\nwould like to see, and have thought for some time and advocated,\nthat this country if it is fearful in the present state of the\nworld of suddenly cancelling the draft and the misunderstanding\nthat might follow from this in some other countries, that at\nleast this country with its great know how, could evolve a\nprogram of incentives of enlistment and thenas this proved its\neffectiveness eliminate the draft. No part of the answer is\nwith a conflict of the size that we are in now, I wonder if this\nis the moment which we could do away with it without again\nstrengthening the enemies determination to continue that he\nmight xxxxxxxxxxpx misinterpret this. We have, and all of us\nhave agreed in this country to the draft time of war.\nQ\nWar has not been declared!\nA\nI now it has not been declared. But the present president\nhimself in the Whitehouse several months ago made a public state-\nment in whichhe said-make no mistake about it, we are in a war.\nNow the legal technicality of the non-declaration for whatever\nreason, it is a non-declaration, should not blind us to the\nfact that we are in a war. So perhaps this is not the best time\nand I am not going to make a judgement on that to do away with\nthe draft.\n2\nGovernor, (interruption)\nA\nBut my answer is yes. I believe we should not have peace\ntime constriction in this country.\n2\nGovernor, the selective service assistant is taking to\nwar\nreclassifying the/demonstrators and others who are eligible for\nhear of\nthe draft, the leading educators call it an outrageous usurpation\nor power, can we have your view on this?\nA\nWell, I think what happens there, I can understand General\nHershey in his resentment saying it and emotionally I could go\nalong with him. On the other hand reasonably, intellectually,\nyou have to say wait a minute, we can't make military service\npunitive, we can't use the military as a way of punishing\npeople that we may disagree with or who have done some wrong\ndoing. If we are in a conflict, I think that one of the things\nthat has happened is a kind that we have drifted into a\nperversion of the draft deferment idea on the whole student\ncontexts. I realize that I am going to loose a lot of potential\nandpossible friendships when I say this. But the idea in war\ntime-lets go back to world war II-the biggest most effective\nuse of the draft in our country-in the midst of an emergency,\ncertain\nthe government recognized that there were SEME/people who were\nas essential to the war effort in various occupations and\nprofessions as they would be in the military. And so the govern-\nment reserved for its self the right to hand pick and say this\nperson and that person are exempt from the draft because we need\nthem some place else. in this same war effort. This was the\ncontext of the peace time draft behind exempting those getting\na higher education. In the peace time draft, it was recognized\nthat we did need and our country was going to be-what success was\ngoing to be based on. The education with many of our young people\nis possible. So we offered an incentive to education. But now\nwe are in combat. Now it is the case that some people are being\nchosen for possible death and some are being exempted. puring on\nthe basis of getting an education. And I believe that we either\nshould eliminate completely, or we should recognize that this\nkind of a choice when we are in combat, when we are in a war, and\nthat we should review the unfairness that we\npresently have.\nI\nGovernor, do you think that the criteria seems to be that\nhear\nthese activities and anti-war activities are not of the national\ninterest, would you agree with that?\nA\nI do not think that they are in the national interest at\nall. And I do not deny any one their rights to dissent. We\nhad dissentors in World War II. I myself was pretty intolerant\nthen. I believe that the inhumanity of Hitler and Mussolini\nwere such that it was pretty hard to justify neutrality. But\nthere were many Americans who did not believe that we had a\nplace in that war but the dissent took the form, the usual forms\nof dissent, that had been made available to us in this country and\nI say that when that dissent is carried into actively interferring\nwith the efficiency of the country in war, when it actually lends\ncomfort and aid to the country, then I do not believe that it can\nbe justified. It can certainly never be justified in breaking\nthe law.\nQ\nBut can it be tolerated?\nA\nThe dissent can be tolerated.\nQ\nNo, the disruptive kind that you said-you say it can't\nbe tolerated.\nA\nNo, I don't think that it should be-can be. I don't\nthink ; that there is anything in this country that justifies\nthe citizen taking the law into his own hands. Once you start\nto let, each individual start determining which law he can obey,\nwe are back to the society based on who can carry the biggest\nclub.\nI\nBut what about disruptive dissent who falls short of\nbreaking the law, but in your estimate buk still\nthe\nwar effort by giving comfort to the enemy?\nA\nWell\n2\nShould these people be classified?\nA\nWell, for some reason not known to any of us, the govern-\nment has decided that it is to our national interest to not\ntake the legal step of declaring a war a war. And if this was\nlegally declared a war within the next five minutes there are\ncertain rules of conduct that we have lived with throughout\nthe history of our nation almost guiding the citizens in a time of\nwar. Certain restrictions that for the war effort and for the\naid of those who are actually doing the fighting we recognize\nare necessary. Now the fact that legally or technically we have\nnot declared it a war, should this technically allow people to\ndo what would under the other circumstances range all the way\nfrom treason to obstructionism to lending comfort and aid to\nthe enemy. I question this. I think that the-I think that\nonce you ask young men to fight and die for their country, the\ncountry has an obligation to those young men to do nothing that\nfurther endangers them or makes it more difficult for them to\ndo what their country has asked them to do.\nΩ\nGovernor, How do you regard the candidacy of Eugene McCarthy\nas opposed to President Johnson as the democratic nomination?\nA\nI am delighted. I hope that there will be more McCarthy's\nand it is a type of McCarthism that I heartedly approve of and I\nQ\n(can't understand - but very short)\nA\nWell, Oh, yes. I believe that anything that is devicive\nand the opposing party is constructive for the country.\n2\nGovernor, what kind of candidate do you think that the\nDefense Secretary MacNamara might make since he is a republican?\nA\nI don't know. I know that a rose is a rose but it is hard\nfor me to conceive that Secretary MacNamara is a Republican.\nQ\nTime magazine has called the Rockerfellow-Reagan ticket\na green ticket. What do you think of Governor Rockerfellow as\na prospective Republican nominee and would you be willing to\naccept the vice-presidential nomination?\nA\nNo, I am not a candidate for any other office. I have said\ntalk about\nthat over and over again. It seems strange when you/pmixexx a\nticket linking those two names here are two outspoken non-\ncandidates being linked together. But I would say this about the\nRepublicans and all those who have been suggested, the Republican\nparty has a wealth of talen this year which I am sure the public\nis going to recognize and almost any one of several, I think,\ncould successful lead this country and do a better job than we\nare now getting.\nI\ncan't understand but very short\nA\nThat's\nΩ\ncome to you and say they wanted you\nas their vice-president, would you accept that nomination?\nA\nWell, you are asking me a kind of a hypothetical\nquestion now. And if I give you a hypothetical answer, as I\nhave said before, I have written your lead for you and I do\nwhat\nnot think that I should do that. Let me just give you/my\nviews are on the relative jobs. I have never been one who\nvice\nis greatly impressed as to how much the/presidential candidate\ncontributes to the ticket in winning votes for the number one\nspot. And I think that your question might be a faxmrable fair\none for someone let's say doesn't hold public office as to\nwhether he could contribute or not contribute. But I would\nthink that my position now as governor of what is the most\npopulous state of the union that I can be perhaps has helpful\nin a campaign in that position as I could any other. I would\ncertainly try to be helpful to whomever is the nominee of our\nparty and so I would be inclined to say that I could contribute\nas much to the party or more right where I am insufax and certainly\nI could do more to further by beliefs and these and the things\nthat made me become a candidate for the office that I now hold\nin the first place.\nQ\nSuppose at the convention\ncame to you and asked\nyou to run for president, being the favorite son from California,\ncontrolling a large block of convention votes, what would your\ndecision be then?\nA\nI still do not want to write your lead. There isn't any\nway that I can answer that question without being in deep trouble\nWhat you are getting around to is General Sherman and the state-\nment here. All I can say to you is, that I am not a candidate.\nI am very happy in the job that I am doing. Well, there are days\nwhen I am not. But, I do not foresee being a candidate.\nQ\nMr. Wallace says that he is picking up a lot of votes and\na lot of Republicans are going his way, is this true?\nA\nWell, I am not one who normally believes in polls but\nyesterday's poll as printed the Gallup Poll regard to the effect\nthat Governor Wallace might have on the presidential three-way\npresidential race. I am one who believes that it could be\na more harmful to the Republicans than the Democrats. This I\nthink would be particularly true in the South. I think that\nthere are a number of Democrats in the South who are disapproving\nof the present administration, but they just have an ingrain\nreluctance to vote for that word Republican and if you gave them\nan alternative choice, where they could register the disapproval\nof the Democratic administration without voting Republican, they\nwould take it and to that extent would hurt us.\nQ\nGovernor, do you expect to be talking to Reverand Kauffin\nwhen you are here in New Haven about peace demonstrations?\nA\nWell, I do not know. That would be up to Reverand Kauffin.\nUnder the circumstances, I would feel a little self-conscious\nabout seeking him out for\n&\nGovernor\nGovernor: One more question then we have got to quite\nI\nWe have heard several variations about this Sherman like\nstatement from several other non-candidates. Do you have any\nstatement that you would like to make\nSherman like or\notherwise?\nA\nOh, no. You mean about Sherman? I could quote former\nPresident Eisenhower who told me once that he thought it was a\nfoolish statement and that Sherman shouldn't have made it.\nI AM SORRY THAT HE HAS GOT TO GO TO A CLASS NOW. THE GOVERNOR\nIS GOING TO WALK ACROSS THE CAMPUS AND WE CAN MEET HIM AT THE\nOLD CAMPUS IF YOU WANT TO GET HIM ON THE OUTSIDE. THANK YOU\nVERY MUCH GOVERNOR AND MRS. REAGAN.\n29/4/61\n12/7/67 FINAL ADDRESS AND Q&A AT YALE - RR\nWould give the money to a worthy cause. I understand that cause\nis a deserving young student who is now planning to work his way\nthrough Berkeley. The Governor's visit has also vocused attention\non a number of campus issues and in this area the Governor's\ncharming wife has been most helpful. Those who have been campaign-\ning for the abolishing\nhave been greatly encouraged\nthat a Smithy has now spent the night on the campus. Finally,\nin his talks with the Yale students, the Governor has had a\nvaluable opportunity to find out the opinion of 1968. And in\nmany parts of the country, Republicans are taking about\nRockerfellow and Reagan has the green ticket. Other Republicans\nhowever seem to be dreaming about a Romney-Lindsey ticket on the\nbasis that it would be difficult of the Democrats to defeat God\nand the Yale man. But whether or not the Governor is on the\ngreen ticket, there are a few people who are now making such a\ngreat impact on the discussion of issues in American politics\ntoday. And Governor Reagan, quite seriously, we thank yo u for\ntaking time to discuss these issues here at Yale with us. You\nhave provide Yale students with an altogether valuable experience.\nNow, I am proud to present to you the Governor of California,\nRonald Reagan.\nTime is going by. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for that\nwonderfully warm introduction and I want to thank, as a matter\nof fact, I could even refer to it as heated at moments. But\nI want to thank also all of you for this very warm welcome too.\nI think that it is a memory that I shall cherish and probably\nnothing could ever take it out of my mind unless perhaps one day\nI should receive an honorary degree from Berkeley. REferences\nto my past occupation, I am not self conscious about that and\nthe stand point that now I am in my present trade, I don't want\nto remember that it is just that there are certain things that\nfor example I feel how much better it could have been if one of\nmy more eminent protrayals had not been George Gibb of Norte\nDame but had been Frank Merrywell of Yale. The other thing\nof course is, you know, the business that I was in all of us\nhad to experience making some pictures that the studio didn't\nwant them good; it wanted them Tuxsday Thursday. And we always\nin the past figured that time going by would remove those\npictures from your memory. And we could forget them also, But\nnow there is a thing called television and if you such stay\nup late enough at night, they all come back to haunt us. Sometimes\nwhen I see some of my own, it is like looking at a son you never\nknew you had. I got a friend in the business who stays up late\nto look at his old shows just to watch his hair line recede.\nBut modern communications, being what they are, I am aware that\ncertain of your fellow\ndidn't take kindly to the idea of\nmy being invited here. The Yale daily news which on casual\nreading does not appear to be subsidized by the C.I.A. It is\nstill shuddering at the idea, the printers ink curdled, I am\nnot all together unfamiliar with the circumstances in which I\nfind myself, becuase, on previous occasions, and in my previous\noccupations, there were any number of scripts in which I had to\nsquare away, push open the back wing doors to the sekmann soloon\nknowing that the fellows in the black hats were lined up against\nthe bar and I was going to have to confront them. or I walked\nbetween\nbravely down/the tepees into the stockade to engage in a pow-\nWOW with the Apaches --part of the tape lost--In accepting the\nhospitality, I wasn't SO naive as to think that I might make\nany convert to my way of thinking or that the foundations of\nthis old and famous institution would collapse if you failed\nto convert me to yours. But what is important in this juncture\nis that such Americans as you and I, the politician and the\nintellectual, now let me interject, that I have resisted at time\nthe application of that title politician when applied to myself\nbut I do grant you the application of your title without arguement.\nBut any way we should seriously try to understand each other and\nall the while we try to understand what is happening to and within\nthe United States. The university is or should be concerned.\nBut the important business of making men masters of the fate.\nOne engaged in the political life has to ride the tiger. It is\nanother name for the realities which the intellectual community\nis charged with identifying and domesticating. Politicians are\nhighly expendable if they are notably edible. And I have no\ndesire to end my career inside the tiger. But I think that I\ncan deplore a modern day philosophical hyphenating of each one\nof us. This idea that we must be described with a hypen and then\na descriptive adjective. But yielding to the reality of common\nusage, I must recognize that many of you, I bear the title or\nlabel of conservative and yet I am as anxious as the next man\nto recognize the new realities of human conditions. The\nthe\nfundamental varities are no more/legacy reserved for the\nconservative tradition than the recognition and insight are\ngifts peculiar to the intellectual community. And all of a\nsudden we Americans seemed to have lost our way. The political\nsearch for consensus is not necessarily the last resort of a\ncompromise and a trimmer casting about for some workable base\nfor power. It looks to me to the action of a leader that is in\nsearch for something that is willing to be lead. In a nation\nthat is no longer pure in its very parts where it is going or\nwhere it wants to go. This question of how to maintain the\nflow of ideas between the politicians and the intellectual\ncommunity, more specifically the university world is very much\nin my mind by reason of a papers which I read on my way here.\nthese\nWith a talk given on *he/precincts one June morning five years\nago by a gifted politician who was at ease in the academic\nworld and his own creditials were respected there. The point\nof the discourse was dialogue between the principle parties\nand the American public, business or among government and\nbusiness and the public, were being closed by \"illusion and\nplatitude\". In consequence according to him, government was\nunable to make the American people comprehend the vast changes\nwhich we were already cut up. In the world, American life\nhad become the prisoner of mith. And the message, the new\ntrust simply was not getting through the Eog of dead cliches\nand worn out slogans and crumbling generalizations on which\nthe past had been constructed. No sensible man can quarrel\nin\nwith the point that American life has changed and a revolutionary\nand explosive way. New words and new values must be minted.\nNew aspiration and new goals must be struck. Who among us\nwould knowingly be caught dead clinging to superstition. But\nAmericans have long been marked as a society in a permanent\nrevolutionary change and a change with us is a condition of life.\nThe only justification for government is the concern for the\ndefense and the improvement of the human lot through the hazards\nand the opportunities of this change. But something called the\nrecognition factor has been brought into play. How real and\nhow useful is this fundamental change and how fundamental is it?\nThe look of change can be serious. There are certain varities\nthat do persist for better or ill. In the very recent past, we\nAmericans have witnessed any number of the imaginative and inspired\nand even heroic efforts by government to demolish the illusions\nunhorse the patitudes, dis-spell the mith and presumably to keep\nus from agreeing on what's to be done and setting about doing it.\nWe have seen unveiled a bright new body of thought, called the\nnew economics. And this was to give us through skillful tuning\nof monetary and fiscal policies. In economy it would achieve\nfull employment without inflation and at a consistently diminishing\ncost of government. The happy outcome was to be a strong dollar,\nfull employment, full production and stable prices once we got\nrid of the mith that the big federal deficit were mischievous\nand in an other quarter, we had some experience with the creative\nfederalism. Which was to have finished off the mith that big\ngovernment means bad government. Creative federalism undertook\nto clear the way for instant great society. To be constructed\nby a generation having a special appointment with destiny. While\nthe computers blinked and the fine tuning went on, the fiscal\nand monetary consule, there was to be a restoration among\nus that the fading values of \"community with neighbors and\ncommunion with nature\". With regards to the American position\nin the outer world, new foreign policy was based on a pragmatism\nproposed that we celebrate the end of the cold war and bury the\nmith that communism was determined to bury us. We were to\nthrow bridges at a mellowing Russia and in various ways end the\nshouting and the shooting that have filled our times with uproars.\nFinally, the new foreign policy was undergurted by a new strategic\ndoctrine. That limited war fare would avoid the provocative\naspects of the higher technological weapons and would make less\nhazardous and less arguist and less conclusive such wars as this\nnation might be called upon to fight. And here the object was\nin\nto dispose of the idea the mith that victory and war was desirably\nuseful. And all of these ideas added up to a noble vision.\nthe vehicles\nIn one form or another they supplied/with some of the noblest\noratory and the brightest prose to issue from Washington. The\ntrouble is there has been no real dialogue. The Government\nall this while has been talking pretty much to itself.\nAnd in short of the short intervals of silence that were permitted\nwhile the federalized thinkers stopped to catch their breath it\nhas become increasing difficult to tell where life and death\nmatters and old miths have been separated from the realities.\nThe new economics instead of producing an automatic balance of\nfederal accounts during idea conditions of full employment has\npilled up huge deficits. Inflation is with us again. Now,\nthe wage price spiral is setting in. The gold is flowing out.\nThe dollar is under attack. And the foreign friends and alias\nwho wanted America with house in order are worried. What ever\nhappened to the fine tuning, the careful orchestration that was\nto have spared the great society the consequences of the mith\nof fiscal descipline. Perhaps the federal orchestra was over\nburdened with fidlers. Things are out of control. The federal\nbudget is out of control. The deficit is out of hand. Too many\nof our people in the cities and the colleges are out of control.\nDe Gaul\nis out of control and so alas is Britian.\nand Hedlin sinks the fire. As we are still in Vietnam, the\nlimited war strategy far from persuading our enemies to\nmend their ways has pulled us into the bottomless pit of wasteful\nwar, wasteful in men, wasteful in treasure, wasteful of the American\nmeaning in the world. lAnd the new realities remain with us. But\nso do the prophesies. The old miths stubornly refuse to roll\nover and play dead. In the chaos between the new reality and\nthe old reality problem solving just hasn't taken place. Hard\nwork that waits abroad for American hands will go for nothing.\nUnless we settle among ourselves the question of what is the\nUnited States to be? So lets pick up the dialogue and lets\nmake an exciting and serious one and let's not forget that\nwe, there is still something to be said about the eternal varities\nhowever tired and abused they may be. You know, it has been\nsaid very well by one of your our in this place on the eve of\nanother American testing back in 1917. He put it in a poetic\nway discussing the mystery of moon light elms,\nthe flash of pigeon wings, tape lost-\nThese things shall be enchantment of our hearts rememberings\nand these are more than memories of youth which earths four\nwinds of pain shall blow away. These are youth symbols of\neternal ***** truth. Symbol of dream and imagery and flames.\nSymbols of the same varities that play bright through the\ncrumbling gold of a great name. And I hope and trust that\nArchibald Mc Cleish whose words those were won't feel too\nseriously that there has been serious miscasting in the performer\nwho chose to read them. Now, I think that before I should go on\nany further in this, that the custom of the particular type of\nmeeting is that you now have at me anything that might still be\nleft of me. I have walked down the streets of New Haven look-\ning over my shouldérs to see how much blood is being shed so\nfar there is still a little left for this final performance.\nBefore the question period, there will be a short recess while\nsome of this electronic equipment is rearranged. The first three\nquestioners will proceed to the microphone. The chair will\nrecognize Charles Whitebread, Robert Beatti, and John Townsend.\nFurther questions will be recognized in a series of three.\nBefore the last of ****** these three questions is asked, the\nchair will ask for the raising of hands and will recognize three\nmore. Questions according to the union standing rules must be\nlimited to one minute in the asking. Mr. Townsend -\nI\nMr. Speaker, --\nthat the state universities was not a place to\nA\nI was incorrectly quoted. Or out of context. A distinquished\nalumni of your university here, Bill Buckley has pointed out in\nan article that perhaps my mistake was in using the word intellectual\ncuriosity and that I could've been understood if I had sand\nintellectual frivolity and I accept the critizm because probably\nthe misunderstanding or the out of context quote couldnot have\ntaken place with out the later. I was not referring to the\nuniversity. I was referring at a time when certain members of\nthe academic community in California were denying that there\nwere any economies that could be affected in a time of very\nstringent needs in California. Any economies in the university\nthat would not be harmful to the intellectual pursuts and to the\nquality of education and I took a little exception to that when\nI pointed out that in a number of instances there were things\nthat while they might be fine and admirable if you could afford\nthem, and they certainly were of interest to the individual.\nBut some individuals were being subsidized by the taxpayers and\nintellectual curiosity when they could for example at the tax-\npayers expense take a course at the university in fly-casting.\nAnd I even mention that as an example of one prominent mid-\nwestern university that can give you a masters degree in the\nrepair of band instruments. Now, I don't say that should not\ntake place but I wondered about the need of the taxpayer to\nsubsidize this. Now the second part of your question is the\nfunction of the university. Well, I think for one thing, the\nfunction of a university is to make sure that a generation of\nyoung people will not only grow older in four years but they\ngrow up. And I think that at the same time, an university\nfunction is to teach and not indoctrinate, to open to you, re-\ngardless of the personal views of the instructor, for him\nwithout bias to give you every view point and let you make your\ndecision, as to what you believe. If I had my\nI would\nquite now.\nQ\nMr. Speaker, the Republicans in general and the\nin particular have long been to cry as basically negative. I\nheard very little positive in your opening remarks, and I wonder\nif you could give us some indication on what positive programs\nyou would recommend first to remove of us of what you described\nas a wasteful war and secondly, to deal with the suburban problems\nof today?\nA\nOn the first question. May I again--and I must say if\nmy remarks today seemed a little\nfrom some of the things\nthat I have been talking about you must remember that in trying\nto at least have something different to say at each gathering\nand there have been several such each day, you finally get down\nto where I thought perhaps this was the proper gathering for\njust the kind of general and broad setting of the stage\nphilosophically. As to the war, again and I xexes realize\nwhat great interest this is to you. You must realize that I can\nnot really and we have discussed it in almost every class that\nI have been in and every seminar. I cannot really be discussing\nthis with you as a governor. I can be talking about it as a\ncitizen. California does not have a foreign policy. I didn't\ndeclare the war and I can't call it off. But as a citizen, and\na personal\nas a Republican, yes, I have/ax opinion on the war. I happen\nto be one of those who subscribes to the belief that it is to\nour national interest to be there. I happen to also believe\nthat it would not be to our national interest to simply pack\nup and get out. I doubt that any one really should attempt to\nanswer in specifics as to what they would do. General\nEisenhower the other night from his great experience on television\nand General Bradly were remarking about what they thought would\nbe the advantages of hot pursuit. Not an invasion. of the opposing\nterritory but a hot pursuit when an enemy retreated across the\nline. These are men that are qualified to discuss that. But\nI would say this, that I would think that the Republican party\nwould be safe in taking of what might seem indefinite but a\nbroad view point but which would illustrate the fact that you\nand I cannot legitimately with the aim of arriving at a\nconclusion discuss this war because the President of the United\nStates and a little\nsurrounding him have kept to many\nof the facts surrounding this conflict to themselves without\nwanting the people of this country to have access to that\ninformation. It would seem to me that the Republicans in the\ncampaign year could take the position that against a little\n16th rate kind of water buffalo economy country, we have been\nengaged in the longest war in our history and the Republicans\ncould safely utter a generality and say, if we are elected when\nwe have access to the same information and facts that the\npresent information has, we shall take whatever action is\nnecessary to end this war as quickly as possible because the\nother side has ak had several years and have not been able to do\nit. Now briefly, you switched to another type of question, and\njust let me briefly say, there are a many number of programs\nbeing advocated for the so-called ghettos and the urban problems\nand I am very proud and maybe a number of you have heard me say\nthis before, I have discussed one that we have embarked on in\nCalifornia that is unique to us, I do not know of any one else\nwho is doing it. But in addition to all the programs of improving\neducation for example in the last several months. We were able\nto get legislation in our state. Legislation that would\nrecognize the problem of one of our biggest minorities which\nbe\nhappens to/the Americans of Mexican desent who have a ***** higher\ndrop out rate than any other minority group, a lower educational\nlevel and greater unemployment than any other minority group in\nCalifornia. And we believe that part of this is because children\nenter the primary grades in this particular minority having heard\nnothing but Spanish at home and they get into language\ndifficulties and they are unable to keep up with their fellow\nstudents. And so we have passed legislation that will now\nprovide for dual language teachers in these schools so a\nteacher can find out in the childs native language why the\ninability to understand the situation. But in these minority\narea, the poverty pockets, Watts, Hunterspoint in San Francisco,\nover in east Oakland, we have embarked on a program which we\nhave organized the industrialist and the businesses of California\nand I have used these figures before to some of you-2,600 in\nLos Angeles alone, 1,500 industries in San Francisco, several\nhundred in San Diego and additional hundreds in other of our\nprominent cities. These programs are aimed directly at and\nour participating in poverty pockets to match men to jobs and\nto put the hard core unemployed cooperating with government\nretraining programs, with our state employment office to put\nthem into productive jobs out in the free economy to make them\nself-sufficient, independent citizens. And in the Watts area\nalone, in 16 months, the one figure that I can give you in a\nmonth or two, I would be able here to give you state wide\nfigures but we are very careful, we do not let those figures\nout until a long enough time has elapsed that we can not only\nsay that we got them jobs but they are still in the jobs. They\nhave made it work. We have put 17,800 unemployed from the\nWatts area alone in to private industry jobs. And 5/6th of them\nare still in those jobs or have been promoted to better jobs. already.\nThe chairman recognizes three questions from the floor.\nI\nGovernor, at your press conference last month,\nquoting from the L.A. News, and the New York Times,\nI believe that you said homosexuality was \"a traggic illness\"\nI would like to ask you if you think certain other traggic illness\nlike T.B., cancer and mental illness and heart diseases is also\nA\nNo, your question is a fair one. I didn't discuss, I was\nasked a couple of questions. Being a new kid in school, I\nfigured I should answer. I have never been asked the second one\nbefore and actually and I have not given it much thought. But\nwhen I had to think about it, I answered it not from the stand\npoint of the illness being ill but recognize this as a form of\nillness. A neurosis. We have to recognize also, I am not a\nprivate psychoanalysis, but we have to recognize that there are\ncertain illness which have with them as a result of that illness\na kind of prosolyting effect. They are not content to simply\nsuffer the illness themselves but they seek to get other who\ncatch the ailment. From that stand point, yes. I believe by\nthe same token that we reserve the right to have laws preventing\nthe contributing to the delinquency of the minor that we have a\nright to a protection with the regard to the practice that follows.\nsuch an illness.\nI\nGovernor Reagan, would you support a Republican candidate\nin 1968 who did not support Senator Goldwater in 1964?\nA\nI will support whoever is the nominee of the Replackman\nRepublican party.\nQ\nYesterday you had lunch with the political science faculty\none member of the faculty noted that unlike other public figures\nyou asked no questions or in any other way attempted to learn\nfrom these men. Does this mean that you are\n?\nA\nWell, I do not know which member of the luncheon group that\nwas. But I think in all fairness he might also add that at no\ntime was I free of questions that have been asked of me to answer\nand as a guest I felt that I should answer what was being asked.\nHe might have also pointed out that on a number of occasions, I\ndid remark.- because some of the questions dealt with higher\neducation and educational policies. That I did express the view\nthat I was quite sure that those who were asking the questions\nwere better able to answer them than I was and were better informed\non these particular subjects and knew more about it than I did.\nThe chair will recognize three more questions. at this time.\nI\nGovernor, to what extent are you in favor of efforts to\nreduce tension for the Soviet Union, for example the Counsular\nAgreement, the\nto make a non-liberalization treaty and direct Moscow to New\nYork air flights as examples to these efforts?\napproach\nA\nAlright, well, I am in disagreement with the books we\nare taken to some of those things. And the bridges we are attempt-\ning to build. I will tell you waxx why, I figured that a bridge\nhas two ends. And it seems like for quite some time now, we are\nthe only ones who are building the bridge and\nWe followed\nunderstandably and I supported indeed I actively campaigned for\na president four times. Casting my first vote for him and so I\nsupported him in World War II when he began to make concessions\nto our Rusian alia with the idea that we once proved to them our\nfriendly intent that some of the suspicion would disapear and\nthese two great powers emerging from the war would get along\ntogether. Now, I believe that this country can and must and will\nco-exist with the Soviet Union. But I do not believe that we\ncan co-exist on the basis on which we wake up every morning look-\ning to see whether they are smiling or frowning. We will co-exist\nwhen we maintain our strength to the place and make it evident\nto them, that as much as we love peace there is a price that we\nwill not pay for that peace. And that they should understand\nthat unless they inadvertently blunder across that line, and my\ncritizm of some of the bridges or the approaches that we are\nbuilding are that now we have икхихия proven that the overtures\nhave been made and they were not reciprocated, that we should do\na little more bargaining with those. That we should say yes to\nthe Consular Treaty if they want it so badly but we should say\nyes if you have a few things that are abrasive to us. You give\nup or stop that. For example when we are faced with the humanitary\nchoice\nchose of providing wheat for the Soviet Union or knowing that\nsome of their citizens might starve, or go through a famin, what\nwould have been wrong is we had said to them you have erected a\nwall through Berlin that is illegal and in violation of our\nagreement. Yes, we will send the wheat but we could get it to\nyou easier if we did not have to go through that wall.\n2\nGovernor Reagan, do you think that it is a threat to the\nUnited States to be involved in Vietnam?\nA\nNow wait a minute. Do I believe that our commitment\nin Vietnam makes it - now I got of the sled there. Please give\nit to me again. I really didn't catch it.\nQ\nDo you think our presentcommitment in Vietnam\nA\nAgain, remember we are talking in the area that none of\nus really knowing all the factors about this. But I believe\nthat the outcome, how we elect to terminate this conflict, will\nhave a very great baring on whether we will have to do it again\nsomeplace else. But what I have been concerned with in our\nwhole over all structure in what obviously is a cold war ideological\nconflict with the forces of communism, unless they are keeping\nmore secrets from us than we know, there seems to be a fuzziness\nabout American policies. We dednik don't seem for example to\nhave any thing other than an idea that if we just avoid a\nconfrontation maybe with time the cold war will go away. And it\nwould seem to me that some place along the line--that's playing\npretty fast and loose with the security of all the free world--\nit would seem that this country should sit down with its best\nbrains and best thinking, try to evolve what is the plan of the\nenemy. What do we honestly believe is going to be his\nBy the same token, create a plan of our own. in which we say here\nis the way we will resist and to our best thinking, what are\nthe sensitive spots. What are the areas we cannot relinquish\nto the enemy? And what are the areas in which he makes a move\nit is not too detrimental to us in our defense poster and he\ncan go by with them and then a question like Vietnam would answer\nits self. You would be in Vietnam or would not be in Vietnam\non the basis of where did it fit in to our strategy of defense?\nAnd along with this, just to prove that I am as mean and nasty\nas some of you may think, I happen to think that in this kind of\n******* a defense poster, where we are always reacting after\nthey first act, that sometimes when the enemy picks a spot and\nstirs the pot and yekking get to cooking over there, that we\nmight react not necessarily by opposing him in that spot, but\nwe might have a few spots of our own picked out in their back\nyard.\nQ\nI would like to ask to expand on your views of conservation\nin the light of your phrase that has been reported\nA\nWell, first of all, I didn't say it. This was during the\ncampaign and you must recognize that during the campaign, both\nsides are pretty busy trying to take certain phrases and words\nthat they think can be used to their advantage. I didn't\ncampaign that way of course. I was making a speech in San Francisco\nwhen I think that you are entitled to know the back ground or the\nbasis for this remark that I just didn't make at all. We are\nworking very hard to have a national redwood park in California.\nBut what has irritated me is some Californians refusal to\nrecognize our own achievement. We do not need a national park\nfor the protection of the redwoods. California has lead any\none in the world with regard to the protection of those trees.\nThere are 115,000 acres. Now wait a minute. You are talking\nto the fellow who had to dig up the figures. There are 115,000\nacres of redwood trees preserved in 28 parks spread over a\n450 miles area of the coast. There are only about 6,000 acres\nof the truly cathedral like groves-the park like trees left in\nprivate hands and we already have agreements that as we can\nafford them the private owners are going to sell those additional\nacres of that type of trees to us. NOw, irritated as I was at\nthis constant ignoring of the great conservation thing we have\ndone by way of Save the Redwoods League, the Sierra Club and\nmany private citizens who in many instancies bought these\ngroves of trees and gifted them--gave them to the state. I\nwas trying to explain to a city audience how much 115,000 acres\nwas. And I said that if you had it laid out in one park a mile\nwide with a road down the middle, 115,000 acres you would have\nto drive 200 milles to get through that park. And I said that\nwe a lot of trees. And I think that I am right. And I was\namazed the next day that a San Francisco Chronicle had reported\nthat I said \"If you have seen one tree you have seen them all\".\nBut I will tell you, the history of the negotiations now. I\nthink that we are going to have a national park. The federal\ngovernment recognizes that the only way that they can have it,\nis by taking two and three of our choice parks that we already\nhave and changing the shingle and calling it a national park\nand I just happen to feel that as long as the federal government\nowns 42% of California's land including miles and miles of\nbeaches at Fort Ord and at Pendleton, the marine camp at San\nsome of the finest surfing beaches in America. I figure that\nif we are going to change that shingle from the parks that we\nput together and let them call it a national park, I want a\nfew miles of that beach and a few other acres of the federal\nholdings transferred over to the state of California for other\nstate parks.\nBecause of the Governor's tight schedule and because you\nwould like a few minutes to sum up to this audience Mr. Hobb's\nquestion must be the last.\nQ\nGovernor Reagan, in view of the liberalism of the past\ndecade, how do you explain your increasing popularity and that\nof George Wallace\nA\nNo, and, Standing here trying to find out how do you get\nout of a question of the association with someone else. First\nof all George Wallace is a Democrat and I am a Republican.\nSecond of all, I could best refer you to the philosphy and the\npolicies that have been put into effect in the last 11 months\nby my administration and ask you to compare them to the policies\nof the Wallace administration of Alabama when he was not the\nhusband of the governor, but the governor. And as to his\nrising popularity, whatever it may be, I am a little delighted\nthat he is still having trouble after three trips in getting\n60,000 signatures to a petition in California which is the\nonly way that he can get on our balot for the primary. And I\ndo not wish him any good luck in getting the 60,000 names. But\nnow you come to the whole question of does this mean that we\nare returning to a dark ages. Not at all, and it is true that\nwhen a governor, a Republican governor, assumes the administration\nof a state that is virtuely bankrupt, is in financial chaos after\neight years of an administration who has by fiscal gimictry\nhiddening from the 'people the fact that in violation of its\nstate constitution they have year after year in\ndeficits\nin the running of the state. It is true that most of the\nattention that you seem to get. The news worthy idea is what\nyou have achieved or what you have accomplished in the area of\neconomy and try to put the state on a sound footing. Now, I am\nnot at all a shamed or ever reluctant to talk about what we\nhave done in that regard. We discovered that the state of\nCalifornia, and I am afraid that this is all too true of too\nmany other states, have made no effort to employee even the\nmost rudimentary of modern business practices in the running\nof the state. And we started imposing those modern business\npractices. As a result by simply applying the floor space\nrequirements that are used in private industry, and private\nenterprise, how many square feet of floor space does each\nemployee require of the employees doing the same kind of work?\nWe simply took what is common practice in private enterprise\nand applied it to the floor space occupied by state employees\nand this summer I was able to tear as up the contracts and\njust not start building a $4,300,000 ten story office building\nthat was scheduled fro construction this summer because it is\nnot needed.now or in the foreseeable future. If you put the\nemployees in the proper\nto position. We discovered for\nexample, that we had employees at adjoining desks who had\nintercommunication systems. Now, this may not sound very\nimportant to you, but the phone bill of the state of California\nis $16,500,000 each year. We called the phone company in. We\nfigured we were a customer, paid our bills, had a right to some\nservice, and we said look, you have that department that tells\npeople what kind of a phone system they need. Tell us. And\na few weeks ago they informed me in writing that our phone bill\nwill be reduced $2 million. We discovered that a fellow sitting\nhere at a desk didn't need a light on his phone at $2.00 a month\nextra per phone to tell him that the fellow besides him was\nusing the phone.\nNow, if I may in recapping here. I know that we are\nrunning out of time. Let me just tell you a few of the other\nthings that we did. You know everybody, all of the businessmen\nand the professional people and everything, year in year out,\nI've been one of them, go into the locker room after a game\nand you start talking about government. And the latest stupidity\nof government and why can't they run their government like we\nrun our business. Well, we took them up on it. We gathered in\na room like this several hundred very successful professional\nand industrial business people in California. The most successful.\nAnd we told them that this is what they had been complaining\nabout and we said that now you are going to have your chance.\nWe asked for volunteers but we reserved the right to specify\nwhat qualifications we wanted. And we got 240 of the most\nsuccessful people in their particular lines. From data processing\nto running hotels. To www.keex volunteer to leave their\noccupations for at least a six month period full time and even\nto leave their homes. To live in hotels and motels around the\nstate of California. And organized into teams based on their\nspecial knowledge to go into every department and agency of our\ngovernment and come back and tell us how modern business\npractices could be applied. to make government more efficient,\nmore economical, better able to do the job. But, we also said\nif you find a department who needs more help not less, tell us\nthat too. We are now correlating 60 reports that they have\nsubmitted. We have put some of them into effect already. Such\nis the one about the floor space and so forth. We discovered\nwas\nfor example, we had large office space that WE virtuely vacant\nthroughout most of the year because these were the departments\nthat had to do with state licenses of various kinds. The licenses\nall expired on the same date. And then at the end of the year\nthere would be a great big rush for temporary employees with\nall the confusion and extra cost and the scramble to renew the\nlicenses. But we have just staggered the expiration date of the\nlicenses. They become due now throughout the entire year and\nwe have one work force with an even work load throughout the year.\nNow out of all this, has come the greater and the increased\npossibility of a state that was going bankrupt and that has no\nmore way to go once I finished asking them for another $900\nmillion in taxes which I did, has no more way to go in asking\nthe people of ourstate for funds because the people of California\nare paying more for government than anyother American in any\nother state in the union. And there is a breaking point beyond\nwhich you make it uneconomic and impossible to have a normal\nclimate and prosperity in your state if you go beyond that\npoint. We believe that by clearing out the dead wood and by\nimplementing this kind of government, for one example is, we\nrun certain departments that have to do with highways and\nmotor vehicles all out of the receipts from gasoline tax. And\nthe gasoline tax alone builds our highways and we have to\nbuild 300 miles of highways a year just to keep up with the\ngrowth and population in our state. Our department head, by\nsimply putting into effect, this reduction of administrative\nover head, was able this year to announce that out of savings\nalone, we were going to start $99 million worth of highway\nprojects. one year in advance than when they were scheduled.\nThis has never happened in the history of the state and it is\nall out of savings. Our department of agriculture out of\nsavings has been able to institute a rabies research program\nincluding the purchase of equipment out of the savings they\nhave made in less than ten months of this first year of our\nadministration. But out of all this, is going to come the\npossibility for us to take some steps and particularly if\nwe can get some cooperation from the federal government in\nreleasing and relaxing some of the regulations that they have\nimposed on us in connection with federal grants. In such\nareas as in our cities and in our areas of welfare. Now, I\nhave said publically, so that you will know the context in\nwhich I said it, I will say it again. That I believe, on the\nrecord, welfare as we know it in America is a collisal if not\nan almost complete failure. And I say that on the basis that\nwelfare's success should not be basis on how big does welfare\ngrow. Welfare if it is successful, should be reducing itself\nin size because it is rehabilitating and salvaging human\nbeings and making them independent and self-sufficient and we\nwant to embark on that kind of a program. We want to carry on\nwith this thing that I told you about that is working now in\nghettos. We have a number of other plans in this regard. We\nare the only state in the union for the first time in history\nin the area of crime. We have now brought together every\nphase of law enforcement from the judiciary to the local police\ninto a super crime council. WE are going to have a crime\nlaboratory. The aiding of the police in the smaller communities\nbut at the same time, we have linked for the first time, our\nstate crime information computer with the FBI computer in\nWashington and with the offices of our principle cities. Local\nlaw enforcement such a thing has never been done. But we now\nhave this exchange of crime information from the national right\nthrough to the local level by way of our state. We have another\nprogram. You know that California is moving more water farther\nto more people than has ever been done. in man's history. In\ndoing this, we have a vast chain of lakes that have been created\nbehind the dams but they are not only for storage of water, we\nwant them for multiple purpose--recreation, sport fishing and\nso forth and boating and swimming. But up until our administration\nthose lakes were surrounded by chain linked fenses and the\nterritory around those lakes had no access to the water, the\nstate confiscates a little peace of land through condemnation\nand then has a state runned place where you can enter the lake\nthere through that one state facility. We are working out a\nprogram to bring in private investment and capitol for the\ndevelopment of housing and resorts and taking those chain linked\nfenses down so that for every dollar of state investment will\nbe $2.00 of private capitol investment by resort operators and\nSO forth to fully utilize these lakes. I could go on but I\nwould be taking far too much time. In telling you, that yes,\nour approach is constructive. We have been a sailed for what\nhas been misread as economising the expense of mental health\nbut the truth of the matter is that California has embarked\non one of the newest and most experimental things or several\nyears ago we did the embarking, we are augmenting and adding\nthe treatment of\nto the program for kreakingxkke mental health in which only\none side the reduction of the cost of hospital has been\nemphasized and everyone failed to note that we made the biggest\nincrease of appropriation for the treatment at regional health\ncare centers of the mental ill so that they could be treated\nin their own homessurroundings and live a normal life and even\nbe out and working in the community and we lead the nation\nnow, not only in the amount we are spending per capita per\npatient, but we lead the nation also in percentage in the mentally\nill who are being cured and released to a normal life from our\ninstitutions. We have some plans in mind with regard to\njuvenile training or the juvenile delinquent problem in our\nstate, all of them involving as much as possible the independent\nsector. This is just a little of the positive approach. I do\nnot believe that the election of people like myself as I say\nhas meant that we are going to abandon the past approach to\nhuman welfare.\nXXXXXX\nI will tell you what I think it does mean. I think that it\nmeans that we are going to stop destroying human beings in the\nname of charity and try salvaging and saving them. Now, this\nbeing the last appearance that I have an opportunity here and\nI must say you have been SO receptive, so warm, believe me,\nyou send me away happy but the entire experience has been\nmost enjoyable, something that I will never forget and I am\ngoing back to have an arguement with Jesse Unruh when he heard\nthat I was invited here said he understood that the Chub\nfellowship was detexiating deteriorating in quality. I am\nmost grateful to all of you. This has been a happy experience.\nYou know my joke about Frank Merrywell. I happen to be so old,\nthat its true, that when I was a small boy I did read all the\nFrank Merrywell books and that is way I have never yelled for\nHarvard.\nBut, I do, Iwant to thank you again. It has been\nprovocative, it has been extremely interesting and I have to\ntell you that Nancy and I have both talked about this since\nwe have been here, back when I was your age and sitting where\nyou know sit, at least in the academic halls at least not this\nparticular one, I must say we did not have your interest in\nthe affairs of the world nor did we have your fund of knowledge\nyour access to information about what is going on in the world\nand you offer a very bright hope indeed for what is going to\ntake place in the coming days. We need you very much out in\nthat world. Thank you.\nI\n/\n12/12/67\n67\ntranscript and in be for the Inc\nAll permission of Produced of of This\nCBS REPORTS\n\"What About Ronald Reagan?\"\nas broadcast over the\nCBS TELEVISION NETWORK\nTuesday, December 12, 1967\n10:00 - 11:00 PM, EST\nREPORTERS: Harry Reasoner and Bill Stout\nPRODUCER: Gene DePoris\nEXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Sam Zelman\n1\nHARRY REASONER: Good evening. This is Harry Reasoner.\nAmericans like to make shrines of the birthplaces and hometowns of\ntheir heroes. And if you think back it seems that they are usually\nin unlikely places--West Branch, Iowa; Dennison, Texas; Brookline,\nMassachusettes; Galena. Galena!!! So, if the candidacy of a place\ncalled Tampico, Illinois sounds strange now, we could probably get\nused to it.\nRonald Reagan was born in this house on February 6, 1911. In his\nbook \"Where's the Rest of Me?\" he says that's where the whole story\nbegan. \"My face was blue from screaming, my bottom was red from\nwhacking, and my father claimed afterwards that he was white and\nshaken. Ever since my birth, I have been particularly fond of the\ncolors that were exhibited, red, white, and blue.\" Reagan's\ndetractors claim that he seems to think he has a patent on those\ncolors. His admirers find it nice that someone still feels strongly\nabout them.\nJUDGE MARSHALL F. McCOMB: Do you swear that you do not now advocate,\nnor are you a member of any party or organization, political or\notherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the\nUnited States or of the State of California by force or violence or\nother unlawful means?\nRONALD REAGAN: I do. No exceptions.\nJUDGE McCOMB: Governor Reagan, I now declare you to be duly installed\nas Governor of the State of California.\nREASONER: It's 1,666 miles from Tampico to Sacramento, A good deal\nfarther if you go by way of Des Moines, Hollywood and Schenectady,\nNew York. That's a long way.\nCHANT: We want Reagan!\nREAGAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.\nCHANT: Reagan '68: (Cheers)\nREASONER: It's 2,379 miles from Sacramento to Washington, a still\nlonger way except that in the jet age you can get places pretty fast.\n(ANNOUNCEMENT)\nANNOUNCER: Here now is CBS NEWS Correspondent Harry Reasoner.\nREASONER: There's a very real possibility Ronald Reagan, an actor\nwho ran for his first public office just over a year ago, will be\nthe next Republican candidate for President. This frightens some\npeople and delights others. The people who are delighted and those\nwho are frightened are responding to the same feeling that the man\nmight go all the way. A lot of voters like him. Republicans like\nhim better than Democrats do, naturally, and Goldwater Republicans\n2.\nlike him better than other Republicans do. But a lot of people who\ndidn't like Goldwater like Reagan. The message that came through\nso strong in Barry Goldwater, seems muted and more widely acceptable\nin Reagan. But the Republicans who want to hear the message hear\nit from Reagan.\nA CBS NEWS survey has found that he is more popular with potential\nconvention delegates than he is with the rank and file, and it is\nthe delegates who do the nominating. A special analysis of surveys\nconducted by the Gallup Poll during August and September of 1967,\ntells you some other things about Reagan. White Protestants like\nhim better than Catholics and Jews and Negroes do. The South likes\nhim better than the West and Midwest do and a lot better than the\nEast does. The people who like him the most as a group are described\nas well-educated, but low-income, suggesting that Reagan finds a\nresponse in people who feel frustrated about their lives. He is\nnot the front-runner in any broad-based poll of possible candidates,\nbut he is among the five serious contenders in all of them. And for\na lot of reasons - his Hollywood background, his rapid rise, his\nstrong statements - he is a natural for press attention.\nReagan came to politics out of Hollywood. He came to Hollywood out\nradio. He used to broadcast the telegraphic reports of Chicago Cubs\ngames over WHO in Des Moines. He was pretty good at it. He was\ncalled \"Dutch\" Reagan then, a nickname his Irish father gave him\nbecause he was, Reagan says, \"a fat Dutchman of a baby. As a\nteenager he worked as a lifeguard for seven summers in Dixon,\nIllinois, and saved 77 lives. These are home movies. The boy in\nthe black bathing suit is Dutch. He worked his way through Eureka\nCollege, where he participated in a successful student strike against\nadministration economies, a biographical note that might surprise\nCalifornia students who threatened a similar strike against their\nnew Governor this year. He also played football.\nReagan is married to the former Nancy Davis and they have two\nchildren. It's a second marriage. He was married before to actress\nJane Wyman; they also have two children. Reagan's fitness and\nrobust handsomeness reflect his love of his ranch in the Malibu\nHills. He likes horses and the out-of-doors. It's an American\nsuccess story. Humble beginnings to a ranch of which he sold a\nmajor part last year for $2,000,000. Small town and summer jobs to\nthe Governor's chair. He also owns a Pacific Palisades home worth\nat least a quarter of a million dollars. He says he thinks he has\neverything, including the beautiful wife. We asked him if he talks\nto Nancy about major decisions.\nREAGAN: Well, we have no secrets. She usually knows what's on my\nmind and knows what's bothering me. She also, I think, knows by\nnow if I can talk about it, that a lot of my thinking is done by\ntalking out loud, so she usually hears a few different approaches\nto it and suddenly one of them hits and that's the script we go with.\n3\nREASONER: Some men at 56, with all Reagan has, might be inclined\nto relax. But somehow out of his own success story, he has\naccumlated a concern about the way America is going. He expresses\nit in his humor sometimes. He doesn't like hippies and way out\nyouth.\nREAGAN: The last bunch of pickets were carrying signs that said\n\"Make love, not war.\" The only trouble was they didn't look like\nthey were capable of doing either. His hair was cut like Tarzan,\nand he acted like Jane, and he smelled like Cheetah.\nREASONER: He worries about the welfare state.\nREAGAN: We have people out there who are in the third generation\nof their families. Sometimes you might think they have a military-\nstyle wedding - you know, crossed welfare checks.\nREASONER: This then is the Governor of California. Already a long\nway from Tampico, Illinois.\nFor a long time, America's sophisticates couldn't take Ronald Reagan\nseriously. As an actor he had seemed corny to them, as a politician\nhe seemed improbable. When he ran for Governor, they told the story\nabout Jack Warner, the big movie man, coming home from Europe and\nhearing the news and saying, \"No, no, Jimmy Stewart for Governor,\nRonald Reagan for Best Friend.\" Warner declines to take credit for\nthis story, but he did tell CBS NEWS Correspondent Bill Stout how\nDutch Reagan became Ronald Reagan, perennial movie best friend.\nJACK WARNER: I met him through our casting director then, a fellow\nnamed Max Arnow. An agent called him and said, \"There's a chap out\nhere from Des Moines, Iowa, who as I understood him to say, was a\nsports radio announcer in Des Moines. His name is Ronald Reagan.\"\nI said, \"Fine, bring him over and let me say hello to him.\"\nBILL STOUT: What was it, Mr. Warner, that caught your eye when you\nlooked at that first test of Reagan?\nWARNER: Well, his personality projected, as I term it, off the\nscreen into the audience. It comes through. He had a good smile,\nhappy delivery, rather a little good sense of humor and also had a\ndramatic quality--\nREASONER: The charm that Jack Warner described led Ronald Reagan\ninto a long career as sort of journeyman juvenile. More than 50\nmovies over 27 years, 40 of them for Warner Brothers. Most of the\nmovies were class B, most of the roles were moral ones. He got into\ntrouble in a lot of them and people were mean to him. But he usually\ncame out all right. He was the kind of an actor who could wear a\nuniform and he did, often and in great variety. He was very often\na best friend, steadfast and true. Sometimes, he loved the hero's\ngirl and didn't get her, but sometimes there was a subplot with a\ngirl for Reagan. It was a perfectly respectable and profitable career\nfor an actor but it lacked the dash and the ups and downs of more\n4\nflamboyant stars. He seldom got the girl. Sometimes he wound up\nwith the horse. Sometimes he didn't even get the horse. This\nscene from \"Dark Victory,\" which starred Bette Davis, George Brent,\nand Humphrey Bogart, about says it:\nGEORGE BRENT: Judy?\nREAGAN: Yes. It's Judy. You know, Doc, I've loved her for a long\ntime but I can't help her now because - well, you're the one man,\nso be nice to her, will you.\nREASONER: Off into the sunset.\nWe talked to lots of associates and friends of Reagan's of that\nperiod. Most of them were unwilling to talk to a camera. Some were:\nnot unwilling. This is Bryan Foy, executive producer of B movies\nat Warners when Reagan acted in them.\nBRYAN FOY: There's one nice thing about Ronald Reagan, he's really\nan honest, decent fellow. In fact, he's just what he portrayed on\nthe screen most of the time; he's really that way.\nA.C. LYLES (PRODUCER): Being around Ronnie for as long as I had\nbeen and being exposed to his great personality and to his honesty,\nI knew that if the general public ever had the opportunity that I\nhad had to see him and to see this great honesty I knew that would\ncome off to the people.\nBOB WILLIAM (FORMER WARNERS PRESS AGENT): Ronald Reagan was a very\nnice guy, so nice that you tended to disbelieve him. You might\nclassify him as the All American Square.\nALEX GOTTLEIB (PRODUCER): The main thing I discovered about Ronnie\nReagan, and I think I'm not the only one, is he was just a bore and\ndull. You couldn't spend five minutes with him before you wanted\nto run out.\nREASONER: It would be wrong to give the impression that Reagan\nlanguished unnoticed in B pictures exclusively. He was in some big\nones, Thinking back, he liked one role especially as the talented\nfootball player George Gipp to Pat O'Brien's Knute Rockne of Notre Dame,\nPAT O'BRIEN (AS KNUTE ROCKNE): Boys, this is Mr. George Gipp,\nfreshman from Calumet High School. Mr. Gipp has kindly consented\nto carry the ball for the scrubs. Just call any play you like,\nany at all. They're all the same to him. All right. Watch this,\nit ought to be good. (Whistle, signals 48, 15, 72 hike) (Gipp\ncarries the ball down the field for a touchdown.)\nREAGAN: I guess the boys are just tired.\nREASONER: Reagan says the greatest demands ever made on him as an\nactor were in \"Kings Row,\" when he played a rather dissolute fellow\nwho got his legs cut off in an accident and woke up to find them\nmissing.\n5\nREAGAN: Randy, Randy, where's the rest of me?\nREASONER: That was a famous scene, and years later it gave Reagan\na title for his autobiography, \"Where's the Rest of Me? To some\npeople, the rest of Ronald Reagan is still a mystery. We 11 go\ninto that in a moment.\n(ANNOUNCEMENT)\nREASONER: It is very common for a man to change his social and\npolitical views during his 40's, an almost routine part of the male\nclimacteric, and the change is almost always from left to right,\nfrom liberal to conservative. In the case of Ronald Reagan, the\nchange was especially dramatic. Reagan had served three and a\nIf\nyears in the Air Force in World War II, making training films\nas\nan administrative officer. He came out fired up for action.\nhe\nsays in his book, \"I was blindly and busily joining every or\nzation\nI could find that would guarantee to save the world.\" They included\nsome that would make current Reagan supporters wince. He was a\ncharter member of Americans for Democratic Action; he was in the\nUnited World Federalists; the American Veterans Committee; the\nHollywood Independent Citizens Committee for the Arts, Sciences and\nProfessions. He had always been active in the Screen Actors Guild.\nIn 1947, he became its president and served for six terms, during\nwhich he led a major strike. As president of the Guild, he testified\nin one of those inquiries the House Committee on Un-American\nActivities was staging in those days into Communist influence in\nthe popular arts. What Reagan said was traditional enough, but in\nthose suspicious worried days it took courage to say.\nREAGAN: I will be frank with you that as a citizen, I would\nhesitate, or I would not like to see any political party outlawed\non the basis of its political ideology because we've spent 170\nyears in this country on the basis that democracy is strong enough\nto stand up and fight for itself against the inroads of any ideology\nno matter how much we may disagree with it.\nREASONER: In 1948, Reagan supported Harry Truman and his embroilmemt\nin political affairs by then was SO strong that his wife, Jane\nWyman, the actress, sued for divorce. \"His concentration on politics\nmade home life impossible\" she said. Reagan was still a Democrat\nin 1950. Paul Ziffren, former Democratic National Committeeman\nfrom California, remembers that year.\nPAUL ZIFFREN: At that time I was the chairman of the Advisory\nCommittee for Helen Gahagan Douglas's campaign against Richard Nixon\nfor the United States Senate. Mr. Reagan was a very consistent\nand vigorous supporter of Mrs. Douglas. Actually, at that time,\nyou recall, the Korean, War had started and because of the Korean War\nand the beginning of McCarthyism, a good many of the Hollywood\npersonalities left the Douglas campaign, but Mr. Reagan stayed with\nus throughout the campaign and was a great help.\n6\nREASONER: But in February, 1951, Ronald Reagan turned 40 and almost\nimmediately there were the signs of change. In 1952, he married for\nthe second time to Nancy Davis, an actress, who was the daughter of\na very conservative and eminent surgeon. He voted for Dwight\nEisenhower. And as the metamorphosis began, Reagan also found a\nplatform. In 1954, he signed with General Electric to be host and\noccasional star of a weekly dramatic series on television. What made\nthe new job especially attractive to Reagan was not the acting but\nthe chance to tour G.E. plants and talk to employees and community\ngatherings. In this process over eight years, his conservative views\ncrystalized. Those views were gradually hardened into what reporters\nlater called \"The Speech,\" a standard address he soon knew by heart.\nExecutive Producer Stanley Rubin recalls one incident with Reagan\nduring the waning days of the G.E. series.\nSTANLEY RUBIN: One particular incident I remember very vividly with\nRonnie, the adaptation of the Marion Miller book for General Electric\nTheater.\nREAGAN: Good evening. We are proud to present this evening the\nstory of a truly loyal American, Marion Miller, who has been called\nthe most decorated woman in the United States. She won these honors\nfor her part in fighting the Communist conspiracy as an undercover\nagent for the FBI.\nRUBIN: One day I learned that the director and Ronnie had reached an\nimpasse, a total disagreement about the development of the teleplay,\nthe adaptation of the Marion Miller book. So they came into my office\nto have that squabble - that impasse resolved. It concerned the\nclimactic scene in this particular adaptation, this episode that\nRonnie was going to make on the Marion Miller book, in which the\nCommunist party chief for whom Marion Miller was presumably working,\nalthough actually working for the FBI, was to come into Mrs. Miller's\nhouse and find her child praying, and this would reveal to the\nCommunist party chief that Marion Miller was suspicious as a Communist\nagent, because if she were really a Communist agent her child would not\nhave been taught to pray. To the rest of us in the office this was an\noversimplification, but to Ronnie it was a plain simple fact, I\nremember him saying, \"Any atheist is a Communist and any American\nfamily that doesn't teach its children to pray is a Communist family.\"\nREASONER: The formal political change came in 1962. Reagan affiliated\nwith the California Republican party. He also joined in anti-Communist\ntelevision programs, spoke at the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade\nrallies of Dr. Fred Schwarz, served on the advisory boards of right-\nwing organizations like Young Americans for Freedom, and campaigned for\nRepresentative John Rousselot, a member of the John Birch Society.\nAmateur analysts have offered a number of explanations for the change\nin Reagan, his own acceptance as a member of the Establishment, his\nassociation with Republican executive types, even his resentment at\nwhat welfare state taxes did to his substantial income. Some said his\nwife changed his views.\nNANCY- DAVIS REAGAN: No, that's just not true at all. My husband is\nnot that weak a man and I'm not that strong a woman.\n7\nREASONER: In any event, by 1964 the metamorphosis was complete. The\nman who campaigned for Helen Douglas against Richard Nixon in 1950\nwas co-chairman of California Republicans for Goldwater.\nReagan's next regular employment was in the syndicated television\nseries, \"Death Valley Days, If as host and part-time performer. The\nshow is controlled by the McCann-Erickson Advertising Agency, whose\nWest Coast vice president, Neil Reagan, provides some clinical insight\ninto his brother Ronald's charm.\nNEIL REAGAN: Being in the advertising business and handling clients'\nmoney we don't, we hope, spend clients' money foolishly. So, before\nhe did any commercials, we wanted to know what public acceptance would\nbe of those commercials and we did research - after making some test\ncommercials with him - we did research that would flip you, the\nresults of this research, the acceptance of the guy on the tube.\nBILL STOUT: Can you define what he did to those people in the trial\naudiences who watched him and reacted so favorably?\nNEIL REAGAN: The first one that we researched, 96 women, in groups of\n24 each. We ran the commercial, the research is done; the last line\nin the research that we have to deliver to the client is, \"In all of\nour years of dealing with names and doing co-op ads or television spots\nwith them, we have never had anybody that wound up as high on the scale\nin acceptance as this guy. 11 I said, \"Look, we're going to go over to\nthe client and the client is going to say, \"What did you do, have all\nGoldwater women?\" They said, \"We thought this would be asked. so we\nprotected ourselves. We went back to the women and we said, 'How\nmany of you 96 women were registered Democrats in the last election\nand voted for President Johnson?' And better than 70% raised their\nhands.\n\"\nThen they asked another question, \"How many of you are registered\nRepublicans and voted for President Johnson in the last election?\"\nAnd there was another good percentage. By the time they got down to\nthe place where, \"How many of you are registered Republicans and voted\nfor Goldwater?\" the show of hands was about commensurate with the way\nthe vote went in the last election. Now, these women then began to\nvolunteer: \"When he comes on and says something, we believe him. Even\nif he tells us how to vote, I rather suspect that I would take his\nword for it and vote that way. \" Now, these are women who voted\nDemocrat in the last election.\nSTOUT: Credibility, is that how you would sum it up?\nNEIL REAGAN: Right.\nSTOUT: If you had to pick one word?\nNEIL REAGAN: Yes, very good word.\nSTOUT: That's fascinating.\n8\nNEIL REAGAN: It's also a little frightening, because, as I say, I can\npick some people right now who have the same kind of thing.\nRONALD REAGAN: Well, now, if the government planning and welfare had\nthe answer and they' had\nREASONER: A little while later, a national panel confirmed the\nresults of Neil Reagan's tests. Through the years in Hollywood union\naffairs and speech tours for General Electric, Ronald Reagan was\ngetting ready for something. It came in the closing weeks of the\n1964 campaign when he made this national television speech for\nGoldwater.\nREAGAN: We were told four years ago that 17,000,000 people went to\nbed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true; they were all\non a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families\nREASONER: It was essentially, \"The Speech,\" the one he had given\nover a thousand times. But, if you had to pick a point, this was the\npoint at which Ronald Reagan became a national political figure.\nHenry Salvatori, president of a group called the Anti-Communist Voters\nLeague, a millionaire from the oil industry, and a prominent backer of\nGoldwater, told Bill Stout what happened next.\nHENRY SALVATORI: He made his talk on national TV which was received\nthroughout the nation with tremendous enthusiasm and resulted in\nmillions of dollars coming into the campaign, so we knew that he had\na terrific capacity to move people. And shortly after the Goldwater\ndefeat, three or four of us got together and we decided that we had\nto look for someone who had the qualifications that would make him an\nelectible candidate and Ronnie Reagan was the man we all agreed would\nbe that particular fellow. But Reagan had to be convinced that the\npeople really wanted him and at the beginning of '66, or shortly\nbefore, that decision was made, at which time all of us agreed that\nthis fellow was the candidate that could arouse the people of\nCalifornia.\nREASONER: At the Los Angeles Biltmore, Reagan began his campaign\nagainst Governor Brown after an easy primary victory over George\nChristopher, a former Mayor of San Francisco.\nREAGAN: It is a responsibility handed to our party to represent not\nonly our party but millions of Democrats and Independents in\nCalifornia who like us say, \"Ya basta, we've had it. If\nREASONER: Pat Brown, who had fought off the best the Republicans\ncould throw at him, including Richard Nixon, began what he thought\nwould be the destruction of Ronald Reagan:\nBROWN: The old - day, when they get in the poll and they have to make\na decision between a Governor that's been acting and an actor, I think\nthey're going to pull that down for Pat Brown. That's my opinion.\nREASONER: At the time, Brown may still have belonged to the rather\n9\ntouching group who didn't take Reagan seriously, They ignored the\nfact that while Reagan may never have held office, he had been\nrehearsing the role of campaigner for a long, long time. A 1941\nincident recalled by former Warner Brothers press agent Bob William.\nWILLIAM: I was sitting next to the late Al Hale Sr., and Ronald\nReagan as usual was standing there and holding forth and making a\nspeech and dominating the set and I noticed that Mr. Hale was fidgeting\nand becoming more and more uncomfortable and finally he turned to me,\nhe was sitting on my left, and he said, \"This guy and his speeches may\nbring him to the White House some day, but if they don't get him off\nthe set right now, I'm going to quit this picture.'\nLEO GUILD (FORMER WARNERS PRESS AGENT): There's always end-of-se\nparties when a movie is finished and very often brass from other\ncities, important people, are invited and certainly the press. The\nhead of publicity and advertising, Charlie Einfeld, would go around\nto the stars and whisper in their ears, \"Mix, mix. But no\none\never\nhad to do that to Ronnie, because he would be going around from group\nto group saying, \"I'm Ronnie Reagan. How are you?\"\nREAGAN: Hi, hello, there.\nREASONER: In 1961, as a right-wing Republican, Reagan was still\nrehearsing. This time with G.E. Theater Executive Producer Stanley\nRubin.\nRUBIN: We would start out talking about the host material or the\nstory but it would rapidly turn into a long political discussion on\nRonnie's part, usually with three favorite subjects. One was federal\naid to education, which he was vehemently opposed to. Another was the\novercentralization, that is, big, too big a government in Washington:\nREAGAN: You know for a number of years I've been protesting the\ngrowth of government, expressing a concern lest government grow so\ncomplex as to become unmanageable and beyond the control of the people\nRUBIN: And creeping socialism:\nREAGAN: That one man, even in the White House was omnipotent, and\nthat a little intellectual elite in the nation's capital can engage\nin social tinkering even to the extent of telling the working man and\nwoman in this land how and with whom they must share the fruit of\ntheir labor.\nRUBIN: And he was always armed with newspaper clippings, statistics,\nand when I say statistics, I mean an avalanche. I was buried under\nthem.\nREAGAN: Four hundred federal aid appropriations, 170 separate federal\n150 aid programs administered by 21 federal departments and agencies,\nREASONER: Back at the Biltmore election night, Reagan learned he had\nbeaten Brown by almost a million votes. The question was whether it\n10\nwas the mystique of the man or his program or a little of both that\nbrought him such a stunning victory - or it could have been Governor\nBrown.\nBROWN: I don't think there's anything that I could have done in the\nlast campaign that would have elected me over any Republican candidate\nunless he was an absolute dope. I don't believe it would have made\nthe slightest bit of difference. They had just gotten tired of Pat\nBrown.\nREASONER: Harry Ashmore, with the Center for the Study of Democratic\nInstitutions, and chairman of the Advisory Committee of the California\nDemocratic party:\nHARRY ASHMORE: He's the first politician I've ever known in my time\nwho completely turned his campaign over to the experts, to the so-\ncalled professional campaign. managers, public relations people, image\nbuilders, people of great skill. As far as I could see, watching it\nfairly closely, admittedly from a biased vantage point, since I was\nsupporting Governor Brown who was going down to defeat, it seemed to\nme that one of the really remarkable things I'd seen in politics was\nthe way in which Ronald Reagan managed to change his image almost\ncompletely between the time he announced for the office of Governor\nand the time he came into the homestretch in the election, a period of\nsome two or three months. I would say that he came into the election\ncarrying the image of Barry Goldwater. He emerged at the end of that\ncampaign bearing the image of Nelson Rockefeller and he did this\napparently without losing the votes and perhaps even the fervor of his\nright-wing supporters who were the original backers, the ones who put\nhim in the race.\nJUDGE McCOMB: Do you solemnly swear\nREASONER: Reagan took office at the earliest possible moment, just\nafter midnight on the day his term began.\nREAGAN: Well, George, here we are on the Late Show again. I couldn't\nhelp that, but I want you to know this moment isn't taken as lightly\nas such a remark might indicate.\nREASONER: A lot of people were realizing the time had passed to take\nRonald Reagan lightly. He was, with disconcerting suddenness, a man\nin powerful office and a national political figure. We'll view him\nin that role in a moment.\n(ANNOUNCEMENT)\nREASONER: Ronald Reagan as a new governor had no breathing space.\nHe had to deal with the state's well-known activist college students,\nwho began demonstrating against him almost as soon as he took the oath.\nHe had said he wanted tuition charges for the state colleges. The kids\nthought Reagan was moving to enforce a philosophy,\nSTUDENT: Now, I want to tell you what Ronald Reagan's theory is.\nIt's the theory of a businessman. You see, you come here, you get\nyour education, you pay for it.\n11\nREASONER: To further stir up the liberals and the activists, Reagan\nhad voted with the majority of the Board of Regents to fire Clark\nKerr, the president of the State University. The students protested\nall the way to the State House in Sacramento, where Reagan came out to\nmeet them in an unexpected appearance.\nVOICE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Governor has come to see us. We\nowe him a courtesy. I urge you to treat this man courteously. Let us\nshow the respect for the office.\nREAGAN: Ladies and gentlemen, if there are any There is\nnothing\nthat I could say that would in any way create an open mind in some of\nyou, but perhaps there are some who would respond\nREASONER: The Board defeated the proposal for tuition charges but\nconsidered raising fees. And Reagan himself shelved his proposal for\nan investigation of student unrest at Berkeley. On the college front,\nthere was a lull. In the economic area, any new Governor of\nCalifornia would have had real problems.\nREAGAN: I ask your help in returning the State of California to\nfinancial strength and confidence and I'm certain that working totether\nwe are equal to the challenge.\nREASONER: A new Governor who had promised to cut the size of state\ngovernment, and to give local governments new aid so they could cut\nproperty taxes had special problems. Reagan moved in two ways. He\nput through a billion dollar tax increase to balance this year's\nrecord budget.\nREAGAN: It's not a happy picture. The study makes it plain that our\nState has been looted and drained of its financial resources in a\nmanner unique in our history.\nREASONER: He used a new technique to win support: 90-second\ntelevision messages such as this one paid for by leftover campaign\nfunds and private contributions and handed out to California stations.\nBut, he also had to make some big cuts in State commitments and he\nchose to do it in the field of mental health, where a decrease in\npatients had not produced a decrease in costs.\nREAGAN: I don't think the people of California should be required to\nmaintain employees on the salary, or on the payroll, when there is\nabsolutely no justification or no longer any need for keeping them.\nREASONER: The objective verdict on Reagan's first year as Governor\nis mixed. He has not fallen on his face because of lack of experience.\nBut he has not revolutionized state government either. And while he\nhas kept some promises, he has made some powerful enemies. In August,\nfor instance, he told a conference on the State's Medi-Cal program\nwhy he wanted to trim the program by 200 million dollars.\nREAGAN: I'm frank to say that it is my belief that unless Medi-Cal,\nwhich is our homegrown name for the Medicaid program, unless it is\nrevised and revamped, it not only can, but most assuredly will bankrupt\nour state in a very few years.\n12\nREASONER: In Medi-Cal, and mental health and higher education, Reagan\nhas done less than some of his partisans would have hoped, but enough\nso that supporters of these programs remain up in arms. When a judge\nissued an injunction blocking the Medi-Cal cutbacks, Reagan warned\ndoctors who might perform services under the injunction that if his\nAdministration won the case on appeal, they risked not getting paid.\nThe very powerful Los Angeles Times, which had supported Reagan in his\ncampaign, now suggested Reagan was advocating disregard of the law.\nAs a matter of fact, the Los Angeles Times has continually criticized\nReagan on its editorial pages. But if Reagan has made the Times and\nother California newspapers unhappy, the evidence is he's more popular\nthan ever with the people who read them, except there is some evidence\nof disenchantment among the far right. Millionaire right-winger,\nWilliam Penn Patrick:\nWILLIAM PENN PATRICK: Now, he's still talking the conservative\nlanguage but practically everything that he's doing is even more\nliberal than the administration we had here under Pat Brown. And these\nare the things that the conservatives are concerned about and they\nhave a right to be. We have, in my opinion, been betrayed by Mr.\nReagan.\nSTATE SENATOR JOHN G. SCHMITZ (REPUBLICAN, MEMBER OF JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY):\nI don't know if betrayal would be the word for it, but I really think\nthat he's taken us for granted. Disappointed is perhaps the best word\nto use. As far as I'm concerned, the words don't match up with the\naction.\nBILL STOUT: Give me a few specifics, the difference between what\nhe's said and what he's done.\nSCHMITZ: Okay, let's just mark them off here. First of all, there's\nthe Rumford Act, repealing the Rumford forced housing act. He was all\nfor repealing it. He comes up with a compromise version that he backed\ncompletely, that to the California Real Estate Association officers was\nin many ways worse than the Rumford Act itself. He says we got to cut\nour budget. We come up with the biggest budget in California history.\nWe've got to cut taxes or hold the line on taxes. We come up with a\nbillion dollar tax increase with no termination date on it. Another\nbig issue was the University of California and our higher education.\nHe's going to investigate the University and do something about it.\nHe calls off the investigation and gives the faculty administrators\na pay raise.\nREAGAN: I think we've got some narrow groups on both sides of the\nspectrum who are well-meant and sincere. But I think that sometimes\nthey would rather see someone go down in glorious defeat, jump off the\ncliff with the flag flying than recognize the practicalities of trying\nto promote your philosophy and get it a step at a time and I've tried\nto point out to Republicans that it's taken the opposition 35 years to\naccomplish many of the things we're opposed to. We can't believe that\nsome place out of the sunrise a man on a white horse is going to ride\nalong, wave a wand and if we get elected change everything all at once.\n13\nREASONER: California Assemblyman Rogert Monagan, the Republican\nminority leader, who says he's satisfied with Reagan's performance\nSO far, now wants to see what happens next.\nROBERT MONAGAN (MINORITY LEADER, ASSEMBLY): The essential thing now\nis to develop programs that tackle the immense problems that we have\nin California to put some so-called muscle and fiber onto the Creative\nSociety and do something about pollution, and our slum conditions,\nminority group problems, education and a great number of the real\ndifficult things that hit a growing state like California.\nREASONER: In a strange way, the talk in California about Reagan as\ngovernor has a quaint historic sound. Reagan as a national political\nforce could still be tripped up by events in his administration of the\nstate, but the feeling is that he has gone beyond state boundaries.\nWherever he goes he cites his achievements as Governor.\nREAGAN: We've just received within the last few days from the phone\ncompany, in writing, a notification that our phone bill will be\nreduced by $2,000,000. We put a freeze on out-of-state travel. And\nwe didn't really say they couldn't go, we just said they had to come\nin and explain where they were going and why. And I remember four of\nthem came in, they wanted to go to a study seminar back East. We\nsent one and told him to take notes for the other three. And when\nI took office I found there was a stack of stationery about this high\nwith the other fellow's name on it. And then some fellow came in\nwith one of those wheel dollies to cart it out to be burned and I\nsaid, \"Whoops, wait a minute. Now I've got some stationery with my\nown name on it, but I thought there must be a lot of letters that just\nsort of go within the shop here, that we can use that up, it shouldn't\nbe destroyed. So now the girls are x-ing out that other name and they\ntype mine in.\nREASONER: He is the Republican perhaps most in demand outside his\nstate as a crowd-drawer and fund-raiser.\nREAGAN: Our own interests demand that we seek a long-range\ndetermination of the vital interests of all concerned without depending\non the United Nations as it is presently constituted.\nREASONER: He tells Republican audiences what they want to hear:\nMALE VOICE: And when I saw him make a speech in 1964 for Goldwater\nI said, \"There's the man who should be running for President, and\nthere's the man that we need for President.'\nFEMALE VOICE: I like the way he takes a firm stand on things and the\nway he goes about them.\nMALE VOICE: I think his views agree with mine.\nFEMALE VOICE: He has the same type of feeling with the people that\nJohn Kennedy had, I think.\nMALE VOICE: He's the hope of America.\nI't\nFEMALE VOICE: I know most people think women like him because of his\ngood looks and charm and that he's a Hollywood personality, but I\ndon't think that's entirely true.\nFEMALE: I like him as a movie star.\nREASONER: He is greeted everywhere like a candidate and with the\nobvious enthusiasm and the wide spectrum of people voicing it that go\nwith winning candidates. But he keeps saying that he is not a\ncandidate.\nREAGAN: I am not a candidate\nI am not a candidate\nI am not a\ncandidate\nI am not a candidate.\nREASONER: The polite thing is to take a man at his word. But should\ncircumstances develop in which the Republicans demanded that he be a\ncandidate, nothing he has said would rule that out. And much of what\nhe has said would have paved the way to run against Lyndon Johnson.\nREAGAN: You remember in 164, when he kept saying, \"All the way with\nLBJ,\" and we didn't know how far he really meant.\nREASONER: And even should the unlikely event happen that Mr. Johnson\nwas not the opponent, Reagan has covered the next most possible\nDemocrat.\nREAGAN: Bobby Kennedy. There is one of those rare people who can\nalways say exactly the right thing, at the right time, to the wrong\nperson.\nSONG:\n\"Ronald Reagan is the guy\nwho will arouse the countryside.\nAmericans\n11\nREASONER: At the moment, however, Reagan disavows the supporters who\nwant him to run even when they open a headquarters in New Hampshire.\nSONG:\n\"\na modern Paul Revere,\na modern Paul Revere,\nRonald Reagan is the guy who will arouse the\ncountryside.\nAmericans can point with pride to a modern\nPaul Revere.\nAmericans can point with pride to a modern\nPaul Revere. 11\nREAGAN:\na guarahtee of every citizen's right to share in this\nabundant society proportionate to his ability\nREASONER: To a lot of people, Reagan does look like Paul Revere and\namong these people, the idea delights some and frightens others,\ndepending on, I guess, whether they think right now Paul Revere is\nwhat we need.\nREAGAN:\nthat those who under the euphemism of social unrest or\n15\ncivil disobedience who take to the streets in riot and mob violence\nwill not be tolerated in this land of ours.\nREASONER: Crime in the streets. That's Reagan on one of the two\nmajor national issues of 1968. Some of his critics say he is\nimplicitly anti-Negro - but he says no, that the Negroes have the\nbiggest interest of all in law and order. On the other major\nnational argument, Vietnam, Reagan is, more than any other prominent\nRepublican, the most convinced that we should do whatever we have to\ndo militarily to win.\nREAGAN:\nand somehow this brings no talk of escalation and yet\nRussian-built munitions to kill American fighting men enter the\nunmined harbor of Haiphong to the North. And we're told that if we\ndo there the same thing the enemy is doing in the South, if we put\nmines in that harbor, the war will grow bigger and more terrible.\nWell, to a man getting killed the war is already as big as it can\nget.\nREASONER: Reagan and his advisers know that some people think a man\non a horseback is a danger, not an inspiration. He knows, for\ninstance, that he is regarded as a dangerous lightweight by that\nvague group of powerful people known as the Eastern Establishment.\nThat may be part of the reason he agreed this fall to come to Yale\nas a Chubb Fellow and talk to Ivy League students, as did people\nlike Adlai Stevenson, Harry Truman and Clement Attlee before him.\nVOICE: Sir, you say that you are worried about infringements on\nindividual rights. Could you then tell us are you in favor of the\nSelective Service System being abolished?\nREAGAN: This has to be a yes and no answer. For quite some time now\nI have been opposed to the peacetime draft, and have thought that at\nleast this country with its great know-how could evolve a program of\nincentives and enlistment and then as this proved its effectiveness,\neliminate the draft. The \"no\" part of the answer is, with a conflict\nof the size that we're in now, I wonder if this is the moment at which\nwe can do away with it.\nREASONER: Most of the Chubb Fellow activities were closed to the\npress. Reports of how things went in the lecture sessions and\nobservations of student reaction outside, indicated Reagan did at\nleast as well as he might have foreseen. He came advertised by the\ncampus' articulate liberals as a wrong man; probably not many changed\ntheir minds. And, presumably, the Yale right wing liked him before\nand after. But there is a large and uncommitted middle in the colleges,\nand he made a favorable impression on them - not necessarily to\nconvince or convert, but to establish himself as a serious and capable\npublic figure.\nREASONER: The verdict of the Yale students on Governor Reagan\nwill not be decisive - but even before his visit there he had begun\nto impress some Easterners, as long ago as May 15, 1967, when he\nappeared with Senator Robert Kennedy on the CBS NEWS TOWN MEETING OF\nTHE WORLD, answering questions from international groups of college\n16\nstudents. By then the feeling that Reagan was a creation of public\nrelations, a handsome accident who could work only from script, had\nalmost disappeared.\nENGLISH STUDENT: Would you say the Diem regime was a popular one,\nor was it one that you imposed on a people and which the people\nthen rebelled against?\nREAGAN: I doubt that you could make much of a case, I challenge\nyour history. In 1954\nENGLISH STUDENT:\nthe history of the Diem regime, sir.\nREAGAN: I do. Because there was a referendum taken in, 1954, in which\n90 per cent of the people voted in a referendum for Diem to take the\nposition that he took\nREASONER: His confident, well-prepared performance on that broadcast\nleft no doubt that he could work without a script.\nAll in all, Governor Reagan's first year in office has been a\npretty glamorous one. There have been only a couple of untoward\nincidents. One was the case of the purloined telegram. When the\nnation's governors were meeting on the cruise ship Independence,\nReagan got hold of a confidential telegram from the White House to a\nDemocratic aide, and publicized it. Some people questioned the\npropriety of that, others said all's fair in politics as well as in\nother passionate activities. The other incident began with a column\nby Drew Pearson, who said two members of the Governor's staff had\nbeen forced to resign because they were members of a ring of\nhomosexuals. The Governor's top aide, Lyn Nofziger, had confirmed\nthis story to several newsmen privately, including two CBS NEWS\nreporters, but on October 31, Reagan seemed to give a flat denial\nto the whole story.\nREAGAN: No, there is no truth to the report and I know where the\nreport comes from. I was informed last night, while most\nCalifornians won't see it because I think that's the best clue as to\nthe veracity of the report is the fact, that as far as we know, most\nof the major papers are refusing to run the Drew Pearson column in\nwhich it appears.\nVOICE: You've extracted from newspapers\nREAGAN: I didn't extract\nwait a minute (pounds on desk) come on,\nI didn't extract any agreement. I simply said that at the time that\nthis - I was notified of this I was told that the major newspapers of\nCalifornia were as they did with the scurrilous attacks on George\nChristopher during the primary\nREASONER: The story didn't die, but as reporters kept bringing it\nup, the flat nature of the denial seemed to moderate.\nREAGAN: I have never had and do not have any evidence or proof that\nwould warrant an accusation. No accusation or charge has ever been\n17\nmade. Now, if there is a credibility gap, and I am responsible, it\nis because I refuse to participate in trying to destroy human beings\nwith no factual evidence.\nVOICE: Why then, Governor, would a Boston newspaper say you're no\nlonger to be believed?\nREAGAN: Well, gentlemen, that's up to them if they want to say that.\nI've told you if there's a credibility gap, all right; and I've told\nyou the reason for it. So now, which ones of you are going to write\nup that I thumped the table and lost my temper and shouted angrily.\nVOICE: Mr. Nofziger has been accused by six newsmen of not owning up\nto telling them confidentially that people left the administration\nbecause of immoral behavior.\nREAGAN: Gentlemen, I don't know that that is true and I've told you\nthis subject is, as far as I'm concerned, closed. Now, do we want to\nhave a press conference or do we just want to stand here with me\nrefusing to talk.\nREASONER: We asked Governor Reagan about the story and he answered\nsubstantially the same way.\nREAGAN: I made a statement the other day. I still stick with it.\nThe reasons given by the people who resigned were satisfactory to\nthem and to me.\nREASONER: Has this been a salutary experience for you? Have you\nlearned anything of how the press operates on a story of this kind?\nREAGAN: Yes, if I look back and if I learned something it was that I\ntried to answer questions too long until I recognized that due to a\nfew individuals who do want to gossip and make charges, I had\ndescended into that kind of an exchange with them; and long ago I\nshould have said what I'm going to say now: there's nothing more to\nbe said on that subject.\nREASONER: Do you sometimes wish you had a television teleprompter at\na news conference?\nREAGAN: No. And I tell you - there's an old story from back in\nthe days when we used to do those plays like General Electric Theater\nlive, when they weren't on film, where you couldn't quit if you forgot\nthe lines and start over again. There's a story from that. This\nfellow forgot his lines but to this day no one knows it, because in the\nmidst of doing a scene when he came to the point where he forgot his\nlines - and what he was doing of course was just mouthing with no\nsound, and all over America people were fiddling with their sets\ntrying to find out what happened to the sound on their set, when he\nsuddenly remembered the line, it came back to him, he just added the\nvoice to the lip movement and kept on talking. And I've been in a\nfew press conferences where I've thought that could come in pretty\nhandy.\n18\nREASONER: Like it or not, Reagan's every utterance will be examined\nfrom now on. A feeling that a candidate has a credibility gap can\nbe as damaging as unpopular views on foreign policy. He may well\nhave learned something about the role of the goldfish in dealing with\nthe press. The thing is that while this may be Ronald Reagan's year,\nthis is probably his last chance at the White House. He is not alone\nin this. For one reason or another, chiefly age, it's 1968 or never\nfor every avowed or mentioned Republican possibility except Charles\nPercy and Harold Stassen. But there is a particular poignancy about\nthis in Reagan's case because his entry was as spectacular as it was\nlate. In geometry and politics, curves which ascend sharply fall by\nthe same equation. Reagan would say this is all speculation he does\nnot encourage, that he is already at the summit of his ambition. He\nhas disavowed the people who want to put him on the primary ballots\nin New Hampshire and Wisconsin and Nebraska and Oregon, but he has\nnever said that if the party came to him with the big question he\nwould turn away. Turning away in the final scene was something he\ndid in the movies. Ronald Reagan is not in the movies any more.\nThis is Harry Reasoner. Good night.\n6/26/68\nPLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBCTELEVISION AND\nRADIO BROADCAST TO MEET THE PRESS. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT PRO-\nVIDED FOR THE INFORMATION AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PRESS. ACCURACY IS\nNOT GUARANTEED. IN CASE OF DOUBT PLEASE CHECK WITH MEET THE PRESS.\nMEET THE PRESS\nSunday, May 26, 1968\nNBC Television - 1:00 PM NYT\nNBC Radio\n- 6:30 PM NYT\nMODERATOR: Edwin Newman\nGUEST:\nGov. Ronald Reagan - (R. -California)\nPANEL:\nJames J. Kilpatrick - Washington Star Syndicate\nRobert Donovan - Los Angeles Times\nRobert Abernathy - NBC News\nLawrence E. Spivak\nNEWMAN: This is Edwin Newman inviting you to MEET THE PRESS.\n(Commercial.) Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is the Governor of\nCalifornia, Ronald Reagan. Although Governor Reagan has repeatedly\nsaid that he is not a candidate for the Republican Presidential nom-\nination, Reagan for President activity continues across the country.\nNow 'll have the first questions for Gov. Reagan, who is in our\nBurbank Studio, from Lawrence E. Spivak, permanent member of the\nMEET THE PRESS Panel in Washington.\nSPIVAK: Governor, the Citizens for Reagan Chairman in Oregon,\nRobert Hazen, was reported as saying the other day that in order to\ndo well in the Oregon primaries you would have to announce your open\ncandidacy. Is there any chance that you will announce your candidacy\nbefore the Oregon primary?\nREAGAN: No. There will be no change in my present position.\nI'm a favorite son candidate. I will be entered in nomination at\nthe convention, as will some others, and there will be no change,\n2\nnor have I any plans for going to Oregon.\nSPIVAK: And you have no intention of announcing before the\nconvention?\nREAGAN: No.\nSPIVAK: Governor, since you're not a candidate, or an an-\nnounced candidate, if I were a voter in the Oregon primary, a\nRepublican voter and said to you why should I vote for you, what\nwould your answer be?\nREAGAN: Well, I don't know that I would have any answer.\nI have said repeatedly that I believe this is going to be an open\nconvention. I believe that the grass roots Republican sentiment is\nfor waiting until the convention, until all the issues are in, until\nall the information is in, and then a decision is going to be made\non the, I believe, the great factor is going to be the winnability\nof the candidate; and I would think that a part of the factors would\nbe the sentiment of the grass roots. And if someone should be\nvoting on the basis of what he actually believes he has to be\nvoting his own conscience.\nSPIVAK: Governor, obviously you'd like to win in Oregon,\nor am I wrong? Will you tell us why you want to win in Oregon?\nREAGAN: No. Let me simply say that those people in Oregon\nwho have been doing this on their own, a few of them came over to\nsee me in Idaho where I was speaking a short time ago, told me that\nthey would be gratified by 15% of the vote, because of the fact that\nI was not campaigning and that they were doing this on their own. I\nwould have to be frank and say this, that naturally anyone would be\ngratified and very proud to find that any sizeable group of citizens\nheld him in that regard.\n3\nAlso I would have to say that any time you are injected into\na contest in this way in this business, it has a bearing on my own\njob here in California. My ability, for example, to influence the\nlegislature which at the moment is dominated by the Democratic major-\nity, to get legislation that is important to me here, all of these\nfactors that weigh on whether you are accepted or not by the people,\nthese have a bearing on your ability to do the job here, and for\nthat reason pride alone would make me, now that I have been injected\ninto that race, want to at least hold my head up.\nSPIVAK: Am I to understand by what you are saying that ycu\nwant to win in Oregon so that you can have more power in California,\nGovernor?\nREAGAN: Well you can interpret it that way. I am only\nsaying\nSPIVAK: I'm just asking.\nREAGAN: I am saying what would be the adverse effect of, say,\nnot having anything that bore out the effort that's being made.\nOn the other hand, I must say, I have told you, that un-\ndoubtedly I will be entered in the national convention as a favorite\nson candidate. At that time I'm quite sure that the convention\ndelegates, if it is an open convention and not sewed up, are going\nto make a consideration of all possibilities that have been mentioned,\nin addition to the avowed candidates.\nSPIVAK: Governor, why do you continue to say nationally I\nam not a candidate, say in Oregon I am a candidate, in Wisconsin I\nam a candidate, in Nebraska I am a candidate, and when you and your\nsupporters are doing, when what you're doing so clearly indicates\nto everybody, every political observer of any significance at all,\n4\nthat you really are a candidate? Why do you continue to say I am\nnot a candidate?\nREAGAN: Because I am not. I have no intention of declaring;\nI am not campaigning. I have gone into a number of states at the\nrequest of Ray Bliss and of Senator Murphy of the Senatorial campaign\ncommittee, of Bob Wilson, the Congressional campaign committee, in\nthose areas where they believe Republicans have a chance, a good\nchance. I have been helpful in raising funds. But you asked about\nthree specific states in addition to my own. The answer is very\nsimple. You can contrast the fact that I was on the ballot in\nWisconsin, Nebraska and Oregon with the fact that I've made every\neffort and was successful in getting myself off the ballot in a\nnumber of other states, including New Hampshire. But in California,\neven though everyone understands what a favorite son candidacy is,\nyou have to sign an affidavit that in effect legally makes you a can-\ndidate. In those three states you've named you have to sign an\naffidavit to get your name off the ballot that is a direct refutation\nof the one that I had to sign here in California. Legally I could\nnot put myself in the position of signing conflicting affidavits and\nthus, in effect either be a liar in California or in those three states.\nThey're the only three states in the Union that have such a law and\nthere was nothing I could do about it once people in those states\ndecided at the grass roots level to put my name on the ballot.\nNEWMAN: Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be back with MEET THE\nPRESS and more questions for our guest, Gov. Rona ld Reagan, but first\nthis message.\n(Commercial.)\nANNOUNCER: Now back to MEET THE PRESS, an unrehearsed press\n5\nconference. Please remember, questions of the panel members do not\nnecessarily reflect their own point of view. Here is our Moderator,\nEdwin Newman.\nNEWMAN: Resuming our interview, our guest today is Republican\nGovernor, Ronald Reagan of California who is in our Burbank studio.\n(Panel intro.) We'll continue the questions now with Mr. Kilpatrick.\nKILPATRICK: Governor Reagan, four years ago, second only\nto Mr. Goldwater, you were known as Mr. Conservative. In this period\nhave your views changed? Are you less conservative today than you\nwere then?\nREAGAN: No. As a matter of fact, I deplore the use of\nthose labels as they have been applied in politics because I think\nit's part of an image-making process that goes on. I don't believe\nthat anyone fits any of those labels completely. I haven't changed\nin my views. I haven't changed for a great many years in the things\nthat I've thought about government and government's place in our\nsocial structure.\nKILPATRICK: Let me then inquire about two or three specific\nissues if I could, Governor. Where do you now stand on open housing\noccupancy housing legislation, either at the federal or state level?\nREAGAN: I stand where I have stood all the time. I have\nalways been opposed to discrimination and prejudice. I have always\nbeen opposed ,prior to the time that it was against the law, against\nrestrictive covenants. I'm opposed to them morally on the grounds\nthat I deplore anyone who does practice this.\nOn the other hand I have to tell you that I believe there's\na limit to what we can do in solving these problems with legislation\nand I don't believe we serve any useful purpose either for the\n6\npeople we're trying to help or for the rest of society here if we\nembark on the dangerous precedent of allowing government to interfere\nwith the individual citizens' right to the control and the disposition\nof his own personal property. And, as I say, this is something that\ncan come back to haunt us in the future. I am opposed to that.\nKILPATRICK: Governor, another conservative issue has to do\nwith an individual's right to work. What is your position on state\nright-to-work laws?\nREAGAN: Well, I am opposed to the repeal of 14-B of the\nTaft-Hartley Act. I believe that this issue should be decided at the\nstate level. Here in California several years ago we had the oppor-\ntunity to meet that, and I was one of a group in my own union committee\nthat opposed the right-to-work laws for California.\nAt the same time, I think there are things that need to be\ndone with regard to organized labor. And I've been trying last year\nand again in this session to get what I think is a far better thing\ndone for the rank and file of organized labor and for all of our\npeople than right to work. And that is the right of a secret ballot\nwithin the union on all policy matters for each member of the union.\nAnd so far I haven't been able to get this passed in our Democratic\nlegislature here in California, but I'm going to keep trying. We have\nit in the union of which I was an officer and a member for so many\nyears, the Screen Actors Guild.\nDONOVAN: Governor, if I may pursue the first question, apart\nfrom style is there any significant difference in outlook between\nyou and Senator Goldwater?\nREAGAN: Well, there are a lot of specific issues I'm\ntime\ntrying to recall, and frankly memory is failing me, that just a short/\n7\nago I found he had made a statement, I was asked about it; I was in\ndisagreement with him on that particular statement. Again, as I\nsay, I don't think you can classify people in groups. One of the\ncharacteristics of the people in the Republican Party is they 're all\npretty highly individual. That's why we have such difficulty heal-\ning our wounds as our opponents can once the fight is over and they\nall go back to discovering hidden virtues in each other.\nAnd when you say this, it would be very difficult in the\nlimited time we have also to explain to an audience that was subjected\na few years ago to probably the greatest job of image building that\nwe've seen in politics in many a decade in this country, to say,\nwell are you talking about the image of Goldwater that was falsely\ncreated or are you talking about the real man that I happen to know\nas a friend? Because I found very little resemblance between the man\nI knew and the image that was constructed of him for the benefit of\nthe voting public.\nDONOVAN: Well, I was thinking of military policy for one\nthing. You suggested last week that if the Paris peace talks fail\nwe should threaten the invasion of North Vietnam. Now in light of\nthat what is your attitude toward a possible military confrontation\nwith Red China?\nREAGAN: Well, I doubt that a military confrontation at this\ntime with Red China is imminent. As a matter of fact, most military\nexperts have agreed that it isn't. But my statements last week about\nwhat should be done at the negotiating table were in reality quoting\nsome earlier remarks by former President Eisenhower to the effect\nthat when you sit down to negotiate with the communists we should\nkeep in mind that two years of negotiations in Korea in which during\n8\nthat period of time more than twenty thousand Americans were killed,\nand I think you have to recall that President Eisenhower, coming in\nas a new President toward the end of that two-year period, brought\nan end to the negotiations and a settlement of the conflict by simply\nreleasing the word that the United States was going to review its\noptions with regard to weapons, theaters of operation, manner of\nfighting, et cetera. I've said the same thing I believe should be\ntrue in these Paris negotiations. If at a given time -- and we\nshould let the enemy know -- that if at a given time ,certain reason-\nable period, they have shown no evidence of a sincere desire to\nsettle this conflict and to bring peace, that they are procrastin-\nating and using the negotiations to gain what they couldn't gain on\nthe battlefield, then we must be prepared to threaten them with\nforce. And I would think that the same conditions that President\nEisenhower submitted would be the conditions here -- a review of our\nstrategy, review of targets, review of theaters of operation mean-\ning whether we're going to continue to fight this war and destroy\nthe cities of South Vietnam or fight this war on their own soil.\nWhether you do this or not, once you make that statement\nyou must be prepared, in the last analysis, to do that. But I think\nanything else is to go down the same lonely road that we followed\nsome years ago, and with the same tragic results. I would call to\nyour attention that in the first two weeks of these negotiations the\ndeath rate for Americans in combat has gone up and set new records\nfor this entire long war.\nABERNATHY: Governor, pursuing that, how long do you think\nwe should wait for some sign of progress at Paris before we give a\nspecific time limit?\n9\nREAGAN: I don't think that anyone sitting on the outside\ncould pin that down that specifically. I know in one area in which\nI am experienced is in the area of negotiations by reason of my\nlabor union experience; I was the negotiator for more than twenty\nyears, and led our negotiating committee for the Screen Actors Guild;\nand I know there's a kind of an instinctive thing goes with it, but\nit's also based on knowing what the enemy's demands are, knowing\nwhat your own conditions are.\nABERNATHY: Are you talking about weeks, months, years, what?\nREAGAN: Well, certainly not years. And I would think that\nthis country should be insisting that one of the first points of\nnegotiation if the enemy is sincere, is the arriving at a mutual\ncease fire. I don't think we want to continue, or to go back to the\ntwenty thousand casualties or deaths after the negotiations start.\nIt seems to me that if both sides really want an end to the\nombat and want peace then it seems to me that when the talking\nreally gets under way the killing should stop.\nABERNATHY: Governor, you have suggested that if the talks\nfail there be an invasion of North Vietnam. Do you mean by this a\nU.S. invasion or a joint U.S. and South Vietnamese invasion? What\ndo you mean?\nREAGAN: Well, the ideal if such a thing would come about\nwould be a South Vietnamese invasion, supported logistically by the\nUnited States. This of course would take away some of the propaganda\neffort of the enemy on the world scene about aggression on the part\nof the United States.\nBut whatever is required, if that comes about, should be\ndone. In the meantime it would seem to me that the enemy should see\n10\npreparations -- you might never have to go that far, but the enemy\nmust believe and must see that you are willing to, that you are\namassing the landing craft, the weapons, mobilizing the forces that\nare going to result in invasion.\nSPIVAK: Governor, may I check what you said a minute ago\non the matter of open housing? I understood, at least there has\nbeen a report that you've changed your position about repealing\nCalifornia's open housing law, the Rumford Act; is that true?\nREAGAN: No. Let me tell you what led to that confusion be--\ncause there is some confusion on that and it's been of concern to me.\nThe Rumford Housing Act in California is an omnibus bill. There\nis a great deal of legislation in there, incorporated in it that\nwere previous pieces of legislation, certainly satisfactory, and\ncertainly aimed at solving the problems of bigotry and discrimination\nequality of opportunity. And all of us want that.\nNow when it was talked of repealing the Rumford Act this\nwas done in simply the technical sense that if you have a piece of\nlegislation of this type that you're going to correct that sometimes\nit's better to simply wipe that out and start with a new piece of\nlegislation. No one has ever advocated that you wipe this law off\nthe books completely and not replace it with necessary legislation\nto make sure that you do all that can be done to curb the practice\nof discrimination.\nMy only change is I believe now that we could do better --\nand a great many other people in California believe that we could\ndo better -- simply making changes and modifications in the existing\nlegislation and not getting into the whole problem of wiping out\nand starting over again. Now that is theonly change I've made.\n11\nThe part of the bill that the people of California tried to change\nhas to do particularly with the individual owner, and governments\nnow having a control on that individual and his right to property.\nAnd believe me, this is the issue in California, and I believe in\nmost people's minds, not racism or a desire to discriminate, but a\nbelief that there is something dangerous, that there is a great tie\nbetween the right to personal property and individual freedom.\nSPIVAK: Well, what would your position be on the open\nhousing section of the Rumford Act? Would you want to leave it in,\nor would you want to revise it or would you repeal it? I'm not quite\nclear.\nREAGAN: I want to revise it, particularly where it comes to\nthe individual home and the individual's right to the ownership of\nhis home, disposition of that, rental of it, et cetera.\nSPIVAK: Thank you, Governor. Governor, there are a great\nmany political observers who believe you're out to stop Richard\nNixon from getting the Republican Presidential nomination. In view\nof the wide support he has received across the country, in view of\nthe fact that you yourself are not a candidate and have spoken a\ngreat deal about unity why aren't you supporting him?\nREAGAN: Well, at the moment this would be impossible for me\nto do. We have put a delegation on the ballot that represents the\nwhole cross section of the Republican Party. I myself have asked\nthose delegates not to express publicly any opinion as to who their\npersonal choice might be. I certainly then am bound by that same\nidea. The idea of a favorite son delegation and the idea of our\ndelegation is to come to the convention prepared to move in the direc-\ntion that we think will best benefit the party and that will give\n12\nus the greatest chance for victory.\nI might say with regard to this talk around the country it\nwas Richard Nixon himself just last summer who said to me that we\nmust be on guard against attempts on the part of some to drive\nwedges between any of us in the leadership of the Republican Party.\nKILPATRICK: Governor, Columnist Art Buchwald has written\nthat Governor Rockefeller came by your hotel room the other day just\nto get your autograph for Happy. What did the Governor of New York\nreally have on his mind?\nREAGAN: Well, I can tell you I didn't know until the night\nbefore that he was going to arrive in New Orleans, and I was leaving\nearly the next morning. Early the next morning my own people woke\nme and said that the Governor on his way to a breakfast that he had\nscheduled and which was the reason for his being there with the\nsouthern chairman, wanted to stop by the room and say hello. I at\nleast got into shirt and pants by the time he arrived at the door.\nI had some coffee ordered up; we didn't get to finish the cup because\nof his schedule; and his opening line when he came in the door was:\nI couldn't be in the same hotel without at least coming by and saying\nhello.\nKILPATRICK: And that was all he said, hello?\nREAGAN: Oh, we discussed a little politics, particularly of\nthe other party. Both of us were quite impressed with theability of\none of the candidates in the Democratic side to speak now in tones\nthat have not been familiar to him, making speeches out here that\nsound a little like my last campaign speeches.\nKILPATRICK: How would you feel about Mr. Rockefeller as a\nrunning mate on your ticket?\n13\nREAGAN: Well, I don't have a ticket so I couldn't be\nchoosing anybody, and I don't know just exactly which way you meant\nthat; but if you're speaking about the rumors around that there's\nbeen some kind of a deal for me to be the second spot on the ticket,\nthere is no such deal and no one has suggested such a thing, and I\nhave no intention of accepting if anyone should.\nNEWMAN: Mr. Donovan. We have four minutes left, gentlemen.\nDONOVAN: Governor, do you mean to say that if Nelson\nRockefeller were nominated for President by the Republican national\nconvention and asked you to be his running mate that you would not\nrun for Vice President?\nREAGAN: No, I would not.\nDONOVAN: I think only once in this century has anyone turned\ndown that position. Why would you turn it down?\nREAGAN: Well, I've explained on a number of occasions that\nI didn't aspire to a political career. And I sometimes wonder why\nI find myself in the job I'm in. But I do have some very strong\nbeliefs about government, government's place and what can be done.\nI believe we've been going down a dangerous road in this nation.\nNow I have an opportunity to put these views into practice. If it\nwas personal ambition, I have no question but that the Vice Presidency\nis a prestigious position, a great honor, and any man would be proud\nto be remembered in history as having held that office. But I\nbelieve that here in the most populous state in the Union we have an\nopportunity to prove, to put into action and are putting into action\nsome of these ideas about government, and if we can succeed here I\nthink we can do a great service for the country and we can start\na prairie fire that will sweep across a number of states; indeed,\n14\na number of states have already come to us for information on some\nof the things we're doing and have put these things into practice.\nDONOVAN: Governor, if that much can be done politically in\nCalifornia why in the short space of the sixteen months you have\nbeen in office have you travelled out of the state 44 times and\nparticipated in political meetings in 26 other states?\nREAGAN: Well, because this is an election year, and there\nis no question about the responsibility of anyone holding public\noffice to his party. All of us have discovered that we're better\nbox office the farther away from home we get. I have been out of\nmy state, but incidentally, on those 40-odd days that you named I'd\nlike to call to your attention that these are far less than any of\nmy predecessors have been out of the state even in non-election years.\nBut most of that time has been for governors conferences which are\nlegitimate functions of this office I hold; and most of my speaking\nfor political fund raisers has been either on the way to or on the\nway back from those governors conferences.\nThis last three-day trip was the only three working days in\nwhich I specifically went out and simply on political fund raisers\nand not in connection with one of these other functions. But I\nhave been successful in raising a considerable amount of money for\nthe party and I have gone to states, as I pointed out earlier, where\nthere were chances for Republican victories. I might add that in\nexchange for that, in doing that, in our own state we have had the\npleasure for our own fund raisers of Governor Love, Governor Shafer,\nGovernor McCall, Governor Laxalt, Senator Percy of Illinois;\nSenator Dirksen has been out here. A number of other Republican\nleaders have on an exchange come here.\n15\nNEWMAN: Mr. Abernathy, you have about thirty seconds left.\nABERNATHY: Governor, in American history no divorced man\nhas ever been elected President. Do you think attitudes have changed\nenough on this subject so a divorced man can now be elected President?\nREAGAN: Oh, yes. I think the same thing was said with re-\ngard to religion, or at least was implied, in the 1960 election.\nThe Democrats themselves ran a divorced candidate in the person of\nAdlai Stevenson, and I doubt that this was any factor in this. So\nI have to say that I believe this would not be a problem.\nABERNATHY: What about a ticket with two divorced men on it?\nREAGAN: Well, I've just indicated that there's one way in\nwhich that couldn't come about.\nNEWMAN: Sorry to interrupt, but our time is up. Thank you,\nGov. Reagan, for being with us today on MEET THE PRESS.\nNext week: Grayson L. Kirk, President of\nColumbia University\n55\n6/5/68\nTRANSCRIPT OF GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S REMARKS\nJOEY BISHOP SHOW\nJune 5, 1968\nJoey - Governor Reagan, are you there?\nGovernor - Yes, Joey.\nJoey - Hi\nGovernor - How do you do?\nJoey - I'm all right sir. I know that this is an imposition, I know\nthat you, as a matter of fact, cut short the staff meeting so that\nyou could afford us the opportunity of speaking to you as the governor\nof the state of California in which a great tragedy has occurred. I\njust wanted to get some of your viewpoints on how we abolish what is\nhappening, how do we prevent it, what do we do about it?\nGovernor - Well, Joey, never mind anything that I might have cut\nshort. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to all of you\nand to speak to some of our fellow Californians and our fellow citi-\nzens in other states about this- great tragedy that has occurred\nhere. A young man has been struck down in a senseless and savage act.\nI am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his\nfamily and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also\nin the fusillade of bullets that came from the would-be assassin's gun.\nThere is a pall over our state; all of us feel it. At the same time,\nthough, I would like to say that I am in great disagreement with those\namong us who are counseling that we should all feel a collective sense\nof guilt. Two hundred million Americans did not do this. One young\nman did it, and not even for an American reason. It developes now\nthat this young man believed that because the senator from New York\nadvocated our nation's support of Israel in their conflict with the\nArab nations, that he had to perform this vile act in some way for\nhis country, and that was not this country--that was Jordan. I have\nto say to those people who would suggest that we are all guilty when-\never a terrible thing of this kind happens that there can be no such\ncollective guilt. I am sure that all of the people in your studio,\nall of the people there with you, all of the people here in this\nstudio, everyone that I have met so far, feels this great sense of\ntragedy, this loss, and is deeply concerned not only about our nation,\nbut about this particular family and the tragedy that has struck.\nAs I say, all of us are praying and, I believe we should go on praying.\nto the best of our ability, to ask for God's mercy in what has\nhappened to us.\nThe American people have seen lawlessness and violence come to\nour nation over the past decade, and I do not believe this is some-\nthing advocated by the majority of people or that Americans want it.\nOn the contrary, I think most Americans are deeply distrubed, deeply\ndistrubed by what seems to be a loss of principle and standard, a\nloss of all our moral beliefs.\nNow, we have known times in the past, in almost any period of\nhistory, when people have broken the social code, broken the rules,\nbroken the laws. But always they knew they were breaking the law.\nThey knew what they were doing was against the moral and ethical\ncode. The distrubing thing in America is that we have had too many\npeople, people in high places, people in and out of our government,\nwho have been suggesting not that we are breaking the rules, but that\nthe rules no longer apply; that the moral standards by which we have\nlived all these many years, no longer apply; that there has been a\nchange; that we are throwing out the code and saying that people\nshould do what they choose to do. And some of this began with some\nleaders who, with the best of intentions, suggested that in order to\nright certain wrongs, in order to correct certain things, it was\nalright for some of us to choose the laws we would obey.\nThis can lead only to a law that exists on the basis of who can\ncarry the biggest club. We must return to a belief that no matter\nhow much we disagree with the law, we must follow the usual channels,\nif we believe they are proper, in getting the law changed. But until\nit is changed, we abide by and believe in, the law. We must return\n-1-\nto the principle that the individual is responsible for his misdeeds\nand must pay the price. We must do away with this permissiveness,\nthis idea that society is to blame for all the wrongdoing, for all\nthe misdeeds that take place in our country. Now, I had my political\ndifferences, of course, with Senator Kennedy, and yet, the funny\nthing was to find out how much we all have in common in this country.\nIn recent days here in California, Senator Kennedy has been express-\ning the desire that this nation should do exactly what we have been\ntrying to do, what some of us have been saying here. The government\nmust become closer to the people; that we must do away with such\nthings as a meaningless welfare that simply perpetuates people in\npoverty and keeps them on a dole. We must seek a way to give them a\nhand-up instead of a hand-out; that we must lift them up to where\nthey can be self-sustaining. As a matter of fact, a great Jewish\nphilosopher of the 11th Century, Mamonides, suggested a number of\nways in which you can help those who need help. The poorest, he said,\nis simply to give a man a hand-out. The best is to teach him to help\nhimself. The Talmud tells us that for a father not to teach his son\nhow to make a living is to teach him literally how to steal, because\nthat might be the inevitable result.\nJoey - Well, Governor Reagan, I don't mean to interrupt you, but we\nhave Father Kaiser here. Would you like to give the New stament some\nequal time?\nGovernor - Yes, the man from Galilee had a great deal to say about\nindividual responsibility, and that each man must find his own\nsalvation in his own soul. But, about this particular tragedy, as\nI say, I think it began with those of us who did decide or who\nadmitted or agreed that it was alright for civil disobedience, for\nthe breaking of laws with which we were in disagreement. And, I say\nthat this is what has led us to this particular point. America is\nnot to blame as a society. I think the people of America are deeply\nconcerned by the course our country has been taking.\nThe enemy sits in Moscow. I call him an enemy because I believe\nhe has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the\nenemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night. Tonight,\nwe find that this same Soviet power has impressed upon the world its\nbelief that the end justifies the means, that there is no morality\nexcept/which furthers the cause we are trying to put over.\nYet, we must make up our minds as to where we stand, with regard\nto our belief in morality, in law, and in individual responsibility.\nI say again that all of us have a prayer in our hearts with regard to\nthis tragedy, I say again that the challenge to America is not to\ncastigate ourselves over something for which we were not responsible.\nRather, we must say that as of this moment, there will be an end to\nAmericans putting up with, or tolerating, those who advocate the tak-\ning of the law into their own hands; that we are, once again, going\nto become a land in which we are not necessarily our brothers' keepers,\nbut our brothers' brothers; that we are going to become a land that\nabides by the law, that believes in the sanctity of the law that\nbelieves in morality.\nJoey - We are speaking largely now about the majority, but I think\nthe president himself issued a statement that all presidential candi-\ndates are now, I notice, put under the tight security ring, around\nmost of the presidential candidates. Is that true, sir?\nGovernor - Yes, as a matter of fact, I learned today that the declared\ncandidates have had secret service assigned to them.\nJoey - Have you, governor?\nGovernor - No, I am not a declared candidate. But, Joey, I do not\nthink there is anyone serving in public office today who does not\nrealize that he is in a climate which is endangered by a very\ndangerous faction in our country--that he is a potential target. He\nrecognizes that certain hazards go with his profession--the same as\na soldier,\nJoey - Did this same climate hold true in 1864, and at the time when\nMayor Cermac of Chicago was shot when they were trying to assassin-\nate President Roosevelt? Was this, or is there, a certain era that\nthis country goes through which produces a kind of violence and\nimmorality over aperiod of years? Do we find ourselves almost\nrepeating it? Is that so? Does that happen?\nGovernor - No, Joey, I think we have always had the political assassin.\nI think a certain segment of our society has always believed in tak-\ning the law into its own hands. That is why we have prisons, courts,\nour entire judicial system. But I think what is coming upon us today\nis a sort of permissiveness by society which says the criminal is no\nlonger a criminal--that he is some sort of psychological misfit, and\nall of us are to blame for what happened to him, what made him this way.\nThe great tendency of some of our recent judical decisions has\nbeen to overweigh the balance on the part of the accused, forgetting\nthat government's principal responsibility is to protect society from\nthe lawbreaker, and not the other way around. All I'm saying is that\nthe difference between those days and today is the difference between\nthe people who knew they were breaking the rules and people today who\nare trying to foist off on us the philosophy that rules no longer\napply. that each one of us is sole judge, jury and decider of what\nthe rules are.\nJoey - Governor Reagan, as governor of the state of California, do\nyou intend to pass some sort of legislation regarding how easy it is\nto obtain a gun?\nGovernor - Joey, I think that the flurry over the gun law treats the\nsymptom, and not the cause.\nJoey - I have some statistics I looked up today.\nGovernor - Alright, o.k.\nJoey - And in this country, 56 hundred people were victims of gun-\nshots. In England, because there was a law against it, there was\n30. And I think it was France, there were only 12. But we were 56\nhundred as opposed to 30 in one country and 12 in another. Does that\nseem to have some bearing on the bearing of guns and the carrying of\nguns?\nGovernor - Well Joey, how many other murders were committed by other\nmeans? For example, this type of assassin last night showed a complete\ndisregard for his own safety. He wasn't hiding someplace to take a\nshot. He walked right in, knowing that he had to be apprehended, and\nyet he was willing to take the chance. Isn't this similar to the\nassassination of the emperor of the Austria-Hungarian empire that\nbegan World War I, who did it with a bomb? He walked up and tossed\na bomb into a carriage. Wouldn't this man, without a gun, have gone\nwith a knife instead? Isn't it true that this kind of man would\nfind a gun, would obtain a gun in some way, normally through theft?\nThe criminal has no trouble getting one. I don't see the point of\njust registering firearms so we know who has them. I'm quite sure\nthat this young man was not a psychopath; I'm quite sure that he would\nhave had no trouble, under whatever law, in legitimately obtaining or\nbuying a gun.\nare\nNo, I think what we've got to treat now / the causes. We have\nto get down to \"what is this atmosphere?\" What is this atmosphere,\nfor example, that begins on a campus, that says that young hoodlums\ncan come in and, under the name of some cause they believe in, inter-\nfere with the activities of thousands and thousands of students who\nare legitimately bent on getting an education, who can vandalize the\nproperty of the university or college, who can sit there in the office\nand interrupt orderly processes. And we're denied, supposedly, the\nright to exact any punishment or even expel them from school. I\nbelieve that there is a principal, an inherited law that says that\ncrime must be followed by swift and certain justice, not necessarily\npunishment. I think we have to review our permissive attitude.\nI read a little pioce the other day by a psychology professor who\ntold of an incident in New York in which a young lady was being\nattacked in an apartment building. A group of men holding a meeting or\nthe second floor came out on the landing. They saw what was going\non but never interfered. Then they went back into their meeting.\nWhat makes this particularly newsworthy is the purpose of the meeting:\nto pass some resolutions on how they as committee members could be of\nmore help to unfortunate people. Their help did not include going\ndown one flight of stairs to help a young lady who was the victim of\na terrible crime of violence.\nJoey - Governor Reagan, I hate to interrupt, sir, but having done a\nshow of your own, some time back, I'm sure that you know that you\nhave to break away onco in a while for a commercial, and I must say\n-3-\nsir, in all fairness to myself, that when you did Death Valley Days,\nI stayed with you through the commercial and after. I hope you 'll\ndo the same for me.\nGovernor - Well, I don't know that I've said all that needs to be\nsaid.\nJoey - I did want to ask you one more very important question, After\nwe come back from this, I'll hook you somehow.\nGovernor - I'll be here.\nJoey - I do want to find out from you how all this looks to the rest\nof the world, if you 11 just extend me the courtesy of doing this when\nwe come back, and then I will let you go. I will pardon you, governor.\n(Commercial)\nJoey - If you can, in a few words, or whatever amount of time it takes,\ntell us how we look in the eyes of the rest of the world\nwith all\nthe violence that's taking place here.\nGovernor - Well, you know, Joey, that doesn't bother me too much\nbecause I think there's a great deal of anti-Americanism in the world\n--perhaps we have brought some of it on ourselves. I'm sure that\nthere are going to be writers sharpening their pencils right now all\nover the world who are going to gleefully point at this, in spite of\nits tragic nature, as another example of the supposed decadence of\nAmerica. Most of them wouldn't even be free to write what they\nwanted to write if this country, ever since World War II, hadn't been\nstanding between them and the barbarians, if we hadn't been pouring\nout our treasure and guaranteeing our strength, that they had the\nright to autonomy and freedom. They would have been overwhelmed in\nfive minutes without us. So they don't bother me too much at all.\nI think what we should be concerned about, and I have said this\nbefore, is that it is time that this country assumes some leadership\nfrom its governmental level, and say to the rest of the world:\n\"We're not going to buy your affection anymore, or try to. We're\ngoing to demand your respect.\" We do this best when our government\nrecognizes that the prime function of government is to protect the\nrights of the individual, to guarantee that he is secure in his\nperson and his property, and that he is safe in his home and his\nplace of business. I'll tell you this. As far as it can be done from\na state level, we're going to do that in California, so help me God.\nJoey - Governor Reagan, I should like to take this opportunity of\nthanking you for two occasions--once, for carrying on my opening\nshow, and once again for appearing tonight, and I do hope that next\ntime we meet, it will be under much happier circumstances. Thank\nyou, Governor Reagan.\nGovernor - Thank you.\n# # #\n-4-\n-\n6/16/68\nCBS NEWS\n2020 M Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20036\nFOR RELEASE: 12:30 PM, EDT\ntranscriptmenthon transcriptand be for\nSUNDAY, JUNE 16\nAll permission of of of the Inc.\nFACE THE NATION\nas broadcast over the\nCBS Television Network\nand the\nCBS Radio Network\nSUNDAY, JUNE 16, 1968 - 12:30-1:00 PM EDT\nGUEST: HONORABLE RONALD REAGAN\nGovernor of California\nNEWS CORRESPONDENTS:\nMartin Agronsky\nCBS News\nPaul B. Hope\nWashington Evening Star\nBill Stout\nCBS News\nDIRECTOR: Robert Vitarelli\nPRODUCERS: Sylvia Westerman and Prentiss Childs\nNOTE TO EDITORS: This broadcast was pre-recorded at KOTV, in Tulsa,\nOklahoma, Saturday, June 15.\n1\n1\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor Reagan, at the Republican Governors\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nConference in Tulsa the consensus was that for two days you con-\n3\nducted yourself like a candidate for your party's presidential\n4\nor vice presidential nomination. Do you still maintain you are\n5\nnot a possible contender for either office?\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No. And I would be hard put to know where\n7\nanyone got that idea. I attended all of the meetings. I don't\n8\nknow of anything I did on the outside except agree to a press\n9\nconference which was asked of me. And, other than that, I was\n10\nin the meetings where the press wasn't present or none of the\n11\npublic.\n12\nANNOUNCER: In Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the Republican Governors\nWARD &.PAUL\n13\nConference, in color, FACE THE NATION, a spontaneous and unre-\n14\nhearsed news interview with Governor Ronald Reagan of California.\n15\nGovernor Reagan will be questioned by CBS News Correspondent Bill\n16\nStout, Paul Hope of The Washington Star, and CBS News\n17\nCorrespondent Martin Agronsky. We shall resume the interview\n18\nwith Governor Reagan in a moment.\n19\n20\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, I wonder if we can go back to that\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nquestion. Do you still maintain you are not a possible contender\n22\nfor either the presidential or vice presidential office?\n23\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I am certainly not a contender for the\n24\nlatter, for the vice presidential office. I think technically\n25\nyou would have to recognize that anyone who is a favorite son\n2\n1\ncandidate, even though he is a favorite son candidate only in\nPhone (Area 20. 28-4266\n2\nthe sense of directing a delegation or hoping to, that technically\n3\nat the convention he is a candidate. He is entered in nomination\n4\nand would be a candidate if the party chose to consider him as\n5\nsuch.\n6\nMR. HOPE: Well, now, really you are more than technically a\n7\ncandidate, aren't you?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: You mean at the convention?\n9\nMR. HOPE: I mean now or at the convention, any time.\n10\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I certainly am not now. I haven't in-\n11\njected myself into this race, nor would I. But at the convention,\n12\nas I say, I use the word \"technically\" because it is true, that\nWARD PAUL\n13\nyou actually are placed in nomination. That is true of me as\n14\nwell as a number of other favorite son candidates. And I have\n15\nsaid for some time that I believe this is going to be an open\n16\nconvention and, therefore, if the delegates choose to consider\n17\nother than the announced candidates, they will do SO.\n18\nMR. STOUT: When you say that you haven't conducted yourself\n19\nhere, Governor, as a possible contender, you are talking, perhaps\n20\nabout your own attitude. But what do you think of the attitudes\n21\n25 N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\nof the people? The people and the delegates decide who will run.\n22\nYou don't really decide for yourself and no man going into a\n23\nconvention --\n24\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Bill, I have said this for a long time: I\n25\nthink the people do -- this job seeks rather than someone seeking\n3\n1\nit, and this you have very little control over. I am aware of\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\na great many people who have expressed this belief with regard\n3\nto me, and I am greatly honored, as I have said before, that\n4\nanyone should consider me in that light. But I can again say\n5\nthat I have been doing my job and I have done nothing to\n6\nencourage or to try and set up any organization to promote that\n7\nsort of thing.\n8\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, let's carry you -- you carried yourself\n9\na step further, at least. Now we have you saying you're not\n10\nconsidering yourself as a contender for the vice presidential\n11\nnomination but you can't help it if you go as a favorite son,\n12\nwhich makes you a contender for the presidential nomination.\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nNow, could you address yourself to this: Which candidate, of\n14\nthe two men who do say they want to be President, get the\n15\npresidential nomination on the Republican ticket, Nixon or\n16\nRockefeller, with which of those two could you most easily make\n17\ncommon cause?\n18\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, now I have to not only be evasive but I\n19\njust have to avoid the answer, because I have asked our own\n20\ndelegation -- We have only had one organizing meeting so far,\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nand that was prior to the official placing of them on the ballot\n22\nor getting them recognized on the ballot as the delegation -- I\n23\nhave asked all of our delegates to not give any opinion as to\n24\nwho they might favor when and if the time comes to make a move\n25\nin some direction, in order to insure the very unity that caused\n1\nus to have a single delegation to begin with. Now, it would\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nhardly behoove me now to come on television nationwide and\n3\nannounce a preference of my own. I just can't do it.\n4\nMR. HOPE: Well, as Governor of the largest State in the Uni\n5\ndon't you feel some obligation to lead the people --\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, yes.\n7\nMR. HOPE: -- to tell them who you're for?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No. We ran on the basis of a broad-base de\n9\ngation in which if we were for someone in advance we would ha\n10\nsought a delegation of people who were pledged or who leaned\n11\nthat same direction. We didn't. In the interest of unity,\n12\nwhich was the whole purpose of this, we have a delegation fro\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nCalifornia that represents the whole spectrum of the Californ\n14\nparty. We have people who were actively in support of various\n15\ncandidates on that delegation and who have had past support f\n16\nthose delegates. Now, the idea of not having an open primary\n17\nin the interest of unity, was SO that at the convention, when\n18\nthe facts are in and it is time to make a decision for who we\n19\nthink will be the winner and the next President of the United\n20\nStates, to say nothing of platform decisions, that hopefully di\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\ndelegation can resolve its differences within itself and opera\n22\nas a unit .for the best interests not only ---\n23\nMR. HOPE: Well, aren't you really playing it a little cozy,\n24\nexpecting that something is going to develop for you at the\n25\nconvention?\n5\n1\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think SO. As a matter of fact,\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nthe only thing I can give you by way of proof of sincerity is --\n3\nand California knows this that I was the one who\n4\nwas opposed to a favorite son candidacy, and this was announced\n5\nthe day after I was elected at a joint press conference with\n6\nBob Finch, the Lieutenant Governor, and Bob publicly stated then\n7\nhe was going to do everything he could to convince me I should\n8\nbe one in the interest of unity. And the result was the party\n9\nleaders and our State Central Committee officers were the ones\n10\nwho persuaded me that I should be the favorite son candidate.\n11\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, could we get one thing -- perhaps you\n12\ncould tell us -- would you say your political philosophy was\nWARD & PAUL\n13\ncloser to that of Mr. Nixon or Mr. Rockefeller?\n14\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I think without my answering that you\n15\ncould probably say that to me.\n16\nMR. AGRONSKY: No. Why should I answer the question?\n17\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, because I think that on the basis of\n18\nviews expressed, for example, right now on the Vietnam conflict\n19\nor on the approach of -- the involvement of government in the\n20\nsolution of some problems yes, I would think that this would\n21\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\nbe a fair statement.\n22\nMR. AGRONSKY: What would be a fair statement?\n23\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: That I have perhaps tended toward solutions of\n24\nnational problems, more in the same context or vein that Richard\n25\nNixon has than I have at times with Governor Rockefeller.\n6\n1\nMR. STOUT: Well, let's take this a step further, Governor.\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nWhen we talk about the convention and the delegates, there are\n3\nestimates ranging from I have heard 38 per cent, I have\n4\nheard 60 per cent of Goldwater delegates returning this year and\n5\nalternates returning this year to Miami. Do you see yourself\n6\nas the only hope of the conservatives in the party? They cer-\n7\ntainly are not going to rally around Nelson Rockefeller, and\n8\nmany of them may not around Richard Nixon. Where else do they\n9\nhave to go except to you?\n10\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, Bill, as you know, I won't go along any\n11\nmore with using those labels. I have been working for two years\n12\ntrying to get the party to drop the labels --\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nMR. STOUT: But a great many people do use them.\n14\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: - and yet We have been very successful,\n15\nthough, with getting them to. I think there is a different\n16\nphilosophy or belief in the Republican Party today, at the grass\n17\nroots level and on up through the pros. I think you will find\n18\nthe Republican Party today is far more willing to see good in\n19\nother Republicans, in the interest of unity and in the interest\n20\nof winning. There is a great desire -- we have had our blood\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nbath and learned a lesson from it. The party was virtually out\n22\nof existence just a few years ago, and I don't think that you\n23\nare going to have that problem. I don't think people are going\n24\nto this convention frozen into an ideological mold as they have\n25\nbeen at some times in the past.\n7\n1\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, let's not talk about being frozen.\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nYou do say that your political philosophy comes closer to that\n3\nof Mr. Nixon than to Mr. Rockefeller, that is one position you\n4\nhave taken now. Now, the Nixon coordinator in the South, Mr.\n5\nCalloway, recently said perhaps We can get George Wallace on our\n6\nside, that is where he belongs. Would you feel that George\n7\nWallace belongs on the Republican side and would you welcome\n8\nhim in the Republican Party?\n9\nGOVERNOR REAGAON: Well, I think this is a decision -- if George\n10\nWallace belongs on the Republican side, then he should re-\n11\nregister, but he is still registered as a Democrat. And it\n12\nwould seem to me that anyone -- I have always believed that\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nanyone who wants to come into the Republican Party has come in\n14\nby virtue of buying our philosophy, but we don't go out after\n15\nsomeone by virtue of buying theirs. And, therefore, if he\n16\nfound that he was compatible and could believe in the philosophy\n17\nof the Republican Party, then I think that his place was in our\n18\nparty.\n19\nMR. AGRONSKY: You could welcome him to the party under those\n20\ncircumstances?\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Under the circumstances that he subscribe to\n22\nour philosophy.\n23\nMR. HOPE: Well, do you think he is compatible with your phil-\n24\nosophy?\n25\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I think if you look at his record as a\n8\n1\nGovernor, you will find a number of instances where on domestic\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nissues he has been right in line with the present Democratic\n3\nphilosophy of government control and subsidy and regulation,\n4\nand so forth, which would be contrary to the Republican phil-\n5\nosophy. At the moment there is no question that he has ex-\n6\npressed some views, particularly on the international scene,\n7\nregarding Americanism and patriotism, and so forth, that I am\n8\nsure few people disagree with.\n9\nMR. AGRONSKY: What about his position on racial problems?\n10\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, he seems to have avoided that subject\n11\npretty well?\n12\nMR. AGRONSKY: Avoided it?\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I haven't heard too many statements -- not\n14\nthat I have heard everything he says or pay too much attention\n15\nto it --- but I haven't heard much said that --\n16\nMR. AGRONSKY: Well, his position, I mean, against integration,\n17\nto make a specific point?\n18\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I happen to be one who believes in --\n19\nfirst of all, I am incapable of feeling prejudice myself. I do\n20\nnot believe in discrimination and I certainly believe in\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nequality of opportunity for all people. And I believe that the\n22\nanswer to the problem will come some day when all of us in\n23\nAmerica will stop using - just as we' ve stopped using the\n24\nlabels in our party -- we will stop hyphenating ourselves and\n25\nusing a word in front of American with a hyphen.\n9\n1\nMR. STOUT: Let's go back to these labels, Governor, that you\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nobject to but most people in this country employ in common talk,\n3\nliberal and conservative. Senator Kuchel lost to Max Rafferty,\n4\nand there doesn't seem much argument within the Republican\n5\nParty that Kuchel represented the moderate or liberal wing and\n6\nRafferty the conservative or perhaps the right wing. What do\n7\nyou make of that?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I recall, during the campaign, hearing\n9\nboth of them comparing--one contender comparing his views, and\n10\nthe other comparing his vote record with the voting record of\n11\nSenator George Murphy. And they came out about even with the\n12\nsupport of the things that George Murphy had stood for. Now,\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nI think the Kuchel-Rafferty campaign -- there were a number U.S.\n14\nfactors. First of all, the contender in this case has been a\n15\nvery successful campaigner in California, winner of two\n16\nelections by wide margins, one by a very large margin. He is\n17\nknown to the people of California. And the other didn't campaig\n18\nas actively, spending a great deal of his time in Washington\n19\nbecause the Senate was in session. And I think that Max\n20\nRafferty himself gave a view that cannot be discounted too\n21\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\nmuch. He said that he believed there is such dissatisfaction\n22\non the party of the people today with what has been going on\n23\nthat there is a kind of tendency against the incumbent instead\n24\nof the other way around.\n25\nMR. STOUT: Not just a swing to the right but against individual\n10\n1\nincumbents?\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nGOVERNOR REAGAN:- That's right. There is a sort of let's have\n3\na change\n4\nMR. HOPE: How much did party loyalty play in the Kuchel-\n5\nRafferty race? Kuchel did not support you. He did not support\n6\nNixon. He didn't support Goerge Murphy. Was that a major\n7\nfactor?\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, you would have to ask the people who\n9\nvoted and why they voted. I would have no way of knowing.\n10\nMR. HOPE: Well, do you think it was a favor?\n11\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I honestly don't know. It was a hard-fought\n12\ncampaign. They criticized each other. But I think there was a\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nbasically adherence to our 11th Commandment. There was no --\n14\nthey didn't inject personalities and get into that kind of\n15\nbitterness at all.\n16\nMR. HOPE: Well, Rockefeller didn't support Barry Goldwater in\n17\n1964. Do you think this should be a factor in his candidacy\n18\nthis year? Is he entitled to the nomination, not having sup-\n19\nported the nominee in '64?\n20\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I am opposed to anything that is going to\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nreopen old wounds or that is going to lessen our chances for\n22\nmaking a change. I think it is vitally important in America\n23\ntoday that we have a change. I think the present Democratic\n24\nleadership has taken this country or lack of leadership,\n25\nactually -- has taken this country down a road that can lead.\n11\n1\nonly to disaster and ruin for the country. And I think the\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nissue is far more important than dredging up or remembering an\n3\npast grudge.\n4\nMR. HOPE: Well, Republicans have to nominate a nominee. If\n5\nthe people do not know where the Republicans stand, if they do\n6\nnot talk about one another, how are they supposed to decide?\n7\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, in California in 1966 we waged a\n8\nprimary in which we campaigned our views and what we would do\n9\nas opposed to those of the incumbent Democratic administration\n10\nand the people made the decision on who they thought would be\n11\nthe best replacement for that administration. This does not\n12\nmean that you take on the other -- you state your case. You\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nrun against the opposition. You know, this is a try-out for\n14\nwho is going to run in the big race againstthe other school.\n15\nAnd I have likened it with a track meet. If on Wednesday\n16\nafternoon the kids go out on the track to do a hundred years\n17\nto determine who is going to run on Saturday against the other\n18\nschool in the big track meet, you try to find out who is the\n19\nfastest. You don't go down the track spiking each other to SE\n20\nwho can be the only survivor.\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nMR. STOUT; That is a different game, Governor, that is not\n22\npolitics.\n23\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't think it is a different game\n24\nWhat are We interested in? We are interested in the views of\n25\nthe Republican candidates and what they would offer and what\n12\n1\nthey would propose in contrast to the leadership that we now\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nhave in Washington. And thus there is no need to point a\n3\nfinger at any other Republican candidate. You state your case,\n4\nwhat you would do.\n5\nMR. STOUT: It has always happened in every campaign, particu-\n6\nlarly in primaries, and I am sure it happened in the '66 primary\n7\nbetween you and George Christopher.\n8\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I would ask you to go back and find one\n9\nword that I ever said about him or he about me.\n10\nMR. STOUT: But it takes two, you know. He said a great many\n11\nthings.\n12\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, whether that had anything to do with\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nthe result or not, people made a decision.\n14\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, would you say that there is a funda-\n15\nmental difference between your position on Vietnam and that of\n16\nNelson Rockefeller?\n17\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I can't say that I am a complete authority on\n18\nhis position. I used this just as an example a moment ago and,\n19\nincidentally, let me correct one if I gave an impression\n20\nthere that this meant that I was supposed to be favoring one\n21\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\nover the other, no. You asked a question; I honestly tried\n22\nto answer it. But, at the same time, in governors conferences,\n23\nGovernor Rockefeller and I have been in great agreement many\n24\ntimes across the table on issues that were confronting us.\n25\nI know that he has announced. whether he has stated it already\n13\n1\nor not --- a position or that he is going to explain his position\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\non Vietnam. But it has been my -- when I said that I perhaps\n3\nwas closer on that one, you were looking for an example. I\n4\nthink that what I was actually trying to say was that both\n5\nRichard Nixon and I have over the period of the past year\n6\nspoken out against the limited war concept, against a win\n7\npolicy and against the need to be there. Now, my impression --\n8\nMR. AGRONSKY: Against a win policy and against the need to be\n9\nthere -- you mean you are willing to lose --\n10\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Against the -- oh, no, did I say \"against the\n11\nwin\" -- oh, no.\n12\nMR. AGRONSKY: A no-win policy?\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: A no-win policy. It has been my impression\n14\nthat perhaps Nelson is placing a little more faith in the\n15\nnegotiations or in some kind of compromise settlement than I\n16\nfind myself able to.\n17\nMR. AGRONSKY: You have no faith in that prospect in Paris?\n18\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Oh, I can hope for peace but I don't hope for\n19\nthe kind of peace that would result in, say, a concession that\n20\nwould allow the Viet Cong to be a part of the South Vietnamese\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\ngovernment. I think this would be about the same as the\n22\nUnited States government taking the Cosa Nostra in as partners.\n23\nMR. STOUT: Governor, if we can move to a different topic, the\n24\nday after Senator Kennedy died -- or perhaps it was the day he\n25\ndied -- you blamed demagogic and irresponsible leaders in and\n14\n1\nout of office. You said that their words had fed this attitude\nPhone (Area 202) 028-4266\n2\nof lawlessness in our society. And, as I recall, after that\n3\nnews conference in Sacramento you refused to identify any of\n4\nthem, or you failed to identify them. Can you tell us now what\n5\nkind of people do you have in mind? What are their names?\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, Bill, let me straighten one thing out.\n7\nI didn't say demagogic leaders. I said demagogic statements by\n8\npeople in and out of public office. Now, a demoagogic state-\n9\nment can be deliberate. It can also be carelessness on the\n10\npart of the individual who didn't intend to be a demagogue. But\n11\nyou can go back -- one of the reasons for not naming an indi-\n12\nvidual is to try and pick out and name one would be unfair\nWARD & AUL\n13\nunless you were going to compile a list of all of them and\n14\ntheir statements and say, here, all of these statements we\n15\nthink have contributed to this atmosphere. But we have had\n16\nstatements --\n17\nMR. AGRONSKY: Did you have Senator Robert Kennedy's statements\n18\nin mind, his own statements?\n19\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I can only tell you that Robert Kennedy, in\n20\nthe last several weeks in California, has actually been campaign-\n25 K Stre N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\ning on a basis of healing the wounds, restoring law and order,\n22\nstopping the violence in our country --\n23\nMR. AGRONSKY: You did not mean Senator Robert Kennedy?\n24\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: -- and stopping enflaming the --\n25\nMR. AGRONSKY: Whom did you mean, Governor?\n1'\n1\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: I was talking about -- I wasn't talking al\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nindividuals -- I was talking about statements. And I repeat\n3\nMR. AGRONSKY: Individuals make statements, Governor.\n4\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: All right, some of them might have been\n5\nattributed to him. But statements such as someone saying the\n6\nif he lived in a slum he too would join a rebellion or could\n7\nwage a --\n8\nMR. HOPE: Is that what you are talking about?\n9\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: This is the kind of statement I am talkin\n10\nabout. I am talking about statements made several years ag\n11\nof a statement that perhaps a jail record would be a mark o\n12\nhonor in this country with regard to being arrested for\nWARD &-PAUL\n13\ndemonstrations and so forth. I am talking about any statem\n14\nof a kind that encourages riots. Now, these could encompas\n15\ngreat many commencement speakers of the last week or so who\n16\nhave appeared on a number of campuses, and they come from a\n17\nnumber of lines of activity, including academic, including\n18\njudicial and public figures who have talked about encouragi\n19\nsupposedly just dissent but encouraging the type of rioting\n20\nthat we have seen on our campuses. I claim these statement\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nare demagogic and I claim it is time for anyone who is goin\n22\nspeak publicly to think twice with regard to his words and\n23\nword that he thinks might be used, even misinterpreted by\n24\nsomeone as to be a ticket or an admission for him to go out\n25\ntake the law into his own hands, we had better think twice.\n16\n1\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, you have talked about student protests\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nWhere would you draw the line on student protests on our\n3\ncampuses?\n4\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, we have in this country a built-in\n5\nsystem for dissent. This is what we mean by freedom of speech,\n6\nfreedom of assembly. We have a right to try and persuade our\n7\nfellow citizens, to try and persuade our elected officials.\n8\nBut I think that dissent must stop short of interfering with\n9\nthe rights of other individuals. When a group takes over the\n10\nadministration building and other buildings of a campus, when\n11\nthey interfere with the orderly processes of the administration\n12\nwhen they force the cancellation of classes and studies on the\nWARD & PAUL\n13\npart of the ma jority who happens to disagree with them, when\n14\nthey attempt by force to prevent recruiters from various indus-\n15\ntrial firms from coming on a campus seeking future employees,\n16\nwhen they go out in the street and stage civil disobedience,\n17\nit is all well and good to say that they are staging a civil\n18\ndisobedience with an idea that they will pay the price by being\n19\narrested, but how do they repay the person who might have been\n20\nin an ambulance on their way to the hospital who was blocked\nK Sweet, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nand held up by this demonstration in the street; how do they\n22\nrepay the person perhaps whose house burned down because the\n23\nfire department couldn't get through the thousands of people,\n24\nlet us say, in one of our California cities, who were attempting\n25\nto attack a draft center? Civil disobedience, in taking the\n17\n1\nlaw into your own hands, you very rarely if at all can do thi\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nwithout interfering with the basic rights of someone else, and\n3\nthis we have no right to do.\n4\nMR. HOPE: Do you think the President should have let the Poor\n5\nPeople's Campaign camp on public lands in Washington?\n6\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: No, I don't, unless they were grounds suitable\n7\nfor camping, unless they were coming into an area where this\n8\nwas the custom and where this was proper. Frankly, I am in\n9\ndisagreement with this particular march and I am in disagree-\n10\nment with the government's acceptance of it on the basis not of\n11\ndisagreeing with their goals. I think all of us want to do\n12\neverything we can to lift the standard of living, to bring\nWARD & PAUL\n13\neveryone up as high as they can be brought, to enjoy the things\n14\nthat this society of ours can afford. But I think there is a\n15\ngreat disillusionment coming to many people. First of all, the\n16\nidea that by coming and staging such a demonstration they can\n17\npersuade the Congress to pass some law that is going to\n18\neliminate poverty or alleviate it, even, is a falsehood, and\n19\nmany people are deluded into believing that this can take place\n20\nThere is nothing wrong with the American people or the American\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\ngovernment's attitude toward poverty. Our record provès -- we\n22\nhave spent billions of dollars in hundreds of programs in a\n23\nlegitimate effort to try and find an answer to these problems\n24\nbut the truth is it is the manner in which we have done it\n25\nthat has failed. There is no lack of intent. They don't have,\n18\n1\nto persuade Congress to feel a sympathy for the poor. We already\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nhave that.\n3\nMR. AGRONSKY: Governor, they are poor. They feel that the\n4\nremedy is not in sight immediately for them and they sought\n5\nthis way, apparently, to dramatize their position. This was\n6\nunder the aegis, really, of the right of a public demonstration,\n7\nthe effort of people to seek redress from the Congress itself.\n8\nBut you would disagree with the President in having permitted\n9\nthem to take the position that they did in the shadows, as it\n10\nwere, of the Lincoln Memorial, on public grounds?\n11\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: Yes. Again, I must say that I think a great\n12\nmany people are going to be disillusioned. We are deluded into\nWARD & PAUL\n13\nbelieving that this could result in some immediate answer to\n14\ntheir problem. Now, again, you get back to dissent and what is\n15\nneeded in this country. There are a great many voices that\n16\nhave been heard -- one of them was the late Senator Robert\n17\nKennedy's - saying virtually the same things that I have been\n18\nsaying in California. As a matter of fact, in California he was\n19\nadvocating what we are doing in California, a program to provide\n20\njobs for the poor, the minority element. And here, in other\n25 K Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\nwords, was a place proper leaders of the poor should be telling\n22\nthem \"support those people today who are advocating a change in\n23\nthe programs that are a failure.\"\n24\nMR. STOUT: But, Governor, even before the horror at the\n25\nAmbassador Hotel, Robert Kennedy also spoke for tougher gun\n;\n19\n1\ncontrol laws. And you have said we probably have the best laws\nPhone (Area 202) 628-4266\n2\nin the Nation in California now.\n3\nGOVERNOR REAGAN: We do. You think We don't? Yes, we do.\n4\nMR. AGRONSKY: Gentlemen, I really regret our time is up. Thank\n5\nyou very much, Governor Reagan, for being here to FACE THE\n6\nNATION. A word about next week's guest in a moment.\n7\n8\nANNOUNCER: Today on FACE THE NATION, Governor Ronald Reagan, of\n9\nCalifornia, was interviewed by CBS News Correspondent Bill Stout,\n10\nPaul Hope of The Washington Star, CBS News Correspondent Martin\n11\nAgronsky led. the questioning. Next week, Senator Thomas Dodd, of\n12\nConnecticut, leader in the fight for a strong gun control bill,\nWARD & AUL\n13\nand Harold Glassen, President of the National Rifle Association,\n14\nwhich is fighting additional gun control legislation, will FACE\n15\nTHE NATION. FACE THE NATION was recorded yesterday at Station\n16\nKOTV, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.\n17\n18\n19\n20\n25 k act, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n4/21/69\nExcerpts of Remarks\nby Governor Ronald Reagan\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\nAnaheim, April 21, 1969\nIn setting down some thoughts for my remarks to you this\nevening, I reviewed several of the recent reports concerning the\nCalifornia Association of Christian Schools. I was especially\npleased to learn that your enrollment is now well past the 26,000\nmark.\nPrivate schools have always had a tremendously important\nrole in our nation's -- and our State's -- educational system.\nIt is essential to our total education system that private schools\nthrive. The private institution often serves as a pace setter,\nand today, particularly, is 8 vital link to reality. Private in-\nstitutions are an educational whetstone --- helping to hone the\neducational process, forcing the public system to compete in the\ndrive for excellence -- making possible wider educational opportunities\nand thus improving both the private and the public school systems.\nThey are, in fact, full partners in the pursuit of knowledge.\nI believe there are some very valid reasons -- some compelling\nfactors -- for your splendid growth these past years\nreasons over\nand above the outstanding capabilities, dedication and hard work\nof your leadership, your faculties and your supporters.\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-2-\nFirst, because you are private institutions -- free enter-\nprise schools, as it were -- you know you must produce. It is a\nreal sacrifice for parents to spend the extra money to pay for this\neducation for their children -- especially when it is over and above\nthe heavy costs they must also pay for the public education system;\nand therefore, they must expect a better product. The fact that\nyou are growing indicates your schools are producing that superior\nproduct.\nSecond, I think your growth is due to the academic environ-\nment you provide in and through your schools. In today's sea of\ncampus turmoil, your schools are like an island of dedication and\npurpose. You are a part of the bulwark of morality which is essen-\ntial to the foundation of freedom -- history shows that we cannot\nhave one without the other.\nAnd, most importantly of all, I think your growth is due to\nthe fact the God-oriented atmosphere of your classrooms and your\nactivities. God is not dead on your campuses -- he is not forgotten,\nnot shut out\nhe is very much a living, motivating force. And\nthis is the key.\nJust as our forefather wove God, into the very fabric of\ngovernment, so we must reweave God into our government if we are to\nbuild any kind of an acceptable future. \"Where the spirit of the\nLord is, there is liberty\". As Dr. Louis Evans said, if we are to\ngo anywhere tomorrow, we must add God to gold and Christ to commerce\nand soul to science.\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-3-\nAnd, as Milton Mayer wrote, today's education sometimes\nteaches us how to say \"no\" to our enemies but very seldom teaches\nus how to say no to our friends -- and almost never teaches us how\nto say \"no\" to ourselves. Through your association and its member\nschools, comes an education which not only teaches you when and\nhow to say \"No\" to your enemies, your friends and yourself, it is\nan education which also teaches you how to give the right \"Yes\" the\nchallenges of life.\nWe remember how Christ feed the multitudes with the youngsters'\nloaves and fishes -- how he magnified the seven loaves, and the few\nlittle fishes, to feed the thousands. In that parable there is 2\nmessage for your schools -- and for each one of you. In these days,\nwhen the world is hungry for morality -- if only someone will speak\nout; when the world is searching for integrity, if only some will\nspeak the truth; when the world is crying for leadership ---- if only\nsomeone will give it\nyou can be the loaves, you can be the fishes,\nto multiply and help feed the spirit of man.\nThe most significant dimension of the future -- the future of\nthis nation, and your future -- will be spiritual. For the real\nchallenge of tomorrow is not simply how many bathtubs or how many\nTV sets, or how many two-car families we produce or own -- the real\nchallenge of tomorrow is whether we will rediscover America's\nspiritual heritage and reapply morality and virtue to our national\nlife. It will profit us little if we gain the whole material world\nand lose our soul.\nCalif. Assn, of Christian Schools\n-4-\nEconomics and greatness of spirit need not be imcompatible.\nWe have spent decades applying ourselves and our resources through\na free enterprise system based on spiritual commitment -- and this\nfree enterprise system has built a mighty material foundation for\nthis nation. It is the task of coming generations to maintain, and\nbuild, that material foundation -- but to give the greatest attention\nto a future of spiritual greatness. If we are to really go anywhere\ntomorrow, it must be not simply outward and upward\nbut inward\nand upward.\nWe have abandoned at our peril some of the basic rules and\nspiritual nature of freedom in these last few decades -- and,\nstrangely enough, we have done this in the name of social progress,\nclaiming all the time the most humane of motives. In the effort to\nmeet the material needs of those who fell behind in the economic race,\nwe have somehow found ourselves not only striving to meet their needs,\nbut also their wants -- while too often ignoring the needs or encouragin\nthe wants of their spirit.\nYears ago, during the great depression, a mother scrimped and\nsaved and, with a scholarship, managed to send her son off to college.\nAs he was getting ready to leave, she handed him a Bible and\nsaid, \"Son, keep in touch with the Lord. No matter how hard you work\non other things, spend a little time each day reading the scriptures.\nSeek first the kingdom of the Lord, and all things will be added unto\nyou. 11\nSometime later, the sen wrote home and as most students do at\none time or another asked for some extra money to help him over a\nrough spot. His mother wrote back, \"Read your Bible. Downhearted\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-5-\nand bewildered at his mother's heartlessness, the boy finally turned\nto his Bible and there, tucked between its pages, was a ten dollar\nbill.\nYou see, somewhere along the line -- without realizing it --\nwe seem to have discarded some of the important answers which are\nso important if this nation and this way of life is to endure. And,\nif we will go back and find those answers -- we'll find the solution\nto our other problems.\nWe have discarded, for example, the factor of incentive; in our\ndesire to be humane, we have helped people without requiring that\nthey also do what they can to help themselves, and so it became easy\nto pass over incentive, to think we're doing everything we could to\nhelp our fellow man when, in reality, we were being a party to his\ngradual self destruction.\nThere was a mother who raised her daughters -- and she had\nan incentive system. She used to put a $5 bill under the papers on\nthe pantry shelves. The daughter who was industrious enough ---\ndiligent enough -- to find theflve dollars was allowed to keep it.\nWhen the daughters were grown, one of them was telling HER daughters\nhow their grandmother had raised her. One of the girls asked, \"Why\ndidn't you ever do that with us?\" And she said, \"I did.\" 11\nWe have lived more than three decades with an ever-increasing\nassumption by government of those functions which were once performed\nby the people themselves\nand we've become too accustomed to the\nstyle of government doing for the people some of the things they\nshould be doing for themselves.\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-6-\nDuring the floods that devastated so many areas of California\nlast winter, I made a tour of the State. In addition to checking on\nthe various government public works programs such as road repair\nand so forth, I saw many people like ourselves and our neighbors\nwho had suffered grieviously -- and for whom there were no govern-\nment programs. And I started talking about the need for us to return\nto something we drifted away from in this country of ours -- the old\nfashioned concept of helping your neighbor; the Christian admonition\nto \"love thy neighbor as thyself.\"\nComing back to Sacramento after the trip, we called a meeting\nof government and civic leaders from around the State and asked them\nwhat could be done to organize a program of person-to-person, neighb\nto-neighbor help. During the course of the moeting, we were told\nthat this idea of helping one another in such situations was not only\nout-of-date, it was prehistoric and furthermore, we were told\n(and I quote) \"that the system obviates the need for individual\nassistance.\n\"\nCan this be true? Can this be true without also obviating\nthe need for the individual, as well? And, if this is the way it is,\nor the way it comes to pass, then don't we become people of the\ngovernment rather than a government of the people (and there is a\nvast difference)?\nCan you imagine what would have happened if that social system\nhad existed back in the days of the Good Samaritan who voluntarily\ncrossed the road to help the poor, set-upon, broken and bleeding\npilgrim? Under the \"new\" philosophy, I guess he would have taken\na look at the poor man lying there and said, \"cool it, Mac. When I\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-7-\nget to the next town, I'll call Caesar and they'll see if the welfare\ndepartment can do something for you.\nHas the system obviated the need for the individual, and for\nthe individual's personal effort? I think not. No government, no\nagency, no system at any level can possibly be big enough --- in size\nor soul -- to match the great potential of the people. And those\nwho would try to substitute the system for the individual -- as well\nas those who would accept the system as a substitute for individual\neffort, would do well to go back to the scriptures, to Paul's first\nletter to the Corinthians. Paul had a message for today -- for the\nbureaucrat and for the un-involved\nfor the person who would have\nthe State be our shepherd; it should be printed and framed and placed\nin every capitol, every office, every home.\n\"And though I bestow my goods upon the poor and though I give\nmy body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.\"\nLove doesn't need a middle man --- there is little love in a govern-\nment program. Love requires personal effort; love is a personal\nthing.\nWe haven't lost it yet, this love -- this desire to help.\nTwo hundred and fifty million man-hours a week are contributed\nin this country --- given voluntarily by our people in church work,\nin charitable causes, in youth work. And just recently a Gallup\nPoll showed that 70 percent of the people in this country said,\n\"Yes,\" they would be willing to give up four hours each week to help\ntheir fellowmen\nif they were just asked, just shown what to do.\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-8-\nBut, too often they aren't asked -- because there are too\nmany who ignore them and let the system obviate the need for in-\ndividual participation.\nNow, no one can prove that this robbing of the people of their\nopportunity to help -- to participate in community affairs -- is\nresponsible for the problems of today -- the crime problem, for\nexample; the subtle erosion of compassion and honor, the disinte-\ngration of honesty and ethics, the compromise with truth -- the\neasy-way-out, the comfortable anonymity of the faceless crowd; the\nerosion of public standards which make it easier and easier to\naccept an erosion of personal standards and vice versa --- standards\nwhich once compelled us to follow the same rules when we weren't\nbeing observed that we followed when we were; this ease in which\nwe substitute the public norms for the unyielding, uncompromising\npersonal values of the Judaic-Christian conviction.\nHow has this come about -- this rise in crime and this crashing\ndecent of morals, this disintegration of ethics, this transposition\nof love into lust -- how has it come to pass that we lost our way?\nWhat is turning our dream into a nightmare?\nI think it is due, in large part, to the fact we have lost\nthe faith of our fathers. In a recent column about General Eisenhower's\nfuneral services, James Reston worried about this, too. He wrote:\n\"The choir at the National Cathedral in Washington sang the\nold hymn. The opening line is: Faith of our fathers, living still',\nand despite all the modern denials of the point, it is probably still\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-9-\ntrue.. The first line of the chorus, however, is different: 'Faith\nof our fathers, holy faith, we will be true to thee till death' --\nand that clearly is not true for most Americans.\n\"Nevertheless\", Reston goes on, \"for believers and nonbelievers\nalike, some facts are plain. The political life and spirit of this\ncountry were based on religious convictions. America's view of the\nindividual was grounded on principle, clearly expressed by the\nfounding fathers, that man was a symbol of his Creator, and therefore\npossessed certain inalienable rights which no temporal authority\nhad the right to violate.\n\"That this conviction helped shape our laws and sustained\nAmerican men and women in their struggle to discipline themselves\nand conquer a continent even the most atheistic historian would\ndefend. And this raises a question which cannot be avoided. If\nreligion was so important in the building of the republic, how could\nit be irrelevant to the maintenance of the republic? And if it is\nirrelevant for the nonbelievers, what will they put in its place?\"\nYes, and for those for whom God is dead -- just what will\nthey put in His place? From what we've seen during recent months\nand years -- not very much, and not very good.\nGeneral of the Armies, Omar Bradley, put it this way:\nWe have many men of science; we have too few men of God.\n11 We have mastered the theory of the atom; and we have rejected\nthe Sermon on the Mount.\nPOSSIBLE INSERT FOR SPEECH, MONDAY, APRIL 21,1969\nCALIF. ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS\nORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER\nJust recently, in a town not far from here, a seventeen year old\nboy died from an overdose of drugs -- he was a pill dropper, as they say.\nThis is in itself a tragedy. But the real tragedy is that his friends --\nthe boys and girls with whom he travelled -- knew he was on dope, and\ndid nothing to help him; in effect, they let him die. Oh, not that\nthey sat around and said, \"Well, he's going to die -- let him. \" But\nthey watched him getting worse and worse, they watched his sickness and\nhis torment, and they did nothing to help him.\nThey said they loved him -- at the funeral they shed their tears.\nBut that was too late -- they didn't love him enough to help him when\nhe needed it.\nIf they had found him cut and bleeding and broken in the street\nor on the sidewalk, they would have nursed his wounds and rushed him to\na hospital. But, they saw him broken by drugs and dying in body and\nsoul from drugs; and they did nothing. They didn't go to the police,\nthey didn't go to the medical authorities, they didn't go to the school\nauthorities -- because they love him and they didn't want to get him in\ntrouble\nand, I suppose, they didn't want to get themselves in trouble.\nAnd so this young man -- who the year before had been a star\nathlete and a good student --- went down' and down, and last week he\ncame to the end of his road -- in part the victim of a system which\nobviated the need for individual assistance, a system which in this\ncase finally obviated the individual:\nRW:dg\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-10-\n\"We are nuclear giants and ethical infants.\n\"We have achieved brilliance without wisdom, and power with-\nout conscience\n11\nSometimes, it seems, we are in a position similar to that\nin which the rich merchant found himself - you'll remember the\nscripture. The harvest was rich and his barns were overflowing\nand there were still more fields to be picked. And so he leaned\nback and smiled and said: \"Tonight I will eat and drink and take\nmine ease and tomorrow -- tomorrow I will build bigger barns! \"\nThou fool, said the Lord, Thou Fool. This night thy soul\nshall be required of thee.\nWell, I wonder when the soul of America will be required of\nus.\nIn this moment in history we you and I -- find ourselves\nin the position of being a vehicle for those who believe in human\ndignity as it was endowed by our Creator\nan instrument for those\nto whom God can be very much alive -- for those who view with under-\nstanding the idealism of our times and who want to move with com-\npassion to solve the pressing problems\nwho want to exercise the\nlove spoken of by St. Paul, who want to use common sense and disciplined\nimagination to build the balance between reality and desire, who\nwant to discard the fraudulent theory that we are our brother's\nbrother\nand to revitalize the precept that each individual is\nentitled to the full rewards of his labor, and that the initiative\nof free citizens in a free, competitive enterprise is the mainspring\nof human progress\nCalif. Assn. of Christian Schools\n-11-\nand to do these things -- not because they may be politi- -\ncally smart, or popular, but because they are the morally right thing\nto do.\nNo nation in history has ever denied God and continued to\nwrite on the pages of history that have been allotted to them;\nthis lesson from the past should be our guiding torch for the future.\nPrivate schools -- Christian schools -- will be a very\nimportant part of that future -- coming generations may rise or\nfall -- feed the multitudes the food of the spirit as well as the\nmind and the body\nbe the leaven in a glorious tomorrow.\n###"
}