Nelson A. Rockefeller |
May 29, 1964
|
|
Nelson A. Rockefeller
Governor, New York; Republican Presidential Candidate; Philanthropist
Q: Why didn't you fight for the Republican nomination in 1960 the way you are in 1964?
A: You've got something. Well, I went out and looked around, and there was no question in my mind after visiting all parts of the country that because of the seven years of devoted work to the party which Vice President Nixon had made in attending fundraising dinners and in assisting candidates throughout this country that the party felt it owed him a rightful debt of gratitude and that the commitment was firm and that I'd better go on back to the state of New York as governor.
Q: As president, would you keep the U.S. troops in Germany, yes or no?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that's really quickly answered. How many delegates do you expect to have going into the convention?
A: This importantly depends on Tuesday, ladies and gentlemen.
Q: What is your reaction to the pressure tactics used by Senator Goldwater's supporters to force Loyola University to withdraw its invitation to you yesterday?
A: Well, they're reminiscent of what happened three days before when they forced the Elks to withdraw their invitation. And I think, frankly, ladies and gentlemen, they go along with the same kind of tactics which have resulted in over 200 calls to our headquarters in the whole Los Angeles area of California, saying that the offices were going to be bombed, over 200 calls received by every headquarter office we have. I don't think really myself this has much place or much part in America as we know America, or in politics as I think we want to see politics conducted. Thanks.
Q: If you should become the party's nominee, how do you plan to wage your campaign in the South? What strategy do you intend to use to win Democratic votes?
A: Well, I would do exactly as I did in 1958 in New York, when everybody said it was a Democratic year and don't bother to run on a Republican ticket. I believe in certain fundamental principles; that's why I came into politics and government 25 years ago. That's why I've stayed in government; I believe in the future of freedom and respect for human dignity. I think it can only be preserved and maintained if individual free citizens each assume their share of responsibility for that preservation.
It has been my privilege to be in government and to run for office. And when I run for office, I don't spare anything to reach the people and to discuss the issues. And this is what I did in New York two times, this is what I've been doing in this campaign, and ladies and gentlemen, if we, as a party, the Republicans, select and determine on a platform that looks forward with confidence and with faith in the future and in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded, and if we select a candidate who believes in those principles and who's willing to fight for them, and we go to the people all the way, whether it's in the North or the South or the East or the West, and talk the same basic principles to all Americans, then I think our party's going to win in November.
Q: If elected, what changes, if any, would you make in regard to our space efforts and goals?
A: Space effort, as started by President Eisenhower, reviewed the possibility of sending a man to the moon. The estimate was $17 billion. The decision was that the scientific information available was not sufficient to ensure a successful undertaking, and that it would warp the scientific effort in the entire field. Therefore, they continued without pushing, out of context, you might say, such a space man on the moon program. And they were going to get there when the information naturally developed out of the scientific program.
Two weeks after the Bay of Pigs, perhaps the greatest tragedy in the history of America, the present administration announced that they were going to put a man on the moon in a race with the Soviets. One cannot help feel but that maybe there was some thought of distracting attention from the unfortunate events of two weeks before. Now it appears that that effort will cost us $40 billion. Our program today is running at a rate of more than five billion dollars a year. It is warping the entire scientific effort in the field of space. I would terminate this one-sided race because the Soviets have said they weren't in the race anyhow, and then after we had declared we had a race, then the administration invited the Soviets to join us. I never understood the philosophy of that. If you're racing with someone, it's a little strange to ask them to join you. And if we were going to ask anyone to join us, why didn't we ask our friends and not those who would destroy us to join us?
I would terminate this, what is, in my opinion, a distorted effort, save two and a half billion a year, and use that money for accelerated effort in advanced weapons technology, which, in my opinion, needs some further support, and in the peaceful use of atoms, which was started by President Eisenhower and which has seemed to have been pushed to the side under the present administration. I think that we could achieve far more, both in the field of science, for America, and for mankind as a whole, on an approach such as that. Thank you.
Q: How do your liberal views differ from those of President Johnson's? Do these differences justify placing you in the White House?
A: Well, to begin with I didn't know that President Johnson was a liberal. I'm a liberal in matters of human concern, ladies and gentlemen. But I'm a conservative when it comes to fiscal integrity and when it comes to the use of the free enterprise system to achieve job opportunities for all Americans. I think that is the sound combination. This is the combination that was started for our party by Abraham Lincoln and has been our great tradition as a Republican Party.
The comparisons with President Johnson, the analogy which some would like to draw, I think are only drawn by those who are not fully aware of the details of either policy or administration and the fundamental differences that exist between the Republican Party, my philosophy, and the Democratic Party, and President Johnson's philosophy. I can go into those now if you want, but I think that answers the basic question.
Q: So far, your campaign has been directed against Republican opponents. When will you speak for Republicanism and in opposition of the present administration?
A: Well, I can see the man who wrote that question and those who are clapping have not followed my campaign, if you'll excuse me. I have taken, ladies and gentlemen, every basic important key issue with which we're faced today - whether it's South America, whether it's Laos, whether it's South Vietnam, whether it's unemployment, whether it's education - and, I have presented in detail my views here in California, in Oregon, and other parts of the country on those subjects on a positive basis, analyzing the weaknesses and the failures of the present Democratic administration. Also, ladies and gentlemen, because I think it is a contribution to the voters here in the great state of California, I have analyzed the positions taken by my opponent in this race, on issues and pointed out where we differ. In my opinion, it's the difference between responsible Republicanism and extremism in the Republican Party and I think you Californians have got to make that decision.
Q: What would you do to improve our position in Southeast Asia if you became president? And then another question: What could be done about Laos?
A: Three answers. First, we ought to have one policy and not a different policy for each nation, both in Southeast Asia and throughout the world. As far as Laos is concerned, it's one of the tragedies of this administration. When the Laotian government first asked this administration for help in fighting communist guerillas, the administration said yes and they sent out units of the Navy. Then shortly thereafter, they asked for a cease-fire. Under the cease-fire, the Communists made tremendous gains. Then the next step was for this administration to join with the Soviets in requesting or demanding a coalition government and a neutralization of Laos.
The history of coalition governments since communism came into the world has been that, whether it was China or countries in East Europe, they always ended up communist-dominated. Therefore, it's hard to understand how we could have participated with the Soviets in such a request. Now, two and a half, three years later, the administration seems very worried because they've discovered that four-fifths of the country has been taken over by the Communists, and they're sending special emissaries through third parties to try and get support from the Red Chinese to help straighten the situation out.
In South Vietnam, they followed a different policy. But, of course, by having followed the policy in Laos they did, the 260 miles of the common border between South Vietnam and Laos is now under communist control. It meets the North Vietnamese border, so that all of the communist activities, the guerilla activities in South Vietnam, are being conducted from North Vietnam and this communist-dominated strip of 260 miles of Laos. In my opinion, we ought to have one policy for Southeast Asia, and that policy is to defend freedom and respect human dignity where freedom is attacked on the frontiers of freedom. To be effective in South Vietnam, first the American people ought to know what we're up against - because this is a democracy. It's a free country, and if the government wants to have the support of its people and if the people are going to have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, they've got to have the facts. They haven't had the facts about Southeast Asia or South Vietnam.
We've been told so many things, it's hard to know what to believe. Things were going well; they were going badly. The government was no good; we helped bring the government in power. But the government had to go. The government went; our friends were assassinated. Then we were told things were going to go better. The war would be more effectively prosecuted and the hopes and aspirations of the people would be more effectively realized. And within two weeks, the government was overthrown and apparently nobody knew it was going to be overthrown. Then there was another period of uncertainty, then we were told things were going better and we'd bring out a thousand troops, and the rest of our troops would be brought out by the end of 1965.
They didn't mention, just by perhaps happenstance, whether that would be after a victory or in order to avoid a defeat; that detail was left out. Then Mr. McNamara was sent out on another trip and he came back and said things weren't good and we'd have to send back the thousand troops and perhaps more. He went out on a second trip and the president has asked for $125 million more, for economic and military aid. So, I say the American people really haven't been very effectively cut in to the realities, which many of these newspaper and other reporting members of the news media are familiar with because they've been out there and seen firsthand.
I think the following should be done now: first, that they should follow in hot pursuit the communist guerillas back into Laos or into North Vietnam; we cannot have an effective termination of this war if these people can go back into these sanctuaries. Secondly, I think that the South Vietnamese government should say to Laos and to North Vietnam, "Unless you terminate immediately the use of your territory for mounting this attack on our country, we, the South Vietnamese, with our planes and our pilots, will bomb your supply lines or the supply lines of the guerillas, the mounting areas for the attacks, and the supply depots themselves." Until these two steps are taken, I do not feel that they can possibly successfully conclude this military operation and the continued loss of American lives will be the result. Thank you.
Q: Here are two similar questions: What is your attitude on the recognition of Red China and trading with them? Another one: How do you feel about recognition of Red China, U.N. admission of Red China, trade with Red China?
A: Well, I'm opposed to recognition of Red China and trade with Red China as long as they violate the basic tenets and concepts of the United Nations charter, attacking their enemies to try and dominate them to take over and control the whole rice bowl area of Southeast Asia as well as other parts of the neighboring countries.
I'm opposed to their admission to the United Nations, but as I said earlier, I'm unalterably opposed to our withdrawing if they are admitted over our opposition - which is a possibility, because I feel that we would be abandoning the other free countries to the domination of Red China and the Soviet Union in the one vehicle which is the universal hope for the preservation of the peace. Thank you.
Q: Just why do you consider yourself better qualified than Senator Goldwater to be boss of the H-bomb button, as implied by the campaign propaganda coming from your office to me yesterday?
A: Well, I suppose we all see ourselves in our own perspective. I have spent 25 years working in foreign policy with foreign nations under three presidents, in the State Department, in the White House. I worked for seven years as Chairman of President Eisenhower's committee on government organization, studying the structure of the federal government, trying to bring about reorganization to keep in manageable proportions this tremendous federal bureaucracy, trying to get greater efficiency and economy, trying to make the President's job more manageable.
While I was in that job, I also, for Charles Wilson, when he first came in as Secretary of Defense, chaired a committee for him to study the structure and organization of the Defense Department. We made recommendations; those were adopted by the President and the Congress. I did the same kind of study, the structure of our foreign economic, informational and diplomatic relations, and the changes that we recommended there were carried out. I've worked in the basic social field and as Undersecretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was one of the reorganization plans that the president recommended to the Congress, which we've worked on for him, elevating those problems of human concern to the highest level of government, the cabinet.
I worked with Mrs. Hobby in the study of all of the legislation affecting the five component parts of that department and then updating them in terms of the problems that our country faces today, including Social Security. That department has the principal relationships with state and local governments, so that I had the opportunity of seeing those problems from the federal point of view. Then as Governor of the state of New York - now no longer the largest state in the union - I had the opportunity of seeing these same problems from the other side: working with the federal government from the state side; seeing this shared sovereignty the structure which our forefathers set up between the federal and the state government; being able to help assume responsibility at the state level in order to preserve for our system the rights of states, and also to reorganize through an amendment to the constitution, the Charter of the State of New York, so as to give a Bill of Rights for local home rule, for local governments, to permit them, under the changing structure of our government today, with these tremendous metropolitan areas that sprawl out over local units of government, giving these local communities the right and opportunity to contract with each other for study, to contract with each other for services to save costs but to preserve government close to the people.
I've had, I think, a very fortunate opportunity to study government, to participate in the responsibilities of government on the international level, the federal level, the state level, and for 21 years, as Vice Chairman of the Westchester County Board of Health. I've also been in business, at home and abroad, and in philanthropy. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the forces that make up the warp and woof of democracy. I think that a president needs to understand all aspects of these problems if he's going to intelligently and effectively be able to give the leadership which America has got to restore to the free world and to give the understanding and determined opposition to those who would destroy it, while at the same time, building strength and respect for human dignity and individual well-being and the quality of opportunity to the people of this great nation at home.
It is for these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, that have been presumptuous enough to seek the nomination for the presidency on the Republican Party ticket. Thank you.
Governor Rockefeller, we have many more questions, which we don't have time to present. On behalf of The Commonwealth Club of California, we want to thank you for your excellent appearance here today and your frank answers to these questions. The meeting is adjourned.
Read the interview with Stuart Richardson Ward >>
Generously funded by:
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers