Listen Now Access the recordings of Nelson A. Rockefeller's program. Club Introduction Read the transcript of the club introduction of Nelson A. Rockefeller. Club Speech Read the transcript of Nelson A. Rockefeller's speech. Club Q & A Read the Q & A for this program. Q & A Part II Read Stewart Richardson Ward's interview of Nelson A. Rockefeller. Related Links Our guide to the best links related to this program.

Thank you very much, indeed, President Clinton, Judge Bray, my good friend George Christopher, other distinguished ladies and gentlemen in the bay and in the audience here in The Commonwealth Club gathering. I would like to express appreciation to your president for allowing the ladies to be present. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity of being before The Commonwealth Club when ladies were present. Thank you very much. As far as the television’s concerned, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who has some problems with this great industry. When I was out here four years ago, looking around, trying to sort of feel the climate, at that point I was having separate but equal conferences with the press in one conference and then subsequently with television. I’ll never forget the time down in Los Angeles when the entire television industry walked out. I finally succumbed, as you did, Mr. President, and since then we’ve been having joint conferences.

But, it’s a pleasure to have this opportunity and, in these closing days, to be here in San Francisco again and to speak to this distinguished group. I personally feel that the decisions that are going to be made here in California will have tremendously far-reaching implications. You’ve asked me to speak on the significance of the California primary. It’s a pleasure, indeed, to have that opportunity and then to answer questions after these remarks.

The real question, I think, that is going to be decided here in this primary goes to the very root and the heart of the future of our country. What kind of an America do we want to see four years from now? What kind of an America do the American people want to see four years from now? For some months now, I’ve been visiting your great state from one end to the other and talking with people about the problems that face America at home and abroad. I’ve given my views in depth on all of the major problems of the day. During my visit, I have met many thousands of Californians and have been deeply impressed by their interest and their keen awareness of the problems facing the nation, reflected in the countless questions that they’ve asked and I’ve tried to answer.

Californians, I assure you, still have the pioneering spirit. Here, the challenge of tomorrow animates the spirit of today. This afternoon, I should like to tell you of my major concerns about the present and what kind of an America I want to see in the years ahead - as a citizen and as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. I’m concerned that despite massive deficit spending and four-year-old promises to get this country moving again, the nation, under the Democratic administration now in power, still has more than 5 percent of its workforce unemployed. But, ladies and gentlemen, I’m also concerned over the philosophy indicated by a prominent Republican seeking the presidential nomination, who has stated that the unemployed, and I quote, "have no skills and have no education for the same reasons: low intelligence and low ambition."

Frankly, I want to see an America where the framework of laws and a climate of administration will encourage the creative free enterprise system to develop a full employment economy - an economy that will produce 20 million new jobs, 2,100,000 right here in California, that we need in America in the next five years. Now, I’m also concerned that no serious effort has been made by the Democratic administration in Washington to redeem its promise of 1960 that federal civil rights legislation would be, and I quote, "a first order of business," until after two and a half years of massive demonstrations and turmoil in the streets. But I’m also concerned that the same prominent Republican has indicated his opposition to civil rights legislation on numerous occasions; that he has voted with the Southern bloc of Democrats to refer both President Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Bill in 1957 and the pending civil rights bill which came over from the House to the Eastland Judiciary Committee, the traditional Senate graveyard of civil rights legislation.

I want to see an America in which people of all races and religions live together under law and order, with mutual respect for each other and with equal opportunity for all, made a reality. I’m concerned that the federal government, under the present Democratic administration, is bypassing the state and centralizing power in an all-powerful Washington bureaucracy. Federal grants and aid are being made directly to localities without reference to the states. But I’m also concerned that the same prominent Republican uses slogans like "States’ Rights" and "Local Home Rules" as an excuse for inaction on pressing needs, for evasion of federal responsibilities or for turning back the clock on social progress.

I want to see an America where the people’s problems are handled, wherever practical, by the government closest to the people, the state and local government. I want to see a definite reversal of the trend toward bypassing the state and centralizing authority in that all-powerful Washington bureaucracy. I want to see an America where states’ rights are matched by the assumption of states’ responsibilities, and where local governments are given the powers and the resources to meet their community’s needs. It is not enough to talk about government close to the people. What is needed is a reallocation of the nation’s revenue sources to give state and local governments the financial strength they need to meet their problems.

I believe this can be done by: first, the institution of a system of federal tax credits for certain state and local taxes paid by individuals and corporations; second, the transfer of certain tax sources from the federal government to the state; and, third, by a review and overhauling of the federal grant and aid system. I’m concerned that significant social problems, like medical assistance for the aged and problems of the poor, become great election year causes for the Democratic Party, only to be ignored, largely, during the three years between.

I’m also concerned over the philosophy and the approach of this same prominent Republican, which he has evidenced by characterization of President Eisenhower’s legislation concerning human needs as, and I quote, "a dime-store New Deal." I want to see an America that will meet the health care needs of our senior citizens, not as a charity, but as an earned benefit through a contributory system of medical insurance based on Social Security; not by socializing medicine, but by preserving the historic relationship between the patient and the personally selected physician.

I’m concerned over the present Democratic administration’s continued reliance upon deficit spending, the piling up of the national debt and the threat of inflation that this entails. But I’m also concerned about this same prominent Republican who has advocated elimination of the graduated feature of our federal income tax laws, and has advocated that Social Security be made voluntary, thereby bankrupting the system and placing the burden on the general taxpayer.

I want to see an America where financial integrity is restored to the federal government, with a balanced budget by 1967. I want to see the practice of real economy and a start made towards reducing rather than constantly increasing the national debt, as we have been doing in New York state for the past six years under Republican administration. I want to see an America with a dynamic economy that will provide growth without inflation, expanded international trade based on accelerated private investments in new plans and equipment.

I’m deeply concerned that during the past three and a half years our alliances have been weakened and freedom has been in retreat around the world: in Cuba, in Latin America, in Africa, and Southeast Asia. I’m concerned that communist totalitarianism has had the initiative and that the United States has been constantly negotiating on items on an agenda prepared by the Soviets. But I’m also concerned that this same prominent Republican’s response to the crises confronting this nation, in the nuclear age, are impetuous.

I want to see an America whose foreign policy leadership is guided, as President Eisenhower so well put it in his statement last Monday, by "calm, painstaking studies of all the infinitely complex situations that confront it, whether in Southeast Asia, in Cuba, or wherever danger threatens or opportunity beckons, but carefully conceived action. In today’s nuclear age diplomacy, there is no time for indecision, but neither is there room for impulsiveness."

I’m concerned that the United States, under the present Democratic administration, has not worked with its allies and has not utilized effectively the United Nations, the organization of American states, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, to maintain and extend freedom in the world. But I’m also concerned that this same prominent Republican has publicly advocated on several occasions that the United States withdraw from the United Nations. I want to see an America that remains in the United Nations and keeps the United Nations in the United States. And I’d like to say that, parenthetically, I had the privilege of being here in San Francisco during those three months when the United Nations was being hammered out. I was Assistant Secretary of State and working with the Latin American republics whose support and whose wisdom and whose perception resulted in the modification of the Dumbarton Oaks proposal to include articles 51 and 52, which made possible NATO and SEATO and the Rio Pact treaty.

And, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I would not abandon the United Nations to the Communists. For whatever its shortcomings, it is only the existing universal machinery for keeping of the peace. I want to see an America with leadership that can work with our allies in the full partnership of true alliance, a union of the free, strengthening the bonds among free nations, and so buttressing freedom and preserving the peace.

I’m concerned over the expediency, vacillation, and lack of clear goals and principles that have characterized American foreign policy during the last three and a half years: President Johnson’s 120 foreign policies, one for each nation in the world; the Democratic majority leader, Senator Mike Mansfield’s trial balloon for neutralizing Vietnam; and the Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Fulbright’s chiding of the American people for looking at the world in moralistic rather than empirical terms. But I’m also concerned over this same prominent Republican who has suggested that we withdraw diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union, a step that has usually been considered to be a measure just short of war, cutting off communications between the two great nuclear powers, thereby increasing the danger of nuclear miscalculation that could lead to disaster.

I want to see an America with a clear, firm foreign policy based upon principle to which our friends can relate and to which the uncommitted nations can be attracted and which the enemies of freedom will respect. I’m concerned over the failure of the present Democratic administration to understand the true nature of the communist challenge, and by the administration’s tendency to confuse a change in the tone of communist policy with a change in communist goals. The record is clear, that the Soviet and the Chinese Communists do not disagree on whether to bury us, but only on how best to do the job.

A product of this policy is the penchant of this administration for do-it-yourself dealing and trading with the Soviet Union and telling our allies later. But I’m also concerned over the same prominent Republican who has advocated that all foreign economic aid should be stopped. Such a step would not be in our best interests, for it would abandon the underdeveloped nations of the world to ultimate communist domination.

I want to see an America that bases its policies on a realistic appraisal of communist objectives, strategies, and tactics. I want to see an America that will join with other free nations of the world in developing common positions and policies toward the communist world, polices that will include a united approach to convince the Soviet Union to observe the commonly accepted rules of international trade.

In summary, ladies and gentlemen, I’m concerned that opportunism and expediency and overweening concern for the present at the expense of the future are prime motivating factors of the party and the administration now in power. For nearly four years now, we have been witnessing the supremacy of the slogan over action and the triumph of rationalization over concrete results. But I’m also concerned, lest irresponsible and narrow doctrinaire extremism become the hallmark of the Republican Party, for the logic of the recommendations made by those who espouse this backward course would strip our government of basic power and resources necessary to maintain our society as we know it and would most surely imperil its future.

I want to see an America that has confidence in itself, that regains the confidence of its friends and allies and commands the respect of the enemies of freedom. I want to see an America that recaptures its enthusiasm, its face, its vision, in the limitless potentialities of the future. I want to see an America that reaffirms the values which made it great, and make it the symbol of liberty and individual opportunity. I want to see an America that maintains the ramparts of freedom and secures the peace. To me, this is the true significance of this California primary. Thank you very much, indeed.

Read the Q & A >>

Generously funded by: