The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Barbara Jordan

Rep. BARBARA JORDAN: I feel good about the country, I feel good about our ideological underpinnings. Even though we have become rather dispirited and cynical, we still believe in where it is that we want to go. If there are any patriots left in America, I`m certainly one.

ROBERT MacNEIL: Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, self-confessed patriot. Why is she giving up a brilliant political career?

Good evening. Four years ago, the summer of 1974, was a period of doubt and confusion for Americans. For many July the Fourth was difficult to celebrate, after a decade of war, assassinations, riots, and finally, the threatened impeachment of a President. But out of the House Judiciary Committee, as it pondered that awful task, came a voice full of confidence and certainty. Those hearings first made the nation aware of the new Congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan, a Baptist minister`s daughter from a poor section of Houston who became a lawyer, state legislator, and finally Congresswoman. Her fame grew, and after delivering the keynote address at the `76 Democratic Convention, she was tipped as a possible Attorney General, Supreme Court justice, even Vice President. Now, only two years later, she is giving up public life.

Just before Congress recessed for the Fourth of July holiday, we talked with Barbara Jordan. She was in Washington with Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: Congresswoman, welcome. You`re obviously a person who has a lot to say about the way this country is governed; your personal history reads like that of an active super achiever; you`re in the prime of your life. Why are you retiring from Congress?

Rep. BARBARA JORDAN: Jim, it`s not a very difficult question for me to answer. I was in the Congress at a period in the history of this country when I could make a contribution to trying to extricate the country from the period. I did that. I have worked legislatively, I have a Presidential pen which was used by President Ford to sign a bill which I was interested in and authored from the beginning and managed on the floor. I`ve done that. I feel that I have occupied this period of time in my life for as long as I want to occupy this period of time. And I feel the tug -- of my own conscience, if nothing else -- to shift gears and do something different, and it`s as simple as that. So I decide not to run for reelection to Congress and do something different.

LEHRER: Is it you, or is it Congress?

JORDAN: I suppose, Jim, that the fair answer would be that it`s a little bit of both. Now, if the Congress had offered me, let us say, an opportunity to work through the politics of the Congress to a leadership role, I suppose that I could have been induced to forgo this tug of conscience for a little longer. But House politics did not seem to make it possible that I would be able to do that. There is also a sense -- a sense that I have -- of a diminution of my personal efficacy in the House. Now, stated another way, I did not feel that I could further impact, dramatically or moderately on the course of events personally as they moved through the Congress of the United States, that legislative process. So where does Barbara Jordan go within the context of remaining in the Congress of the United States? Do I try to become a member of the United States Senate? Oh, that would be a nice thing to do.

LEHRER: Pays well, right? Hours are good, right?

JORDAN: Yes, but it pays the same thing as House members earn, so the pay would certainly be -- I suppose the greatest thing it has going for it is that you get elected to the Senate, you`re in there for six years and you don`t have to run every two years. So that would be one distinction. But then there is a real question as to whether -- even though I thought this would be a fine idea -- is this achievable within the context of the practical realities which I know? Given everything which describes me, given the only state in the nation I would possibly represent, the State of Texas, is this, the United States Senate, an achievable goal at this time? So where does Barbara Jordan go?

LEHRER: Your answer to that question was no, is that right?

JORDAN: My answer to that question was no.

LEHRER: That the people of Texas would not have elected you to the United States Senate.

JORDAN: I hesitate to make that prejudgment about what the people of Texas would do. Many of my friends think otherwise, but I personally did not feel that I could get elected to the United States Senate from Texas.

LEHRER: Am I misreading what you`re saying -- if I am, I`m sure you`ll correct me -- that you went through such a dramatic time during the impeachment hearings, and I guess as a result of that the Democratic National ... this whole period was a very dramatic time and that it just is very dull for you after that?

JORDAN: Well, let`s say this: I do not see any event which could occur which would be as exciting as what I have already done, but Congress never held itself out institutionally to be exciting; so I wouldn`t say that boredom was a factor. I can`t honestly say that.

LEHRER: But the nitty-gritty of legislative work just doesn`t turn you on any more, is that right?

JORDAN: Legislative work must be nitty-gritty; there`s no way to get away from that. All I am saying is that I had done the nitty-gritty as long as I intend to do the nitty-gritty.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Ms. Jordan, in the mood you`re in now, and looking at the country with your experience of recent years, do you as a liberal see that political mood changing? Is this country in fact becoming more conservative?

JORDAN: I could answer that question quickly, but I would prefer to go back to your characterization of me as a liberal. I do not like little tags and labels, and I consider myself a moderate person, a progressive person; and if you want to try to draw a line as to what is liberal or conservative, I would be more liberal than conservative ideologically speaking. Now, to get to your question as to whether the country is moving toward conservative, are we tilting; it would appear, whether we like it or not, whether those of us who are progressive like it or not, it would appear that the country is making a gradual turn to the right. I`m not saying that that is good or bad, I`m not saying that I`m indifferent to that. All I am saying is that given the mood in the country right now, one could safely say that that mood would indicate a slight shift to the right on the part of the country.

MaCNEIL: What about the way your fellow Congresspersons are reacting to the Jarvis Amendment?

JORDAN: Oh, well. What do I really think about that?

MacNEIL: (Laughing.) What do you really think about that?

JORDAN: The Congress of the United States has been traumatized by the Jarvis Amendment; its adoption. You would not have a pleasant time in the Congress of the United States these days because the elected public official is so fearful, is so reactive, is so knee-jerking what occurred in California that the behavior of the members of the House of Representatives at this point borders on irresponsibility. Now, I`m not saying that my colleagues are being irresponsible; I am just saying that they are so traumatized by the event in California that our behavior borders on something less than statesmanship but not quite irresponsibility.

MacNEIL: This tilt to the right, to use your words -- does it manifest itself in any way in a majority of the American people caring less than they did even a few years ago about the plight of the disadvantaged peoples in this country and programs for them, and the money necessary to pay for those programs?

JORDAN: It is my firm view that people do not care less today than they did when these programs were first enacted. I think that people still care -- and maybe some may say that I am being too optimistic, that I am being too Pollyannish; I think people still care. I think people are concerned about those who are sick and who are hungry and who have inadequate clothing and inadequate housing. I believe people still care. But people also care about being able to live and breathe and grow and develop in a private way without having some big daddy superimpose a set of musts on them. I think that`s what`s happening, that`s why people are not as anxious to underwrite new programs. They`re saying, Look, Mr. and Mrs. America who represents me in the Congress of the United States" -- or in the state Houses or in City Hall -- "Look, just give me a break; I`ve had enough right now."

MacNEIL: How do you explain, then -- looking at the other side of it in the Congress -- what appears to be the lack of enthusiasm in the Congress for what used to be articles of liberal faith: tax reform, welfare reform, national health insurance, to name just a few of them? Why is there such inertia on those things, it seems?

JORDAN: Well, I think it`s cyclical. I believe a careful reading of history may show us that the nation went through periods when there was a reluctance to move into areas where the liberal ideology or persuasion was paramount. I think this mood that we`re in now. is cyclical. I think that a number of ideas which we always labeled liberal ideas have lost a little bit of their appeal because the implementation was so spotty and the goal sought was not fulfilled in the manner anyone thought it was going to be fulfilled who subscribed to the idea. So I think it is cyclical, I think we will come back to a more corrected posture of a people who behaves with the goodness -- I don`t want to paraphrase our leader, but I think people are basically good and honest and that they care, and I think we will return to that posture. But we must extricate ourselves from this mood; and I don`t know when we will see the point that we we can do something else.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: You know, much has been said about the new South, the new South in political terms. Is there a new South, in your opinion?

JORDAN: There is a very exciting South which is not like the South in the early post-Civil War days. And I`ll tell you that the South is be coming a vital and vibrant place to live. If you want to talk about population shifts, people are coming south. And in my hometown of Houston, Texas, people who left pre-World War II are coming home again. The leadership of the South is different. The old...

LEHRER: Different in what way?

JORDAN: Well, we have governors who are labeled "moderate," "enlightened," "thoughtful." We have leadership -- I`m speaking of governors and people in the state Houses in the South -- who are no longer frustrated by an alien North but are beginning to feel powerful in their own regionalism; and we think that the South will be the place to live in days in the future. We are dropping the old image of race and color and poverty, even though some of the problems are still there.

LEHRER: And yet politically, you told me a moment ago, Barbara Jordan could still not be elected to statewide office in Texas.

JORDAN: Or maybe not in Vermont `or New York; I`m not just singling out Texas. I said Texas because that`s my home.

LEHRER: You don`t think, then, it`s a Southern prejudice that still exists that would keep you, or any Barbara Jordan, from being elected to statewide office?

JORDAN: Now, you know that the fact of sex, the fact of race still are factors which are considered by the electorate in making political choices. I would be naive if I thought that that was not the case. All I am saying is, that is becoming less and less the case. Two years, four years -- it may all change.

LEHRER: What about right now? Do you personally feel discriminated against as a black woman?

JORDAN: No, I do not. I haven`t felt discriminated against as a black woman since I graduated from my university in Houston, Texas Southern University, which was all black; and I felt discriminated against there because I didn`t see any white people, and there was something wrong about that. But I don`t personally feel discriminated against. I`m sure there are acts of discrimination perpetrated against me, Barbara Jordan, but I choose to ignore those because I believe that everybody has the capacity to change. And I suffer my brothers and sisters who still discriminate and help them along.

LEHRER: It was suggested, as I`m sure you know, during the beginning days of the administration that President Carter might have selected you to be Attorney General if you had not in fact been a black woman. Do you believe that?

JORDAN: I believe that the President, Mr. Carter, decided that he wanted his Attorney General to be his old friend Griffin Bell, and that that`s what he did. And I think that it would have been his old friend no matter the candidate.

LEHRER: Were you ready psychologically to go into an administrative position from the legislative at that moment in time? Did you want to do that?

JORDAN: That never entered my mind, Jim. I campaigned for Jimmy Carter, as most people who were Democrats and active in politics did. I never considered one moment any position within the Carter administration. The only reason I decided that if I took any position in the Carter administration the only one I would accept would be Attorney General is because Mr. Carter called and asked if I would like to talk about a position in his administration. And I said, "Well, sure." And in talking about that I said, "This is the only thing that I would be interested in, Attorney General." Was I ready to move into an administrative slot? I don`t know. I felt that it was highly unlikely that I would have to make that decision.

LEHRER: Okay. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; looking at where this country stands in another sense, Ms. Jordan, how do you feel about our posture in the world under the Carter administration?

JORDAN: It is rather clear that the world -- and of course it is so presumptuous for me to sit here and talk about our posture in the world. What I think in terms of the people who talk to me, the people who are involved in foreign policy matters, what I feel is that the United States of America is viewed as less than the all-powerful leader of the free world; less than that. It is an unusual experience for us in this country to view, to see, that people do not see us as having the answer, the answer, to all of the problems of the world. It would appear that during the administration of Mr. Carter that people are becoming to view the United States with less and less awe, or reverence, for that matter; and I am not going to be judgmental about whether that is good or bad. But our reluctance to take definitive action in hot spots around the world would indicate that we are going to move in the future much more cautiously than perhaps we ever have.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that the sort of foreign policy signal that the Carter White House gives you as a member of Congress is a clear signal?

JORDAN: No. Would you like for me to say something else about that?

MacNEIL: (Laughing.) Yes, please.

JORDAN: It is not a clear signal because those of us who are in the Congress dealing daily with foreign appropriations and foreign service appropriations, appropriations to other countries, trying to articulate to ourselves and to our constituency where the President is taking us, what it is he is saying to us in terms of the posture of the United States of America in the world, we get no clear sense of what the President is saying. His message has been uneven, and I don`t know who is to be blamed for that. All I am saying is that I encounter every single day some of my colleagues saying, "Well; where exactly does he stand on this? What does he mean by this?" And it may be as simple as failure of communication, but I don`t know; the answer to your question is no, the signal is not clear.

MacNEIL: Mr. Carter promised, of course, during the campaign that he was going to change all the secrecy in foreign policy making and have foreign policy made more in the open so the American public could participate in it. Is that what you think he is trying to do, and is that the cause perhaps of some of the unclear signal?

JORDAN: I think Mr. Carter is trying to be as open as he can be, consistent with his promise to the American people when elected. The real problem is whether it is possible to conduct foreign policy openly. That is a question which is yet to be answered. Another problem, to be fair to both sides, is that Congress is feeling its foreign policy Cheerios. We are an equal partner, the legislative branch of the government, we are an equal partner with the President of the United States, the executive branch of the government; and we are insisting more and more that we be taken into account when decisions are made with regards to foreign policy. And as you know, there are certain specific issues which are pending right now; we just finished two big ones in the Senate, with Panama and with the military arms sales, and now the President is pushing for a lifting of the Turkey embargo on the sale of arms. Congress insists on being a partner; and yet, maybe, the signal of Mr. Carter is unclear because we have a two-headed entity trying to say, "This is what the foreign policy of the United States is supposed to be." Maybe we are contributors to the lack of clarity of the President`s positions. That could be the case.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: You`re going to teach at the LBJ School at the University of Texas in Austin.

JORDAN: Correct

LEHRER: That`s the next thing you`re going to do.

JORDAN: Correct.

LEHRER: Why did you choose teaching?

JORDAN: The truth of the matter is, when I announced that I would not run for reelection to Congress I had no idea whatsoever what I would do next, but I knew that I would not be able to even think about what to do next unless I made the first decision, which was not to run. After I made that decision and announced it -- I can`t say that I made it on December the 10th of last year, because I thought about it a year before I made the announcement -- but after I made the announcement the offers started to come in. Some were very interesting, some I accepted for further consideration and some I discarded. The professorship at the University of Texas at Austin held more interest for me than any of the other offers I had in law or business.

LEHRER: What kind of offers? I`m just curious; you probably don`t want to give me the specifics, but what kinds were they?

JORDAN: Well, you know-I`m a lawyer.

LEHRER: Right.

JORDAN: So I had some very interesting-sounding offers to work as an attorney in association with some firm. And there were several of those firms. I had other positions for business opportunities offered. I had one which I thought was just very interesting, to occupy the Nixon Chair at Whittier College in California, and I got that offer -- it was about an hour and a half after the dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs had told me about the confirmation of my appointment there. So I`d say that that was one of the more interesting offers.

LEHRER: You said also that you plan to write a book to set the record straight about yourself. Well, I`ve spent a lot of time in preparation for this interview looking at the record, and with a few exceptions I didn`t see anything in the record that wasn`t saying how wonderful Barbara Jordan is; and everything was very glowing. What do you want to correct in that record?

JORDAN: One thing that I`d want to correct, Jim, is that media people -- journalists -- as lovely as you all are, sometimes quote each other. And if something was misstated -- as a matter of a statement, misstated early on - - then that is repeated and repeated and repeated. And so that is the kind of thing that will be corrected when the self-portrait of myself, written by myself and Shelby Hearon, comes out early next year.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes; thank you, Ms. Jordan. Good luck in your future career.

JORDAN: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Jim; good night. That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.