Youth and Politics and Why Don't People Vote? And Reies Tijerina Meets Cesar Chavez

The League of Women Voters brings you political perspective, youth and politics. This is Torrey Baker speaking to you from Washington. There are 24 million young people in the United States between the ages of 21 and 29. How do they feel about politics and voting, about the political process? What attracts them and what turns them away? What turns them on and what turns them off? Obviously, there is no one answer. Youth speaks in many voices. Jack Jordan of the Republican Committee of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Youth plays an important role in the not only the party organization, but the administration. Young people have been integrated into the party organization on a year-round basis. Rick Margolis of the Institute for Policy Studies.

I think that those people who still look to the traditional political process, which was established before the Industrial Revolution, they think that that political process speaks to the poor, to the young, then I would say that they're being unrealistic. Tony Gittens, Howard University graduate. The only thing this country understands is power, which experiences shown to black people anyway, is not really through the vote. And that is not because they don't want to take part, but because the system has shown itself to be sterile. The system has shown itself not to work in the best interests of black people. I know myself, I wouldn't bother to register to vote. Clarence Mitchell III, a state senator in Maryland, is still in his twenties. There are many, many young people in this country who do believe that there is an opportunity available to them in the system and are willing to work within the system to bring about the kinds of changes that we feel out to come.

Sam Brown, Harvard graduate student and campaign worker. Students who come into the political process come there largely out of a commitment on issue. They do not come out of a commitment to party. The political independence of youth was pointed out by George Gallup, Jr., at a meeting sponsored by the American Heritage Foundation. This group, the nation's youngest adults, those who are between the ages of 21 and 29, clearly represent a crucial battleground for both major parties, not only because they account for one-fifth of the total electorate, but because a large proportion of them, as we've seen, are presently uncommitted to either party. As I've mentioned, 40% are independence, 22% say they are Republicans, and 38% say they are Democrats. Sam Brown doesn't feel that commitment to party is important. The questions are not ones of party affiliation, and I think polls and discussions of which party and whether party are ones that are largely irrelevant to where youth are going today,

or particularly where students are going today. In short, I think students today are far more concerned about the issues at hand than they are concerned about the particular candidate who becomes the personification of those issues. And those issues are, Tony Gittens? Well, naturally, being black, the racial problem in this country, white oppression of black people in this country, and across the world, around the world, that is the thing that I think about most. That as far as I'm concerned is the biggest problem to me and my people, and that is the problem that I try to resolve. I use most of my energies to try to deal with that. Sam Brown? That I think more intensely than any single group in the population today. Both undergraduates and graduate students feel the pressure of the war are engaged in a community life, really, which I think has been more hostile to and more critical of the war than any other segment of the population.

As it happened, I dropped out of Harvard when I went to work, and the latest survey of students at Harvard showed 97 percent opposed to the war. And sure, I came from an environment in which the question of the war particularly was felt very deeply. It was one which really drove many of us to become involved in politics because we began to see it as the only way of having any substantial effect on the political process. In the Gallup poll on college attitudes, there was, of course, a question on the draft. Mr. Gallup reports the results. In college youth by an overwhelming margin, 77 to 20 percent, thank graduate students should be draft deferred, but fear saving would break the law or leave the country if they were to receive a call. Mr. Gallup makes another point about young attitudes, especially on college campuses. The student revolt in America appears directed against traditionalism and complacency or as what is known as the establishment.

Young students revolt against the establishment on the campus as a step toward inroads on the political establishment. Tony Gittens? Well, I was at Howard University. I was chairman of something called Ujima, that's Swahili for Unity. And it was a black student national organization. And we tried to revolutionize Howard to make it move away from its bourgeois art to one blackness. And we tried to make the university what we call the black university, instituting courses in black history, producing, establishing a black institute and becoming the center for Afro-American studies. And I think through those efforts, the efforts of the organization, we have accomplished something. Howard University is looked upon as the leading Negro higher education institution. We felt that if Howard University changed, then possibly a lot of other Negro institutions would change.

And therefore, the thinking of a lot of black people would change. So I think that, at least that's one way that I'm trying to do my part. Rick Margolis thinks that decentralization and personal commitment may be the answers. And I think that young people in their own way are beginning to deal with some of the realities of forging out a new type of life, that doesn't conceive of itself only in terms of political systems. But in fact, begins to look toward a synthesis between an individual's life philosophy and some sort of political activism. Some of the essential realities of contemporary existence are being dealt with more by young people than by people who continue to talk in the rhetoric of a national democratic system with two parties for a country of 200 million people. I think young people are looking toward the eventuality of a decentralization so that people

can again begin to cope with their environment. People on the street, whether it's in the ghetto or in the suburb or just in a city environment can cope with their environment. The channels for reaching power, for reaching institutions so that they can make changes which are agreeable to them. The channels are too extended, they're too drawn out. So the young people are beginning to grapple with the question of decentralization and what does that mean. We're beginning to express ourselves in direct action because we think that the vote doesn't speak to the types of changes which are necessary. On the other hand, young Senator Mitchell has a different point of view. He seems to feel that the more conventional political methods can work. I was jailed a number of times back in 1960 for picketing, for demonstrating, but then

I discovered that the most meaningful way of becoming involved was to start sitting in the state legislatures as members and helping to make the policy, rather than standing on the outside and yelling and not being in a position to actually bring about the kind of change that we saw. In my own campaign, when I was 22 and there were a lot of people in our community who said that I couldn't get elected, we believed in the involvement of young people, and not just in the high school and junior high school age level. We even had elementary school kids involved. Mr. Gallup makes another point about young attitudes, especially on college campuses. Less than half of the 21 to 29 year olds, 48% are presently registered to vote in the precinct or election district in which they live, compared to 74% for persons 30 to 49 years old and 84% for persons 50 and older.

Related to this, voter turnout among young adults has consistently been lower than among older age groups, as I assure you know. In the 1964 presidential election, for example, 53% of young adults cast a vote, but 65% of persons over 30 did so. Jack Jordan points out the need for an active recruitment campaign in the political parties. We encourage young people to run for public office and play an active role in the election of others at all levels, most particularly at the local level, and it's been shown possible and has been proven that young people can achieve a high position rapidly because the criterion is ability and desire not age. In Pennsylvania, the Republican organization has four youth groups, starting with the stars, the sub-teen age Republicans, the YRs, the young Republicans, the Tars, the teenage Republicans, and the college council, starting at the age 9 and going up through to 37

with four groups. Youth in Pennsylvania is encouraged, especially through the training received in the YRs, to run for offices at the local level in particular, and we stress the fact that youth is wanted in a Republican organizational structure. As a matter of fact, the 30-man executive committee of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, which makes all decisions for the party, have three members from the youth groups, is mandatory to integrate youth into the political organization, mandatory because without youth, the organization soon will whether and die, and there's a lot more in politics for the young people than just the glamour of a presidential election, and getting our young people interested in politics and getting them interested in government is synonymous. This cannot and will not happen unless the senior party organizations encourage real leadership,

possibilities, and potential, at the same time granting autonomy and recognition to youth. Senior party leadership must work with youth and not work over them. Speaking for youth that doesn't wish to be integrated into the political system as now constituted, Rick Margoli says, until we begin to provide and win back people's interest in the questions of social concern, then we'll never get any adequate solutions at the larger level. That's what I think the new politics begins to speak to. It begins to say, we must build a base which is democratic, which has people participating in their area, where the issues are related to their life, but that there also comes into the formation a new type of national politics, which is sympathetic to the question of decentralization. That there has to be a national politics which walks hand in hand with the local politics,

which says, we will help you in every way. And Tony Gitton's comments on voting has done very little good in the past, so we can only assume that it's going to do very little good in the future. Things like the presidential elections, well it's almost a waste of time for black people to expend much of their energy in trying to influence that one way or the other. They have very little say of control on what goes down in this country. Perhaps on the local level they will have some say. And Sam Brown, the political process must remain open. And Senator Mitchell sums up his feelings on the matter. I started off at 14 campaigning for an opportunity to get our first Negro State Senator in Maryland. And I really was out there knocking on doors and campaigning, and the system did respond. And we elected our first State Senator.

And through this we began to recognize that ours is in fact a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But it's of the people and by the people and for the people that participate in it. And if you don't participate, then you can't expect it to be responsive to you. Youth may not speak with one voice, but it's obvious that young people are speaking up. They are being heard, and they are becoming involved in politics. Now thanks to George Gallup Jr., Jack Jordan, Rick Margoly's, Sam Brown, Tony Gittens, and Clarence Mitchell III. More people vote in a presidential election than in any other kind. And yet about a third of those who are of voting age in the United States fail to vote for president. Why is this so? Who are the people who don't vote? And what are their reasons? I am about to question Richard Scammon, former director of the census, and the man who served

as chairman of the President's Commission on Registration and Voting Participation. Wiley Branton, former director of the Voting Registration Project of the Southern Regional Conference, and Mrs. Faye Williams of Indianapolis, a member of the Board of the League of Women Voters Education Fund. Mr. Scammon, why don't more people vote in this country? Partly this is due to the fact that perhaps we have a measure of apathy in this country, but a lot of it is due to the mechanical and legal difficulties that are placed in the way of registering and voting here in America. Mr. Branton? I think that people who are less advantaged probably vote less than other groups is because this is the fact that they have not been in the habit of voting. These include poor people, they include minority groups. Frequently these people have been a migrant force, they have moved from place to place,

they have not remained in any one place long enough to become associated with voting patterns, frequently nobody has bothered to get them to register in the first place. Mrs. Williams, the disadvantage of this country do not vote in large numbers for several reasons. I think one is the fact that we have not really interpreted government to them as it relates to their problems. In most places, in order to vote you have to register. Mr. Scammon, why registration and why are the requirements sometimes an obstacle to voting? Now originally registration was required to prevent fraud. In other words, you said in effect a person must be identified and pre-identified before he can vote. As it is now, the average voter or elector, potentially elector, cannot vote unless sometime prior to the election and this is often the number of weeks or months before

the election. During working hours, he goes to some place downtown and puts his name on the list. Now a lot of jurisdictions use local registration or they use mobile registration or they register in the supermarkets in the drug stores and so on. This is helpful. Well in Indianapolis, changing the location of registration from the public school to the supermarket tripled the number of persons registering and it was very simple. It was a move of a block and since public schools are not set up to register people anyway, it was just as easy to put that desk in the supermarket as it was in the school. But these are the kinds of little things which make a big difference in people's access to government. In the south, there have been other complications. Mr. Braddon, how has federal legislation helped registration in the south? The passage of the law which called upon the Department of Justice to bring legal action

seeking to enjoin the requirement of the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in elections. This was rather successful. The law also eliminated the requirement of a literacy test for a voter. It provided for the appointment of federal examiners to list people for registration in those counties where local officials refused to comply with the law or refused to register people freely without discrimination. And I think that that requirement, the one which says that if you impose these restrictions on people, then the Attorney General may designate those counties for federal examiners. That provision alone has perhaps done more to remove barriers than anything else. Residents requirements are another impediment to voting. It's estimated that more than 10 million Americans move every year, and in some cases, a citizen

has to live in a state for one year before being allowed to register. What about this, Mr. Scamon? Well originally the requirements were designed, of course, to ensure that the people who were voting had at least some knowledge of the candidates and situations in the communities in which they exercised their franchise, and that seemed reasonable. As a matter of fact, these have been modified in many states to allow people to vote for president, even when they've only been in the state of relatively short period of time. On the theory that the people have no greater or less knowledge of the presidential campaign, because they move from Connecticut to Colorado or vice versa, then they might have had if they'd stayed where they were. But they might have a great deal more or less knowledge about Colorado if they just moved there from Connecticut than they would have of the presidential situation. So I would think that a reasonable residential requirement for local elections and state elections is certainly useful. But just as important as the legal barriers to voting are the psychological barriers. The people who for one reason or another don't care to vote or don't want to make the

effort. Mrs. Williams, what's being done to reach these people? I think the most important thing that I see taking place is that persons are making an effort to define issues which relate to the persons who have been left out. The whole debate about crisis in the cities, how you go about doing this, the model cities program, the poverty program and its maximum feasible participation clause, all are factors which have made it easier for persons interested in translating how government affects you. This effort requires a very personalized approach. You cannot do it in terms of things like better government or better schools or very broad issues that you must make a personal appeal to an individual and give reasons why his particular situation can be improved by participating in government, by registering, by voting.

The ADC mother might be told, for example, that it is the state legislature and Congress which determines how much money you get in your check. The person who lives in an urban and a deteriorated house might be told that it is the city council person who declares which areas are going to have housing improvement programs or eradication efforts. Mr. Branton, how are former non-voters being reached in the south? There are various groups working now to get people registered to go to the polls and in the Negro community. We find a number of the online organizations like the NAACP, the Urban League and local voter groups active in voter registration. We also find that there is increased activity on the part of League of Women Voters groups

in many of our cities in the country. There has been a growing awareness of the need to support these efforts on the part of chambers of commerce. And of course, for a long time, you have had the labor groups which have been extremely active in trying to help get people registered to vote. And as a result? I think that the low turnout record of voters in southern states has shown a substantial improvement since 1960. I think you will find that where Negroes are turning out to vote in large numbers, this brings a correspondingly big increase in white voters. People no longer take the election for granted. Nomination in the Democratic primary is no longer tantamount to election. Mr. Branton, just how many Negro voters do you think have been added to the roles? In the past five years, there has been a tremendous increase in Negro voter registration

in the 11 states of the old Confederacy, climbing from about 1,300,000 five or six years ago, to around 2 million by the time of the 1964 presidential election, and today more than 3 million. What effect is this having, Mr. Branton? I think that the rise in voter registration has produced some significant changes in this country, particularly in the South, particularly as it affects Negro citizens. If you go back, say, to 1962, there was not a single Negro serving in the legislature. Of any of the states of the old Confederacy, and indeed none had served since reconstruction days. Yet, we look now just six years later, and we find that there are about 22 Negroes serving in the legislatures of several southern states. You find that as these Negroes take office, they are able to advance other Negroes. You take Negro members of legislative bodies who serve on committees, especially small committees.

Their votes are eagerly sought on issues that have nothing to do with race. This has been a very healthy sign and points to the great progress which we've made just in the past six years. I understand that another reason for not voting is that people are timid, that they're afraid of the voting machine and don't understand how the system works. What about voter education, Mr. Branton? I am familiar with some training sessions in voting procedures which have been conducted for newly registered Negroes and newly registered whites. For that matter, many of these training sessions have been conducted without any segregation or discrimination. They've been sponsored in many instances, jointly, by the AFVLCIO and some local Negro voters group. You mentioned earlier, Mrs. Williams, that one way to motivate people to vote was to make the connection between issues which interest them and using the ballot to elect officials who will support those issues.

This seems like a special kind of voter education. Who can carry it out and what kind of volunteers are needed? I think that they must have a lot of factual knowledge about government and how it works along with sensitivity to people. These volunteers can be found in numerous places and particularly organizations like the League of Women Voters. These volunteers know a lot about government, but most of them have to be trained to interpret this message in more concrete and immediate terms rather than the long-range goals of better government, better housing, schools, and economy in government, which are nice slogans to middle-class people, but don't really get a message across to the man or the woman who is caught up in trying to eke out a day-to-day existence that they want to know what it means today and now in my life.

These volunteers have to be trained, but the one important thing that I think they must be able to do is accept the priorities and the interests of the people that they are working to reach rather than trying to transfer their own priorities and values. So voter education is still needed and in some parts of the country improvements in election machinery are needed as well. Mr. Scammon, what's left to be done about mechanical difficulties? I would say that there is one area still in which a good deal of improvement could be made, or perhaps two. The first would be extending closer to the election day, the day that which there is a close off of registrations. There are still many areas where you must register a number of days or even weeks or even months ahead of the election. I think this is simply unnecessary and given the electronic equipment that's available to us.

And secondly, I would like to see more states adopt systems of automatic registration. My automatic registration, I mean either the European system in which the voters list is made up automatically by the city officials. In the Canadian system, you send enumerators around door to door to make up the list. But what this does is it really puts the onus, the work of preparing the first list on the government rather than on the individual citizen. And since we are interested in getting a total registration of our electorate and since we are interested in people voting, I think this would be a useful thing to try. Thank you, Mr. Scammon, and our thanks as well to Mrs. Fay Williams and Mr. Wiley Branton for giving us political perspective why don't people vote? This is Tory Baker speaking to you for the League of Women Voters and reminding you that in a self-governing country, the vote is the key instrument of political power. Use it. Well, deeply involved and committed and want to move things with people now with mental exercises, so the difference then becomes one of reality and one of being not emotional

involvement or even in some cases a romantic involvement. Now I prefer to take the real approach or that approach or that plane that those of us who are engaged in moving and organizing human beings to bring things about the action part of it. And if you are involved in that sort of endeavor then it doesn't really take too much understanding. It doesn't even take too much time, too much thinking. The alternatives are quite apparent. Most of the people, most of the people who advocate violence publicly are not the violent ones.

It's very easy to advocate violence and I do it. I had, let me give you an example. In the hardest days of our strike, about the fourth, fifth month of our strike, when it looked like we were going to be wiped out, we had many friends and visitors coming to the Lano. And especially this old-time friend who had been with me in other endeavors and who was very upset when I reported to him that we were just about to be wiped out, that I thought that we couldn't hold out. And he got very frustrated and started pounding the table with his fists and said, well, we need to go out there and begin to set fire to those sheds and to use some dynamite and to run over some goers and these things, violence. And I said, and then I told him very mildly that I thought that violence wasn't going to do it. And I said, if you just look at the door, there's about six patrol cars parked out there day and night.

How far can you get? And he continued and he began to, he was very upset and do argue with me. So I said, well, you know, it's very easy for you to go through the mental exercise of advocating violence. I'll tell you what, who do you think ought to do these things? And he said, well, someone in the union, I said, no, you're advocating at night, but I would say, let's you and I go do it. And then at the end of the conversation, the advocacy of violence. Well, let's pursue this a little further, Mr. Tijanin. And you made the observation that the Negroes were at a track of the attention and soft from the conscience of the United States every summer, the past two or three years throughout the United States. There have been a great deal of violence in the cities. The force of the power structure has not, evidently, been able to completely contain this violence. Do you feel at the manner in which the Negro cause is being pursued is justified? To a very limited extent would I say that it's justified, but not fully, I didn't mean

to say a little while ago that fourths and violence should be used. I think there's an Anglo saying that goes something like that, that there's more than one way to skin a cat. The United States itself is committing lots of mistakes, some are peaceful and some are violent mistakes. The police force is something that we all support. We feed them, we dress them. Yet they themselves, this police that we believe in them, that we say that they're for peace and for to keep the peace, sometimes they go around and claw people, they shoot people, sometimes in the back, sometimes kids, and there's a case here in Albuquerque where three

cups were caught, breaking the windows of a woman. That's violence, shouldn't be used, but I don't know how it happens. What I'm trying to point out is that there are many things that are brought about or come about intentionally, other things that come about unintentionally, sometimes by mistake, sometimes by mere chance, sometimes by one of the elements or members of the organization without thinking, he throws a stone and begins something, and that doesn't mean that person that throws a stone or begins something is representing the leader of that group, yet things happen. I think that the people are so disgusted, and tired, and hungry for justice, the United,

organized, they talk, they discuss, the problems, they tackle them one way or the other way, so the things are happening in the United States in many ways. Some, as I said, we condemn them outright. Some as much as we hate them, it has been proven that only those things have moved, not only the Congress, but the executive department, the high courts, just now this morning, the general, Abu Kyrgyz, Josh Douglas spoke out in the head of the poor. He says that the laws were biased against the poor. I think that's a judge of the Supreme Court. Why do we have that article? This morning, Abu Kyrgyz general, is he, Mr. Douglas, I rebel?

Is he an enemy of the Constitution? Is he a Mexican? Is he shortsighted? Engler? No, I think he's one of the most brightest judges that we have in the Supreme Court. But why are these people speaking like this? Because I think that this country is far away, is going astray from God. This was supposed to be a God-giving country, land of the free. But what happens here in the land of the free? I can't speak Spanish in the land of the free. My Constitution language, Castellano, is prohibiting schools in this land of the free. See, that these things, which should submit these things and reconsider them. Because yes, some people are making mistakes.

But I think the government is making greater and bigger mistakes. And which should come to the table? The government should come to the table. The struggling groups, various organizations, should come to the table and talk. But one of these sites refused to talk last year when we squat in the amphitheater, according to the council of our lawyers, and the government throws out to question the land. We read in the headlines of the Santa Fe newspaper that the federal government in Washington had decided to investigate both sites and then come to an understanding. That was even in paper. Next day, somebody changed his mind instead of that. They come with words of arrest, criminal suits, civil suits, and ignore the first agreement, the first decision that they had made to investigate both sites, peacefully. Somebody over swallowed somebody.

Somebody overcame somebody. So I think that the government is using the power in some way, like some police officers. And you know, you cannot reason with a gun. I will have to answer for a traffic violation. And I sign a traffic ticket on the protest. Because as soon as I start answering, I explain to the officer that he could not detect my person one black away. He touched his gun. He put his hand on his gun immediately. So there you are. You cannot reason with guns and clubs and force and power. And I think that our officers have forgotten the ways of God and are now relying completely on the gun and the power. Those things are precipitating certain things too. I'm against violence.

But I would like for my mother, my country, to put the example and stop using the gun and the club and start reasoning in the table with the poor people. Mr. Tiharina, I know that you are opposed to war in Vietnam. But I was wondering if you feel that it is helping your cause in some indirect way. The fact that America is concentrating so much power out in Vietnam, do you think that that leaves the minority groups more of a freedom of action in this country? Simply because of the fact that they have however many thousands of soldiers out there that American interests are diversified that minority groups within the country are able to move more freely. Do you think that's a case? I didn't get the question. Maybe Mr. Charles got it. I think. Well, I'll let him to answer that, although it's indirect to me. First of all, I think the most clear example of how power and violence, the simple doesn't

work as the example in the current struggle in Vietnam. Our country, the most powerful country in the world with the mightiest weapons yet to be used in any war being used in, or have ever been used in a war being used in Vietnam. The concentration of firepower, the concentration of air power, and it's just fantastic, yet we're not winning. Imagine what the Negro can do in violence in this country, get in self-kill business all that's happening, and it's no question that the violence that we've had in the streets in Watts and some of the other places throughout the country has brought the attention to the country. And it's focused on the attention and something that's done. But if you compare that with the lives that have been lost, I will be the first one to argue

very strongly that what we've gotten out of it is not enough. We haven't really gotten anything. We're not. We're getting crumbs thrown at us, it's no immediate change, and then let's go a step further. Supposing that the violence in the streets were to change things, who would be empowered? The same people who, they came to power because of violence, and who would be then, they would have to be somebody under them. And so violence gets violence, and it's not a permanent change. It cannot be a permanent change. I don't know about the powers, and I think it's been so diversified that they can't attend to the home front, but that way, there's more than, there's more, there's a lot of human resources in this country, a lot of bullets and tear gas and nays and everything, enough for all the migrants and all the Mexicans and all the Indians, and all the other minorities, including all the Liberals in this country, to our price simultaneously, they'll be taking

care of. But what are the possible reactions, then, Mr. Tina made the observation, you can't reason with a gun. The northern counties of this state have been known for their political corruption. I think the people are loathed to get involved in politics. Do either of you consider operating in the political sphere, fielding candidates, supporting candidates, working for their election, is this political sphere the proper area, or are there other areas too, is reaction against the establishment, you neither of you seem to believe, or at least you, Mr. Chavez, don't believe that it's, neither of you seem to believe that it's justified, that you're not getting what you should out of it, but what possibilities are there? Just, just, just to fight how? I didn't admit it. Well, what possibilities are there to, to fight your cause? Do you, do you involve yourself in politics? Or will you? Oh yes, I just like to set the record very straight, first of all, our being or mine being against, and I both of us, both of us being against violence doesn't mean that we just,

that we are in favor of the power structure, that we don't want to move the power, or rock the power structure. I think that the militancy can be shown in other ways, and I think that it has been shown. I think that there's just a question, not understanding what the power of, see, there, we have a lot of people, there are not a lot of people, a lot of poor people, they could make enough of a lot of power in this country, they're not effectively organized. And the only way we're going to do it is by, by organization and involving ourselves in all of the, in all of the activities of the community, will be politics, will be labor unions, will be the defending our cultural heritage, language, and all these things, there is, there is change in change in come, but we're not ourselves, as either as poor or as Mexican or whatever it may be, we're not moving the power structure, we are not really

wrestling or grasping the whole idea of how to organize people. And now if we had done all of that and things yet wouldn't move, then I'd be the first one to take a good look at it. But we have an effectively, we don't move people, we don't organize, we're just beginning this, just little rumpels here and there. But I think that the power structure can be as frustrated as we are, and I think that in many cases it is, but it just, it takes more, well, the whole question of organizing people has been relegated to like a second or a third degree of importance. Everything that's done in this country, everything that has ever done successfully involves

enough light of dedication, whether it be, whether the God would be, the almighty dollar or whether the belief would be in human beings and human resources. It always successful only to the extent that people involve themselves in, and we don't have, for instance, we don't have any money, so how do we tackle the whole question of organizing people on a part-time basis, where you can't see a church being organized in a part-time service basis, or you couldn't have the, the, the, the, uh, change store being run by a part-time, uh, manager. The business of organizing human beings to, to bring about, political power to bring about real change is a full-time plus business, and until we recognize this, the Negroes and us, and other groups, we'll never obtain it, we've got to be recognized. So we haven't got the money, we can't go to the government for the money because the government is not going to give it for other things. So, and we can't depend on philanthropic gifts, because there isn't enough money, or

because, uh, sometimes, uh, philanthropists like to give it for other things like that. Now, so it means that the people have to put up the money, and, uh, and then there has to be some fanatics, people who are dedicated, who give up all of their earthly possessions, and, and follow and do things, and do them on a full-time, year-round basis, 24 hours a day, day and night, it becomes the most important thing in their lives. And until we get that, we're going to see some change. Mr. Tehran, what, what about your response to the question of becoming involved in politics? Well, I think that, uh, we have established your record, and, and, and, and proven, uh, ourselves in here in New Mexico, and, uh, especially in these common elections. I think that, uh, if not all, mostly Spanish-American New Mexico look to the alliance for, for decisions and, and guide, and, uh, so, this electing of candidates.

Yes, we intend to use every vote. We have taught our people that a vote is a divine gift. Anybody giving up his vote without knowledge, without taking his, the right of his children in consideration, he's contributing to crime, to organize crime. Anybody who, who ignored his vote, is ignoring his own life. He's ignoring, ignoring, uh, God himself, he, he, he, he, he gave all that power, that power of one, one vote. And we intend to, to sanctify it, to, uh, magnify it, to, uh, because our people were so frustrated, and then they had been taken, and, and betrayed by a politician so for so long, that they had given up hope, and they had, uh, already, uh, uh, decided to change their vote, trade their vote for one bottle of wine, bottle of beer, bottle of whiskey.

But now they, they see it from a different standpoint of you, and now they see, uh, that the vote is more important, and more significant than, than a, a hundred dollar bill. Our discussion has primarily centered thus far on the question of violence, and the reaction seems to be very much, uh, in opposition to violence, uh, I'm wondering the right of revolution has been an historic principle, which was even, uh, recorded for posterity in the Declaration of Independence. Do you feel that revolution is ever justified? Um, and, not me, I don't know, Mr. Chavez. Well, you know, what, what happens with revolution is that you take a set of leaders, and you dispose, I mean, you get bring in a new set of leaders, and very seldom will the people benefit by it, very, very seldom. And it's the people that support the poor and educated, the starving masses of the ones

that take the, the brunt of revolution and war, they're the ones that get killed, right? And they don't get that much out of it. They've never had, you know, right? It's just a planning a new set of leaders with, a set of leaders with a new, uh, no set of leaders with a new set of leaders, and, uh, it doesn't, it doesn't work. I think there's got to be other, other solutions, and we're, uh, today in this country where there's so much, and I'm happy to, to see so much concern for peace. And we talk about peace, we talk about peace all around, not only peace in Vietnam, but we talk about really peace as a way of life, you know? And, uh, I think that each one of us, uh, has to display itself to come to, if we really believe in peace to, to, to pledge ourselves to this, it's a, it's a live, long job and, and much more generations, but revolution, uh, has never changed anything. It, revolutions are very romantic from the, uh, from the historian point of view and from

the reader's point of view, but revolutions are also very exciting, uh, from, from, at least from those who are directing it, you know? But revolution out there, the lonely guy, the uneducated, the masses, it's not, it's never been romantic or something, it's welcome because their, their bodies are on the line. It can't be. Well, do you, don't you agree that perhaps a new set of principles, uh, might supplant an older set of principles that's been entrenched in the only way you can defeat it is through revolution? I don't agree with anything that takes, uh, wishful thinking. You've got to be effective and the only way you're going to do this by organizing and being effective and developing power to bring about these changes, uh, this is the only, the only way it's going to happen, uh, sure, uh, non-violent is going to take longer, but

I think every, every minute you wait is worthwhile. Um, I couldn't, uh, I couldn't advocate, uh, violence, I couldn't even advocate revolution and I'm revolution because the, the leadership in the two opposing sides never really feels the brunt of revolution and the armed conflict, it's again the poor and again the, the same as we're, the same people we're concerned with are the ones that get killed. Now, it, now I would be maybe, uh, willing to take a second look at it, if, uh, were to pit the, uh, maybe were to get, um, the, uh, top echelon, uh, military leaders in both sides, and maybe they can draw swords and the people could watch, and maybe there's something you, maybe we'll have that many wars. You could put them on television, you know, yeah, maybe we'll have that many wars, you know, but, uh, however you slice it, the poor, the uneducated, the peaceful masses get it,

and it's not, it's really not their war, and they really don't get that much out of it. One final question, gentlemen, under these circumstances, uh, well, let me say something first, Mr. T. Hedena's group has signed a pact with, uh, black militant group, I think from California, but I'm not sure exactly, I don't know whether it was Snicker, which one it was, but under these circumstances, uh, does your, do your groups have that much in common with the Negro revolution, the black, what is commonly called the black revolution? Uh, I don't think it's used so much in terms of a mass uprising and violence as it is a change, a radical change. Do you have that much in common with? Well, I like to set the record straight on this, I have explained it again and again, uh, the intentions and the, uh, the, uh, the reasons for, for, uh, making this agreement with the black people. The black, black people are on the warpaths and we are not, uh, we're, uh, we must not kid ourselves.

Since I know what's coming, I don't want to feel the wrath of the black people. These agreements are only, this is a non-aggression pact, uh, as, uh, only to recognize and let them know that we, we bear no hate for them, we bear no, uh, no position and if they have some problem with the white man, we'll let him score them or settle them with the white man, but we don't want him to chute this, this way. That's what the treaty means. It doesn't mean that we will get together and hang the white man, you know, no, uh, I think it was needed because, uh, we have seen many experiences where the black people are fighting in the Mexican-Americans and sometimes they unite with the white to, to hit the, especially in the new Mexican-Penitentiary with the big fight, uh, about 30, uh, niggas and, and, and, and, and, and, and angles. They, they had a big fight with about 10, uh, and, uh, Spanish-Americans. So I, I had to bring this up and I had to teach the, uh, my brothers and the black men,

And not to fight each other. So I powned out the differences and then I talked to our leaders, Elijah Muhammad, Martin Luther King with his snake and all the organizations I told them. There shouldn't be no fight between the Spanish and American and American and the black men. If they have some fight with the white men, well, they didn't fight the white men. But we don't want additional enemies. We have enough with the fight and organized power against our poor people. So I like to set that straight. Of course, he attracted a lot of attention and some people even got frightened panic because of that treaty. But I mean, there's nothing wrong with it, even the United States is making the nuclear treaty with his enemies in Russia. But first come and go, you know. And we made some pretty with the Indians too. Collective, not treaty really, you know, collective agreements.

Mr. Chavez? No, I think it has enough a lot in common. The black revolution, as I understand it, and we're not talking about violence in this instance, has enough a lot of common with our movement and our movement has enough a lot of common with theirs. And we cooperate with them where their problems are our problems and there are brothers and we should be justice one. We have a lot of contact with the Negro groups throughout the country. Not only that, but we also have a lot of membership, Negro membership in our union. In all the things that we're doing in the union, we try a very best not to look at the men because of his color or not to apologize for having him there, but the treaty is just a human being. And if we say a whole question of leadership, if we cut the mustard, we don't care who it is, what he thinks of, or what he thinks in.

If he is devoted to the cause and he can cut the mustard, you can do the work. He has a rightful place in leadership. As far as membership, membership is open to anyone, and we're discussing Negroes, especially the Negroes in the union, and we feel they have done tremendous things in this country in the last five years or so. And we like to see this continue, we like them to get their rights because their rights also mean our rights. I was wondering if you are concentrating your attention right now on organizing farm workers, but I'm wondering if you have any hopes of organizing the urban poor in the immediate future? A lot depends on how the grors feel about that. I think we have a long, long battle with the grors, but I'm interested. My background is one of not of a labor union organizing, but community organization.

Community organization is very exciting, and I spent, well, 15 years of my life at it, and I don't fully understand it, but I have some real deep feelings about how this can be brought about to have a real powerful group in the cities that can really, really demand change. I think it can be done. I'm convinced it can be done. There are certain principles that have to be met. One day when I have lived my youthfulness in the union, maybe I'll go do that. Well, gentlemen, I'd like to thank you both for our most interesting discussion. Our guest this evening have been the two nationally noted leaders of Spanish-American, Mexican-American groups, Cesar Chavez, the director of the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee in Delano, California, and Reyes de Hidena, the president of the Federal Alliance of Free City States. I believe, is it not correct, gentlemen, that this is your first time together on radio?

The first time together. You met for the first time? Yes, we were glad that I was happy to meet Mr. Chavez. You're just meeting each other? Yes, and I might say here that I was very pleasantly surprised by meeting with Brother de Hidena, and I think that if nothing, I accomplished nothing with meeting him and breaking bed with him. It's been the most rewarding experience for me. I find it to be a man of God. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Discussing and questioning with Mr. de Hidena and Mr. Chavez, the question of causes, differences, similarities in their two causes, have been Dennis Lucetti of KUNM News and myself. This is Bill Olson for KUNM News. Thank you and good night.