thumbnail of Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide
Hide -
<v Announcer>Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide is brought to you by United Telecom, <v Announcer>a leader in the communications industry and architect of the US Sprint Fiber <v Announcer>Optic Network, a nationwide digital communications network. <v Louis Rukeyser>Good evening and welcome to Louis Rukeyser is 1988 Election Guide. <v Louis Rukeyser>Folks, we are here to sound Reveille for a presidential campaign that appears <v Louis Rukeyser>to have been afflicted by narcolepsy. <v Louis Rukeyser>Indeed, the most profound question so far is why any American should require <v Louis Rukeyser>a sleeping pill between now and November 8th. <v Louis Rukeyser>Even when this campaign has occasionally awakened to fitful consciousness, <v Louis Rukeyser>it has usually been to address such high minded and deeply significant questions as, <v Louis Rukeyser>"Which candidate is more patriotic?" Or "Which one is better at keeping his <v Louis Rukeyser>dates straight?" No wonder the nationwide snoring has quickly resumed. <v Louis Rukeyser>But one of these men is actually going to be elected in less than two months, <v Louis Rukeyser>and surely the Republic deserves some better sense of what difference that might
<v Louis Rukeyser>really make to America's future. <v Louis Rukeyser>Tonight, we're going to try to find out. <v Louis Rukeyser>In pursuit of that goal, we commissioned a nationwide poll first to find out who's <v Louis Rukeyser>ahead--and I'll be telling you that shortly--but then to get beyond such <v Louis Rukeyser>routine horse race handicapping and discover something of more enduring <v Louis Rukeyser>importance: how the American people themselves feel on the <v Louis Rukeyser>key issues facing the candidates and the nation. <v Louis Rukeyser>With those snapshots of America thinking as our starting points, we <v Louis Rukeyser>will seek to determine exactly what the election of George Bush or Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis truly would mean in each of three vital areas: the <v Louis Rukeyser>economy, foreign and defense policy, and social issues. <v Louis Rukeyser>Especially for this program, and for the first time, both the vice president and the <v Louis Rukeyser>Massachusetts governor have named the eminent individuals they have authorized <v Louis Rukeyser>to speak for them on these issues and be questioned side by side with <v Louis Rukeyser>their opponent's choice. So that by the time this hour is over, we should have
<v Louis Rukeyser>not just a better sense of what this election is actually about, but what the genuine <v Louis Rukeyser>shape of a Bush or Dukakis administration would be. <v Louis Rukeyser>And we'll have some other surprises along the way as well. <v Louis Rukeyser>I'm glad you're here. And I hope when we're finished, you'll be glad you came. <v Louis Rukeyser>First, though, the horse race news, and it does indeed <v Louis Rukeyser>appear to be news, in more than 1000 interviews conducted for us by the Roper <v Louis Rukeyser>Organization between last Thursday and Saturday, our poll found that Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis has regained the momentum he appeared to have lost in recent weeks <v Louis Rukeyser>and now leads George Bush 48 percent to 40 percent, with 12 <v Louis Rukeyser>percent undecided. <v Louis Rukeyser>Among likely voters, the Dukakis lead narrows to 49 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>to 43 percent. But given the customary 3 percent margin of error, <v Louis Rukeyser>there is a strong probability that at this still early stage, the Democrat <v Louis Rukeyser>has pulled ahead. <v Louis Rukeyser>Looking at these findings in greater detail, we see some striking results.
<v Louis Rukeyser>The so-called gender gap is alive and well. <v Louis Rukeyser>Indeed, it accounts for all of Dukakis's advantage. <v Louis Rukeyser>Among likely voters, Bush actually leads by 10 points among men, <v Louis Rukeyser>52 percent to 42 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>But Dukakis more than doubles that margin among women, leading by a whopping <v Louis Rukeyser>55 to 34 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>Despite all the talk about competence and pragmatism, voters appear to be choosing <v Louis Rukeyser>on heavily ideological lines. <v Louis Rukeyser>Likely voters describing themselves as conservative favor Bush 55 <v Louis Rukeyser>to 37 percent. Self-described middle of the roaders are dead <v Louis Rukeyser>even, while those who call themselves liberal overwhelmingly support Dukakis <v Louis Rukeyser>76 to 17 percent. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis leads in three out of four age groups, including the nation's youngest <v Louis Rukeyser>and oldest voters, while Bush has a clear edge with those forty-five <v Louis Rukeyser>to fifty-nine. Does this all mean, then, that the rest of the campaign is
<v Louis Rukeyser>now an empty exercise? <v Louis Rukeyser>That the inauguration next January of Michael Dukakis is a foregone conclusion? <v Louis Rukeyser>Not on your Dewey button. <v Louis Rukeyser>Presidential polling is a relatively young and still inexact science. <v Louis Rukeyser>It began barely half a century ago in 1936, and the <v Louis Rukeyser>inexact part soon became apparent. <v Louis Rukeyser>While the Gallup and Roper polls were accurate that year in predicting landslide <v Louis Rukeyser>reelection for Franklin D. Roosevelt, another poll for the Literary Digest <v Louis Rukeyser>magazine actually forecast a triumph for Kansas Governor Alf <v Louis Rukeyser>Landon wound up taking only two states, Maine and Vermont. <v Louis Rukeyser>The magazine soon went out of business. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the most famous goofs in polling history came 12 years later, <v Louis Rukeyser>in 1948, when every major poll predicted a victory for <v Louis Rukeyser>New York Governor Thomas Dewey over President Harry Truman.
<v Louis Rukeyser>Elmo Roper, founder of the eminent firm we're using on this program, <v Louis Rukeyser>declared precisely 40 years ago that Dewey was in. <v Louis Rukeyser>And, he said, no amount of electioneering could change the result. <v Louis Rukeyser>"Nothing changes after Labor Day," Roper maintained, and the Gallup and Causley <v Louis Rukeyser>polls agreed. <v Louis Rukeyser>After the pollsters, like Dewey, were given hell by Harry, their record <v Louis Rukeyser>for accuracy improved dramatically four years later. <v Louis Rukeyser>The early polls liked Ike. <v Louis Rukeyser>And by election day, so did most Americans. <v Louis Rukeyser>In 1956, they liked him even more. <v Louis Rukeyser>1960 was a challenge for voters and pollsters alike. <v Louis Rukeyser>In early September, the polls showed vice President Richard Nixon with a modest <v Louis Rukeyser>advantage, which narrowed as the first presidential debates neared. <v Louis Rukeyser>After Senator John Kennedy showed well in the debates, many psephologist decided <v Louis Rukeyser>the election was too close to call election. <v Louis Rukeyser>Their caution seemed prudent on Election Day, when Kennedy squeaked through
<v Louis Rukeyser>in the closest race of the 20th century. <v Louis Rukeyser>Four years later, though, nobody hedged. <v Louis Rukeyser>Polls showed President Lyndon Johnson smashing Senator Barry Goldwater. <v Louis Rukeyser>And they were smashingly accurate. <v Louis Rukeyser>Nixon's run in 1968 was almost a rerun of 1960 <v Louis Rukeyser>race for the pollsters. <v Louis Rukeyser>They had him well ahead early on. <v Louis Rukeyser>But vice President Hubert Humphrey gained rapidly on it as George Wallace's support <v Louis Rukeyser>faded and Johnson halted the bombing of North Vietnam. <v Louis Rukeyser>This time, though, Nixon held on to win the squeaker. <v Louis Rukeyser>Very little squeaking was heard in 1972, though. <v Louis Rukeyser>By early September, the pollsters gave Nixon a thundering 61 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>landslide in his reelection bid against Senator George McGovern. <v Louis Rukeyser>And that's precisely what the president wound up with on Election Day. <v Louis Rukeyser>But if the pollsters were becoming cocky, they had another chastening experience <v Louis Rukeyser>in 1976. <v Louis Rukeyser>The early polls showed insurgent Democrat Jimmy Carter handing President
<v Louis Rukeyser>Gerald Ford a historic thrashing. <v Louis Rukeyser>But when the votes were counted, the Georgia governor had barely escaped defeat. <v Louis Rukeyser>Carter was less lucky, four years later. <v Louis Rukeyser>Early polls had him slightly ahead of Ronald Reagan. <v Louis Rukeyser>But on Election Day, Americans apparently decided they weren't better off than <v Louis Rukeyser>they had been four years earlier, and Reagan won easily. <v Louis Rukeyser>Reagan again proved a strong campaigner in 1984, outstripping even <v Louis Rukeyser>the early polls with correctly saw him loping to victory. <v Louis Rukeyser>At their best, then, polls can't really predict. <v Louis Rukeyser>All they can hope to do is tell us how the electorate was feeling on the day the <v Louis Rukeyser>questions were asked. With that in mind, let's see how voters seem to be feeling right <v Louis Rukeyser>now on the economic issues facing America. <v Louis Rukeyser>We began with the question made famous by Ronald Reagan Are you better off today <v Louis Rukeyser>than you were four years ago? <v Louis Rukeyser>Forty percent said they were. <v Louis Rukeyser>And most of them, not surprisingly, are likely Bush voters. <v Louis Rukeyser>Sixteen percent said they were worse off.
<v Louis Rukeyser>And that group is overwhelmingly for Dukakis. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the largest number, 42 percent, said they were doing about the same. <v Louis Rukeyser>But American optimism lives. <v Louis Rukeyser>An impressive fifty-seven percent of us, including clear majorities of both <v Louis Rukeyser>Bush and Dukakis supporters, expect to be better off in the next four <v Louis Rukeyser>years. Only 6 percent expect to be worse off, while 29 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>are looking for the status quo to continue. <v Louis Rukeyser>Despite all the talk of tax reform, most Americans, 55 percent, <v Louis Rukeyser>think U.S. federal taxes are too high. <v Louis Rukeyser>Only 3 percent crave to see them higher still, while 37 percent <v Louis Rukeyser>are content with the present level. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the poll found most voters believe George Bush's flat pledge <v Louis Rukeyser>not to raise taxes. <v Louis Rukeyser>Only 41 percent said they expected the taxes they pay to be higher if Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>was elected. Whereas 52 percent are expecting a higher tax bill <v Louis Rukeyser>if Dukakis wins.
<v Louis Rukeyser>Many economic issues are important, but which is most important to you? <v Louis Rukeyser>This was the order that our poll found. <v Louis Rukeyser>Providing for the needy got the most support, twenty-seven percent, but it was closely <v Louis Rukeyser>followed by reducing government spending and holding inflation low. <v Louis Rukeyser>Then came a tie between holding down taxes and holding down unemployment. <v Louis Rukeyser>Perhaps a sign that with record employment this year, the unemployment issue lacks <v Louis Rukeyser>some of its traditional political firepower. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our last four economic questions asked which candidate would do a better job <v Louis Rukeyser>of dealing with each of four key economic issues. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis had a clear edge on dealing with unemployment, while Bush was rated <v Louis Rukeyser>higher at dealing with inflation. <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis was well ahead on dealing with the budget deficit, while Bush was slightly <v Louis Rukeyser>favored on dealing with the trade deficit. <v Louis Rukeyser>What do these results tell us about how the economic debate will go, and for that matter, <v Louis Rukeyser>how the economy will go? <v Louis Rukeyser>In the first of our three confrontations on issues tonight.
<v Louis Rukeyser>Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire is here as vice President Bush's designated <v Louis Rukeyser>economic spokesman. Governor Sununu will leave office next January after completing <v Louis Rukeyser>his third two-year term and would be expected to figure prominently in a Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>administration. He is now serving as co-chairman of the Bush campaign. <v Louis Rukeyser>Robert Reich is a professor of political economy at Harvard University's Kennedy <v Louis Rukeyser>School of Government and a leading adviser to the Dukakis campaign, designated <v Louis Rukeyser>by the governor as his economic spokesman tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich joins us from Boston. <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor Sununu, our poll suggests that voters believe George Bush won't cut <v Louis Rukeyser>taxes, but that they don't think he'll balance the budget either. <v Louis Rukeyser>If they're wrong, why don't you tell us tonight where he is prepared to cut spending? <v John Sununu>Well, I think what you're going to see is a recognition that it's not going to happen <v John Sununu>overnight. What the vice president has laid out is a commitment to work towards <v John Sununu>a cessation of the growth in spending each year that takes place, in contrast--in <v John Sununu>Congress. His commitment has been to deal with it on the basis of a flexible freeze.
<v John Sununu>And if you will allow the revenues to catch up with expenditures. <v John Sununu>We we always think in terms of two curves and bringing one down. <v John Sununu>But you can also get the same coincidence by shifting in time. <v John Sununu>And I think that's really the basis of the flex freeze over a four-year period. <v Louis Rukeyser>Flexible freeze sounds like something you go down a snowy hill on. <v Louis Rukeyser>What does it mean in reality? <v John Sununu>Basically it says you you freeze the level of growth at something close--of expenditures <v John Sununu>at something close to inflation. <v John Sununu>It gives you a little bit of money to put in some small new programs--child care <v John Sununu>programs, for example--and then allow the growth in revenue, which in this country has <v John Sununu>been at faster than the rate of inflation over the past few years, to catch up to the <v John Sununu>expenditure level. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich, would that work? <v Robert Reich>Well, the flexible freeze is a nice title. <v Robert Reich>It's not a plan. It's an aspiration. <v Robert Reich>The arithmetic doesn't work. <v Robert Reich>George Bush has not said what he's willing to cut. <v Robert Reich>He hasn't said he's willing to cut a single thing. <v Robert Reich>In fact, I've looked at that flexible freeze arithmetic very carefully, and it all <v Robert Reich>depends on one single assumption. <v Robert Reich>And that is that interest rates will decline by at least 2
<v Robert Reich>percent. Now, in the present environment and in the foreseeable future, interest <v Robert Reich>rates are unlikely to decline. <v Robert Reich>In fact, with inflation, pressure is building up, with our international trade <v Robert Reich>situation, our dependance on foreign capital. <v Robert Reich>If anything, the interest rates are going up. <v Louis Rukeyser>Is it your view that the--. <v Robert Reich>That flexible freeze is is not going to work. <v Louis Rukeyser>Is it your view that under Bush, the deficit would grow? <v Robert Reich>Under Bush, the deficit will grow. <v Robert Reich>It's going to be a continuation of the same policies. <v Robert Reich>You know, in 1981, America had the largest <v Robert Reich>creditor country rating in the world. <v Robert Reich>It was the largest creditor country. Right now we are the largest debtor country in the <v Robert Reich>world, in the world's history. <v Robert Reich>We owe the rest of the world four hundred and twenty-five billion dollars. <v Robert Reich>And if there's a continuation of the present policies, and I see no way of <v Robert Reich>assuming anything otherwise than a continuation of the present policies, we are going to <v Robert Reich>owe the rest of the world, by six years from now, 1.4
<v Robert Reich>trillion dollars. That's enough money to buy half of the stock on the <v Robert Reich>New York Stock Exchange. And foreigners are already buying up a lot of America. <v Robert Reich>One--40 percent of downtown Los Angeles, 30 percent of <v Robert Reich>Houston, a lot of American companies. <v Robert Reich>We are making ourselves extraordinarily vulnerable. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let's let the governor respond. <v John Sununu>With all due respect to Professor Reich, the fact is, is that the deficit is falling <v John Sununu>even now without holding the growth in Congress--the growth of spending in <v John Sununu>Congress down. The commitment is to work to hold the growth and spending down. <v John Sununu>Even CBO zone data, which is more conservative than even the administration's data, <v John Sununu>shows that this can happen. The fact is, is that he is correct <v John Sununu>in pointing out that it does require a reduction in real interest rates. <v John Sununu>Interest rates are still at a relative high compared to historic levels, real <v John Sununu>interest rates. The key to that is confidence. <v John Sununu>And the key to confidence is getting somebody in the White House that both the investment <v John Sununu>banking community and the business community has faith in.
<v Louis Ruykeser>How about Professor Reich's comment that the foreigners are buying up this country. <v Louis Ruykeser>What's your man gonna do about that? <v John Sununu>Well, foreigners are taking advantage of the trade imbalance that exists. <v John Sununu>The key to that, again, is to getting to a trade balance. <v John Sununu>But the way to get to a trade balance is not the protectionist stance of the Democrats, <v John Sununu>but a more open--an expansion of the American export process. <v John Sununu>It is beginning to take place, moving towards fair trade and free trade. <v John Sununu>And the key to it is not the kind of things that that are part and--part and parcel of <v John Sununu>the Democrat policy, which will shut markets off to American goods. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich. <v Robert Reich>Again, I beg to differ with the governor of New Hampshire, but the Democrats <v Robert Reich>are not espousing protectionism. In fact. <v Robert Reich>Governor Dukakis has been very clear that only under conditions of absolute <v Robert Reich>injury to a particular workforce, temporary--temporary protection will be <v Robert Reich>provided. But on condition--and here's the big difference between Republican protection <v Robert Reich>and Democratic protection--on condition that that industry, those workers, those <v Robert Reich>managers that are protected, commit those extra resources that they get because consumers
<v Robert Reich>are paying more--to upgrade, to retool, to retrain, to become more competitive. <v Robert Reich>Under the Reagan administration, we've had steel and autos and machine tools--all kinds <v Robert Reich>of industries--get protected. <v Robert Reich>But no quid pro quo. And so you have-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me move to taxes because our polls suggest that voters believe George Bush <v Louis Rukeyser>won't raise taxes, but think that Michael Dukakis will. <v Louis Rukeyser>Are they right? Professor? <v Robert Reich>Michael Dukakis has pledged himself that if he is going <v Robert Reich>to even look at taxes, it's going to be as a last resort. <v Robert Reich>He's been very specific about the kinds of things that he would do to reduce the budget <v Robert Reich>deficit. Unlike vice President Bush, Michael Dukakis has talked about <v Robert Reich>curbing Star Wars expenditures. He's talked about ending this Orient <v Robert Reich>Express supersonic travel business. <v Robert Reich>He's talked about getting control over the Pentagon procurement <v Robert Reich>fiasco. Also, he's going to reduce welfare rolls by getting people off of welfare <v Robert Reich>and into our productive system, as he has done in Massachusetts.
<v Robert Reich>He's going to get hospital cost containment, hospital reimbursement high on the agenda. <v Robert Reich>He's going to go after the hundred billion dollars of unpaid taxes that <v Robert Reich>are out and due every year. A lot of very wealthy Americans--not the people who are <v Robert Reich>paying payroll taxes, not the average working American--a lot of very wealthy Americans <v Robert Reich>are not paying the taxes that are due. <v Robert Reich>Now, these are all the kinds of things that Governor Dukakis has said he would do. <v Robert Reich>George Bush has not been specific at all. He hasn't said anything except repeating <v Robert Reich>flexible freeze and hoping and praying that interest rates go down. <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor? <v John Sununu>Well, the reason the voters out there think Michael Dukakis is going to raise taxes is <v John Sununu>that he has a history of doing that. <v John Sununu>Even in his first election where he gave an ironclad commitment not to, he gave the state <v John Sununu>of Massachusetts its highest tax increase ever. <v John Sununu>When he had any difficulty at all in his budgets the last couple of years, the first <v John Sununu>thing he did was run out and raise taxes. <v John Sununu>The worst thing he did on top of that was to try and capitalize that deficit. <v John Sununu>He's been out borrowing, trying to cover that deficit.
<v John Sununu>The market has not received it well, to the point where this past weekend, one of <v John Sununu>the Wall Street firms that generally acts as a leading indicator to what Standard and <v John Sununu>Poor's and Moody's does looked askance at some of the issuances coming <v John Sununu>out of Massachusetts. Well, that's--the key to dealing with the deficit <v John Sununu>situation over the long term is to maintain the economic strength of this country. <v John Sununu>And the success of the Reagan-Bush administration will be continued with policies that <v John Sununu>parallel the incentives for incentives. <v John Sununu>We have--incentives for jobs. We have had seventeen and a half million new jobs created. <v John Sununu>One of the few states that has not been able to create jobs effectively is the state of <v John Sununu>Massachusetts. <v Robert Reich>Governor, if I may--if I may--if I may interrupt, please. <v Robert Reich>Just to--just to correct the record on that, in terms of taxes, Michael Dukakis <v Robert Reich>has lowered taxes seven times. <v Robert Reich>In fact, if you look at tax revenues as a percentage of state incomes, <v Robert Reich>Massachusetts now ranks 35th, 35th out of 50th in terms of <v Robert Reich>low taxes. <v John Sununu>They rank fifth in the country in terms of total state taxes. <v John Sununu>They have had the second highest rate of growth of taxes during this administration.
<v Robert Reich>Well, you know, I was, I was prepared--. <v Louis Rukeyser>And the highest rate of growth of spending. <v Robert Reich>I was prepared for these. I have here data put together on every state, including <v Robert Reich>Governor, your state of New Hampshire. And the fact of the matter is that New Hampshire, <v Robert Reich>again, because incomes are rising so fast, obviously you're going to have higher tax <v Robert Reich>revenues even though your tax rate is low. <v John Sununu>But you do rank second. <v Robert Reich>If your incomes--if your incomes are going up very fast. <v Robert Reich>In terms of bond ratings, Massachusetts has had an upgrading, an upgrading <v Robert Reich>in its bond rating twice over the past three years. <v Robert Reich>It is a--an extraordinary economic locomotive. <v Robert Reich>In fact, your state--. <v John Sununu>But Prescott, Ball and Turben, over the weekend, made it clear that the deficit last <v John Sununu>year and the deficit that is projected for this year, which is typical of not being able <v John Sununu>to manage a state when you're not getting the very rapid growth that you might expect, <v John Sununu>is going to cause, they think, folks to look askance at Massachusetts bonds. <v John Sununu>The fact is--. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me let me move you both from Massachusetts to America-at-large. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congress last time, last election--more than 98 percent of the incumbents who ran
<v Louis Rukeyser>for reelection were elected. <v Louis Rukeyser>What difference does it make which of these guys is elected president if we're gonna have <v Louis Rukeyser>the same old Congress? <v John Sununu>I think the key to it is that you have to have somebody in there that has a resolution, a <v John Sununu>commitment not to yield to the same kind of mistakes we've made as a nation <v John Sununu>over the past few years. And that is, to try and get some control of the spending process <v John Sununu>and when you can't do it, yielding on taxes and having the expenditure level increase. <v John Sununu>The fact is, is that this country can deal with its economic problem if we keep the job <v John Sununu>engine going. And I think that's the key to what the vice president is committed to do. <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Reich, you want to comment on Congress? <v Robert Reich>Well, I'm afraid that we have had a lack of leadership in the White House. <v Robert Reich>Congress is very effective, can be very effective. <v Robert Reich>But you have to have somebody who is setting the agenda, creating a strategy. <v Robert Reich>We have not had a national strategy coming from the White House in terms of <v Robert Reich>competitiveness, in terms of restoring America to its position as number one. <v Robert Reich>Our technology is slipping. Our real wages are slipping. <v Robert Reich>The governor mentioned before creating all those new jobs, well, many jobs have been
<v Robert Reich>created. Yes. Over the last eight years. <v Robert Reich>But more than half of them have been very low paying jobs. <v Robert Reich>Fact, they've been paying under $12,000 a year. <v John Sununu>Professor Reich, that data is the University of Massachusetts data from nineteen--with <v John Sununu>with the maximum numbers, the latest numbers in there, from 1984. <v John Sununu>Of the seventeen and a half million jobs that were created, four and a half million were <v John Sununu>at $31,000 a year or more and almost 12 million were at <v John Sununu>$20,000 a year or more. <v Robert Reich>No, no, no, no--I anticipated--. <v John Sununu>And those are not low paying jobs. <v Robert Reich>I anticipated this as well. Again, this is--. <v John Sununu>I have the data as well professor. <v Robert Reich>Well, shall we-- <v John Sununu>The Department of Labor data indicates that-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me, let me wave my own piece of paper. <v Louis Rukeyser>I just want your final thoughts--. <v John Sununu>--$20,000 or more. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time on this. Let me ask for a single sentence from each of you. <v Louis Rukeyser>What's the most important economic difference between these two candidates? <v Louis Rukeyser>Governor. <v John Sununu>I think it is Governor Dukakis's proclivity to tax. <v John Sununu>Governor Dukakis's inability to even hold a plan of spending and a budget <v John Sununu>plan within his own state, and George Bush's commitment to continue the incentives
<v John Sununu>that will create jobs in this country. <v Louis Rukeyser>Proffessor. <v Robert Reich>I think the difference is that George Bush and, as part of the Reagan administration, to <v Robert Reich>the extent that he made any decisions at all--I'm not sure he made any--but as part of <v Robert Reich>the Reagan administration that has basically made this country one of the largest <v Robert Reich>debtors, the largest debtor in world history, and removed us from a position of number <v Robert Reich>one, because we have no strategy, because we have no priorities, because we haven't been <v Robert Reich>investing in the future. And Governor Dukakis is willing to make tough <v Robert Reich>choices. He has specific proposals with regard to budget deficit reduction. <v Robert Reich>And he is willing to invest in the future, in terms of education, training, research <v Robert Reich>and development and rebuilding America. <v Robert Reich>That is what this election is all about, rebuilding this nation. <v Louis Rukeyser>As a good professor, you got in that sentence a few semicolons and dashes, but <v Louis Rukeyser>there we do have to stop for this section. Thanks very much, Governor John Sununu, <v Louis Rukeyser>Professor Robert Reich. As you can see, modern presidential candidates get no shortage of <v Louis Rukeyser>advice from all quarters. <v Louis Rukeyser>If George Washington could see the number of advisers that surround a modern president,
<v Louis Rukeyser>he might swallow his wooden teeth. <v Louis Rukeyser>In 1789, Washington got along with four cabinet members <v Louis Rukeyser>and no formal White House staff whatsoever. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was quite common in the early days of the Republic for the cabinet to be a stepping <v Louis Rukeyser>stone to the presidency. <v Louis Rukeyser>In the first six decades, no fewer than six presidents had served earlier <v Louis Rukeyser>as secretary of state. But as the bureaucracy grew, the political <v Louis Rukeyser>clout of the cabinet diminished. <v Louis Rukeyser>Since 1849, only four cabinet members have even been nominated <v Louis Rukeyser>for the presidency. The last one to make it was a former secretary of commerce <v Louis Rukeyser>named Herbert Hoover. <v Louis Rukeyser>It's interesting that the modern decline of the cabinet accelerated under Hoover's <v Louis Rukeyser>successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, himself a former assistant secretary <v Louis Rukeyser>of the Navy, who was the first president to have an official White House staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was minuscule by today's standards. <v Louis Rukeyser>A mere thirty-seven persons. <v Louis Rukeyser>But men such as Harry Hopkins and Raymond Moley, who didn't have to be confirmed
<v Louis Rukeyser>by Congress, soon proved more influential than many who did. <v Louis Rukeyser>Harry Truman continued the trend, leaning heavily on such White House staffers <v Louis Rukeyser>as John Steelman and Clark Clifford. <v Louis Rukeyser>And then Dwight Eisenhower added the terminology of the military, appointing the <v Louis Rukeyser>first chief of staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>So powerful did that chief, Sherman Adams, become, particularly after Ike <v Louis Rukeyser>had a heart attack, that the joke three decades ago was, "What happens if <v Louis Rukeyser>Sherman Adams dies and Eisenhower becomes president?". <v Louis Rukeyser>If that sounds similar to some of the jokes Democrats tell today, consider some other <v Louis Rukeyser>striking parallels, pro and con. <v Louis Rukeyser>The country was at peace. The economy was relatively healthy. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was claimed that the president was lazy and delegated too much. <v Louis Rukeyser>And his chief of staff left under a cloud. <v Louis Rukeyser>Adams was dismissed, not for failure to get along with Mamie Eisenhower, <v Louis Rukeyser>but for improperly accepting of vicuna coat.
<v Louis Rukeyser>Donald Regan is thought to have supplied his own wardrobe. <v Louis Rukeyser>Under John F. Kennedy, the White House staff continued to grow. <v Louis Rukeyser>But with a new emphasis on recruits from college campuses, notably Harvard professors <v Louis Rukeyser>and other members of what were proudly, if often inaccurately, referred to as <v Louis Rukeyser>the best and the brightest. <v Louis Rukeyser>The adviser the president counted on most was his campaign manager and younger brother, <v Louis Rukeyser>Robert Kennedy. While he turned to the president of Ford Motors, Robert McNamara, <v Louis Rukeyser>to be Secretary of Defense. <v Louis Rukeyser>After Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson kept on many of what had been <v Louis Rukeyser>called the Irish Mafia, but added some local flavoring with his <v Louis Rukeyser>own Texas mafia as well. <v Louis Rukeyser>But the White House staff had never made as much news as it did under Richard Nixon. <v Louis Rukeyser>Who can forget the adventures of H.R. <v Louis Rukeyser>Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and Charles Colson? <v Louis Rukeyser>Not to mention a little known college professor who was appointed National Security <v Louis Rukeyser>Advisor: Henry Kissinger.
<v Louis Rukeyser>After the debacle of Watergate, Gerald Ford, the only president never to win <v Louis Rukeyser>a national election, decided he had to reduce the size of the White House staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>It was a short lived trend. <v Louis Rukeyser>Jimmy Carter brought in his so-called Georgia mafia--and isn't it about time to bury <v Louis Rukeyser>that word?--and for a time did away with a chief of staff. <v Louis Rukeyser>Ronald Reagan has alternated between powerful cabinet members, powerful staff members, <v Louis Rukeyser>and perhaps most strikingly, three men who have been both: James Baker, <v Louis Rukeyser>Edwin Meese, and Donald Regan. <v Louis Rukeyser>So you see, when you're electing a president these days, you're electing a lot more <v Louis Rukeyser>people than just Dukakis and Bentsen or Bush and Quayle. <v Louis Rukeyser>Will one of the people here tonight turn out to be as famous and influential as Bob <v Louis Rukeyser>Haldeman, or Ham Jordan, or Henry Kissinger? <v Louis Rukeyser>Or Thomas Jefferson? Maybe we better find out what's in their heads, too. <v Louis Rukeyser>And that's part of our job tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>Before introducing the spokesman on foreign and defense policy, though, let's quickly see
<v Louis Rukeyser>what our poll found on those issues. <v Louis Rukeyser>Relatively few Americans we found, only 12 percent, want to spend more <v Louis Rukeyser>on defense. Thirty-five percent, including fully half of Dukakis's supporters, <v Louis Rukeyser>want to spend less. While the largest group, forty-eight percent, heavily including <v Louis Rukeyser>Bush supporters, wants to keep spending about the same. <v Louis Rukeyser>Interestingly, fifty-one percent, including a majority in both camps, think the U.S. <v Louis Rukeyser>should actively use its influence to improve race relations in South Africa. <v Louis Rukeyser>Nearly twice the number who want to break off all contact with South Africa. <v Louis Rukeyser>The narrowest division was on the question of continuing to give aid to the Contras <v Louis Rukeyser>fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. <v Louis Rukeyser>Americans favored continuing such aid, 34 percent to 27 percent, <v Louis Rukeyser>but nearly a third were not sure. <v Louis Rukeyser>As for the Soviet Union, slightly more than half of those polled now see it <v Louis Rukeyser>as a serious threat to U.S. security. <v Louis Rukeyser>Though the number rises to more than two-thirds among Bush supporters.
<v Louis Rukeyser>And this would appear to be Bush's best issue. <v Louis Rukeyser>Fully 50 percent thought he would do a better job of dealing with Soviet leader Mikhail <v Louis Rukeyser>Gorbachev, compared with only 20 percent who thought Dukakis would do better. <v Louis Rukeyser>As his spokesman tonight on foreign and defense policy vice President Bush named General <v Louis Rukeyser>Brent Scowcroft, who served as assistant to President Ford for National Security Affairs <v Louis Rukeyser>and is currently vice chairman of the international consulting firm headed by Henry <v Louis Rukeyser>Kissinger. Governor Dukakis chose Representative Lee Hamilton, who has represented <v Louis Rukeyser>Indiana's 9th District since 1964 and came to wide public attention <v Louis Rukeyser>last year as House Chairman of the Iran Contra Committee. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman Hamilton, Governor Dukakis today got a blow. <v Louis Rukeyser>Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Carter's top national security adviser, endorsed <v Louis Rukeyser>vice President Bush for president. Said Bush was the candidate best equipped, in his <v Louis Rukeyser>words, "to fashion an effective bipartisan foreign policy." Is Michael <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis, then, actually outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party on these issues?
<v Lee Hamilton>Oh, I don't think Governor Dukakis is outside the mainstream of American foreign policy <v Lee Hamilton>at all. I think Governor Dukakis is very much in the mainstream. <v Lee Hamilton>His position, for example, with the Soviet Union, which is the key foreign policy <v Lee Hamilton>relationship, is that we must maintain our strength. <v Lee Hamilton>But because of the remarkable changes taking place in the Soviet Union, <v Lee Hamilton>he's prepared to test the Soviet Union and to try to move forward with <v Lee Hamilton>negotiations. Vice President Bush, on the other hand, has said that the Cold War is still <v Lee Hamilton>going on. And Senator Quayle said the other day that <v Lee Hamilton>perestroika is simply a refined form of Stalinism. <v Lee Hamilton>Now, it seems to me that Vice President Bush and Senator Quayle <v Lee Hamilton>are not expressing the mainstream view of our analysis <v Lee Hamilton>of what's happening in the Soviet Union today. <v Lee Hamilton>They are not agreeing with President Reagan's position that the barriers may be coming <v Lee Hamilton>down in the Soviet Union, the barriers that have existed
<v Lee Hamilton>between ourselves and that country during the past four decades. <v Lee Hamilton>And so it seems to me that Vice President Bush and Senator Quayle are more skeptical, <v Lee Hamilton>much more skeptical of developments in the Soviet Union than Governor Dukakis. <v Lee Hamilton>And he is in the mainstream in wanting to move forward with negotiations. <v Louis Rukeyser>General Scowcroft, is this right? Is your candidate less of a Reaganite than Governor <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis? <v Brent Scowcroft>No, I think that's not--that's not correct. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think it is prudent at this particular point in time to be cautious about developments <v Brent Scowcroft>in the Soviet Union, to be hopeful, but skeptical. <v Brent Scowcroft>And it seems to me that one ought to continue negotiating, but not <v Brent Scowcroft>act as if all our problems with the Soviet Union are ended, not disband <v Brent Scowcroft>our military, and not take surface manifestations <v Brent Scowcroft>for any fundamental change in policy. <v Brent Scowcroft>It may be there, but we should not act as if it had already happened. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman Hamilton, shouldn't we be skeptical? <v Lee Hamilton>Oh, we certainly should be skeptical. And we should be on our guard.
<v Lee Hamilton>There's no question about that. But the posture that Governor Dukakis has put forward <v Lee Hamilton>is a posture that shows a willingness to accept some of the <v Lee Hamilton>potential opportunities that exist in the relationship with the Soviet Union. <v Lee Hamilton>And he's prepared to move forward on negotiations. <v Lee Hamilton>On the other hand, you have these extraordinary statements from Vice President Bush and <v Lee Hamilton>Senator Quayle, which really are not in tune <v Lee Hamilton>with the statements that President Reagan made. <v Lee Hamilton>For example, when he came back from Moscow and talked about the momentous <v Lee Hamilton>changes occurring in the Soviet Union. <v Louis Rukeyser>I want to make sure that I understand you. Is Governor Dukakis then endorsing President <v Louis Rukeyser>Reagan's foreign policy? <v Lee Hamilton>He is endorsing moving forward towards additional agreements <v Lee Hamilton>with the Soviet Union, pushing ahead on the START agreement, for example, the framework <v Lee Hamilton>with which has been set. And he's certainly shown, it seems to me, a very <v Lee Hamilton>progressive attitude in trying to move forward in an improving the relationship <v Lee Hamilton>with the Soviet Union. I don't think Vice President Bush has shown that same willingness
<v Lee Hamilton>to move forward. <v Louis Rukeyser>President Reagan has suggested that the only reason he's accomplished what he has with <v Louis Rukeyser>the Soviet Union is because he continued arming to an extent that Governor Dukakis, among <v Louis Rukeyser>others, opposed. How do you respond to that? <v Lee Hamilton>I think Governor Dukakis stands for a very strong defense. <v Lee Hamilton>His position with regard to one of the principal measures of that, of course, <v Lee Hamilton>is the defense budget. And he favors a stable defense budget, which would grow <v Lee Hamilton>with the rate of inflation. That's the same position on defense budget that <v Lee Hamilton>Vice President Bush is expressing. <v Lee Hamilton>He favors working with our allies. <v Lee Hamilton>He does not want to dismantle any of the weapons systems that we have. <v Lee Hamilton>He favors the triad. <v Lee Hamilton>He has been very specific about his preparedness to use <v Lee Hamilton>force if necessary in a number of specified instances. <v Lee Hamilton>So I think Governor Dukakis is strong on defense. <v Lee Hamilton>He adopts the view that we should negotiate from strength, and he's prepared <v Lee Hamilton>to do that. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think we're really skirting one of the fundamental concerns I think about
<v Brent Scowcroft>Governor Dukakis, which, I believe, has motivated, for example, <v Brent Scowcroft>Dr. Brzezinski to the move that he took today. <v Brent Scowcroft>And that is what appear to be his fundamental instincts. <v Brent Scowcroft>And those instincts seem clearly to be outside the mainstream of <v Brent Scowcroft>American policy as practiced by both Republican and Democratic presidents. <v Brent Scowcroft>And for that, I think one needs to look back, prior to the time <v Brent Scowcroft>he became a presidential candidate, when he took strong and public <v Brent Scowcroft>positions on things like the nuclear freeze at a time when we were trying to negotiate <v Brent Scowcroft>INF and which would have made that treaty impossible when he refuses, <v Brent Scowcroft>for example, to let a communications network be installed <v Brent Scowcroft>in Massachusetts, as it has been in 48 other states, <v Brent Scowcroft>so that the president could, in the case of Soviet attack, communicate <v Brent Scowcroft>with our forces. It seems to me those kinds of things are indicative
<v Brent Scowcroft>of a of a view that is outside <v Brent Scowcroft>the sort of cautious, conservative mainstream of American policy, <v Brent Scowcroft>which has for 40 years been to improve our deterrents, <v Brent Scowcroft>to make it more credible and to induce the Soviet <v Brent Scowcroft>Union by not showing weakness to be willing to negotiate. <v Brent Scowcroft>And I think that's what happened. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman? <v Lee Hamilton>Well, I think Governor Dukakis strongly supports the idea of a strong <v Lee Hamilton>deterrent against our adversaries with regard to the nuclear <v Lee Hamilton>freeze. His position, it seems to me, was reasonable in the context of the time. <v Lee Hamilton>Keep in mind that when the freeze movement was underway, the Reagan administration <v Lee Hamilton>had really abandoned the process of arms control. <v Lee Hamilton>And the nuclear freeze movement became the focal point where people <v Lee Hamilton>could express their desire for arms control. <v Lee Hamilton>The president read that. And in that speech that he gave towards the end of his first
<v Lee Hamilton>term, he got back on the arms control track. <v Lee Hamilton>I don't think he would have done that had it not been for that nuclear freeze movement. <v Lee Hamilton>With respect to the network system, the governor certainly supports <v Lee Hamilton>a strong communication and control system. <v Lee Hamilton>That particular system was presented to him as a means to carry on <v Lee Hamilton>protracted nuclear war, and he had strong environmental <v Lee Hamilton>concerns about it. When the plan was reduced from several hundred sites <v Lee Hamilton>to less than 100, when he understood that plan properly, <v Lee Hamilton>then he has indicated a willingness to reconsider it. <v Lee Hamilton>He certainly supports and understands the necessity for a strong <v Lee Hamilton>communication and control system. <v Louis Rukeyser>Let's move from this discussion of the past to the future. <v Louis Rukeyser>What difference would it make if either of these two men was elected? <v Louis Rukeyser>What changes would we see in foreign and defense policy? <v Louis Rukeyser>General? <v Brent Scowcroft>I think if a Vice President Bush were elected, you would see,
<v Brent Scowcroft>for example, toward the Soviet Union a strong, confident move forward <v Brent Scowcroft>toward negotiations with the Soviet Union. <v Brent Scowcroft>I believe the Vice President believes that the Soviets do seek stability with <v Brent Scowcroft>the United States and that we should take advantage of that to put forward <v Brent Scowcroft>positions which would both improve the nuclear balance <v Brent Scowcroft>and also advance American interests. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think that would be done with prudence, with caution <v Brent Scowcroft>and without expecting that <v Brent Scowcroft>the Soviet Union has, in fact, changed until the results of those negotiations <v Brent Scowcroft>demonstrate. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman, how about President Dukakis? What would his foreign policy be? <v Lee Hamilton>Well, I think one of the strengths of Governor Dukakis is that he understands <v Lee Hamilton>national security and all of its facets. <v Lee Hamilton>I think there's a tendency in this administration under President Reagan and in <v Lee Hamilton>Vice President Bush's statements to equate the level of defense
<v Lee Hamilton>expenditure with national security. <v Lee Hamilton>Governor Dukakis quite understands that we need a strong defense and he's prepared <v Lee Hamilton>to support that and advocate it. <v Lee Hamilton>But he also understands that we're in for a very, very difficult economic challenge <v Lee Hamilton>in the world. And so he's prepared to strengthen our <v Lee Hamilton>economic status, which, of course, is the basis of the strength even <v Lee Hamilton>of our military. <v Lee Hamilton>And that broader concept of national security, which also includes <v Lee Hamilton>emphasis on education and research and development and many other things, <v Lee Hamilton>I think, would enable him to conduct a much stronger foreign <v Lee Hamilton>policy for America. <v Brent Scowcroft>I think that gets us back to the fundamental question again, and that--and that's to the <v Brent Scowcroft>governor's instincts. Now, he has backpedaled on a number of the weapons systems, so <v Brent Scowcroft>it's difficult to know exactly where he stands right now. <v Brent Scowcroft>But in the beginning, he was against--fundamentally against the modernization of any <v Brent Scowcroft>of our systems. In other words, to cancel the programs we have underway now
<v Brent Scowcroft>before we begin negotiations with the Soviets on what we do with the future <v Brent Scowcroft>strategic systems. It seems to me that's fundamentally wrong, the wrong approach <v Brent Scowcroft>toward negotiating with the Soviets. <v Lee Hamilton>But let me just interject here that it was the Reagan-Bush administration, <v Lee Hamilton>which at Iceland suggested that we do away with all intercontinental <v Lee Hamilton>ballistic missiles. That's two sides of the triad. <v Lee Hamilton>It was the president who discussed seriously at that meeting the Soviet <v Lee Hamilton>proposal that we do away with all nuclear weapons. <v Lee Hamilton>So far as I know, those positions were taken without any consultation <v Lee Hamilton>with the Congress, without any consultation with our allies, without any <v Lee Hamilton>consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. <v Lee Hamilton>Now, you're not going to see Governor Dukakis acting in that kind of a manner. <v Lee Hamilton>He's much too cautious a person. <v Lee Hamilton>He's not going to put forward these very radical proposals to suddenly wipe <v Lee Hamilton>out our entire intercontinental ballistic missile system and to have them discussed in
<v Lee Hamilton>meetings with the Soviet Union. <v Louis Rukeyser>But--General, I'll give you a chance respond briefly, because they did attack your man. <v Brent Scowcroft>Well, whatever one thinks of all the proposals at Reykjavik, they were at least <v Brent Scowcroft>balanced proposals. The Soviet Union is modernizing its entire strategic <v Brent Scowcroft>forces at the present time. <v Brent Scowcroft>Sometimes more than one system--in ballistic missiles, in sea <v Brent Scowcroft>launch ballistic missiles, and bombers. <v Brent Scowcroft>And what the governor apparently proposes is that we should not do this modernization. <v Brent Scowcroft>And the Soviets may be changing, but they're certainly not philanthropists. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time. I'd like to get a quick answer from each of you on this one. <v Lee Hamilton>The governor proposes modernizing the bomber <v Lee Hamilton>leg of the triad. He favors the stealth. <v Lee Hamilton>The governor proposes modernizing the sea launch missiles with <v Lee Hamilton>the Trident II. And he said that he's open to modernization of the of <v Lee Hamilton>the land-based leg. So he favors modernization of the nuclear deterrent. <v Louis Rukeyser>We're nearly out of time, but I'd like a sentence from each of you, if I could, on this <v Louis Rukeyser>one, because we haven't talked about it, and we should.
<v Louis Rukeyser>There's another important area in the world called the Middle East. <v Louis Rukeyser>Would the election of either these two men make a difference in policy? <v Louis Rukeyser>Congressman? <v Lee Hamilton>I think the Middle East is a formidable challenge for the next president. <v Lee Hamilton>And it will depend a lot on what happens between now and January. <v Lee Hamilton>It depends on what happens in the PLO, which is in great ferment today. <v Lee Hamilton>It depends on what happens in the elections in Israel. <v Lee Hamilton>But I do think whoever the president is, he will push forward with <v Lee Hamilton>a peace process because that will be demanded by the parties. <v Brent Scowcroft>So I agree with what Congressman Hamilton says there. <v Brent Scowcroft>I would say that the principal difference there would be <v Brent Scowcroft>some experience and background in foreign policy. <v Brent Scowcroft>It's an extremely complex area and almost demands <v Brent Scowcroft>a background in what has gone on before, in the attitudes of the <v Brent Scowcroft>various players, and so on. <v Louis Rukeyser>Thank you very much, General Brent Scowcroft, Congressman Lee Hamilton.
<v Louis Rukeyser>And who would have thought that in a discussion of foreign policy before the '88 <v Louis Rukeyser>election, the big issue would be who is the greater Reaganite between the two candidates? <v Louis Rukeyser>Now, before we turn to the social issues in this campaign, let's see what our poll found <v Louis Rukeyser>there. <v Louis Rukeyser>On the ultra sensitive issue of abortion. <v Louis Rukeyser>Fewer than a third of those polled thought the federal government should do more to <v Louis Rukeyser>restrict abortions. Bush supporters were slightly more inclined to give this response, <v Louis Rukeyser>but it came from only 39 percent of them. <v Louis Rukeyser>In contrast, 17 percent of the total thought the government should help make abortions <v Louis Rukeyser>more widely available. While 40 percent, the largest group, thought things should <v Louis Rukeyser>continue about as they are. <v Louis Rukeyser>An overwhelming majority of Americans in both camps said they thought it was very <v Louis Rukeyser>important to provide improved childcare facilities for women who work outside <v Louis Rukeyser>their homes. But among those who regarded such improvement as important, a <v Louis Rukeyser>substantial majority also said that the facilities should be provided by the private <v Louis Rukeyser>sector rather than the government. <v Louis Rukeyser>A heavy majority, 58 percent to 19 percent, think there should be time set
<v Louis Rukeyser>aside for a voluntary prayer in public schools. <v Louis Rukeyser>On handguns, Americans are sharply divided, but the largest group, forty nine <v Louis Rukeyser>percent, say keeping such weapons at home should be none of the federal government's <v Louis Rukeyser>business. On which candidate would be better at dealing with social issues, <v Louis Rukeyser>Dukakis came out ahead both on education, an issue that Bush has tried to make <v Louis Rukeyser>his own, and on stopping the spread of drugs. <v Louis Rukeyser>To speak for him on the social issues in the campaign, Vice President Bush designated <v Louis Rukeyser>Representative Lynn Martin, who came to Washington along with Ronald Reagan in 1981 <v Louis Rukeyser>and has represented Illinois' 16th District since then. <v Louis Rukeyser>A former school teacher and now a member of the Republican House leadership, she serves <v Louis Rukeyser>as a co-chairman of the Bush campaign. <v Louis Rukeyser>Serving in a similar capacity for Governor Dukakis, both in the campaign and tonight, is <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator Barbara Mikulski, a former social worker who was elected Maryland's junior <v Louis Rukeyser>senator in 1986 after serving in the House of Representatives for five two-year <v Louis Rukeyser>terms. Congresswoman Martin, you yourself represent the split in Republican ranks
<v Louis Rukeyser>on the abortion issue. You have voted in the past for so-called pro-choice legislation. <v Louis Rukeyser>If Vice President Bush truly favors less interference from government in people's lives, <v Louis Rukeyser>why doesn't he just stay out of this one? <v Lynn Martin>I think you have the issue of abortion and this crosses party lines that <v Lynn Martin>people have deeply held feelings. <v Lynn Martin>Those feelings can be based on background. <v Lynn Martin>They can be based on religious training. <v Lynn Martin>And I think both candidates respect each other's feelings on that matter. <v Lynn Martin>Vice President Bush believes that the government should allow--there <v Lynn Martin>should be laws that would allow abortion in the case of rape or incest, <v Lynn Martin>and he would support a constitutional amendment to that fact. <v Lynn Martin>I don't find that at all inconsistent with his doctrine of limited government <v Lynn Martin>involvement. That is limited. He does not support--he does not support funding <v Lynn Martin>for abortions. And surprisingly enough, most Americans, even those who may favor <v Lynn Martin>abortions, share that belief. <v Lynn Martin>So I think not only is he within the mainstream, it's something he feels deeply about.
<v Lynn Martin>And he brings up an additional subject that does matter, regardless of your feelings <v Lynn Martin>about abortion. He strongly believes the children need a place and has <v Lynn Martin>suggested legislation and kind of the bully pulpit of the presidency <v Lynn Martin>to do more with adoption, both for minority youngsters and hard to place youngsters. <v Lynn Martin>And I think, again, that's something he should be commended for across party lines. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, is Congressman Martin right, that this is not a partisan issue? <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think it has become a partisan issue. <v Barbara Mikulski>And I think that Governor Dukakis really has been clearly one the least amount of <v Barbara Mikulski>government involvement here. Governor Dukakis is that of a pro-choice position. <v Barbara Mikulski>What does he mean? He means that throughout America right now, <v Barbara Mikulski>two hundred and twenty million Americans, that in each and every circumstance where <v Barbara Mikulski>someone might consider abortion, that should really be left up to their individual <v Barbara Mikulski>medical circumstance, their religious conviction, and that they should have the right to <v Barbara Mikulski>choose that. For poor women who, for whatever reason--the life of the mother, rape, <v Barbara Mikulski>incest would have to turn to abortion--he believes the funding should be there.
<v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, let me let me move you to the, go ahead-- <v Barbara Mikulski>This issue of foster care, adoption, and so on--I find it interesting <v Barbara Mikulski>that the congresswoman talked about the bully pulpit of George Bush. <v Barbara Mikulski>We find, if we looked at human services in this country, that the foster care <v Barbara Mikulski>is at a crisis. That we do not have adequate placement, we do not have adequate <v Barbara Mikulski>supervision in every community throughout this country. <v Barbara Mikulski>There is this crisis related to children. <v Lynn Martin>Absolutely true, especially in the minority community. <v Lynn Martin>You take a state like Massachusetts, you have to, because I think most people would agree <v Lynn Martin>this is going to be better handled. Placement. <v Lynn Martin>You're not gonna have federal placement in foster home care. <v Lynn Martin>I don't think the senator, surely, isn't suggesting that. <v Lynn Martin>It's done on the local and state levels. <v Lynn Martin>And if we both had a bully pulpit, it would be for people to consider foster care. <v Louis Rukeyser>Drugs is on the minds of many Americans, if not most. <v Louis Rukeyser>The candidates have talked a lot about it. Does it really make a difference who is <v Louis Rukeyser>elected president? <v Barbara Mikulski>Oh, yeah. <v Lynn Martin>Oh, yeah. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator we'll let you have the first one on this one. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, first, we would know that--what would be Michael Dukakis's program?
<v Barbara Mikulski>He believes you have to dry up the supply and that you have to dry up the demand. <v Barbara Mikulski>Number one, he would have a drug czar who would be in charge of the federal <v Barbara Mikulski>drug policy. As you know, during the last couple of years, we've had George Bush <v Barbara Mikulski>in charge of the President's task force. <v Barbara Mikulski>And quite frankly, the First Lady, Mrs. Reagan, has done a better job with her Just <v Barbara Mikulski>Say No program and dying, drying up demand. <v Barbara Mikulski>Under the Reagan administration, we've had a cutback in resources in customs. <v Barbara Mikulski>We've had a cutback in resources in Coast Guard related interdiction. <v Barbara Mikulski>We've had a mushy, murky, confusing policy in terms of foreign policy. <v Barbara Mikulski>And you just can't say no. You've got to say more about drawing it--drying it up. <v Lynn Martin>Well, one of the things, of course, and I'm sure the senator remembers this now is that <v Lynn Martin>it was the Congress who cut back from the administration's request and the Coast Guard, <v Lynn Martin>the Democratic House and Senate. But leaving that as it be, I think there's a few things <v Lynn Martin>we know. One is, would either candidate support, for instance, the death <v Lynn Martin>penalty if there was a drug related murder?
<v Lynn Martin>One of them, does George Bush. Would there be parole? <v Lynn Martin>Would there be a furloughs? <v Lynn Martin>And we have in Massachusetts furloughs from drug related crimes from a governor of <v Lynn Martin>Massachusetts. I agree. You attack both the supply and demand. <v Lynn Martin>But there have to be real questions about one of the candidates in this case who believes <v Lynn Martin>that after you have committed crimes of such violence that are drug <v Lynn Martin>related, you could be out on the street. Thirdly, south Florida task force did <v Lynn Martin>make improvements. But I'm here to tell you right now, it's got to be supply and <v Lynn Martin>demand. And that means tougher prison sentences and better cooperation with our allies, <v Lynn Martin>which will be difficult. Whoever the next president is. <v Louis Rukeyser>Senator, is your candidate soft on criminals? <v Barbara Mikulski>Absolutely not. He's one of the toughest guys on crime and he stands 100 <v Barbara Mikulski>percent with the law enforcement officials in this country. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's why he's opposed the so-called cop killer manufacturing the bullets <v Barbara Mikulski>of cop killers. That's one of the reasons he's an advocate of gun control. <v Barbara Mikulski>And on this issue of sentencing and tough sentencing, there's this
<v Barbara Mikulski>issue that the Representative Martin just brought up about the death penalty. <v Barbara Mikulski>You have to decide what kind of president you want. <v Barbara Mikulski>The one who goes for the headlines, or the one who goes for the convictions. <v Barbara Mikulski>Every responsible prosecutor would tell you that life without parole <v Barbara Mikulski>would be a far more effective tool for putting pushers and kingpins <v Barbara Mikulski>behind bars--. <v Lynn Martin>Not the prosecutors in Illinois, I'll tell you. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I can tell you, the prosecutors-- <v Lynn Martin>The States Attorneys Association. <v Barbara Mikulski>I can tell you that the prosecutors in Maryland do that. <v Lynn Martin>It's not true. <v Barbara Mikulski>I'd like to talk a little bit about this furlough stuff. <v Barbara Mikulski>You know, of course, in my day it was private first class that got furloughs and <v Barbara Mikulski>prisoners. <v Louis Rukeyser>I'll give you a pass to talk about it. <v Barbara Mikulski>But--thank you--but really, one of the biggest practitioners <v Barbara Mikulski>of furloughs for criminals has been the federal government under Ronald Reagan and George <v Barbara Mikulski>Bush. Our federal the federal prison system, the Reagan federal prison <v Barbara Mikulski>system lets people out on furloughs all the time. <v Barbara Mikulski>They got murderers out on furlough. <v Lynn Martin>You are saying the federal system has murderers out on furlough? <v Barbara Mikulski>That's exactly--. <v Lynn Martin>--I would really want to see specific proof of a murderer out on furlough.
<v Barbara Mikulski>And then they also have got people with drug related violence-- <v Lynn Martin>I noticed we went by that ?thing? quickly. <v Barbara Mikulski>No, I'll come back. I just want to be sure to make my point. <v Barbara Mikulski>But the federal system does put people out on furlough. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's George Bush's system. That's Ronald Reagan's system. <v Barbara Mikulski>That's Eddie Meese's system. <v Lynn Martin>Nobody objects to some furloughs, by the way. <v Lynn Martin>But we're talking about violent crime and who goes out. <v Lynn Martin>And that's something the governor is having a difficult time with. <v Lynn Martin>You mentioned something else, Barbara, that I think is true. <v Lynn Martin>There's a difference in their positions on gun control. <v Lynn Martin>And that is real. Again, for rural areas--and I've noticed in the program at all, we <v Lynn Martin>really haven't you know, we talked about kind of city issues. <v Lynn Martin>There's there's huge differences in their social attitudes toward what our more--what <v Lynn Martin>I'd really call the middle American values. And and that has to do, frankly, <v Lynn Martin>with the right of people to have a gun. <v Lynn Martin>For hunters. And that is a difference. <v Lynn Martin>It has to do with agricultural policy where there's such a vast difference. <v Lynn Martin>Your candidate came to Iowa and said-- <v Louis Rukeyser>Let me just stop there because we're gonna run out of time. And you've moved us to middle America. Let me talk to you about
<v Louis Rukeyser>something that's very important to middle America, to all of America, and that's <v Louis Rukeyser>education. <v Lynn Martin>Yes, it is. <v Louis Rukeyser>What difference would it make if your man would--gets in? <v Louis Rukeyser>He says he wants to be the education president. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our polls suggest people don't believe it. <v Lynn Martin>And I know they don't. And so I think we have to do--we have to certainly explore that <v Lynn Martin>more. First of all, both of them have now come up with ideas. <v Lynn Martin>And I'm glad to see Michael Dukakis following George Bush about how to help the middle <v Lynn Martin>class pay for colleges. <v Lynn Martin>We have to not just put more money into the system on the federal level, which I think--I <v Lynn Martin>don't doubt Michael Dukakis would do that. <v Lynn Martin>But how do we, how do we make the nation at risk, the <v Lynn Martin>nation with the best kind of education? <v Lynn Martin>I agree totally. That to bring us into the competitive '90s in the 21st century, we need <v Lynn Martin>better education. Where I differ, and why most people think Michael Dukakis would raise <v Lynn Martin>taxes, I think he'd put in more money. <v Lynn Martin>I just don't think it would work as well. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think Mike Dukakis has a plan and he has a record. <v Barbara Mikulski>What George Bush has--essentially rhetoric and campaign conversions <v Barbara Mikulski>here in the field of education. First, Mike Dukakis would take existing resources
<v Barbara Mikulski>and make wiser use of them in preschool care, both in terms of health care, <v Barbara Mikulski>in teaching early habits, and also having a real daycare program. <v Barbara Mikulski>This gets kids ready for school. <v Barbara Mikulski>And what we know, for every dollar we spend on preschool, we're going to save in <v Barbara Mikulski>megamillions later on in life. <v Barbara Mikulski>Second, he'd do something about our teachers. <v Barbara Mikulski>We need to recruit people into the field of teaching. <v Barbara Mikulski>He would do something about teacher salaries, teachers' performance and essentially help <v Barbara Mikulski>like a teachers corps and also help them pay off their student loans <v Barbara Mikulski>and their student, student debts. <v Lynn Martin>I will confess to not knowing Michael Dukakis has said he'll increase teachers' salaries. <v Barbara Mikulski>Then the other thing is--well, the other thing that Michael Dukakis will do, because he <v Barbara Mikulski>does believe in sweat equity. He's working. <v Barbara Mikulski>He's talking with people like Sam Nunn and myself. <v Barbara Mikulski>When the idea of national service in which we will ask our kids to give community <v Barbara Mikulski>service and for X number of years or a weekend plan that we're developing <v Barbara Mikulski>would help them then reduce their student debt. <v Barbara Mikulski>See, we believe in hard work.
<v Barbara Mikulski>We believe in creating an opportunity structure. <v Barbara Mikulski>People with last names like Mikulski and Dukakis know what the American dream has meant <v Barbara Mikulski>under the Democrats, and we want to make sure we keep that opportunity in this country. <v Louis Rukeyser>What do people with a last name like Martin-- <v Lynn Martin>Well, I wasn't my birth name, but it's still a rather nice name, I think. <v Lynn Martin>I'll say Alsace-Lorraine. So we're all a kind of immigrant, whether <v Lynn Martin>our--whether our ancestors were brought here as slaves, whether they came before <v Lynn Martin>the Mayflower or whether they came, as most Americans did, from about <v Lynn Martin>1895 on. Now, let me quickly go through things, because I think she did it reasonably <v Lynn Martin>well. To go with your man is for day care. <v Lynn Martin>He's for a day care bill that would stop day care in small town and rural America because <v Lynn Martin>it doesn't let you have day care in churches. <v Lynn Martin>Now, that works maybe in Baltimore, but it doesn't work outside. <v Lynn Martin>These typical liberal plans that don't work anywhere except in one big <v Lynn Martin>city. And then they want to put them across America. <v Lynn Martin>Talking about working. They have a welfare reform bill that in three different places <v Lynn Martin>absolutely says--and Dukakis says he supports it--that a state cannot require
<v Lynn Martin>a recipient to work. Workfare. <v Lynn Martin>George Bush is for that. There is such a clear difference. <v Lynn Martin>And that's, we believe in the right of each individual to be able to be better. <v Lynn Martin>The Democrats want to keep them all equal, but down. <v Barbara Mikulski>But George Bush-- <v Louis Rukeyser>One sentence for the last word. <v Barbara Mikulski>Well, I think that Michael Dukakis's whole philosophy on the social <v Barbara Mikulski>issues is that through hard work, thrift, and the old fashioned American <v Barbara Mikulski>values, that we should continue to provide access to the American dream. <v Barbara Mikulski>To make sure every kid who can make the grade should be able to go to college. <v Barbara Mikulski>That people should be able to have the opportunity to buy a home. <v Barbara Mikulski>And every day, he wonders, where will people work? <v Barbara Mikulski>How, where will they work, how will they work, and how will they live? <v Barbara Mikulski>And I want to president that at least wakes up and does that kind of stuff. <v Louis Rukeyser>There we have to stop. Thank you very much, Senator Barbara Mikulski. <v Louis Rukeyser>Congresswoman Lynn Martin, thanks to all our guests tonight. <v Louis Rukeyser>As we've heard tonight, the policy divisions between George Bush and Michael Dukakis may <v Louis Rukeyser>be far more serious and far more important than most of the superficial day to
<v Louis Rukeyser>day personality oriented campaign coverage has suggested. <v Louis Rukeyser>It's popular these days to say that everybody should get out there and vote. <v Louis Rukeyser>An inspirational message that usually comes from those who secretly believe that if more <v Louis Rukeyser>people did vote, most of them would, in fact, vote the way the speaker considers right. <v Louis Rukeyser>Our message tonight is a little different. Yes, of course go to the polls. <v Louis Rukeyser>Not only is is it indeed your right and your civic duty, but if you fail to perform <v Louis Rukeyser>it, you will have sacrificed your claim on one of the most cherished privileges of being <v Louis Rukeyser>an American. The right to bellyache about the guy who did get elected. <v Louis Rukeyser>But first, before voting, you really have another obligation that is less often <v Louis Rukeyser>mentioned, the obligation to acquaint yourself with the actual issues and positions <v Louis Rukeyser>of the candidates so that when you do pull that lever, you will be making the decision of <v Louis Rukeyser>an informed citizen and not just venting the mindless frustration of some <v Louis Rukeyser>demagogs herd. America needs not just voters, but voters who have done their <v Louis Rukeyser>homework. I hope we've helped you tonight with your electoral homework. <v Louis Rukeyser>I know I've learned a lot and I want to thank all those who helped them.
<v Louis Rukeyser>That sometimes difficult task. <v Louis Rukeyser>See you next Friday. And meanwhile, thanks very much for being with us tonight. <v Announcer>Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide has been brought to you by United Telecom, <v Announcer>a leader in the communications industry and architect of the U.S. <v Announcer>Sprint, a fiber optic network, a nationwide digital communications network. <v Announcer>For a transcript of this program, send $5 to Louis Rukeyser's <v Announcer>1988 Election Guide, Owings Mills, Maryland, 21117. <v Announcer>That's $5 to Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide, <v Announcer>Owings Mills, Maryland 21117.
Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide
Producing Organization
Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting
Contributing Organization
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
Maryland Public Television (Owings Mills, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-394-21tdz8kk).
Program Description
"Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election guide was a program that contrasted the positions of George Bush and Michael Dukakis on economics, foreign policy and social issues. "Each candidate was asked to designate an individual to speak for them on these issues, and they complied. For Mr. Bush, Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire represented him on the economy, General Brent Scowcroft on defense and Representative Lynn Martin of Illinois on social issues. "For Mr. Dukakis, Professor Robert Reich of Harvard spoke for him on the economy, Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana spoke on defense and Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland spoke on social issues. "A poll was also commissioned on presidential preferences and voter's feelings on key issues as well as short features on the role of presidential polls and advisors through history. "We believe this program merits consideration because unlike some of the superficial coverage of the campaign, this was a program that tried to truly compare and contrast in sixty minutes the real positions of the candidates. "We believe it was fair, concise, well-produced and informative."--1988 Peabody Awards entry form.
Broadcast Date
Created Date
Asset type
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Copyright Holder: MPT
Guest: Sununu, John R.
Guest: Reich, Robert B.
Interviewee: Hamilton, Lee H.
Interviewee: Scowcroft, Brent
Interviewee: Martin, Lynn M.
Interviewee: Mikulski, Barbara A.
Producing Organization: Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting
AAPB Contributor Holdings
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: cpb-aacip-6450afc7bff (Filename)
Format: U-matic
Duration: 0:57:46
Maryland Public Television
Identifier: cpb-aacip-de91819db6a (Filename)
Format: Betacam: SP
Generation: Master
Duration: 00:56:46
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide,” 1988, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, Maryland Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022,
MLA: “Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide.” 1988. The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, Maryland Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <>.
APA: Louis Rukeyser's 1988 Election Guide. Boston, MA: The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, Maryland Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from