The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Gary Hart

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL: Six months ago, this man became the second Democrat to start running for president.

Sen. GARY HART, (D) Colorado [February 17, 1983]: I am a candidate for the presidency of the United States in 1984.

MacNEIL: Tonight, a conversation with presidential candidate Gary Hart.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. Tonight we continue a series we began last month, to give you a closer look at the six Democrats running for president. Our interview tonight is with Gary Hart, the senior senator from Colorado. At 45, Hart is the youngest of the Democratic candidates. The son of a Kansas farmer, he was brought up on the fundamental conservative teaching of the Church of the Nazarene. That strict Methodist upbringing was further reinforced during his undergraduate years at Bethany Penail College in Oklahoma. From there he attended divinity school at Yale University, where he was first attracted to politics as a student volunteer for the John F. Kennedy presidential bid. This newly-acquired enthusiasm for politics caused him to switch career goals and enter the legal profession. In 1967, Hart established his own law practice in Colorado. A year later, he was back in politics, working in Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign.

Hart first gained national prominence when, as a novice 33-year-old campaign manager, he captured the presidential nomination for Senator George McGovern in 1972. Although McGovern lost the general election, that association clearly gave Hart a national identity in the party's liberal wing. He made his own first attempt for public office with the successful bid for the Colorado Senate seat in 1974. He was re-elected in 1980, being the only Western Democrat to survive the 1980 Reagan landslide. During his two terms in the Senate, Hart has made a name for himself through his work on the Amed Services, Budget and Environmental and Public Works committees. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, Gary Hart's supporters call him "the thinking candidate" -- the issues candidate, the only man in the race who's given much thought to what he'd actually do as president. Others say he's an Atari Democrat, a neo-liberal trying to figure out a way to make old-fashioned liberalism seem new and different. His views are available in writing for all to read, in various campaign position papers on issues, and in a recently-published book, A New Democracy. His Senate voting record has clearly been a liberal one, at least as interpreted by the groups which rate such things. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action give him a 95% right rating, the AFL-CIO, 92%; while the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action given him a 15% right score, the American Conservative Union, 5%. He supports the nuclear freeze, the Equal Rights Amendment, gay rights, and the reform of defense planning and spending, which includes dumping the MX missile. Defense is a special interest, and many call him "the admiral of the Colorado navy" because of his particular expertise on naval matters. Senator, welcome.

Sen. HART: Thank you.

LEHRER: You and some co-sponsors today introduced legislation that would ban U.S. combat troops from Central America. Why do you think that needs to be done?

Sen. HART: Actually, the legislation wouldn't ban troops. What it does is require the president of the United States to get approval of Congress to introduce increased military presence in the region. I think the important point behind this is that if we are going to get militarily involved in a new region of the world -- and this is a new region for us, militarily -- then the Congress representing the American people ought to be behind that.

LEHRER: As I understand it, your legislation, if it in fact was enacted into law, would even prevent these 4,000 troops that are involved in this exercise next month from going to Central America? Is that correct?

Sen. HART: Without the approval of Congress, the President could not send those troops.

LEHRER: What is your concern?

Sen. HART: Well, I think the concern is the concern in the minds of most Americans who have considered this issue, and that is that we are trying to solve fundamentally local problems -- and economic and political problems -- by a heavy American military presence. That is not necessarily in the interest of this country, let alone the countries down there. There are alternatives, laid out by other nations in the region. We ought to endorse those and we ought to follow those; we ought to pursue diplomatic and political and economic solutions to those indigenous revolutions.

LEHRER: If you were president today, how would you -- what would you be doing?

Sen. HART: I'd have the heads of state or their foreign ministers of the so-called Contadora group -- the Mexicans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Panamanians -- in my office for a Western Hemisphere mini-summit of some kind, or meet them at one of their nations, and lay out a non-military solution to the problem, along the lines that they've already proposed. Demilitarization, withdrawal of foreign military forces, and a negotiating base upon which the controversies in EI Salvador and Nicaragua can be solved.

LEHRER: Do you share the concern of President Reagan and others about the spread of Marxism etcetera in Central America, as at the behest of the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, with the help of the Soviet Union?

Sen. HART: Well, I'm concerned about the spread of communism in the region, but what I think, contrary to this president, is that that area offers a great breeding ground for democracy, not communism. What we ought to be doing is filling that vaccuum, removing the causes of revolution, elevating the standard of living, offering human rights and democratic values and ideals.

LEHRER: In other words, give them a lot of money.

Sen. HART: No, working with -- in cooperation with the other nations in the region, not unilaterally, having a long-term economic development program that may involve some multi-national, new financial mechanisms, technical assistance, agricultural assistance -- not very much of which needs to be money.

LEHRER: If that approach does not work, and the Cuban-Nicaraguan effort continues, could you foresee any circumstance where the introduction of U.S. troops would be justified?

Sen. HART: Only in defense of a democratic nation which has called upon us for our support, and where we believe it's in our interest to do so.

LEHRER: Well, but, would you feel it is in our interest to do so?

Sen. HART: Well, I couldn't -- you can't answer that in the abstract, you have to know what the individual circumstances are.

LEHRER: Well, then, let me put it this way. Do you think Central America, as a region, would ever justify the use of U.S. troops? Is there anything that important in Central America, to you?

Sen. HART: It would depend on the circumstances in an individual nation. I can't rule it out totally, or rule it in in the abstract.

LEHRER: On the question of the -- dealing with the Soviet Union, that is, the other major ongoing foreign policy issue, what would be your approach to the Soviet Union as it relates to Central America, as it relates to arms control, and all the other problems that exist between these two major countries?

Sen. HART: It would be to resume the best of a foreign policy that was evolving in the 1970s -- it was usually labeled detente, which merely stood for reducing tensions. At the very center, the core of that policy is the reduction of the nuclear arms race -- the reversal of that arms race -- through verified, balanced negotiations. I've introduced a resolution as of two years ago which laid out a new approach towards arms control negotiations, that was different in several regards. It was multinational; it was multilateral, in the sense that several negotiations were going on simultaneously, not sequentially; and it sought to refocus the arms control negotiations towards prevention of the use of nuclear weapons, not just holding down the numbers. In addition to that, I think we ought to go back to cooperative trade and commercial relations that were, again, evolving in the 1970s, that did open up borders and did reduce tensions.

LEHRER: Your assumption, both in the sense of what you've said about Central America and in dealing with the Soviet Union generally, is that the other folks want to do the same thing the United States wants to do, which is to release tensions. Now, the President and others would say, "Hey, look at the record -- there's Afghanistan, there's Poland, there's Central America -- what are you guys talking about?"

Sen. HART: Well, first of all, I think you have to distinguish Soviet activities in various part of the world. They tend to behave differently on their own borders than they do in other parts of the world. In other parts of the world they use proxies; they very seldom, with the possible exception of Cuba, and then even several years into that -- several months into that venture, did they invest their own troops. I think the policy of this country vis-a-vis the Soviets, where the Third World is concerned, ought to be in effect a takeoff from what Chairman Mao said China's policy was, and that is, to resist hegemony without seeking hegemony -- that is, to prevent any other nation, particularly the Soviets, from dominating a region particularly in our hemisphere, without ourselves seeking to dominate that region, which is, I'm afraid, what we're trying to do right now.

LEHRER: That sounds good, Senator, but how do you accomplish that? I mean, there's nobody in the world who would disagree with what you just said, not even President Reagan, what do you --

Sen. HART: Oh, I'm not sure that's the case. I think there are those in this administration who would like to achieve some sort of hegemony or control or domination over Third World nations or regions, and I think that may be behind part of this massive -- or I should say, major military buildup for a quite a period of time in the second half of this year. So I'm not sure that's a universally accepted principle. There are those who think the United States ought to exercise military supervision.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Turning to domestic matters, Senator, you said in your announcement of candidacy, "We must replaced tired assumptions with fresh ideas." What fresh ideas have you got?

Sen. HART: Well, I put forward some fairly specific proposals to -- for a -- in my administration, for the president to bring together labor, management, and capital to reform and modernize our basic keystone industries, starting with the auto industry, steel, machine tools and the rest. We will not be able to compete in the international marketplace of the Eighties until we carry that activity out. Second, I have put forward reform proposals for budgeting the American -- or the federal budget differently, particularly the concept of a capital budget, so that we can track the investment in our own public facilities and infrastructure. Third, I have been a leader in proposing specific ways in which to reform our military institutions; and then another instance of reform or structural approach to a problem

MacNEIL: I guess every Democrat in the race wants to revitalize the economy and produce more jobs, what is special or different for a prospective voter about your way of doing that?

Sen. HART: Well, as I've mentioned, I have gone into great detail about how I would put our basic manufacturing assets back on their feet, not 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, but in one to five years, through directed investment and modernization of our plant and our facilities as well as retraining our workforce.

MacNEIL: Does that mean that you support what's commonly called a national industrial policy?

Sen. HART: Yes, but that phrase means different things to different people. In my mind, it means the president being an active catalyst to bring together the various sectors of the private marketplace, as I said, management, labor and capital, to bring about that modernization, by requiring or directing investment in those facilities and in those industries. Second, I would have a long-term jobs program directly related to rebuilding the basic public facilities of this nation, a 10-to 15-, even 20-year jobs program involving the people who are presently out of work and the structurally unemployed in rebuilding the basic highways and transportation systems and urban facilities -- water and waste treatment facilities -- of this nation. And third, which brings I think from Mr. Lehrer's reference to so-called Atari Democrats, I would have a specific set of policies focusing upon education and training, international trade, and capital formation and tax reform, to stimulate the growth sector of this economy, which is the service sector or the new and high technologies.

MacNEIL: All this would call for getting the government a lot more involved in the direction or guiding of American business, would it not?

Sen. HART: The government's already heavily involved in American industry one way or the other. There are various calculations that some two to 300 billions of dollars of untaxed profits, or loan guarantees or trade favors go into a vast array of American industries in the form of some subsidy or directed capital, one way or the other. What is lacking is any coherent government industrial policy. We are not going to survive in the marketplace of the Eighties and Nineties in the world, unless we begin to rationalize our industrial policy.

MacNEIL: One of the problems right at the moment, which is disturbing a lot of people and is bamed for rising interest rates, for the strength of the dollar abroad which is hurting America's trade position in the world, are the projected federal deficits. If you were president, what would you do about those deficits?

Sen. HART: I've laid out an alternative defense budget, which would reduce defense spending by 100 billions of dollars a year or -- 100 billions of dollars over two or three years or more, and make this country stronger rather than weaker in the process. Second, through the process of putting people back to work, that would diminish or shrink the federal deficit from both ends -- the demand for public services as well as the revenues generated from employment.

MacNEIL: Wouldn't it tend to increase federal expenditure, though, on things like the job programs and industrial investments that you've just mentioned?

Sen. HART: Only in the short term, in a pump-priming sense. The fact of the matter is, unless we want to continue to lose American lives on our interstate highway system, and have very wasteful urban facilities, we're going to have to make that investment anyway. I intend to do it at federal, state and local levels in a way that maximizes employment. And third, the so-called entitlements programs of this country that occupy 40-45% of all federal spending themselves must be reformed.

MacNEIL: What do you think about the President's announcement of a task force to study hunger, announced yesterday?

Sen. HART: Well, to put it bluntly, I think it's nonsense. We did that back in the 1950s and '60s, and we found out there were hungry people in this country. What angers me, in fact outrages me as a citizen who's participated in the governmental process for 23 years, is that this president's just throwing up a smoke screen about hunger and poverty in this country. Today's headlines show that 15% of the American people are below the poverty line; that's one out of seven -- that's 35 million Americans. We know what the causes are -- the causes are a government that doesn't care, and a laissez-faire economic attitude that favors the wealthy and the powerful.

MacNEIL: You also said in your announcement that the new president must shape programs that really achieve progress, instead of perpetuating programs merely because there's a pressure group for them. Now, you mentioned a moment ago reforming certain entitlement programs, what programs would you eliminate simply because there's merely a pressure group for them?

Sen. HART: Well, I have mentioned in the past that there were some -- certain housing programs that weren't working any more, some are, some aren't. There are some job training programs that work and some don't. The entitlements programs, as you know, are predominantly Medicare, Medicaid, certain retirement and pension programs. I certainly am not for eliminating those, what I am in fovor of doing is making the benefits of those programs direct -- direct those benefits towards the people that need them the most, and in ways that benefit the poor and the elderly in our country more than people who can afford medical services at the present time. We will not get the federal deficits under control until we go back to those programs, lay out a bipartisan reform agenda in the 1980s, and make those programs work under present-day realities.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Senator, in the simplest terms, in terms that we non-defense experts can understand, tell me what it is that you would do to the defense establishment, if you were elected president?

Sen. HART: I'll start this way. I think the military institutions -- Department of Defense, the uniformed services, and all the industries that are dependent upon them -- must think about defense differently. We must reverse the process, think first about people and personnel and the way they're trained, advanced, and the responsibilities they are given. We are not, for example, training battlefield commanders, we are training businesspeople that occupy desk jobs and manage programs. After you have restructured your personnel programs, your officer recruitment and promotion and advancement, then you look at your strategy and your tactics and your doctrine, and you find out that we are preparing to fight the last war. The way we think about defending ourselves in Europe or on the high seas, or even in strategic systems, is really outmoded, and it does not correspond with the changing realities of the Eighties and Nineties. And finally, after you've gone through people and strategy, you reach the weapon systems, and you follow that logic and find out that we're building the wrong kind of weapons, wrong kind of ships, wrong kind of planes.

LEHRER: Too big, in your opinion, you want smaller, you want more and smaller, simpler weapons, correct?

Sen. HART: In general terms, but not in every case. Certainly in the case of the kind of ships we're building, that's true, and the kind of land vehicles we're building, that's true, in the kind of fighter aircraft we're building, that's generally true.

LEHRER: In other words, if you were elected president and you got your way, our whole defense would be entirely different than it is now in terms of the way of personnel, in terms of strategy, tactics, weapons -- the whole smear?

Sen. HART: Well, I don't think you can sweep everything out. For example, the Marine Corps --

LEHRER: You're not going to do away with the Marine Corps, or anything like that, are you?

Sen. HART: No, actually the Marine Corps has been the lead service in terms of incorporating these reforms -- the kind of battles they're preparing for, the kind of way they've structured their own service. The Army, frankly, is moving in that direction and that's good. If we can change the minds of the people who plan the services, both in uniform and outside, and think about how we defend ourselves, a lot of the work has already been done.

LEHRER: Do the expression or the labels, like Atari Democrat and neo-liberal, accurately describe what you are?

Sen. HART: I don't know, because I don't know what they mean. I think Washington --

LEHRER: Well, then, you describe yourself.

Sen. HART: Well, I've described myself in the past as a Western, Jeffersonian, independent Democrat, and --

LEHRER: Thanks a lot, Senator.

Sen. HART: Well, it's better than Atari. No, I don't -- I think Washington, frankly, is fixated about labels. I noticed in your introduction you talked about my voting pattern, and usually those organizations pick 12 or 15 votes, and then all of a sudden you're either a liberal or a conservative. I don't think the vast majority of Americans even think in those terms. I think there is a real, pragmatic sense of wanting to make the government work, achieve the basic goals of our society, in a way that doesn't bankrupt the treasury. And what label that is, I don't know.

LEHRER: What does it mean to be the thinking candidate?

Sen. HART: Well, I hope it means a candidate who is, you mentioned in your introduction, is prepared to govern this country. Times have changed.We live in a radically changing period. The entrance of this nation into the international arena, the shift in our own economy so heavily towards the service economy -- neither party has really responded to that. What I, and I think many in my generation who came to office in the Seventies have done, is try to respond to those changes.

LEHRER: Senator, as you know, you've been, I guess the word is criticized, there have been comments about your candidacy that -- even we've seen it tonight, I mean, whether it was defense, or whether it's industrial policy or whatever, you have given a lot of thought to these things, and yet, the criticism is that you don't have a fire in your belly, these things don't come out in a, I guess, slogan way, or an easily understandable way. Do you consider that a drawback? Is that legitimate?

Sen. HART: No, because it underestimates the intelligence of the American voters. I am outside the television interview rooms all the time, talking to concerned Democrats primarily, but a lot of people, cross-section of people -- they understand what needs to be done in changing our industries, what needs tobe done to clean up our environment, to give minorities and women a chance in our society -- they are a lot more intelligent than I think we give them credit for. And I don't talk down to people, I never have. I talk at their level and up to them, and I think part of my job is to educate people. I think the reason that increasing numbers of people are not voting is because the politicians demean their intelligence.

LEHRER: You've said also that this race should not be decided on personality. Why is the personality of a president not important?

Sen. HART: It is important, but it's not the exclusive thing that we hire when we hire a president. We hire his intelligence, or hers, we hire judgment, we hire ability to communicate and educate, we hire an ability to inspire people. And I think that fire in the belly, frankly, has been there in my case for 23 years, it's the reason I'm where I am today. And I think it's not accidental that I am a serious candidate for the presidency, because I think there is something there that is appealing to an awful lot of people.

LEHRER: Does it annoy you to hear people say you don't have fire in your belly, or to read it in The Wall Street Journal, where I read it, from an old friend of yours?

Sen. HART: Oh, it doesn't annoy me, I just -- I think we're all complex, and I'm not sure anybody really can be a psychoanalyst of any politician.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Senator, to inspire people in this day and age, you've got to raise the money to get to inspire them in large numbers. Why are you having such difficulty in your campaign raising money?

Sen. HART: Well, first of all, such difficulty implies, I guess, that I'm having more difficulty than anyone else. There are two so-called front runners, at least in press terms: Vice President Mondale and Senator Glenn. They are front runners because they are higher in the polls; they are higher in the polls because they are better known -- one was a vice president and one was an astronaut. I suspect, for example, in Senator Glenn's case, had he not been an astronaut, he would be having the same difficulty that I am in raising money. I knew it would be difficult; nothing that's happened so far has particularly surprised me. I am called a dark horse candidate, which means I will have to demonstrate my strength in the early primary and caucus states: then I think the money will be there.

MacNEIL: Is it true as reported that your campaign is so hard up that you may be the first Democrat to fall out of the race?

Sen. HART: No.

MacNEIL: You had to borrow, I think, this week $350,000 from a bank against your possible federal campaign funds to keep things going. Are contributions just not coming in, or have you not organized the seeking of them, or what is the problem?

Sen. HART: No, we anticipated, frankly, that we would have to borrow. The matching fund system that was established in the law several years ago permits that to be done. In the past, before the limitations on financing, very wealthy people could give rather large amounts of money -- quarter of a million, half a million dollars. Frankly, I'm glad that that's not the case any more, but what it does mean with the thousand-dollar limitation is that again, so-called dark horse, less well-known candidates, to make it through the year before the nomination process, must take steps of this sort. There is at least one other campaign that has borrowed more heavily than I have.

MacNEIL: It's also reported in the press that you are only hanging on now until the end of theyear so that you can qualify for the federal matching funds you'll be entitled to, to pay your debts. Is that true?

Sen. HART: No.

MacNEIL: What is the next event which you look to as giving you some fresh momentum in this campaign?

Sen. HART: Well, the momentum is there, frankly; I don't think the press necessarily senses it or can quantify it. It's out in states like Georgia and Oklahoma and the state of Washington, Wyoming, in the state of New Hampshire and Iowa. It's at the grass roots, that's the kind of campaign I run, it's the only kind of campaign or politics I understand, and it's awfully hard to find that either in Washington or for that matter just going in and out of a state in 24 hours. I think that's why the press missed the Jimmy Carter story, for that matter missed the George McGovern story.

MacNEIL: George McGovern, as you intimately know, was very successful in getting the nomination, but lost badly to President Nixon because many people considered him liberal enough to get the nomination, but so liberal that he wasn't a viable candidate for the cross-section of the country. Do you see any resemblance to your own appeal in that situation?

Sen. HART: Well, I don't believe so. First of all, it's over 10 years later, we're 12 years later, and so times have changed, and a lot of the issues have changed. Second, I have run successfully twice in a conservative Western state, and won, including in a very difficult year. And I think that's demonstrated my ability to win against the tide and also to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters, and that will pay off in 1984.

MacNEIL: We had Senator Cranston on this program last month, and he predicted that by next April, it'll be a two-man race between him and Senator Glenn. Where do you expect -- what are your predictions, and where do you have to get by then?

Sen. HART: I think about midway through the nomination process, which is April or May, it will be a two-person race. I don't know who the other person will be, but I intend to be one of those. I think it will either be Vice President Mondale or Senator Glenn.

MacNEIL: Which assumes that you will have knocked out Senator Cranston by that time.

Sen. HART: Well, I'm not out to knock out anyone. I think this is a race, frankly, between the future and the past, it's not a left-right race this year. And my campaign is future-oriented, it is for the future of this party and this country, and I think I stand out distinctly from all the other candidates in that respect.

MacNEIL: Why? Because of your age?

Sen. HART: Age, generation, outlook, ideas, proposals, solutions, ability to bring people into the political process who have been shut out in the past.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, Senator, for joining us this evening. That's all for tonight. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.