The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Interview with Reubin Askew

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: Is the Democratic Party ready to try another southerner for President -- a key factor in the campaign of Reubin Askew.

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. This week the six Democrats running for president agreed in principal to a series of debates. In conventional political theory that should be good news because it means equal exposure for the campaign of Reubin Askew, former governor of Florida. Askew has been having a hard time shedding the image of a very dark horse. Tonight, Mr. Askew is the subject in another of our series of interviews to give you an in-depth look at all the Democratic candidates.

[voice-over] Reubin Askew was born 54 years ago in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The family moved to Pensacola, Florida, during the Depression. When his parents were divorced, Askew lived with his mother, and sold homemade baked goods door to door to support the family. After graduating from high school he joined the army and became a paratrooper. Two years later he entered Florida State University and earned a degree in public administration. Then he went back to the military, serving two years in the Air Force. Following that stint in 1956, Askew received his law degree, became a prosecutor in Pensacola, and married the former Donna Lou Harper. Two years later he got into politics, first in the Florida house of representatives; then, for eight years, as a state senator. In 1970 he was elected governor and became the first two-term governor in Florida history. He came to national attention with a rousing keynote speech at the 1972 Democratic convention. The nominee, George McGovern, asked Askew to be his running mate, but he declined. After leaving the governor's mansion, Askew was appointed by Jimmy Carter as U.S. trade representative.

Since 1980 he's been a partner in a Miami law firm. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, until recently Reubin Askew was last in the polls, the darkest of the dark horses, the longest of the long shots, and he's tired of hearing about it. In a spirited exchange with reporters recently he suggested they go back and read what they wrote about George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, two other dark horses, when they began. "Just wait and see what happens this time," he says. Politically, Askew is known as a liberal in the South, a moderate in national Democratic Party circles. As governor of Florida he used his enormous personal popularity to circumvent the state legislature through ballot initiatives to get a corporate income tax enacted, to require financial disclosure for public officials, to outlaw casino gambling in Miami. He also enforced court-ordered busing in the schools, and appointed the first black and woman to high state positions. But as a candidate for president now he differs with most of his opponents on several so-called litmus test liberal Democratic issues -- abortion, he nuclear freeze, domestic content legislation and gay rights, among them. Governor, welcome. What should the political reporters be writing about you and your candidacy now? If you don't want the dark horse thing mentioned, what should they be saying?

REUBIN ASKEW: Oh, I don't mind being called a dark horse. I've run uphill in every election I've ever run, and I've always seemed to win. That doesn't mean necessarily because I won before I'll win this time, but I think I've got a far better chance. I think the press gets preoccupied with the horse race part of it and talks more about who might be the most electable as to who might be the best president. And that's the only reason I made that remark.

LEHRER: Well, what should they be saying about you now?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, of course, I've got a record that I'm proud of. You've heard part of it. In addition to this I was chairman of the National Governors Association. I was president of the Council of State Governments; I've headed two federal commissions, and of course I've been in the cabinet. The president of the United States and I have negotiated for this country abroad. I think that I was able to learn how to forge consensus as a governor, to bring people together, and I think that's really what the country's got to do. I think the country's got to be brought together by a president who has credibility with each of the groups but not be captive to any pursuit of the office. And I think I can do that.

LEHRER: What drives you? I mean, why do you want to be president so badly to go through this?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, because I think I've got the legislative experience, the insights and the skill to help lead this country through a difficult period of transition -- from a national marketplace to an international one; from a national economy to a globally interdependent economy, at a time of very fast-moving technological change. And I think I've got the skills to where I really believe that I can help bring the people together to establish national goals that engage the American people to make them feel better about themselves and to bring them together, to help them through this transition.

LEHRER: You feel the American people don't feel godd about themselves now?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, in certain areas they certainly don't. I think that we're a country to a certain extent who is divided because we've got a permanent underclass that we're producing -- uneducated and unskilled, without hope. And I don't think that any country or any company in going to do very well if they don't take full use of all the human potential.

LEHRER: Well, as you know, Governor, politics is always a matter of choices. Why you? And, looking at the five Democrats who are opposing you in this race, why you?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I believe that a lot of it boils down to intangibles, but I think in the end I am willing to risk losing some votes in order to try to get there in such a way to where I can really govern. And I think in the final result that's really going to be a lot of the determining factor in this election.

LEHRER: What votes are you willing to lose?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I'm not, certainly, going out trying to give everybody their full agenda. You know, the Democratic Party, we have a lot of very important constituency groups, and I think that they have needs that have been overlooked by this administration and they need attention, and I certainly am willing to give them the attention, but I think that their needs have to be viewed in the light of the overall needs of the nation, because in the end, unless a president can get elected, I believe, without credibility with both business and labor, but be captured by neither in pursuit of the office so that he's free to challenge both on behalf of the American people, I'm not sure that we're going to have the dialogue that I believe is necesary for us to come together and start fighting -- stop fighting each other and start working together with a commonality of interest that makes us competitive again.

LEHRER: If you had to name the single most important thing that differentiates you from the field, would that be it?

Gov. ASKEW: Oh, I think that, and maybe, plus an additional executive -- chief executive experience that I think the others really have not had.

LEHRER: The other five all have Washington experience in the U.S. Senate, and you don't. Do you consider that a liability or an asset? What's your analysis of that?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, it's both. I mean, I think it's a liability in that you really don't have the availability of staff that you have as a senator. You're not constantly kept abreast of a wide array of issues. On the other hand, however, you have the time to go out and meet the people, which you've really got to do. I like to feel like I might have the better of both worlds because I was really part of the Washington establishment for a limited period of time. So I'm not a complete outsider, but I'm not viewed as a complete insider.

LEHRER: Do you agree with those who say you've got a Jimmy Carter problem and that the country may not be ready for another former southern governor to be president?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I think most of those that are saying that are people who simply are running for president, really, themselves. A lady asked me this up in New Hampshire, if I thought that the Democrats would nominate another southerner, and I said, "Only if they want to win." You see? If the Democrats permit the president to wed the South and the West again, it's going to be very difficult for a Democrat to get elected when you see, really, where the votes are, to where they've been going traditionally. So I really believe an ability to do well in the South is going to turn out to be a substantial strength. You've got three real giants of the Sun Belt -- California, Texas and Florida. Florida will probably be the fourth largest state in the nation at the end of this decade. California and Texas have had their share of presidents and candidates, and now I think ti's time for Florida, and I think Florida is a microcosm of the nation.

LEHRER: I hear you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Askew, preparing for this interview, reading the press coverage of your campaign so far, and a selection of your position papers, I found a lot on domestic issues but very little on foreign affairs. Why was that?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I'm not sure you got all the speeches. I gave a substantial speech on foreign affairs out to the Houston Council on Foreign Relations. I'm a member of the National Council on Foreign Relations. But I have spoken on them both, but bear in mind, for the longest time the economy dominated this program. I dare say that you haven't had that many programs on foreign policy over the last year; you've been mostly on the economy because that's really where the bulk of the American feeling is concentrated. But I've spoken on both, and I'm quite ready to respond to both.

MacNEIL: How, in an Askew presidency, would the direction of the United States position in the world be different from what's familiar to us now?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, first of all, I would not participate in the excessive rhetorci that I believe this President does. I'm not unmindful of the aspirations of the Soviet Union. I think if you have any doubt you need but ask the people of Poland or Afghanistan. But I believe that our relationship has unnecessarily deteriorated. I think that we have to understand that we now live in a world that we can no longer dominate, but for which we cannot disengage. And yet America plays such a critically important role. I would like to see us spell out a little more clearly our national interests, both economically and politically and then maybe have some more long-term strategy in different parts of the world. But I think by and large it would be one that would not be characteristic, I think, of excessive rhetoric.

MacNEIL: Does that mean that you think that things might be ripe for a return to something like what was called detente with the Russians before?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that there is a basis for an improvement in relationships.

MacNEIL: Has it been there through the Reagan administration, or just come about now?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I think the Reagan administration has somewhat moderated its position since the beginning of its administration. But I really think now that it sees too much foreign policy as just an East-West confrontation when, admittedly, that's an important element of it, but there's also such a thing as the North-South dialogue, which I think that we have to give some attention to as well.

MacNEIL: Turning to another current issue, I saw that you said in a recent speech that you have a profound disagreement with the present, what you call the current militaristic course in Central America. What exactly is your disagreement there?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I think that the President is looking too much in terms of military solutions. I think that we ought to have welcomed and encouraged much more than we've thus far encouraged the Contadora Group. The Contadora Group, I think, is well-meaning. I think it's got some good countries composed in it, and I really believe that we can do more with them looking towards some peace through regional stability, through making use of them, just assuming that we have to have such a tremendous display of military might.

MacNEIL: Do you think the President has described the problem correctly in Central America, that it is predominantly, as he puts it, a question of communist ambition in that area?

Gov. ASKEW: No, I don't think so. I think that the communist threat is very clear there. You can't live in Miami without understanding that because you see both sides of almost all revolutions -- people come through Miami. But you've got a basic problem of poverty, of disparity of wealth, of political repression, and there may be some element from time to time of military assistance, but I think it should be very selective and that we should be constantly looking toward help for the countries in that area to try to forge some type of consensus together for a greater peaceful area.

MacNEIL: Suppose you weren't running for president and had been appointed to this presidential commission to recommend long-range solutions for Central America. What would your policy be? What would your recommendation be?

Gov ASKEW: My recommendation would be to understand, first of all, that there's no such thing as a policy -- a magic policy that's just going to make sure that the area is manageable. This part of the area is no different than any other part of the area of the world, and what we've got to do is that we've got to think more bilaterally. We've often thought that there was just sort of a glob, that we had a "Latin American" policy. We'll they're individual countries down there, and I think we have to consider those. We have to also consider the economic conditions and the lack of traditional democratic institutions in that part of the world, and to understand that it's going to take a long-range commitment in which we will have to have some type of targeted investment to try to help them. If it's worth enough fighting over, it certainly ought to be worth enough trying to assist economically. So it should be trying to be seen more in terms of a helpful partner and developing democratic institutions in the area than just as someone from the north, the colossus of the north, that can come in when necessary to intervene militarily.

MacNEIL: What risk do you see in the present course of policy there?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I think that the President has unnecessarily set a risky policy by virtue of the stint of the naval maneuvers. I see nothing wrong with showing the flag every once in awhile. I think you have to, because there is a clear threat there, and I don't deny that. But to the extent of the maneuvers or the length of the maneuvers and putting 5,000 troups in Honduras, I think that it's essentially a question of overkill.

MacNEIL: Think you. Jim?

LEHRER: On more domestic matters, tell me about your Marshall Plan, your domestic Marshall Plan, which is a key part to what you would do if you were president -- the economy, etc.

Gov. ASKEW: Well, first of all, after World War II, Jim, we rebuilt the basic industries of Japan, and we rebuilt the basic industries of Europe. And now I say it's time to rebuild the basic industries of the United States through some type of tax policy that would understand that there has to be a certain amount of minimum capacity of our basic industries.

LEHRER: An example? What kind of tax policy?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, you could have some type of -- a liberal depreciation schedule for different types of special interests -- industries that you think are critically important as a matter of national policy in this country. You would have --

LEHRER: You mean, for instance, if you were to dicide the steel industry was in trouble, you could give them a special tax break?

Gov. ASKEW: That's right. That is correct. Because it's important from a standpoint of national security to have a reasonably -- a minimum amount of capacity. Plus, I'd also work with them in terms of industrial councils and let them try to help tell us how the government really can help in a way that simply doesn't prop them up and protect them. Because they're going to have to accept some adjustments. This plan would have to be one, and the adjustment would have to be one that was honest and realistic in terms of understanding that we can't go back to producing the same share of the world's production of steel and, say, autos and rubber as we once did, but there's an awful lot we can do, if we'll stop fighting each other, and start sitting down and coming together trying to determine the commonality of interest rather than our differences. And to have a new relationship between the government and the private sector and between business and between labor.

LEHRER: Well, every -- every presidential candidate that we have interviewed in this series has said exactly what you just said, that they were going to bring these diverse interests together, and we're all going to work this thing out together. How would you, Reuben Askew, do it?

Gov. ASKEW: By the way I'd get elected. You can't become so committed to the elements you have to challenge and then think you can challenge them.

LEHRER: No, but what special ingredient would you bring --

Gov. ASKEW: Well, first of --

LEHRER: -- because everybody wants to do what, you just said.

Gov. ASKEW: Well, of course. Bear in mind I think I was -- hopefully I was the first who even started talking about it, but, you know, I can say things sometime and they can wind up -- they can wind up saying it later and getting more coverage simply because they said it. But it's a matter of sitting down and having a dialogue. But if you sit down with somebody that you're so committed to in the process of the pursuit of the office --

LEHRER: You mean specifically Walter Mondale sitting, talking to organized labor --

Gov. ASKEW: That's an example, certainly that's an example. But there could be other examples just as well.

LEHRER: So you're saying when Reubin Askew would sit down in a room with labor on one side and business on the other, you would sit down in a way that none of these others would sit down? You know, where you'd have no -- neither side would have any holds on you?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I'm unwilling to say that no one else, Jim, but let's put it this way. I believe -- I believe that I could get the credibility of both business and labor, but simply not be so committed that I'm not free to challenge both. Now, I accomplished most of what I ran for in my first year as governor of Florida because I helped negotiate out a lot of it with the members of the legislature. I've spent a lot of time talking to members of the Congress. I think I can develop a good working relationship with the Congress. The next president is going to have to have it. At the same time, however, is that -- is that when you sit down with all these components and try to forge a consensus, you've got to be able to tell them what they must do, you know, for the interest of the American people, and then they in turn must tell you what they think the government has got to do. And so that you can then have the type of dialogue that thus far hasn't taken place, for long-term strategies to get our act together to start to doing a better job.

LEHRER: Let's go through some of these other -- what exactly is yourview on the nuclear freeze?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, first of all, I believe that arms control is the paramount issue of our times. I think that it's imperative that we give the highest priority to arms control. However, a unclear freeze will not bring peace per se. Arms control will not bring peace per se. It is having an effective deterrent that says to the other side that it's foolish for you to try to attack us. So you've got to have an effective deterrent. I say that the freeze puts all the pressure on us and not the Soviets, and the negotiation of the freeze, as well as any subsequent arms control agreement, where we should be able to selectively modernize our systems and negotiate essentially at the same time. But now, where I differ from the President, the President wants to expand it all and negotiate, plus I'm not persuaded, you know, how convinced, how serious he is on arms negotiations. But the nuclear freeze, if I were a citizen, I might well be supportive of it because without it the President would have never gotten off dead center for any arms control proposal. But as far as getting elected president, I don't want to get elected president and think I'm supposed to pick up the phone and go over and meet Mr. Andropov in 24 hours and produce a solution. Wouldn't you like to be sitting across a table from someone knowing they had to produce politically a certain solution or a certain plan by a certain time because the press -- you're going to be asking the next president after the first 100 days, "What have you done?" That's right. And what I'm saying is, is that a freeze in some nature is a logical part of overall arms negotiations, but as an all-encompassing approach, I happen to believe they're wrong. I believe that you should be able to selectively modernize and then be able to try to reduce and then keep the leverage with you as opposed to the Soviet Union.

LEHRER: One other one that has been raised is your view on abortion. Could you explain that?

Gov. ASKEW: I believe that the Congress should have the right to set a national standard on abortion, which means I would favor a constitutional right -- a constitutional amendment giving Congress that right. I'm not talking about the Helms amendment that would prohibit abortion. I'm simply saying put it in the hands of the Congress to let them then to set a national standard for abortion, the availability of it.

LEHRER: What is your own personal view on abortion?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I personally believe that abortion should be available. I think it should be available for the life of the mother, for the health of the mother -- for the health of the mother defined by statute as a result of a constitutional amendment and not the present case law. It's rape and incest, problems -- serious problems, you know, with the fetus so that I really come down, frankly, between both sides. But I don't believe that we should just allow it as a -- for any reason at all.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Why would you need a constitutional amendment on this special issue, Mr. Askew, rather than just let the Congress pass a law?

Gov. ASKEW: Because they're limited by decisions of the Supreme Court as to what they can act on, so you would have to have a constitutional amendment that would simply say that there was not a constitutional right to an abortion in the Constitution. Now, please understand, I'm not saying that I'm going to constitutionally limit abortion. I'm simply saying a constitutional amendment to give the Congress the right to set that standard.

MacNEIL: You said to Jim awhile ago your advice to reporters was go back and read what you wrote about McGovern and Carter at this stage in the campaign. Both McGovern and Carter experienced a point where their campaign got a sudden lift; there was a kind of breakthrough point where things suddenly changed and everybody started paying a lot more attention. What is the Askew breakthruogh target? I mean, what do you see as the event where this is going to happen for you?

Gov. ASKEW: Oh, I would say probably once the delegate selection process really starts. As I recall, President Carter, I think, was about 4% 10 days before the Iowa -- the Iowa caucuses. I think that, as I've been coming up somewhat in the polls, I think most of the recent polls are showing me about in fourth place now -- of course, there's not much difference between the four dark horses and the two leaders, Mr. Mondale and Mr. Glenn, but I'm going to continue working, keep my eye on the horizon.

MacNEIL: Some political commentators say that the way the Democratic Party has organized things this year a big bunch of caucuses and primaries right there in the middle of the process, perhaps even with the possibility of having the nominee known or almost known by early April, is going to make it much harder for anybody to pull off what McGovern and Carter did and what you hope to do. What's your comment on that?

Gov. ASKEW: I think that's correct, but I think that the biggest impact has been on the pressure for the money for the media. See, where I think the compression of the primaries in 90 days, excepting the two of Iowa and New Hampshire, the big burden is to have the money up front to place the media. You're simply not going to be able, Robin, to leapfrog staffs, and you're going to have to depend more on media, and so I think in the end that money and money management is going to be critically important. And I might add to you that I'm the only solvent dark horse in the race, too.

MacNEIL: Speaking of media, I've seen it reported that you have shunned a certain amount of media exposure. Have you been doing that deliberately, and why?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, it's not a matter of shunning it; it's a matter of me making sure that I set my own schedule as opposed to let others set it for you. See, 'cause I know what I've got to do, and there have been so many of these beauty contests and cattle shows, as you all -- as you refer to them, all over the country, that I simply have not gone to every one except when I felt that is was important enough for me to go and it's consistent with my own strategy. Or else, if you try to attend them all, then you wind up letting someone else set your schedule. And that's the difference between a dark horse and a frontrunner. A frontrunner is not there and it's conspicuous. A dark horse can miss it and not too many people get upset.

MacNEIL: You say you've got to do what you've got to do. What is it you feel you have to do?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I have to go out and build organizations in key states. I have to reach out to enough people to the mainstream of America to start trying to bring in new people in the Democratic Party. I believe the Democratic Party has got to really challenge more of the business community. I think the Democratic Party has not given the business community enough reason to want to vote Democratic. I value our labor ties very much, they're an important part of our party. But also we should be reaching out to the business community, particularly small business, because the overwhelming number of jobs is going to be created by small business.

MacNEIL: What do you say to those who say your candidacy looks a lot more realistic as a candidate for somebody's vice president than for president?

Gov. ASKEW: Well, I would say that the way to answer that is you set up the Shermanesque statement and I'll respond to it, that under no circumstances would I accept or entertain the possibility of being a vice presidential candidate. There will be plenty of people who want to be vice president, you know, but I turned that down, that opportunity, you know, several years ago.The challenge to me is in the presidency, and if people think that I'm running for president [sic], then of course they're misreading it. That's -- when I first started running for governor, everbody said, "Well, what you really want to do is, early on, is to hook up with somebody," and the person who was sure to win in Florida, the attorney general, offered me a chance, and I said, "No." He said, "Why won't you take it?" I said, "Because I think I can beat you."

MacNEIL: And you did.

Gov. ASKEW: And I did.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. We have to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.