Thirty Minutes With…; 41; Joseph A. Califano, General Counsel, Democratic National Committee

The following program is a production of the National Public Affairs Center for Television, 30 minutes with Joseph A. Califano, Council, Democratic National Committee, and Elizabeth Drew. Mr. Califano, I want to begin with questions relating to your former role as domestic assistant to President Johnson in the White House. I want to ask about the presidency. The President Johnson waged the Vietnam War without the authorization of Congress. Not long ago President Nixon said he was going to ignore Congress's demand that he and the war to date certain. Do you think the

presidency is getting too unaccountable? No, I don't think it's getting too unaccountable. And I think it's nonsense to say that the President Johnson waged the war without the authorization of Congress. And I use this my authority no less a dove than Wayne Morse who has repeatedly said that the Congress knew exactly what it was doing. It was adequate warning or a large number of meetings in the White House itself in which the President explained to both the foreign relations and defense committees what was going on. I think if anything on the whole I would like to see the President have more power. Perhaps not so much he doesn't need that much more power in the foreign area although I'd hate to see his flexibility in that area inhibited. I think Kennedy needed every conceivable option at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think we may reach a day and they're not too distant future when Nixon will need a wide variety of

quick options in the Middle East. In the domestic area the President is at an enormous disadvantage. If he wants to go with a new economic policy as Johnson did in mid-67 it took him almost 18 months to get a tax bill through the Congress. I think the President should have more authority in the tax area to raise or lower rates. I think he needs more authority over the central banking system and the Federal Reserve would. I think if one job program is working and another job program isn't with the Congress appropriating money to this grant or that grant and only to those programs the President should have authority to move that money around a little bit. Would you feel the same way if you were a senator? I think if I were a senator I would hope I'd feel the same way. I realize that to some degree this is a kind of issue that the way you stand depends on where you sit but I assure you for example at those presidential candidates of my party that are now pressing for more and more power in the Congress which everyone has selected. I would give them three months in office

before he's pressing for more power on the presidency. It's an enormously difficult job with remarkably limited power particularly in the domestic area. Well then what would be the role of the of the congressional committees if they couldn't write the legislation and work on the organization of the programs? Why should we elect them? Why don't we just have a President and no Congress? Liz they can write all kinds of legislation and they do write all kinds of legislation. I don't mean a kind of dictatorial power to throw out everything they do. I think I mean power essentially in three areas. I think the President should be allowed to organize his government in whatever way he wants to. The executive branch now. I'm talking about the regulatory agencies with the executive branch and I think should it be able to abolish the agriculture department? Absolutely. Without Congress or with some kind of minimal notice period to Congress. I mean after all the Congress doesn't set send to the executive branch its proposals on how to organize its committees. It organizes them in whatever way it wants to organize. Nobody

interferes with them. Secondly he should have some authority to move money around within general categories. And if Congress provides for 15 or 20 job training programs and a general declaration that we want to train people for jobs put them to work. If some of those programs aren't working we shouldn't have to wait 18 months while President works something through the Congress to get that money into a program that is working. That doesn't mean they'll be less for the Congress to do. Congress has plenty to do. Plenty to do in evaluating programs which they don't do now. When the this administration came in they made a rather large point of the fact that the cabinet was going to have more power than it had in the Johnson administration that power is going to flow from the White House to the cabinet. I think they specifically said there wouldn't be anybody as powerful as you had been in the Johnson administration. How do you see the exercise of power in the Nixon administration? I think if anything the White House is even stronger. Certainly it's

larger. I think with all due respect to my friend John Ehrlichman he's doing essentially what we were trying to do in the government with about 90 people and we had half a dozen people. I think that's inevitable. Are they doing it better with 90 people? Well of course I don't I don't think they're doing it better because I I think their whole their objective is different than ours. What do you mean? Well if you take economic policy you see that today and the debates that have been going on relating to the economic policies in the tax bill. Our emphasis was much more on on the individual taxpayer much more in providing full employment and eating a little inflation for the price of full employment. The Nixon administration is much more interested in in holding inflation to two or two and a half percent if they can regardless of the impact on how does that affect how you wage power in the White House which is really what I was asking about. It affects what you well it affects what you do with the departments you're dealing with. I think

now in terms of the way they're exercising their power over the cabinet people I think they're exercising at least as much power as we did if not more. In both good ways and bad ways perhaps in a good sense in which they're they're just forced because of the way programs are scattered among different cabinet officers to take on something that's much more than simply coordinating. In bad ways I think I think they get into you know too much detail on a whole variety of cases. I'm not familiar with the detailed facts of this incident or that incident but but somebody like Peter Flanning for example has been accused by a variety of senators of interference in particular in specific cases Johnson had an absolute rule about that. He was very sensitive on that subject I suppose because people thought he was such a wheeler dealer but it was hands off any specific case no involvement in merger cases. I mean it's common knowledge in the district of Columbia and I'm sure you're recognized

that McLaren is under a very short strain from the White House. You're talking about the Assistant Attorney General for any trust. That's correct. I must say Mr. Flanning was on this program not long ago and he said he doesn't get into cases so I'll give him his equal time if you don't mind. But anyway the do you see the cabinet ever having real power again? I think they'll have more power if the departments are more coherently organized. I think if there is somebody that the president can look to for transportation policy or for employment policy or for health policy and education policy and you put it all in one place yes I mean there's no problem with the power of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense except in so far as the individuals concerned I want to exercise it or not exercise it. There are problems if a man is a secretary of health education welfare when he has virtually no control of a vocational education programs and really you know what's the difference what is so different about educating someone for a job and giving them job training or

vocational training for a job that they should be in entirely separate departments fighting each other for budget money. Well doesn't maybe also get to something else if when the president's in the White House having fought for the election and his assistance command who are jealous of their own powers and and prerogatives they want to run the government and that you just get a conflict between the cabinet officers and the White House. Liz I think the conflict is less often between the cabinet officers and the White House and between the cabinet officers and each other and for example I would say when I was in the White House I probably in the area of poverty and jobs and job training particularly. I probably spent as much time arbitrating disputes between the Secretary's gardener words and and and Sergeant Shriver as I did on the substantive meet of some of the some of those programs it's not the White House versus the departments as much as it is the departments versus each other forcing a decision at a higher level because you know no matter what

you say it's very difficult to have one peer be given authority over another peer. We found that out with with Hasing and Urban Development when we tried to get Secretary Weaver authority over the other secretaries and just didn't work they wouldn't listen to them. Whatever happened to the Great Society programs? Well not as much as I wish it happened to them I think partly because we ran into enormous budgetary problems with the Vietnam War I suppose that's the major element and and we didn't have enough time to fund them as long as we would have liked and partly because we simply lost the election as some of those programs like Model City's for example we're beginning to come to fruition. New administration came in and they didn't agree with our way of doing things. Do you think programs really are the answer to what's bothering people in this country now? Oh I think you know what's bothering people in this country is a lot more profound I suppose than providing a health program or an education program and they're they're relevant to a lot of people that are that are at that fringe level of poverty and not poverty and

they're relevant to a lot of people who are who are everyone who's disgusted with the public school system in any city in the country who's astounded at what a cost to send their children on to higher education I suppose I think people are you know much more distressed about what the country has as a sense of purpose whether they can believe anything that their government or any part of their leadership is telling them what happened to some of the great American dreams about saving the world or saving the country or kind of uninhibited but responsible freedom to what do you think that distressed part of it is that is that government is simply not functioning and not providing it's big on promise and small on performance part of that is just the system itself when you announce the new program as a big barrage on television and the newspapers and everybody sort of thinks that's it it's been stated and that's it but it's

usually three or four years later before the law has been passed by the Congress and then funded by the Congress and then counterpart laws have been passed by the states and you have something that actually puts a job training program in your hands or my hands as a citizen part of it is because of a tendency on on public officials to to tell maybe part of the truth or half the truth and part of it in my judgment is television which has so grotesquely distorted the political dialogue in this country the fight of politicians for thirty seconds time on John Chancellor's show on NBC evening news is so enormous that they're willing to say extreme things in the hope of getting on that show because in that thirty seconds they can get in front of more American people when they can and a trip through the three of the larger cities in the country doesn't former president Johnson have something to do though with this lack of trust didn't really get to be a big problem when he was in office you

know it got sure it got to be a big problem and the issue that'll be argued for years by historians is is the extent to which it was a problem of president Johnson or the extent to which it was a problem of the press now obviously both parties in part were at full I mean sure there are times when when the president would announce an appointment two days after he might have given an indication that you know he wasn't looking for a new ambassador to Vietnam because he he had an and he had already selected that ambassador he didn't tell reporters that they had the press conference that he had already selected a successor Henry Cabot Lodge on the other hand there were many instances in which in my judgment he was you know very badly treated at the press by the press for example I remember in Puerto Rico at the time of the fair housing bill we press that on a runway for three hours in a very hot plane they wrote some blistering stories about Johnson being a self-centered

and ignoring them and sitting back in his room their condition comfort on the island the fact is I was sitting there with him he was making phone calls to get a fair housing bill through Congress which passed that afternoon by one vote thanks to his calls to two senators now he didn't go out the next day and say I was calling Senator A and Senator B and I was arguing with him for over an hour on the telephone in order to get a fair housing bill passed can you really can you really talk about this problem out talking about the the Vietnam War and that administration isn't that where the mistrust came in I think a great deal of mistrust came in and as a result of the Vietnam War I'm not sure that that there isn't a great deal to blame the press of that in that connection there was there was a lot of fine reporting against the war I shouldn't say against the war of facts as they were seen by people like Hal Verstam when

he was out there with the Times on the other hand we reached a point really where it was enormously difficult to get anything across and often where we said things that that were reported or reported so softly that nobody listened to them I mean the great debate about the big budget gap in 1966 and we're spending so much money on the on the war not telling anybody about it anybody that took the trouble to read the president's statement the president's budget message his own words not that big book or a variety of statements he made at press conference or that Bob McNamara made would know that we said we didn't we didn't know it was going to cost we knew it was going to be more indeed McNamara more than one occasion said it was going to be a lot more nobody listened nobody really paid any attention to that what didn't you raise taxes to meet that debt doesn't that what people complain about now we didn't raise taxes to meet that debt for one simple reason I've capsized it in a you know the president had a meeting in late 1965 in December and a cabinet room and I'm like with the with the bipartisan leadership and he

ran around that table on a tax increase and call Albert said it was in the majority leader said Mr. President I think we can only get about 15 votes for your tax bill in the house and Jerry Ford then the minority leader and still a minority leader said Mr. President you can't even get 15 votes that's why we didn't raise taxes we did take six billion dollars out of the economy because it was all we could get and taxes weren't raised people forget that the March 31 speech of the president withdrawing from the campaign was was in half devoted to the tax bill which we finally got after he said you know I'm out either no there's no politics in this tax bill it's for the country you have said that in arguing for reform of campaign spending that that the current system under which people make contributions is one of those corrupting influences in political life can you document that I Liz I don't think there's any question about it I think first of all in the in the problem of access there are there are scores of people in this

country who have enormous access to everyone from president Nixon to senators congressman cabinet officers for one simple reason they're major contributors to their campaign and they did in your administration to us I'm sure they did secondly there's no question about the fact that these people can and try to have an influence on policy as well I mean I used I have used a frequently an example of an offer by a very strong dove to you word Humphrey a few million dollars during the 1968 campaign if Humphrey could could would come around to his view of foreign policy well Humphrey never did in the meeting ever took place you have that kind of an influence and you have the general debilitating influence of the fact that that the campaign laws are so obsolete they they're probably in my judge are not even constitutional any longer in terms of the the unreasonableness of the limitations

that you force a whole variety of mechanisms multiple committees and a whole variety of other mechanisms in order to raise the money simply to inform the American people the American people are the people who suffer and not being informed do contributions affect the placement of government contracts as we suspect in our administration to my knowledge absolutely never to your knowledge well I'd really be awfully surprised of that were the case I do think they have certainly affected the placement of jobs I mean I think that that the ambassadorial posts are go to many many instances to people who who are major contributors you can just look in some of the compilations of major contributors and in the world the way it is and then in 1971 we can't afford that as a country well you use the word corrupting I wondered what you meant that's that's the kind of corruption I mean I would rather I tell you there's not a country in the world that couldn't

blow up and create a problem between the superpowers of the world today in which we'd be involved now I'd rather have the best person in that job regardless of whether he had 50 or $100,000 to contribute to President Nixon's or Senator Muske's or Senator Kennedy's campaign that's who I want in that job and in my country and for the sake of the world as well well is it also that the politicians are just to dependent on wealthy people is that a form corruption in itself sure it is I mean Fred Harris running the great little man's campaign a totally dependent on investment bank or angel in New York almost totally dependent on the pressure of television is staggering it's that the cost of television from 1940 to 1968 or the cost of campaigns from 1940 to 68 it's gone up 700 percent 700 percent from five and a half million dollars to over 42 million dollars and the biggest factor in that cost is television you've been as council the committee you've been fighting hard for equal time and

use of the fairness doctrine did you were you so concerned about it when you were in the White House well you know one of the no I wasn't as concerned about it in part because I didn't understand it in part I suppose it's like one day after one of our cases somebody asked the council for the Republican National Committee why he didn't do it when he was when we were in the White House and he said I never thought of bringing all those cases that's why I didn't do it but I tell you it came home I became council to the National Committee for that purpose when Larry Bryant asked me to be a lawyer for the committee it was to fight this television battle because our judgment was that without some access to television and without some public financing the imbalance would be at least five to one and maybe greater in terms of the presidential campaign that for if if we had ten million dollars the Republicans would have fifty million dollars and uh... it's not just a matter of of uh... being out I think it's right I think that is one area where the president has an enormous amount of power

and the courts have hit the FCC the FCC is not only uh... the federal communications commission the federal communications commission not my language the courts language of the of the district of Columbia federal court of appeals uh... just recently called their work shoddy accuse them be becoming involved in political interference called their proceedings sham proceedings involving the democrats trying to get time to answer the president are you so absolutely sure that exposure on television for the president or any politician really works in their favor certainly works in their favor at the lowest level of uh... of political electioneering which is the recognition factor uh... secondly uh... presumably a man that works his way through that election process uh... in this day and age is going to have enough on the ball to on the whole get more out of television than he loses and sure it does president nixon was certainly feel it does he's used television prime time television the first eighteen once he was in office

more often than eyes and how are can it in johnson combined comparable period period so that uh... he obviously thinks it does well what are thinking in nineteen sixty eight he did spend a lot mister nixon spent a lot more money on television then mr. humprey because he had a lot more mr. humprey almost one i mean i realized the crucial fact is he didn't but it was it was pretty close and some people feel that there's a thing called over exposure to and that the the public sees what these politicians are like and seeing one television is not necessarily to love them well that's fine i mean that that maybe that helps the public make their judgment i'm not against the president going on television i i think you ought to go on television whenever he thinks it appropriate and necessary i think the democrats or people holding opposing views should be allowed to answer whenever he talks about controversial issues which is almost every time he goes on if if people don't like humprey when they see him a lot on television fine that that's what our systems all about speaking of the democrats again the uh...

i think it's fair to observe maybe one of the three the country wasn't entirely a happy place when the democrats left office in nineteen sixty eight why do you think they deserve to have power again well i think they deserve to have power again because they're they're basically the party of the of the disadvantage guy in this country uh... there they're the party uh... that has tried over the course of the last forty years to uh... redistribute the wealth of this country and and put more of it in the hands of people that uh... that don't have enough that they recognize the problem of uh... disadvantaged uh... minority twenty five or so million in an essentially affluent society and on the whole uh... i think they also have a greater sense of uh... uh... of their responsibility to to help uh... other poor peoples in this world i think there's much greater emphasis in the area of economic aid and health and education aid

overseas and in the uh... in the democratic port it was the democratic congress that voted to end the foreign aid bill but they immediately the first thing they did in repairing it was to was to pass a bill with the economic aid portion left and they cut economic aid less than they cut uh... cut military aid well they they are the ones that are cutting it and they uh... raised a lot of questions as to whether it should go on these are the democratic leaders do you think that there should be more foreign aid than they're talking about i think that the the day when when we are i think we're roughly six percent of the people with sixty year or i guess forty or fifty percent of the wealth of the world i think that day is coming to an end like it or not that day is coming to an end and i much rather do it in a sense of charity and uh... and duty to fellow man and have it taken away from us the democratic party have fresh ideas not as many as we should have as i think that uh... that the while we've made a lot of progress in the area for what i call the surgical reform uh... for procedural reform

uh... with the macabre and commission and the higher commission i think that uh... uh... are are intellectual effort uh... political intellectual effort in the last few years has been so bogged down uh... with the war in vietnam and so uh... enamored of procedural reform we have neglected substance issues and i think uh... i think are the intellectuals the academics the thoughtful legislators the thoughtful lawyers and writers uh... that our count themselves as democrats have got to devote more of their time to more imaginative programs uh... more imaginative ways of uh... of uh... structuring our society so it'll be more responsive to the needs of its people well what do you mean oh automobiles i mean you talk about uh... air pollution and we uh... try and set a standard for nineteen seventy five or nineteen seventy six and the argument gets over whether or to be seventy five or seventy seven that you said a low pollution level for automobiles the real question of the automobiles is

whether or not we ought to have so many automobiles uh... whether or not uh... people should be allowed to buy two or three or four or five cars or whether they ought to be limited to one car and have to show that they need two cars whether or not cars ought to be allowed in downtown areas whether or not the country ought to spend so much of its economic wealth on automobiles and all the things that automobiles bring it's those kinds of questions we should be dealing with we ought to be looking at the at the whole federal system i mean do states make sense in the nineteen seventies uh... should there be compacts to deal with problems that have no in no relationship to state lines water pollution mass transportation in new york city can't be solved unless you work on can etiquette uh... new jersey new york part of pennsylvania it's uh... you can't blame mayor john lindsey for traffic jams in new york city when he's got no control over what happens

in all the states that are pouring the cars into new york city where are the people who are doing this thinking well it's not enough for going on anywhere in the country that my question is white you know why bring the democrats in if they don't have these fresh ideas i think they do more of it less than other people do when i think uh... just take part in reform for example i mean you can press the almost i think fair to say total overhaul of the democratic delegate selection process and uh... and delegate procedure process with a statement by the republican reform commission chairman i forget a name wonderful woman who said that after a couple of weeks study having looked at the structure of the republican party it's so perfect there's no there are no changes that have to be made we have overhauled those procedures now that we've done that in my judgment the thing to do is for us to now turn to to propose to the american people some uh... some major new adventures in trying to solve our domestic uh... international problems thank you

thirty minutes with joseph a california council democratic national committee and the loser with group This has been a production of the National Public Affairs Center for Television. The National Public Affairs Center for Television.