Washington Straight Talk; Robert Hartmann

. . . . . . . . . Robert T. Hartman, former newspaperman, long time aid to Gerald Ford, now consular to the president.

Tonight, on Washington Strait Talk, presidential consular Robert Hartman is interviewed by NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Mr. Hartman, President Ford's meeting with Russian leader Brezhnev in Vladivostok is being variously described as a significant new breakthrough in Russian-American relations and is a largely meaningless holding operation. What is the correct interpretation? Well, I suppose the immediate answer that would be time will tell, but it's my judgment and that of the American delegation that it was a significant breakthrough and that the two leaders were able to reach firm agreements on firm numbers which had not been able to agree to before in controlling arms. They eliminated a number of peripheral issues which had been sticking points in the past and they cut through to the heart of the matter which is how many of these strategic weapons

each side may have as a ceiling beyond which say, can I go? Would you say that this agreement with the Russians proves that Mr. Ford, like his predecessor Richard Nixon, can get along with the Russians, can deal with the Russians? Well, dealing with the Russians is not terribly different from dealing with anybody else. They have their own style of negotiations which involves a lot of physical stamina how long you consider around the table before somebody chickens and asks for recess. They feel it is necessary to go without eating until they have reached some point of agreement. Everything else stops while the negotiations go on. There's an element of how tough for you, how tough am I in it,

but negotiations with some other countries do not have their connected on a little more sociable. Plain, but as far as physical stamina goes, President Ford has plenty and as far as sticking to hard bargaining, I think he proved he's equal of President Nixon. How tough was Mr. Brezhnev and how did Mr. Ford get along with the Russian leader? The actual tough bargaining sessions were conducted pretty much by the principals and their foreign ministers. I didn't actually witness those toughest parts of the meeting. In the other parts of the meeting, they seem to get along famously.

Brezhnev is a very outgoing person, somewhat of the same characters. Khrushchev with, I guess, a little more polished. He doesn't appear so much the Khrushchev on occasion appeared a little clowny as when he banged his shoe on the table at the UN. Brezhnev has more dignity, but he is also a very outgoing, expansive, demonstrative person. He has almost some Latin quality about him embracing you and banging you on the back and all that. They seem to get along very well. The Vladivostok summit agreement on arms is being criticized by some persons who suggest that it does not put a cap on the arms race, that instead it will assure that both sides

will now have enough weapons to wipe out mankind. I believe they have that now and have had for some time. It puts a cap on the maximum that both sides can develop and deploy within the definition of strategic weapons, which instantly was a definition they arrived at and which was another of the achievements of the meeting. I don't understand the criticism because it definitely puts a ceiling on what both sides may have, although the combination of weapon systems, which they choose to use, is left to them. Richard Nixon traveled a great deal as President and Mr. Ford is now giving signs that he may be traveling a great deal with his trip to China coming up next year.

But there is some criticism of Mr. Ford being away from Washington so much he was away during the campaign recently. A great deal, as you know, with a suggestion that he should be spending more time here at home tending to the store because of our enormous domestic problems. What's your answer to that criticism? Of course, his recent trip was one that was set up long in advance and one which he felt was essential to go through with because the cancellation of it would have been more significant than going through with it, especially in the case of Japan. The last criticism I remember of President Nixon was that he was afraid to leave the White House and go out and didn't get out of the White House enough. So I suppose you get criticism either way. I would say that President Ford is going to travel when it seems useful to travel

and stay home and work when it seems useful to stay home and work. There is a lot of work that can be done when you are traveling. In fact, you can do more work on that airplane than you can in the Oval Office because there are virtually no interruptions there. Mr. Hartman, Mr. Ford has now been president for a little over 100 days. And I would say that there is a feeling of disappointment here in Washington among many people about his presidency, a feeling that he has not really come to grips with the job, that he has not established himself as a strong, take charge, figure, that he has not established himself as a man who can make the tough hard decisions. What is your response to that criticism? Well, I think his record in making tough hard decisions is pretty hard to beat. As far as taking charge, the last take charge president said I can remember

have also been blessed with a majority in the Congress which makes the taking charge considerably easier. I feel that he is working 18, 20 hours a day on the job and he has done a very remarkable job in changing the temper and the tone of the government in the town in a little over three months and I think we will see more of that in the future. But don't you have to face the reality that a growing number of politicians, editorial writers, columnists and just plain people are now critical of Mr. Ford and the Gallup poll I think reflects this. The latest Gallup poll showing his popularity is down another 9%.

It also shows that only one out of three Americans have confidence in the way Mr. Ford is managing the economy. Now all of this seems to boil down to one fundamental question and that is does Mr. Ford measure up? Does he have the brains for the job? Well, he certainly has the brains for the job. The question of managing the economy is an illusion that no president can manage the economy. The efforts so far that he is made to remedy the various economic pressures that he inherited after a long period of inattention have not been acted on. Therefore it is impossible to say whether the proposals were inadequate or inadequate simply. Nothing has been done about them as to whether the polls show him 9 points up or down and not the similar poll also showed that he did rather well against any other individual that he was matched with.

I think the smallest spread was about 6 or 9 points, percentage points ahead of any democratic potential candidate. So I don't put much stock in these. How is the president doing polls which go up and down depending on what he did last? Whether it pleased enough people or not. You have to match a man against another man in order to get any real kind of reading as to the people's estimate of his leadership quality. But surely you must be aware of this criticism. And I would also point out that the criticism comes not just from Democrats but it's coming from many Republicans as well. I should say mostly from Republicans. Well, let me, that's a major concession on your part then. Let me just cite some examples. Here we have Republican Senator Dole saying Mr. Ford has a Boy Scout image.

I must say the answer to that was that he would be happy to have the Boy Scout alumni vote if Senator Dole didn't want it. Well, nonetheless, we do have these comments from various Republicans only today, for example, about the Republican governor's conference in St. Louis, the chairman of the Republican governor's conference. When field done of Tennessee says, I want to see Mr. Ford make the hard decisions that are necessary regardless of his popularity. You were talking about popularity just a moment ago. Pat Buchanan who worked in the White House under Mr. Nixon as a speech writer. The president is the genuine Mr. Nice Guy of American politics referring to Mr. Ford. But the Republican Party and the nation need more than a nice guy. They need genuine leadership. Now, what is your feeling about this criticism when you get it from people who are prominent in the Republican Party?

Well, my feeling about Mr. Buchanan is that he had his opportunity to counsel presidents and I really don't think we need it. My feeling about the governor is he has a very valid point and I think the Republican governors, those that survived have a right to be concerned about the future of the party and that the president intends to consult with the Republican governors as well as other governors. And has probably done more of that in the last few months than most presidents do in that period of time. But one of the ideas that's kicking around, although I can't say it actually has the presidential initials on it, is the idea of reviving what used to be called the Republican National Coordinating Committee,

which you remember was set up after the shambles of 1964 in order to try and rebuild the party from a lower point, incidentally, than it is now. And that group which came to be mainly spearheaded by Ray Bliss of Ohio and which gained the immense prestige of General Eisenhower who faithfully lent himself to its deliberations, consisted of representatives of the governors, of the Congressional leadership, of the Executive Committee of the National Committee, the Republican Legislators Association. And beyond that, they developed a small but effective staff of academic experts and state and local officials who prepared policy positions for the party in exile as it were,

which enabled it to present somewhat of a constructive rather than simply a critical posture. At held the party together, it included all of the potential candidates for the future presidency, but it was immediately abandoned when the presidency was retrieved. The first thought that being kicked around is putting up this organization in a new form where you do have a sitting president to preside over it, but to bring in all the elements of the party, particularly the elected elements of the party, in order to establish some kind of Republican consensus, which would serve as an advisory group then to the president to make major recommendations to Mr. Ford and it would meet if it followed the old pattern quarterly. And it would hammer out positions which would command wide if not absolutely unanimous support.

And these would become the embryonic platform of the party for the next time around. It would give the president a forum which had dignity and which he could assert the parties inside of his office without becoming unduly political. Mr. Hartman, I don't mean to belabor this matter of leadership, but as you travel across this country, as you talk to people, it's just evident that many people in America today are frightened, they're scared. They see the stock market down, they see unemployment rising, they see inflation continuing, they see sugar prices out of sight, they see the energy problem still unresolved. And I think the thing which disturbs them is they ask, where is the leadership? Where is the leadership in Congress? Where is the leadership in White House?

And the question I'd like to put to you is you sit right there in the cockpit next to the president. And I'd like to ask you about some specific areas, the economy, for example. What new steps is the White House going to take to deal with the economy? Well, they're going to take some, but I can't exactly line them up for you because I'm not quite sure which are going to be accepted and which are going to be rejected. During the so-called economic summit meeting, which was held last September, October, as I remember, which brought a great cross-section of experts in here to tell us what to do about the economy. One of the dominant themes was that people are just waiting to be asked to sacrifice. The president would only stand up there and say, I want some blood, sweat, and tears. They would be delighted to sacrifice if they only called upon to do so.

He developed a program of 31 some points, one of which was a five percent search act, which is the only large element of sacrifice and the whole thing. And that, of course, everybody said, oh, no, not me, I wanted him to sacrifice. I'm not so sure that this cry for leadership, as is a genuine, as it seems to be. I think the president gets up and calls upon people for sacrifice, the answer may be, and not yet. Well, do you see recession as the number one problem now? Mr. Ford has talked about inflation being public enemy number one, but do you now see recession as being public enemy number one? Well, it depends on what kind of a lens you're looking at this through. In the long run of history, there's no doubt what inflation is the enemy of all advanced civilizations.

Since go back to the Romans, it is continuous inflation has ruined every advanced civilization, and they will ruin ours if it's not in some way right under control. But that's true, Mr. Hart. Now, that's the long thing. If you're looking at it in terms of year or five years or ten years, recession, on the other hand, is a cyclical thing. The economy never moves in a straight line. The economy is always moving either up or down, little, the sharpness of the rolling coaster ups and downs, makes it either just a variation or a recession or a little bit of a boom now. Right now, the recession is going down faster and deeper than the experts anticipated, and it requires some corrective measures.

But both enemies, the really insidious one, the one that can really destroy us, is still inflation. Are you saying that you regard inflation still as the number one problem, and the White House does? I think that the steps that we have to take to smooth out the curve and reduce the impact of the recession, and those steps incidentally were in that package. The Congress has had two months and has done nothing about them. But in fact, next month, when the unemployment statistics come out, if they had enacted what the President asked, people could start drawing the money. As it is, there's nothing on the books. But the anti-recessionary steps that must be taken must be taken with a barricain mind, a minimum inflationary impact. Just as in our original package, the anti-inflationary measures were taken with due anticipation

of minimizing the recessionary impact. Some of the tougher measures that were proposed, I get to fight inflation, were rejected, because it was obvious they would have a recessionary impact. Mr. Hartman, others, a feeling in this town that wage price controls are inevitable sooner or later, will Mr. Ford change his mind about that? Well, I would hate to characterize him or anybody else's, so obstinate that they could never change their mind. But I think that they will not become a reality until you've also changed Mr. Meenie's mind, and most of the business communities mind, and most of the Congress's mind. And when they're all hollering for him as well as the economic columnists, then perhaps the President will take a second look.

Federal Reserve Chief Arthur Burns said last week that we must now have immediately an austerity program to conserve energy. And he said that he feels that there must be a gasoline tax, gasoline rationing, or a tax on imported fuel. Do you now see one of those things as likely? And Dr. Burns is probably the wisest man that has been around here since Bernard Baruch, and I'm not going to sit here and take issue with him. Since he gives a number of choices, I would say that the President's feeling about the gasoline tax is still very strong. Why is he so out of tune with his advisors on that? Treasury Secretary Simon. He's out of tune with his noisy advisors, but he is not necessarily out of tune with his quiet advisors. Well, how do you feel about it? As a quiet advisor.

I'm not an economist, and my Volkswagen doesn't consume very much gasoline, so it's a matter of indifference to me. The experience in Western Europe and other countries, which have had high taxes as a way of slowing down consumption, has seemed to show as long as people have any money at all. They'll buy gasoline for the family car. I feel that there are probably simpler ways to regulate import of oil than across the board gasoline tax, by regulating it at the point of import or allocating it places if we do get into a real shortage. Rather than a straight gasoline tax, I think that would be more likely the first measure that would be taken if this winter brings a really serious crunch. Mr. Hartman, your Mr. Ford's closest advisor, of course, and you perhaps know him better than him on some subjects.

Well, you perhaps know him better than anyone else. Does he take advice easily? Yes, he listens to advice readily. I solicits it readily. He doesn't resent it. He doesn't always take it. Some people suggest that he doesn't save enough time for reflection or for study that he's been spending too much time in ceremonial pursuits and that sort of thing. Is this a valid criticism? No, he does a lot more homework than I do and spends a lot more time in study, a time that most of the rest of us are playing or sleeping, just doing nothing. I don't feel that's a valid criticism. He's a very quick reader and a very quick listener. And I think he's very well briefed and informed on most of the subjects he has to deal with.

Has he changed at all since becoming president? He doesn't have as much time for fun. He has a pretty well programmed from the moment he wakes up to the moment he falls asleep and he doesn't have as much time for small talk and just for enjoying himself as he used to have. He has his personality changed and his attitude toward other people. I think that has changed very little. He does more of this in watching the clock, in rationing his minutes. That's the principal change I would have seen. You've been called autocratic, mean, temperamental, abrasive, ultra, and ultra. One of your White House colleagues, the president's economic adviser, William Seedman once said nobody will ever accuse Bob Hartman of being a nice guy.

Is this the real Bob Hartman? Bill Seedman didn't know me very well, I guess I should say. I didn't know him very well in those days. He also was rather new at the business of curbing one's public comments. I think Bill and I get along pretty well and I wish somebody to ask him that question again. You think you might have a different answer this time? Well, I think some people think I'm a nice guy and some people think I'm what you said and a bit more. I think that all depends on whether they get their way or don't get their way.

I don't know anybody who's universally beloved except, of course, the president, and the president, I doubt I might like you as his man. Thank you, Mr. Hartman. Washington Straight Talk. From Washington, N. Pact has brought you Robert T. Hartman, Councillor to the president, with N. Pact correspondent Paul Duke. Next week on Washington Straight Talk, Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, with Eileen Shanahan, economics correspondent with a Washington Bureau of the New York Times. Production funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This has been a production of N. Pact, a division of GWETA.