At Issue; 13; The Senate and Politics: 1964

... ... ... ... ... ... ... National Educational Television presents... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... The Senate will soon be back here in Washington... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... رytiro Hokkaal yым ieidw gweithiau rydw i ffordd cefracyll mud argei ré gitid was un, cwm dekhlenn gallu'r ddynnawch a ar 1984 fluentyd yr Herbert o ar may wneu'r hyn diolch roierau behwn er dyma'r و さffrólinio'r reprícodd y sy'n thoser holliau Sacnallas eu a neud gram i neud. Ei'n gallu ernendagiau sy'n gallu'm wedi tareau

rydw y mannerachio enw ewn cyyllwme Red Corall pew Yr ni'r rydym yn llenant gan yr gwas Şu degblatheid ddyru yn pwn Coraldal oeddwerth felabl fel y mennynau. Ym wedi'r gwyledd greu am gael yr y mael nhw sefydw'r ddol. Cyma'r ddiweddbro, rhaid yw oedd yna graff Turninau yna a bod edryddiad yn latцев ceraint ymfyr yn phot comesfant que kin pasado gwasfer Jean Frank, ty roach y gelwn y nesgrwnu sodium fiarwch u could wasrch am drwy反i his Wraithadd. Deirdwch i beth ddiwch i gall o'r wino gwèu thysgu, pethin beth lan eici wedi darodol, syddio ei gallwn稱adull? Cymru o ni ein zawio â centra millones dashdw**** yn meirio gyffin idenate ac edrych pan cw社el cr yn fagelier meddwl gw freego cwyseld a cy PTust 느w caelol i entago gwneud awgWas hon am Childright through adhy?

Y mae'n traeddn. Dyna ei'r yr iedol 안idau ad equally ffordr o meddwl proään ¡adat yn ffadod sy'n fwyntwlar yn y po Ord obl newyddau ffal i dod cynnisoleddor. T gydwny'r cyw rectirio ferdur— raci neatwchysów i'r treud ymergyndddrefydig siwi'n ganoddor iawn Iwyd. o mwythga, yn p Worksch Watf i ddaw ddod. Felly, o grefer exactamente нов. Gag yna gweithelag bob strugglethu matru'n ai b ac i última peb. I don't know how the leadership could anticipate scheduling these two bills if action in the house on civil rights is comes relatively soon why we'll be really under I think severe pressure in the Senate to try to get it up as quickly as we can if actually somewhat delayed in the house I'd be hopeful that we might take some action on the tax bill. My hope would be that we could act on the tax bill very early in the session and have that clear to way so that when civil rights came on there wouldn't be the pressure to compromise that bill or to try to pressure it through too soon or too quickly because of the need to pass the tax bill and to make it retroactive because the longer the delayed action on the tax bill the more difficult it will be to have its features retroactive and I think it important that the tax cut begin to

to run in the American economy as early as possible in the year 1964. Do you see the fate of President Johnson's reelection hinging in any way upon the fate of these two bills? Well I don't know I saw John it's a little early isn't it to yes and that's true I'm out of President Johnson's party. I don't I think this question of civil rights is going to affect the political position of the president. And it will affect the political position of the Republican nominee whoever he may be and our parties so it does play an important part. It is a fact though that both of these are what are considered the two major issues now are are not in the strict sense partisan.

This is especially true of civil rights where the I think the political issue would be one of the kind of contests on the part of each party to claim greater credit for what is done in the case of the tax bill. This moves from taxes over to the question of the economy and I suppose there's a part partisan temptation in each case with civil rights. I don't think this was unreasonable partisanship I think that after President Johnson took office the almost immediate wasn't just Democrats it was more or less the press began to talk about how he was a man who got things done. When you set that against the image that the press had set up in part we deserved it the Congress is being a Congress which wasn't moving if immediately we had acted on these two measures why what they had said about the president would have been at least would appear to have been confirmed and I think that had I been a Republican at that point I would have said well now since the fate of the nation is really not involved in the especially the civil rights bill immediately we can take this up next year and consider it. That perhaps we shouldn't go along and and help to create an image of the Democratic the man who is the Democratic who be the Democratic candidate as a fellow who comes in and immediately gets Congress to do exactly what he wants to do with reference to this say I don't believe the Republican party made such a decision or I think I don't think it would have been out of order.

I was going to slow this down just a little bit. When President Johnson became president and we were very near the end of the session and I think it was practical. Well I think possibly to get Charlie Halley said just about this so he said we'll get it to you in January don't get excited now or just about those words and I don't say this was inordinate or improper a partisan position if it was a partisan position. I have a question here you both served in the Senate at the time President Johnson was majority leader and well of course he was operating on the Democratic side I was wondering whether you have noticed anything in the brief time he has been president has he used any of the tactics that he used as majority leader as president do you notice anything any similarity any changes. Well he was a great man to use the telephone he was a majority leader and he certainly used the telephone now other than that I don't know John could speak on this he was he was a leader he consulted with people both Republicans and Democrats and certainly this was of course this was true I think early in the administration of President Kennedy too that this kind of consultation it's more a characteristic I think of the early stages of any admitted.

So to say this is a marked contrast with the let us say the the early months of the Kennedy administration or the early months of the Eisenhower administration I couldn't say but there's no question but what there has been a great deal of consultation and I should think that at one point I did not have a close association with him as the Democrats would have but just watching President Johnson move when he was majority leader he was a man tremendous activity talking to people all the time and talking to you Democrats all the time about legislation. We talk to a lot of Republicans and also I would say I would say move over the Republican side and it in a way I think what he's been doing is in that activity consultation radio like he worked in the Senate.

I'm welcome wonder though at what point the division of power reasserts itself there is a different perspective from a presidential point of view and a senatorial point of view and I have a feeling that at some point or other perhaps this difference will assert. It itself as it did in the early day as it did during President Truman's president. Well I suppose it I don't know whether it's a matter of reasserting if it's being reasserted certainly what's happened in dealing with the authorization and the appropriation for foreign aid in the weeks immediately following President Johnson's coming into office indicated that the Congress was really not immediately laying down its arms or abandoning every field. That this did continue immediately in critical areas and I'm sure that it will continue as we go on into this session in those areas in which the difference is really their historic in part and in part there. I suppose procedural differences between areas of conflict between the executive branch of the government and then the Congress do exist.

Senator Cooper leaving this question of President Johnson to one side we were rating the papers that Senator Goldwater was the front running candidate for the Republican nomination and that he has slipped substantially and the Republicans seem to be casting about for some kind of formula with which to go into the 1964 presidential contest. Do you have any thoughts on this subject as to how can you win this contest and where do you look for your candidate? Well it's quite difficult to speculate on the decisions that may be taken in months ahead. I think what I say about this has been said so many times in the press and by a number of people. I think there's a difference between the problem of nominating a candidate and then the factors which go to make a winning candidate. I think Senator Goldwater has had strong support from those who would likely be delegates to the convention. He may still have that support. I do not know.

I think there's been a change in as far as the hopes of the Republicans for the South. I think it'd be natural to believe that with the first southerners President for a hundred years that he will be more likely to get electoral votes from some of the states that the late President Kennedy might not have received. I can't say civil rights may still play as part, but I always felt that while I know there are great changes taking place in the South, I think, and helping the Republican Party is advancing. I've always thought that to base the success of the Republican Party in the South upon a anti-civil rights position could not be a successful position in the country. It's not a correct position either, so I do believe that there will be a tension now and there is being a tension given by the possible candidates in Senator Goldwater.

I believe my colleague is named at times, Senator Goldwater, Kentucky. I think Governor Scranton is a man that Republicans will look at very carefully. He seems to have geographical position, a large state, a governor of a large state. He has a strong Republican background serving the Congress, a young, attractive man. I believe that while he doesn't appear very high on the polls, I believe he will probably see him go up. I think he may do better than a Pennsylvania who would sit there for a short time with two years back who tried for the Republican nomination John and the New York former Governor of Minnesota. Yes, I think so. He's a new man. I wish you would comment on this critique that was made by the Goldwater supporters that the reasons why the Republicans have lost preceding elections, presidential elections, is because they have followed me to tactics. I've tried to imitate the Democrats and the way to win the national presidential election is to sharpen the issues and the hope that you would bring out the conservative vote.

Do you make, does this make any sense to you? Well, I get into my own beliefs about what the Republican Party is or should be. I don't know that it's held by all the Republicans. I think the fact is that in every convention, at least since the war, or since 1940, that the Republican Party has made that choice of a convention, and they have always selected a candidate to some of charge to be a me to candidate, including President Eisenhower. My own judgment is that the party has to look at the problems that the country faces, and on some issues we agree with the Democrats because they are national issues. I don't see that as a fault. I do believe there are differences in the two parties, which could be sharpened. We complain occasionally when you take over issues, which were once hours alone and endorse them, but it is a fact that there's no such thing as a special copyright or special claim to an issue or to a program once it becomes a part of the public domain.

In this case, you would have trouble with TVA. We claim that about you, too. Now, you've taken over our economy program. I've noticed more Democrats in this last session reaching the economy. And we think civil rights, too, is our, again, with the Republican Party, you know? You abandoned it, though. We kind of picked it up after you've been abandoned by most of the Republicans. We passed the first. It would be a bad thing for the country, and certainly for the Republicans, if they are making a recovery in the South to base it upon what is traditionally and historically an opposition to the position, upon which the Republican Party was built and born. And I placed that. I have a blank and took position with the flavors and I have some issues. Stephen Douglas, it was a state matter, and I don't think the Republican Party can take that position on civil rights.

Senator Cooper, I seem to be throwing the burden approved upon you, but the Democrats have, in a sense, their problem simplified when they have a president in the White House or any party that has a president in the White House has a president in a sense become the symbol of the party and speaks for the party. A party that does not control the presidency has a difficult time finding a unitary voice to speak for it ostensibly. It's the record that the party makes within the legislature. Would you agree with this? I mean, how do you solve this problem at this point, from the Republican point of view? Well, there's a question. It's pretty difficult when you're out of power to bring together the organization and I would say in the funds which you need and campaigns beyond the side of the issue. But I believe that if you want to look at the record now, the last Congress, there are some signs that it's made what could be called a Republican record. There's been more emphasis, for example, upon reducing expenditure.

I think that came largely from the country, but it has certainly been a clear policy of a Republican party and has been adopted by quite a number of the Democrats. And then again, I think that even on the issue of civil rights, and I want to say that you said I'm going to go Eugene that support an opposition cuts across both parties, but the Republican party is not split sectionally on that at least. And that should give us a stronger position on that issue, although it shouldn't be just purely political issue. I think on defense that our positions are pretty much the same. I think this is why I didn't mind sitting here throwing the burden on Senator Cooper because he generally makes the case for the Democrats to see this if you can have a Republican doing that.

I think he said that if we do make this kind of record and appeal of economy in that area, a kind of Republican record, why it would be even more difficult for the Republicans to make a case against the Democratic Administration which had made a Republican record. How much is the talk of economy? Is this real or is this kind of a ceremonial talk? How do you evaluate this? Well, I must say that I believe in the last two years, it seems to me there's been more concern about it than I've seen in previous years. Realistically, it comes from the people generally and just down through the all-level. Well, you look at the budget in many ways in the standpoint of income, gross national product in many ways, and with the growing nation. Of course, we know that many things are going to cost more defense, it's going to cost the same, maybe more.

I think it's pretty difficult to cut back very deep, but you have this Congress, the last Congress, they already claiming they've cut $4 billion. I don't know, we'll have to wait to see how it works out. We have missed, not referred, rather, to a education on the public schools, rather, and to Medicare. Do you believe these things are issues you can almost forget about in the next election? I think we will decide the legislative schedule, but I would think that the record of an education which has been made in this first session is a substantial one, and it might be as much as the Democrats would attempt to carry into the next campaign. It's not a matter of putting off the other because they say we've got to do it a little bit at the time, but because it is extremely controversial, there'll be a question of time in the next session of Congress, and we have adopted a significant educational program in well three areas, higher education and vocational education, medical education, and I suppose you could include the bill to help retarded children and persons as a fourth.

I do think that the issue of medical care for the age will be an issue in the campaign either because of what has been done about it, or simply in terms of what your position on it may be. But I do think there'll have to be some kind of a showdown, whether it's complete, whether it's one that's gone through all the proper processes of the committees and so on. I don't know, but I think that sometime in the next session, certainly in the Senate, there'll be either by way of amendment on a bill. There will be a medical care program proposed and acted upon. There'll be a record, I think. I take it that, again, at one point in the preceding years, there was some signs that Cuba would perhaps be an issue of the 1964 campaign. Is your judgment that it would no longer be Senator Cooper?

I think it will be discussed. It'll be an issue. Of course, the strength of the issue, I think, would depend on a great deal, too, upon any events that might happen. Well, I think you before the election. If there's a flare-up, it could become a very important issue. It's not, I think, the two things. One, of course, the fact that the issue had leveled off a little bit anyway, and then secondly, of course, the assassination of President Kennedy cast a somewhat different light on. Almost have to have it revived by some force, which is outside the United States in order to have it be a really weighty issue in the campaign, I would think. I think it will still be an issue for these reasons. The problems in Latin America, Soviet aid, Cuba, the presence of Soviet troops in Cuba, whatever they may be. Keep it alive and bring to mind the point that, for the first time, the Soviet Union has established the presence in the Western Hemisphere.

And it's made Latin America, I think, one of the most difficult problems in the world. One of the most important to them and to us. So I don't see how you can escape this problem, Cuba. Do you see any new initiative being taken in the next year, next session, rather, with respect to the whole area of disarmament? What do you think we've gone as far as we can for the time being? My thinking in this speculation that it, from a practical matter, with the approval of the test band treaty that's probably gone about as far as you can in the year, I think many people want to see how the test band work. And I would think that there are any possibilities of improvement, relations, Soviet Union, it might be in other areas, political or Germany or Berlin, some political area. I would think that this would be the next area of action, not necessarily reducing conventional strength, but in the area of perhaps drawing troops back in certain areas or a better arrangement regarding Berlin.

What would be offered in exchange for it, I don't know. I think the pressure is off really on both sides, those who are opposed to a test band and those who are for it in this general area for the immediate future. I don't see anything on the horizon really. We didn't see the test band really, except we've been talking about it for five or six years and talking in that area, and there's nothing else really that we've been talking about to the same extent and for the same period in the area of conflict right now that's comparable at all. I would just like it work on the problem of underground testing. I would just wondering whether there could be any possible new initiatives, what does this mean, the series of speeches that have been made about by our State Department officials with respect to China? Is this merely a statement of an own position, or does this represent any new nuance in American policy?

Well, there was some conflict and speeches. I think Mr. Hillsman made a speech which seemed to indicate that we were open for at least, I don't know, some movements, all of the secretary of rustic and made a speech which seemed to confirm our present position that we thought it was so we were talking about the breach between Communist China and Russia. I don't see anything happening in that area because I don't think that we want to, and I don't think Communist China wants to. Well, even if the Hillsman speech were interpreted as an opening, the kind of thing he suggested as a sign of goodwill and good intent on the part of the Chinese, if we got to measuring it in terms of what we would consider, at least the Congress had considered a response, it would be the kind of step which I don't think anybody could expect the red Chinese to take in the... in the very immediate future.

Would you say, though, that at least you are beginning to talk about China again? At one period it seemed to me that this was what sort of a taboo subject, that the positions were frozen, and you had a certain orthodoxy developing about the subject of the United States relationship to China, and to find the subject raised again in any particular form, does seem from an outsider's point of view to represent a kind of an unfreezing of attitudes? Or do you think this is right or wrong? Well, I don't know whether I go that far. I think there are two things. One, the passage of time really bears upon this. And the second is, but whatever substance there is to it, to talk about a riff between the Russians and the Chinese and whatever, something that's abroad, I think there's always a tendency to begin to think about a possible course of action. But whether this is thinking about it has really moved to a point where there's any hope or anticipation of positive action. I don't know. I remember during the Eisenhower administration, someone in the State Department was severely criticized, John, because he was asking to press conference, I forgot who it was, it was the Secretary of State, someone below that.

Where they were considering the, I think it was the recognition of Red China, and he said, well, we think about it. And the press said that the administration was considering, because they were thinking about, well, they were thinking about it in terms of, as anybody would, what would the alternatives be? The consequences being, I think that this talk about the relationship with the Red Chinese at the present time was in about that same category, what's the point you're saying? I wouldn't it be nice if this happened and all of these things followed from it, but you really start from the things you'd like to have followed and move back and say, if all of these things were to happen, then we might do this. It's kind of reversing history, and we're doing that for a little bit in this discussion, kind of writing it in advance for him. Well, maybe you can, the will to believe, can force the proof that the belief is correct. Well, and it happens that I will claim special credits.

Well, I want to thank you both very much for joining me in this discussion, and we will now see whether we are good or bad profits. Thank you very much. This is NET, National Educational Television. Thank you very much.