NET Journal; 200; George Wallace on his Politics and the Presidency

[countdown and intro music] The following program is from NET, the National Educational Television Network. Good evening. Whatever happens in November, George Corley Wallace has assured himself of a place in American political history. He has become the most formidable third-party presidential candidate in 20 years, perhaps in 50 years. National Democratic and Republican leaders alike have expressed concern that he may succeed in throwing the presidential election into the House of Representatives. He was much on the minds of Republicans as they gathered for their convention at Miami Beach, and Democrats will be thinking of him when they meet in Chicago. After serving as a state legislator and circuit judge, Wallace was elected governor of Alabama in 1962. Like some other southern governors of the period,

he had several dramatic confrontations with the federal government on the issue of court ordered school desegregation. Like the others, Wallace lost his battles and vowed to cut the federal power. But unlike the others, he successfully translated resentment of the federal establishment into a national political movement. In 1964, he received impressive support for the Democratic presidential nomination in several northern state primaries. In 1966, barred by the Alabama Constitution from the second term as governor, he was succeeded by his wife, the late Lerlene Wallace. In 1967, he began building his American Independent party. He declared as a presidential candidate in February and he has campaigned already in almost 40 states. For the next 60 minutes, we'll talk with George Wallace about his politics, the issues, and the presidency. NET Journal presents George Wallace on his politics and the presidency. [music] The interviewer

is Paul Niven. Governor Wallace, in 1964 after the Republican Convention nominated Senator Goldwater, you dropped out of the presidential race on the following weekend. After this year's Republican Convention, did you give any consideration to quitting? I gave no thought ever dropping out of the race once I announced in Washington some months ago because it was very evident at that time that neither one of the national parties were going to give the American people a choice, in so far platform was concerned, and that has been borne out by events in Miami. You can read the Republican Party platform and it's hard to determine what they've said. You could interpret it any way you want

to, and in 1964 we were going to be only on a few ballots, eight or ten, at the most. But so far we have met qualifications in at least 40 states and we will meet qualifications in every state in the union, by their state statutes with the exception of one, and that's the state of Ohio and we are now in court on this matter. You said during the Republican Convention last week that you still saw no difference between the two parties, then at the end of it you said that you claim some credit. I think you indicated that you had influenced it. I really didn't claim any credit for anything that was the conclusion drawn by some newsmen. I said that the people of the country who support me and our movement has influenced the thinking of politicians in both parties. So I don't claim any personal credit at all because I'm only one man. But I do know that they're beginning to sound

a little different, different than they sounded some months ago. But not enough to make people take them seriously because both national parties in the last decade or so have joined together to develop the trends that today are opposed by a majority of the American people. Didn't you have the impression that the South was rather influential at Miami Beach, especially in the selection of the Vice Presidential candidate, perhaps in a negative way? I'm sure that the South was influential in support, as the thinking of the leadership was concerned because the South is a great section of the country. It's large section of the country in support of electoral vote is concerned. But of course the people of the South, like the people of other parts of the country, are very unfamiliar with Mr. Agnew, although he's a fine man personally. I have a high personal regard for him and Mr. Nixon and those who aspire to the Democratic nomination. I would say that the Republican nominee for the Vice Presidency, or the

Vice Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, is not going to have any influence on this mass of people in our region of the country because they're not going to say what they want to hear. Everybody says you're way ahead in the South, but wouldn't a Nixon-Lindsay ticket or a Nixon-Rockefeller ticket have been much more offensive to the South than a Nixon-Agnew ticket? Well, what you're saying is that one might have been a little bit better, but the people of our region and those in other parts of the country who think as we do, are tired of just getting a little crumb or two from the table. Both national parties have kowtowed to the element in our country that have demanded the takeover of the public school systems of the states, all domestic institutions. Both national party leaderships, including Mr. Nixon, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Humphrey, joined together asking for the passage of a bill a month ago, a little longer, that would put you in jail in a federal court without a trial

by jury if you didn't see fit to sell or lease your own home to somebody that a bureaucrat or a judge thought you ought to sell or lease it to. So we say that when Mr. Nixon joins in this movement to destroy property rights in our country, what difference is there in Mr. Nixon and Mr. Humphrey or Mr. McCarthy? I might say also that Southern people like people in Los Angeles and Chicago and Gary and Boston and all parts of the country are sick and tired of the destruction of the public school system, the busing of children, the complete takeover of other domestic institutions. And the Republican Party did not say in Miami that they were going to turn the school systems back to control of people local in Boston, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and Alabama. On open housing, Mr. Nixon was reported to have told Southern caucuses at Miami Beach that he had had to go along with open housing when the bill was before Congress. That he wasn't really for it. Well, any candidate

who says that he has to go along with something and he's really not for it when it's an attack on the property system, as vicious as this attack is, should he be president? I think people want somebody president who will speak and say what's in his heart and mind and quit this quibbling and misleading people. So I think that if he said that, that in my estimation is all the more reason why he should be defeated for the presidency and it gives rise further to the image that some have in both parties of saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow. And I do recall, Mr. Nixon, who I have the highest personal regard for, made a statement to Southern caucuses at the convention that he wasn't going to jam anything else down the throats of southerners. Well, he's correct in that, in that he and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have jammed everything down our throats that can be jammed. There's nothing else left to jam down our throats. And as I said in North Carolina the

other night, we're going to clear our throats on November 5th. And so I say, there's not any difference. Philosophically, in so far as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is concerned, not only in our region, but other regions of the country too. I believe that will be the attitude. Governor, you said a moment ago that you would be on the ballot in at least 49 states. In how many of those 49 have you met the qualifications already? I believe we've met qualifications or have been certified, or met qualifications in at least 40. There are several states that we could not even start meeting their qualifications until as late as July 29. And I believe there are four states that we cannot start qualifying until as late as September 1st. But we will be on the ballot in every state in the union by state statute. That is, by qualifying with their statutes, maybe with the exception of one, that's a state of Ohio that has a most impossible law. And we are today in court because we do not believe that you can have a law that makes it physically impossible

to get a new party movement on the ballot. In many states, you've had to have tens of thousands of signatures. Have you have any idea what the national total of signatures you've accumulated so far is? I believe that we will have anywhere from two to two and half million signatures when it's over. For instance, we needed 61,000 in Massachusetts. And we got 135,000 in that state. And we could have gotten twice as many if we had stayed there a little longer. But of course, we did not need any more than the 61,000. How much money have you spent or raised so far? Paul, I don't know how much money we have spent. A lot of the money that's been raised, has been spent locally on advertising. But I'm just not sure. I've seen estimates of 10 to 20 million for the whole year's effort, is it? I've heard different estimates made. I don't know how much it's going to cost to run a national campaign. I've never been involved in a national campaign before. And we're not overrun with money. But we are not in any crisis yet. We've been going all this long through contributions sent to us through

the mail by hundreds and thousands of people in small amounts. And we've had 25 dollar plate luncheons and dinners throughout the country. Been very successful. It takes lots of money to run a campaign for the presidency, especially a new party movement has to work very hard because we don't have any existing party organizations in the 50 states. But the people who are watching this telecast, many of them have sent us small contributions, and I'm sure will continue to do so. Well, as the major candidates, major party candidates often have to leave their schedules and spend quite a lot of time fundraising. Do you have to do that yourself, is it a [inaudible]? Well, we have spent time in fundraising. Yes, I have made many speeches to 25 dollar luncheon affairs, donor affairs, throughout the country. And yet, when we have spoken in places like Rhode Island and Maryland, California, we take up collections from the thousands of people there. And you'd be surprised at the number of individual small contributions

we have received, I would dare say that we've received more contributions, more small contributions from more people than either one of the two national parties have received. This was true, of course, of the Goldwater Campaign in 64. He drew a lot of money in small amounts. Yes, and a large amount of people. What you to imply, and is that he didn't win, of course. No, no, no, not at all. But I think he- I was going to point out- You revolutionized campaign finance a little bit, I think. I was going to point out that if we got the same vote that Mr. Goldwater got with three candidates running, of course, you'd win. You know, the high-man wins with three candidates. I believe that we have a majority position, but it is a political fact that you can win without a majority. For instance, if you get 34% of the vote in Rhode Island, and the other two parties get 30 percent apiece, then you win the entire electoral vote of the state. Well, do you have any definite plans yet for your convention? It's supposed to be this month, but as far as I know, you're not sure what city it's going to be in, or- Well, our campaign staff is supposed to have concluded plans on this, and I'm just getting back from my North Carolina trip, and I have not conferred with them. But they are considering

several locations- New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, Miami, and maybe St. Petersburg, and a few other places, but I'm not sure yet. Wouldn't we- [crosstalk] Wouldn't New York City be a rather unfriendly ideological climate for your convention? That's what surprises most people is that we have tremendous support in states like New York. And our group from Alabama have gone there to organize, have had as high as 1,000 people per community meeting for organizational purposes in that state. In fact, I have read a columnist or two who said that they were in effect substance of what they said. They were surprised that the rapid support and rapid complying was New York law by the Wallace movement.

Now, the function of a political convention normally in the major parties, is to choose a candidate. In this case, the candidate will have already been chosen. Isn't yours going to be a rather more of a rally than a convention? Well, you might say that, but of course, we must have a national convention to comply with the several state statutes of the country that require the candidate to be nominated at a national convention. You might say that we will have more of a closed convention than the other two parties have had, although they are almost closed. One of them is almost closed. The other one will happen soon. Will you have a platform committee or- We will have a platform committee and we will have a platform and we will, of course, have it presented to the American people the same as the other two national parties because we are a national party now. Is there any chance that you will throw the choice of a running mate to an open convention or will you choose your running mate as Mr. Nixon did? Well, we are discussing the vice presidency with several prominent people throughout the country, and we are going to have a running mate selected by the middle September or by

the time our convention convenes, which will be sometimes between the first of September and probably the 15th of September. But I am sure that the party will go along with our selection as they usually go along with the selection of running mates by the nominees in the other two national parties. Could you name any of the people you are considering, Governor? No sir, I would rather not because, really, I am not at liberty to use their names at the moment. I do know that a number discussed with us for several months and I think some wanted to see if we were going to truly be a national movement. They were very much in sympathy with our position and attitude on issues that confront the American people. But third party movements in the past have had very poor luck in getting on the ballot, and especially with the tougher laws now on the books of state statutes. Is it likely that your running mate will be a man from outside the south?

Very likely that he will. Not that geography today means as much as it used to because witness the movement headed by me at the moment, originating in the deep south, going to Massachusetts and getting on the ballot in that state. Going to California, getting on the ballot in Connecticut and Maine and Michigan and Indiana. I don't think the American people are so concerned about geography as they used to be politically because the issues today are paramount in the minds of the American people. But wouldn't a Northern running mate prove conclusively that, George, its not a sectional party and is a national party? I think that it would be better to have someone from around our section, yes, and the chances are that we will have a running mate from without our region. But I'm pointing out that if that were not the case, that geography does not play the part that it used to play. I've heard mentioned former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, is he on your list?

I'm not sure whether Mr. Benson is interested or not in the vice presidency. I do know that two of the parties in the west, I believe Utah, Nevada, or Idaho and Nevada, or either the three state parties, did nominate him for the vice presidency. But I have not talked with Mr. Benson since this happened, that is since the parties nominated him and I'm not sure whether he's even interested or not. He's a fine high type individual, but I'm not sure whether he's interested or not. Governor, is this party that which you're founding an ad hoc operation, which is going to evaporate in November if you're not successful or is this a permanent party, is this going to stay in existence? Well, you know the two national parties that exist today, that is the Republican and Democratic parties, used to be third party movements. And in my judgment, our party movement is going to be so strong that it's going to submerge one of the other parties, at least, or one of the other parties is going to adopt and take up position that this new party has on many issues that confront the American people.

In the next four years or 10 or 20? In the next two years or in the next four years, I think the movement is going to be so strong this time. In fact, I feel sincerely that we're going to win the presidency, and I think if you will ask the average man on the street and whatever large city or state you might go into, whether it be in the Southeast, the Midwest, the far west, you will find that we have much more strength and is indicated by the polls. The other day, two of the top-name columnists in the country have made a survey I believe in Rhode Island. And I believe one of them wrote an article in which he said that Wallace has greater support in the urban centers of the east than the polls indicate, and I think that's well-true. Do you expect to get an actual majority of the electoral vote? Yes, sir. I feel that we can get a majority of the electoral vote. We're very strong in the Midwest, very strong in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and in New York and we're very strong in California. I did not think in the beginning that we were going to be as strong in some of the western

states such as New Mexico and Montana and states in the far west like those, but on our trips there we had larger crowds, for instance, in Albuquerque than did either one of the other major party candidates for their nomination some time ago. In fact, the local newspapers said they were surprised, the surprise in large turnout that we had in Albuquerque. You're still third in the polls, you've come up dramatically in the last several months. I'm still third in some of the professional polls, but we've been first on every radio and television poll that I've heard about from Syracuse, New Bedford, we won the large win at W.I.C. in Pittsburgh. Isn't that part of that because people who were for you were for you were very strong and they're most likely to [inaudible] up than anyone else? All I can say is that we win the polls. Now, how you explain it away is another thing, but we won the KMOX polls in St. Louis, WBBM polls in Chicago, Des Moines, Omaha, Cincinnati,

Dayton, Akron, Sacramento, not counting the ones that we won in Dallas, Texas. I think most voters pay more attention to the Gallup polls- I don't know where they do it. I don't know whether they do it or not, that's a matter of opinion. I saw polls in Pittsburgh that I won that had 22,000 participants, and yet the Gallup poll comes out with 2,000 or 1,400 participants and they come to conclusion talking to 1,400 people. I don't know, but a that poll that you can call in and register your vote anonymously is not a better poll than one in which they pose to ask you an individual who you support. I'd be concerned that as election day approaches, if the news media and the polls all say you're going to be third, that a lot of people will say, well, I want to go with the winner. I'm going to vote for one of the two men who can be elected. Maybe a few people say that, but I think that right now the news media having to say that Wallace is surprised, that we're shocked, we're surprised.

Like in Texas, we had more people to attend our precinct conventions in the large county of Houston- Harris in Houston, Texas than did either one of the two national parties, the Republican and Democratic. You said- I think that by the time the election gets here, these tremendous crowds we're having, outdrawing the other candidates wherever we might go. And we had a larger crowd, for instance, in Albuquerque, just with local advertising than the other party leaders had when they came there, with a statewide effort that brought people from all sections of the state into the rally. Then we outdo them two to one. You've said that if you're not successful in getting majority in the electoral college, you will then expect one of the major candidates to enter into a covenant with you as you hold the balance of power. Well, I made that statement in response to a question asked by a newsman. It's very likely that if neither one of the parties, neither one of the three parties, get

a majority of the electoral vote, that I could be the high man. Doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to be third. And so then it might be one of the other party candidates talking to me about what concession will you make if we throw our support to you. We have just as much chance in the electoral college, if that situation arises, as do either one of the other two national parties. The other two national parties - Would they be more likely to make a deal with each other than to make a deal with your party? Well that could well be the case because they're both alike. There's not enough difference in them to separate them to any extent. And the fact that the national party leaders have recently said we must get together and stop the Wallace movement, which is really not a Wallace movement its a people's movement, indicates and personifies what I've said many times. There's not ten cents worth of difference in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party because they said let us get together.

It doesn't make any difference which one of us wins, just so this movement doesn't win. But if they made an agreement to that effect, I don't know whether they could trust each other when the time came or not. But I'll say this, that I answer that question only because you ask it. In my judgment, we're going to win a majority of the electoral vote in November. You've outlined the ideological conditions which you would make for entering into a covenant. What about actual- a post, would you be interested in taking a cabinet post? No, sir. Let me say this. I still say I answer these questions only because you ask them. They're purely hypothetical and speculative and in my judgment, are not going to arise. But in order to accommodate you- You mean your position is that you're going to win in the electoral college. [crosstalk] electoral college by winning a majority of the electoral vote on November 5th. Everything else is hypothetical, but you'll indulge it. That's it. All other questions are hypothetical, but you will indulge them, is that it? I will indulge and accommodate you by answering the questions that if it goes to the electoral

college and neither party has a majority, would I accept, as part of the covenant, a position in the government? Let me say that I think one of the most degrading things, an undignified happenings, would be my asking for a position in the government in, order to give my support, if we had to give our support to one of the other two parties, as per your question. Maybe you wouldn't have to be asked. Maybe it would be offered. No, sir. I would not accept, for the simple reason that I'm not interested in holding a position myself, other than the occupying the office of the presidency as head of this movement. I'm interested only in the changing of trends in our country. If you want to get into the discussion of some of those trends we're talking about. I'd like to in a minute, but I'd like to finish with- Well, let me say this. I would never accept a position in the government under those circumstances. I think it would be very degrading.

I think it would be very undignified for me to say. Now I will help you get some of our electoral support provided you give me a job. I'm not interested in that at all, and would not accept a position in the government if offered. I'd like to get to some of those issues of which you base your campaign in just a moment Governor. But one more question on your campaign. Do you expect the support of any Southern members of Congress? Already have my support of Southern members of the Congress. Already got them right here in Alabama, already have endorsed us. I might say that I even heard a news item the other day where six out of eight in one state refused to go to the Democratic Convention as delegates. Yes, we've already been endorsed by some former Southern governors. We've had Southern Congressmen to eat with us and at dinners in other parts of the country. And yes, we're going to have some Southern members of the Congress support us. We're going to have some Southern senators for us. We're going to have some Southern governors for us. We're going to have legislators from without our section of the country that have already

pledged that support, have written us letters from various states. We have many, I don't necessarily can name any at the moment, but I have a list of mayors of towns outside of the South who have written and pledged that support to us in the presidential effort. We have seen Republican and Democratic Central Committee members in California resign and publicly state in ads that they were supporting me for the presidency. You'll recall that Congressman Williams, then Congressman Williams, now Governor of Mississippi and Congressman Watson of South Carolina were punished by the Democratic Caucus in the house by having their seniority taken away after they supported Senator Goldwater in 64. Aren't many members likely to face the same punishment if they support you and won't they sacrifice political muscle in Washington, which the South has long exercised, if they give up their seniority? What you have said, of course, is that if the Democrats win and they retain a majority in Congress, I don't think that the National Democrats are going to have much to do with

organizing the next Congress and they're not going to be there to punish anybody. You think the Republicans are going to organize? No, I think that I'm going to be there and I think that the Republicans- Are you running candidates for Congress? No, sir, but I can say that a Congressman is very sensitive to the attitude of his constituency and I think you're going to find that when I carry congressional districts in Illinois and Michigan and Ohio and North Carolina and Texas and California, that a Congressman is not going to go contrary to the wishes of the people of his district, because in the first place many Congressmen feel as I do now, but they haven't had an opportunity to express themselves. And I think that if I become the President, I'm going to make it possible for some people to stand up and express themselves like they've been wanting to express themselves a long time. Sure, if I understand you correctly, you said you didn't think that the Democrats would be organizing the new Congress in January. Do you mean that large numbers of Democratic congressmen will after the election leave? I would say that the Democratic Party is organizing the Congress.

That is because we do not have a- whatever party might be organizing. It's going to be so close that they're going to need every vote they can get to organize, the same would go for the Republicans. I don't think there's going to be any punishment of anybody when I become the President, because I think the question will be moot at that time. Isn't organization of the Congress the one thing that unifies the party, if the Democrats have 218 or 220 members, whatever the absolute minimum is? I'm expressing- I'm saying things that many members of the Congress believe and say, even though they're not going to support me. They're going to support their party because they're party-bound, but I am saying things and our platform is going to contain planks that they support, because their constituents are going to support these planks. So, I don't know that a congressman from California is going to take out after our administration when his district voted for me for the presidency. I think he's going to express the will of the people he represents. Well, now I generally agree that the Democrats will be organizing the Senate,

where they have almost a permanent majority for the foreseeable future. Has any of the nine Democratic senators from the deep south endorsed you, or is any likely to in the next [crosstalk]? I don't know that any of them have endorsed me. And let me say this, I have high personal regard for all the senators and for governors. I was a governor once myself, so I belong to that club of former governors. My wife is a governor of Alabama, and with all due respect to governors, and all due respect to senators, and all due respect to House members, and politicians in general. This movement is a people's movement, but not a politician's. They don't pay much attention to the advice- And what difference does it make whether we're having a support or not of governors or senators in support as far as the election is concerned? We will have their support once I become the president. And I can recall in 64, that had I endorsed President Johnson for the presidency in Alabama as a governor, it would not have changed two votes. Had my wife lived and endorsed somebody, it wouldn't have changed any votes. All due respect to us and other governors, the people of our country and our state recognize the candidates for the presidency for what they are.

They are not unknowns, they know what they stand for. And so I can win the presidency if I didn't have the support of a single politician in any part of the country. In fact, those politicians who openly oppose our movement in many places are going to get run over by the people themselves. They're going to wind up being out of office. I suspect you're right when you say that they don't influence many votes for President of the United States. But I still suggest that some prominent southern members of Congress are in a very difficult personal position. Take Senator Eastland of Mississippi, not as an individual, but as a powerful Senate committee chairman. Obviously, his state is very heavily for you and will almost certainly go for you in November. In many ways, he would be drawn to your movement. But if he does, doesn't he lose giving up the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he's been able to exert a great deal of influence for Mississippi and for the South for several years? Let me say this. I'm not asking any of these folks to- I'm not asking for any endorsements from anyone.

They have a right to do what they want to do. But what you're assuming is that the Democrats are going to have such a large majority in the Congress that they're going to be in the Senate. They're going to be able to organize. But suppose these that you are talking about who might be punished, suppose they were to withdraw and say, all right, organize yourself. Then the Democrats couldn't organize without these that you were talking about, because it's that close. So, I would say that the Democrats will need to Senator Eastland in the Senate more than Senator Eastland will need them. But I do not want to bany his name around or anyone else's name around because I do not know who they're going to support. You'd have to ask them about their involvement in the presidential race because I cannot speak for them. May we now turn to some of the issues, Governor? You said again today that there's no appreciable difference between the parties. Mr. Nixon in his acceptance address emphasized law and order. The platform said firmly we'll end, we will not tolerate violence with an exclamation point and underlining.

In the acceptance speech, he said other nations should bear their share of foreign aid. He was critical on Vietnam and the Pueblo. Don't you feel that the Republican Party is closer to your position than the Democratic Party of president-? The Democratic Party in August of this year, that is a few days from now, will be talking about law and order and the same things Republicans will be talking about. So there will not be ten cents worth of difference in what either one of them say, but you've got to go back and look at their record. It was the Nixon-Eisenhower administration who appointed Mr. Warren Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that destroyed the public school system in our part of the country. Mr. Nixon in 66, when visiting in Alabama was asked, they used to support those proposals of Lyndon Johnson in 64 and 65. The 65 bill allowed a illiterates to vote in five states, those five that voted against President Johnson, but they couldn't vote in New York. It was near moral law, according even to the New York Times. But Mr. Nixon said, yes, I support those pieces of legislation that had been used to take over schools and hospitals and other domestic institutions.

So you go on his record. It was the Eisenhower-Nixon administration along with Democratic administrations that gave all this foreign aid to nations who today not only don't support us but trade with the North Vietnamese. Yes, now they are saying some things they ought to have said ten years ago. Mr. McCarthy the other day said we must lead, we must decentralize the government. But he has voted for every measure that centralized it. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Eisenhower and their administrations did as much to destroy local Democratic institutions as the present Democratic administration in power. So you run on what they have, their performance in the past and their record and not what they say now. Yes, they've been listening to what I've been saying throughout the country. And now if you're elected what provisions of recent civil rights acts would you seek to repeal and do you think you could get the Congress to do so?

Let me say this, and I'm not against civil rights for anybody, and I want to point out to this educational television audience that my wife received more Negro support in 1966 in the general election than did either one of her two opponents. And in the so-called black belt counters of Alabama really named for the soil but still having more Negro than White, and more Negro voters than White in most of them, my wife had nine of them overwhelmingly and lost one by six votes. And she got most all of the Negro vote in Selma, Alabama, and half those who voted on election day were Negro citizens. You and your wife were jointly in several primaries in the two elections. Isn't it true that you and she won Negro votes when you were up against Republicans in run-offs where your opponent was more segregationist than you? No, sir, you're wrong. Here's what you're trying to say is, you're trying to explain away why the Negroes voted for me. But I had been in office for my wife, rather, and I had been in office for four years. But if I had been as oppressive and suppressive as the news media said, then they would have voted against us, just against us.

Depending on who your opponent was, of course. Well, one of the opponents supported all the civil rights proposals and endorsed President Johnson's concept and was an ultra-liberal and went to every meeting of liberals in the state and appeal just for the Negro vote. That was in the first election. No, sir. That was in the general election. That was independent candidate for governor. And Mr.- and the Republicans appeal for the Negro support in Alabama. But, of course, I appeal for Negro support and my wife appealed for Negro support through what we had provided as governor, new colleges and new trade schools and textbooks and industry and job opportunities that came to all people of all races. But they did vote for my wife. And you know yourself that when an administration has been in power that people are against, they do not consider sometimes what the other two talk about. They just against those who are in. And if we had been as oppressive to the Negro citizens of Alabama, which we were not as the news media said, they would not have voted for my wife.

But I want to say this that every Negro church in Alabama, and I dare say of a Negro citizen that prayed for my family and prayed for my wife doing her illness. And they felt her loss. And I appreciate the fact that people of all races in this state of Alabama have supported our administration supported my wife. So let me say this that I would like to have the support of Negro citizens of this country. And I'm not against civil rights at all. But I'm against the passage of a bill in the name of civil rights that would put you in jail without a trial by jury because you didn't want to sell or lease your property to someone that a bureaucrat or judge thought you ought to sell or lease it to. Would you hope to repeal, for instance, the public accommodation section? I have no objection to the public accommodation section in this respect. I could care less what hotel or motel or restaurant served who. A private business. I do object to the government telling people who they must serve. But I would say that Negroes have been served in restaurants all over the country for so long. Nobody has any objection to that.

The only thing they objected to was the government coming in and saying I'm going to tell you- Well that's what the government says. That's right. Would you try to repeal that section? I think it's a moot question. Now if you repeal it it wouldn't have any effect because most most hotels and motels throughout the country serve people of all races. And nobody objects to that. You don't think they'd go back if it were? I don't think they'd go back if they wanted to. They ought to have a right to go back. I don't think you ought to have a law that says a motel or hotel must serve. I think they ought to serve bald-headed people if that's what they want to serve, because it's their hotel and motel. Would you seek to repeal the voting? Yes, I would. The idea of letting illiterates vote in Alabama that cannot even sign their name, but that same illiterate moves to New York State must have an eighth grade education or the equivalent. It's not fair to let an illiterate vote in Alabama through federal government action and not let that same illiterate vote in New York. Well, Governor, don't you, don't you concede that in many parts of the South for a century, arrangements were such. Whether they be the grandfather clause- Yes, really?

There's no question about the same kind of arrangements we had. You've had some in- man's inhumanity to man up in Washington DC. You find arrangements there. You find they talk public school system and control it, but then all their children go with a Maryland or Virginia to school. Wasn't it often difficult even for Negro college professor or PhD to vote in some areas of the South? It wasn't. It wasn't. And if it was difficult in any time in a little small county, you had 13 statutes on the federal statutes books that you could have filed an injunction proceeding in the federal court and you could have alleviated any wrong doing by any official with a simple court order. But to take over the setting of qualifications for voters, take that away from the states and lodge it in the federal government is contrary to the Constitution of our country. And you shouldn't destroy and just go against the Constitution because you have a few rough spots here and there about the discrimination in voting. You could have removed any discrimination in voting with one of the 13 existing federal statutes in the matter and I have no objection at all. I think people of all races entitled to vote as long as they comply to the statutes of the state and the statutes should be applied equally to people of all races.

And I think people of all races entitled to vote because they are citizens of our country. Apart from the issue of state rights, which obviously is very important to you, would you categorize yourself as a liberal or conservative or do you reject labels as all politicians do whatever they are? A liberal or conservative in what respect? In general. Would you accept that? I don't know what you mean by liberal and conservative. I'm certainly not, not against progress and I know that some people who have been called conservatives sometimes classed as people who are just against everything. I'm certainly not against. I'm for progress and moving forward. I'm just against the government of the United States taking over and running domestic institutions and infringing upon property rights. Is there any form of federal compulsion to which you object that does not involve segregation or discrimination? Any sort of compulsion- that you object to that does not involve race or discrimination or segregation in any way- Is there any sort of compulsion that I object to- A federal compulsion?

Is there any federal laws that I object to? Yes. That does not involve race in any way. Well, I object. I don't exactly know what you have in mind, but I recognize that we have to have laws that compel me not to shoot a mail carrier. I'm not against compulsion in the sense of law enforcement. There are certain things cited as accepted. in so far as regulation is concerned, reasonable regulations. We understand that we must have reasonable regulations on the federal level involved in federal questions and on the state level involved in state questions. But I'm against the federal government compelling and bringing about compulsion in those areas that domestic institutions reserved to the states. Is there any area where a federal compulsion has been exercised and you don't like it? That doesn't involve the racial issue in one way or another. That doesn't involve guidelines or denying people the right kind of thing.

I think they've used race to inject the element of compulsion in most everything in the country. The home ownership, hospital control, old age, elderly homes, the matter of public education, all of that they've used race as the lever and springboard to bring about compulsion in other areas. That's what I'm objecting to. I say that the so-called civil rights proposals are really not civil rights proposals. They've used race to compel the control of their ownership of property. Did you ever reject any federal program or any federal matching funds? No, sir. Never. I think that we may have vetoed a poverty project or two when the government had that authority. What you're getting at, yes, we accept federal funds and we're going to continue to accept federal funds in Alabama as long as federal taxes are collected in this state.

Well, federal- Congressional Quarterly says that for every dollar of taxes that go from Alabama to Washington, $2 dollars and a half comes back. Well, that's what the Congressional Quarterly says and I have seen many rundowns on states about how much they get. I've seen some rundowns that say you don't get back as much as you put in. Governor Rockefeller says that very well. Let me say this. Just suppose a state does get more back than it puts in. Does that give the government then the right to control every phase and aspect of the people's lives just because we are helping you in some programs that we want to help you in? I do not object to the government helping build highways or helping with schools. But does that then give them the right to say now we will control every phase and aspect of the education of your child? We're going to tell you- Every phase or just the- Every phase and aspect. You cannot even build a school building in Alabama or fire a teacher or hire a teacher unless you have approval of a federal court. You cannot even put an addition to a school building in any region of this country unless you get the approval of the federal government, the HEW and the federal court.

You know the liberal says let's give foreign aid to every nation in the world, but no strings are to be attached they say. Because that's degrading and that's undignified and we're going to make them mad with us. But the same liberal turns around and says when you give federal aid back to a state, especially like Alabama, let's put every string under the sun that we can attach. They don't think about it being degrading. They don't think about it being undignified. So let's get back to the matter of federal aid. There's no such thing as federal aid in the first place. These are taxes paid by the people of California and of New York and of Alabama. And I'd say that California tax payers and Illinois tax payers and New York tax payers do not want people to have their lives controlled in Alabama just because some money comes to Alabama from the federal government. And if you don't believe that I'm telling you the truth, you go with me and find that they are now beginning to control the school systems of Los Angeles and in Chicago through the matter of federal funds. There's no such thing as federal funds. They're tax payer's funds. They come from the pockets of tax payers. The federal government has never made a dollar in its life.

So aren't all the controls to which you object, and to which you say many people in the north now object, aren't all these controls involved in one way or another with a question of racial discrimination? I would say that all the controls that the federal government has tried to put on the people, they have used race as an excuse. So yes, sometimes race is involved in the sense that we're going to transfer children across the city of Chicago now. They got race involved. But I think they just want to control the public school system of Chicago. But they have used race in many instances to control local democratic institutions and you're correct. Some of the northern conservatives claim that apart from this issue of states rights that you are not conservative. How for instance do you feel about the power of trade unions, which the governor Rockefelle,r Governor Romney was talking about Miami Beach. Would you like to see a federal right to work act, for example? Well, I don't think that, I want to say this that I have the support of the trade union movement in Alabama. And this is a large trade union state, as you know. I can recall in 1964 that when I went to Wisconsin, we had a petition 72 feet long by the steel workers.

I might say that it has been both national parties in this country that have rigged the tax law so that the multibillion dollar tax exempt foundations headed by the Rockefellers and others get by without paying any taxes. And then they come along and raise people's taxes who are working people who are who are farmers oo business people. And they talk for the working man. But on the other hand, they have hid it and been members of parties that have rigged the tax law so that the working man really gets hit in the stomach when you pass any tax law. Well, one of the things about that- Could you cut off those foundation exemptions without cutting off the exemptions of churches, fraternal lawyers, conservative political groups? I would say that the multibillion dollar tax exempt foundations, such as the Rockefeller and the Ford and the Carnegie Mellon Foundation, get by with billions of dollars of tax loss. It could be used to raise the $600 dependents for a working man, up to $1,000. Could you cut off those exemptions without cutting off the exemptions of churches and fraternal lawyers?

I'm not talking about cutting off any exemption to churches. Well, could you do it without cutting off- Using churches, that part of the property of church that's used for education and for church activities? Now, I don't know what to think and whether we ought to re-appraise our position. If my church here in Montgomery, Alabama owns a grocery store downtown, or owns a multi-story office building downtown, then, in my judgment, that property ought to be paid its share of the police and fire protection that other taxpayers are having to pay for. But, on purely church facilities, used for worship and for education, then I'd be for tax exempt. No, you do not have to. You could still let them be exempt in the philanthropic contributions that they give to education and they give to church. But these big multi-billion-dollar tax exempt foundations that make it possible for the working man to have to pay more taxes, they will give some money away and then get their entire setup tax exempt from many taxes as a result of giving some money away.

And so, let them have the exemptions on those contributions they make to charity. But, we can find a multi-billion-dollar tax exempt foundation a day what own businesses and corporations. And, as a result of that being foundations, they are tax exempt. Another big loophole, of course, is 27.5 percent oil depletional allowance. Would you be in favor of any? I would be in favor of re-appraising our position and looking into that very seriously. Yes, I agree. I don't know all about the arguments on both sides of that particular matter, but I would say that there are arguments pro and con, and there are so many pro and con arguments that it certainly ought to be looked into and there ought to be a re-appraisal of the position that you speak about. But it certainly ought to be a re-appraisal of our position and a thorough study of the multi-billion-dollar tax exempt foundations.

And I might say that the Wright Patman report that you probably read, I don't know who you read it or not, but it points out the billions of dollars that doesn't come to the federal government that could come to the federal government. And, as a result of that, we could have tax relief for the working man. And that's one of the issues in this campaign, and I'm going to make an issue in the campaign. What about federal right to work, Governor? I'm not for the federal government taking over and controlling all management and labor relations. I'm not- I'm against them kicking a state completely out of labor legislation, but the trade union movement is a great movement in our country. You'd leave the question of right to work up to the state? I believe that you ought not to preclude a state from legislating in that area. But on the other hand, I'm against any state passing any legislation designed to curtail the organization of unions. I feel that people have a right to organize, and the trade union movement is one of the great movements of our country.

Most of the unions claim that the purpose of right to work either at the state of the federal government is to curtail organization. Well, that's right, and I'm just against any curtailment. I think that people ought to have a right to join or not join as they see fit. But, on the other hand, the trade union movement is a good movement, and if I worked in a place where there was a trade union movement, I'd belong to the union. And I want to say this, that I think the union movement, and yet I don't think big labor should run the government, or big business should run the government. We should have a balance and a partnership and collective bargaining, and I don't believe in compulsory arbitration, and I think that labor and management ought to sit down and negotiate without the least governmental interference in labor management relations. And I would say that what we face today in this country, and I think you're going to see it, that the whole free enterprise system today is under attack. And the working man has a stake in the free enterprise system that has helped bring about a high standard of living for all working people in our country, and management has a stake. And I think you're going to find that management and labor are going to forget some of their differences and some of their cleavages, because they see the ultra left.

They want to destroy the capitalistic system, and the rank and file of working people have a stake in the preservation of the free enterprise system in our country. Governor, one final subject, you said a moment ago that you have sponsored many pieces of legislation, both as legislator and governor, which had benefited the Negro citizens of this state, and other underprivileged people. As president, do you have any concepts or plans or programs which you would like to see at the national level that would do something about the ghetto situation? I would like to see a retraining program work through the existing vocational setups of the states, and have a program similar to what we had in World War II, in which we trained thousands of skilled workmen who wanted to be trained, and they occupy positions in industry and are middle class people. Many people have dropped out of school at the third, fourth, or fifth grades, and sixth grades and want to be retrained.

If they want to be retrained, I think we ought to work with a private sector and with a state vocational and technical school setups that exist in every state to retrain people of any race who want to be retrained, or want to train as a result of having given up the opportunity for training when they were younger. And I think that we must work to solve the problems of the cities, but first we've got to have order, and we ought to have tax incentives to industry to build our branch plants in the future in the rural areas of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, New York, and not build them all in the great urban centers of our country and make it necessary for people to continue to have to go to the urban centers for industrial employment. If we don't spread out the population in the country in the future, we're going to have some problems compounded that we're not going to be able to solve. Would you scrap all the existing federal poverty programs, the Job Corp, Head Start, and everything? There are, I wouldn't scrap all of them, maybe. Maybe the Head Start program's good, but I'd say that an overwhelming majority of the so-called poverty programs are a complete waste of the American tax payers dollar, and I would scrap them, yes.

You haven't seen individual successes of people being rescued from poverty by poverty programs? I've seen some few, yes, but very few. You think on the whole it hasn't worked out? On the whole it not only hasn't worked, it has been used to even subsidize the destruction of some of our cities. And there have been many instances catalogued in Washington before committees where criminal elements and subversive elements have used tax payers' money to even bring about the breakdown of law and order in our large cities. And that's got to stop, and the American citizen tax payers against it. Governor, reading your biography, I was struck by the many similarities in your background. Between your background, and that of President Johnson, you grew up in a small town and modest circumstances, you had to work your way through school. In the state legislature, many of your contemporaries regard you as a liberal, if not a left-winger.

How do you account for the fact that in your later years, you and President Johnson have come to different paths? A liberal and a left, what do you mean? Now, I was called, as someone said that Wallace is a liberal because he's for old age pensions in Alabama for the elderly and destitute people. Well, I don't believe that's conservatism. I don't- I believe it's humanitarianism to be for that. I'm not against that. I'm not against helping the mentally deficient, as we did in our state, the blind, the tubercular, the underprivileged, the elderly citizens of our state. Are you a political ally of Governor Folsom? Certainly, he was regarded as a liberal, southern governor, a very liberal, southern governor. Was he not? I don't know. Well, what do you call liberality? In other words, if caring for elderly people, destitute elderly people, makes you a liberal, then that makes me a liberal. But I would say that that's not the liberal that I talk about is one who wants to control and plan everything for the individual and wants to take over the rights of the states to run their school system. I'm not against spending money for schools. I'm not against building roads and highways.

I'm not against spending money. As long as the money is spent, brings back an investment to the American people. I don't mind building highways in Alabama and Illinois, but I don't want to build any more in Nigeria. We built them all over the world and when we build them all over the world, we have less friends than we started loaning them or giving them money. So when you say I'm a liberal because I'm for old age pensions for the elderly, yes, I'm very much for that. I'm very much for elderly citizens of our country being taken care of. And if we'd stop some of this foolish foreign aid and some of this so-called poverty programs, we might even be able to increase the social security payments for the elderly citizens today in our country. I'm not against that at all. I'm against paying people who are able-bodied not to work. And we have a vast welfare program today in our country, that pays able-bodied people not to work. And I'm against that. But I'm certainly not against paying elderly citizens a pension in this country to live the latter part of their lives in some sort of comfort. Governor, final question.

You've indicated that you expect to win in the electoral college in November. If you don't, will you run again in 1972 and will you start running right after this? Well, of course I'm going to stay on the path. If we're going to win, but to accommodate you since you asked the question Paul, our movement is going to be so strong in 1968 that it will be around in 1972. And you'll be around, too? Well, I hope so. I hope I'm living that long. But of course, the movement will be around that long. But our movement is not just Wallace. Remember that. I just happen to be the leader at the moment, but other people will lead this movement in the future also. Thank you very much, Governor Wallace. This is NET, the National Educational Television Network.