Martin Agronsky: Evening Edition; 13

Hmm. From Washington, this is evening edition. Now here is Martin Agransky.

Good evening. The polls show that most American voters consider themselves politically conservative. For years, conservatives worked mostly under the umbrella of the Republican Party, but now the man who has been called America's number two conservative spokesman William Russia says the Republican Party should be replaced, and his name for the replacement is the Independence Party. So tonight on evening edition, a discussion of the politics of conservatism with William Russia, the publisher of the National Review, and author of the new book, The Making of a New Majority Party, and joining the discussion is syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Russia, obvious first question. What is the Independence Party, which you say repeatedly in your book,

is not intended to be a third party? Yes, well you said that so far conservatives have worked primarily within the Republican Party, and I suppose in a sense that's true, but actually I think that the 59% of Americans who broadly speaking, think of themselves as conservatives, are very widely distributed in both parties. They are a minority probably in the Democratic Party, and they are a majority certainly in the Republican Party. But the whole trouble is that they are not in a single party. They are not institutionally united for the purpose of the political action, and the book is a proposal that they unite. Now our national history, our political genius, seems to favor the two party system. Usually one of the other party will co-opt or take over. New ideas that move into the system. The Republican Party, I think, tried in a sense with gold water and failed for various reasons,

including the Kennedy assassination, effectively, to take over and reflect the conservative movement in the country. Now it is represented according to the polls, the Republicans, by about 18% of the people. This has nothing to do with the number of people who think of themselves as conservatives, and it's going to be a lot easier, that's all, to get these people into a single party, if we change its name, and it shouldn't be a particularist name. That's why I suggested tentatively the name Independence Party. It should just be the name of a group of people working together and feeling in general alike. I bring to your attention one obvious obstacle, this whole proposition, that the Independence Party shall replace the Republican Party. Depends on the premise that the Republican Party in effect will lie down, play dead, and go away. No, it depends, again, obviously, so far as 1976 is concerned, there will be three choices before the American people. The replacement of the Republican Party would then take place over a period of years, as the replacement of the Whigs did,

and by the Republicans in the mid-1850s. One thing I think we can be... So then, you do indeed conceive of having a third party. Not a third party, no. I conceive that in 1976, as a matter of fact, I see no alternative. I think it is perfectly clear, given what has already happened. In 1976, there will be, on the ballot, in all 50 states, in the general election in November, three tickets for President and Vice President. The Republican ticket, probably consisting of Ford and Rockefeller, or Rockefeller's, two offensive, somebody less offensive. A Democratic ticket, and a ticket of a new coalition, more conservative than either the Ford Rockefeller Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Which would be called the independent party? Probably in 1976, actually, the name might vary from state to state, because in certain states you'd be occupying the shell of existing parties already on the ballot with specific names. I don't think the name is an important thing. The important thing is to keep the name from being so particularist, like Prohibition or Greenback,

that it actually hurts the generality of a party. I would like to take exception to what Mr. Restor said we can all agree to, but before I do that, I'd like to say that I think the book, The Making of New Majority Party, which I've read, is an excellent discussion of the inadequacies of the present two parties, which most of which I certainly agreed with, and I think that the time that Mr. Russia wrote it, and at the time that I read it, even, there was a chance of an independence party emerging as a punitive second party for 1976, or perhaps for 1998. I think those chances are have declined, partly because of President Ford's arresting what had been a leftward drift he had been making, and taking some actions to satisfy some conservatives, and partly because there just was a magic moment, I think, after the Republican disaster in 74, when a lot of important politicians could have started this thing going, and they didn't.

But having said that, I think that I am not so sure there's going to be a third party. I think the only man who can be on all 50 states is Mr. Wallace, whose health is a question mark, whose prospects for getting on all 50 state tickets, it's possible but not certain, and I don't believe that this would be the kind of unifying party that Mr. Russia talks about in his book, and certainly not a party with much chance of succeeding to a second party. Well, 1976 and above all November 1976 is still a long way off, one of the problems is how fast things change. You mentioned that at the time you read my book, which was what, in early April I expect, something like that, it seemed possible, now it doesn't. What, by the end of this year, by the middle of next year, by the end of next year, are going to seem to be the possibilities. Let's take it a month at a time, but why Bob? I'm very interested because I happen to have been in charge of the subcommittee of conservatives looking into the question, and our research is now complete substantially.

What makes you think that, quite regardless of who, for the moment, the candidate ultimately might be, it is simply not possible to get a Mr. X on the ballot in all 50 states next year? Because they'd have to get their ballot positions through, essentially, through two existing parties in most of those states. That would be the easiest way either they mean through two existing parties. That have ballot positions, the American party and the American independent party. No, not at all. Begin with, in almost, I think I'm right in saying in every state, and this would be a constitutional requirement, you can, without having a party at all in a state, you can file a slate of independent electors by petition. I think it's much more difficult than in some states, is it not? In some states, it's more difficult than in others, but precisely, there are three different routes you can actually take. You can start a new party, as has been done in certain states. You can take over the shell of an existing party, if it is willing to cooperate and is not there responsibly extreme itself, or you can go the independent petition route. I think that the politicians, and I might add journalists of America, are going to be rather surprised.

There's likely to be a feeling that thieves have been discovered in the chicken house here, when they suddenly find out, about a year from now, that the workers are available, that the money is available, that the laws provide for it, and that it's going to be done. Mr. Russia, let's assume that your interpretation of the mechanism, which can produce a third party, or a third choice on the ballot, is correct. I assume you studied intensively, it's assume you've come to a correct assumption here. The workers, you say, will be there for this third party. Conservatives have never liked for volunteers, cadres for this kind of work at all. Well, you know, there's the old police, you can't beat somebody with nobody, you can't beat something with nothing. You're going to have to have a party, you're going to have a candidate. No, you really, more precisely, you have to have a candidate.

Who is that? Who is that? All right, now let's suppose what you have done. We are no longer, I'm not criticizing this, but we are no longer discussing, are we? The question of the actual mechanical practical ability of putting somebody on the ballot. The argument has now become okay, maybe you can do it, but you haven't got anybody to put on the ballot. So who are you going to put, and you're quite right, in politics you can't beat somebody with nobody. All right, the scenarios that I can imagine at the moment would be, among them, would be the following. And the first thing I have to say about this is if you don't like my scenarios, and don't regard them as feasible, don't worry about it too much, because none of them will have much relation to the reality as you and I will be seeing, and if we were sitting here here from tonight. Well, before the time being, scenario number one. Suppose Governor Reagan finds that within the Republican context, he does not offer a really forceful enough contrast to President Ford, either ideologically or in terms of the votes that he can appeal to within the Republican context. Maybe he would, but let's suppose for the moment that he didn't.

Is it possible that he, in those circumstances, if presented with an opportunity, with a brand new vehicle, without watergate behind it, without a recession on its back, without the historical animate versions against the Republican Party, that exist and say the Southern United States? Might find himself willing, and indeed impatient, to put himself before the American people, stating the shots as he wanted to come in. Let me answer that. Let me make a comment on scenario one, and let me make my first dogmatic statement of the evening. Look out for dogmatic statement. Which is that under no conditions, I am convinced. Well, Ronald Reagan, run for President on any ticket other than the Republican. You may be right. All I will know is, but you may be confident of that, but let's, let's know. Are you not? All I was about to say, Martin, was that he has been asked repeatedly if he would rule it out and has flatly refused always to rule it out. He has almost ruled it out to me, and the almost, and he has gone of 1 to 100, he's got about 1 millimeter.

But what is that millimeter there? In any case, if he ruled it out tonight and ruled it back in a year from now, what could you do? Sue him. The man has the option, if he wants to exercise at that scenario one, scenario two. Well, option is one thing, and appetite is another. I don't think you have a very important point before you go to scenario one, because I think Reagan is unquestionably, would unquestionably be the strongest, broad-based candidate. And I feel that he is not, whatever he is, he's not a tricky politician. Nobody ever talked about the dogmatic position, are you nominating Reagan? No, I don't think he's a tricky Ron. And I think he has made his decision that if he's going to run, he's going to run as a Republican, and if he doesn't make it, that is the end of the line. That certainly is one possibility. I certainly agree with you that his present intention is to make the run as a Republican, but I can imagine circumstances in which he might feel that the handling he got in the process of making that run,

the pressures that were brought within the party against the people who wanted to support him, really called for a little popular justice. Let's move away from just scenarios to, well let me, let's handle this scenario for a moment. Let me say this, note that when challenge to start suggesting, since I can't beat somebody with nobody who I might beat him with, I started with scenario number one, and I have three more to propose to you, and you want to change the subject. So what's going on with scenario two? Yeah, we'll take your scenarios, I'm delighted. What's your second? Yeah. Suppose that, and this is not, I think, necessarily the strongest, but it is one that is in the minds of many people. Suppose that George Wallace, I think in any case, speaking of categorical statements, I'll make one. He cannot get anywhere in the Democratic Convention, he will bear after leave the party, and when he does,

he will take with him approximately at least the 10 million people who voted for him in 1968. Assuming an imponderable and unpredictable factor here that physically his bob is pointed out, he's in position. We're talking about scenarios, you can introduce objections, sure he may get hit by a truck tomorrow and be killed. I don't know, so may you. But he has not a great call less in Canada. No, he is not, this would be a different kind of scenario, but it would most certainly produce. And immense impact, it would also raise an interesting question as to the extent to which Republican conservatives could be domesticated to stick with their party in a situation in which Wallace would be doing his best, presumably, to expand his strength and his attractiveness across the present borders of it. John Connolly, who made a tremendously forceful impression on meet the press just several weeks back, has the problem, of course, of his bribery trial. But he also has a certificate saying that 12 good men and true found him innocent.

That's like the man who wasn't the insane asylum who has the certificate of sanity. No, no, it's quite different because the certificate of sanity means that he's now all right. This isn't a question of that. If our legal procedures mean anything, they mean that according to the best system that we have been able constitutionally to devise for finding the facts and acting on them, the man is innocent and is entitled to that assumption. Now, I grant you that there will be people who think he's broke up and this will hurt him. But we're talking about scenarios. This is a man who was a cabinet officer under a Democratic president. A cabinet officer under a Republican president. I've never heard anybody challenge his ability or his sheer intellectual brilliance. And he certainly comes from the... Some of them challenge his politically pendability. I think I know a question about it. Or his desire to slug it out in a campaign. No doubt, no doubt whatever plenty of people would have objections and protests. There's a scenario number three. This man from the Texas populist background of Lyndon Johnson might make.

Might make. A very powerful race. Just a minute, I can't let that go, Bill. John Connelly is a populist. I said from the Texas populist background of Lyndon Johnson. Actually, he himself, and you're quite right, and this I think increases his strength. Reaches not only the populists, which Fred Harris would reach, but reaches boardrooms of big business where Fred Harris would not be allowed to carry the coffee pot. And he gets the boardrooms first, don't you? Much faster. Right, so he does, in any case. Okay, go ahead. Scenario number four. There are... And I don't want to get too deep into this, but I will... Because these are names of men that have for the moment not wanted to put themselves forward in that way, but there are men in both the governorships and the senatorships in this country, who in my opinion, and it isn't a totally uninformed opinion, would be prepared to run... Just a moment. Just a moment.

Dude, when I've finished the main statement, which is more important than the name, would be prepared to run a thoroughly responsible and entirely conservative, highly articulate race. And I could pull out three or four for you if you really want to start pulling them out. Just like pull out your favorite. Who's that? Senator Helms. Senator Helms is certainly a possibility. Governor Thompson and New Hampshire is another possibility. I would like to think he might not be so happy about the thoughts since he's running for re-election next year, but Senator Buckley of New York under certain circumstances might be a possibility. The idea that we simply cannot think of anything next year, except Gerald Ford, and one of these helpless nerds who are now running around competing for the Democratic nomination, is preposterous. American politics may be in bad shape, but it isn't in bad shape. I think bad shape. Mr. Russia, I compliment you on your creative imagination. I compliment you on setting up a straw man, really, that nobody ever thought existed. Nobody ever denied that there was a Helms who would like to be president. They would like to be president, and George Wallace would like to be president.

You know, there's never been any denial of that or Ronald Reagan. They're all on the scene. Therefore what? You're putting them all into your sphere. But you were the man who asked me, it's all very well if you're going to have this mechanism ready to put somebody on the ballot, but who is it? Now you're telling me. I've told you four more than that, actually, because there were four scenarios, and the fourth of them contained several names. That's a kind of a lean cupboard of scenarios. What? A lean cupboard of scenarios. But can I, can I, in the long run, we only need one. Let me, let me ask you this. You have one more thing you've got to work into your scenario. There is another candidate. Let's come to Mr. Ford, who is the declared candidate of this Republican party that you say is... It's a correction. He is not yet the declared candidate. He's declared by himself, if you like, as a candidate. I know no. If American political history tells us one thing, it's at any incumbent president who chose to be the candidate of his party, was Republican, Democratic, whatever party it may be.

And yet, Dave Broder just yesterday said that he confessed to a hunch that he just could no longer down. And that was, if Ronald Reagan wants to slide hard against Ford, he may very well beat him for the nomination. Take the nomination from him. Which I agree? Yes. But I would, but I would lie. I disagree. I'm surprised that they lie it's out of you. I don't say it's all accepted at all. I say it's entirely possible. I think it's utterly improbable. Improvable. But gentlemen, don't tell me we're getting the sentient among my tormentors. No, we don't want it to amenable. I would like to make one comment on the book, though, which I feel that Mr. Russia has made a very cogent argument that there is a new impulse in the country. If you want to call it conservative, it's a distrust of government. Kevin Phillips wouldn't want to call it conservative, by the way. But you're right. I know what you mean by the impulse. And it is a feeling that government is boiling the lives of people rather than fulfilling them. And that this impulse has not found a very good home in either of the parties.

And therefore, you say that there is a need for a new party. Now, I think there are two developments that are happening that may be substitutes for a new party. One is that President Ford was scared to death by the conservatives and has changed in many ways the tone of his administration to recognize this impulse. He talks a lot about how government is not working. There's too much regulation. And I think that if Reagan runs, this tendency by President Ford will be even more pronounced. The second thing is less obvious because today, the Fairhaired born in Washington, as the real inside candidate, is Ubert Humphrey, who runs counter to this impulse more than any other man in America because he believes government can do everything. And, by the way, also has a populist thrust. Well, I think that's more theoretical than real, in my opinion. Well, I think not in Washington, but on the state and local levels.

This impulse is also finding some people in the Democratic Party who are recognizing it. Governor Jerry Brown in California, Governor DuCoccus in Massachusetts, Governor Walker in Illinois, Mayor Flarety in Pittsburgh. Even to a certain extent, Governor Lam and Colorado, and they are making lots of liberal rhetoric, but their actions are not far from any cost. And you know, of course, as I say in the book, I was well aware, both of our parties have over the years lived, survived by co-opting every piece of action and sight. Every time somebody comes along with a new idea, they grab it. And I also say at least twice in the book that if the Republican Party, or although this would be far more difficult to visualize the Democratic Party, really wants to take this ball and run with it, I won't haggle because after all the name of the game is what is done and not the title under which it is done. You couldn't possibly trace in the Democratic or Republican parties anything like a coherent doctrine through the years.

If one of them wants to become, in effect, the Independence Party with additional, coalitional combinations fine. But to me, one of the most comforting, and I might add in a way reassuring things, is precisely the tendency you mentioned. Now this idea has taken concrete form as a conceivable political threat, only relatively recently. And thanks largely to Ronald Reagan and maybe whatever little theoretical work I've done in my book, all of a sudden. We have the President of the United States running off in all directions, appointing Bo Calloway as his campaign manager and going in for a hawk-like diplomacy in the Mayigas and vetoing Democratic spending bills. And as you point out, the Democratic governor of California, yes, I'm terribly grateful, gentlemen, but we're going to go still further with this. The Mr. Ford, I am sorry to say, is simply not going to be able to stop that third ballot position. It'll be there and it'll be filled in November 76. So you say, let me ask you this, come back to your book again.

There's no reason why it shouldn't be, it isn't just that I say it. Nothing stands between us and it. Go ahead. You have a new definition of the way the country divides up, which is a basis to form over the party. Define that, producers in the non-producer or unproducers. We're non-producers, three of us. All three of us, including me. Okay. I say in the book that the basic modern division between the parties took place in the days of Franklin Roosevelt. The vote were developed in the Pyrosal. And... That's correct, the political forces available to the two parties. And the economic dividing line, which was, for most purposes, the key dividing line between the parties, might be called very roughly, although I think this is a little unfair, but for broad purposes, the haves versus the have-knots. The creditors versus the debtors, the employers versus the employees. And with that kind of a division and that kind of rhetoric, Franklin Roosevelt,

made a very fine thing out of a long term, successful coalition in the country. And it exploited a situation, which the country literally was on the verge of a revolution and collapse economically. Sparing us the superheated rhetoric, he got away with a lot. Let's just say that. Now, that coalition had to fall apart. Nothing human lasts forever. And it began falling apart, as early as 1948, and all through the fifties, it continued to loosen and fragment and small pieces of it fall away. As matters now stand to try to pass by a lot of history that happened. The key economic division in the country, and I agree with the criticism of Bob's that he makes in a review of my book, it is not as sharp, not as defining, as one might say, wish it to be in my position. But the key one nonetheless, and then I give full credit to Kevin Phillips and the other analysts who have gotten here, and there's no invention of mine,

is no longer, and is no longer perceived by people as being between the haves and the have-nots. It's between what I call, maybe it's not the best of all terms, the producers and the non-noosers, between businessmen, farmers, laboring men, hard hats, clerical workers, the people who in general make, create the gross national product of the United States at over a trillion dollars a year, and on the other hand, a rather funny combination of vast and growing, constantly growing, well-fair constituencies, semi-permanent, and a sort of a verbalist elite that is forever busy working over this well-fair constituency and making it larger. And that is your liberal media, print and electronic, the educational establishment. Well, there are always exceptions that prove rules. Obviously, they're going to be conservative publications and commentators, I suppose. The federal and state bureaucracies, the major foundations, the major research institutions. I think that it is, it would be what my friend Bill Buckley would call a sin against reality, not to realize that there is a tremendous, coalitional vested interest in this combination.

Now, I will say this. I don't quite want to borrow Bob's term of an absolutely categorical statement. I will say this everywhere I go in this country. Every time I mention, simply the words, the well-fair ripoff, it gets understood better. And of course, and more completely. Of course, that's what Jerry Brown and Mike do caucus are fighting at the moment. You might remember when Mr. Goldwater ran and presented what he described as a choice, not an echo, right? He was utterly smashed by a man who was dedicated to the proposition. By a well-fair isn't it? By Lyndon Johnson, who kept with him the entire 10 million votes that the Democrats are going to lose in 1976. I want to ask one question. There is a very astute Republican senator named William Brock from Tennessee, who believes that the main, he admits there's a lot wrong with the Republican party. The main thing wrong is its name. He thinks if you change the name of the Republican party to the independence party, you solve about 50% of your problems like that.

You agree? I think it's a little, assumes the American people are more naive than they really are. I wish you could carry it forward, Bill, but we're all happy to accept the discipline of our time. Thank you very much and good night for evening edition. Thursday on evening edition, a discussion of Democratic politics and the 1976 presidential election with Democratic presidential candidate Fred Harris and Ed Yoder of the Washington Star. Funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program was produced by NPECT, a division of GWETA, which is solely responsible for its content.