Martin Agronsky: Evening Edition; 40

mm-hmm-hmm-hmm from Washington this is evening edition now here is Martin Agransky good evening

Eugene McCarthy former Democratic Senator from Minnesota is running for president again this is his third attempt and this time Mr. McCarthy is running as an independent he says our two political parties are incompetent and there is need for a strong challenge to the two-party domination of American politics and from an independent like himself so tonight on evening edition a conversation with Eugene McCarthy on the state of presidential politics and his own presidential aspirations sender this time is an independent for the third time what do you if you have to offer as a say what are you offering

that's different or better than what the other candidates are offering well I think almost anything you'd offer would be better than what the Democrats and the Republicans are offering now if you consider Martin that the Republicans twice a major party nominated Richard Nixon knowing what he was twice and they got him elected twice and the Democrats were so inept they're so unacceptable that they couldn't beat Richard Nixon you shouldn't have to say much about what's wrong with the two parties and so far as presidential candidates are concerned but I think the other thing you do is just look at the record you had a you had a bipartisan war Republicans and Democrats support the major issue of the last decade you've had really bipartisan economic policy they wash back and forth a little bit but there's you can't really say that Republicans are Democrats that one of the other is more responsible for the state of the economy the state of American society you can't really say that one of

the other is more responsible for the matter in which individual liberties have been violated by the CIA and by the FBI and by the internal revenue and by the Justice Department and other agencies of government and so I think it is important that we say something's got to be offered to the country by a way of of another choice and it's got to be something other than George Wallace well you know Senator let's let's come back at it this way perhaps you know there was a Sardonic observation of HL Mankin once that nobody ever lost a nickel under estimating the intelligence of the American public now I repeat that Sardonic that's a certain if you like but the fact is that the way our system operates the majority of the people whether you feel their judgment is a good judgment or a bad judgment prevail that's the way the system works they may have made a mistake twice in a row with Nixon if you like well the people

had a very limited choice is a system operates now what's what's finally elected is somebody who was chosen by at least what was represented as a majority of Republicans or a majority of Democrats at a national convention to one of the other party after that the only choice you have is between those two offerings and so I don't think it's enough of a choice and I don't fault the public because I don't think that the political process has been open to them when we could reach them in 68 in direct primaries I thought we got a pretty reasonable response and where you could get crossovers from Republicans to Democrats to voice their opinion on the war it worked very well where you couldn't get that it was very difficult but the problem there was was was in the in the system it wasn't in the unwillingness or in disposition of the people to make a judgment they couldn't get through but granted the problem resides in the system what is the solution to the problem well I see you break the partial solution is to raise an independent challenge so the public can

say here is here is at least another choice which we'd like to make and you got a three false ideas that have to be challenged Martin one is the idea of party loyalty which is developed to the point where on the war Democrats were saying my party right or wrong or my president right or wrong and when Nixon took over within six months the Democrats were denouncing the war the same war that had been going on before conducted in essentially the same way well that might have been a coincidence well I could have been I mean they saw they might have seen the light that's right but it was a sudden change the Republicans with Nixon on impeachment far beyond the point and they made this excuse I mean it isn't it isn't that they said well we saw the light they said well those who were said you can't challenge a president of your own party even on a great issue like the war which is not a traditional party issue or a significant issue like the integrity of the presidency which was the issue for the Republicans in the end they were forced to do that that's right now I will

grant you that even the House to disagree committee despite the conventional wisdom that it did such a marvelous job in the end did do a marvelous job but was dragged literally a kicking and screaming to do that job there was a great reluctance there was a reluctance but we got there yeah well yeah but if they say it proves the system works but you know that's the way you want it to work that's like saying that crossing by the Titanic was a success because a couple life votes were saved I mean not everybody went down yeah and to say that the system works when you when you're reduced to the to the distress of Watergate for example or the distress of the way in which the war was conducted and ended which in its own way was just as bad you can't say the system is working you say the system has the potential to survive well the system did survive well I would agree with you that it didn't know what you mean by the system the the Constitution survived well I personally feel that one thing was certainly not demonstrated about our system and that is that we have

a government of laws no that's right that that's right but the political system political system worked with the system of justice did not I would well but I will take the political system by which you got the kind of government the kind of presidency out of which all of this developed you can't say is a very good and effectively working system and what the Democrats and Republicans are doing now instead of trying to open up politics they have been trying to freeze us into a continuation of a two-party system which which gave us Watergate in the war and they're passing laws in states I had a call from the independent governor of Maine who said that the legislature there is past statute which will make it almost impossible for an independent to run for the state legislature because he is threatening to run his candidates independence against Republicans and Democrats who have not been supporting him so instead of saying we want to face up to it let's make it easier for the governor to lay down a challenge to us the Democrats and Republicans together

in Maine he tells me have gotten together to protect their own two-party interests and you got the same thing in the federal campaign financing act now you're a party with the Parkinson's law whatever they're in trouble they dig themselves in and try to try to establish an institutional protection well the institution provides a method of testing your your criticism of that particular law which was passed and that is to take it to the courts now the court does that but the law is cost too short to feel it above but a political process that's open you really shouldn't have to go to the court if you had if the right spirit reveal I've fought the Democrats more than Republicans Republicans are naturally inclined to be restrictive and to try to keep things under close control Democrats per se we are the party of the people you know if you listen to their speech say we opened our way to the immigrants who came to this country we took up the cause of the black people of the minorities we took up the cause of labor we're the defenders of the farmer the poor of the

oppressed of those who are excluded and they ought to take that view in politics instead they have now moved in to almost the same attitude of Republicans and let's let's protect ourselves in Wisconsin the Democrats in Wisconsin led by the governor are going to court so they don't have to conform to to a restrictive order which the Democratic National Committee is trying to impose upon them Wisconsin the state which in which it's relatively easy to move from one party to the other which they did do in 1968 on the issue of the war Democrats now under pressure from their own party leadership to change the law in Wisconsin so that the kind of thing that happened in 68 and made it possible for people to move over and vote on the issue of the war that even that couldn't happen again I mean the party loyalty well a party loyalty but that they actually want to put in a statute under which would be all but impossible for anyone who was registered as anything but a Democrat to move over could move into a primary right look your running as an independent you say

you're not going to have a party convention the Committee for Constitutional government which you apparently represent is not a party well we say I don't really argue much about what you called a party well I don't care either we're not structured like the party we will hold I expect we'll have some kind of convention and whether it's called a party or not the only reason we we made that distinction was to somehow to separate us from the operations of the two parties all right but there is a certain mechanics to the system of yeah getting to be present in the United States and one of the part one part of the mechanics to get on the ballot that's right now your approach is you're not going to go into primaries right you're going to try to go directly on the ballot by petition that's the same process that Wallace followed in 1968 and what we're doing now how are you doing tell me well we've had the reasonable successes at least three states now in changing state laws from very restrictive

and limiting laws Arkansas has changed its law Colorado has changed its law and California we think is in the process of changing its law which would have made it very difficult for us there are five or six other states in which we will probably have to go to court but we expect to be ready to to file the necessary petitions in all fifty states realistically you think that you think we can get on the ballot in most of these states anyway but it would take a great effort it would be very expensive in California and we think it important to raise the constitutional issue for example we could get on the ballot in Florida that's not very difficult accepting that they have a provision in the law under the law if you've run in a democratic primary for example you have to file petitions but the state checks the petitions to see if they're valid at state expense if you want to file petitions as an

independent candidate for the president so you're now beyond the primaries you have to pay so much for each petit each signature you have to pay the state to see whether or not your petition your signatures are valid in a democratic or republican primary the state pays the cost it's not a big expense I don't know it costs maybe five thousand dollars we could we could pay it but the point is it's it's a clear discrimination and so we're going to challenge that not because as I say we couldn't we couldn't respond to it but because we don't think we ought to all right well anyway that's your route that's our tradition to get on that's right ballot and that's our principal now all right now we're ready and about probably in 15 states now 15 to 20 states now we think we're organized and you realistically believe you're going to get on the ballot in 50 states that's right I think I think that is the easiest part of our effort all right who goes on the ballot with you well we haven't decided that who decides we had a meeting in last year in

Chicago of two or three hundred people from around the country and we may have decided before the convention because again if you do the petition route there's some states that require you to name your vice president as soon as you file your petition I was going to raise that yeah other but we think that's a discrimination we don't think we ought to have to do that we mean well you have to well we we we may test it but we can only go to court on too on so many items yeah and so we're looking into that we may test that as again as a discriminatory act might be a good idea if you made everyone who who runs in a primary Democrat tell you who his vice president is going to be why not you know let's know who's going to run with George Wallace or well I I will ask them I've been asking them the name their cabinets too I think we ought to know the whole works right from the beginning but you shouldn't discriminate against the independence that you have to tell us this and this and this and and allow the Republicans and the Democrats to see the thing

about the vice president see if you don't have to name them in the beginning you can pretend for six months that anyone of 15 or 20 different persons are going to be the vice president and keep them all interested and I assume that the problem with about eight out of those ten Democrats that they really ought to be running for vice president and we ought to ask them to name the man they want to run for president with them this one currently done that vice presidents we Republicans are having some problems with their vice presidential situation too and I was interested in an observation that Mr. Rockefeller made he's an Alabama the other day you know he's down there now and apparently he's given up high a fellow for you all and he described governor Wallace and president Ford as both dedicated Americans who believe in the basic values of the country distinguished citizens and friends of mine now Wallace and Ford you regard them as dedicated Americans who believe in the

basic values of the country well I buy their own lights yes I have a reason to believe that there was a question of what they believed to be the you know the basic principles of American democracy and how those how those principles are applied distinguished citizens well I don't know what you need to you know I've been called a distinguished citizen so we don't have those standards the standards are rather loose and open I think I friends of mine well I don't know about I wouldn't say they're friends I don't I don't I think you have a hard time accepting when someone says they are friends of mine I think what he should have said because that's something pretty personal I can say I'm a friend of Martin Agronsky but I don't know whether you're my friend that's up to you are you well out then if you say I can say Martin is my friend but and I'm his friend or what bothers me more people who say we have mutual friends I never thought a friend could be mutual it sounds like an investment you know

and and I think that Rockefeller should hesitate to say that they're his friends because they may not be even though he may be a friend of theirs how about Wallace and president Ford how do you see Mr. Ford oh I don't know Martin I mean here's someone you and I know he was in Washington for 25 years and no one ever cared what Jerry Ford's opinion was on any subject in 25 years you think anyone ever search out for it said I'd like to know what Jerry is thinking about this well you might want to say how is he going to vote you know history reached down touched him with a magic wand I know but I know that they look behind that we we have to take a look at him in that well but what do you say I mean he hasn't been surprising in office you know they've been a competent president well I don't know what you'd expect from him I I don't think he's proposed things it should have been proposed whether he could have gotten through the Congress or not I don't know so that the question of

competence is related to what he's trying to do I mean if he's not trying to do much he's he's competent within his own limits I think the question of competence the presidency is more to do first of all has to do with whether you whether you have the capacity to make the right judgments then the second standard is can you can you perform can you get things done and his is I think he's been wrong and both counts he had not like he's thought of the right things to do but beyond that his strength has largely been a negative one in the use of the veto power and I seem to me anyone who uses another strength in the man that he followed well that's a relative sort of thing but I don't see it as being reflected in any significant change in the politics of the country in the government of the nation or in the in the in the reality of American life well there is an aura of honesty and decency and certainly in relation to well the aura that surrounded his predecessor I think he

derives an enormous advantage but almost anybody would have brought that to the White House after Nixon I mean it it wasn't it wasn't something that he that he he brought it in a very kind of distinctive way but I I don't to you know I I don't mean to to make a case against Gerald Ford my case is principally against the Democrats I'd never you don't see anyone among the Democrats who have declared or you think might be seeking the presidency I don't think it's worthy of the presidential nomination that's right and on the platform I expect the Democrats to present and on the base of the record of these candidates especially in 1968 and since that's right well then where you are you've given up on the Democrats no question but I didn't give up easily they I took the abuse in 1968 when I we repudiated by the established forces and I thought in 72 I made a reasonable appeal to liberals not to not to nominate me but at least to have some response to what I was proposing for the Democrats and and there was no response from the so you know after that

experience on two counts over an eight-year period roughly every indication is and I I think it's it's it's hard for someone like you to accept it but I wonder if if you would agree with me or would you like to debate the point with me what a man like you takes position he speaks to the people the people in the end chose to turn a deaf ear going to go back again you're gonna try to speak to the people well the people didn't turn a deaf ear in 68 the people responded pretty bad enough but enough people did wherever we got to measure the people we were done in by the by the party regulars who were not elected in any kind of open there were people at the city of the machinery stop well the machine red stop what what makes you think you can go around the machinery this time we're not gonna tolerate the machinery that was the problem in 68 the problem in in 72 was only partially the machinery I didn't object too much to the machinery he was rather the lack of response or judgment as to what the

country ought to have and I say if you lose to Richard Dixon by 18 million votes you have to believe that you had a party that wasn't presenting and not only they lose but the propositions they were making had no standing after the election was over it's all right to lose if you if you raise some issues but on the critical issues I would say that the the Democrats were in worst shape and the liberals after that election was over then they had been before let's accept that but let's go I'm looking back what are the Democrats one of the issues they're raising now what are the Democrats proposing to do about poverty more welfare you know better administration of the mess what are they doing about unemployment they say well we're gonna provide more public service jobs that's an old new deal trick well they are we're gonna provide V2 better well that was it was no good anyway yeah what were they arguing about Democrats say we're gonna provide public service jobs for 700,000 and the Republicans are not as good

as we are because they only want to provide public service jobs for 400,000 that's what they say what do you say well so you got seven million unemployed and the Democrats are saying that we're better than Republicans because we're for 300,000 more jobs and therefore okay what do you say there are a few things around the edge what I have been saying what I said to the Democrats in 72 the platform committee was unemployment and the experts are writing this now you know the economists saying we have institutionalized unemployment in this country it's not going to go away treated by the standard devices I said then that we ought to move as a party to advocate the redistribution of work in this country so that instead of what you get now with a recession 10% of the people are laid off and 90% do the 100% of the work that's left what we ought to do is to provide for a redistribution of work so that 95 to 98% of the people in this country are employed at all times and the mechanics of it as you cut down on the

hours that those are employed that's what you do that's what you do I mean that's the immediate thing you do we did it in the late 30s the 40-hour week was revolutionary and in the eight-hour day was considered revolutionary in the 50-day 50-week year was revolutionary in retirement at 65 was revolutionary it had 30 years of technological progress and supposedly a greater knowledge of how to handle the economy and the Democrats can't come up with a program which says if we if we redistribute 5% of the work roughly in this country we will take care of more than 50% of the unemployment and we you would propose that oh no question about it it's long overdue Martin it's ridiculous you get all the liberals are saying redistribute land in you know chili or Argentina or Brazil you know the peasants have to own property but here you say how about redistributing the only base upon which people can get a claim to income which is a job let's redistribute the jobs the laborer say we live

by the contract the same thing that the Spanish landholders say we live by the contract so what's the party for if it can't respond to something as obvious as that you're out there talking to people what do you think is the main thing on the public's mind well I think it's these four or five things we're talking about here I think jobs I think they're worried about the failure of the political system they think a lot of trust that's right I think they feel that the political process is not open that the Republicans and Democrats have failed 60% of the people didn't turn out in the last congressional elections Martin that's got to tell you something and I think they they have a feeling that institutions economic and government are not working and we shouldn't have 20 million poor in this country we shouldn't have seven or eight million people out of work and we shouldn't have with the potential in energy and potentially an iron ore potential in water the technology we have in this

country that we shouldn't have shortages we shouldn't have inflation such as we've had and that these are all manageable problems and they're right you say they're manageable problems and I hope you forgive me if I point out to you that it's very easy to stand aside and say that we shouldn't have this and everyone would agree what isn't so easy is to say this is what you do so that we won't have these well I agree I agree but then you say what are the Democrats offering what's the Democrats program right now to deal with the energy problem they don't have one they don't have one they don't even come close all they do is second guess they'll say well we're not going to let them increase the the cost of natural gas or the price so the other side well you don't do it you're going to have a 30% deficiency of gas because it costs more to produce it or they say we want to restrict the consumption of gasoline and oil but the only way we're going to do it is by giving rebates to people so you know they develop a whole rebate side but no substantive energy problem has come out

of it you will propose a whole series well I mean it's not too complicated I think what what I'll be talking about and have been talking about is is well within the range of the operation of existing economic institution the oil companies for example the worst thing they did to us was to provide too much cheap oil and gasoline over a too long a period of time they got us hooked on it was like dope and then they begin to build big cars in Detroit cars you bought in the back in 1940 Martin if you bought a car then six owner car maybe 85 90 horse bar perfectly good car first car I have a share of it I think it had 85 horse bar six so it went 65 miles an hour on the road got me every place last to 10 years you know you buy a car now it's I mean in the post-World War 2 there were 200 horse bar 300 horse bar you know 435 horse bar and and and all the advertising of the super bill the Kisbo stuff and they responded you're

talking about why you start making American people understand that there has to be a change in their values well they learn about a change in economic and philosophical priorities but how do you get there not very great ones though I were asking them thing which many Americans have already accepted that our automobiles are too big and too wasteful the question is do you do you allow the automobile companies you know they say it's it's it's a nature of the American people to want big cars but just to be sure that nature doesn't change they spend 750 million dollars a year telling us what kind of big car we ought to want and then they say well isn't that too bad out the president of General Motors of Month or two ago said you can't move to give the American people small cars because they have a right to big cars you know I give you an impossible task less than 30 seconds while you think you could be a good president 76 oh I think you do you do you do you pretty pretty much look at the record I think that I've probably have given more thought to governmental

institutions how they ought to work and I have a book coming out in September which which really does what you know it over the years at any one of these candidates and I would be quite glad to debate them in any area of government either operations or institutional concepts or to take them on on the substantive issues and if we can't demonstrate that then I would hope that you might be persuaded because as I look at the field I I almost convince that it wouldn't be a serious contest thank you miss that might not good night for evening of this Monday on evening edition a Labor Day look at what's wrong with the American economy with the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Democratic Congressman Al Ulman of Oregon and John Barry of Time Magazine 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