Iowa Press; 1433; Presidential Hopeful - Alexander Haig

Get it right this is why we're 14 33 with Alexander Haig gets recorded May 30 of 87. Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. From Secretary of State to NATO commander he's held more distinguished positions than perhaps any other candidate for president. But currently his bid for the 1988 Republican nomination is at best a longshot as true. Yesterday as Mort Sahl said. I threw my helmet in the ring. Tonight we'll talk with Republican presidential hopeful Alexander Haig.

This is Sunday May 30th first edition of Iowa for us. Here is Dean board. Good evening. A White House adviser a four star general secretary of state an impressive list of credentials that Alexander Haig brings to his candidacy for president of the United States. But other candidates bidding for the Republican nomination. Hague is not listed among the front runners. In fact a Wall Street Journal poll released in late March placed him last among eight announced or potential Republican candidates. Even so like any candidate Haig has a message for Iowa voters. And as Nancy Crowfoot reports the emphasis early in his campaign has been on getting that message across. It goes without saying that the state of Iowa is absolutely critical to the aspirations of any candidate on the major issues. Hague's campaign so far has stressed reducing the budget and trade deficits

reforming the nation's educational system and rescuing family farmers and displaced workers as never though still an ardent supporter of Ronald Reagan. Hague is trying to forge a more moderate image and in that effort is distinguishing the differences he has with the Reagan White House. Hello. Good to see you. Kind of an early campaign swings through New Hampshire and Iowa. He marked disagreements with the Reagan administration on Central America. The handling of the SDI or Star Wars plan and what he calls fiscal flabbiness. The 62 year old Haig also is working on developing an every man image primarily by toning down rhetoric that's been described as tortuous a 1947 graduate of West Point. Haig fought in both Korea and Vietnam and won numerous field decorations between commands. He graduated from both the army and navy war colleges and in 1961 earned a

master's degree from Georgetown University in international relations. He has served in four administrations including stints as chief of staff to Presidents Nixon and Ford and as secretary of state to President Reagan. He also was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe for four years citing that background. Hague has stressed the need for someone qualified and competent to continue what he calls the renaissance of the American spirit. It started in 1980 by President Reagan. I believe the main issue is I don't know a single Republican candidate who doesn't essentially support the Reagan revolution. President Reagan's broad policies on the broad directions he set the country on in this decade of the 80s. I think 1988 is going to largely focus on the qualifications and character of the man.

But Kennedy's qualifications and character get him elected. That's just one of the many things that we'll discuss tonight with I guess presidential candidate Aleksander he could be questioned by David he observed political reporter for The Des Moines Register and by John McCormack who's a columnist for the Burlington Hawkeye The Harris newspapers General Haig. We just heard you held a key position to do it. How do they keep an administration like the Bush and Republican leader in the Senate Bob Dole. I placed two candidates for 88. And here you are out running against him. What what specifically is the leg of the news station you take the dog to pee regularly. Well I I don't want we were suggest to your viewers or to you that 88 is going to be a question of Are you a Reagan man or not a Reagan man. While I support President Reagan I don't do it blindly. And I've had major differences in foreign policy and domestic policy with

some of the Reagan programs. I think the American people are going to be looking for something very different than a clone of Ronald Reagan in nineteen hundred and eighty eight. I think they're going to be looking for someone who first has a vision for this country rather than a reaffirmation of the status quo. Well General I don't see these other two candidates yet. Portraying such a vision. I'm going to have a book on the streets. Early in the fall in which every problem I support and stand for will be laid out in detail. I'm giving a speech this weekend in San Francisco a five point economic program for America which will be explicit in detail and I'll do the same for AIDS education. The Law and Order question drug the problems of our foreign belt the problems of our energy sector and the problems of American industrial sector. General summarize a little of all of that for us and answer the question for me just

why are you running. Well. You know having served seven presidents not for I think I know something about the office and its requirements and I have been over the years somewhat shocked by some of its failures which has been a product of on occasion putting men in that office that were neither prepared nor qualified to carry out this heavy responsibility. And I come from a family of no father. I was raised by a mother in very austere circumstances. I think America is a land of opportunity equality and egalitarian ism which makes it unique among even democratic nations in this world. And I want to see this country move into the next century as a land of opportunity and a land of growth and development and above all I am concerned about the future of my children and my grandchildren and what kind of America they are going to have and that's the

reason I'm running. If you look at my background over the years you'll see I haven't shied from any responsibility if I could further enhance my contribution to this nation. Friends told me when I was asked to be chief of staff of the White House during Watergate that this will destroy your military career and your future. Let me tell you I'm not a fellow to walk away from responsibility and I'm going to get out and work for this presidency. And I tell you I'm very confident I'm going to get there. Your polls last are totally untrue. I put my hat in the ring. In the end of March George Bush has been running for 12 years campaigned dole for eight years respect and I'm now in a good solid third position and most of the states that your polls that are showing that as I was should say not only mine but other polls which are every bit as prestigious as the Wall Street Journal a 200 man telephone call poll. The general addressed that electability question if you would. One of the functions of a

caucus is for Republicans to pick a candidate and a lot of candidates a lot of caucus scores who I talked to say they want a winner. So why are you the most electable Republican. Well I'll tell you why. And this of course remains to be seen. That's why I think I am. We've elected three Republicans to the White House since World War Two. Eisenhower Nixon and Ronald Reagan and the one unique characteristic that these men had was their attractiveness and their ability to attract traditional Democratic and independent voters in America. Any Republican candidate who's picked for party pedigree or pecking order or being called Mr. Republican has not won the national scene. I think I have a great deal of support in traditional Democratic ranks especially in the south among American Hispanics and minorities among American veterans and

also among American labor. John you know you were there. You played this piece by this administration that you held on the job. It was National Security Council not really. When you were a deputy at the national identity. I was the deputy for you. Right. You had a civilian boss. How would you address this question. A little bit less about civilians in control of this structure. It seems like we had too many military man in too many slots. I'm talking about the disqualification but military man to be president talking about what seems to be an overload of military man a kind of a parade of colonels going across the TV screen and hey wait. Well that's understandable because what they're dealing with is the business of conflict war and the logistics and the operational experience of it and that's what should.

Should the head of the National Security Council be a civilian. I think the head of the National Security Council should be the most highly qualified the individual that I present and can attract to that very difficult job. You know one of the great problems of presidents has been their inability to discern between the kind of fellow you need to help you get elected. The image maker and the kind of fellow you need to help you govern once you're elected. Now that could be a military man. And in the past General Eisenhower had the general and the good pastor who ran the National Security Council and did it with absolutely superb performance. So it isn't a question of military man or nonmilitary man it's a question of competence and the kind of activities you engage in. I happen to think. Henry Kissinger was a superb boss for me. I respected him. He's a friend today and he made great contributions to this country also made some judgments. And he'd be the first to admit that general one isn't a question of uniform or not

uniform. It's a question of qualifications and remember don't go around looking for underlings in this administration to take the rap for fundamental misjudgments at the top. And I don't like to see young military men hung out to dry by a national leadership that is unwilling to step forward and take responsibility. Well they we're doing what the president wanted. Are you saying there were fundamental misjudgments around the car. Of course. Can he have an content. Absolutely and I think our whole Central American policies as well as it go to another real life situation right now from that philosophical discussion earlier on military and diplomatic experience which you have both into the Persian Gulf right now. For President Reagan this week has said we're going to be not only escorting Kuwaiti tankers but also making them fly the United States flag. Why is mistake one mistake. Because.

You know you get into these things through failure to address a number of more ambiguous situations. And then you find yourself backed into a corner where the only alternative is this kind of high risk approach. In 1982 I urged the press and I spoke publicly in Chicago in 82 in May. And the need for the United States to launch an international peace effort to bring this mindless conflict between Iraq and Iran to a conclusion and to garner the support of all OPEC's dependent nations to do so. Now here we are six years later. And the United States has in the intervening years lurched between first support for Iraq more recently support for a wrong with this hostage fiasco and now we are contemplating a crypto or de facto alliance. But where are the that they are where we are right now we are of six years of what

is last time that we are where we are now. The problem today is that the president is again trying to have it both ways. He's telling the American people that we have a right and indeed we do to keep these international waterways open that all of the free world in the western industrialized world is highly dependent on the resources of the petroleum that passes through it. He says however that we are going to take a defensive posture. Now we know that this is a provocation against Iran and that Iran is going to have great difficulty in not taking a shot at our forces as they did recently against even a Soviet freighter. You think that's what had happened. I think it's very likely to happen and if we say that we're in a defensive mode that means we're either preparing to back down once again. With all the loss of American credibility or we are attempting to get into a shooting match with Iran if that's the case. And it is justified. I don't happen to think it is. Then the

president should say today to the American people we're going to exercise our right in this Gulf if any nation attacks our forces we are going to retaliate substantially and effectively immediately. John forget what the president is telling people wait we have to go to war. Otherwise he said you'll be standing in the gas line to get that's right. Fifteen years after the Ford the 10 years after the cost again. Why are we still worried about standing in gasoline. I have I have to ask you what would you do now in the first place. Let's take a look at this Gulf. We have two nations at war both being armed by all sides. Unfortunately clearly it is in Iran's interest to intervene with the free shipping and they have been attempting to do it with all of the assets under their control. It has not turned off the flow if you will. And why now suddenly is it going to do so now. I think

we have created a false emergency. These two sides have been fighting now for seven years. Both sides have lost tankers. We've had some shot up. Others have still the profit motive continues to keep that traffic going. And I think this is a war in which we should not side with either regime. Both are repulsive. And this is a war in which we want no winner. Now it is also a war we want brought to a conclusion and that's that should be the effort of American diplomacy to get a peace settlement rather than to side with one party or another. General turned to another region of the world force Central America. You mentioned that you thought there'd been some fundamental misjudgments made. What are those misjudgments and what would you do differently now. We're faced with the situation we are in. It's always easy to engage you of hindsight. All right then go my. I don't want you to know I was profoundly opposed to a covert program in Nicaragua.

First it's a contradiction in terms in modern Washington. Secondly it's a cop out. It enables the president to go to bed at night telling himself he's done something tough but he still wants to get up in the morning and be loved by the people because he hasn't disturbed their tranquility. I think where lives are at stake for the American people want to be on the take on as well as the land. But more importantly what gives Central American in Nicaragua its strategic dimension Marxism not at all. If the people of Nicaragua freely chose Marxism we Americans would be obligated to let them stew in their own juice. And frankly what gives it its strategic dimension is a violation of international law by Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union. And we should have stood against that rather than determining what kinds of regimes our Central American neighbors are entitled to have. So when the Brezhnev doctrine of our own for the hemisphere What do we do now.

Well it's not going to happen in this administration that we can change it now that we've created the contra movement. The consequences of cutting and running terminating our support would be devastating. The message through Central America in Havana and Moscow would only bring us greater misery in the period ahead. But I would hope that the next American credit will become not an advocate of abrasion of doctrine of our own in this hemisphere but an advocate of rule of law. So it's that holding status quo there until we get a new administration new thing. Unfortunately I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. And in the meantime let's not aggravate the earlier misjudgments by cutting and running and leaving the contra movement which we created swinging in the breeze. General I want to turn to a moral political question. One of the things that I hear from Iowa Republicans that they're concerned about with you is as up an image that you're too hawkish and particularly the I'm in control statement

at the time the President was shot. You explain that for me explain even more fundamental. And that is the perception in many Americans minds that a military man is the first guy to reach for the military solution when faced with international frustration. Let me tell you precisely the opposite is the case. Only an individual who has seen combat firsthand that closely and I have been to war knows the futility of frustration and frequently the horrendous sacrifice involved. And if you look back since World War Two the most the least inclined president we have to indulge in military experiments and engagements was Dwight Eisenhower. And I think that's a result of his background. So the reality is the fellows who get you into

military imbroglios abroad is usually the political hack who's had no experience with conflict firsthand who doesn't understand that war generally never solves anything. Frequently aggravates the situation and it's highly cost well. But the second part of the second part of the question is really rather ludicrous. Of course the American people want somebody in charge. They thought it was Noki that you would make a statement like that was the least bit spooky. That occasion we had the secretary of defense unilaterally alert our nuclear forces a message that could be picked up by the Russians immediately and interpreted that we thought they had tried to murder our president the vice president was two hours away from Washington. The press secretary said he didn't know who was in charge of the government. Someone of course had to say something. Now what I did say was that I was in control in the White House pending

return of the vice president should something come up. Of course we'll be in touch with the vice president. Several of our networks neatly snipped out all of those things and said This fellow was trying to take over the president said you know let me add it wasn't a question of succession. Let me ask you about something that seemed a little spooky. All candidates talk about we've got to be strong militarily. We've got to have more money in the hands. But things have been going on. The things that hurt again recently they add that two hundred and forty one Marine was killed in Lebanon because they were at low ground at all but they get to the 60 attaboy toupees killed didn't do that because we were using poorly maintained to operate there. And when the Challenger was killed because of the non functioning they had made it clear that who apparently was killed because of the. Timing on the plane. The old have that on the ship.

Meaning in other words we've lost all these men because of good aptitude and not because his strategy not because of the enemy we have that we haven't lost to the enemy we lost all that too. Now what can the president do about that. What kind of mood can you create from the top down to do something about that. Well I will have to share your concerns that we've had too many of these incidents in recent year. But I would also suggest you know we have to be somewhat more balanced in our assessment. No foreign policy is risk free. We've had an equal number of accidental tragedies here on the domestic side here at home with train collisions airplane crashes floods hurricanes and acts of God. No we shouldn't overdramatize this but I think the basic question is and

you sort of hinted at it in your initial thing is are we overspending for nothing in the defense sector. The answer to that is to be very sure that we know where this horrendous deficit that concerns us all so much came from. It didn't come from excessive defense spending that you're all over Surely there was some of that it came from contradictory economic policies implemented simultaneously. A growth theory supply side simultaneously with a constraint theory monetarism it was like throwing your car into reverse and first gear at the same time. And both of these schools of thought contributed major hits to federal revenue. That's where this deficit came from that and an unusual degree of fiscal flabbiness. So how do you get out of this deficit mess and the debt. Well there are a host of other related problems that I'm highly suspicious of the candidate who comes here to Iowa or elsewhere and has some simplistic formulas such as supply

side or a gold standard to get our country back on solid fiscal and monetary track gold standard concrete statements. Well let me let me answer the question is not achievable. That's what's wrong with that. The policy must be doable to make sense not just sound good. Now first we need a balance between fiscal and monetary policy. Over the last seven years we've ricocheted between fiscal flabbiness and tight monetary policy and then we went in the other direction and now we're about to go back to a third iteration. That's the first order of business and unfortunately in the near term that means tight fiscal policy the reduction of excessive fat from this one trillion dollar budget. Secondly it's going to mean and it's already beginning to happen. Tight monetary policy as well as we've had to push up interest rates to continue to attract that capital from Japan and Europe to help us services.

I heard you say earlier in the profile that we had the beginning of this program. You can't legislate economic morality. You said I'm willing to live there. But we've had a history that we can't know you have a West Point background that you can't do it on the honor system depending on the Executive and Legislative branches to do it. No you do it by what we've traditionally done by the political process. And that means a firm degree of presidential leadership which would lead ultimately to a partnership of responsibility between the legislature and the executive branch. Now the first order of business to get that alignment for with such a partnership I'm afraid is going to have to be a string of vetoes on the part of the president. When I say President Ford he vetoed in his first six months 65 bill and at the end of that period the Congress began to understand that they were going to have to work to bring our excess spending under control general it brings people together. Do you see the need for tax increases.

I don't believe in these late in black and white statements. Never never never. Two additional revenues is ludicrous for some of our candidates on the one hand to say never never never to tax or to simultaneously support Gramm-Rudman which sets a balanced budget objective of nineteen ninety one which could never be achieved without a massive increase in taxes. And at the same time support a new tax bill which is a 30 billion dollar additional hit on the American taxpayer and especially American corporations. Now what I say is you have to start out and get this balance between fiscal and monetary policy. That means tight on both counts. It means a major reduction in our expenditure that means we have to work abroad which we've been failing to do to coordinate our macroeconomic policies. Monetary trade affairs with our allies and it means if that hasn't succeeded that we are going to indeed need additional revenues because we simply

cannot live with a debt burden and our servicing obligations of that debt burden in which we are only able to do it today by importing foreign capital. And that means we no longer control final question just to make general despite your evident English tie. You've never been in a war declared that Congress should pass and that bad conflicts will you add it to the page and toward congressional declaration toward war powers act and the fleet used at getting young men killed. Well I think again the pragmatic aspects of these things are going to have to guide them. You know you don't legislate morality. One of the great tendencies of the Congress is to legislate permanent solutions to temper and not legislate the constitution of God being elected. Well that's right and to provide the means to ratify a treaty. But that is their primary role and for policy it's the executive branch

responsibility to set the course of our office. Generally you can always depend on John to ask a question like that that requires a three minute dance with about 30 seconds to do and I'm sorry that I have to work with the Congress. Of course you have to I have to interrupt you. Thank you very much General Haig for being our guest this week on Iowa. Press play next week I will press that we back in our guests at that time. Be the man considered now as the frontrunner by many for the Democratic presidential nomination. Reverend Jesse Jackson so until then for our panelists David Jepsen and John McCormack I'm being bored. Thanks for joining us tonight. Stay tuned for take one. Have a good week. Major funding for Iowa press was provided by friends of Iowa

Public Television