The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Nuclear Freeze Issue

[Tease]

ACTRESS, pro-freeze commercial: You know what the nuclear freeze is all about? Simple. Both sides have enough nuclear bombs, right? But how can we stop building more if we can't trust the Russians? Well, Proposition 12 says that our leaders should sit down with their leaders and figure out a way to stop.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN [October 4, 1982]: The nuclear freeze movement, a movement that has swept across our country, that I think is inspired by not the sincere, honest people who want peace, but by some who what the weakening of America, and so are manipulating many honest and sincere people.

[Titles]

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. With the elections less than a week away, the state of the economy has obviously been the most talked-about issue, but another issue, the nuclear freeze and nuclear arms issue, has also figured prominently. It attracted new attention yesterday when a committee of Roman Catholic bishops recommended that the church issue a strong declaration against nuclear war and reject any first-use of nuclear weapons. The bishops also called for agreement to halt testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons. The proposed declaration will be debated by church leaders next month in Washington. This summer the nuclear freeze movement mounted the largest demonstration in the nation's history in New York. It failed by only two votes to win the support of the House of Representatives, and freeze propositions have been approved in more than 400 cities, towns and counties. Next week one out of every four voters will have a chance to register his support or opposition. But as the election draws near, some are saying the freeze has fizzled as a movement. Tonight, how hot is the nuclear freeze issue, and what part will it play in next Tuesday's voting? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, voters in nine states have nuclear freeze propositions on their November 2nd ballots. Similar ones are up for a vote in 34 other places -- cities like Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Denver; smaller towns in Arkansas, Colorado and Alaska; and Erie and Butler counties in Pennsylvania. It's also an issue in a few congressional races. Most of the action there involves the targeting of congressional incumbents by the pro-freeze movement. One group put together a negative television commercial aimed at 10 Republican congressmen -- three senators and seven House members. The commercials are identical except for the name of the target. In this sample, it's Congressman Robert Michel of Illinois, the House minority leader.

ANNOUNCER [anti-Robert Michel commercial, Illinois]: People everywhere are worried about the continuing nuclear weapons buildup. Soon, faster, more accurate missiles will leave our leaders little time for decisions. Computers alone could trigger a nuclear war. How can we escape this threat? With a nuclear weapons freeze. Both sides would agree now to stop building more nuclear weapons, with strict safeguards against cheating. Most Americans now support a nuclear freeze, but not Peoria Congressman Bob Michel. He voted against the nuclear freeze. That's why we need to vote against Congressman Michel -- to reduce the danger of a nuclear war being started by a computer. It could happen.

LEHRER: That commercial is yet to run in Congressman Michel's district. In fact, no television station in six of the target areas have thus far agreed to sell time for their airing. On the anti-nuclear freeze side a 25-minute television film featuring Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger is scheduled for showing in 40 states before the elections. Advocates on both sides, but mostly those favoring the freeze are also speaking of the issue in campaign commercials. Here's a samplingof some of them.

LEE REMICK ["Yes on 12" campaign, California]: Hello. I'm Lee Remick. My friends, we're afraid that the Russians have nuclear superiority.

MARTIN SHEEN: And they're afraid that we do. The fact is that each country has enough bombs to destroy the other many, many times over.

KATE JACKSON: Let's use our vote to send a message from California to Washington and to Moscow that we want them both to stop building more bombs.

JUDD HIRSCH: No trusting; no guesswork. We work out a way to check on the Russians or there won't be a deal. That's the nuclear freeze. Vote yes with me on Proposition 12.

GERRY SIKORSKI [Sikorski for Congress commercial]: Like all young families, we're concerned about the future of our child. We want her to grow up in a free society where she has the opportunity to develop her talents, to get a good education. We want her to live in a world free from the threat of nuclear disaster. That's why I'm running for Congress.

ANNOUNCER: Gerry Sikorski is the Democratic candidate for Congress in our new Sixth District. With Gerry Sikorski people come first. He's a neighbor we know. He'll be a congressman who cares.

ANNOUNCER [Doug Jewett for Senate commercial, Washington State]: The bomb was built. The bomb was used. Under what possible reasoning does Senator Jackson believe that we must have even more than now exist in the world? He has resisted the efforts of four presidents -- Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter -- to curb the arms race. Today he opposes the bilateral and verifiable nuclear freeze. Answer him, Washington, with Doug Jewett. Stop the arms race. Stop the huge military spending. Answer him where it counts by electing Doug Jewett to the United States Senate.

Sen. HENRY JACKSON, (D) Washington [campaign commercial]: Nobody in his right mind should talk about limited nuclear war. That's nonsense. That could be the end of everything. What we ought to talk about is reducing nuclear weapons. We ought totalk to the Russians about dismantling weapons, getting rid of them -- both sides -- honestly and fairly, not just to freeze, but reduce, cut down, down to zero, if possible. That's what we all want, isn't it?

LEONARD BERNSTEIN, [Edmund Brown, Jr. gubernatorial campaign commercial, California]: I want to go on making music.

Dr. JOYCE WALLACE: I want to keep on practicing medicine.

RON CEY: I want to keep on playing baseball.

LaVERNE WITEY: I want to keep on teaching.

DOUG McCARRON: I want to keep on building.

NELL CARTER: I really would like to go on singing.

CANDICE BERGEN: I want to keep on doing it all.

TONY RANDALL: I just want to go on making people laugh.

CHILD: I want to go on living.

ANNOUNCER: Pete Wilson opposes the nuclear arms freeze. Jerry Brown supports it. Vote for your life. Elect Jerry Brown to the U.S. Senate.

MacNEIL: That last commercial was so controversial that the Brown campaign took it off the air after only one week. As we said, pro-freeze groups have targeted a number of incumbent congressmen for defeat next Tuesday. Two such political action committees are the Council for a Livable World, which has pinpointed 18 Senate races, and an affiliated group called Peace PAC, which has targeted what they call a "Doomsday Dozen" House members. John Isaacs is both the legislative director of the Council and a director of Peace PAC. Mr. Isaacs, what do you do to help a congressman whose opponent you have targeted?

JOHN ISAACS: The primary method we have chosen for helping candidates is contributing money to them. Each of the Doomsday Dozen has an opponent who supports a nuclear freeze and we have given each candidate as little as $500 and as much as $4,000.

MacNEIL: What are your grounds for targeting an incumbent and including him in the Doomsday Dozen? What does he have to do to get there?

Mr. ISAACS: The primary thing each incumbent who we're targeting has done is vote against the nuclear freeze in the August vote in the House of Representatives. Also, all 12 incumbents have a pretty consistent record in favor of every new nuclear weapon that is being proposed, whether it is the MX missile, B-1 bomber, or whatever.

MacNEIL: Can you tell what difference your help and backing is going to make in any one of these races?

Mr. ISAACS: The basic thing we're trying to do is raise the nuclear freeze as a political issue, both now in the '82 campaigns and in two years in the '84 campaign. We feel we've been successful in that and that 1982 will see an overwhelming endorsement of the freeze, both in the referenda that have been referred to as well as in changing the mood of the House of Representatives on the nuclear freeze issue.

MacNEIL: Do you regard this issue as one of those single-issue issues on which a voter would decide almost alone to vote for or against a candidate?

Mr. ISAACS: Clearly the voters will have a lot of reason for how they choose to vote next Tuesday. We feel that there will be a small portion of people -- something like perhaps 2 to 5 percent -- who will vote on the basis of the nuclear freeze issue, and we think that 2 to 5 percent is particularly strong in groups of the American public, including the youth, the women's vote, and also suburbanites.

MacNEIL: What effect do you think it will have, if any, on getting the vote out, in persuading people to go and vote?

Mr. ISAACS: Well, particularly in the states where the nuclear freeze referendum is on the ballot -- those nine states and the District of Columbia -- we expect the turnout to be higher than it would normally be otherwise, and we expect those -- particularly the groups I named -- to come out more heavily and vote, both for the freeze referendum, and then, we hope, for pro-freeze candidates.

MacNEIL: So, how many of these Dirty Dozen do you expect to defeat?

Mr. ISAACS: The Doomsday Dozen --

MacNEIL: Doomsday Dozen, I beg your pardon.

Mr. ISAACS: -- we hope to defeat from three to six of the candidates.

MacNEIL: I see. And what do you expect to achieve in changing the complexion of the House of Representatives as regards these issues?

Mr. ISAACS: Well, there are two ways to look at it. First of all, the nuclear freeze was voted against in the House by only a two-vote margin, 202 to 204.We think we'll turn the House around for 1983, and we'll produce a pro-freeze majority in the House of Representatives. Also, we're looking to defeat a few incumbents. The anti-abortion movement, the anti-gun control movement in the past have shown political effectiveness by defeating just one or two incumbents, and we feel if we can do that, we'll have achieved a similar level.

MacNEIL: How do you feel, on the fairness issue, of portraying those congressmen who voted against the nuclear freeze as implying that they're somehow in favor of nuclear war?

Mr. ISAACS: I wouldn't imply any of the candidates are in favor of nuclear war. I think that's overstating it. Governor Brown's ad seemed to have stepped across that line and overstated the case against his opponent, Pete Wilson, perhaps. But the nuclear freeze movement and the Council for a Livable World and Peace PAC are not saying that the opponents of the freeze are for nuclear war; it's that they're supporting policies which unfortunately will make the country less secure in the future.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: One of Peace PAC's so-called Doomsday Dozen is Congressman John Rousselot, Republican of California. He's a 12-year incumbent who, because of redistricting, is running against another incumbent, Democrat Marty Martinez. Congressman Rousselot is with us tonight from public television station KCET in Los Angeles. Congressman, how do you feel about being one of the Doomsday Dozen?

Rep. JOHN ROUSSELOT: Well, I -- frankly, it hasn't had much impact in our race. The issue of Proposition 12 on our ballot in California is very much an issue. It's not the prime issue, but it is an issue, and so it has brought -- it has been brought into our races. Of course, I'd like to comment briefly on what Mr. Isaacs said about the vote in the Congress on August 5th. Actually, the Broomfield substitute was a very positive resolution that said that we do not favor nuclear warfare, but that we want to find a positive way to go to the negotiation table with the Russians. And so I really would like to refute what he said in claiming that those that voted against the Broomfield substitute, which did prevail by two votes, was somehow a vote against a nuclear freeze. We are for a nuclear freeze if it is arrived at in a positive and constructive way.

LEHRER: Is it your position, then, to be included on the list of the Doomsday Dozen that that is in fact unfair and an unfair characterization of your position?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, of course we don't like the terminology "doomsday," because I have never voted for doomsday and I don't believe in it. I realize that's the catchphrase that this organization has used to raise money and all of those kind of things, but obviously they've done it to try to put us -- those of us who support the concept of the utilization of nuclear weapons as a potential defense for ourselves or our alllies as somehow being bad. And actually we feel that we are more on the side of maintaining peace than they are because they are tending to weaken our ability to provide the wherewithal to keep the war from ever starting.

LEHRER: Are you going to be hurt at all in your election bid as a result of the nuclear freeze issue?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: No. As a matter of fact, that issue does not show up in all the surveys that have been done as a prime issue. It does as Proposition 12 for or against, but, quite honestly, employment, the economy, other issues have greater predominance. But because Proposition 12 is on the ballot, it has had more visibility as an issue than it probably would have.

LEHRER: The targeting, then, by Peace PAC hasn't done you a lick of harm then, right?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, no, and my understanding is -- I haven't seen the latest figures -- but Peace PAC has not given my opponent very much money, if any. Mr. Isaacs can answer. My understanding is, as of this juncture, my opponent has received nothing from them. So, maybe he got $500, which would be very token.

LEHRER: Speaking of Proposition 12 and California generally, and specifically the people in your district, is there interest in the nuclear freeze issue? I mean, is it a burning issue to the people of California?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, there is a lot of interest in the issue. As a matter of fact, I've challenged my opponent to have a whole debate on that subject. I would have been delighted to do it -- taken an hour and someplace in the district had a full-scale discussion. But he has basically refused to debate the issue. But to answer your question very directly, yes, it is an issue that is being discussed. The prime issue is Social Security, the economy, jobs, that kind of thing, but it is an issue that has surfaced because Proposition 12 is on the ballot.

LEHRER: Finally, do you agree with what President Reagan said a couple of weeks ago? And we saw it at the opening of the program; he said that those who are involved in the nuclear freeze movement are actually weakening the position of America.

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Yes, I think that is a correct statement, and as a matter of fact, Reader's Digest has an article in its October issue, a book review called The KGB's Magical War for Peace, which I would recommend everybody read because it shows how the KGB of Russia has manipulated this movement -- taken in a lot of innocent, fine, decent, peaceloving people and kind of snuck them into this movement. And I think Reader's Digest performed a real service in doing a review of this new book.

LEHRER: All right, Congressman, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Isaacs, how do you respond to that -- people in your movement are actually weakening the position of the United States?

Mr. ISAACS: Well, the charges being leveled by Congressman Rousselot, by President Reagan and others, I think are an example of what they say about lawyers: If you have the argument, use the arguments; if you have the facts, use the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.And I think Congressman Rousselot, President Reagan and others are pounding the table because they knew the overwhelming majority of the American people support a nuclear freeze, and are going to endorse a nuclear freeze November 2nd.

MacNEIL: How do you respond to that, Congressman?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, first of all, I think conditions are the thing that need to be discussed. I think I'd favor a nuclear freeze if it's done on the basis of parity, true equality, and that we have monitoring -- appropriate monitoring to make sure that the Russians are living up to it. I'm sure that Mr. Isaacs understands very clearly that the Russians don't keep their treaty agreements. SALT I has some 17 to 18 major violations. And so our major concern is to make sure that any freeze that is put in place by a treaty -- and most of us favor that, as does President Reagan -- that we make sure that it is appropriately and correctly verifiable and with really exchange of monitoring with the Russians so that we can verify what they have in place.

MacNEIL: Mr. Isaacs, back to you and to the politics of this. The Congressman says it's not making much impact on his campaign. He doesn't think you've given anything more than a token amount of money to his opponent.

Mr. ISAACS: We've given $1,000 to his opponent, Congressman Martinez. We've given, as I said before, up to $4,000 to some candidates.

MacNEIL: Let's just stop there. A thousand dollars. Congressman, how much is $1,000 in a congressional campaign these days?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, it's a nice contribution, but it's --

MacNEIL: I mean, what is your campaign --

Rep. ROUSSELOT: -- it is not as major as it would have been had this particular PAC -- political action committee -- if Mr. Isaac had given, say, $4,000, that clearly would have been more impact.

MacNEIL: What's your campaign going to --

Rep. ROUSSELOT: I'm sure Mr. Isaacs can explain why he didn't give a full amount to Mr. -- my opponent.

MacNEIL: What's your campaign going to cost, roughly -- your own campaign?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: You mean mine?

MacNEIL: Yeah.

Rep. ROUSSELOT: In excess of $500,000.

MacNEIL: Half a million dollars. And Mr. Martinez --

Rep. ROUSSELOT: And much of that -- much of that is because half of this district is new territory to me, and I have to carry on a more aggressive mailing campaign.

MacNEIL: Mr. Isaacs, why didn't you give more? What kind of impact can $1,000 make in a campaign that could cost up to half a million dollars?

Mr. ISAACS: Well, first of all, I'm not sure how much Congressman Martinez is spending on his campaign.

Rep. ROUSSELOT: He's going to spend, he says, about $250,000.

Mr. ISAACS: There's an interesting article about SunPAC, the political action committee of the Sun Oil Company, and how they divide up funds. And they're giving money to candidates -- $250, $500, $1,000. My point is, $1,000 in a campaign is a significant demonstration of support for nuclear arms control. It's not going to buy the election, clearly, and even $5,000 would not buy the election, as I'm sure --

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, I didn't suggest that either --

Mr. ISAACS: No, no, I'm just suggesting that $1,000 or $5,000 is not going to make the difference in a campaign, but we also sope that there are other nuclear freeze political action committees that are getting involved in this and other races.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Always in politics the question eventually is what do the polls say. We ask that question now on the nuclear freeze issue, and we ask it of Andrew Kohut, president of the Gallup Organization which produces the Gallup Poll. Nationally, what do the polls say about how big an issue this is in the campaigns?

ANDREW KOHUT: The nuclear freeze is of course an important issue and an issue in which the public has very strong feelings, but like most other issues, it's overshadowed by the economy in this congressional election, which isn't to say that there aren't some congressional districts where it is a prominent issue. But on a nationwide basis far overshadowed by the economy.

LEHRER: The pro-nuclear freeze people -- Mr. Isaacs just repeated it in fact -- say that the polls show that the majority of the American people are in favor of the nuclear freeze. Is that true? What's the detail on that?

Mr. KOHUT: There is and there has been for some time considerable positive support in the polls for the idea of a nuclear freeze -- majorities close to 70% saying they support a mutual freeze, a bilateral, verifiable freeze.

LEHRER: A bilateral, verifiable freeze.

Mr. KOHUT: That's right.

LEHRER: And is that -- how is that played, I mean, in terms of tracking? How long have you been tracking this movement and what's it been like? Up and down? Has it been growing, or what?

Mr. KOHUT: We've been tracking attitudes towards war and peace for as long as the Gallup Poll has been in existence, but over the past 15 months we've concentrated on this notion of a nuclear freeze, and it had immediate success and there hasn't been much change. People react very, very well to the idea of a freeze. But they have some reservations.

LEHRER: What are those reservations?

Mr. KOHUT: The reservations are basically the support for the freeze is limited by mistrust of the Soviet Union, which is at a high point -- 61% of the public say they would not favor a freeze if it meant that the Soviet Union keeps a nuclear advantage, for example. Sixty percent said they don't trust the Soviets to keep theirside of the bargain, and in turn 60% say they wouldn't trust the Soviets for the sake of a nuclear freeze movement.A freeze proposition which is verifiable is extremely important to the public.

LEHRER: Based on the data, does it look to you as if the nuclear freeze issue is one of those single issues that causes people, first of all, to come out and vote solely because of that and to vote in large numbers because of it, and could in fact swing an election?

Mr. KOHUT: On a national basis certainly not, but in an individual congressional district or perhaps even a state where it is raised as a controversial issue -- where there's a for and there's against -- it very well could influence support for a candidate. For example, in a Newsweek poll two weeks ago, we found 61% saying they are more likely to vote against a candidate who opposed a verifiable freeze -- a bilateral freeze, of course.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you very much. Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes, Mr. Isaac, how do you respond to this idea that the economy has very much overshadowed your issue and killed some interest in it?

Mr. ISAACS: I wouldn't say it's killed an interest. It's clear that the economy is the number-one issue.

MacNEIL: Has that hurt you?

Mr. ISAACS: No, not at all. I mean, it has raised questions about President Reagan's economic policies, but that still doesn't mean, as Mr. Kohut has said, and even Congressman Rousselot has conceded, the freeze is still an issue. If not the primary issue, it's a major issue in some campaigns, and an important issue in almost all campaigns, and it will be overwhelmingly endorsed across the country November 2nd and in a variety of congressional races.

MacNEIL: Congressman, how do you comment on the point that Mr. Kohut has made, that there is strong freeze support for a bilateral, verifiable freeze, but that it is limited by mistrust of the Soviets?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, of course I think that the statistics that have been given by Mr. Kohut I think are very much in concert with what I believe and what I think a majority of the members of Congress believe. And that is the 61% of the American people that say it must be a verifiable freeze and properly monitored. And then also I think he said that they have great distrust of the Russians to keep their agreement, and I think that's the point that President Reagan has made and a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate believe.

MacNEIL: Is that hurting your movement, Mr. Isaacs?

Mr. ISAACS: I don't -- the nuclear freeze movement from the beginning has been in favor of a treaty that is bilateral and verifiable, and some of the conditions that Congressman Rousselot is talking about are part of the whole freeze campaign in this country. I think the fact that Congressman Rousselot says he's for a freeze, a different kind of freeze, and the earlier advertisement that was shown of Scoop Jackson -- hawk of hawks -- saying, well, he's for reduction of nuclear weapons, shows the impact of this movement. Clearly, a nuclear freeze has to be bilateral, has to be negotiated with the Soviet Union, it has to be verifiable. And perhaps Congressman Rousselot doesn't trust the President to negotiate such an adequate freeze.

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Well, now that's an interesting twist. Of course I trust the President and feel that he would do a very positive and constructive job, and, as a matter of fact, that's the main item that he has tried to communicate along with the rest of us. We believe the only way you should have a treaty is to have it fully verifiable, and many of us believe that the verification of what the Russians now have in inventory should also precede the treaty negotiations.

MacNEIL: Congressman, let me go back to Mr. Kohut. You heard both men saying that they're in favor of a freeze. Is there a great deal of confusion in the voter's mind about what being for a freeze or against a freeze actually represents in terms of candidates' stands and the administration as opposed to the nuclear freeze movement? Do people really understand which they're for?

Mr. KOHUT: Well, I can't speak for --

MacNEIL: Well, I mean, does your data show that?

Mr. KOHUT: -- the propositions that they'll be voting on and how they are worded, but certainly --

MacNEIL: I mean, some of those commercials were very simple in the message.

Mr. KOHUT: The wordings of questions changes the results of questions on the freeze very much, which means people are responding to the things that we're saying very much. The big difference is in reaction to a unilateral freeze versus a bilateral freeze, for example.

MacNEIL: Let me go around to each of you very quickly. Congressman, would you expect that the Congress that results from this election will have its complexion changed on the nuclear freeze/nuclear weapons issues? Will it be a different Congress?

Rep. ROUSSELOT: Obviously I do not or I would have stated that. My belief is that Congress itself is very aware that if we are to have any kind of a treaty it must be verifiable, and obviously that thought is very much produced in the Gallup Poll results by the general American public. First they insist that there be some kind of a verification of what that freeze is and how it shall be maintained, and secondly, that they do not trust the Russians to sit down and agree to a treaty that they will then abide by.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Mr. Isaacs, in Washington, thank you for joining us. Congressman Rousselot in Los Angeles, Mr. Kohut in New York. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.