On March 6, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon, George W. Romney, and Manolo Sanchez met in the Oval Office of the White House from 3:00 pm to 3:58 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 678-001 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
President, how am I, sir?
Sorry.
Good.
I've got a good weekend down there.
I guess I'll be out on Sunday.
Oh, all right.
Yeah, I'll be right back.
How about you?
All good.
And away at Bellstones.
Oh, I've got one weekend down in...
Florida.
I went down there and talked to the engineers down there over the weekend.
Two weeks ago they told me it was cold.
I heard about that.
We had three perfect days down there.
When it's nice down there, it's good for this morale.
Yeah, that's right.
We were there.
I went down this year.
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
It just couldn't have been better.
That's right.
And then on Sunday, it began to rain a little bit.
So what could you ask for?
What could you ask for?
That must have been a horrible state of the order in China.
Well, you know, the problem is, as you know, these trips, when you get there, you know, they're kind of nervous.
You never know when they're going to be able to get out.
Let's see, I'm going to have a little tea.
I think ginger ale.
Ginger ale, of course.
Yeah, tea is fine.
Did you like the Chinese tea set or the regular one?
Maybe the Chinese tea set.
It's very mild.
This is not mild.
Did you know we had one revenue share in Richmond?
That wasn't the first time I heard that.
through the center.
The urban special revenue sharing, that was in there.
Basically, it's through the center.
See, that was a nine.
Well, that's the housing and the rest of it.
But, you know, that's good.
You know, that's the first one.
It was put that way.
You might get this one through.
Well, yeah.
As a matter of fact, the house is marching up this afternoon.
This is out of this committee.
Yeah, it's our last meeting.
All right.
I'm talking now.
So, Sparklin just didn't try to carry it out or anything?
No, no, no.
He's a decent man.
Well, he really is a good student.
Well, of course, they have to run a man, but they have a charge.
You know, John's...
John would be probably well advised not to run this time.
They're going to kill him on that.
He may not.
Some people in that age are not too old, but, you know, he shows it.
He doesn't want any personal conversation, but I'm sure when he gets out there and stomp, that he's going to look a little... Don't you think so?
I could.
I've seen him in public performances where he demonstrates a good sense of humor.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Well, he's got his appearance.
It's the appearance of it.
His face looks older than he actually is.
And sometimes you take that boy out there, he's 80, but he doesn't look younger.
He looks 50 or so.
That's right.
He's bouncing up and down the mountains and all that sort of thing.
That's really difficult to have.
Yeah, he's tough.
He's tough.
But I suppose he must have something that keeps him looking that way.
He's a different kind of person.
Another thing that pleased me very much, I was over this morning talking to the League of Cities and the Conference of Mayors.
They've got about 800 here.
This includes the small town mayors, the suburban mayors, and the big city mayors.
And I talk to them about the housing problem in the central cities, and the need to get at the problems of the real cities, and the fact that the suburbs and the central cities are basically in the same boat here, and they need to get together and work out these real city problems on a real city basis.
And I use this as an illustration
what happened to the country in these early years, because under the Articles of Confederation, this country would never survive, because the states were not permitting the nation to deal with national problems.
Now, in the same way in these metropolitan areas, the suburban communities
are asserting their independence and countering the point where they won't get at these common problems.
And these are very clever examples.
And the interesting thing to me was, Mr. President, when I got through this one, it gave me a real standing ovation.
But then the interesting thing was that Sam LaSalle from Atlanta, who was presiding, announced that
they have decided to make the real city the theme for their next annual meeting.
The real city?
Yeah.
Now, I first discussed this in Philadelphia last spring at their meeting at the Congress of Mayors in Philadelphia.
And I haven't imposed much on you in the way of reading material.
But if you get a chance, I would appreciate it if you'd take a look at that, which was the real city talk, and then the talk I'm in today.
That's a little better worked out than this a little rough, not too well done.
But in any event, this got the point across.
And it relates to what I really basically want to talk about to some extent.
And let me preface what I have to say by expressing really
the greatest appreciation I can to the Russian Congress, which is important.
I was here last time, and I deeply appreciate it.
And I want to say goodbye.
Well, it's been a great privilege to be a part of this effort.
You've got a tough department.
Well, I'm here to help you with this stuff.
And his case, his is just tough because it's a huge conglomerate.
It's too damn big.
That's what that department is.
And also, it has to be yours.
You have the whole British society except for the whole thing.
That's right.
And I've got a big constituency, a building constituency, and therefore it's so hard to handle.
I know I sympathize with your point.
You see, I've got three of the toughest things rolled into one.
The cities, race, and housing.
And housing gets affected by the epistemology of the common city more than any part of the economy.
And in housing, and in the cities, you've got this fragmented, balkanized situation.
And you've got the race thing, and the race issue is more sensitive in connection with housing than is anything else.
Oh, I know.
Even more at schools.
Even more at school, yeah.
The school then wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the transportation.
That's right.
You know, I don't think that people who care, I don't care, certainly, feel that people care much about whether they have black kids and white kids together, but if they have to carry them too far, that poses a problem that black people have.
That's the problem there, and it is, but the housing thing,
That gets in the economic sense, right?
That's the reason it's so hard for some of them, I think.
And a lot of them have some social as well.
Well, the social thing, probably, they don't like to admit that.
If you really come down to them, they'll say, well, I paid so much for my little house, and I don't want the value of it to go down.
You know, there's a lot of that in Mr. George.
No question about it.
No question about it.
Because folks are affected by that pocketbook more than anything else.
It's the most sensitive nerve in the body.
You know, I can admit it to you.
Well, as I did last time, my only purpose in life is to do what I can for you, besides my family, my children.
And I'm enjoying my job.
This is the toughest job I've ever had.
I've never had one as tough as this.
And I've had some tough jobs.
There's no comparison.
And this was Tyler of American Motors.
And again, because of the complexity of the situation.
And Michael realized that he covered for the American Motors, the big governor of Michigan.
Well, yeah, and I want to touch on that.
Because I wasn't quite stuck there, too.
Yeah, that's right, but this is more difficult because the solution to some of these problems haven't been developed yet, Mr. President.
That's why what I say in those talks about the real city, it may be along the lines of working out some of the answers to some of these problems, but in any event,
What I want to talk about is something I don't need a decision on now, but I do appreciate the opportunity to get your judgment.
And let me practice it by reminding you that Lincoln indicated that this nation would never be conquered from without it.
If it was destroyed, it would be destroyed from within.
It would commit suicide.
Now... That was even before he was president.
That's correct.
That's correct.
Now...
My observation as I watch the political scene and the way in which we deal with our problems, that there's one great deficiency in our free societies.
And that great deficiency is that we have not yet devised a way, as far as I can see, by which we can resolve absolutely fundamental problems that are going to lead to a crisis.
before we reach this stage of crisis.
That we almost achieve our fundamental reforms through crisis rather than through anticipation crisis.
And Lippmann points out that this is due to the fact that the very elective process means that you can't be right too soon politically without suffering political defeat.
And he points to Churchill as a man who wasn't obliterated politically, but after all he was almost obliterated as a result of being right with respect to Germany.
And even Lincoln in his House Divided speech indicated that
The husband of the nation couldn't survive half-slave, half-free, but he had despaired of this being resolved, except as a result of the nation going through a great crisis, and the nation would have to pay.
And even in the crisis, too, he had to temporize with slavery.
That's right.
That's right.
The Emancipation Proclamation, I think he will fail to realize, didn't apply to the North.
That's right.
It didn't apply to the South.
That's right.
It's a war action.
In fact, even though he was against slavery.
That's right.
It wasn't his.
That's right.
And it connects with this problem.
I came across this statement of Henry C. Simons several years ago, in which he calls attention to the essentiality of a body of truth seekers.
Well, that's right.
As a matter of fact, I came across this in connection with the Organization of Citizens for Michigan.
And you see, one reason that this impressed me a great deal was that what was happening in Detroit and the school situation before we worked that one out.
through getting a body of citizens to just dedicate themselves as citizens.
Plus, I'd like you to have and not to have, because I'll tell you, this is an undelivered speech that I prepared in December of 68 and didn't deliver.
And I didn't deliver it then because I thought it would be misinterpreted.
But it deals with this very question I'm raising here.
And it also includes a quote in there by Lippmann pointing out that you can't afford to write too soon.
And it goes on to point out that this handicap of not being able to deal with basic issues while they're still in their controversial stage means that political campaigns as a rule can't focus sufficient attention on the real issues
because of the, you lose votes.
And the result is you don't have a relevant discussion that is needed to educate the public so that then when you have responsibility, you have the public understanding, the support necessary to act.
Now, if we're running for that, I may digress a moment.
The decision I have to make in the next few weeks, I hope, Mr.
Senator, and then later,
on this busing thing.
It's a hell of a difficult problem, but it's something that shouldn't have to be decided in a political year.
It's just something.
And yet, with everybody running out, some are for constitutional amendments, and some are against it, and some are for legislation.
So somebody's got to get some leadership on this.
So we've got to react to it, rather than try to let the thing go all through.
It's a terrible problem.
I agree with you.
Now, what we did in the school situation in Detroit was we had this citizen group, and we were dedicated truth-seekers, and we really had to define the issues and agree on what they were, and we had a complete cross-section.
And then we undertook to agree on what facts were really facts that we agreed on.
That narrowed our differences down to a minimum point.
Then we undertook to define alternative solutions.
And then we only recommended to the city of Detroit, this was before Sputnik, you know, this started...
We only recommended to the city of Detroit the things we were in agreement on.
We had a complete cross-section.
We said, the hell with these things we're in disagreement on.
If we could just get action on the things we're in agreement on.
We made 182 recommendations, Mr. President.
Every one of them was adopted.
Now, it was that experience that led me, when Michigan was in crisis, to suggest this Citizens for Michigan.
And Citizens of Michigan went through this same process with a representative group of citizens across the state.
And this included acting partisans, because you don't have to leave the partisans out.
Yeah, I noticed that Simon's quote didn't leave him out.
No, no, he had a terrific part to play.
He said, the effective discussion presupposes an elaborate division of labor between navigators and dispatching of students.
Yeah.
But we had the man.
And what we did was to identify the basic issues that Michigan had to deal with if it was gonna solve this problem.
And we identified just two.
One was we had to have constitutional reform because the state government couldn't function effectively.
And number two was we had to have tax reform.
Now, we then went to work and we got those things.
And we got those things even though all the vested interests in the state of Michigan were against us, Mr. President.
We had with us, in Citizens for Michigan, the League of Women Voters, the church fund, the junior chamber of commerce, and the media.
because the media were convinced we were trying to do an objective job.
But at any event, as a result of that experience, and my concern about some of the problems in the nation that were shaping, in my opinion, towards crisis, which I think is the greatest in the country's history, but at any event,
I was in the process of undertaking to put together a Citizens for America when I was confronted with this question of whether I was going to run for governor or whether I was going to continue down that road.
And I'm telling you what I was going to do.
To expand it, yeah.
Well, we were going to organize one on a Citizens for America basis, and we had a representative group of national leaders that we were working with.
And I decided the governorship was more important because I could never have completed the constitutional
convention and secure adoption of the Constitution, we've never secured taxes.
That's 66.
That was 60.
That's 62.
Well, the Constitutional Convention was 61, 62.
62 Iran.
But when you first talked to me in New York in 60, when you were just in the process of the seal settlement about my running for Senate in 60,
I was involved in Citizens for Michigan at that point, and I decided not to get involved in acting politics because of that, but to continue that, and I decided to run for governor because I, rather than Citizens for America, because we had completed the child's admission.
So it wasn't working.
I don't personally believe that the current political atmosphere permits an adequate discussion of what I think are absolutely fundamental issues in this country without too much political jeopardy, too much political racism.
And I think there are four.
There are fundamental.
One is lack of confidence in government, which you have identified, but what you have to do to deal with it.
And here again, you have done a great deal in this area.
The clumsy centralization of federal government, revenue sharing and so on, is moving in that direction.
But we've also got this fragmentation of state government, of the obsolete character of state government, the inability of state government to function.
And more seriously of all, we've got this ball-tied local government, Mr. President, which is, which involves two very sensitive issues, one in race,
and the others that's concerned on the part of the suburbs, that if they become part of the real city, that they're gonna be submerged with the conditions together.
And yet, Mr. President, I don't know how, I really don't know how the housing problem, I don't know how some of these other problems should be dealt with, unless there could be developed a means of getting at it.
And I had a chance to discuss that today in that speech I made, and to indicate that the real city approach has to be one that is based on equal concern for the suburbs and the central cities.
And I think we're approaching the point where that could possibly be encouraged and brought about because the suburbs are beginning to experience the problems that have been identified as being some silly problems.
Crime's going the fastest in the suburbs now.
Drug addiction's going the fastest.
Menorrhagic disease.
Life's beginning to reach out to these suburbs.
So they're beginning to have to face those problems.
But in any event, that's one issue that this organization will overcome, the new city, especially.
Now, second is this abuse of excessive private power.
And that deal is a matter that you and I talked about many times.
And I do not personally believe that this country can be made competitive economically without the strength in the market mechanism and the competitive discipline.
And I think the principle involved is as simple as the restraining trade principle
was the essence of the Sherman Act, and that really gave us the competitive economy in the first place, namely abuse of power.
And if there was a prohibition of abuse of power, and to be administered by the Department of Justice the way the restraint of trade is administered, and if applying labor to labor and industry both,
or the criterion being that if their wage actions or price actions that are clearly out of line with the economic factors of the situation, that this is an abuse of power and consequently should be rescinded with the Department of Justice authorized to take administrative action and subject to appeal to an economic court.
I don't think it could go into the general courts, but an economic court could.
This abusive power concept was developed, that approach was developed by McCracken and McLaren.
in their effort to try and figure out what to do about this.
But in any event, in my opinion, again, you're dealing with something where there is a reluctance on the part of those who run for public office to deal with this problem because of the reaction of labor and other elements.
And we don't have as much relevant public discussion of this as is really needed, in my opinion.
Now, the third one is this confined, contagious central city situation.
I already touched on that, but the fourth one, in my opinion, is the extent to which
This structure of suburban governments around the central cities is building up critical masses of militant minority citizens.
Now, what do you mean by division of the country into minorities?
Well, all I mean by that, if you take Washington, D.C., here's the capital area.
That's the Washington, D.C.
Now, that's only a statement of the real city of Washington.
The real city of Washington spreads out here now in two states and with a large number of communities.
Now, in practically every metropolitan area is taxed in the country.
The zoning ordinances, the tax structure, the building code procedures,
are designed, importantly, to limit the blacks and the poor to the central center, to the capital area.
Oh, this building over here, this is Prince George.
And you take a look at all of these.
You take a look at Detroit and St. Louis and Chicago and New York and you name it.
And what's happening is that there are critical masses of the poor and minority citizens.
building up in these central cities because they're confined to the central city.
They're fetched in.
Now, this is a duplication on a more massive basis of what's happened to these public housing projects.
Well, that's the law of process, yeah.
And fear.
And then there's the law of fear.
You might, just to have a minute, have a connection.
You might try to develop a phrase, just so it's not going to take you off your track.
But you remember Churchill put it in, and now, unfortunately, some of this is coming down over the world.
It's changed all that much of it.
You know, the iron curtain was a great first.
That's right.
He actually did not develop it.
He picked it up from something 40 years before, but he applied it to Fulton, Missouri.
You might call it a...
But think of the curtain.
You're trying to operate it like that.
You know, the iron curtain, the... Not the iron... Well, that's what you mean.
You're right.
A curtain made out of...
or wall, or a curtain or a wall, like... Related wall.
Yeah, iron curtain.
That's what, related to things like that.
What about, as a matter of fact, to what extent there is that sort of wall?
Well, and I think I'd rather...
You see, what's happening is that as a result of confining the poor and the blacks, the minority citizens pretty much in the central cities, and the jobs moving out of the central cities now as a result of freeways, the unemployment is highest among the young blacks.
And they're the ones committing the most crime in the country.
And they're the ones that are most determined that they're going to get equality now, not for their children.
That's exactly what I see.
And in my opinion, the black sealer largely convinced that they can get justice through our present system.
But on the other hand, if they don't see enough evidence of progress to sustain that hope, the militants can become more and more effective with them on the basis that they've got to destroy the system.
And in my opinion, we're going to be confronted with more and more of that sort of expectation.
But at any rate, this is a part of the problem.
And I really believe that if we're going to have a generation of peace, that we've got to deal with these issues at home as well as the ones abroad.
Let me see if I can recap and start from the back and then the city.
There are really three.
There is the abuse of power of the citizen, the abuse of power of the city, rather.
There are four.
The lack of confidence in government.
Well, that's not a separate problem.
The other three contribute to that.
That's right.
Now, let me say this to you, too, also about revenue sharing.
As you know, I've been ardent for revenue sharing.
On the other hand, revenue sharing is not going to change this economy.
Well, one of the reasons this is going to change is that a hell of a lot of people have any confidence in the local government.
That's right.
Well, really, the point I wanted to raise for you is this, is I take a look at what I've done and what I can do.
I have sold ideas at different times in my life.
When I first went out there, Michigan and I sold in the auto industry.
Ruthie was trying to take us over at the start of the war.
We had to sell the idea of voluntary cooperation.
The whole industry cooperated to sell the job.
And it really went all out.
And I helped sell that idea.
And it worked.
Then American Motors decided I had to dig into car-linking concepts until I came up with this compact concept, which is my concept, and I went out and sold it.
And then came the Michigan situation.
I dug into that until I came up with what I thought would be a key consideration, and I went out and sold it.
Now, I know I'm a bit on the idealistic side rather than the pragmatic side, see?
But at any event, as I carry my accommodation, both questions sound themselves on the edge.
Now, as I take a look at the situation,
I wonder if at some stage, and I don't know when, but if at some stage it wouldn't be possible that I might make a greater contribution by going out and doing what one individual can do in undertaking to pull together a Citizens for America or a Truth group.
that would really proceed on a realistic, in a realistic way to do that sort of thing.
Now John Gardner had that opportunity, but he's munted.
Well he became, don't you think he did it because he became political?
Sure.
In fact, he became an almost partisan political.
Yeah, well, he became personal political.
Well, look at that, you're building yourself up.
Well, he went out on issues that he personally felt strong about.
But he didn't go through the long process necessary to enable the people who were looking to him with hope to let them participate in identifying the major issues.
Yeah, you think he's lucky.
Oh, I think he's true.
I think personally what's happening to him is currently he's, I don't know about...
No, on the media as well, as you can see.
But if he could have taken the time to identify two or three answers to his basic issues.
Yeah, he was an armistice.
He had a lot of color to begin with.
A lot of Republicans.
That's right.
That's right.
They had the money.
That's right.
And the people we know, the art, you know, our friends, the papers, they were all getting into the art.
They got into the art.
Now, I don't know how you noticed it, but about a couple of weeks ago, Arthur Kroc had a column in the Washington Post.
And I have a great respect for Arthur Kroc.
But he took out Arthur Gardner on the basis that Gardner had failed to deal with the really
And he said the one he failed to deal with was this, Kroc always talked about union power.
I've always put on a broader basis that it's price and I know Kroc's always talked about that.
And the other thing was that he had to step into the busing issue and the race issue here.
He stuck with that.
He took all the easy things out of it.
The question I'm really raising with you is, is this basic analysis realistic, and is it right?
And at some time, would there be point in undertaking to pull together such a truth?
Now, maybe it's after the election, or maybe it's some other time, because I don't know what the timing is.
I just wonder this, Mr. President.
As far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely imperative that you be re-elected.
There's no one else who could have done what you have done or can do what you're in a position to do in the next five years.
On the other hand, the question I have in my mind is,
Are you going to be able to deal with some of these tough issues even in a second term unless there is more of an effort to create public understanding and support so it can be done?
Because ideally, in my opinion, ideally, there would be in a free society
a body that is recognized for its objectivity and its diligent search to identify basic issues that are going to create real crises, and then go through this process of defining issues so that there's consensus, facts,
alternative solutions and with the understanding and support of the media, creating a climate within which the political contest and campaigns can take place within the framework of the relevant and real issues.
Now that's really what happened in Michigan.
The only reason I went out there in that democratic state was because through Citizen Michigan we had focused
public attention on these real issues.
And I could discuss them, and I ran on the basis of an income tax.
What the hell do I think for a governor to run on reform and an income tax?
I knew it was reform.
I didn't know you were running the tax.
Well, sure, we would let her, but so do you understand that you had to look into it.
Well, sure.
In a way, we had a crisis there.
But in any event, let me say, let me ask you this.
First, the idea is a good one.
The idea is that anybody in a position of public leadership, you see it as I see it here, but you need a climate in which those things that are right, that you can advocate,
and will be accepted by the majority of the people.
That's right.
That's right.
If you're out there and the Congress votes you down, and the Congress, basically, you're just like a bunch of people defending you.
That's exactly right.
They all say they're on the Achilles' heel because of their ambitions.
They're out there dancing.
They get the poll.
They wait in their mail.
They watch the media.
And that's why they, like, on any of these issues, they're going to reflect the folks.
That's right.
Now let's go back in the labor fields.
I was in the Congress.
I was on the Labor Committee.
It was the Indian Congress at that time.
We wouldn't have had a prayer to get through that, you know, which many of us in that labor, which should have been stronger as it turned out.
You could have taken, that's right, you could have taken an old heartless position, you know, which would have broken up many of your right-hand men.
You had the right amendment.
That's right, that's right.
But Taft killed it.
And not Taft.
His Taft killed it.
Taft killed it in the Senate.
That's right.
He couldn't control the people with it.
He figured he'd get sued for that.
He was right.
Taft was, Taft was against it.
That's right.
But I remember a few years ago.
He knew that Truman was going to veto the bill, so we had to have it to the thirds.
That's why.
Now, that's why it is, though, the more basic why it is.
When all these fellows come in, you know, we've been around, we've been talking about this really for a while, and various people, these various people say, we need something to control here.
And you've heard me say often, I say, fellows, I know you do.
That's right.
I said, I, we, I, we, but look, actually, we've got our transportation bill down there, and it hasn't seen the light of day.
We, and that's just one piddly little, it starts out big, but it's important, it's more piddly, but it's a drop.
and to be late, but I said, until we get a Congress which is more responsive, and that means a public opinion is more responsible, you haven't got the chance.
I'm getting labor legislation through the Congress.
That's right.
Not a chance of snowballing hell.
That's right.
I can get up and make a speech every week.
I can't solve it.
Not now.
That's right.
So there needs to be a change in the attitude of the country so that that reflects on the Congress.
That's right.
Now, the real question, George, would concern me.
He says, I wouldn't want any good friend to get out and do something, and then I could.
It would be...
The main thing to make a limelight fiscal was the leadership, which I'm sure you could provide.
But frankly, you would have to get a commitment in advance from some responsible people that would put up a nest egg.
Well, Gardner did have, I assume, some, and then of course he had a broad-based solicitation.
If you get the nest egg in the first instance,
Your own salesmanship probably would get continued on the basis of broad-based solicitation.
So the real question, and without trying to pry at anything you may not have done or may not be able to do...
I don't want anything on this, Mr. President.
Well, my question then is, do you think you could do that?
Well, could you go... What you'd have to do is, it would seem to me, to go to half of us people.
I think you can follow up on that.
Well, what the hell.
Everybody can follow up.
There are a lot of people running around who've got $100,000 or so that would contribute to something like this.
And another, this could be set up for somebody who's thinking out loud.
You could set this up versus the tax as accommodation, which gets it out of politics.
That would mean they could make a contribution in that way.
You see, the great tragedies of the Dan Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation, they ought to be doing this.
That's right.
But they don't.
That's right.
They don't.
They just subsidize what the hell is going on.
Oh, they're all on the left.
But basically, do they go into these issues really?
No, they're not.
The Urban Coalition, well, it was pretty good for a while and so forth, but then it sort of fragmentized and it became the powers that were fighting each other.
That's what happened.
And John Byron, as you said, personalized the causes.
He was wrong, for example, to get all of them from Vietnam.
There were enough other people to talk about Vietnam.
That's right.
That's right.
But you were basing the message.
That's right.
Vietnam asked everybody.
He had everybody jump up and down about that.
They didn't need him for that.
And as a result of that, I think he should have broken his cake.
But the point is that in this view, I would say that there is, for example, a need to get a proper public support and understanding of the need to
frankly, control power in all areas.
That's one of your things.
There is a need to get a proper understanding and support of the problem of minorities, race, militancy, and so forth.
What do you do about it?
There's a need to get a proper public understanding of the problem of what you call the new city, etc.
But the fight is, the fight about it all is that is there a way you could do this
Do you think there's a way to get a beginning?
If you were a super billionaire, it would be different, but not that much.
You'd have to have a finance.
If you don't have it, you don't have it.
Well, you know well enough.
Your citizens were mentioned to have good money behind it.
You had four behind it, didn't you?
Well, we didn't have a radio company.
You did it with the small staff?
We did do it with the small staff.
We had some funds, but we solicited the other one.
But you do need good staff.
You've got to have good staff for it, that's for sure.
You'd have to have good staff for it.
If staff cost money, you'd have to have travel expenses.
That costs money.
If it got going, it could really catch on.
It's something that I would welcome from the standpoint of the country.
But the only point is that I'm just raising one flag.
If you could, let me put it this way, if you could do it, sir, you would render it probably a greater service than your being the candidate.
But, on the other hand, I hate to say you to see you, after, you know, having been successful in so many areas, take something on and then be frustrated by it.
Well, let me stop.
Let me talk alternatives.
You've probably thought about alternatives.
Let me talk alternatives here.
This is not a very auspicious, an election year is not the most auspicious time to undertake an election.
Because of the competition for funds.
And the competition for attention.
Now, it might be a good time to begin it.
You can only look at it that way.
But it is a good time to start it full-blown.
That's right.
What the hell are you up to?
That's right.
They always raise the question.
That's correct.
That's correct.
Number two, it may be that there are two aspects of this situation that even the platform might give some attention to.
One is the economic aspect of strengthening the market mechanism out of competitive principles and disciplines.
Because I don't think that can be dealt with so as a constructive and necessary thing in light of what we're up against from an economic standpoint domestically and around the world.
And you've been pointing out the totally new competitive world.
You know, one of the things we have to realize is this is going to happen in your time and mine, George.
That system in all totalitarian countries is one that to us will never work.
Now, it's a very frightening thing, and so forth, and we say, why do they have it?
But that means that we have to look at the solid fact that Russia, nobody knows how it's going to work, and so forth, is now the second most powerful industrial company in the world.
Totalitarianism, all of its failure, if it is to fly long enough, makes some, I don't know people, but it makes it work.
Now, let's take that system.
and apply the fanaticism and the capability that the communist Chinese have.
You put it on a billion people, and 25 years from now, your children, grandchildren, and mine, we are going to have one hell of a time unless we get up to the mark.
That's exactly right.
See, that's what I was trying to account for.
It isn't a question of whether there's only a few at the top that basically know about the system.
The Chinese have never had any.
decent, you know, they haven't been in one country for a long time.
But on the other hand, looking far in the future, they are formidable people, and therefore will be a formidable challenger.
And we've got to face that fact.
Now, what do you do about that?
Well, you don't fence them off and say, look, here's what I've done.
Because then you're going to fight them one day, that's right.
But on the other hand, by saying you're going to talk to them, it means you've got to compete with them.
That's exactly right.
And if you're going to attack England, you're going to have one hell of a time.
No question.
All these people who want us to compete with Russia, you know, they want us to buy that, sell that on the river, probably.
They're thinking of all that stuff.
We're going to sell the Russians.
And we're going to sell them grain and probably make a deal with them.
Okay.
That's all we're going to do.
But a totalitarian society, they haven't got a hell of a lot that they need.
But if they want to try with lost leaders, they could be in our hands.
That's exactly right.
Exactly right.
And here's where...
Here's where we in America have got to get going.
Now these are things that you can't go out, I can't go out and frighten people down.
None of them.
They'll say, oh God, there's a bomb.
Well, you can't bomb it.
No, no.
See my point?
That's exactly right.
So I see the need for all this.
I see the need for a regeneration.
First you've got to tackle the problem of...
of business power, labor power, et cetera.
You've got to tackle the problem of division in the city as well.
That's right.
All these problems need to be tackled.
The question is when.
The question is how.
If you could do it, it would be a great service.
But how else can you get out of it?
There are two alternatives.
There are several alternatives.
One would be to...
Do it after the election, rather than before.
Obviously, if you had encouragement on your part, why, it would make a big difference.
Although it has to be independent.
Let me answer that question to begin with, if you do decide to do it at any time.
that I would, of course, give encouragement, but in such a way that I made it absolutely clear that this was completely non-partisan.
That's right.
That's the important thing.
If I had encouraged you, it could not be the way that you tell it.
That's right.
You'd have to.
That's why you'd have to bridge, it would seem to me, whenever you do it, to a very prominent Democrat Senate to deal first.
No question.
You could probably get them.
Well, can you get them after the election or can you get them now?
Sure, sure.
And what I'd like to work towards is
language that would relate to the platform as far as the economic aspect of the real city are concerned, but not in a controversial manner.
And then take a look at Texas and you have to fuzz it up right now.
You've got to fuzz it up because it can be a little ambiguous, but then
But, Fred, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at those.
And if the appropriate time when you've had time, I feel like the burden's on your time.
But in any event, if you conclude that this is something to do, actually, as I'm inclined to think, having thought about it since our last, since I mentioned it earlier, why,
I think the analysis is correct.
I think the idea is that one thing that it seems to me that you should address yourself to, and I'd like you to do it a month or so or whatever, maybe do it two weeks.
But then you ought to figure out a game plan.
Who are some of the people you could bring in?
I was thinking on the finance side here.
Well, you've got a lot of people.
As I said, how do you get John Cuthbert's list?
His angels always support this sort of thing, because it's what they thought they were supporting before.
That's right.
It's going to take more selling.
I wonder if your problem, of course, would be getting labor support.
You know, you've got Rutherford, maybe this other fellow, but I don't know, Woodcock.
Keep in mind, I know Woodcock well.
As a matter of fact, Woodcock was on our board of directors, fighting for labor.
They were fighting for the action.
But I think that there's a need for it.
I think that the problem, I think you could solve it.
The question I would have is whether you could get any of the support from the kind of folks
I mean, you don't have the time.
There are people that support the urban coalition.
There are people that support common cause.
There are people of good heart, idealistic people, but who are frustrated as hell because nothing ever happened.
That's right.
That's right.
You and I go and talk to all these groups, and we tell them they're great, but the rest of you believe in them.
Damn it.
I don't mean that.
Something does happen, but never enough.
Now, this is what you need to do.
I think what I've asked you to do is to try it out on some people.
I don't know, some people that you are accomplished in, so you can keep them in your shop.
I wouldn't try it out.
I wouldn't try it out on them.
Of course, there's a danger in that, to your right.
I think rather than that you were going to do it, I would say, what would you think?
Does the country need something?
You might just sit down with them.
They know what you're doing.
I find that you talk to them one or two at a time.
And so I have nervous discussions.
You could do it with them.
A lot of good guys around, but I wouldn't try.
I agree.
You almost have to be at the point where you're ready to full-blown plunge into it and take a chance.
But on the other hand, what you ought to be able to do now is to figure out what you would do.
Let us suppose you decided you were going to do it after the election, as the case might be, and so forth.
And then you can say, all right, as we'll say, in November 2015 or something, so that we can get some input of the new administration, start things, help and control it, and so forth.
We're going to launch this base.
If you're going to do that, you should have your clients match your work.
That's right.
all in your own mind.
That's right.
Wham!
One thing I would do is, Gary, I would needless to say, you will do this, but be sure that the interests of women now have five levels.
You've got to have women in the same level as yourself.
No question about it.
The women should be there.
The races should be represented.
That's right.
But the main thing is to have at the top.
And youth.
Have at the top.
You don't, of course.
And the citizens.
Have at the top.
keep tight control of yourself, and have, and a superb staff, that's the thing, no question.
You're a citizen, but don't you do all the damn work.
If you could have a tight, good staff here,
There's a need for it, certainly, in this country.
It gives people who want to do good, it's like the volunteering group.
People who want to do good have got to have a chance to do good.
That's right.
In this case, you're down with some concrete things.
I think that was common cause.
Another thing, he went off on this business of campaign contributions.
Well, not for God's sakes.
First of all, the Congress was dealing with it.
That's right.
That's right.
Second, what the hell is going to fit into the common cause?
Who contributed to this?
You know what I mean?
It's a good idea.
Everybody ought to put it all out.
But you know, I think those are the basic issues.
you really have to go through this process of letting a broad group participate in that.
What we did was to create local units all over, and we let those local units convene meetings where they discussed what they thought the issues were, and then they sent in their recommendations to the central organization.
And on the basis of what they were saying and what we were supplying information on,
Why?
There was really a genuine consensus there.
Those were the real issues.
Sure.
The successful idea, it must have many fathers.
There's really always only one.
That's right.
It must have many.
That's right.
That's right.
That's right.
That's right.
That's right.
Well, it's a damn good idea.
I'd say that, rather than several, you ought to maybe try to, if I could just suggest something, pick one person that you have an utter confidence in, if there is any.
That's right.
I have very few.
But you know what I mean.
A better company to talk to.
You've got to keep his damn mouth shut.
That's right.
That's the hard way to think of this idea.
They're different, but...
But don't let anybody completely get out, because if they say, well, George Romney's up to something, or he's going to do this and that, then it undercuts my effectiveness.
It undercuts your effectiveness.
And look, really, I feel I'm dealing with about as critical as it must be.
I don't raise this because of any... You have enough to do.
I know what you're saying.
I'm talking about...
and so forth, but the thing about it is that you, as I've told several of the fellows around here,
The great capacity that you have, this is not said in derogation of the other members of our cabinet.
All of them are fine, decent men.
But you're an advocate.
You always have been.
You're a salesman.
Everybody says that.
You can go around and you can ring the changes.
You can make the eagles scream.
And it takes that to make this sort of thing go.
That's right.
And if you could get a superb operator, if you could get a
You've got a guy, say, with Kissinger's organizational ability to be the chief of staff.
That'd be great.
You know, at the domestic level, you must be a guy like that.
And then you've got a fellow that you can depend upon, and you just bring in the sheets, let him set them up for you.
Because you'd have a mark.
It's a matter of fact.
It's too bad that Gardner screwed up the cause.
That would be the ideal organization.
That's right.
It's got the right name.
That's right.
He's too far gone now, I suppose.
He's still there.
He's still there.
It may not be.
But again, I think the timing for this is later.
Later.
I agree.
But he threw it out.
He threw it out.
As a matter of fact, I went over and talked to America.
Gardner had been overseeing these several times.
And I told him the Citizen of Michigan experience.
I told him that he ought to take the time to canvass his members and involve them in determining what issues.
And I said, don't take more than two or three issues.
Because you can't scan in your effort.
And you've got to identify issues where there's consensus.
Because the minute you have disagreement,
you become ineffective.
The attention focuses on the controversy, not on the areas of agreement.
So literally, you have to limit the effort to those areas where there is broad agreement that this is the real issue, that these are all the solutions, or this is the solution, and then you've got to work on that.
Those one or two things.
I'll appreciate you taking a look at them.
I will.
Because I've spelled out the name.
I've spelled out everything that happens in the election.
You ought to do something like this anyway.
I've spelled out this talk.
In this talk.
The whole concept.
The one I never delivered.
The one I never delivered.
Is it?
Well, I'll sure do it.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
This voluntary action piece can't come here.
Oh, I know.
I think this man, he's a hell of a good man.
Now, he's got sales to get, though.
Yeah, that's right.
And that's also his country because it's right.
That's right.
And the people want to participate.
You know, the arts line all over the country on this thing.
I know.
She needs to conquer this atmosphere.
Yeah.
Well, that's about it.
Thank you.
Thank you.