Conversation 768-024

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 Do not cite this transcript as authoritative.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.

That's a copy of that.

Yeah.

That's a copy of the two of us.

We'll probably get it back to you later.

Hi, Patrick.

How are you doing?

Very nice to see you.

Have you waited an hour?

Here we go.

They beat you yet, but you know where to go.

Oh, I didn't know.

I didn't know about that.

Have you had lunch?

I haven't.

Huh?

Looking grand.

Now, wait a minute.

I've got something for you.

There's the education bill.

Oh.

I don't care what it is or not.

It's signed up.

I hope it's good.

Let's put it that way.

We're always burned down.

1787, the Morale Act, the National Defense Education Act.

So, you know, I mean, it's really marked this Christmas.

And I think to me, it would be a useful thing to have an article in the Sunday Times Magazine, which is read by about five million people.

What do you expect to hear from these people?

It seems to be that, as you know, sir, there have only been two presidents since 1920 to be re-elected, to be elected to a second term.

And we don't know much what the modern presidency is like when a man has had his last election, and you are quite free of the always compelling fact of elections coming up, and have

And I was wondering if we could talk a little bit about what you think.

And let me say to you what I think, not to yabber at you, but I was told to be cool when I came in here.

Is it all right with you if we do this article?

Sure.

And I let them know at least this has been an interview with you.

I said, I'm going to be interviewing some president.

I said, I don't know how to do this.

All I know is I'm going to go in there and tell

I mean, just say that I think you've got to do it as your own knowledge.

Well, why don't you put it this way?

So that you can affect us, basically, by so many questions.

You know, people that are supposed to be, you know, black children.

You ask, I simply say that

you had the opportunity in your time in the White House, and also the opportunity to extend the correspondence since you left the White House, and also the personal discussions with the President.

Yeah, that's all.

You developed your views about the second term of the flag based on

That here is what we can do.

That way, rather than say, that way, that way, then it doesn't say that on a certain day, to hold down the president and decide that he's going to have these views.

But you could say, based on this, based on correspondence, on knowing the man, knowing what he did do, and also on conversations he had had,

prior to the Republican convention.

That gets it enough, so if it gets, I don't know, if it gets credible, at least you can talk, that's fine.

No problem.

All right, sir.

The main thing on what you do, what you say, I suppose, is there much of it.

Let me ask you how much you might agree or not with the proposition, which is that it seems to me that in your second four years, the largest thing you could do is talk to the managing events.

Events may overcome you.

They overcame Roosevelt in his second term.

He was facing the World War.

And Wilson.

They didn't plan that.

Sure.

Yeah, but the events happened, and there you are.

But it's not important.

I don't know.

It seems to me the largest thing you could do would be to restore a semblance of order to political debate in America.

Well, let me say, let me begin with a different context.

I know this text.

I suppose because what I had done.

It's a question of how and how.

However, I think I'm going to put at the top of the list something which I think even you, in case of this, have done as far as we have.

That is, the war, actually, you were totally against that.

We didn't have to agree on some of that.

But you felt that I was

that we've changed the world.

It had to be changed.

not between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Now, between the United States and possibly PRC, or the Soviet Union, PRC, 15 years from now.

So what has happened is by the

Great, massive, massive country, too.

And second, opening, taking the dialogue we were having with the Soviet Union and negotiating historic agreements in a number of fields, which I will be the first to say were only the beginning.

I went saying only the beginning.

They are...

way of the next century, has now, I would say this, before those initiatives began, the chances of the world, the people of this country, of the world, avoiding a nuclear disaster were less than even.

Less than even, not because we would have intended

and expand without me.

without saying how we expand, let's take the Soviet Union as a case in point.

Particularly in the field of arms

Now, phase two begins, and as I see it, that will be the next great objective of the administration.

As I see it, which I've got to take personal charge to see that that phase two develops a mutually beneficial, mutually one which both sides will have a great amount of reasons

Then it leads to phase three, which, if you would trust me, would mean an eventual reduction on a future basis.

See?

Within all of this context, of course, within all of this context, then we have the other areas.

We have the enormous...

monetary affairs, etc.

With the new common market, for example, that would be the greatest trading unit in the world.

The Soviet Union is becoming very important.

In 25 years, China will be very important, not because there are 800 million of them, but because they're Chinese.

And, of course, the Japanese are to be a fantastically important force in the world.

For their benefit, as well as ours,

Building a world order, building a world order as I indicated a moment ago, which from a military and diplomatic standpoint will avoid military pollution.

We have to build a world order which will

I see what the promise is there.

We have to go there.

But there again, I use only these examples.

The highest end would indicate that that's what we have to do.

They're the same kind of energy as we're going to get it.

I mentioned the Madesians only in passing by saying

very skillful diplomacy to maintain, which must be maintained, the territorial, the independence, the integrity of Israel.

At the same time, a peace area.

So that's it.

So much for the foreign policy area.

Now, in order for the United States to be able to play that kind

the opposition.

In order for it to do it, the United States first has got to be strong.

Of course, strong economically and also strong in terms of its own spirit of self-respect.

In other words, we've got to be able to govern ourselves if we're going to be able to make a contribution to the government of the world.

So I will then talk a year from now.

But looking, for example, at military strength, it is shared

madness to talk about, say, like a little country like Israel and say, well, if Israel gets in trouble, we'll send American forces.

And at the same time, to be for a $30 billion defense plan.

Because over three years, the point is, how are you going to send the troops?

Are they going to swim when you have only six carriers, including two on station?

And with Greece, believe it or not, of course, that's a sensitive issue with our legal plans.

But nevertheless, it's there.

My point is,

that it isn't the United States' main strength to push others around.

It is the United States' main strength in order not to be pushed around, and in order to be able to play the role that only the United States can play, the role...

Europe economic giants with all those intentions.

Now, who's going to play that role?

Who's going to play it?

If we don't, there's no one else in the free world that can.

And only a strong United States military, a healthy United States, a strong United States economically, prosperous economically, and finally, a United States able to govern itself, strong,

I don't mention the foreign links first, but to put the other in context, because the whole point is, it begs the question to say we should change our priorities.

There are some who say our first priority should be our national defense and our policy abroad.

And there are others who say our first priority must be our problems at home.

And the point is, you have both or you have neither.

all these goodies at home if you're not able to defend them.

And you're not going to be able to meet priorities abroad if you're weak and torn apart at home.

So, therefore, we come then to the health of American home.

In order for America to play this role, it is essential that the American people, that the American people

education, even that's a little bit about the post office.

We've made a few moves here and there.

We'll have a volunteer army, for example, which is as bad as related to domestic violence.

But these are only beginnings.

For the most part, whether it's welfare reform, whether it's revolution, whether it's government reorganization, whether it's a new health, whether it's

We find that because of a recalcitrant Congress, if somebody had said that the American Revolution would happen, it would have been an old American Congress.

The difficulty is, because of these things, we find that the United States still faces a very significant crisis in terms of its ability to govern.

Not its ability to govern, because the machinery of government is obsolete.

That's why we need the reform.

So now, and so we, I think, going forward with the reform, various reforms that we have advocated.

And we're not stuck in a muddle.

If the Congress is going to take them that way, then we'll have to find another way.

But the main thing is not to be satisfied with the things they are.

I think one theme that I get through here is this.

We think we've made a good record.

particularly in the field.

But in every area, even in the dramatic field of horror policy where these massive breakthroughs occurred, the records only became.

And the great opportunity now is to expand the breakthroughs that we could make.

The record, for example, on the soul is the best example.

The soul, everybody was hailed and praised for the rest.

But even the soul now, the soul today,

arms still are being built, and they have to be.

And even with salt, there's enough arms in the world

It seems to me that you would have, in your second term, if you wanted to use it, a chance to move the Republican Party

The first time, as I say, in a generation, there is a real feeling that things aren't working right, our ideas are not as good as they should be, and to a surprising degree, the decisions of the Republican Party have failed.

I'm turning out, I'm being viewed as much greater a citizen than I ever have.

The idea is that...

Let me tell you something about coolers.

I put in some very good returns in terms of the White House.

Somebody was in here the other day saying, well, we like the Texas position on Israel.

Center.

Just take those three.

All right.

So, you mentioned Sapphire.

Sapphire wanted to stop research people, stop people in the field.

Sorry about that, Dave.

Okay.

Well, he's Jewish by, not by religion, perhaps.

But that's the point that I made.

He says,

be made appointments for the White House staff, according to the quota, I'd have to fire all of them, except that I couldn't fire Kissinger, but I could only use him one-fourth of the time.

In other words, one-fourth of a Kissinger is the Jewish quota in the White House.

Now, that's the damn truth.

Now, this business, this business is saying, that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean anything.

Look around at the castles I've got around here.

I've got Rose Woods as a captain, Al Higg as a captain, and all the rest.

What I mean, I probably got that much energy.

But my point is, why do I have these people?

Not because they're stupid, because they're smart.

maybe attendance.

And so you have to, I think you've got to give an edge, I'll put it that way, an edge in your selections.

You've got to look harder for excellence among those groups.

Equal opportunity.

But if you say, oh, everybody's going to be gone, of course not.

Utterly un-American.

This would be, it seems to me that you would be surprised, and many of the, in fact, the last 30 years, the Republican Party

But the time is coming, it's cycling around.

The things you've done in office and the things that traditionally you've stood for are beginning to have adherence to a degree that you wouldn't have believed possible.

And people begin to see what the implications of something otherwise.

I would tell you right off, we've got two choices.

Either you can articulate this in your administration and in your relationship with the people who disseminate ideas to America, who are the most important people to America, the people who write and teach writers.

Either they are articulated as Republican ideas or the Democrats steal them from them.

And you have a choice of becoming a sector party, the party that controls the sector.

Or you're going to remain a party of the indirector.

When the Democrats really fuck up, people say, well, let's try the Republicans.

And I mean, in a certain sense, that's the passage of the affixiation.

But I mean, four years from now, the Democrats will have taken over the Senate.

What do you think of that?

The way I look at it,

as the adherents of approximately 25% of the people.

There's no way that a party having only 25% of the people can, in effect, make itself a majority, even if we're ready for four more years.

That we've got to understand.

So that is why both in the campaign and in the next administration, this is not going to be the question of first trying to have quotas as far as

happened is that the finance in the next administration, people would assume that if we win a majority, which without the third party, if we win, put it this way, this would be a very interesting thing.

And you probably, if you're aware of something, the Johnson landslide, there hasn't been any president win a majority in this country since Franklin Roosevelt, except Eisenhower.

Because Kennedy was 49.

this time, one or the other will have maturity.

And they'll say, well, don't you have maturity?

I have some totally disagree with my four policies.

I'm going to agree with some totally disagree with my policy.

But what we're really talking about here is the development of a, frankly, a new philosophy.

A new philosophy tied into this whole structure.

You see, the difficulty that I see

The difficulty that I see with American leadership, I must say, for this whole 70 years has been because, well, who would have been given one?

T.R.

did take a word on you.

He was the first American president to agree to take a word on you.

Wilson tried to, but he just wasn't fitting for it.

It wasn't his vision to you.

You know what I mean.

Wilson was an excellent first-term president in terms of his professionalism.

But, you know, he was dragged into international affairs, and then he got bitten into small pieces by those, by the parents over there.

Now, FDR, FDR, of course, came in with the Depression, he had the war and so forth.

in too short a time.

Well, without reflecting on the others, it's probably because of the times.

We're now at a situation, we are now at a time when whoever is president must make policy having in mind this total mosaic.

The total mosaic.

In other words, my view is that a tryptophan king is a take, a save, a save.

The world is going to be like 25 years from now.

And also, that trip can't be taken unless you have a life like your policy trip, so you need to.

And also, unless you have in mind what you're going to do at home, everything is tied in together.

It all has to do with how do you live in a more peaceful world, and also a more prosperous world, which will help us be more peaceful.

And also, in that context, once you have gotten those things

So in terms, in other words, it's disturbed our economy.

It has resulted in our resources being moved too much in the area of national defense.

It's also disturbed our relations with other countries abroad.

Now, in my view, the most important thing that whoever sits in this office can do is to develop a policy that will avoid

to enunciate a coherent philosophy in which we tie our foreign policy and our domestic policy and our economic policy and our domestic policy together into one great mosaic.

Can I ask you a last question?

Yes, I think you came in, as I say, in the public interest list of the seven of these most influential writers and so forth.

There may be two of them in public.

That's right.

And that's an imbalance.

A government needs relationships with people whose job it is to clarify debate, to organize principles, to explain what options are.

Would you see, and frankly I see, that the second term you'd have a real chance to establish a dialogue.

Sure, there is.

The problem we have, we have to realize, is that we have to have people.

The difficulty with many

lousy builders.

Now, I don't say that in criticism of all of them, but basically, that's why you have a man of action, as Wilson described him, and on one side, you have the man of ideas, words, and the other side.

That's the way it is.

And yet, in other words, he

He can't think of anything new.

He can think of...

He's a brilliant innovator in business and allows you to sit in his ass and stay as a cool man in government.

Because he really is.

And they're buried through the cycle.

Buried through the cycle.

Now, the difficulty with the man from the university is that he's got regular ideas.

He can have an exciting time talking to him.

But you say, do something.

And good God, he screws it up.

He just can't run a university.

I must say, I've had my share of .

Most of mine, I virtually had to dredge out of my own internal staff and out of my own mind.

Because basically, as you well know, you have contributed on the domestic side.

Kissing history is .

So I must say,

I think there's a great need for the, I think what has happened is that

I think the last Republican who was received the majority of the Harvard

Kennedy died, let's face it, a lot of intellectuals, because of the person.

So they back down the hat.

Never hear of it.

Every time Derek Clark at Harvard has a slight rumbling from any woman going to Harvard University, he sits down and writes a nasty letter to you.

I mean, you don't get to my book.

Or he makes a call to Henry Kissinger.

He's not going to invite you back.

He told Henry he's been not invited.

And after, I should be coming back.