An Interview With Hubert H. Humphrey

Three weeks ago CRIMSON Editor Larry A. Estridge, sent Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey a set of written questions. His answers, received late last week, appear below in the form of an interview.

If one of your sons came and told you it was morally wrong for the United States to be fighting in Vietnam, what would you say to him?

I would be honest with my sons, as my sons are with me. I would then tell--in the time honored and annoying tradition of parents--that morality and reality are frequently out of phase, and that the moral issue is complex when the opponent is prepared to be immoral. But having talked with and listened to many students, I could also tell him that there is a new generation in the United States and many other countries which rejects the old premises of war and diplomacy. They want to see more emphasis placed on human and personal values. And they offer us that hope for building a world free from war and oppression.

If he went on and told you that he could not in good conscience accept his draft call, what would you say to him?

I would also ask him if he were prepared to take the legal consequences of this action. If he were, I would respect his decision.

What are your priorities in allotting money after the war is over?

I have emphasized that we must use the "peace dividend" which will accrue from an end to the Vietnam war for social programs at home and peaceful development abroad.

We must not use termination of the War as an excuse to further escalate the arms race, but as an opportunity to return to first priorities--the rebuilding of our cities and of our war-torn globe.

In your opinion are we financially able to support the war in Vietnam and at the same time solve our domestic problems?

The drain on America's resources and energies from the Vietnam war prevents us from doing all that we could--and all that we should--to solve our pressing domestic problems.

This adds to the urgency of reaching a prompt and honorable end to the conflict. As I said in my nationwide Vietnam address: "I owe it to this nation to bring our men and resources in Vietnam back to America where we need them so badly and to be sure to put first things first in the future."

While the war continues, however, we must not permit our domestic programs to be dismantled. We have worked too hard, fought too many battles to allow the Vietnam war to undo what the forces of conservation could not undo.

We can expect an additional $15 billion per year in revenues from the growth of the economy. Through wise allocation of resources we can avoid cutbacks in existing social programs.

Yet we must recognize our action as a stopgap to hold programs intact until an end to the war permits an expansion in the works of social justice here at home. Let us remember, however, that we must have a Congress and an Administration that will allocate the peace dividend to domestic needs. This was not the case after Korea.

As President, would you be in favor of, opposed to, the granting of amnesty and/or repatriation of draft resisters?

While a young man is free to resist the draft for reasons other than those permitted by law, the resister must face the legal consequences of his action. I would thus oppose granting amnesty.

What do you consider the most acceptable system for the selection of military personnel?

I consider a random lottery system the best method for selection of military personnel. The greatest liabilities for our current patchwork system are its lengthy uncertanities and its economic and social discrimination. Both would be greatly reduced under my proposal.

Under my proposal, men would be selected for the Fair and Impartial Random System at age 19. Deferment would be restricted to cases of extreme hardship or conscientious objection. A young man would have but one year in his life when he was vulnerable to the draft--at 19. If men did not choose to enter the lottery pool at 19, they would be permitted to complete two years of college or technical or vocational training before submitting their names.

Voluntary enlistment would be accelerated by increased benefits and improved family living conditions. An all-volunteer army, however, would be prohibitively expensive, diverting money from crucial social programs.

The draft system must be based upon fair and equitable rules of law applicable to all draft boards. Due process of law must be afforded each draft registrant.

I will appoint men to administer the Selective Service program whose support for the lottery system is unequivocal. I would appoint a new Director of the Selective Service, to replace General Hershey.

In the event, as a condition of peace in Vietnam, it is necessary to accept a coalition government, how would you reconcile the disparate attitudes of the present Saigon government and the Vietcong?

I have pledged to work toward free elections in Vietnam, in which all the people of South Vietnam, including members of the National Liberation Front, may participate. Both Washington and Hanoi must be prepared to accept the results of these elections, regardless of the outcome.

It is not for either Hanoi or Washington to decide how to reconcile the disparate elements which may result from a free election.

It is clearly up to the South Vietnamese.

What do you see as the major problems of Latin America? How would you go about assisting Latin America in solving its problems? Would you continue the Alliance for Progress?

Latin America's problems do not permit simple solutions.

First, Latin America must complete the foundations for modern technological societies through extensive expenditures on schools, roads, dams, housing, and training. We cannot expect private capital to underwrite these long-term investments, for profits will be delayed. Thus, the United States must provide additional foreign aid as capital for such long-term investments.

We must also encourage mass education, expand the work of the Peace Corps, abolish antiquated trade restrictions and provide trade preferences for Latin America.

Second, bilateral aid has not proven to be the most effective form of assistance in all cases. We must increasingly channel our development through multilateral institutions, such as the Inter-American Development Bank, the Central American Bank, and the World Bank. We should also urge that the problems of economic growth in the hemisphere be reviewed more systematically by the Inter-American Committee of the Alliance for Progress.

Third, the Alliance for Progress is seen by many Latin Americans as solely a United States venture. We must make it increasingly a Latin American venture, by encouraging self-help and self-management, with priorities determined by the nation we are attempting to aid rather than by the United States.

Fourth, in too many Latin American countries the political process still favors the economically privileged. We must help Latin America increase the glacial pace of tax and land reforms and speed up the needed redistribution of social, political, and economic power.

How do you feel about the recognition of Castro's Cuba by the United States Government?

The United States should not establish formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, nor realign its trade policy, nor support Cuba's re-entry into the OAS until Cuba shows its willingness to leave its neighbors alone and stop its admitted export of revolution. We cannot support tyranny either of the left or of the right.

How do you feel about the recognition of Communist China by the United States Government? How do you feel about the admission of Communist China to the United Nations? If you see such a possibility, how would you reconcile the presence in the United Nations of Communist and Nationalist China?

I feel that neither diplomatic recognition nor admission of Communist China to the United Nations would at this point serve a useful purpose. At the same time, however, to achieve peace in the world we must swiftly move to replace conflict with cooperation, restrictions with reconciliation. We must begin immediately to widen our contacts with the 750 million people who live in mainland China by:

(a) lifting restrictions on trade in non-strategic goods;

(b) encouraging the interchange of scholars, journalists, and artists;

(c) making it clear that should China make a decision to become a responsible, participating member of the community of nations, we will welcome it. We should now encourage it.

You have said that the United States cannot police the world. Under what circumstances can you see U. S. intervention as justified?

Future policies will be based on three principles: self-help, multi-lateral and regional responsibility and selective U. S. assistance. The emphasis must be on preventing situations from arising that necessitate unilateral involvements.

The self-help principle should apply to both national security and economic and social development.

Regional and multilateral responsibility is the only way in which small and medium sized nations--particularly those living near the borders of the great powers--will be able to gain the collective strength necessary goth to withstand the pressure of internal aggression and/or subversion and muster the economic and social resources which few have within their own limited means.

We should continue regional cooperation efforts such as the Alliance for Progress. We should avoid, where possible, unilateral involvement -- either military or economic -- where multi-lateral means are available. Greater reliance must be placed on the peace keeping functions of the United Nations.

Selective U. S. assistance will be a necessity as we carefully evaluate just what is, and is not, in our national interest.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, a Humphrey-Muskie Administration will resist outright military aggression. We will honor our treaty commitments. We will maintain an adequate and balanced defense--capable of protecting our security and maintaining the peace.

If another Communist country tried to liberalize its policies and Russia tried to intervene, what would be the attitude of a Humphrey Administration?

A Humphrey-Muskie Administration would never be indifferent to the fate of Czechoslovakia. We must act now to restrain future incidents by making it clear to the Soviet Union that future invasions of independent countries will have an adverse and chilling effect on ending the cold war. It is to the advantage of the Soviet Union as well as to our advantage to reduce tensions and military budgets. This, we must emphasize, can never be more than a hope if Russia insists on doctrinaire subservience--at gunpoint--from its client states.

At the same time, we must avoid rash promises of "liberation," as were made in the 1950's. These only raise false hopes and create animosity toward the United States when they go unfulfilled.

Are you in favor of establishing additional modus operandi for the constant evaluation of our foreign aid program and for the supervision of the distribution of the funds provided for in such programs?

We must increasingly channel our development aid through multi-lateral institutions such as the World Bank. To systematize and evaluate our foreign aid program we need such institutions as the Inter-American Committee of the Alliance for Progress to provide continuous review.

How does your position differ from Mr. Nixon's with respect to law and order?

Unlike my Republican opponent, I have not attempted to play on a nation's emotions by reading them local news accounts of rapes and murders. I have attempted to deal rationally and realistically with an emotion-charged issue.

We differ completely in our attitudes toward curbing crime by dealing with its root causes. Mr. Nixon feels that the relationship between poverty and crime is exaggerated, that "if the conviction rate were doubled in this country, it would do more to eliminate crime than a quadrapuling of the funds of any governmental war on poverty"; and that "the wave of lawlessness is due to the example of intellectuals and the growing disrespect of the young." Moreover, Mr. Nixon has used the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as scapegoats.

I reject these views of the causes of crime as simplistic and politically oriented. I have stressed that we must eradicate the poverty and deprivation which breed crime; urged an end to the drug traffic which promotes crime; discussed the need to end the backlog of court cases which undercuts our criminal process; argued that the Supreme Court does not promote crime by protecting individual liberties; and I have proposed specific programs of federal assistance to upgrade police personnel at the local level.

Do you see any way, that is acceptable to society, of expressing opposition to a law other than a legal appeal?

There are many ways to express opposition to unjust laws and unfair conditions. The sit-ins and freedom rides of the early 1960's were moving expressions of opposition to segregation laws. In addition, marches such as the 1963 Civil Rights March and the 1968 Poor People's March, helped the passage of more just laws. Democracy is infinitely perfectable--and infinitely imperfect, it does not thrive when its citizens are passive about injustice.

Do you believe the voting age should be lowered,

Yes. I have supported moves throughout my public career to lower the voting age to 18. The 18-year-old vote will continue to be a priority item of a Humphrey-Muskie Administration.

How do you account for the student unrest in many part sof the world? Do you believe that the vocal dissident groups in the universities constitute any substantial portion of the student body? In your opinion what should be the attitude of the University toward such (vocal dissident) groups?

The ferment on the campuses of our country is in many ways a reflection of the underlying discontent of society with its institutions. We have found that our institutions have too often become ends in themselves rather than the means to the end of helping people live more enriching lives.

On most campuses, highly vocal dissident groups make up a very small minority. Yet many of the issues they exploit are just grievances felt by the majority of students. The Report of the Commission on the Columbia University Riots, chaired by Harvard Law School's Archibald Cox, makes it clear that revolutionaries on campus may succeed in destroying a university if the grievances of the peaceful majority have not been met.

While violence cannot be condoned, the need for change on our universities must be recognized. I have suggested on several occasions during the campaign that students must be permitted to participate in the affairs of their university and in the important decisions which have an impact on them. As I stated on June 1:

Our universities should be citadels of our freedom, the guardians and nourishers of free inquiry and expression. They are by their very nature the very custodians of our cultural heritage and the progenitors of a new day. They should be the testing ground for any and all ideas, even foolish ones. The American university should be in microcosm what we would wish for the American society, a free and open community filled with searching and thinking individuals, each seeking his own answers in his own way, yet each extending full respect for the ideals and life styles of others.

The recent amendment to the Higher Education Act passed by the Senate is seen by some as a provision for the use of coercion by the Federal government relative to the political activities of students. What is your opinion?

The Senate amendment to the Higher Education Act left considerable discretion to individual colleges and universities in cutting off aid to students who participated in campus disorders. The provision passed by the House made student aid cutoffs mandatory. The compromise version actually passed made cutoffs mandatory in serious cases.

If such a provision was felt necessary--and I am not at all certain that it was--I would have opposed mandatory cutoffs and given full discretion to the university.

Should the CIA be permitted to recruit on college campuses?

Government agencies and private industry have annual personnel requirements. The college campuses provide a wealth of talent. The CIA is entitled to draw from this talent. Of course, it is the student's right not to be interviewed.

Do you think it would be necessary to extend the application of the income tax surcharge?

Ending the tax surcharge depends primarily on the balance of supply and demand in the economy in 1969. If the pressures of inflation are still at work, part or all of the tax surcharge may have to be extended temporarily to maintain growth. On the other hand, if the war in Vietnam is over and the economy is slowing down, the tax surcharge should expire.

But we will also have to take a hard look at our nation's critical civilian needs, especially in our cities. A temporary extension of part of the tax surcharge, clearly marked for those purposes, should not be ruled out. I would want to give the Congress and the public a clear-cut choice between quicker tax reduction and quicker action on the unrelenting problems of poverty, squalor, crime, and injustice in our cities.

What do you think should be the governmental attitude toward birth control?

Expanded family planning service to permit couples all over the world to space their children is a moral, economic, ecological and demographic necessity. I consider this one of our most pressing public responsibilities. There is no question that with proper legislative authority and funding, we can enhance the freedom of choice of American women to plan the size of their families and the spacing of their children. I am committed to this goal and I think it is a feasible one that will have important impact on child health and reduction of infant mortality. It must however, be a part of the comprehensive approach to the health problems rather than an isolated service.

Are there any important facing the nation which are not being given sufficient consideration?

There are several crucial problems facing this nation which are not receiving the public attention they merit.

First, we have not yet adequately committed ourselves as a people to the issue of our cities. Suburbs are indiscriminately growing up around increasingly Negro core cities. Distrust between the races in our great metro-politan areas is heightened.

Second, we must learn more about the effects of automation on the American people--on their job security and their leisure. And we must plan--so that automation does not turn us into useless appendages of our technology.

Third, we must improve the quality of American life, as well as increasing its bounty. For too long Government has been responsive only to the wish for greated quantity. Yet now that we have affluence we know not how to handle it, to improve the quality of our lives.

Fourth, we are paying insufficient attention to the growing distrust between the races. We cannot live as a nation divided--and we must have the courage to tell the American people just that.

Do you see any of the machinery of the Government that is inefficient or outmoded and, if so, what changes would you like to see?

I am very concerned that the machinery of Government--local, state, and national--has become unresponsive to the needs of the people. This is reflected in the alienation of large segments of our population whose trust in our institutions has not been rewarded.

Government institutions--as private ones--must not become ends in themselves but must be means to an end--to help citizens lead more meaningful lives. We must be willing to "shake up the bureaucracy" to achieve an open society.

I have pledged myself to create an Open Presidency, which will inject flexibility, responsiveness, and vigor into our governmental institutions. To achieve the goal of a truly responsive Executive Branch, several steps will have to be taken:

First, we must act to establish Councils of Citizens in the Executive Office of the President and in various executive departments. These Councils, at both the national, regional, and local levels could be patterned after the Community Action Program Councils, by involving the beneficiaries of Government programs in the decision-making process.

Second, the President must encourage new combinations of individuals committed to the solution of our urgent domestic problems. These groups should cut across interest group lines to involve the broadest range of individuals in the community. They should serve as condults between the community and the Government.

Third, several steps should be taken to involve students in the decision-making process of their government. I have proposed creation of an Office of Youth Participation in the Executive Office of the President so that the ideas and talents of the young can be brought directly into the highest councils of government. In addition, a Youth Talent Bank must be established to recruit young people for public service and place them in positions early in their careers where they can affect government action.

Fourth, a National Domestic Policy Council is desperately needed to provide the same comprehensive analyses of domestic problems as the National Security Council provides for foreign affairs.

Fifth, we must encourage initiative at the local level by helping cities to assume greater responsibilities.

All of this will be meaningless if I