Robert F. Kennedy |
January 4, 1968
|
|
Robert F. Kennedy
Presidential Nominee; United States Senator (D-NY); former U.S. Attorney General; Author, The Enemy Within: The McClellan Committee's Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Labor Unions
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: Someone has forged my name to a question here which I would not have had the nerve to ask, but I will: Senator, what is the secret of your luxuriant hair growth?
A: Well, nine years ago when I was out here I took a look at your head and I thought I'd find out what kind of hair dressing you used, and I've been using it ever since.
Q: I wish it had worked as well for me. Would you appear on a news conference on KCBS Radio, the number-one news information station of the West? If you are unable, I still think you're groovy. I don't know whether that could be answered. Are you in favor of cessation of bombing in North Vietnam, in order to test the possibilities for peace negotiations?
A: Uh oh. I have written a book called To Seek A Newer World in which I write a chapter on Vietnam, which all of you can go down to your bookstore and buy. But I go into this whole question about what I think needs to be done as far as the future of Vietnam and the bombing.
I felt, back in February, when Mr. Kosygin in the first week of February, when Mr. Kosygin had his news conference in London in which he stated that the North Vietnamese would go to the negotiating table if the United States stopped the bombing - where he supported a statement that had been made by the foreign minister of North Vietnam, Pham van Dong, at that time, that they would come to the negotiating table if the United States stopped the bombing. I felt at that time, as I feel at the present time, that we should stop the bombing and go to the negotiating table. I say it for the following reasons: first, we stopped the bombing in 1966, for 36 days, to try to get - according to Vice President Humphrey and Secretary Rusk - the purpose of our stopping the bombing at that time was to try to induce the North Vietnamese to come to the negotiating table.
At that time, in 1966, they had certain preconditions. One of the preconditions was that all American troops had to be withdrawn from South Vietnam prior to the time they would come to the negotiating table. The second of the preconditions was that we would have to recognize the National Liberation Front as the sole government of South Vietnam. Well, these were unacceptable preconditions for the United States. We could not accept those conditions. But we stopped the bombing, and they remained steadfast to their preconditions and nothing developed.
In 1967, they announced that they were dropping those preconditions. They said they were not holding forth those preconditions anymore, that they would come to the negotiating table if we only took the same step that we had taken less than a year before. I thought that we should take that step, particularly as Secretary McNamara has testified before various congressional committees that the bombing of the north was not going to force the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. Secondly, which was most important and most significant, he stated that the bombing of the North does not stop the North from supplying whatever men and materials they need in the South; it makes it more difficult for them. It makes it more costly for them, but they can still do, they can send down whatever men and materials they need in the south. So I felt that based on that and particularly when the request for the cessation of the bombing was not a permanent cessation of the bombing, that we should stop the bombing; that we should go to the negotiating table and see if we could resolve the conflict. I have never heard an answer to that.
Now, the foreign minister of North Vietnam has said just in the last week, reiterated the fact that they would go to the negotiating table. When Secretary Goldberg, Ambassador Goldberg appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee, he said what was required by the United States was the fact that somebody from North Vietnam should say, "We will go to the negotiating table clearly and unequivocally if the United States stops the bombing." Within the last few days, the foreign minister of North Vietnam has said, clearly and unequivocally, that they will go to the negotiating table if we stop the bombing.
It seems to me we're going to eventually have to go to the negotiating table. We're going to eventually have to negotiate with them. Now it's possible that we'll go to the negotiating table and it's not going to be resolved. Nobody can promise that. It's possible we can go to the negotiating table and they will not be genuinely interested in finding a peaceful solution. Nobody can guarantee that, but we have to at least take the first step. Sometime we're going to have to take that step. We're going to have to sit down and talk with them. And it seems to me that the situation is not any better now than it was a year ago, will not be any better a year from now than it is at the present time. So it makes some sense to go to the negotiating table, see if we can resolve the conflict.
If we can't resolve the conflict, ladies and gentlemen, it seems clear we can always go back to killing one another. There's not anything that's going to stop us from doing that. We can always go back to that, but I don't see that that is accomplishing a great deal at the moment other than a lot of young Americans are being killed and a lot of South Vietnamese are being killed and more than two million of the South Vietnamese have been put in refugee camps. This is a great moral responsibility that we have here in the United States, not those we sent over there to fight and die for us, but all of us here in this room. And it seems to me that a great nation as we are, that we should take every possible step to find an answer to this conflict. We are a great nation; we are the greatest nation in the world. We stand for something. It seems to me we lose nothing by sitting down with the North Vietnamese and seeing if we can resolve this conflict, and I'm in favor of doing that.
Q: Still on Vietnam, in your book Just Friends and Brave Enemies you observed that our success in Asia depends on the success of our domestic program. With this in mind, do you believe that our success in Asia would be improved if we diverted the Vietnam effort?
A: I am not in favor of pulling, withdrawing unilaterally from Vietnam. Obviously, if the war was terminated, the expenditures there of about $75 million a day could be spent in the United States and elsewhere around the globe, but it's not that simple. Still, I'm in favor of doing more what needs to be done here in the United States. I'm not opposed to unilaterally withdrawing; I'm opposed to the escalation of the war in Vietnam, as I've tried to make clear. I'm in favor of taking this other step.
I would hope that we could negotiate and the escalation does not take place, that there would be funds that would be available for these great domestic problems that we have facing in this country, that you're facing in San Francisco, that we're facing in my own part of the United States, in the eastern part of the country. Just as I've held hearings here in California in the last couple of days on problems of the Indians; all of these people who are suffering so tremendously. All these young children who are going to be destroyed for life. I mean, it's just incomprehensible that we can permit that, these kinds of things to go on within our country, and it's going to require all of us to make that kind of an effort.
I think that the termination of the war in Vietnam would, obviously, make more funds available. And I think that's certainly a reason that we'd all hope that that end would be in sight. But it's going to - I don't think that the answer to it is just unilaterally withdrawing from South Vietnam.
Q: Senator, you may have touched upon this in your previous answer, but I'd like to ask it. Are you completely satisfied with the Johnson administration's reaction to the latest peace talks suggested from North Vietnam?
A: Well, how did you put that? Well, I'm not sure exactly what their reaction is at the moment. I think, as I gather, as I've said, I think we should have done differently in the handling of the situation back in February. The offer has been reiterated now in the last few days and, as I understand it, that offer is now under study by the administration. I would hope that it would not be rejected and I would hope that out of this renewed offer that we would go to the negotiating table. But I don't think that there has been a statement made by the president or by others dealing with this specific offer, as yet.
Q: Skipping to another part of the globe, do you not think that the situation in Cuba should have as much attention as Vietnam, which is so far from our shores?
A: Well, is the person implying that we should; do you want to send 500,000 troops to Cuba? I don't know. I think it's a different kind of a tension, if I may suggest it.
Q: What do you think of the New Orleans D.A. Garrison's investigation and statements?
A: I don't discuss that.
Q: I'm sorry.
Q: Do you think that the American political scene is becoming more conservative, as might be deduced in Governor Ronald Reagan's being elected in the nation's most populous state?
A: Well, I'm not going to get into this, domestic political problems of the state of California, but I think that the country is moving in a more conservative way and a more conservative direction than it was, perhaps, five or six, seven years ago. I think there are a number of reasons for that. I think prosperity is one of the reasons and being so entangled abroad and with all the problems abroad and the problems here within our own country. I think people are distressed with the idea that they, perhaps, can't find answers or solutions to these matters from Washington.
I don't think politicians or political parties are particularly popular in the United States at the moment. I think people are disillusioned with politics and I think they're basically disillusioned with politicians. And I think that that has an effect on their trust and in their confidence and whether government can find answers and solutions to these great and major problems that are facing the country. And I think that someone such as Ronald Reagan, who stresses as he does, the sort of individual's activities themselves, I think, hits a responsive note across the country.
Q: Skipping, perhaps, to the political scene, what is your forecast regarding the release of funds to health, education, and welfare in 1968?
A: I don't know what that means. Somebody's clapping, so I don't want them to stop clapping. Well, let me just say, I'm in favor of whatever you're in favor of.
Q: Do you think that placing restrictions on foreign travel for United States citizens may do more harm in terms of ill will than a possible benefit to our balance of payments?
A: Oh, God. First, I don't think it's quite clear - I mean, obviously, it's not clear exactly what steps are going to be taken. I've seen in the newspapers, which report that - it's contemplated or suggested that possibly we're going to put a head tax of five or six dollars a day on individuals as they travel abroad. I think it's going to get rather complicated, it seems to me. I would like to hear it explained by the administration rather than just rumors, and before I make really any detailed comment on it, I would like to hear it explained by the administration, rather than just rumors in newspapers. It's going to raise a lot of questions, obviously. I mean, it's a truism and I've seen every politician who's been asked about it so far saying that we've got a very difficult problem and we have to face it. Obviously, we have a difficult problem, we have to face it and we have to do something. And if I'm going to criticize this particular step, I would like to have an alternative suggestion for it. And until the administration spells out exactly what they have in mind and how it's going to work and how it's going to deal with the ordinary tourist, how it's going to deal with the businessman, how you're going to determine whether a person spent the time, how much time he spent abroad, whether the individual who's traveling abroad is going to have to check into the consul every day and say, I've spent another day here. And here's six dollars, whether - I just don't know.
Q: Senator, what is your assessment of the effect which Wallace's American Independent Party will have on the Democratic vote? Also, the Peace and Freedom Party?
A: Well, I would think first if Governor Wallace will have, if Richard Nixon is the candidate, I would think that he would weaken the Republican Party, because he will take strength away from where Nixon has some strength, which is in the southern part of the United States. I think the polls indicated that, have indicated that, and that's my own judgment as well.
If you have a different kind of a candidate, if someone such as Governor Rockefeller was a candidate, I would expect that [I'm not pushing him on it], but I would think that Governor Wallace, as far as Rockefeller was concerned, would probably hurt the Democrats, because he will have an effect on the Democrats where the Democrats are stronger, which is in the northern part of the United States. That is where he will take the strength, so I would think that it's largely going to depend on who the candidate's going to be from the Republican Party. As far as the other - what is the other, peace and -
Q: Peace and freedom.
A: Oh, the Peace and Freedom Party out here in California seems to me will hurt Gene McCarthy and his candidacy in the primary against Lyndon Johnson for obvious reasons.
Q: Senator, would you comment on this paraphrased remark from Newsweek? "If Johnson wins in 1968, the ensuing four years of his leadership will ensure a Republican victory in 1972."
A: Well, I don't think so. I think that an awful lot depends on who the candidate for president's going to be in 1972. Again, I am not pushing anybody, I just - I think that we have all these problems and an awful lot depends - no, I won't bother going.
Q: It seems entirely appropriate to ask this next question at this point. Would you consider running for the presidency in 1972?
A: That's too far in the future for me to project myself or really make any judgment as to what I will be doing in political life or what I will be doing just basically. I think that politics changes so rapidly and one's own life changes so rapidly that to try to plan for what you're going to do five years in advance is probably a very grave mistake. At least that's my judgment on it, and I'm just going to see, as I have in the past and I will make, really, I suppose a decision as to what I'm going to do or what I should do, when the time comes. I think it's really far too long in the future to think about what one's going to do in five years. I think all of us in this room would agree on that.
Q: Still on politics, will the New York State Democratic organization support President Johnson in 1968?
A: He hasn't announced that he's going to run yet, but assuming that he does announce that he's going to run and receives the nomination, as they expect that he will, the Democratic Party of the state of New York will support President Johnson.
Q: Senator, have you been meeting with California Democratic leaders in California, and what did you talk about?
A: Yes, politics.
Q: Switching for just a moment, and I don't intend this as an unfair question, I hope the writer didn't. In view of your strong support for public school integration and racial balance, why do all your children go to private schools?
A: Well, for the part, my children go to parochial schools and Catholic schools. I am a Catholic and I wanted to send them to Catholic schools. I suppose that's the answer. All my children go to school where there are Negroes and where there are minority groups represented. I don't think there are any Indians, but they'd be glad to go to school with Indians or anybody else.
Q: Well, Senator Robert Kennedy, we have time for but one or two more questions. But before I ask them, on behalf of the more than 12,000 members of The Commonwealth Club of California meeting here in the Gold Ballroom of the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San Francisco, I want to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to speak with us here today. In addition to those who were privileged to hear you speak at this meeting, thousands of others throughout the state of California will have an opportunity to hear your talk through programs reproduced on 26 radio stations throughout the state. Your comments have been most timely. Your willingness to answer the many questions posed by the members is, indeed, appreciated. So, after your answer to these next two questions, the meeting will stand adjourned, with our thanks.
The question is, as a student of draft age, what do you feel is the most effective method for me to protest the war in Vietnam?
A: Well, I think every individual must decide that for themselves as to what their position is going to be on the war in Vietnam. I think that some of the protests that have taken place have weakened the cause of the disagreement with the present policy. Some of the protests have involved violence and some of the protests which involve people walking back and forth with signs with obscene statements, or signs, which are, I think so, really a basic reflection on the individual who carries them. The signs and the protests, which indicate President Johnson or those associated with him in his administration are interested in killing people or interested in killing children or whatever it might be, I think that weakens the cause and it's the kind of protest with which I just strongly disagree.
As far as what should be done beyond that, I think that the individual has to make that his own personal judgment. Obviously, if he feels strong enough against the war, then he's going to have to make a moral decision as to whether he's going to be drafted. Whether he's going to, or pay the penalty. Others can protest in other ways of either making speeches or talking about the fact that they think that the war is unfair or unreasonable. I think that it's a difficult period of time, and it's what I tried to stress in my speech a little bit, the fact that, I think that much of this discussion about the war has become an emotional discussion. Those who are against the war question the morality of our public officials, whether it be the secretary of state or the president of the United States or the vice president, or whoever it might be who happens to support the war and the effort that we're making in Vietnam.
On the other hand, those who protest the war sometimes are criticized by others as being unpatriotic, unwilling to be interested in their country, and unwilling to participate in the struggle against communism or whatever it might be. The result is that we grow further and further apart. I could see it in Washington and I could see it around the rest of the country. I think that's terribly unhealthy. I think that we should make an effort to try to understand the point of view of somebody with whom, perhaps, we disagree on a very difficult subject. I don't think anybody has an easy answer. I mean, I talk up here and I disagree with the administration on the war in Vietnam, but I couldn't guarantee to you that if we went to the negotiating table that we'd have a solution to the problem of Vietnam.
I think anybody that comes before you or talks to you and says, I know what the answer to it is, is misleading you. And that's what the problem is; nobody can promise any easy solution to this problem. Nobody can promise any easy answer to this very difficult subject and to have some tolerance and understanding of a person's point of view who happens to disagree with you, see, so essential, particularly in this country at the present time, and that, I think, is one of the great dangers. It's that and about the war; it's the problems that we have between the younger people in the country and the older generation. Again, I think both groups have much to learn from one another. And both groups, if they analyze it, perhaps spend a little time analyzing, can understand why there's a different viewpoint about some of these matters. Amongst young people, particularly about communism, they grew up in a different period of time, didn't go through the sweep of the Soviet army across Europe, didn't go through Hungary, didn't go through Korea. The first time that they are aware of the world situation really was in the time of fall. We were breaking down the barriers, and so it's an entirely different kind of a world to them. That's what they would like to see. For the older generation is entirely different. But that's just one aspect of it, but there has to be, we have much to learn from young people. Young people have much to learn from the older generation. Again, an effort to try to understand one another, it seems to me so essential, and again, between the races. I'm giving you a long answer, but I think it's so important in this country. We grow polarized further and further here in the United States between the whites and the Negro. The whites look at the Negro and he says, "Look at what we've done for you over the period of the last six years. Look at the fact that there's a Negro in the Supreme Court. There's a Negro in the cabinet of the United States. We passed all the civil rights legislation, we passed an education bill, we passed a poverty bill. We did all of these things, we've taken all of these steps, we've appropriated funds for this, we've taxed ourselves, and yet how do you show your gratitude and your appreciation: you riot. Some of you riot a little bit more." But the Negro situation, that's the way the white person looks at it.
For the Negro, the situation is a good deal different. He looks and he says, "That's fine for Mr. Weaver in the cabinet. That's fine for Mr. Marshall on the Supreme Court. That's fine for others, but we can't get a job. We look at the educational system and we realize that seven out of ten of our children don't even finish high school. That the three out of ten who did finish high school, half of them have the equivalent of an eighth grade education. That the unemployment rate in many of the ghettos of the United States is up over 50 percent." We see that they can't a job, they can't get a decent education for themselves and for their children. Forty-three percent of the housing is dilapidated and run down, and they see the situation as the Labor Department said, despite all of these programs, despite all of this effort, despite the expenditures of all these sums of money, that the situation is getting worse, not better. "They say, well, what's the answer to all of this? Nobody's going to listen to us. They just preach to us that they've done so much." Again, the fact is that the country has made a major effort. The fact is that the country has turned a corner to try to improve the situation. And this is not the fact that we haven't made mistakes, but it has been that we've made that effort. And so there has to be an understanding by the Negroes and the Negro leadership and the young Negroes to understand that these problems are not going to disappear overnight, and an understanding by the white person that if you can't get a job and you can't raise children, you can't live in decent housing, and you can't get enough food for your children, that you're going to be unhappy. And you're going to be dissatisfied with the system, which doesn't show that there are going to be any changes made.
These are some of the great conflicts that exist in this country at the moment. Unless we make an effort, all of us, to try to have an understanding of one another and to have some tolerance, to listen to the point of view of the other person, even perhaps if we disagree, to make that kind of effort. If we don't do that, our society can't be successful, in the last analysis, and that's what we need. Democracy has the greatest amount of freedom, but it's also the greatest amount of personal responsibility and personal discipline. If we lose that and we turn to violence and everybody that disagrees with us and calls a dirty name, or we say that anybody that disagrees with us should be destroyed, sometimes physically, where are we going to be in this country? That's why I think that it's such a critical and crucial time and that's why I think that the political parties, both the Republican and the Democratic Party, really have to contend with this kind of a problem, this kind of an effort, over the period of the next few months.
Q: Senator, our last question: Are you going to keep an ambivalent policy of supporting President Johnson for reelection and concurrently opposing our war aims in Vietnam?
A: Well, I think I probably answered the question. I feel strongly about the issue and I feel about some of these other issues in the same way, but I can still support a man who, even though I happen to disagree with him, and that's what I expect to do. I have appreciated coming here and I've appreciated having an opportunity to speak to all of you. I think San Francisco, as all of you do, is one of the great cities of the world, and it's always a great deal of pleasure.
I think of really of all of the things that we need to do or how fortunate we are in this country, even with our problems, how fortunate we are in this country. In all the things that we need to do, I think of what a poet wrote several thousands of years ago, what really we have to dedicate ourselves to in this country, to "feel the giant agony of the world and more like slaves to poor humanity, labor for mortal good." Thank you very much.
Generously funded by:
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers