-3-

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Governor Reagan personally. It's just that I have no respect <u>whatsoever</u> for any good Democrat who switched parties half way through life hoping to gain political advantage.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the Richard Nixon has graciously volunteered to head up the "Republicans for Connally" in the next election.

Incidentally, Governor Reagan isn't here tonight . . . . . he's out looking for the <u>cab driver</u> who gave him the <u>90 billion dollar tax cut idea</u> . . . . . . who just happens to be the <u>brother-in-law</u> of the <u>shoe shine boy</u> who gave George McGovern the thousand dollar <u>gift</u> idea 4 years ago.

-4-

And, of course, Henry Kissinger isn't with us tonight.
Henry's stopping over in Madrid on his way home from Moscow
where I understand he got Brezhnev to <u>give</u> a little on SALT.
Fortunately, for you critics of Detente, this time our side
didn't have to give up much . . . . . . just some little
formula our State Department has perfected for making <u>oil</u>
out of wheat.

Incidentally, I plan to go out to Andrews to welcome Henry
back home. I always get a thrill when his plane lands . . . . .
the door opens . . . . . . and Henry marches majestically
down the steps as the Marine Band plays "Heil to the Chief."

That thrill is second only to watching George Wallace try to
take off in a heavy wind in that plane of his with 2 right
wings.

As for some who <u>are</u> here, I cannot tell you how delighted I
was on arriving at the hotel tonight to see the Chief Justice
and members of the Supreme Court pulling up in their <u>bus</u>.

Now as every Alfalfan knows -- tonight marks the end of a
very political week . . . . . . The President's State of the
Union on Monday . . . . . . The President's State of the
Deficit on Tuesday. . . . . . and Senator Muskie's Equal Time
Rebuttal on Wednesday. Like most of you, I watched Senator
Muskie on TV . . . . . . but I must confess I dozed off 3 times
during his speech . . . . . and I think he dozed off twice.

[10]

Now -- Since I am a teetotaler <u>...</u> -- I want to compliment you Alfalfans on the moderation with which you approach the use of beverages at this nominating convention.

Personally, I'm a _milk_ man myself.

Although I soon discovered that up here in Washington . . . . .
<u>milk</u> should be marked with a warning from the Surgeon General
stating that it may be <u>hazardous</u> to your <u>health</u> . . . . . . if
not your <u>reputation</u>.

And that is all I'll have to say on that subject. I only
brought it up in case there might be even _one_ among you
who'd like to hear the truth from the _horse's mouth_ . . . . . .
since you heard the _rumors_ from the horse's other end.

I have been asked to remind you that this evening is <u>totally off the record</u> . . . . . which doesn't thrill me, because if I happen to go over well here tonight, I wouldn't mind having it known all over town tomorrow . . . . . . so you'll understand how happy I am to see some members of the Church Committee with us.

As for my political philosophy - - it's *exactly the same*
as it always was -- it's *never changed*. I am slightly
to the *right* of *Congressman Ford* -- and considerably to
the *left* of *President Ford*.

First--let's see who we've got to beat. As of now, Bob Strauss
is convening the Democratic Convention on August 16 in New
York City . . . . . . and if New York City happens to be
*closed* by then . . . . . . they'll go on to Miami Beach.

In either case, on Monday, August 16, the Democrats will
put their party platform to debate and vote. And *that*
should be *completed* by *Monday night*. Then on Tuesday, the
floor will be opened to speeches placing in nomination the
Democratic Candidates . . . . . . and *that* should be *completed*
by the *second week* in *October*.

Poor old Bob Strauss -- he's only hoping he can get the Demo-
crats through their first roll call in time for the *election*
in *November*.

All right, who are the Democrats going to throw at us?

-7-

[10]

Take Scoop Jackson . . . . . . <u>Please.</u> For a man who's been
running as long as he has to come in with only <u>one percent</u>
of the <u>vote</u> in <u>Iowa</u> means he's in <u>trouble</u> no matter <u>how</u>
exciting a speaker he is.

And look at poor old Mo Udall . . . . . . his campaign sure
got off to a flying <u>STOP</u>!

And as for Mr. Shriver, I go by the old maxim: You can't
make a Commander-in-Chief out of a <u>Sargent</u>.

I guess it's pretty obvious to all of us . . . . . . the man
to beat in the Democratic Party is George Corley Wallace. I'm
telling you before this election is over . . . . . . you may
<u>not</u> be calling Wallace <u>Kingmaker</u>. You may be calling Wallace
<u>Spoiler</u>. And -- if <u>Teddy</u> decides to throw his <u>crown</u> in the
ring -- you may be calling Wallace <u>Mister Vice President</u>.

Which brings us to Hubert Horatio Humphrey. I believe Hubert
will do all right if we can just get him to <u>cheer up</u> a little.
No question about it . . . . . . Senator Humphrey feels there
is a <u>groundswell</u> of <u>support</u> for him around the country. Although
to Hubert, a <u>groundswell</u> could be no more than Muriel saying:
"Why don't you take another shot at it, honey?"

(10)

-8-

On the other side of the coin, the Republicans will meet in Kansas City July 12 to nominate one of two ex football players . . . . . . either the _Gipper_ or the _Tripper_.

I don't go along with those who think Rockefeller might take another stab at it if Ford and Reagan cancel each other out. From what I hear, Rocky's given up all his political ambitions. Just the other night I ran into him at an _auction_ in Baltimore of all places . . . . . . where he added to his collection by making bids on 3 Utrillos, 2 Lautrecs and 14 _Delegates_.

There are, in my opinion, three other Republicans whose lives of public service and dedication deserve consideration for the highest office in the land. I refer, of course, to Howard Baker, Charlie Mathias, and _Chuck_ . . . . . _Colson_ . . . . (whose _grandmother_ you may remember from the last election)

As for the President, I guess you all know since Ford took office he's _fallen_ in the _polls_.

Why not?

Since Ford took office, he's _fallen all over the place_.

But I am not here to take cheap shots at the President's _so called_ clumsiness. There happens to be more than one way to come down a flight of stairs, and if that makes him happy -- I'm all for it.

Although I must say if his luck keeps going the way it has been, they'll have to change the name of that plane to Air Force <u>Thirteen</u>.

Now as your candidate, I believe every Alfalfan has a right to know where I stand on the great issues facing us today.
So I beg a minute of your time to set my record straight.
I will, as always, give it to you straight from the shoulder, no holds barred, let the chips fall where they may, without any attempts to duck the issues or cop out in any way whatsoever!

**FORCED BUSING:** I assure you that I have the ultimate, painless solution to this dreadful question facing America, but rather than bore you with it now I plan to spell it out after I'm elected.

**INCOME TAXES:** I will place the payment of Income Taxes on a purely <u>voluntary</u> system . . . . . . with faith in America that her people will deal fairly and squarely with us . . . . . and at the end of every year sit down and <u>voluntarily</u> write a check for what they feel their government is <u>worth</u> to them. Oh I don't think we're going to get the whole 394 Billion in the first week . . . . . . or even the first month . . . . . . but <u>surely</u> we'll get <u>85</u> or <u>90 cents</u> of it.

-10-

**GUN CONTROL:** My secret plan to solve the Gun Control Question will be revealed **after** the election with my secret plan about Busing.

**SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS:** I know there is widespread feeling that Saturday Night Specials should be outlawed, but I'm against that . . . . . . I feel a **girl** has a **right** to make a **living** any way she **wants** to . . . . . .

**THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA:** I was happy to learn that President Ford has expressed the sympathies of our country over the recent death of a leader of the People's Republic. As I understand it, President Ford did this in a **handwritten** note to Chou En Lai . . . . . . expressing America's condolences over the recent death of Mao Tse Tung.

**ANGOLA:** I will, of course, make my secret plan to end the war in Angola known along with my secret solution to Forced Busing and Gun Control after the election.

**AS FOR ORGANIZED LABOR'S ATTEMPTS TO UNIONIZE THE MILITARY:**
I go along with The National Maritime Union, The Association of Civilian Technicians and the AF of L-CIO . . . . . . all of whom have announced their intentions to **unionize** United States servicemen within the coming year. I can hardly wait to see **General George Meany** leading his troops into battle . . . . "READY . . . . . . AIM . . . . . . STRIKE."

-11-

[w]

**ON ABORTION:** I will go along with any of Jimmy Carter's numerous stands on abortion.

As far as the _EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT_ is concerned -- I'm _for_ it. I think that every woman has the right of every man in this great nation to be given _equal consideration_, _equal work_, _equal pay_ and _equal respect_ . . . . . just so long as she gets _supper_ on the _table_ in _time_.

Another thing, your Connally Alfalfa Administration will certainly _beautify_ the District of Columbia. And as for all of the _wives_ and _girlfriends_ who _rightly complain_ that the countless _Massage Parlors_ all over town are an _eyesore_ . . . . I couldn't agree more and I'll see to it that every last one of them is _painted_.

And we've got to do something about the _economy_. Things have gotten so bad the Chase Manhattan Bank is sending out this year's calendars one month at a time.

-12-

Now I know many of you are asking yourselves, "Will an Alfalfa President recognize Castro?" I'll have to give that a lot of thought-- but I'll probably go along with Ford . . . . . he didn't recognize Castro . . . . . . but that may not mean anything . . . . . . he didn't even recognize President Sadat of Israel.

As for the moral tone I intend to set in the oval office, you can bet your boots a Connally Administration will look into the serious charges . . . . . . that Rockwell International has wined and dined a slew of Congressmen at its Goose Hunting Lodge in Maryland in exchange for what Rockwell International surely hoped would be preferential treatment in the House and Senate. . . . . . which only goes to prove there's nothing like a good goose to get Congress' attention.

And now since all of us Alfalfans are in this campaign together, I'm sure you're concerned about my relations with the press. I assure you I am not one of those politicians who complains about the press. I have always felt the members of the Washington Press have a right to report the news the way they'd like to think it happened.

I intend to put an end to the friction between the Oval Office and the Press Room. In that regard, I will conduct weekly Press Conferences . . . . . . and supply an advance text for each of them.

Here's a note I've just been handed.

Before leaving the room tonight, will Walter Cronkite
and John Chancellor please check with George Bush for your
new assignments.

-13-

LQ

Naturally, I know you're concerned about who I select as my running mate. Well, I feel an Alfalfa/Vice President should be *above* politics. With than in mind, I will go outside the political spectrum and pick a man who is *far removed* from *political activity* of any kind. But enough about Rogers Morton.

And if he isn't interested, we might consider Don Rumsfeld.

I think Don might be just fine once he gets a little *confidence*.

Actually, I don't care who runs as Vice President. I have long felt the Vice Presidency is like adding maternity benefits to social security. You're *there*, but *nobody who needs you*.

Now, my friends, on a more serious note, . . . . . . I am not unaware that I am your *second* choice here tonight . . . . . . and that Jack Anderson turned down your nomination of the Presidency on the grounds that he doesn't want to be President . . . . . . or, as he put it: "Why should I take a cut in information?"

-14-

## CLOSE

Now if I may conclude on a somewhat more serious different note.

Regardless of our political allegiance -- Republican, Democrat, Independent or Socialist -- each of us should be concerned about this country's position of leadership in the world and our own national security.

I believe we have entered an extremely dangerous period of history -- comparable, in fact, to the decade prior to the Second World War.

It disturbs me, frankly, that many Americans are unwilling to accept the warning signs. Perhaps we are so preoccupied with our domestic troubles that we cannot properly relate these problems to the whole issue of security and peace. Perhaps we are so anxious to reject the Cold War mentality of a few years ago that we are blind to the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union.

Whatever the reasons for our malaise, consider the parallels of the 1970's and the 1930's--

--a slow economy not only in America, but throughout the industrialized world;

--political unrest in many volatile areas of the globe;

--aggressive military and political moves by a major totalitarian power on a crusade which is both imperialistic and idealogical;

-15-

[w]

--the re-emergence of isolationism in America, coupled with a relentless attack on the defense establishment.

It seems apparent to me, my friends, that we have indeed moved quietly and almost unnoticed into a new and perilous era--conceivably, in fact, an era of reckoning for Western civilization.

I credit the Soviets with remarkable military and political progress.

They have smothered democratic influence in the UN and made it a playground for tyrants and terrorists.

They have straddled our vital supply lines on both sides of the African continent under the guise of supporting movements for national liberation.

They have intensified political activity among our NATO allies, and while they have been turned back for the time being in Portugal, there will be no respite anywhere on the southern flank of the alliance.

All in all, this has been a rewarding decade for Soviet expansionism,

I do not know a single American who does not want an end to the arms race. I do not know a single American who did not wish the Secretary of State well in his talks this week in

-16-

(lc)

Moscow. I do not know a single American who wishes détente to fail, and who does not prefer to talk of commerce rather than confrontation.

But I am concerned that we are too quick to draw back. from the dangers that threaten us over the rim of the world. I am concerned that we doubt our capacity to lead -- that we have wearied of the burden, just as the British grew weary, and that we are willing to settle for less responsibility at the very time our adversaries want more.

We cannot let this happen. We must begin to approach foreign policy with as much unity as free speech and free assembly permit. We must be militarily strong, because the Soviet Union has never subscribed to the notion that the meek will inherit the earth. We must put our economic house in order and help restore the vitality of our friends and allies. We must generate new ideas and new policies in world trade, predicated on national self-interest and fair treatment for all of the partners in the enterprise.

our willingness to renew our responsibilities

-- may well determine whether there truly will be peace in our time or the terrible alternative.

-17-

I am proud of the honor you have bestowed upon me. I promise you I will carry your banner high in the bicentennial year of our national life.

ALFALFA CLUB DINNER

January 29, 1977

Acceptance Speech of The Honorable Nelson Rockefeller as Candidate for President of the United States on the Alfalfa Club Ticket

Former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks
Stu, it couldn't happen any other way. President Burger,
of the Alfalfa Club, Honorable members on the dais, distin-
guished guests, and my fellow Georgians, thank you for this
generous applause. I recognize some of it from the Cow
Palace in 1964. My fellow Alfalfans I accept your nomination
for the Presidency of the United States. I'm indeed the ideal
candidate to step into the shoes of my predecessor, Harry S
Truman. Sorry, I guess I forgot to update my acceptance
speech. My fellow Alfalfans, I'm grateful for your nomination.
Having spent the last two years as Vice President, I think
it's time I return to public life. We have all learned in
these past few days that fame and power are fleeting. And
as I was saying only a minute ago to my waiter, Don Rumsfeld,
(now I know tonight's dinner, as all Alfalfa dinners, is off
the record, but I authorize you to leak my remarks). After
all these years of losing the nomination, it would be a
shame if now that I got it that nobody knew about it. Let's
face it, the Republicans are out as of January 20. The

-10-

Republicans have become the loyal opposition along with the Kennedys. Let me assure you that your nomination has made me very happy. Just over a week ago I was number 2 and by your acclamation here tonight you have made me number one! I'm fully aware of the high standards set by the Alfalfa Presidents before me. Franklin Delano Roosevelt who reassured a nation by saying "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." And who among us can forget the immortal words of that great Alfalfan John F. Kennedy who said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." Or that great Alfalfan Gerald R. Ford who said, "Watch that first step, its a son-of-a-bitch."

Now I'm not going to deny that I wanted to be President all of my life. So much so that recently I thought I was dying, and Harold Stassen's life passed before my eyes. I say thank God for the Alfalfa Club. When I think of all the money that I have wasted over the past 30 years, only to wind up as Vice President. Well just let's say I spent more money to buy obscurity than Howard Hughes. I can tell you candidly that if I hadn't received your nomination tonight, I was going to join Politics Anonymous. That's a marvelous organization that helps you break the habit of politics and it's very easy. Anytime you find yourself wanting another government job, you just call this number and Fanny Fox comes over and pushes you into the Tidal Basin.

But I tell you one thing, there will be no 21-gun salute when I take the oath of office. I'm not about to give Barry

-11-

Goldwater the chance to say, "I told you so. Elect Rockefeller President and there will be shooting in the streets before he can say 'So help me God.'" I must say that is quite a dais, you look like the witness box for Elizabeth Ray's trial.

I am happy to see Griffin Bell with us tonight. Happy but a bit surprised. I heard that part of his deal to get the NAACP to withdraw their opposition to his appointment, was that he had to stay home and watch all the twelve hours of *Roots*. By the way I am happy to see Burt Lance here with us tonight which means the President can't be far behind. You know these bankers are all the same, they don't let that string out too far. But it's nice to have a friend even if he's not at the Chase Manhattan. I must say I am happy to share this evening's festivities with so many members of the Russian Embassy, Mr. Ambassador. All those antennae on their roof, down the block you know, aren't just for watching Mary Tyler Moore.

Now before we discuss my Presidency, let's talk about the incumbent. In the days ahead we will find out what Jimmy Carter has in his mind. We already know what he has in his heart. By the way, I understand the first meeting of the President's Cabinet was quite a strain, everybody there had to make believe they had never been in Washington before. They didn't want to disillusion Hamilton Jordan. I think we have to ask the President to turn up the heat in the White House at night so that the rest of us can get some sleep. You know when his teeth start to chatter, we can here it all over town. Last night he must have been frozen, his teeth got a 9.6 on the

-12-

Richter Scale. I certainly applaud the First Family's decision to go out to church every Sunday. Of course, if there is a blizzard they can always send for Chuck Colson. I must say I am as excited as everyone else is to know that the pitter-patter of little feet is heard again in the White House. Apparently Carl Albert slept over. It's nice to see Jack Valenti happy again. Jack is big on culture. He told me that he sleeps better at night knowing that the second floor of the White House is now called the nut-cracker suite. I must say the transition of power always fascinates me. Consider what happened just after high noon on January 20th. Mr. Carter walked up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. Mr. Mondale flew off to Europe. Mr. Ford took Air Force I to play golf in California and Bob Dole took a bus to New York to borrow Bill Miller's American Express Card.

It seems such a short time ago when President Ford called a meeting to seek advice on where he should live on leaving the White House. I'll never forget it. Bo Calloway spoke up and said, "Mr. President since you like skiing so much why don't you get a house in Palm Springs?" But let's not be too hard on Mr. Calloway, I understand that when he left the campaign he went to work as Howard Hughes' personal physician. By the way, Bo would like to have been here tonight but he came last Saturday night.

Now to the business at hand--my election. All good Alfalfa fans must rise to the challenge and wage the fastest campaign in history to put me in the Oval Office before

-13-

Jimmy Carter starts keeping his campaign promises. Because if he ever spends half as much money as he said he would, the dollar will be known as the JC Penney. Now I will fully support the Equal Rights Amendment. I am sorry to see it lose in Virginia by a single vote of Senator Joe Canada who was immediately added to Gloria Steinem's hit list. I will certainly add new phone operators to the White House. They have only twelve now and there is no way that they can answer 80,000 calls trying to get through every day and that's just from Tip O'Neill and Bob Byrd. As for the tax rebates, I am all for them. I believe the economy will get a shot in the arm and that every single taxpayer in America receives an envelope with $50 in it. Although, I don't think Carter is fully behind it since he is asking Miss Lillian to address all of the envelopes by hand. With your Alfalfa nomination, I look forward to the next eight years in Washington. It will save me from going back to New York. That city is frightening. Last time I was there I was mugged seven times.

Once by a total stranger. I was interested to see in *Time* last week that Billy Graham supported President Carter's decision to serve only wine in the White House. As Dr. Graham pointed out, Jesus drank wine not hard liquor. Of course, but Jesus never had to deal with a Democratic Congress.

As for my Vice President, there is only one man, that great Alfalfa, Hubert H. Humphrey. The time has come to return the honor conferred upon me in 1968. He asked me to run with him but it was too late. I'll never forget it. Hubert called

-14-

me from Chicago the night he won his nomination in July. He asked me to be his Vice President. But as I said, it was too late, by the time Hubert finished asking me the question Nixon was in China. I confess I thought of asking Billy Carter to be my Vice President but he has bigger things in mind. Billy returned home from the Inauguration with a message to the people of Plains from his brother, "Pull up your peanuts and plant yeast. Now that we have finally captured the White House, the South will rise again."

Thank you, thank you.

Now let's take a look at who I'll be running against in the next election. Now there has been talk about Henry Kissinger that he might want to be President but I doubt it. Why should Henry take a cut in information? Actually, of course, the law doesn't allow Henry to run for the Presidency because Henry was the child of Germans. So what? In the first election so was Richard Nixon. Haldeman and Ehrlichman in case you forget it. And let us never forget the words of John Connally who said (flipping a coin), "Heads-Democrat, tails-Republican." I want you to know that in all of my cabinet appointments, I will try very hard to see that every minority is represented. So I would certainly plan to retain Patricia Roberts Harris since she is left-handed. As for the energy shortage I will appoint Lowell Thomas to look into that. I figure any man 84 that just got married knows a lot more about energy than Schlesinger and Zarb put together. At last light, Mr. Schlesinger warned that

-15-

we're fast approaching the time when some homes will have
to be shut off from gas. As of now, the owners of those
homes are Clarence Kelley, Robert Dole, Rogers Morton, John
Rhodes, Howard Baker, Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.

I would certainly retain Zbigniew Brzezinski as the
national security advisor. If only to cut down on paper
work in the White House, since he only answers memos in
which is name is spelled correctly. Now the truth of the
matter is, his mother was playing scrabble when he was born,
and named him after the letters she had left over.

As for my platform, one thing I am not going to do
is go along with President's plan for the elimination of
all nuclear weapons. I am simply not going to spoil
Ronnie Reagan's fun. You remember Ronnie Reagan? During
the last election he was the one who was trying to get the
nomination for President of Panama. Don't get me wrong,
I have nothing against Ronnie Reagan, it's just that I
envy how he always looks so young. I keep seeing pictures
of him on horseback riding on that ranch of his and he
looks younger every time. And now I finally found out how
he looks so young. He keeps buying older horses.

As President I too shall worship at the First Baptist
where Harry Truman worshipped. There is still a sign on
the collection plate that says, "The buck stops here".
Which was orginally said by a pregnant doe. Another thing,
when I am inaugurated we'll start the ceremonies a little
earlier. Do your realize that Jimmy Carter wasn't officially

-16-

the President until three minutes after twelve. Not me, no sir, just think what I could do for my family in those three minutes.

Regarding health care, I am all for it. With the way the doctors' bills are climbing I am one of the few people left who can afford to be born again. And I pledge to reduce unemployment. Yes, I will try to do for the unemployment in this country what President Carter has done for the unemployed in Georgia. Just think of Dean Rusk sitting there in that big state, all by himself.

Now, as for this talk of helping the economy by sending these stimulation packages to the Hill, the answer isn't in sending stimulation packages to the Hill, the answer is to teach some of those stimulation packages they have already got up there how to type and how to take dictation.

By the way, I've heard directly from the General Secretary Brezhnev. He called to assure me that he would not test my administration early. He made no bones about it. He said, "You tell the Congress I want peace. You tell the Congress I want friendship. You tell the Congress I want Hawaii."

So you see, detente will live again.

Now my Alfalfa friends, I must leave you. But before I do, let me share with you, with all of you, something that happened recently. Shortly after Jimmy Carter's interview in *Playboy*, the editors of *Playboy* called and asked my views on sex. At first I was APPALLED, but then I thought it might be an excellent opportunity to get the other side on

-17-

the record. Well, I was in my study, trying to put down
some thoughts, when Happy came in and asked me what I was
doing. Somewhat embarrassed about writing an article on
sex, I remembered that we had just come back from Vail
with the President, and I told her I was doing an article
about skiing. Next morning I sent the article over and
thought no more about it. Later I learned the fellow
from *Playboy* had called the house and told Happy that he
thought my article was fantastic. "Your husband certainly
knows his subject," he said. To which Happy replied, "I
can't imagine why. He's only tried it twice. The first
time he nearly fainted. The second time his hat flew off."

Thank you and good night.

ALFALFA CLUB DINNER 1975

Speech of The Honorable George H. W. Bush
Accepting the Nomination for President of the
United States on the Alfalfa Ticket January 25, 1975

(President Humphrey: "Now with all of your enthusiastic approval, this uproarious applause, for our candidate, pursuant to the resolution just so democratically adopted, I declare The Honorable George H. W. Bush, an Alfalfan of Peking, China to be the unanimous choice of the Alfalfa party.")

**George Bush:** Literally translated that means your shirts will be ready on Monday. You like it, I got it in Peking at the tall men's store. That's for men over five feet tall.

Before commencing with the lies, I'd like to say one or two things, if I might, about China. Of course comparisons between the United States and China are inevitable. On the one hand you have a country with great unhappiness, where the proletarian masses are desperately struggling to overcome the excesses of the power hungry political elite. And to tell the truth, things aren't much better in China.

Last summer, when the papers suggested that I might become Vice President, my name became a household word. Who? But today, my candidacy receives the endorsement of the Washington Post. In spite of that, I intend to press on.

Naturally, my choice of running mate has been a source of constant worry. Clearly it would be foolish to pick a man more familiar to the public than I. And just as clearly, it will be impossible to find a man less familiar to the public. However, I have the perfect choice, Morris Udall. Together we have a recognition factor of 0.7%. Now, I assure you right at the outset, mine will not be a dictatorial administration. Rather it will be founded on the great Alfalfa tradition of give and take. You give and I'll take.

- 2 -

Therefore, I pledge to all of you that I'll observe the unwritten code
that has guided the candidacy of every candidate since the party began.
Alfalfa shall grow on quid pro quo. Or, from the candidates manual by
Tom McKnew, I will cleave to one principle, noblest and purest, if you
will scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

But I must confess, one small matter bothers me in accepting this
nomination. How can I run against President Ford, when he gave me this
job in China. Actually, for a while there he couldn't make up his mind who
to send, me or Gerald terHorst. I know the ugly rumor persists that he
sent me to China so that he could secure the Alfalfa nomination for himself.
And run on both tickets. The rumor is totally unfounded. In fact should I
lose the election, I'm sure he'll give me another job like Chief Delegate to
the Palestine Liberation Organization.

But frankly, I would rather run against the President than the Vice
President. With the stock market the way it is, this is no time for me to
repay a loan.

You know I'm told that the price of sugar has shot up 300% here.
Pretty soon, Nelson Rockefeller will be the only American with a cavity.

And for just a minute let's look at the opposition. Chuck Percy
has already stated that he will not run, thus making him the first announced
candidate. However the Republicans will probably go with President Ford.
I think it's great to have an athlete as President. Imagine, two weeks on
the ski slopes and all he got was a chapped WIN button. Actually I did hear
that the President was limping on his way home. But that was just a
chronic football injury aggravated by the Gallop Poll.

- 3 -

Now the Democrats have many reluctant candidates to choose from.
First, I think it's fair to say that the Democrat with the most experience is
Hubert Humphrey. It's been said that Hubert is a man who approaches every
subject with an open mouth.

And certainly there's Ed Muskie, the Abe Lincoln of Kennybunk
Beach. You know Ed came over to play golf with us one day, and a young
pro was our fourth. And on the 8th hole he turned to Ed and he said,
"Senator I think I detect a swing in your flaw there."

Scoop Jackson has been considered a front runner. But frankly, his
new energy program is going to kill him. Scoop is against the President's
proposed tariff on imports. He's also against the gasoline tax being con-
sidered by Congress. Scoop believes that the whole problem can be solved
by reducing the speed limit to 0, with an ordinance against backing up.

They tell me that John Lindsay is still a threat. Last week John
took a walking tour around New York, stopping at every corner to kiss hands.
His own.

And I hear there's serious talk about Lloyd Bentson, who defeated me
for the Senate in 1970. But I've never held it against Lloyd. We both come
from Houston. We both have lots of the same friends, and not one of them
that I've ever talked to voted for Lloyd. But you never win elections by
worrying about your opponent. Once the country sees what kind of candidate
Alfalfa is putting forward, you can stop worrying. And I can get to know
Yasser Arafat.

Now I know you're wondering how I plan to deal with the great prob-
lems of our time. On the domestic scene we have a problem of recession

- 4 -

and unemployment, together with inflation. What are these, but normal
phenomena, which occur periodically, which will correct themselves given
time. The first step then is to call a meeting of the nation's leading
economists. And ask them to agree on a plan of action. That'll give me
lots of time. And so while the economists are meeting, I will introduce
the Bush plan. To halt the recession, I plan to refund all of last year's taxes.
The $1,000 sounds too much like George McGovern's proposal of 1972, which
was endorsed so strongly by the people of Massachusetts. To stop inflation,
I plan to double next year's taxes. The net effect of these proposals will be
largely the same as if I had left the tax rate alone. But I'm not about to be
called a do-nothing president.

Because these proposals may have a temporary unsettling effect, I
plan to introduce a one-year moth-ball economy. Phase one will be called
the year-round Super Bowl Game. If 90 million Americans can stay at their
television sets for two hours, why not for 365 days? In order to insure that
they don't go out and buy things, I plan to create a new agency. The head
of which will of course assume cabinet rank. The agency will be called the
FHDA (The Federal Hot Dog Administration). Its function to deliver hot
dogs to every home in America. I will give you two hot dogs at every inter-
mission. And to head the new super agency, I plan to appoint one who can
sell hot dogs. That person will have to be thoroughly responsible, command
the respect of Congress. A kind of a super-man, god-like qualities. Only
one person in America fills this image, my commissioner of hot dogs: Henry
Kissinger. He's due for a promotion.

And to streamline the government, I plan to have the CIA take over

- 5 -

the Post Office, as long as they're opening our mail they might as well
deliver it.

I realize that most Presidential candidates don't announce their
cabinet selections until after the election. But I believe in full disclosure.
And besides, I might as well make a few friends while I can. To secure the
female vote, I plan to make several women cabinet members. For Secre-
tary of the Treasury I'm going to appoint Billie Jean King. She knows a
good racket when she sees one. She may not understand fiscal policy, but
as Bill Simon pointed out, there's no substitute for on the job training.

My Secretary of State will be Wilbur Mills, that will keep us from
going to war with Argentina. For Deputy Secretary of State, Bella Abzug.
Bella will be a real asset to my new foreign policy. It's handy to have some-
one around who looks like King Faisal.

There's only one man for Secretary of HEW, William Proxmire. Bill
has recently come out strongly against government limousines. You know
Bill himself doesn't even use a car. He actually jogs to work, seven miles
every morning. Of course when he gets there, no one wants to sit behind
him. We're going to give Bill a private office.

And finally for Secretary of the Interior, I'm going to stick with Rodge
Morton. How can I get rid of Rodge, after the Wilderness Act. That's the
act he was caught committing in Yellowstone Park.

Now just two other posts ought to be mentioned. First my new
Ambassador to the Vatican, Earl Butz. After all those years on the farm,
it's time that Butz stepped into something new. In all fairness, Earl apolo-
gized for criticising the Pope for his stand against Birth Control. Actually,

- 6 -

the Pope is against Birth Control, but he would consider a dispensation
in the case of Earl's parents.

And second I plan to appoint Carl Albert to the Supreme Court.
What we need is a little justice.

I won't discuss my other appointments because time is limited.
But I will say this, somewhere in my cabinet there will be a place for
Frank Borman, anyone who can get me nominated deserves a share in
the spoils.

And now friends the time has come for me to go East. I promise
you that when this great campaign has ended, your candidate will have
built up throughout this country a massive ripple of support. And I
assure you that I will devote my every waking hour to victory. And that
when the final votes are tallied, the decision rendered, the voice of the
people heard, I will have sunk to the occasion. Dai sien.

1/5/77

TRAVELLING PRESS DINNER

January 7, 1977

Fellow travellers:

Would you guys in the back knock off the liar's poker please?

I appreciate you all coming tonight -- especially you who

have left your stake-out of Cyrus Vance's garbage.

We invited "Henry the K" tonight, but he's moonlighting

with the Rock Creek Park Mounted Police. If he keeps losing

I think you ought to rename him "Senior Official."

I've always assumed that you bought him so that whenever

you got something from the horse's mouth -- namely Funseth --

you'd have the other end of the animal as a check and balance.

Well, gentlemen, you won't have Henry Kissinger to kick

you around any more. At least not until 1981.

-2-

But it's going to be a great relief to leave this rat-race and
start to work on my book. It's going to deal with the heart of the
foreign policy process. I'm going to call it "Kalb".

Actually I've heard that the Kalb's are at work on a new
book. They were going to call it "Brzezinski", but Olympia Press
said the title alone would require a 2-volume set.

I've heard that others of you will be taking on new challenges.
Murray Marder is going to host Saturday Night -- and rename it
"One More Question."

I don't know what Barry Schweid is going to do, but I heard
that the Government of Zaire wants to retire his Columbia
sweatshirt.

10

-3-

In remembrance of our association together, we've designed
a tie clip for you all -- in the shape of a piranha.

In Koppel's case, we've designed it as a pectoral medallion.

And also, just for the memories, the wine we're serving
tonight is that same great vintage we always had on the 707 --
from the Air Force's own vineyards out at Andrews.

You know Cyrus Vance has said he doesn't intend to travel
as I did. So the Air Force has announced that they will retire
970 and turn it into a museum out at Andrews. In fact, its
going to be a tourist attraction mausoleum -- like Mao's. We're
going to embalm Funseth and put him in there. It's only
appropriate, since he's usually pickled in there anyway.

-4-

The stewards on the plane have proposed embalming the
travelling press and putting them in their preferred seats:
Growald next to Freed -- Sullivan next to the galley -- and so
forth.

As I prepare to depart, I take with me many memories --
perhaps most of all of the shuttle trips and the monumental
efforts to bring peace: between Israel and Egypt, between
Israel and Syria . . . between Jerry O'Leary and Marilyn
Berger.

Although our association has at times been disconcerting
to foreigners -- especially when I tell them that the boys
in the back of the plane make more money than I do -- it has,
I believe, been in the great tradition of our open society.

-5-

Arthur Miller once said that the press "is a nation talking to itself." There has been a lot to talk about over the past few years and you here in this room have done much to articulate the concerns and the contributions of the American people to our foreign policy.

For the United States, public communication is indispensable. All the lessons in this regard have been retaught us by the fateful events of recent years. The foreign policy of this country must be understood by the public or it will fail for want of support. And our efforts in the world ultimately cannot be either responsive or effective unless a creative tension between the public and the policymaker is maintained.

-6-

I want to take this opportunity to thank you and to express my
admiration and appreciation for the job you have done. The con-
frontations as well as the conviviality we have shared means a lot
to me. Together, I believe we have done some good work -- for the
country, and for the world.

Of course your job has been easier. I recall that someone
once asked Chester Gould, the creator of Dick Tracy, how he
wrote such successful comic strips. He said, "It's easy, I just
start with a repulsive character and go on from there."

And I want to take this opportunity to say a word to the
correspondents' wives here tonight: Since Cyrus Vance won't be
travelling much, in the months ahead you will be spending almost
as much time with these men as I have done. It will be hard.

-7-

But it is possible to get along with them. My advice to you
-- at least for the first few months of decompression -- is
this: always keep a fresh deck handy, invite them into your
kitchen at least once a day to take questions, stay off the
record, and be sure to pick up their suitcase from outside the
bedroom door every morning before 4:00 a.m.

Seriously, I do want to express my apologies and my
appreciation to the wives whose lives have been disrupted so
often by my constant travelling. The spirit in which you have
endured these trips has been important to me as well as to
your husbands.

We have shared many moments of high drama and low
comedy; we have ridden rollercoasters of gloom and euphoria;

-8-

we have experienced tension and frustration, poignancy
and exhilaration. Throughout we have each done our duty as
we saw it -- at times perhaps we were seemingly at cross-
purposes, but finally I believe we have reinforced one
another. I will never forget these experiences. I respect
what you have tried to do. You can take pride in what you
have done for your profession and for your country.

Thank you.

SALUTE TO ISRAEL

Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Rabin, distinguished
guests, fellow performers:

Before coming on stage tonight I was warned
that a speaker is someone who speaks less than five
minutes; anything more makes you an actor.

It is difficult for me to stand here in front of a
group of professionals -- many of whom are probably
trying to get my accent straight so they can use it in
their next act. It is, of course, a Harvard accent.

So it occurred to me that it might be
interesting if I talked as if this were a diplomatic
dinner in Washington, though this crowd is a little

- 2 -

more lively than what I am used to.

I have been asked: "was the Rabin visit to America a success?" I am asked this repeatedly by the many members of the Israel Protective Society who suffer from the illusion that the Prime Minister needs help.

What can I say? The Prime Minister is accompanied by the Israeli press. As is appropriate for a country with three million people and six million opinions, the Israeli press corps is a wild group of individualists united by a common dedication to paranoia. If I say that the Prime Minister

-3-

and we agreed, they will write that the _Prime Minister_ has just betrayed Israel. If I say that we disagreed, they will write that _President Ford_ or -- more likely -- _I_ have betrayed Israel.

So let me be diplomatic, which is to say evasive.

One day on the last shuttle, the Prime Minister sent me to Egypt with fifteen issues to be settled. We managed to solve 12 of them. I returned to Israel inordinately proud of myself -- a not unusual occurrence -- until the Prime Minister cast a cold eye on me and said: "You betrayed us again."

-4-

So knowing his standards -- we did a little
better this time.

In fact, the Prime Minister did so well with
Congress that I am thinking of becoming his agent
and collecting a fee. This way I might have a fund
that is safe from Senator Tunney.

Speaking of Congress, you may have read that
recently a Congressional Committee cited me for
demonstrating contempt of Congress.

Some of my friends claim this was unfair.
They hold the view that I have spent seven years in
Washington concealing my contempt for Congress.

- 5 -

In a more serious vein, the Prime Minister
and I are old and close personal friends. We worke
together in great intimacy for many years
when he was Ambassador to Washington, during
events of great moment in the history of Israel
and the United States. We have seen each
other so often that we not only thoroughly
know each other's arguments, but what is
worse, each other's strategies as well. This
makes it tough for both of us unless we are
completely honest with each other.

- 6 -

Our discussions this past week have reflected
the mutual and sometimes silent understanding
of old friends--though I would not say that silence
is the distinctive quality for which Israelis will
be known by history. And they were conducted,
as always, in a spirit of trust. I believe they
will be seen in retrospect as another positive
step in the cooperation and friendship
of our two countries.

-7-

All of us are here because we admire Israel,
that country of inestimable courage, vision
and humanism. It is those qualities, which
have so often meant for Israel the margin
of victory in war, that give us confidence
that Israel will also win peace. No people have
earned it more than the people of Israel, who
have never known a day's peace in their national
history, and who have indeed lived in the
shadow of oppression or injustice for thousands
of years.

-8-

No one who has worked in the Middle East
has any illusion about the difficulty of the task
we face. It is often easier to be dominated
by events than to be responsible for them.
Change requires courage; progress requires
vision.

Together the United States and Israel have
accepted the challenge of resolving the most
complex dispute of our time. We have joined
with Israel in seeing that the negotiating
process does not wither, that the impetus to peace

[lc]

-9-

is not extinguished, that we leave no
possibility unexplored.

Throughout the millenia of the diaspora,
Jews repeated a chant that only faith could
validate: "Next year in Jerusalem."

Israel is a living example of the historical
truth that all great achievements start as
dreams. Against all probability, the Jewish
people returned to Jerusalem and out of the swampland
of Palestine grew the State of Israel. The wisest
of realists are those who remember that only
men of faith have the power to shape reality.

-10-

We now have need for one more dream: it
is part of the tradition of Judaism that the
world rests on three pillars: on justice, on
truth, on peace -- and that these three
are one and the same: for if there is justice,
there is truth, and if there is truth, there is
peace.

So let us all hope that in some year soon the
cradle of our civilization will again be an
example of what men of faith and good will
can achieve, so that a people that have suffered
much and struggled heroically may find at

As Prepared for Delivery

"CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY"

Address by

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger

The Arthur K. Salomon Lecture

The Arthur K. Salomon Auditorium
Nichols Hall
New York University
Graduate School of Business Administration
New York City

Monday, September 19, 1977

Embargoed until delivery, scheduled for 4:30 P.M. EDT. Not to be previously published, quoted from, or used in any way.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

Your request that I deliver a "major appraisal" of current American foreign policy presents me with a dilemma -- a difficult choice between your interest in the subject on the one hand and the imperatives of responsibility on the other. Despite my notorious humility, it would be tempting for me to speculate with you about how I might have dealt with this or that tactical situation if I had been in office these past eight months. But those who have borne the responsibility of high office know too well the complexities, the ambiguities and the anguish of charting our nation's course in a turbulent period. The new Administration deserves the opportunity to develop its policies without harassment or second-guessing. Eight months is after all but an instant in the life of nations.

President Carter and Secretary of State Vance are on the verge of several weeks of delicate and important negotiations -- with the Soviet Union on strategic arms limitation, with the Middle East foreign ministers on peace in that crucial area, and with other leaders attending the United Nations General Assembly on a variety of complex issues. The hopes of all Americans go with them. The success of the Administration in promoting peace and progress will be a success for the nation. Any setbacks of the Administration would affect the lives and prosperity of all Americans. When a performer is taking careful and complicated steps on a high wire, it is profoundly inappropriate, not to say dangerous, for a spectator in a seat far below to shout at him that he is putting his toe in the wrong place.

So I would like to speak to you today about some of the philosophical underpinnings from which tactical decisions derive: the nature and purpose of bipartisanship in our democracy; the challenge of pursuing our moral values, especially human rights, in a complex world; and the relationship of issues such as human rights to others, the so-called problem of linkage.

## The Nature of Bipartisanship

The world marvels at America's extraordinary rebound from the agony of Vietnam and the constitutional crisis of Watergate. We have emerged from these traumas with our democratic institutions flourishing, our public debates vigorous, our economy expanding, our pride in our country intact. Our friends around the world were heartened by

- 2 -

this, for they know better perhaps even than we do how vital
a stake they have in America's confident leadership.

That leadership is not -- nor should it be -- the
esoteric concern of specialists; it is the means by which
the nation serves its interests and pursues its highest
goals and it affects all other nations. For thirty years
the world balance of power, the cohesion of the democracies,
the health of the world economy, the prospects for growth in
Africa, Asia and Latin America, and the hopes for freedom
everywhere have been sustained by the United States.

We have learned through many crises that upheavals
thousands of miles away can threaten American lives or
jeopardize American prosperity. The 1973 Middle East war
ultimately forced us into a military alert. The oil embargo,
lasting six months, cost half a million jobs and ten billion
dollars in national output; it set the stage for a serious
recession, in this country and worldwide. And the abrupt
quadrupling of oil prices which followed added at least five
percentage points to the price index, contributing to our
worst inflation since World War II. We have not yet returned
to the high growth rate and relatively low inflation which
we enjoyed before 1973.

Now that the bitter passions of the foreign policy
debate of the last ten years are hopefully behind us, it is
time for thoughtful deliberation on what are, or should be,
our basic premises about the world in which we find ourselves
today.

Our foreign policy difficulties are often described as
the legacy of Vietnam. But the Vietnam ordeal was not a
cause but a symptom. The late 1960's, coinciding with
Vietnam, marked the end of the period when America was
overwhelmingly more powerful than any other nation, when we
could assault problems alone and entirely with our own
resources, when American initiatives were accepted without
serious debate, when we could believe that our own domestic
experiences, like the New Deal, were the automatic blueprint
for economic development and political progress abroad. It
marked above all the end of the era when we could imagine
that any problem could be resolved once and for all and that
solutions once achieved would permit us to end our international
exertions.

Vietnam was a catharsis. It taught us that our power
while great is finite, that our influence though crucial can
be effective only if we understand our priorities and the
world in which we live.

- 3 -

For a century and a half geography and resources combined to give us the luxury of waiting until threats became almost overwhelming before we committed ourselves. We always had the opportunity to compensate for our tardy involvement by the massive deployment of physical power. We could largely leave to others the burden of the day-to-day decisions that over time spelled war or peace, security or fear, for the global system and even for ourselves. We were spared the continuing agony of inescapable decisions that other nations always faced to assure their survival and their values. More than any other nation in history, we could avoid the dilemma of reconciling the ideal with the practical, of accommodating to limited means and contingent ends.

The post-World War II era was a remarkably creative period of American foreign policy. But our initiatives were explicitly justified as temporary measures to restore an underlying equilibrium. The Marshall Plan, our alliance commitments overseas, our international economic programs were all conceived as dealing with temporary emergencies which once overcome would excuse us from permanent direct involvement abroad.

The world of today is not the world of a generation ago. Geography no longer assures security. The American nuclear monopoly has given way to nuclear balance and to proliferating weapons capabilities. The United States is now as vulnerable as any other nation; indeed nuclear weapons confront all peoples everywhere with a threat to their survival unknown to any previous generation.

The world economy has become interdependent; our prosperity is to some extent hostage to the decisions on raw materials, prices and investment in distant countries whose purposes are not necessarily compatible with ours.

And the structure of relations between nations has fundamentally altered. In 1945, fifty-one nations joined to create the United Nations; today it comprises nearly 150 nations -- many ideologically hostile. Just as two world wars shattered the Europe-oriented order of the last two centuries, so the postwar system of Cold War bipolarity has come apart -- and a new pattern of world order must be shaped to take its place.

An increasing responsibility has fallen upon the United States. Without our commitment to international security, there can be no stable peace; without our constructive

- 4 -

participation in the world economy there can be no hope for
economic progress; without our dedication to human liberty
the prospect of freedom in the world is dim indeed.

For the first time in American history we can neither
dominate the world nor escape from it. Henceforth this
country will be engaged in world affairs by reality and not
by choice. America must now learn to conduct foreign policy
as other nations have had to conduct it -- with patience,
subtlety, imagination, and perseverance.

The most fundamental challenge is thus not to our
physical resources but to our constancy of purpose and our
philosophical perception. Precisely because we can no
longer wait for dangers to become overwhelming, they will
appear ambiguous when they are still manageable. The case
for ratifying the Panama Canal Treaties, for example, is not
an immediate present danger in Panama but the need to forestall
a united front of all the countries of Latin America against
what they consider an American attempt to maintain inequity
by force. The issue in Angola two years ago was not a
direct threat to our security, but the long-term danger of
allowing Soviet surrogate forces to intervene globally to
tip the scales in local conflicts. The argument for a
forthcoming American attitude in the North-South Dialogue is
not to yield to the admittedly limited strength of the less-
developed nations but to prevent the polarization of the
world into a small minority of the rich isolated in an ocean
of poverty and resentment.

It is a paradox of the contemporary world that if we
wait until these dangers become realities we will lose the
chance to do anything about them. At the moment when we
still have great scope for creativity the facts are likely
to be unclear or ambiguous. When we know all the facts, it
is often too late to act. This is the dilemma of statesmanship
of a country that is irrevocably engaged in world affairs --
and particularly of one that seeks to lead.

America, therefore, can no longer afford the luxury of
oscillating as it once did between brooding isolation and
crusading intervention. Our biggest foreign policy challenge
is to shape a concept of our international role that the
American people will support over the long term; we must
avoid dramatic swings between exuberance and abdication.
Our responsibility is unending; our accomplishments are
likely to be ever-tenuous. We must change our approach to

- 5 -

international affairs from the episodic to the permanent;
from the belief in final answers to the realization that
each "solution" is only an admission ticket to a new set of
problems.

In such an environment the conduct of foreign policy
requires a fine balance between continuity and change. This
is not easy for our democracy. Our two-party system, our
constitutionally mandated balancing and separation of
powers, our open political process create temptations for
the simplified answer, the nostalgic withdrawal, or the
moralistic sense of superiority.

Yet this free and open political process is also our
greatest source of strength. The alternation of parties in
office by free elections guarantees constant renewal, the
infusion of fresh ideas and new blood into our national
life. It presents a striking contrast with the gerontocracies
that run the Communist world. These systems have no lawful
regular process for replacing leaders; it is no coincidence
that the stagnation of their ageing leadership goes hand in
hand with plodding bureaucracy and intellectual sterility,
punctuated by periodic crises over succession.

The problem which our society faces is on the whole a
far happier one. Insuring continuity amidst the constant
process of renewal turns bipartisanship from a slogan into
an imperative.

To be sure, all Administrations sooner or later appeal
to the spirit of bipartisanship. This is partly because
they come to share much the same perception of the nation's
permanent interests as their predecessors and partly because
bipartisanship can be a useful shield against excessive
criticism. There is a natural tendency for the party in
power to consider any criticism as excessive. I know these
tendencies from experience, having indulged them myself.
But the fact that there are also tactical benefits to the
appeal to bipartisanship does not change the reality that to
the world at large we are one nation which can have only one
government.

And we are not just any nation. Our country cannot
uproot its whole foreign policy every four or eight years --
or imply that it is doing so -- or else America will itself
become a major factor of instability in the world. We must
understand that foreign leaders who design their programs
around our policies are staking their domestic positions on

- 6 -

our constancy. Radical shifts in our course inevitably
affect the stability of especially friendly governments. If
these changes are seen to occur largely for domestic effect,
if our elections come to determine as well the stability of
foreign governments, no nation that has a choice will readily
cooperate with us.

Of course a foreign policy that stresses continuity
above all else would be stultifying and would in time be
overwhelmed by events. A new Administration is obviously
not elected to carry out all the policies of its predecessor.
But change in our policy should be seen as reflecting new
circumstances and not change for its own sake. By the same
token, critics have an obligation to see to it that our
foreign policy debates reflect disagreements on major substance,
not a quest for partisan advantage or tactical second-guessing.

If our foreign policy is well conceived, it must reflect
fundamental national purposes and not personal idiosyncrasy.
Neither the Administration nor the opposition should nurture
differences to score debating points. Both have an obligation
to make clear that our foreign policy is a shared national
enterprise. I might add parenthetically that bipartisanship
would come easier if each new Administration resisted the
quadrennial temptation of implying that conceptual insight,
creativity and moral awareness begin anew every four years
on January 20. Nor should history be rewritten in ways more
suitable to faculty debates than to serious national dialogue.

The Administration, when it pursues the national interest,
is entitled to the full measure of support from all who
cherish the future of the country. For its challenges are
great. The new Administration assumed responsibility when
hopeful progress was being made in most areas of foreign
policy -- the Middle East, SALT, relations with both the
industrialized and the developing world. But it faces a
tremendous task in each, and in continuing to shape the new
international order. We are on a journey no single Administration
can possibly complete, whose beginning is an understanding
of reality and whose goal is a better and more peaceful life
for future generations.

## Morality and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy

In this spirit, I would now like to turn to one of the
basic challenges of foreign policy, the perennial tension
between morality and pragmatism. Whenever it has been
forced to wield its great power, America has also been
driven to search its conscience: How does our foreign
policy serve moral ends? How can America carry out its role
as humane example and champion of justice in a world in

- 7 -

which power is still often the final arbiter? How do we
reconcile ends and means, principle and survival? How do we
keep secure both our existence and our values? These have
been the moral and intellectual dilemmas of the United
States for two hundred years.

From the time of the Declaration of our Independence,
Americans have believed that this country has a moral significance
for the world. The United States was created as a conscious
act by men and women dedicated to a set of political and
ethical principles they held to be of universal meaning.
Small wonder, then, that Santayana declared that "being an
American is, of itself, almost a moral condition."

At the same time, since Tocqueville, it has been observed
that we are a pragmatic people, commonsensical, undogmatic,
undoctrinaire -- a nation with a permanent bent to the
practical and an instinct for what works. We have defined
our basic goals -- justice, freedom, equality, and progress --
in open and libertarian terms, seeking to enlarge opportunity
and the human spirit rather than to coerce a uniform standard
of behavior or a common code of doctrine and belief.

This duality of our nature is *not* at war with reality.
For in international politics, our morality and power should
not be antithetical. Any serious foreign policy must begin
with the need for survival. And survival has its practical
necessities. A nation does not willingly delegate control
over its future. For a great power to remit its security to
the mercy of others is an abdication of foreign policy. All
serious foreign policy therefore begins with maintaining a
balance of power -- a scope for action, a capacity to affect
events and conditions. Without that capacity a nation is
reduced to striking empty poses.

But equally, our nation cannot rest its policy on power
alone. Our tradition and the values of our people ensure
that a policy that seeks only to manipulate force would lack
all conviction, consistency, and public support.

This is why America has been most successful in our
relations with the world when we combined our idealism and
our pragmatism -- from the days when our Founding Fathers
manipulated the monarchical rivalries of Europe to secure
our independence and launch the great democratic experiment
to the creative American initiatives after the Second World
War such as the Marshall Plan. Our modern efforts to achieve
strategic arms limitation, peace in the Middle East and
Southern Africa, the opening to China, recasting international
economic relations based on the principle of interdependence --

- 8 -

have also served both moral and practical ends and can be
sustained only by a combination of moral conviction and
practical wisdom.

The Issue of Human Rights

These considerations come to bear powerfully on the
question of the relationship between human rights and foreign
policy. The world needs to know what this country stands
for. But we cannot rest on this; we must know how to implement
our convictions and achieve an enhancement of human rights
together with other national objectives.

Neither the issue nor the concern are new:

-- It was under the two previous Administrations that Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union was raised from 400 a year in 1968 to 35,000 by 1973. This resulted from a deliberate policy, as a concomitant to the process of improving US-Soviet relations.

-- The release of the courageous Soviet dissident Bukovsky in exchange for the Chilean Communist leader imprisoned in Chile was arranged in 1976 through American intercession. It was but one of many such acts which were not publicized in order to be able to continue to assist hardship cases.

-- American diplomatic action in the same period brought about the release of hundreds of prisoners from jails all over the world.

-- American foreign policy of the past decade helped enshrine basic principles of human rights in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe -- providing the indispensable political and legal basis for pursuing the issue of human rights in East-West relations.

-- We also worked to improve the efforts of the United Nations Human Rights Commission; to upgrade the Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. Common human rights policies were forged with the other democracies, and steps were taken to improve the institutional response of the international system to the challenge of human rights.

- 9 -

The accomplishment of the new Administration is not that it originated the concern with human rights but that free of the legacy of Vietnam and Watergate it has seized the opportunity to endow the policy with a more explicit formulation. The aim of the Carter Administration has been to give the American people, after the traumas of Vietnam and Watergate, a renewed sense of the basic decency of this country, so that they may continue to have the pride and self-confidence to remain actively involved in the world.

Having had to conduct American foreign policy in a period of national division and self-flagellation, I applaud and support this objective. The President has tapped a well-spring of American patriotism, idealism, unity, and commitment which are vital to our country and to the world. He has focused public concern on one of the greatest blights of our time.

The modern age has brought undreamt-of benefits to mankind -- in medicine, in scientific and technological advance, and in communication. But the modern age has also spawned new tools of oppression and of civil strife. Terrorism and bitter ideological contention have weakened bonds of social cohesion; the yearning for order even at the expense of liberty has resulted all too often in the violation of fundamental standards of human decency.

The central moral problem of government has always been to strike a just and effective balance between freedom and authority. When freedom degenerates into anarchy, the human personality becomes subject to arbitrary, brutal, and capricious forces -- witness aberrations of terrorism in even the most humane societies. Yet when the demand for order overrides all other considerations, man becomes a means and not an end, a tool of impersonal machinery. Human rights are the very essence of a meaningful life, and human dignity is the ultimate purpose of civil government. Respect for the rights of man is written into the founding documents of almost every nation of the world. It has long been part of the common speech and daily lives of our citizens.

The obscene and atrocious acts systematically employed to devalue, debase, and destroy man during World War II vividly and ineradicably impressed on the world the enormity of the challenge to human rights. It was to end such abuses and to provide moral authority in international affairs that new institutions and legal standards were forged after that war -- globally in the United Nations and in this hemisphere in a strengthened inter-American system.

- 10 -

The fact remains that continuing practices of intimidation, terror, and brutality, fostered sometimes from outside national territories and sometimes from inside, mark the distance yet to be travelled before the community of nations can claim that it is truly civilized. This is why the distinguished junior Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, is surely right in stressing that human rights should be not simply a humanitarian program but a political component of American foreign policy.

For the difference between freedom and totalitarianism is not transient or incidental; it is a moral conflict, of fundamental historical proportions, which gives the modern age its special meaning and peril. Our defense of human rights reminds us of the fundamental reason that our competition with totalitarian systems is vital to the cause of mankind. There is no reason for us to accept the hypocritical double standard increasingly prevalent in the United Nations where petty tyrannies berate us for our alleged moral shortcomings. On this issue we are not -- and have no reason to be -- on the defensive. "The cause of human liberty," the poet Archibald MacLeish has written, "is now the one great revolutionary cause..."

And yet, while human rights must be an essential component of our foreign policy, to pursue it effectively over the long term we must take the measure of the dangers and dilemmas along the way.

First, any foreign policy must ultimately be judged by its operational results. "In foreign relations," Walter Lippmann once wrote, "as in all other relations, a policy has been formed only when commitments and power have been brought into balance."

To be sure, the advocacy of human rights has in itself a political and even strategic significance. But in the final reckoning more than advocacy will be counted. If we universalize our human rights policy, applying it undiscriminatingly and literally to all countries, we run the risk of becoming the world's policeman -- an objective the American people may not support. At a minimum we will have to answer what may be the question for several friendly governments: How and to what extent we will support them if they get into difficulties by following our maxims. And we will have to indicate what sanctions we will apply to less well-disposed governments which challenge the very precepts of our policy.

- 11 -

If, on the other hand, we confine ourselves to proclaiming
objectives that are not translated into concrete actions and
specific results, we run the risk of demonstrating that we
are impotent and of evoking a sense of betrayal among those
our human rights policy seeks to help. Such a course could
tempt unfriendly governments to crack down all the harder on
their dissidents, in order to demonstrate the futility of
our proclamations -- this indeed has already happened to
some extent in the Soviet Union.

Nor can we escape from the dilemma by asserting that
there is no connection between human rights behavior and our
attitude on other foreign policy problems -- by "unlinking,"
as the technical phrase goes, human rights from other issues.
For this implies that there is no cost or consequence to the
violation of human rights, turning our proclamation of human
rights into a liturgical theme -- decoupled, unenforced, and
compromised. Or else we will insist on our values only
against weaker countries, in Latin America or Asia, many of
which may even be conducting foreign policies supportive of
our own. This would lead to the paradox that the weaker the
nation and the less its importance on the international
scene, the firmer and more uncompromising would be our human
rights posture.

Second, precisely because human rights advocacy is a
powerful political weapon we must be careful that in its
application we do not erode all moral dividing lines. We
must understand the difference between governments making
universal ideological claims and countries which do not
observe all democratic practices -- either because of domestic
turmoil, foreign danger, or national traditions -- but which
make no claim to historical permanence or universal relevance.
In the contemporary world it is the totalitarian systems
which have managed the most systematic and massive repression
of the rights of men.

In recent decades, no totalitarian regime has ever
evolved into a democracy. Several authoritarian regimes --
such as Spain, Greece and Portugal -- have done so. We must
therefore maintain the moral distinction between aggressive
totalitarianism and other governments which with all their
imperfections are trying to resist foreign pressures or
subversion and which thereby help preserve the balance of
power in behalf of all free peoples. Our human rights
policy owes special consideration to the particular international
and domestic setting of governments important to our security
and supportive of free world security interests. There are,

- 12 -

of course, some transgressions of human rights which no
necessity -- real or imagined -- can justify. But there are
also realities in the threats nations face, either from
terrorism at home such as in Argentina or aggression across
borders such as Iran or Korea. And we must keep in mind
that the alternative to some governments that resist totalitarianism
with authoritarian methods may not be greater democracy and
an enhancement of human rights but the advent of even more
repression, more brutality, more suffering. The ultimate
irony would be a posture of resignation towards totalitarian
states and harassment of those who would be our friends and
who have every prospect of evolving in a more humane direction.

We must take care, finally, that our affirmation of
human rights is not manipulated by our political adversaries
to isolate countries whose security is important for the
future of freedom, even if their domestic practices fall
short of our maxims. The membership of the UN Human Rights
Commission, composed as it is of a number of nations with
extremely dubious human rights practices, does not augur
well for an objective approach to this issue in the United
Nations. Cuba and other Communist governments as well as
the more repressive regimes of the less developed world have
no moral standing to bring other nations to international
account. We should not hesitate to say so.

Third, there is the ominous prospect that the issue of
human rights if not handled with great wisdom could unleash
new forces of American isolationism. This could defeat the
Administration's goal of using it to mobilize support for
continued American involvement in world affairs. That the
human rights issue could develop a life of its own, regardless
of the Administration's prudent sense of its aims and limits,
is already evident from some developments in the Congress.

A distorted or misunderstood human rights policy can
become the basis and justification of a modern isolationism.
What appeals to many as a useful impetus to resistance to
the Communist challenge can be used by others to erase all
the distinctions between totalitarians and those that resist
them, to induce indifference to European Communist Parties'
accession to power, or to disrupt security relationships
which are essential to maintaining the geopolitical balance.
Excuses can be found to deny help to almost any friendly
country at the precise moment when it faces its most serious
external challenge. If conservatives succeed in unravelling
ties with nations on the left and liberals block relations
with nations on the right, we could find ourselves with no
constructive foreign relations at all, except with a handful
of industrial democracies. The end result ironically could

- 13 -

be the irrelevance of the United States to other nations of
the world. A policy of moral advocacy that led to American
abdication would surely condemn countless millions to greater
suffering, danger or despair.

Fourth and most fundamentally, we should never forget
that the key to successful foreign policy is a sense of
proportion. Some of the most serious errors of our foreign
policy, both of overcommitment and withdrawal, have occurred
when we lost the sense of balance between our interests and
our ideals. It was under the banners of moralistic slogans
a decade and a half ago that we launched adventures that
divided our country and undermined our international position.
A few years later young people were parading in front of the
White House carrying coffins and candles and accusing their
government of loving war; the national leadership was denounced
as excessively, indeed imperialistically, involved in the
internal affairs of other nations. A few years later still,
the government was attacked for sacrificing our ethical
values on the altar of detente and being _insufficiently_
concerned with the domestic behavior of other nations.
Neither we nor the rest of the world can any longer afford
such extreme fluctuations.

Human rights policy in this period of American responsibility
must strengthen the steady purpose and responsible involvement
of the American people. It can do so only if it is presented
in the context of a realistic assessment of world affairs
and not as the magic cure for the difficulties and shortcomings
of mankind's contemporary experience.

The Administration is surely right in insisting that
human rights is a legitimate and recognized subject of
international discourse; it is an object of international
legal standards -- importantly as a result of American
initiatives by Administrations of both parties. At the same
time we must recognize that we serve the cause of freedom
also by strengthening international security and maintaining
ties with other countries defending their independence
against external aggression and struggling to overcome
poverty, even if their internal structures differ from ours.

We cannot afford to subordinate either concern to the
other. Morality without security is ineffectual; security
without morality is empty. To establish the relationship
and proportion between these goals is perhaps the most
profound challenge before our government and our nation.

- 15 -

that we maintain the geopolitical balance around the world, by which the People's Republic of China measures our ultimate relevance. Displays of American impotence in one part of the world, such as Southeast Asia or Africa, have a direct effect on our credibility in other parts of the world, such as the Middle East. Our policy toward Rhodesia and Namibia will inevitably determine the prospects of a peaceful evolution in South Africa, and vice versa. Our posture toward Korea cannot be separated from our interests in Japan and China, and the measures we adopt for one inevitably affect the other. The decision on the B-1 bomber resulted from complex and painful budgetary and technical considerations. I am not here arguing the merits of these considerations, but in the context of the Strategic Arms Limitation talks, the B-1 bomber decision did represent a unilateral unreciprocated concession. Finally, either our human rights policy has relevance to other areas of national policy -- or it has no meaning at all.

Perception of linkage is, in short, synonymous with an overall strategic view. We ignore it only at our peril. It is inherent in the real world. The interrelationship of our interests, across issues and boundaries, exists regardless of the accidents of time or personality; it is not a matter of decision or will but of reality. And it cannot be ended by an act of policy. If we are to have a permanent conception of American foreign policy there must be an appreciation of the fact that merits of individual actions can be judged only on a wider canvas.

As you know I strongly support President Carter in his fight for ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties. I do so on their merits but also because of the profound consequences of a failure to ratify far beyond Panama. A defeat of the treaties would weaken the President's international authority at the beginning of his term. It would suggest to friends and foes around the world that the United States could not deliver on an agreement negotiated by four Presidents of both political parties over a period of thirteen years, that it could not perceive its own interests in Western Hemisphere cooperation, and that shifting emotions and institutional stalemates produced erratic behavior in the most powerful country in the world.

Linkage is not a natural concept for Americans, who have traditionally perceived foreign policy as an episodic enterprise. Our bureaucratic organization, divided into regional and functional bureaus, and indeed our academic

- 16 -

tradition of specialization, compound this tendency to compartmentalization. And American pragmatism produces a penchant for examining issues separately: to deal with issues individually as if they existed as abstractions without the patience, timing, or sense of political complexity which are so often vital to their achievement; to display our morality in the proclamation of objectives rather than in a commitment to the operational consequences of our actions in an inherently ambiguous environment.

A recognition of the importance of linkage -- of the significance and role of the strategic vision to our future foreign policy -- thus brings us back to where we began -- to the need for patience, continuity, and, above all, for national unity in the conduct of international affairs. This responsibility must be shared by the Administration, the opposition, and the public. Modern foreign policy, by its very complexity, does not lend itself to instant successes. In domestic affairs the timeframe of new departures is defined by the legislative process; dramatic initiatives may be the only way to launch a new program. In foreign policy the most important initiatives require painstaking preparation; results may be months and years in becoming apparent.

Therefore, we should not demand of the new Administration instant results or an unbroken strong of early successes; nor should the Administration seek such goals if it wishes to avoid a series of stalemates or worse. Foreign policy, if it is to be truly an architectural endeavor, is the art of building for the long term, the careful nurturing of relationships, the elaboration of policies that enhance our options and constrain those of potential opponents. It requires the coherence that can only come from national unity, a strong leadership and a political process that reflects the recognition that we are all -- the Administration as well as its opponents -- part of a permanent national endeavor.

This country has no greater contribution to make in the service of its ideals than to help the world find its way from an era of fear into a time of hope. With our old idealism and our new maturity, we have the opportunity to fulfill the hopes as well as the necessities of a peaceful world. A century ago, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that no nation could long endure "half slave and half free" and stirred the conscience of the nation. With a combination of lofty idealism and tough pragmatism, he saved the freedom of this nation. With a similar dedication -- in a world that is "half slave and half free" -- we in this era can be the champion and defender of the cause of liberty.