tv 1984 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate CSPAN March 20, 2016 6:45pm-7:46pm EDT
when college kids go to school they need to know how they are going to pay for it and afford it, as well as when they are leaving college, what their future will look like, who is trying to bring jobs back into the u.s. and things like that. so, as president of the college democrats, those are the two biggest issues. >> i was originally going to vote for bernie sanders, however because i am not that politically inclined, i ended up going with hillary because she has been in the political environment before. states been secretary of and she has already seen the inner workings of the white house and how the game goes. each week until the 2016 presidential election, american history tv brings us coverage of presidential races. 84 democratic debate in atlanta between former vice president walter mondale and john glenn of ohio, former
presidential mummy george mcgovern, and the reverend jesse jackson. the debate is best recovered for mondale's question. he asked "where's the beef?" vice president mondale finished the primary season with the lead in delegates, but he did not secure the nomination until the democratic convention in july. he then lost the general election in a landslide to ronald reagan, with the president winning 49 out of 50 states. our coverage of this hour-long debate is courtesy of the league of women voters. >> good afternoon, i am dorothy. look into the league's second debate of 1984. as we have done in previous presidential election years, the league of women voters is sponsoring a series of primary and general election debates so
that you, the voter can make side-by-side comparisons of the candidates and their views. john chancellor, a distinguished journalist and commentator is our moderator for the debate today. john? john: thank you. gentlemen, there were eight of you and now, they are only five. i must say, you survivors look pretty chipper to me. since then, four of you have not done as well as you would have liked. let me describe your positions. jesse jackson, if he does not get 20% of the vote, he will lose its eligibility for federal campaign matching funds. mr. mcgovern is down to one state, massachusetts. if he does not do well there, he may withdraw. mr. glenn has not scored a victory and the open in polls do not put him in a strong position. mr. mondale's hopes for a quick and decisive lead have not been fulfilled. mr. hart has done well and he
has presented himself as a man with ideas for the future, but his opponents say that is just glamour with no substance. well, on to the substance, ladies and gentlemen. be jackson, you will frontline combat experience in civil rights. now that you are campaigning in the south where there are a lot of black vote, you have been hitting that civil rights thing very hard, saying that you are better than your opponents on that issue. does that tend to narrow your candidacy? there are a lot of white voters who did not rally to your rainbow coalition. have you reached the point where your support will come exclusively from blacks? hampshire, i got 6% of the vote, which is better than four of my opponents. in vermont, we got 8% of the votes. we have focused on the question. thatn appreciate the fact
these farmers will be driven out of business. secondly, we want to cut the military budget and use those resources to help and the deficit and revitalize america. we represent a new presence, but not a new direction. that affects everybody. as does the civil voting rights act. it is the most pivotal act of this century. there is a plan to enforce the voting rights act to win the primary. so the questions of social peace, and sharing power with women are critical to my agenda. >> thank you. mr. mcgovern, you have been critical of gary hart recently. he was your campaign manager when he ran for president in 1972. [laughter] is his talk about the future
really much different from what you're were saying in 1972? >> john, first of all, i think i probably trained gary too well. [laughter] i have been rethinking that whole business of 1972. to me just say as one who has great special affection for gary hart, and you will certainly support him if he is the democratic nominee, that i do think some legitimate questions have to be asked when the issue is posed as gary has. he says the election is a contest between the past and the future. now, i'm not sure what the past means in those terms. i am very sensitive about this, as gary knows, because i am an old history teacher. i have always revered the past. georges the past include washington and thomas jefferson? does include franklin roosevelt and john kennedy? does it include the human rights policy of president carter? if it does, i am glad to come
here today and claimed the past and defend it as a good guide to the future. >> thank you. mr. glenn, we saw you in iowa and in new hampshire describing yourself as a businessman and inexperienced senator. but in the south this last week, you seem to be describing yourself as a hero, astronaut, and marine. you have been all of these things, but can you really decide what sort of person you have been? >> i don't think i have changed my views. what you are talking about is the experience factor. which you have pointed out. i have been 10 years in washington and have passed major legislation, such as the nonproliferation act. in addition to that, who is going to provide the jobs in this country? who knows the best from the white house? someone who has been in business as long as i have. i was the president of international corporation. 1/3 of our agriculture population gets sent overseas.
i have been in the research area. we talk about the future, i have been working in the future all my life. i was in the military, helping work on designing some of the agreement for the future. i have experience in the area, i have extremes in the arms control area, i have experience in the business area and i think those are very valuable additions, in addition to just being solely lifelong political entities. i think i have that extra dimension. good dimension to the white house. >> thank you. mr. mondale, your new theme is, what you see in mondale is what you get. no hairspray. [laughter] >> you are saying, "i am what i am."
you seem resistant to change her image. the approach seems to me a bit short on actual issues and you accuse your opponents of running issueless campaigns. >> that is the point of the comment. substance is all that matters. are we right on the arms control issues? plan tove a strong get that deficit down? will we educate this next generation? do we have the guts and commitment to restore a sense of fairness in american life, backed up by the experience to get it done? that is what i am trying to say. we don't elect momentum. we don't elect images. we elect a human being. and we better pick someone who knows what he is doing, who is committed to the strongest and most important elements, directed to our future, and one who is seasoned and experienced and knows what he is doing. >> thank you. and finally, mr. hart. one thing i hear people say is, i don't know much about gary
hart, i like his style and his looks. isn't there some truth to your opponent's charges that your campaign is more impressionistic than theirs? that you are spending more time tha just being gary hart then outlining what you will do when you are elected? >> that is a good question at this stage in the race. let me point out two fax. i have been a united states senator for two years. when george mcgovern says he does not know what these new , lastare, i remind him fall i sent him a copy of a book that i wrote and a stack of physician papers about that high. the other thing is, these primaries are happening off with awfully fast now. i oppose the way this calendar was set up. in the fall of 1982, i told the democratic national committee not to do this. i wish i had three weeks to
campaign in florida and three weeks to campaign in georgia and three weeks to campaign in alabama because i am convinced the ideas that i have to put forward would it still down here exactly the way they have in the rest of the country. so i would hope in the future, when we nominate the president, that we give each of the candidates time to become better known in each of these states. >> thank you. i would like to go on to some specific questionings now. gentlemen, the figures on the american economy show that the country right now is having one of the best recoveries from the recession since the 1950's. the country is in better shape right now than it was four years ago economically when the democrats were in the white house. i base that on the misery index. the public's expectation on inflation and unemployment. four years ago, the mystery index stood at 20 and now, it is down to 13. i am going to ask each of you in random order, why should some of the vote for the democrats? things are getting better. i would like to start with mr. mondale.
the mystery index was first used by the carter-mondale ticket and 9076 as an indicator of how people feel. thinka matter of fact, i it is now clear that these reagan policies are about to deliver a mystery index that we have not seen for a long time. we see the interest rates rising dramatically. we see the stock market going down dramatically. now, we see a resurgence of inflation. they are now predicting maybe 8% by the end of the year. we've a good chance if this continues, to choke off economic growth. more than that, the effect of these policies has been to give us the worst trade year in american history, about a $120 3llion trade imbalance, some million jobs lost as a result of that. these enormous deficits of $200 billion each year as far as the eye can see guarantee that long-term sustainable healthy
economic growth is impossible and we are loading our kids with theyllion dollar bill that have to repay with interest. it is the worst and labor economic mistake of modern times. >> i'm going to call on mr. hart. >> two points, mr. chancellor. this government is doing something we have not done for 200 years in this nation's history. and that is steal from our children's future to satisfy a the greed of a handful of people in his country. what that mystery indicator does not measure is the anguish of our children, who are desperately afraid of a nuclear inocaust, of the woman alabama who wrote me saying she fully supported my efforts to get the marines out of lebanon -- her son was one that did not come back -- the anguish of our citizens who are afraid of toxic waste polluting their water
supply, young people who do not know if they have a future education or a job beyond that, or the 9 million structurally unemployed people that ronald reagan has no plan whatsoever to put back to work. this president is not addressing the fundamental problems of this country's economy. >> mr. glen, would you address the question i have posed. why the democrats? >> the mystery index of our children, i would like to know what that is going to be. billion yearg $200 deficits and we are letting that drive interest rates up and we are driving exports down. we are increasing the mystery index from our children. anyone can live on borrowed money for a while. but there are things that have to go into that index for the future. this administration has taken a short view on also. the mystery index caused by cutbacks in education. the opportunity for our young people to go beyond high school, get a decent education. i have put forward a three-part
program of volunteers for america. young people can be assured of getting a college education. we are talking about the difficulty in investing in new plants and equipment here. we are talking about cutbacks and research. arejapanese and germans increasing the research, while we are cutting hours back. it is not just an economic matter. it is economic matters for the future that will cause our in economiclive missouri. that should not be their lot. we can do better than that. >> mr. chancellor, mr. reagan has done something i did not expect a conservative president to do. he has bought us an artificial recovery for some people. he has done that by spending $200 billion a year more than he takes in. now, i am sure some of the viewers listening to the five of us think we are making partisan judgments today about the president, but his own economic advisor, the chairman of the
council of economic advisers, has said that this $200 billion deficit is a time bomb that is going to go off after the election. it will drive interest rates through will drive interest rates right through the ceiling. he also said that what is causing this deficit is the wild inflationary and extravagant military spending that goes way beyond any defense requirement we have. secondly, it is an inefficient and unjust tax law that is permitting billions of dollars to go through the loopholes from the highest-income corporations in the country. my concern is that we feel the tragic pain of the misery index rising under reagan , but it will not make a .ifference mondale would mr. not show the ticket with a
woman, they deny women who need to become empowered. john: would you go over that? i am lost. mr. jackson: our convention is now 50% female. unless we do not empower women, they will be more miserable. if they maintain a commitment to raise the military budget, they can do nothing about reagan's deficit. they are going the same direction. we are cutting aid to american education and extending aid to el salvador. we are extending that misery. the misery index is on the rise. wall street may be looking better, but at the bottom, things are looking much worse. now a few minutes of freewheeling in which you are at liberty to attack one another to -- one another.
let me just try one thing. aren't most of you for an increase in defense spending? >> i am not. cut in the25% president's budget. i think it can be done without touching anything important to our national defense. i was a bomber pilot in the second world war. i would not advocate anything that i thought touched the essential defense of this country. some of the most thoughtful people say that it is just loaded with waste and cost overruns and not competitive bidding. if we had someone like lee iacocca as the secretary of 25%nse, he could work out less money and then you could do other things. -- thatsense that said
mr. jackson is not on point. mr. jackson: we need some force that allows it to become managed. right now, it is unmanageable. is, i support the need for troops in europe or japan. 50,000 troops in europe, in japan, they will help share some of the burden. they can be cut. if we can cut the defense by at , that is the money to implement the new ideas. john: now we have two cutters. as i understand the positions isen by the other three, it for cutting what the president has requested. you still favor a certain increase in the defense budget. am i right? sen. hart: i am for reducing the
billionuildup by $140 over the next five years. i have spelled out in great , as i think i am the only member of this group who has 10 years experience on the armed services committee, where the cuts come from. i will to you why i disagree with george and jesse. we have to increase what we are paying our military personnel to retain the most skilled personnel and avoid going back to a very divisive, vietnam-style draft. second, even after spending $650 billion in the last three years under this administration, the pentagon itself admits we have fewer combat-ready divisions than we had in 1980 under the carter-mondale administration. ist means even ronald reagan plundering the readiness of accounts for conventional
forces, which will make us weaker. john: maybe we can find a way to make this more understandable to the audience. isn't it true that the president has asked for a 13% increase in the allocations for defense? 17%, isn't it? john: 17% then. what would be yours? mine is about 3.5%-4%. >> not to argue with senator hart. about 1.5 years ago, he wrote a dissenting opinion from mr. reagan. let me make my point. one of the realities of modern presidential leadership is that as much as we want to bring the defense budget down, and i do,
as much as we want to get rid of weapon systems, and i will, as much as we need a tough new system of bidding, testing, warranties, as much as we need arms control to also help ring down pressure, the inescapable fact is that the soviet union is a powerful military nation using its power irresponsibly in cambodia and afghanistan and syria and elsewhere. the president of the united states has to do everything he can to manage that budget sensibly and wisely be but he cannot fail to effectively discharge the national security interests of our country. that is a tough balance. but a president must do it. would you give a percentage figure? mr. mondale: i would be at about 4%. my two colleagues
would this -- would cut our defense establishment beyond our -- all reality as far as keeping the security of this country. i have proposed about $15 billion. the rapid be on deployment and certain parts of that. the former vice president would cut the b-1, which carried cruise missiles. he would cut foreign troops and the m-1 tank. oppose procurement of the f-14. i propose that would leave this country emasculated. the only two of those he has pulled back from has been the trident missile and suffering. senator hart has gone to a
program of leadership and smaller and simpler is better rather than stressing our technology. that is a fundamental difference between us. i am saying that everything we put out there has to work properly. to thecannot go back smaller, simpler day, or we wind up matching our numbers for numbers of troops versus the soviets as opposed to using what we have done in every war, and that is using our technology to keep from using so many people out there. keep a distance between you and the enemy with our technology. i fought in those wars. i know what it is like to want the best technology because my life depended on it. i do not agree with this smaller and simpler is better and cheaper approach. i do not think most people across the south do, either. john: now we have had four hands up out of five. it goes in the order of your requesting time. hart, jackson, mcgovern,
mondale. >> i may want to get back in, to o. sen. hart: we cannot afford more aircraft carriers when each one cost $3.5 billion. we are behind the soviets in submarines by a ratio of 3-to-1. we are falling behind almost every category of weapon systems in numbers. i want to use our technological superiority to produce conventional weapons that work in combat in sufficient numbers to defend this country's interest. mr. jackson: preparing to kill and be killed by the russians. use more of our energy in talking and negotiating and engaging in trade and technology and agriculture, we could prepare to live. the fact is, we can wipe out the
soviet union with 300 warheads. we have 10,000. notonly reason they decided to kill us last night is because we decided not to kill them. that is uncivilized behavior. toneed to use our minds reduce the tension and do it another way. we should save the money we are using killing people to cut the defense,thout cutting use our minds, and go another way. mr. mcgovern: there is no new idea coming from over here. we have the same old argument. the russians are coming. the russians are about to jump on us. you can be very sure that the same argument is being made over there in the kremlin. the americans are gaining on us.
both superpowers are literally scaring each other to death. each side is arming in the name of defense. each side is piling up more and more of these weapons of destruction at a time when our societies are deteriorating. president eisenhower, who probably knew more about these military matters than any president since world war ii, put it this way. if the military spends too much, it actually weakens the country by depriving other sources of national power. education, housing, transportation, a balanced economy. these are things that also have to do with our national strength. i think we need a leadership that, instead of trying to get the russians to the bargaining table by a $1.5 trillion military buildup, has the chance to say we are ready to bargain right now. reagan has undertaken this unjustified buildup on the
theory that the russians would be more humble and they walked out on the arms negotiations. mr. mondale: i agree that the idea of building up arms to scare the russians will fail. i want to be understood as being to armscommitted control negotiations, efforts to reduce tensions. i could not agree with you more. , i do not wantnd to misinterpret what you have said, but the soviets are using their power. irresponsiblere and dangerous. how are you going to stop that with another 4% of military spending or 40%? that is not going to change their relations to poland or afghanistan or these other areas. mr. mondale: i think we need a sensible and strong defense.
i wanted to respond to john glenn. is point i wanted to respond i am for strong and sensible defense. let me give you one example. my opposition to the b-1. ways, i stand for strong defense. i want to give one example. opposed, iich i support the self because it is a modern, advanced bomber that will take us into the next century. my position is exactly the same in georgia.s he is probably the most-respected on arms services in our country. i think the navy has to be scaled to proper proportions and i would be for strengthening nato. those are all strong and responsible positions, coupled with an arms control position
that reflects the realities of the world as i see it. wouldmr. glenn, if you make your response as brief as possible. sen. glenn: i am the only one here who has put forth the five-point arms control program so that we do not have to have such big defense expenditures. limitation, reduction in the nuclear area, enforcing the nuclear nonproliferation act so we prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries around this world, involve the other nuclear weapons states in those divisions. that is a five-point program. the carriers. he and i had a debate on the senate floor two years ago about that. he talked about the cheaper carrier as a smaller one. that shows a lack of fundamental .nderstanding you have to have a fundamental task force that goes with any carrier that goes out there. the facts are you are trying to and forairpower at sea
combat aircraft at sea, it comes out to about $126 million per aircraft. million.d to $249 we argue this on the senate floor. we debated it. i won that debate decisively about two years ago. that is what i see as a lack of understanding. you do not have experience in some of these areas to know how these things function. i believe the charge was fundamental understanding and mr. hart jumped out of his chair. unless you want to sneak in before gary hart answers -- mr. jackson: everybody is sneaking on gary. obviously, the more that we talked in terms of engaging in real trade, the less we are going to have tension. we keep talking ways to confuse the people.
he has cut programs out from children. he has cut lunch programs out, .ut back on food stamps while he cuts away food from children, we arguing about prayer. what concerns me about that is the structure of a prayer. you do not pray for the food that just left. you pray for the food that you are about to receive. what we want to do is pray to remove the man who is removing the food. he is vulnerable at this level of the misery index. people are hurting. unemployed have fewer benefits and less food and less medical care. let's talk about a strong tranquility and
stability saves our nation from the inside out. i ask a question to anyone who wants to respond? every gentleman on this platform just that if we let fly 10% of the nuclear weapons we have targeted on the soviet union, every man, woman, and child in the soviet union would die instantly. what are we going to achieve building any further than that? what is it we are trying to do with a 4% increase? why not a cut in this enormous escalation that the president has on the drawing board? you will agree that there is a difference between strategic and conventional weapons and nuclear ones. if we are going to bring nuclear weapons down, we must have adequate conventional or's is and pay people to run them. i do not see that paying an e-5
ise-7 an adequate wage threatening or frightening to russia. mr. mcgovern: i agree with that. we can make certain modest increases. if you cut these enormously nukey new systems -- systems, there would be enough money to do what you want to do. sen. hart: why is john glenn attacking me for all the cuts i want to make and you are attacking me for not cutting more? mr. mcgovern: the reason is john glenn is further off than you are. sen. hart: we can go on all day. that is all right with me. john: last word on the subject. we have to go on. sen. glenn: you commented on the
increase in nuclear. i do not believe we need an increase in nuclear. i do support the idea of upgrading and making certain our conventional forces are adequate so we never reached the nuclear or have a condition on either side to go to nuclear warfare. we are now, gentlemen, going to change the subject. i want you all to listen to this because you all thought about sleeping in the white house. it is 2:00 in the morning. you are upstairs in the bedroom and you are sound asleep and the phone rings. an airliner from czechoslovakia, communist country, enters american airspace directly across from missile bases. it is headed for colorado springs and the north american air defense command. american fighters have tried everything they can do to stop it short of shooting it down. all ofg across its bow,
that. they look in. the lights are on and it is full of people. there you are at 2:00 in the morning. what are you going to do? if the people that they looked in and saw had uniforms on, i would shoot the aircraft down. if they were civilians, i would let it keep going. >> i would share the same judgment. when you should doubt an innocent billionaire -- these things have markings. you do not have a civilian aircraft flying around that has military potential. when that is the case, it seems to me that you take every reasonable precaution to avoid the kind of crisis and embarrassment and affiliation of the arctic surrounding korean airlines. this would be a potential attack, that is something else. what are the odds of your
question ever occurring? do you believe the soviet union was after us, they would fire up putting acrossgo the air? or do you think they would take modern stuff and let it all go? i think that is a wonderful hypothetical. it is ridiculous. sen. glenn: first, there is such a fundamental misunderstanding of going up and saying we're going to peek in the window of this thing. you are going to see people. that is what he said. i have flown wing on these airplanes. you do not go up picking in the window. -- peeking in the window. i think one element that is quite important is that if we
have an adequate intelligence service with some of the others , i have wanted to expand our intelligence service and we know more about what the soviets are doing. if we had an adequate satellite system that tells where the airliner came from, what information there is about what was loaded on the airplane, what was sent into the base where it took off, there is a lot of information like that that goes into it. just that kind of judgment. i think the answer will be foundon in three weeks. john: thank you for the brevity of your response. i think what this hypothetical example points out -- and with all due respect to you, i think it is ridiculous -- but what it points out, as well ,s the korea jetliner instance
is the necessity of better communications between washington and moscow. one of the great tragedies of the last three years is that the president of the united states has not even talked for 60 seconds to the leader of the other superpower. in fact, two of their leaders have died during the time president reagan has been in office without ever meeting our president. if we had systematic, regular talks between the president of the united states and his counterpart in the soviet union, it is quite possible we would have avoided the korea jetliner incident and this hypothetical matter that you pose. if world war iii comes, it will be because of a communications breakdown. john: i would like to go onto something else. you are all democrats, which means that you are the political heirs of frankland eleanor roosevelt.
half a century ago, he became president. the united states began to change. the federal government took over many responsibilities from the states. we have had half a century of continued federal involvement in people's lives. as it has always grown. the election of 1980 may have changed that. at least many republicans think so. if one of you wins the election, i think this is a really serious question. will there be less federal involvement or will it be the a return to the way things were before reagan? mr. mondale: i think it is essential that the president lead us with a strong federal government to solve those problems that are essential to our future. number one, to get those deficits down dramatically. if we do not do that, we cannot have a healthy economy. number two, to have a strong, new, assertive american trade policy. this is the first year in
american history, all through georgia and alabama and florida, armors -- alabama has 13% unemployment. a lot of people left on behind -- are left behind. a lot is because of the trade disaster. we need a renaissance in the education of science and trading. this next generation is going to be able to defend themselves and compete. they must have the support. finally, we need a president who leads us towards justice. and i mean and forcing those civil rights acts, ratifying the home ice -- the equal rights amendment, standing up for social security and medicare. this country must the fair. the history of america is that when a president leads us toward our future, it can be done. sen. hart: i have made quite an issue out of new leadership. i mean those who have come into political life and leadership over the past decade. that is because there is a
strong antigovernment feeling out there. i fundamentally disagree with ronald reagan when he says he loves his country and hates our government. i do not hate our government. i think we ought to have leaders who ask people what they can do for their country using the best of ourt -- instruments government. but i think there is a fundamental difference between vice president mondale and myself. i think we can meet the basic human needs and commitments of the people of this country by restoring entrepreneurship. societyew jobs in this have come from small businesses. i think the dedication of the democratic party to minority people in the south and elsewhere should not just be jobs. it should be the opportunity to own and operate businesses that create jobs. mr. mondale: what is new about coming out with entrepreneurs?
can i hear of your new ideas, i am reminded of that ad, where's the beef? [laughter] john: let's keep going. wait a minute. he is going to tell you where the beef is. one of the other differences is that if a president goes back in office, and one of us must to save this country, you cannot go back committed to a handful of constituency groups that you cannot make this economy grow again. that is a major difference between myself -- mr. mondale: wait a minute. i told you what i was going to do, get the deficits down and educate the next generation. those are not special interest groups. i said i will stand against supportinterests and social security and medicare. what is wrong with that? john: i would like to move on.
mr. jackson and then mr. glenn. mr. jackson: the role of the government is to be a balance between big labor and the management. the government must assume it is responsible to enforce the laws. the voting rights act is not being enforced. democrats want to reconcile the interests. , 18 years 30% black after the voting rights act. appeals court, zero. sheriff's, zero. the government must enforce the laws and not equivocate in the face of local considerations. on the other hand, the private economy is $3 trillion. the $700 billion tax break to
corporations, they must be obligated to reinvest in this economy. we can no longer allow these companies to take this money. that is a strong central government. sen. glenn: mr. chancellor: mr. glenn. sen. glenn: when i was a boy in new concord, ohio in the great depression, we estimate we had about 51% of the people at or below poverty level. fdr came in. my dad went to work on wpa. we had a lot of programs, but fha at that time. it helped a lot of people. we estimated a few years ago only 9% of the people in this country were at or near poverty level. that is a record of social revolution in this country. it didn't happen with socialism, fascism, or communism. it happened with good, solid democratic programs. we can be very proud of those. we went a little too far in some of those programs. we have to correct those. now you're talking about intrusion of government. there are areas where we have some very major differences.
i spelled them out between myself and mr. hart a couple of days ago. e.r.a. he said he would use that -- and i'm for e.r.a. proud that ohio lead the way with that. he said e.r.a. -- he would use the power of the federal government to withhold projects -- sen. hart: no, i did not -- sen. glenn: yes, you did. i will read it to you. let me read it, if i have enough me. mr. chancellor: you can read it on the next turn around. sen. glenn: fine. but he said he would withhold federal projects. that is flat wrong. when you are going to intrude into people's lives in that basis with federal projects. he set an industrial policy that said he wanted to make choices in credit and allocate those things. and that intrudes the federal government into business. mr. chancellor: i am sorry. but if you can take that out of your closing statement -- we have not heard from george mcgovern about the federal role.
mr. mcgovern: there are two types of concentration of power. one is too much federal concentration. the other is too much corporate concentration of power. on the federal side, president reagan has increased the percentage of gnp now being taken up by the federal government. the reason is obviously the dramatic increase in military spending. he has cut nutrition and education, the environment. things like that. those cuts are less than the increase in the interest rate on the federal debt since he took office because of the escalating deficit he has brought on. on the corporate side, we have had more, huge corporate mergers in the last three years than any previous time in american history. enormous oil companies taking over others to the point i think it is a call on all of us to see what we can do to strengthen antitrust laws.
mr. chancellor: do you, democrats, think the private sector, as the president often says, can pick up the slack in federal government programs? mr. mondale: i think that a private, healthy economy is indispensable to everything. if you do not have a growing, healthy economy with entrepreneurship and small businesses, we will not solve anything. the key is to make sure that the prosperity and entrepreneurship is found in minorities as well. there is a lot we can do through the small business administration, tax incentives, federal licensing laws, to make sure more black, hispanic, women, and other minorities can participate in fullness of the profit making. and through training and education make certain that people who are now being left behind are made part of this process. that depends on a private,
healthy economy. that is why you have to get the deficit down and get going with an environment where we can prosper. rev. jackson: when i was in operation push, we challenged corporate america. when reagan cut down on aid, we began to move toward trade. burger king, for example, made the judgment to build a plant in utah and alabama as part of our agreement. they hired 200 people. they were stocked from small farms that were run out of business by guaranteeing a market of 5 million pounds of cucumbers a year. if a company does that, they ought to get a tax incentive. if a corporation puts a day care center at its plant, which allows the mother to come to work and spares welfare, that ought to be a tax incentive. if there is a tax investment and uses that money to reinvest in our economy and retrain our work
force rather than closing plants and sending workers abroad, the use of tax incentives as leverage for urban development is a creative use of tax investment rather than leverage. mr. chancellor: senator hart. then after, we have time for one more response before i have to ask you to go into your closing statements. sen. hart: in the almost 10 years in congress for me, vice president mondale has pulled about a half-dozen of my thousands of votes to say i am not for this or that. one was a vote for osha. vice president mondale knows i am as committed to a safe workplace as he is. the vote is this -- it was towards the big difference. it was to exempt from certain people work requirements.
small businesses who have 10 or fewer employees. and farmers who employed fewer than five people. it was that bureaucracy and paperwork that drove the democrats out of office in the 1970's. we can have a safe workplace for people without driving small business people and family farmers off their land or out of their business. mr. mondale: i saw the vote but have never mentioned it. what i talked about was, where unlike some senators, you refused to vote on a windfall profits tax which, if successful, would have given the oil $250 million. sen. hart: there you go again. mr. mondale: secondly, i talked about your $10 a barrel tax. that is the worst idea in this campaign. sen. hart: that was a carter-mondale initiative. mr. mondale: oh, no. i have had nothing to do with that, it is the worst idea. carter is not for it. nobody except you is for it, and you are not talking about it anymore it is so bad. half a million people lose their jobs. america will become the highest cost producing area in the country. talk about intrusion and
destruction of jobs and entrepreneurship and position in international trade. this is a disaster. i do not think you thought it through. sen. hart: let me respond. mr. mondale: let me finish my point. rev. jackson: this is a bad idea. [laughter] mr. chancellor: i am terribly worried. you either have a choice -- i am sorry, but the clock is inexorable -- of having a chance to say what you want to say at the end or squeezing it at the very end. so senator, can you say it in 25 words or less? sen. hart: less than that. i voted for a carter-mondale tariff on imported oil. i was only one of 15 senators who had the courage to support this administration.
and i proposed a windfall profits tax of 100% on old oil owned by the big oil companies in this country. that goes beyond carter-mondale. mr. mondale: this is a complete distortion of what he did -- can i have 25 seconds? sen. hart: that is not a distortion. mr. mondale: when we needed you, you were wrong. sen. hart: that is not right. mr. chancellor: i will ask you now, if we can get your reasoned closing statements. we will all take a breath. sorry, senator mcgovern, but we have to do that. the first one we asked, preordained by lot, the first one who goes is senator hart. sen. hart: i have no idea how the primaries and caucuses will come out next tuesday or beyond. i obviously hope that i will be successful. i hope so for several reasons. george mcgovern talked about the great leaders of our past, democratic or otherwise.
my values are as deeply rooted in those leaders and that past and those ideals as any person on this platform, indeed, in this country. but it is interesting the leaders he mentioned represented something else than just ideals and principles. they represented change. we must have new leadership and a new approach and a fresh start for the country. mr. chancellor: thank you. mr. jackson. rev. jackson: if we have new leadership to replace old leadership but going basically in the same direction, not sharing the ticket with a woman, increasing the military budget, resisting a real commitment to enforcing the voting rights act, that is a new face or a new name by an old game. we need to go another direction.
our party has to be the party of conscience. the fact is under reagan, there are 5 million more people who are poor. 3 million of whom are children. now up to 15% of our nation. it will be 41 million by the end of this year. there must be a commitment to lift those votes stuck at the bottom. we must reduce the military budget without reducing our military defense. use that money to create a future for our children, that they may be able to lay bricks and not throw them. if we give our children a chance, it will give our nation a chance. i remain convinced we will suffer, but suffering breeds character. character breeds faith. and in the end, faith will not disappoint. we must pursue those values. mr. chancellor: mr. mcgovern. mr. mcgovern: since gary and fritz have been objected to being called a front runner, i hope they will let me take that
label with me back to boston. franklin roosevelt once said that the presidency is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. that is true. that means the next president will have to seek, above all else, our salvation from nuclear annihilation. second only to that, we have to learn, in this great country, to quit intervening in these third world revolutions, whether it is el salvador or nicaragua or lebanon or wherever. unfortunately, in the name of fighting communism, we have embraced virtually every scoundrel around the world willing to wave an anti-communist banner. [applause] mr. mcgovern: the time has come for the united states to once again assert in foreign policy not what we hate and fear but what this great country is for. that ought to be the goal of the next president. mr. chancellor: thank you. sen. glenn: george brought up we
have not had more of an opportunity to talk about foreign policy. that is so important, what happens around the world. but i do not agree with gary that this is a generation gap of some kind. we go ahead as a nation and always have in the past. we have the best interest of all of our people. of the young, the middle-aged, the elderly. we have concerns for everyone within our society. the south has the opportunity to set that course next tuesday. it is a unique opportunity for leadership in the democratic party and leadership for our nation. i see myself as a moderate, the only moderate left here. i do not believe in this politics of momentum that seems to be abroad. politics of stampede. i hope the people of the south will slow down, think about the issues, and the position we have taken on the economy and education and research these things. then vote about what you know we have actually proposed. we can control the destiny of this country. we can be number one again.
george mcgovern, a few weeks ago, said he did not want people to throw away their conscience. i say do not throw away your common sense either. your vote next week -- i guarantee you i will give you a presidency you can be proud of again. mr. chancellor: thank you, senator. mr. mondale: in the south and throughout the country, we are about to participate in super tuesday. the most important question is whether the president you want is someone who will ensure our national security and will work for peace. that takes someone who knows what he is doing. this may well now be a two man race between myself and senator hart. >> i disagree with that. [laughter] mr. mondale: if you look at the records, i think something is
disclosed. a few days ago, senator hart said that if persian gulf oil were interrupted that the allies would be on their own and they could not look to us for help. in my opinion, that is naive. some time back, he was asked whether cuba was a totalitarian state. he said no. that is wrong. it is a communist dictatorship, and a president must know the difference. he has had a record on arms control, which is weak. we need a president who will push forward and provide the leadership of this country needs for our national security and to achieve the peace. mr. chancellor: i want to thank you all. we have come to the end of this. as i think the reverend jackson said -- did you not just say, a minute ago, "suffering breeds discipline"? rev. jackson: no, suffering breeds character. mr. chancellor: suffering breeds character. and you have all such terrific characters because of the suffering you have gone through.
the next league of women voters debate will take place in pittsburgh, april 5. we are not supposed to take sides on this. i suppose it would be nice if all five of you could join the league of women voters there. but who can say. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]