Firing Line - Wm F. Buckley, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield

December 14, 196"(Washington, D. C.

I believe that the subsequent election proved that Senator Goldwater was

(9'\967 ,W. F. Bucldey

the large talents of Senator Hatfield who, if only he had had the good fortune to be born

ought not to be nominated?

Announcer: "}<'iring Line, II with William F. Buckley, Jr.

made that decision, nevertheless cooperated with the campaign of Mr. Goldwater. I would

in New York or California, or maybe even Illinois, would almost certainly be contending

back before his recent election to the Senate, he was honored by the Republican Party --

Mr. Buckley: Senator Hatfield is, of course, from Oregon, a circumst1:tnce many of his

backers deplore, not because they dislike Oregon, for heaven sakes, but because they be-

the Republican Party deliberately nominated Senator Goldwater in open Convention -- decisions

he thought it would be a great mistake to nominate Barry Goldwater. Mr. Hatfield, having

it was he who seconded the nomination of Richard,Nixon in Chicago in"1960, and who was

lieve that Oregon simply isn't big enough to act as a suitable power base for someone of

FIRING LINE - No. 81 - "Vias Gold,,,atel' A Mistal(I.~?"

William F• Buckley, Jl'.Senator Mark Hatfield, Guest

Senator Goldwater.

history what were, in fact, the principal reasons for his judgment that Senator Goldwater

at which he, has been so signally successful. During 1964, Mark Hatfield made it clear tha:t

for the Presidency of the United States. Even so, he is frequently spoken of as a suit-

able Vice Presidential candidate, and during the many years that he served as Governor,

like to begin by asking Mr. -- Senator ,Hatfield whether or not he now knows in the light of

Senator Hatfield: I don't think that Senator Goldwater's nomination ,,,as a mistake by theas

Republican Party, /1 felt, perhaps, during the tilue prior to the Convention because actually

from Willamette University in Oregon, he returned there as Dean of Students. Then, politics,

that were made in the conventions at the State level and in the primaries of certain States

~hdicated very clearly that the Republican Party, as represented by its delegates" wanted

tapped as keynote speaker for the Republicans in 1964. Mr. Hatfield was born in 1922

~nd served during ehe Second World War, including in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He is by

profession an educator, a teacher of Political Science, and seven years after graduating

... 2.

was other than a man of compassion and a man of understanding, as far as people were con-

clude independents and Democrats, and so forth. There was what I would say the mistake

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University..

within Senator

it happened to be these off-the-cuff types of responses thatcerned. But with these

Senator Goldwater's candidacy. I think within the Republican Party

Mr. Buckley: Well -- that's, that's interesting from several points of view; among them

It was not inclusive of even within the Republican Party, let alone reaching out to in-

who liked certain status quo and certain situations as they existed by a sort of off-the-

Senator Hatfield: He tended to evoke fear. He evoked concern on the part of many people

Mr. Buckley: Uh-hmm.

as a person was rejected so much as was Senat~r Goluwater's basic approach to problems.

called warmongers. And this evoked fear on the part of many people in this country towards.

of defoliation also caused the American pUblic a certain amount of fear because Candidate'}

.. - was the way the campaign was conducted, and: the way the issues were handled.

caused people to fear him. The dirty word that he constantly used during the campaign

TVA. Upon serious probing of Senator Goldwater, I don't think anyone could feel that he

cUff, off-the-top of the head reaction and response to questions involving Social Security,

an exclusive campaign program, exclusive campaign organiza·tion on a very narrow base.

Goldwater's campaign organization --there was a great tendency to have what you might call

that you seem to be saying that it was ·a mistake because he wasn't elected, and I certainly

understand that -- that's elementary, political mathematics; presumably, it wouldn't have

. and now he is overwhelmingly, I gather -- at least according to recent polls -- repudiated.

«""unacceptable to the general Amerlcan public b,) the vary obvious election results and b.y

the margin of that election defeat for Senator Goldwater. I don't think Senator Goldwater

.Johnson was so eloquent in stating the proposition that in Vietnam this was an Asian war

"to be fought by Asian boys, and that anyone who wan-ted to rfsk the confrontation with

700,000,000 Chinese, such as he was interpreting Mr. Goldwater's statements, should be

been a mistake if he had been elected, correct? Now, in .the case of· Lyndon Johnson, he

~was overwhelmingly endorsed because the assumption is that the American people backed him,

~ Ndw, one of the reasons why I gather he is repudiated is because he has behaved concerning

.•

certain matters in the way that Senator Goldwater would not have behaved concerning

(':\ certain matters. So, it may be, actually, that your indictment of Senator Goldwater

"--""------------------------------~"

could have won.

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

I said the margin of his defeat, not so much the actual fact of his

Mr. Buckley: Yeah.

Senator Hatfield:

could theoretically go hand in hand with your endorsement of him as a sort of strategic

circumstance, might have failed regardless of how he campaigned, or the issues that he

~. Buckley: Irreparable. (Obviously, this i~ a Buckley tongue-in-cheek)

defeat as was the margin of his defeat -- the loss of a Charles Percy in Illinois

might have taken.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah.(clearing throat)

I don't think that this is all true.

cumstance, or different circumstances, or do I say that any other Republican candidate

Senator Hatfield: Well, I don't say that Senator Goldwater could h,we won under any cir-

statesman, correct?

Ike. So, maybe there isn't a flat causal relationship, is there?

win next Saturday because the opponent'next Saturday lost to the opponent last Saturday.

like saying that the football team that beat its opponent last Satu~day, will automatically

Senator Hatfield: -- the loss of Robert Taft in Illinois -- I mean, in Ohio •.)

Mr. Buckley: Yes, that's true, although, as a matter of fact the figures show that there

were fewer Republican losses in the House and Senate in 1964 than there were in 1958 under

Senator Hatfield: Well, it's like the Devil quoting Scripture: I am sure that we can

use campaign figures on a comparative basis tQ prove it -- to prove any point. But that's

Mr. Buckley: But you started that -- (laughing) I didn't start that- (next blurred in

~ Senator Hatfield: It a~dfl- came out, though, (laughing). I didn't know for a while

whether I would really get through on that one. (Laughter) But it came out.

Mr. Buckley: You mean which football team beat \·,'hieh?

tllnator Hatfield: (Laughing) Yes.

4.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah, I get tangled up in that one, too. So, let's agree that it wasn't

necessarily Gdlwater's fau+t that the PartY' did so badly in 1966. L0t lU0 explore with you

Senator Hatfield: No more was it Thomas Dewey's complete f(;iult that the Republicans lost

in '4Q.

Mr. Buckley: Correct. Therefore, history will never reveal, will it, how Goldwater did by

eomp(;irison with, let us say, Nelson Rockefeller, if he had been nominated. Yeh - now --

as you know --

Senator Hatf'ield: Oh, I think Nelson Rockefeller would have done much better.

Mr. Buckley: Urn -- well

Senator Hatfield: Because I think he would have'appealed by his own record and by his

philosophy and his conviction. I think he would have appealed to a ~roader number within

~he Republican Party, as well as people outside of the Republ~can Party since the Republican

Party is a minority party we obviously have to get people from outside our Party.

Mr. BuckleY': Well -- I see, I see your point." . It is, of course, true that on two of the

three occazi>ions where they met; head on, Mr. Goldwater beat Mr. Rockefeller, but let' 6 assume

that everybody outside of Oregon is perverse. (Laughing)

Senator Hatficil: No. He met him sort of obliquely in Oregon, you feel.

Mr. Buckley: Well, I know that Mr. Goldwater was there for only twenty-four hours -- and

"maybe it was your weather. But they both spent a lot of time in California.

Senator Hatfield: No, it was much more than the weather. (Laughing)

Mr. Buckley: It was ~, wasn't it? (Laughing)

Senator Hatfield: Oh no, no.

Mr. Buckley: They did spend quite a lot of time in California, and of course he won, and

Of course he beat him in New Hampshire, though they were both bea"ten by Mr. Lodge. But,

~now, here is something that I think a lot of people will be interested in. There seems

to be a general discontentment with the means by which the Republicans select their.


There's a thing up in Cambridge, Massachusetts, called ~be Ripon Society.I"

candidate.~~

f?e Ripon Society consis ts of two Ph. D' s. and tl Jree (unclear) secretaries, and

their function seems ~o be to persuade the Republican Party to exactly imitate the

Democratic Party, so as to preserve the two-party system. Now, the gentleman who runs

it is a very able man, and'he says, Look, we're about to have happen again in 1968 what

happened in 1964. And what happened then is largely what you say that the Party workers,

the pols(?},seally decide who gets nominated because most ,states don't have -- don't have

Presidential primaries. So, even if you can assume a situation in which J'ohn won all the

Presidential primaries, but James is the favorHe of the Republican Party qu~ institution,

then James is going to get nominated. And they say what is going to happen is that Nixon

or Reagan are going(jo control the Convention, irrespective of what happens in the primaries.

So,they say, you get a situation which polls consistently show 'that one man is more popular

with the people at large, but the apparatus -- Republican apparatus is constantly attracted'}

to somebody else. Now, I'd like to know first, do you accept this analysis; (B) would you

~e in favor of a reform and (C) why is there that discrepancy'between a man being a hero to

the people and a man being a hero to the Republican Party?

Seg,ator Hatfield: Going back to .- prior t,o your questions, I would, first of all, say

that I think the Ripon oociety has made a very great~ontribution to the Republican Party,

and unlike your interpretations that you say it only asks us to imitate, I think in its

last document, suggesting an alternative to Vietnam, is one of a number of good examples

where there has been scholarly research and careful evaluation and a presentation of some

specific alternatives to the ),!resent Democratic war policy. So, I do feel that whether we

agree or disagree with their conclusions or their reports or their suggestions, they are

on a positive base of trying to identify an issue or a problem, and in addressing itself

to a problem -- as contrasted to some within the Republican Party who want to 'try to ignore

the fact that there is a problem.

Mr. Buckley: There are plenty of Democrats who offer a range of solutions to Vietnam, so

~ don't think we ought to say that the Ripon discovered dissent on Vietnam.

Senator Hatfield: No. But they have provided, I think, the most clearly established

..'.


6.alternative of anyone that I have heard of within the Republican Party, outside of myself,

('(laUghter) who -- who would otherwise have only endorsed the present policy. After 0.11,

our minority leader on the floor of the Senate has defended the Administration. The

minority leadership on the House side has, in effect, defended the basic premise of this

policy. So, I think if there is any me-too imitating, we could find a great deal of that

within the Republican Party today. Whereas, in the case of the Ripon Society, we have a

very definite alternative. As to your basic questions, I think that the observations are

valid. I recall in 1952 in Chicago, as a delegate to that Republican Convention, I had no

doubt in mt mind, and I was certainly not any great political expert, but those who were

seemed to have the same reaction that I had -- that the heart of that Convention belonged

to Robert Taft.

Mr. Buckley: Uh-hID.'I

Senator Hatfield: But the pragmatic approach to whether we could win in an election'year

",with Robert Taft was a different story with a different situation. With Taft having the

heart of the Convention, Eisenhower ended up with the nomination. Now, I think this has

been true in many instances where pe6ple whQ may ~ave certain pgilosophical cameraderie

with certain individuals will recognize -- or personal friendships -- will recognize that

that individual perhaps cannot project or could not convey to a yoting constituency suf-

ficient political appeal to be elected. Right or wrong, this is the pragmatic approach

many of these people (blurred by announcer breaking in)

Announcer: Sorry, we must pause for a moment.

Senator Hatfield: (continuing -- but some words are lost during announcement) candidate, '

who is James, instead of the one we prefer who is John.


Senator Hatfield: I think as to the -- the refonn that should be brought about, I per-

sonally would like to see a national primary -- a Presidential preferential primary,

~somewhat based on the pattern of the Oregon system where all of the avowed candidates are

listed on the ballot, where the rank and file member of each Party 'bas the determining

vote on who shall be the nominee and represented by his own state delegation. Now, this";::....- }.


II

II

~a.kes it again one step closer to the mass of 'p00ple who, I think, should be the

basic decision-makers, vlhere the sovereignty for this type oJ decision should lay.

Mr. Buckley: Well, the sovereignty is one thing, the process of selection is quite

different. It seems to me the history of America is not one that asks for plebiscitary

government. If it did, it would be easier to collapse a government at a. moment of its

unpopularity. You wouldn't have a six-year term, but a term merely at the sufferance of

your constituents, and sa on ~ndso forth. Surely, the majority of the American people

ought to understand that there is a function for the Party leaders; for people like your

self. Let me be quite plain. It seems to me that a lot of people in Oregon look to you

to advise them whom you think ought to be nominated on the grounds tat you are professionally

engaged in trying to look after the welfare of this country, and they're not. And that,

under the circumstances, moments may come when the responsible Party will eschew the man'I

that has a quick appeal as a result of his allurements on television, or the movies, or

~hatever (laughter) and instead say, Look, Robert A. Taft is 'the man who ought to be

President of the United states, not Dwight Eisenhower because he is so successful on tele-

vision and did so well on D-Day. Now, aren't you in effect suggesting that you abdicate

~Hf6-F this function which, under American history, has been traditionally exercised by

the Party?

Senator Hatfield: Yes, I am abdicating this.

Mr. Buckley: Aren't you ashamed of yourself?

Senator Hatfield: No, not at all. Because I see American history as evolutionary. I

don't think the circumstances and conditions - ... '

Mr. Buckley: From freedom from slavery?

Senator llatfield: ~- exist today that existed when this whole Constitutional system was

arranged and established. We have a literacy today. We have a constituency whichhas

far greater knowledge and access to facts and information --

f"\vrr. Buckley: It's not really true, you know -- in a strange sort of a way.

Senator Hatfield: Oh, I think it is.

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University.

Mr. Buckley: Well -- you see

~enator Hatfield: Look at the property people -- they were the only ones who voted in

the early days: male, white, property. Look how we've evolved from that.

Mr. Buckley: Are you suggesting that there is a difference between the way males and

females vote?

Senator Hatfield: Oh well, there are in some elections. I certainly appreciate -

Mr. Buckley: I'm sure you would (Laughter drowns it out).· I'm sure you would profit

from whatever difference there is. But, I think that the whole notion that America is

a more literate nation is, if I may say so, one of those superstitions with which we hum

ourselves to sleep. One has only to compare the fact that when Lincoln -- that over a

hundred years ago there was only about 40% literacy, and then exam -- whereas now there

is' what -- 98% u

Senator Hatfield: This is progress.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. But then you examine the relative difference between, let's say,

~the debates between Lincoln and Douglas, and the debate between Nixon and Kennedy, and

ask yourself, are we a more mature nation?

Senator Hatfield: Well, I think maturity and literacy are two different things.

Mr. Buckley: All-hah.

Senator Hatfield: You see, I think the Russians today are a far more literate country.

One of the things the Bolsheviks did was to move on to this ques'tion of li ~eracy. Was

it to develop a more mature people? No--

Mr. Buckley: Who told you~? ,?eriously, who told you ~t? (Laughter)

Senator Hatfield: Now wait a minute. This is a fact of history. But the purpose

was to expose

Mr. Buckley: Do you deal only in facts of history?

Senator Hatfield: -- the point of it was to expose the people to one n~re dimension of

e propaganda.

. Mr. Buckley: Yeah.


},

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University..

whole process of political decision-making.

9.It wasn't to develop a mature people who could evaluate und have

point is, we have given them more. We have expanded the whole base of the voting con-

propaganda -- not just the spoken word, not just the visual --

Mr. Buckley: Yeah, I'm asking you why--

Mr. Buckley: Oh, I see what you mean -- sort of wall poster deliverance

to yOU,l' thesis. Because a moment ago you gave me with a great Spenglerian sweep something

Senator Hatfield: It was the matter of developing more literacy in tenus of knowing how

Senator Hatfield:

Senator Hatfield: No, I'm not shrinking -- actually, that's not a characteristic, btH~ the

should give more and more duties co the people at large. And now, you are shrinking --

I'm not saying the American people -- (blurred by overlap)

Mr. Buckley: Complete, complete (7) but it's one that I think is a little bit inconvenient

about the history of America is evolu'l;;ionary, and we have reached a poin'!> at which one

to ~ad propaganda, as well as to hear it.

that to a broader base. We've given more people -- we've included more people in the

Senator Hatfield: So, I'm saying there is a difference between maturity and literacy.

stituency from merely a restricted one of white, male, property class. We've evolved

cept that you do this for the people, that you do it in lieu of them doing it themselves,

Senator Hatfield: And I think this' is a good i,d~a.

Mr. Buckley: Why?

Senator Hatfield: Because of the fact that if you are going to develop the mature con-

stitu.ency to which you have referred, I do not believe-in the old New Deal-Fair Deal con-

,Mr. Buckley: Yeah, but do you think that is a good idea necessarily?

~and because they are not mature, or they are not politically literate. That's been one

of the whole foundation stones of the New Deal. That's the philosophy of the Democrats.

'-

Senator H~tfield: No, no, no --

f'Mr. Buckley: -- and suggesting that 'l:ihey are more mature.

(ja choice of information. But it was to subject the people to another dimension of

if they don't have aware~ess enough to know they're in poverty, we'll tell them they're

in poverty. If they don't have an awareness to know they have been discriminated~ainst,

tellwe'll/them so.

, .

('It was that .!!£ know best -- ~, know best, the people are ignorant, are :i.lliterate.

We'll do this for them. We'll think for them. We'll act for them. If they don't

10.

Mr. Buckley: Well, in a sense that's true and correct, isn't it'? Don't you agree?

In other words--

Senator Hatfield: I think they're wrong.

Mr. 'Buckley: Why?

Senator Hatfield: You don't develop a mature people creating a continuing role of de-

pendency. You develop a mature people by creating a role where they can be as individuals

responsible and then assume grea'ter responsibility, rather than nar~ow the responsibility.

Mr. Buck~ey: Well,. I don't see that this follows from your heady analysis. It seems to me

4r'that if somebody is being discriminated against, it is precisely sonlebody,s function to re-

mind them of the fact becau8e it's a humanizing revelation to find this out. If somebody

is -- is poor and is uneducated, it seems to me that it is correct that somebody tell him

that he is poor and uneducated.

Senator Hatfield: I don't thinl<;; J?,lurred in overlap)

Mr. Buckley: -- so to stimulate those distinctively human functions.

Senator Hatfield: You see, telling them one thing -- I don't think these people have to be

told. You don'.t have to tell the uverage Negro in America living in a ghetto that this is

not -- that this is equal to other people. ~lat his poor quality of education i s other

than discrimination. He knows this. But the question always comes back then, how do you

correct these matters.

Mr. Buckley: Uh-11m.

~ Senator Hatfield: Do you do it in terms of paternalism -- where we do it for them through

our established policies and programs of government. Or, do you seek, as I would like to see

}.


~where we can include them and brick by brick t.hey build their houses.

in their own solutions to their own dil-, to their own problems.

11.

'1'hey're involved

Mr. Buckley: Well, obviously, I agree with you --

Senator Hatfield: I think part of our problem has been -- (drowned out by Announcer)

that Washington or the State Capitols, or government in general, that we have all the

knowledge, and, therefore, we must devise the programs, we must devise andimplement them

unrelated, perhaps to even the very people themselves WhOll\ we are attempting to help.

Why the riots in some of these cities in the North where there has been so much progress

in housing, in educatiBln, in· othel' matters of social needs -- I think part of this was

that these people who had been given many of these advantages or impwovements had not

felt that they were a part 01' it. Why the second most hated symbol of au'thority of the

~atts are~, according to their investigation of the riotG in Watts, was the welfare case

worker. Next to the police was the welfare c~seworker. The Director of Public Welfare of

California said, why -- we gave them, we are, thereto help them, we are there to sive

these people assistance -- why should they hate us? Well, I think again this paternalism

that they sense far more -- probably qUicker than people outside of their area may-- is

because they see the Government has assumed this responsibility, has assumed this -- I

thi~ the thing is trUe that we started out with the nominating process. We are going to

assume that the Party leadership knows best. And I want to say that the people of Oregon

do~ look to me to tell them how to vote. In'tact, the people of Oregon

Mr. Buckley: (With a very low tone, seeming to come from the depths): Oh, but they do.

Senator Hatfield: (continuing as before) -- the people of Oregon would resent this very

much. In fact, in 1960 and 1964 I was totally neutral. I stayed out of the primary cam-

paigns because I knew that the people of Oregon weren't waitig for me to tell them, and

~esides, the primary (blurred in overlap) --

Mr. Buckley: Maybe they figured they should be neutral, too.


12.Senator Hatfield: 'lll1e primary, no. The primary is for the people, not for the

politicians. We have conventions for the politicians to n~ke the nominating process.

We have primaries for the people.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. Yes, 1 1 m, of course, raising the question about the usefulness of

the primary as an institution which you now want to nationalize.

Senator Hatfield: Yes.

Mr. Buckley: Now, first of all, let me agree with you that paternalism is a very, very

dangerous concept because ultimately it tends to become coercive and, before long, you

do have -- you do have a big brother government.

Senator Hatfield: George Orwell.

Se8ate~-Hatf!ela: Mr. Buckley: That's right, yeah. George Orwell, exactly. Poor

Mr. Eisenhower, when he was President, one of the first things he did (Senator laughs)

and was up at Dartmouth College to speak at Commencement classes, he said that all

he wanted for Government to be to everybody W'd.S just a Big Brother. (Laughter) But,

the --


,Senator Hatfield: With "1984" on the required reading list for stUdents.

Mr. Buckley: (Laughs). The reason that I reject your enthusiasm for your own analysis

is not that I don't agree that it is ultimately desirable that people should help them-

selves. But, I think it's a superstition to suppose that politics is something which,

unlike any other matter, leadership isn't needed. I think there is an expertise in

politics. I think there is such a thing as professional judgment of politicians

a trernendous variety to be sure~ But, tp s~~ply say, let's always decide who shall

be nominated simply by turning everybody loose on television, and letting them talk

directly to the voters witl10Ut any institutional mediation between the voters and

the candidates is a step towards plebiscitary democracy, which is anti-Republican,

and I think anti-common sense. Now, on the business of the maturity of people,

surely the question is to what extent does a person need to be educated in order to

render a useful value judgment. I happen to think not very educated at all.' I think

}.

Announcer: Sorry, but we must interrupt at t111"8 point.


very, very worthwhile in showing

think it would be far superior to what we'.re struggling along with now of having this

see this thing move toward that objective. It may not be achieved overnight. But I

Convention would meet merely to ratify the process, or would that be an ~dvisory judgment

Senator Hatfield: Or mature. Makes a man mechanically literate but not mature --

Mr. Buckley: No.

literate, necessarily.

Senator Hatfield: (Blurred somewhat in overlap) Formal education doesn't make a luan

by the people?

Senator Hatfield: Oh, I think that it depends on how you would set it up. I would likeII

four candidates to participate in a national primary, would you then understand that the

in overlap as l\nnouncer breaks in and Senator Hatfield continues)

state with this system, this state with another system, and then trying to aznalgama.te and

say that this speaks or this represents the will of the Party, as constituted by the rank

and file and the leadership together., I don't think it's effective. I think that (blurred

Mr. Buckley: Able to judge. Able to jUdge relevantly. Now, the -- transposing that

your own suggestion, here, as I understand it is the problem. If, in fact, you invite

would like to see this broader and on a national base. And, as I say, it may be

when the people of a state, on a small base here, of course, but when the people of a

Senator Hatfield: (continuing, but some is lost)

state can IiJ.ake this decision, and I think make it rather ~, not because it has always

to see ultimately, and maybe it could not possibly be done all in one step. It may be in

f"} separate; transitional changes that would be necessary to institute, but I

I would like to see this as the final decision by the people themselves. I would like to- ,

('many illiterates -- I mean functional illiteriJ.~es -- render value judgment every bit

as useful, and in many cases much more useful than Einstein's. Go, I'm not (blurred)

agreed with my position on it, because it has not always done so. But I think,pretty well

~ they have proven they can discern, they can evaluate, and theyoan participate. And I

14.t'evolut.ionary, t.oo, it.'s not. going t.o be abruptly changed -- anymore than we are going

to see anything else abruptly changed in ·this system of ours.

Mr. Buckley: Well, let'~examine for a moment --

Senator Hatfield: Let's move toward a goal, or move toward an objective.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah, yeah. Arid let's move toward the conse~uences of your recommendation,

Senator Hatfield: Yes.

Mr. Buckley: -- and ask whether, assuming that we could perfect, which I think there is

no doubt we will be able to -- we are vouchsafed by our scientists the exact means of

conducting sort of continuous referendums of the popular wIll, would it then follow that

a person elected if his support should fall below,let's say, 50i, that there should be

an instant reelection on the grounds that the constituency no longer backs him in office

would you also favor that7

~ Senator Hatfield: . You mean under the regular constitutional framework of our Government?

Mr. Buckley: Oh -- (blurred in overlap)

Senator Hatfield: -- the parliamentary system, is that --

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. Let's (blurred) evolutionize the Constitution. In other words, would

you

Senator Hatfield: Well, sometimes, (blurred in overlap) -- goes slower than the Supren~

Court decisions.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. It's much faster. In other words, is it your position that it would

be desirable constantly, at regular intervals, let's say -- every Monday (Laughter) to.\. '

conduct some sort of a referendum --

Senator Hatfield: Not on Monday. That's a bad day.inmost people's life. I think it

wQuld be much happier to do it on Saturday.

Mr. Buckley: All right -- Saturday. That we would conduct a referendum, and if there

",. was evidence that a-f"ej;le;\):1tive representative of a constituency had lost the popular

support -- that somebody was more popular: out he WOUld. go and in would come ,the other7

I"

©. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

("senator Hatfield: No, no. This would not be pra.ctical. It wouldn't be effective, it15

•

wouldn't be common sense.

'/toward a Parliamentary system where we can throw the President out of the United States

Mr. Buckley: And would you like to see the abolition of the Senate on the grQunds that

I'm not

abruptly. An evolutionary. And so I don't

(Laughing)

Mr. Buckley: BUt then, why not?

evolutionary because coming with evolution, it is anticipated will come a maturity

roving (7) microphone around his neck, his Hooper rating goes up 3 points and his Gallup

size, the seet;ional;l..sm, the characterist.ics of how people when the President puts a


perhaps every two or four years. I would eventually like to seethe country evolve

suggesting a revolutionary action here

Mr. Buckley: I think you're pulling my leg. (Laughter)

it misrepresents the one-man, one-vote principle?

think this type of thing could be done every week, of course. It would have to be done

Senator Hatfield: Because I think you have to consider the vastness of the country, the

poll goes up three points. lrhese are things that cause me to say this has to be

SeHate~-Hatfi Mr. Buckley: In other words, you would like to see it abolished eventually

Senator Hatfield: Oh -- I think the Senate, after all, is the bastion of maintaining the

great American Republic (laughter). We have to take the Senate as it is.

given six-year term where people do not feel perhaps on every instance a continuing

a growing maturity. It has to parallel. We can't -- again I emphasize

towards which, I gather, we are evolutionizing. With your consent.instead of that

Senator Hatfield: Let's say/that this rather abrupt word, abolish, let's say, eventually

-- simply on the grounds that it is a distortion of the one-man, one vote principle

Senator Hatfield: I think I am, 'too.

1964 until we can get rid of him in 1968.

let's evolve where it can be improved into something better than what it is now -- a

.'. responsibility to the electorate. I think there should be a continuing responsibility

~ when we 'can prove 'a vote of confidence or lack of confiden~e. I think there is some't.hing

superior to the four-year given term, if we're stuck with him -- when we elected him in

. ,


of your evolution?

Senator Hatfield: I do not advocate an abolition at this point.

16.

(Speaking in background during announcement, so some words are 10,st) -- a

Sorry, but we must pause for a moment.

Clark, has told me on this program a while ago that, when pressed, he reluctantly has to

how to revise that part of the Constitution. But, for instance, your colleague, Senator

that Alaska has as strong a representation as New York or California, which greatly 01'-

in the midd±e-gray complex.

It's black or white. It's yes or no. It's retain or abolish; I think sometinles truth is

u80pen and maintain a mind that is constantly inquiring and reviewing to see if there

to think in terms of new approaches or new types of institutions. Therefore, I don't

it's an either/or of either abolish or retain. I think there's a middle area here of let

Mr. Buckley: Well, I ~s ,talking less about the six-year term than r was about the fact

have somehow assumed a character of sanctity'or holiness. Or something beyond our ability

Mr. Buckley: Yes, and sometimes it isn't, of course.

geometric conception, righ't? If you start here, and start here, and the middle is here.,"

Mr. Buckley: You think it's ol{.ay to have Alaska as strong as Califdrnia.

sentational bases of the Senate of the United Sta'tes. Would you go along -- is this part


Senator Hatfield: I don't adopt the way of thinking that either -- it's an either/or.

Senator Hatfield: And sometimes it is. (Announcer drowns out further comment).

admit that he would like to abolish the Senate of the United States -- at least the repre-

fends some people. I am sure it greatly offends Earl Warren, but he hasn't qUite figured

~ be an improvement, if it is continuing to serve us as it was originally created to do.

maintaining that continual relationship.

to the electorate and -(:;he two-year term of the House has done the best -- under the

("'circumstances of' the Constitutional system that we have. It has done the best job of

Senator Hatfield: ~o, no. I say that at this point. I like to feel that all of these,.,. things should be under constant review. All of these so-called institutions or procedures

ItAnnouncer:

Mr. Buckley:

,.\.ow

• •

17.

}.

namely, that you seem to reject --

may I interrupt for a moment. Excuse

me for doing so.

Senator Hatfield: -- I'm thinking more in terms of a -- of the mental process by which

one approaches (blurred by overlap) --

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. If I may say so, Senator, I don't think you're absolutely clear

© Board of Trustees of the leland Stanford Jr. University.

on the matter of your political weltenchan (sp.?) because it's very easy to say, well,

But you pave said something extremely interesting

Senator Hatfield: Oh; but I (blurred in overlap)

Mr. Buckley: Sure.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah, yeah.

no convictions. It is a point of saying rather than having a mind tha·t has so completely

letls evolutionize and keep our minds open. That really isn't saying anything very much.

Senator Hatfield: And we ask (Laughter) for. permission. That's why I asked if I may

Senator Hatfield: Does the distinguished gentleman from New York yield for a moment is

interrupt, you see •

how we usually put it, when I ask Senator Javits, for instance, to yiield a moment-

Mr. Buckley: (Laughing) I think itls the most patriotic thing you've ever done.(Much


position there is the other extreme of saying nothing is right, everything must be changed

committed itself to a given situation, to a given circumstance, or a given procedure,

Senator Hatfield: I db feel that ;the whole idea of evolutionary is not so much saying

there is no position -- no ~es:itieft decision.' 'Whether welre so fluid we have -- we have

and therefore it is: thus it shall ever more be. I -- I feel that there is from that

for the sake of change.

.Mr. Buckley: I grant it.

«"But if you start .here and start there, then the middle is here, correct?

Senator Hatfield: I think that's a geographic interpretation ~-

Senator Hatfield: We have a habit on the floor of the Senate when we want to make a point.

". Mr. Buckley: You usually get permission, don't you?

<-.

be better.

we have sort of assumed there is a holiness about the Constitution ae it is now established

it is a great invention, and

and that's why the big Constitutions are so out of date. That's why

are screanri~~~out the domination of the Federal Government~ The

Senator Hatfield:

so many states are

first model. Say, now here is the automobile, it has

Mr. Buckley: Oh, I think, Senator ,that you would find that there are other reasons of

frustrated from their own mechanics' failure to imppove and change their mechanics o~

their own framework of government and find that they are so hampered and inhibited and

invasion of the Federal Government~ And by the same token, 'they have failed to look at

I think even in the philosophy of economics we have sometimes -- in our political lives

forever more be. But, constantly, in that mechanical aspect of our society, we have sought

Senator Hatfield: That we could continue to improve it. Henry Ford invented the automobile

Mr. Buckley: Yah.

greater bearing which has largely to do with the nature of current demagogy because it is


political, social and economic institutions. We have in the mechanics of, economics, but

to seek better methods. I don't think we have always assumed that way of thinking in our

and had said at that point that he did not inven·t it but said that he had invented it in his

Senator Hatfield: Like some of my fellow Governors wanted to have the Federal Goverr~ent

widely -- widely supposed by most constituents that if you get something from Washington

you. get it free, whereas if you get it from your state you have to pay for it --

,government, that the Federal Government has had to move in --

Senator Hatfield: And I don't agree with thl:l.t position either. I think there is an 18.

f'rea in between. Not in geography but in terms of the thinking process, whereby one can

see the good and accept it, but never so close his mind to the possibility that it could

or a procedure --

t\u.. BUCkl~Y: But in a sense there is, you see.

~collect all the taxes -~

Mr. Buckley: Yah. And then remit --

Senator Hattfeld: -- and then rendt the tax to the Governor. The Governor then becomes a

"

Santa Claus, does all the spending, doesn't have to be the ogre to collect the tax. 19.

C. Bucluey: Yeah.

Senator Hatfield. That's whex'e I parted company.

Mr. BuclUey: Yeah, yeah. ,Although as a mechanical arrangement, there is something to be

said for it. But, what er -- the reason I think that the Constitution is quotes holy is

because there ought always to be a presumption in favor of tradition because people make

their lives around traditions, and it is their respective traditions that gives them some

sort of a prescriptive skepticism about rapid change. Now, what strikes me is this: most

radical in everything that youhave said is the n~tion that we are perhaps prepared to abandon

the notion of tenure. And I think the notion of tenure is indispensable to responsible

government. If you are elected for sii years, it gives you an opportunity to -- to be

unpopular. I'm not saying that you ever would be. But it gives you an opportunity to be.

Senator Hatfield: Oh (too low and blurred to be audible)

r.tu:. BuclUey: Yeah, I know, you've taken a lot of risks.

Senator Hatfield: Yeah.

Mr. BuclUey: Yes, I know you are very courageous in that.

Senator Hatfield: Very. (laughter)

Mr. BuclUey: But if one doesn't have -- if one doesn't have som~ kind of a tenure, then

one'simply makes policy with reference to what one's understanding of wh~t the -- the con

stituents are going to think (blurred). Now, ~und Burke and John Quincy Adams, you know

as a political science -- politicaJ., scientist -- both made it extremely clear to their

constituents that they were, UIlder rio circumsta?~es, to be understood as serving

in Parliament and in the Congress of the United States -- simply in order to record the

spastic demands of their constituency on this matteI' or that. They were, on the contrary,

hired to do ~heir best~ And from time to time their franchise was renewed or not renewed.

Meanwhile, they were supposed to be utterly unconcerned by the fitful.reactions of the

~onstituenCy. I think that's very good RepUblican philosophy. And one that ought to

continue to distinguish our Party -- it is our Party -- from the Democratic Party. No?

-_. Senator Hatfield: But I think your examples are the very exmmples that I would use to.. ', .

disagree with you. And that is, Ido not believe it is the mechanics -- but the mechanics© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University..

)J

Senator Hatfield: Pardon me?

Cincinnati and Cleveland -- the Democratic precincts --

20.

Then he went out.conllmind

I think you have to aefefia your own party.

I think it's the type of man you place in that role that

'rhat is mechanics in ternw of whether there is a tenure or

Sure~

responsible position, and I -- think -- an Adams,

Mr. Buckley: Okay. Taft.vs. Eisenhower.

regardless whether they had any sense of security of tenure or not. In oth~r words -


since when? Oh, it's ages, ages, ages and ages. But I think it would be quite irresponsible

I think it's very wrong to boot him out. Boot him out next year, but not now. And Lyndon

recallable. For instance, your colleague, l!'rank Church, -- they wanted to boot him out.

all the money into defeating him on the Taft-Hartley Act, and Senator Taft went into

of the moment until they had a definite vote of no confidence., dommand'

Mr. Buckley: But he did defefia his own party.

Senator matfield: -an Adams or a Burke or a Taft would have responded in the same way

Senator Hatfield: Oh, I think not. Look at Taft and his reelection of 1950 when they put

have been impeached within about thirty days.

Mr. Buckley: (A) They might not have made it. (B) Having made it,' they woad probably

Mr. Buckley: (A) They might not have made it. (Breaking in above)

Johnson certainly would have been recalled. He hasn't been ove~ 50 on the Gallup poll

tenure, Winston Churchill included.

But you do have five years, so long as you can hold on to your own party, without having to

Senator Hatfield: That's right. But the point is, these people are not guaranteed any

(blurred in overlap) --

'Senator Hatfield: And yet, on the other hand, Winston Churchill withstood the unpopularity

~r. Buckley: I don't doubt -- I don't doubt that they can succeed at any given moment.

But what 1 am saying is that under your system, as I understand it, they would be ins'tantly

are only secondary.

4r'there is no tenure.

r' Buckley:

Senator Hatfield: He could have been e~..l:,6'6- ousted had there been a lack of confidence.

Senator Hatfield: And their money.

Mr. Buckley: And their money. Not to us,unfortunately.

lieve in res'trictions in terms.


A nation should be allowed to commit suicide.,"

Congressmen are probably anxious to hold on to their jobs. But I was w~ering if you had

Is there a question?

Mr. Buckley: Sure. Sure, people ace progressively losing their freedom. (To the AUdience):

in post-war history in England. Even though Wilson had only the majority of~ over a

perilous period of thirteen months. So, in effect, they do have tenure.being (blurred)

memory, in fact -- in fact, there hasn't been the failure of a cobfidence vote in post

Announcer: Sorry, but we must take a moment out for this.

Mr. Buckley: (Continuing,but some is lost during announcement) -- one has to scratch one's

21.

Mr. Buckley: Do you believe in laws of suicide?

row, or five times, or six times, that should be the decision of the people. 'I don't be-

Mr. Buckley: Senator -- after you.

any comments to make on that, and also any possible reform to tlie electoral system?

and Senators no more than two terms. This would probably be not likely to happen, as

reform for having the Congressmen serve no more than several terms -- two or three terms

Senator Hatfield: Bot their system is evolutionizing a bit.

Mr. Buckley:

third term provision of the Constitution. I disagree with that; I feel that it should be

Senator Hatfield: Well, I don't subscribe to the limitation of terms, including the no

left again to the decision of the people. If they want to elect Roosevelt four

r week following his election as primemi.nister.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah -_. had there been a l~ack of confidence, but --interl~pted by anno~ncer.

Question: I have a question for both of you, Senator Hatfield and Mr. Buckley, which I

4r'would like you to comment to. I believe that former President Eisenhower once advocated a

Senator Hatfield: Oh, yes. That's taking personal freedom away from someone, but also

~there's a pUblic policy involved, having to pick up the pieces.


relation between them, the two•.

Correct?While still retaining'single member districts.I" ,

Mr. Buckley:

Mr. Buckley: The Gossett Bill.

Senator Hat:t:ield: Yes, it would not disturb that situation.

parties. The interesting quarrel in 1952 was not between Adlai Stevenson and Eiserulower,

individuals. Of course, there has to be these restrictions. With all freedom there's a

gerous; especially since the f~erican system tends to be opposed to the notion that winner

Mr. Buckley: Precisely, yes. I think the tampering with the terms is probably pretty dan-

self-imposed and otherwise, as we are for our rights and freedoms. There has to be a cor-

take all. That's why the really interesting quarrels cannot be between parties but within

certain -- In the American· Constitutional we're, I think, known as much for our res·traints,

were established, then a House member could run against a Senator in mid-terlll.

Mr. Buckley: Yeah. ~eah.

Question: (:c.'vidently refers to his Electoral College portion of,his question)

'Iown elections -- suggests the possibility of -- of -- of Executive olnnipotence at a moment

but between Eisenhower and 'raft. And, under the, circumstances, I think that Lyndon Johnson's

most recent proposal which is to elect -- to elect a four-year House to correspond with his

Senator Hatfield: Well--

Senator Hatfield: I would like to see an adoption of the Lodge- Gossett Bill which was

.proposed a long time ago when Senator Lodge was Senator Lodge the first time, I believe,

in which you establish a ratio of the electoral vote according to the popular vote.

Senator Hatfield: I think a nation should be allowed to make any decision within its

~litical framework that is -- as long as it maintains the Constitutional rights 01'

~hen one wants to hear from time to time from the people as in election two years later.

Senator Hatfield: Which will never be done because, after all, if a four-year House term

Mr. Buckley: Sure. So tha·t in a state like New York, let's say, forty electoral votes

~wOUld not go to a single Presidential candidate if he happened to win one more vote than

the other person.

.. Se~ator Hatfield: No -- 51%,

..

23·

Senator HatfiE.il: I haven't been invited.

tial candidate for Vice President --

Would

If one candi.date got 4G% of the popular vote --49 ,-- 48 to 52.

Mr. Buckley: Have they changed it?

Senator Hatfield: I believe this was the original concept of' the Gossett Bill -- the

Lodge-Gossett Bill

Mr. Buckley: No. No, it depends upon district -- the Gossett Bill would conliinue to

that now is introduced and has been carried by Karl Mundt of South Dukota, which has

Mr. Buckley: (Probably to next. questioner) Yes sir, do you ,have a. mike over there?

award the vote of an ele,ctoral district to one Presidential candidate or another.

evolution of the Gossett Bill has been that there would be a ratio -- a total state l'UtiO'.

talked about reform and -- in still a different way, I won't go into that. But the


Question: Senator, Mr. Buckley said at the 'beginning of the program that you atre a poten-

the -- Mr. Nixon out of it as far as a personality, and let. me speak to your question,"

Senator Hatfield: -- but I think they changed that after the initial introduction,

Questioner: Yeah. Well, some people are considering this. Would you accept a Vice

Senator Hatfield: He said it, I didn't.

you pass it back please?

diametrically opposed to yoursl

Same ~uestioner: If you were. (Laughter)

Mr. Buckley: (Laughing) All -- poor polit.ician.

Senator Hatfield: Er -- This is a very (laughs, too) -- did you ever get questions

Presidential nomination ,with someone like Richard Nixon .whose view on Vietnam is so

like this when you ran for Mayor?

Mr. Buckley: Yeah, I see.

Senator Hatfield. But the original Lodge-Gossett Bill -- you're right -- 'Was a district.

" Mr. Buckley: Yeah, but I didn't care, you see. (Loud laughter)

Senator Ha'lifield: (Laughing) Didn't you want to win? (Laughter). (Pause) Let's leave

on the terms of the basic principle. I don't believe that I could live with my own con- 42 .

t'Jictions and my own conscience if I said yes to any candidate who might ask me to servo

with him, which no candidate, I am sure, is con'templating, bu't a Presidential candidate

who might ask me that und~r a hypothetical situation and at the same tilllc would have to

ask me if our vie,.,s were known to be very divergent -- completely opposite on Vietnam --

ask me to yield my position on my 1ironvictions or my position on the issue, of course I

could not do so. I could not do so, but let me point out when you can marry a Lyndon

Johnson to John F. Kennedy, as the Democrats did in 1960 --

Mr. BucY~ey: Or stevenson and Sparkman.

Senator Hatfield: -- Or stevenson and Sparkman, it doesn't mean that it is not possible

within the political framework of this coun'try to have people of different political philosophy

on the same ticket. When it comes to my having to give up or q~iet --

Announcer: Sorry, but time does not permit us to give the full response to that question,

rwe've run ,out of time. Thank you, Mr. Buckley. Thank you St:;nator Hatfield -- Students

of George Washington University.

(While announcer was speaking, in the bahkground, could be heard faintly the continuing

I could never (here

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University.

* * * * *

rezur.ks of:

drowned out by II Firing Line" theme music.

Senator Hatfield: -- or turn my back on my views -- !2., absolutely No.

Firing Line - Wm F. Buckley, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield

Documents

Transcript of Firing Line - Wm F. Buckley, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield