From the Archives: Spiro Agnew on "Face the Nation," January 1970

Mr. Vice President, Friday night you declared an end to what you smilingly called the war with the network, saying you had achieved a modicum of success. Why the end of the war? Well, actually it never was a war. Actually, what happened was some of the things I said gave rise to certain fears. I wanted to allay those fears to the extent that I made it perfectly clear that there would be no continuing effort to harass or criticize the networks. I think the awareness based on the public response has made the networks certainly cognizant of the fears of the American people that broader diversity of opinion is necessary, so I think I have achieved my objective. From CBS Washington, in color, Face the Nation, a spontaneous and unrehearsed news interview with the Vice President of the United States, Spiro T. Agnew. Vice President Agnew will be questioned by CBS News correspondent Bruce Morton, Hugh Seide, Washington Bureau Chief of Time Magazine, and CBS News correspondent George Herman. Mr. Agnew, you never struck me as the kind of man who would advocate unilateral withdrawal. I take it, therefore, you think you have achieved a kind of victory in your struggle for a change in the media. Well, it wasn't really an effort to achieve a victory. I simply saw, perhaps coming about unwittingly, an undue focus on one type of opinion, and I thought it was necessary to point out that there were other opinions within the country, certainly revealed by the support for the President's program in Vietnam, that weren't being given sufficient attention. Once having said it, once having evoked the public response, I see no necessity for continuing it, because obviously I was never advocating censorship. Mr. Vice President, you have been listed as the third most popular man in the nation by Mr. That was last week. Mr. Gallup, yes indeed, and even on the best dressed list, and I see books in the book stores around the country on you. Are you pleased with the image, your image, as it's emerged in this time? Well, I'd have to be pretty devious if I didn't say that I thought my image had been improved over what it was at the end of the campaign. I don't regard these things with a great deal of permanency. Images change from day to day, and the public generally adjusts its conception of a man based on what he's doing and what it sees of him. I would hope that what I do in the coming months and what I say will enable me to increase my acceptability among all Americans. How, Mr. Vice President, do you explain the rather favorable image that seems to be created by, of you, by the same media that you criticized rather harshly several weeks ago in their, in their, the picture they cast of the dissent leaders? Well, I really don't know exactly how to answer that except to say that when fairness of anyone is called into question, he generally leans over backward to be fair. Perhaps I've had some pretty good treatment lately as a result of that genuine American reaction to be extremely fair. But I think mainly it's put me in the public eye a little bit more, and people have looked in a little more depth at what I've said rather than rely on the usual practice of excerpting what might be able to be converted to the most sensational news. In other words, people did see the entire speech I made concerning the networks because it was put on live TV at prime time. Without that, with simply excerpt reporting what I'd said, the same impression might not have come through. One of the tag lines that's been associated with you since this series of speeches, demonstrators on the media and so forth, pictures you as a kind of champion of middle America or silent majority or whichever of those phrases you like. Do you think that's accurate? Is that your constituency? Well, I think middle America is a phrase that has sort of become in common usage because of the fact that so much attention's been paid to the fringes of America. I don't look at middle America as an equal segment of American society to be weighed against the opinion on the left and the opinion on the right. I look at middle America as encompassing that broad spectrum of people who may be very liberal on one subject, very conservative on another, who do not consider themselves political activists every day, but who are only interested in the principles that the country runs by and the continuation of the American way of life. So I'd say if you look at it within the limits of that definition, yes, I think I appeal to middle America. I think most people in government who don't take extreme views appeal to middle America. It's also been said that in political terms, your appeal is particularly strong in the South, perhaps to the people who might otherwise have gone for George Wallace, that you pulled votes away from him. Do you think that's an accurate reflection of what you've done? Well, I think I do have an appeal in the South. I'd be dishonest if I said I didn't think I did. I think it comes about not because I'm expressing any extremist philosophies, but because I have not been quite as careful about being misunderstood and exploited by certain left extreme groups So yes, I would say I do appeal to the South because I'm not afraid to support the South, to understand the South, to assist the South in reaching the objectives set forth by the courts in a way that's least disruptive. This is February 1st, a day which many Southerners have told us is a particularly black day for them. It's the effective date of the Supreme Court's ordered integration. We don't regard it in that light. We're not trying to make life easier for anybody. We're all trying to live under our system of laws and representative government. Let me emphasize and make very clear that when the courts of this country speak, the executive branch of the government and this administration will form its obligations under the Constitution. It's ridiculous to be an advocate of law and order in one sense and attempt to circumvent it in another sense. But there are ways in which the Alexander case, which you refer to, which recently came out of the Supreme Court and forbade the delay of certain parts of the Green case, the freedom of choice overruling case, to be put off until September term. The work of this committee, though, is— We've got to look at each school district to see whether dual systems are there that attempt to prevent integration of the system or to see whether segregated patterns are arising by election of the people in spite of efforts to prevent them. Now, we've got to look at each busing situation on its own merits and make our decisions as a result of what we see. I think it's wrong to speak busing as a general term because we must define what kind of busing we're talking about. The kind of busing I don't favor is a busing to achieve a racial balance, which the Congress has already said has already prohibited under the law. But to get back to this committee, which you are going to chair, this cabinet level committee, this is going to work to implement, to help schools implement the Supreme Court's ruling? Is that the way it's operated? That's the idea. With money or with organization or how? Well, no. Simply by receiving the reports of the task force that I mentioned and attempting to guide the district in coming into conformity with the decisions. Now, when you attempt to abide by a court decision, it's not always easy to decide what is compliance with the decision. And there's been a great amount of dispute on this. Sometimes the Department of HEW hasn't agreed with the court interpretation. Sometimes the citizens in the area don't agree with it. Sometimes outside parties interested in the performance of the law, such as the NAACP or others, don't agree. And what we want to do is to bring into existence a task force consisting of all these people where we can sit down and reach a chord through dialogue and discussion and at least understand what we're... This is sort of a conciliation council. In a sense, it's a council to reach a chord through discussion and dialogue. Mr. Vice President, doesn't this run into a little conflict with the existing apparatus in HEW and Justice? Doesn't that, with such a... HEW and Justice will each be a part of this cabinet-level group that I'm going to chair. The Attorney General will be a member of the group. It's not meant to replace that machinery then. No, this is a decision-level, advisory-type situation. This is a top-level group to attempt to bring the restoration of quality education to those districts who feel that in the constructions previously given to the decisions of the court, that they've suffered to some extent. What I don't understand, the reason I'm kind of floundering on this is because people like Governor Kirk of Florida have assured us that there isn't the money, there isn't the physical resources to do what the Supreme Court ordered. Now, I'm not quite clear in my own mind what your committee is going to do to overcome that. Let me just say this, that there is a great amount of understanding, misunderstanding about what the purposes of the decision are. And Governor Kirk's uncertainty proves this, and is a good reason for bringing about the kind of dialogue that this group is going to bring about. Now, obviously, it's a very difficult assignment, and hardly one that would be expected to further my image enhancement that you mentioned at the beginning of the questioning. Let me just fish for one more detail. You and the Attorney General, the Secretary of HEW, on the committee? And probably several of the President's counselors, possibly Mr. Moynihan, possibly Mr. Harlow. Mr. Vice President, I'll switch over to another subject. One of the other things you're going to be doing, we're told, is leading the political battle this fall, publicly. Where do you see the Democrats most vulnerable? Everywhere. They don't seem to be a cohesive force at the present time. There's a greater latitude and much more range of opinion, politically, among the Democrats than I've ever seen it, which makes them extremely vulnerable. Notwithstanding that, the party in power traditionally has always had a difficult time in congressional elections, while a new president is testing and moving his programs. This is not as good as President Johnson was able to do. He was able to enact about a half of his. I think that the President's trying to bring about a reform in our system, and I think the people are aware of this. What about your own plans, Mr. Vice President? You've been suggested as a possible presidential contender yourself in 1972 or in 1976. How are your ambitions these days? Well, obviously, all I want to do is be as supportive of the administration as I can. I said the day I was elected that I would be as loyal a vice president as any president ever had. I still feel the same way. I have great respect and admiration for the President of the United States. I think he's doing a good job, and it would be ridiculous to talk about my moving into a place where I would think of opposing his re-election. Would you rule out succeeding him, perhaps? I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't say I have great ambitions in this area, either. Have you had any contact with the group in California that says that Mr. Nixon better watch out and follow through on your promises, or you may drop him from the ticket in 1972? We've answered letters of that type, assuring them of my total loyalty to the President. Mr. Vice President, you perhaps have read the memoirs of previous vice presidents like Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, and they seem to have passed through a very unhappy time in their vice presidency, but you seem to be quite happy about it. Do you feel it's been a worthwhile year? It's amazing how good it's been to be a vice president operating with a president who causes one no insecurities, only provides the greatest in support, maintains proper communication at all times, and indicates that he learned a great deal about being a vice president himself. Could you, sir, do you feel you could step in if need be tomorrow and be fully familiar with all the major issues and the major problems and take over that job? Have you been briefed, fully kept up on everything? My briefing is a continuing process because I sit in all the high councils, such as the Security Council, the Urban Affairs Council, the Economic Affairs Council, and the like. Over and above that, the President and I talk, not what you'd call frequently, not on a daily basis, but frequently enough that I'm aware of any departures in his thinking that might affect what I say. In addition to that, I consult with the top counselors, the President's staff on a day-to-day basis, and I do feel able to take over at any time in an event of emergency. You said in your interview with the U.S. News and World Report in October, you said you felt there's a very conservative current running through the country at the present time, that this should help the Republican Party. Is this, when you say a very conservative, do you mean a really rather far-right, or did you just mean that the current was strong? I didn't mean to indicate that the current was far-right. I simply mean it's a return to the traditional American values of the people who represent, as Mr. Morton asked me a while back, middle America. I think this is the kind of thinking I think predominates today, not a right-wing philosophy. I don't find any sympathy for that. I think it's there. You think it has been achieved? If you look at the complexion of society in the country compared with last year and the year before that, and you'll see that a great amount of peace and stability has returned to the United States. But I think that the average American would agree that there's a lot more placid atmosphere in the United States since this administration took office. More safety on the streets? Well, it depends on what you might call safety. The President can't do it unilaterally. He needs the help of the Congress, and I think Congress is more responsive than the one we have now. Do you think there was some shift in emphasis that you gave the doctrine? No, I don't think I gave it any shift in emphasis. What I think really happened was that when we stressed the self-reliance part of the doctrine, the regional cooperation, there were some that felt that this was evidence of our desire to withdraw completely. And in responding to those questions about was the United States really getting out of Asia, it would bring into natural prominence the part of the doctrine that said we would perform our treaty obligations. And we would undertake such commitments in Asia that were commensurate with our interests. This does not deemphasize the very important matter of regional economic and security cooperation. And I found the Asian people very much interested in greater self-reliant posture for themselves and in regional cooperation, as I've indicated in subsequent statements to the trip. Now, are we caught in semantics here? Has there been a change toward a new Nixon policy or hasn't there been a change at all? I think that what I was trying to indicate and what the Thailand situation reveals is that what was happening in Thailand was in total accordance with the Nixon policy. We have not involved ourselves with any troops in Thailand. We are providing material assistance to them. We are encouraging their regional development and their economic growth. And we're doing all the things that the Nixon doctrine calls for. So Thailand was in conformity with the Nixon doctrine originally. There was no need to depart or make any change in that place. Mr. Vice President, your pronouncements from over there were rather uniformly optimistic about the success of the withdrawal from Vietnam. Some in this country would challenge that, thinking perhaps we're headed for a crisis this spring. Looking back now in hindsight, do you still have the same feeling about it, that this thing is going to come off as planned by the administration? I think so long as the administration is able to make the withdrawals in a manner commensurate with the ability of the South Vietnamese to provide for their own defense, we're not going to get in trouble. There are some who feel that the President may be pressured into making withdrawals of a more ambitious nature and point of time than can be coped with by the Arvin troops. I'm pretty certain that he's not going to do that. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, for example, expressed a grave fear that we might get out of Vietnam too soon. He expressed a fear that a small victory over an Arvin unit could be blown up to appear to be a total defeat for Vietnamization. And of course, gentlemen, this is where the media must undertake tremendous responsibility. There isn't any doubt that sometime in the next year will come an offensive that will result in a limited victory for the North over some South Vietnamese unit. No doubt about it. They can do it. It's to their advantage to do it and they're going to make every effort to carry it through. This doesn't mean that a military victory of any consequence has been achieved and it's important that it not be blown out of perspective in the total effort of Vietnamization. The best way to put these things in perspective, as I think you found now, Mr. Vice President, is to get a high administration official to go right to the public on television. The impact of this kind of thing, as you yourself have found out, as the president has found out in his veto message, is perhaps the best way to establish it. Is this now a permanent part of the administration, that this might be the way to get what you want across? Well, presidents have traditionally gone to the public where they think the welfare of the country is being affected. I don't think this will change with the Nixon administration or any other administration. The president gets to the public because he, after all, represents all the people from any one sector of the country. And he is communicating with the people the governmental decisions of the moment, which are news, hard news. So I don't think that's going to change in the future. What's happened to all those afeet snobs, Mr. Vice President? Are they in hiding? We have a few afeet snobs around yet, I would guess. Vice President, the country has, I guess, ten days now in which to do something about the railroad strike. What do you expect the administration to do? Well, George Shultz has been singularly successful in being able to provide at the very last moment solutions to some of these difficult labor management problems without invoking any federal machinery. I've got tremendous confidence in his ability to do this. I guess he can't always be successful, but we're hopeful that this long-standing dispute may be resolved by persuading the parties to reach a court. Our administration would rather not invoke governmental machinery because we feel that in the final analysis that we're going to have a viable growing economy, the parties to these disputes better settle themselves. You are ready, though, to invoke it if you absolutely have to in the ten seconds or so we have left? Well, I couldn't answer that. That's a decision for the President. I'm sorry I didn't mean to put you on the spot. Thank you very much for being with us here today, Mr. Agnew, on Face the Nation. Today on Face the Nation, Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was interviewed by CBS News correspondent Bruce Morton, Hugh Seide, Washington Bureau Chief of Time Magazine, and CBS News correspondent George Herman. Next week, another prominent figure in the news will face the nation. Share the action when two of the top teams in the National Hockey League, the Boston Bruins and the Toronto Maple Leafs, clash this afternoon. Face the Nation originated in color from CBS Washington.