The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 6042; Anderson and Lucey

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. The leadership of the United Auto Workers today had some good news for President Carter and some bad news for independent candidate John Anderson. Within hours of being personally wooed by Anderson, UAW president Douglas Fraser and other members of the executive board trooped to the White House to bury the hatchet with President Carter and back him for re-election. Mr. Fraser, a strong supporter of Senator Edward Kennedy, said he would work hard now for Mr. Carter`s re-election and the defeat of Ronald Reagan. Only this morning, Mr. Fraser and the board heard a plea in person from Congressman Anderson that the UAW back him, but wait until October to announce any decision. Mr. Anderson was accompanied there by his new running mate, former Wisconsin governor Patrick Lucey, who has strong ties to labor. Mr. Anderson has been in need of gestures to improve his standing in the polls. It has slipped recently below the 15 percent average set by the League of Women Voters as a test of viability for inclusion in televised presidential debates. But a new poll released today by the Roper Organization put Mr. Anderson at 17 percent. Tonight, what do Congressman Anderson and Governor Lucey have in common, and what chance do they think their ticket has? They`re both with Jim Lehrer in Washington. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, welcome. Congressman, obviously the UAW didn`t buy what you were selling this morning. You`re having serious problems with organized labor in this campaign, are you not, sir?

JOHN ANDERSON: I don`t really believe so. I personally think that the endorsement that issued today was not one issued out of any great enthusiasm for President Carter. Surely, if you took at his record over the last three and a half years or more, there was very little in it that could be appealing to labor. I think they are still of a mind to believe that Ronald Reagan must be defeated at all costs, and that the man who has the best chance of doing (hat is Jimmy Carter. I don`t agree. I think as this campaign goes on, as the Anderson-Lucey campaign team hits the road, we`re going to make it clear that we are the alternative to the Reagan-Bush ticket.

LEHRER: Governor, let me ask you. As I understand it, one of your functions in this--for this ticket is to kind of service the labor account, so to speak. What`s your analysis of what the UAW did today. Particularly after the two of you came there--

PATRICK LUCEY: Well, I don`t think it came as any great surprise. I think that labor is scared to death of the thought of Ronald Reagan becoming president of the United States, and the present standings in the polls, they see Carter as the most likely candidate to beat Reagan. But it`s a sad commentary, really, because they`re choosing between what they admit is the lesser of two evils. And frankly, I`d rather be working for the candidate who--about whom it is said that he can`t win, rather than the candidate about whom it is said that he shouldn`t win. And a majority of the people say that Reagan shouldn`t win, and a majority of the people say that Carter shouldn`t win.

LEHRER: But Governor, doesn`t your colleague, Congressman Anderson, have a prob-lem of his own with organized labor? What I read today, comments from organized labor leaders all over the country questioning the congressman`s voting record of 20 years in Congress. That`s a problem, is it not?

LUCEY: Oh, I think to some extent, but if you want to took at an administration that`s anti-labor, took at an administration that has used unemployment to whip inflation, some-thing that Jimmy Carter promised faithfully in 1976 he would never do. And yet by deliberate policies of this administration, more than two million Americans have been put out of work.

LEHRER: Congressman, your voting record. I saw a statement today from the AFL-CIO which said over 20 years in Congress, you voted against the labor position 77 percent of the time. How do you explain that to organized--to the UAW today, and other labor groups?

ANDERSON: Yeah. Well, of course, I don`t think a statistic of that kind is at all meaningful, Mr. Lehrer, unless you consider what issues were included in the compilation of that voting record. I happen to know, because I`ve looked at some of the charts that were used by COPE, that they would pick out something--

LEHRER: COPE, that`s the labor political group.

ANDERSON: Yeah. They would pick out things, for example, like the Dickey- Lincoln Dam Project in the state of Maine. 1 happened to oppose that because it seemed to me that from the standpoint of conservation, from the standpoint of preserving more than 100,000 acres of land that would be inundated by that project, I couldn`t on an environmental basis conscientiously support it. There was nothing anti-labor about that vote. I would seriously challenge any statistic of that kind. I have been over the years a consistent advocate of free collective bargaining rights. I have stood for the right of government to--indeed, the responsibility of government to be concerned about the health and safety in the workplace, resisted the efforts that have been made very recently to take the government out of any responsibility as far as occupational health and safety is concerned. I`ve got a tot of things that I think I can show the average blue-collar worker make me very, very interested in his welfare.

LEHRER: But gentlemen, I didn`t make this up. I mean, organized labor is saying, `We don`t like John Anderson`s voting record in Congress and it`s anti-labor.` That`s their interpretation--

LUCEY: I wonder what Jimmy Carter`s record on labor would be like if they went back 20 years? I mean, he comes from a right-to-work state and I`m sure he was an advocate of right to work as a governor from Georgia.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this, Governor Lucey. You have a what is--what labor at least considers a solid pro-labor record as the governor of Wisconsin, etc. Does it make you uneasy at all to go to a UAW meeting this morning, or to other meetings that you`re obviously going to go to in the course of this campaign, and to try to sell the Anderson message to organized labor? Does it bother you at all?

LUCEY: It doesn`t bother me in the least. It will be the first time, if the UAW sticks to its guns, that I`ll be running for office without the endorsement of the UAW. However, Doug Fraser himself pointed out not tong ago that labor leaders have lost the knack to deliver the vote of the rank and file. In fact, Doug Fraser is very nervous that a majority of his rank and file will vote for Ronald Reagan simply because they are so disenchanted with Jimmy Carter. Now, I think we may be able to reach the rank and file and convince them that among three candidates, they might as well vote for the best candidate.

LEHRER: Congressman, a careful matching of your political history as a Republican with the governor`s political history as a Democrat over these many years shows some sharp differences. Why did you select a man to run with you about whom--with whom you`ve had differences in terms of policy?

ANDERSON: There were several tests that I took into consideration. I wanted first of all a man who was qualified to be president of the United States. I think I owe that to the nation. Here`s a distinguished, two-term governor who had an outstanding record in the fields of energy conservation and the field of the environment, in respect to re-organizing state government. He showed the kind of capacity for administration and talent that would be needed, so, he clearly qualified on that score. I wanted somebody who could bring political strength to the campaign, because he had experience in campaigning for elective office, and he clearly, 1 think, qualified on that score. And then thirdly, I`ve looked at the overall record of Governor Lucey--

LEHRER: Did you took at it very closely?

ANDERSON: I did indeed. I did not undertake lightly to choose a running mate, and it seemed to me that we shared enough in the way of basic common ideals--we agreed that this country is facing a real crisis, that we shouldn`t fight inflation by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, by using unemployment as a cutting edge to deal with inflation, that rather we ought to have a strategy of jobs creating economic growth and employment in this country. We agree on those things. And, you know, if we disagree on certain specifics, isn`t that a tot better to have a truly independent candidate for president in a national unity campaign being willing to listen to independent ideas? You know, when the Republican nominee accepted the Republican nomination in Detroit a month or so ago, and had to sweep under the rug the commitment that he had made to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal rights for women, when he had to adopt and swallow the platform, it was said, right down the line, even though it contradicted some of the things--The economic program--he had condemned Governor Reagan`s program as economic voodoo, and yet he said `I`ll go down the line for that program.` I didn`t ask Governor Lucey to do that, and he didn`t.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Let`s took at some of those specifics, gentlemen. Governor Lucey, Senator Kennedy has now all but endorsed, apparently, Mr. Carter`s coming economic revitalization program. Isn`t that going to take the sting out of that issue for disaffected Kennedy Democrats like yourself?

LUCEY: Oh, I`m sure that any support that Senator Kennedy lends to Jimmy Carter or the policies of this administration will tend to soften the irritation that Kennedy Democrats feel to Jimmy Carter. But yesterday when I accepted John Anderson`s invitation to serve with him as his running mate, I made a speech in which I criticized Jimmy Carter. Much of what I said is what Ted Kennedy has been saying for months on the stump all over this country. And what I said yesterday was just as true yesterday as it was a month ago or two months ago or last January, for that matter.

MacNEIL: Doesn`t this begin to indicate, Congressman, that a tot of these Democrats are going to have another place to go, in other words, they can go home?

ANDERSON: No, I don`t believe so. You see, this campaign is really just beginning. We haven`t reached the historic takeoff point, which is usually around Labor Day, and I think as the issues of this campaign are explored in a very aggressive, hard-hitting campaign that both Governor Lucey and I are determined to conduct, I have enough faith in the intelli-gence and the competence, the decision-making ability of the American people to believe that they are going to go back and took at the book of promises, as it`s called, that Jimmy Carter compiled in 1976. Then they`re going to took at the record that he made over the last four years. Then they`re going to took at the new promises that are now issuing in such profusion from Candidate Carter, and I think they`re going to decide that they don`t have much credibility.

MacNEIL: Governor, mandatory wage-price controls was an important part of Mr. Ken-nedy`s--Senator Kennedy`s program. Do you still support that as one of his chief spokesmen until recently?

LUCEY: Yes, I do. I think that perhaps as things have changed, the economic situation has changed, that maybe standby controls would be more appropriate than last January, when we had 18 percent inflation and it seemed that there had to be something very immediate and very drastic. But I think in the tong run that when this economy really gets out of balance, that it is better to adapt some form of incomes policy, including wage and price controls, rather than deliberately put two or three million people out of work.

MacNEIL: Do you buy that. Congressman?

ANDERSON: Well, Governor Lucey just talked about some form of incomes policy. 1 have developed in conjunction with some of my economic advisers the idea that a wage-price incentives program, a tax-based incomes policy, would indeed be one way to make sure that we get some stability in the economy. And I`m going to watch what happens to the various indices on the economy very ctosely. I don`t want runaway inflation either. And indeed I said back several months ago that if the second quarter in 1980 revealed a sharp acceleration in that very high trend toward higher inflation that we saw in the first quarter, that I would took at the necessity of applying controls. I don`t think you can do, as Ronald Reagan is wont to do, you can`t freeze yourself into a totally doctrinaire position and just be totally oblivious to what`s going on in the country. And I`m going to watch very closely what develops. But I think a tax-based incomes policy is the solution that I would took to if we need to restrain wages and prices.

MacNEIL: It doesn`t frighten you as a Republican to have a--stand on the same platform with a Democrat who`s talking about the possibility of mandatory wage-price controls?

ANDERSON: I repeal, this is a national unity campaign. We are trying to attract Demo-crats, Republicans and independents to develop the kind of consensus on public policy in this country that has been so sadly lacking in recent years. And no, I think out of the creative tension of a clash of ideas can often come the very solutions that we are seeking. So, I hope that I never become so closed-minded that I am not willing to listen to intelligent arguments from every side of the spectrum.

MacNEIL: Governor, how do you feel about the issue that gave the congressman such prominence a few months ago, the 50-50 plan --- 50 cent tax on gasoline to enable a cut in Social Security taxes?

LUCEY: I have no problem with that as tong as we have the complete package. I think that the American people have had experience with politicians that tend to make them a little bit suspicious about any proposal that imposes a tax here, and then relieves a tax over there. I asked Congressman Anderson about that, and he pointed out to me that the entire package would be presented as one bill, so that if in fact you imposed a 50 cent a gallon gas tax, you could be assured of a 50 percent cut in the employee share of the Social Security tax. And, after all, the Social Security tax has become probably the most regressive tax that we have.

MacNEIL: Is that still going to be a flyer, Congressman, if President Carter, as leaked from the White House, proposes some relief for the Social Security tax?

ANDERSON: Well, of course, I don`t know what the nature of his proposal will be, but in line with what Governor Lucey has just said, this is one legislative package, one bill. It was introduced as such in the hopper here in the House of Representatives, that you tax gasoline at the pump, but then you immediately recycle the proceeds of that tax into the pockets of more than 100 million wage earners by cutting the Social Security tax in half, cutting it to three percent from the present level of more than six percent. So, yes, I still think that is a way to achieve the goal of conservation which we desperately need in order to reduce the military vulnerability of this country, the dangers that could come from a sudden cutoff of oil supplies. We`ve got to leam the lesson of conservation. I think this is one very dramatic way to teach that lesson, and I think we could do it without harming the average wage-earner in this country. The offset would guarantee him, plus the four percent increase for those already on Social Security, would guarantee the average person that they would not be suffering some kind of inequitable burden.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: But Governor, it is true that until I guess the last 24 hours, you were opposed to that, were you not?

LUCEY: Opposed to the 50 cent a gallon--

LEHRER: Fifty cent a gallon tax?

LUCEY: I don`t know that I ever took a public stand in opposition to it. I have felt all along that we have to somehow discipline ourselves to reduce our dependence on imported oil, imported petroleum products. And certainly the area of greatest flexibility in consump-tion is in the use of the automobile.

LEHRER: Well, I was just going to make point here, of this was one case where he`s brought--where John Anderson has brought Pat Lucey around, or--

LUCEY: Well, i think that there should be some movement both ways. Yesterday morn-ing at breakfast, when I agreed to be John Anderson`s running mate, I asked him whether or not the concept of an independent campaign, independent candidates didn`t altow some independence on the part of the vice presidential candidate on issues, and he assured me that that was the fact.

LEHRER: But how can you have unity, a unity campaign, if the presidential candidate is saying one thing, and the vice presidential candidate is saying another on the exact same issue?

ANDERSON: I don`t think that you`re going to find that we`re going to be differing on that many issues. I think that on the broad basic issues confronting this country today, the concerns that we share about the necessity of rebuilding the economy of this country so that we can put people back to work, the concern that we share about rebuilding the strength of this country, the regard in which we used to be held by our partners in the Atlantic Alliance--we have no differences on those important issues.

LEHRER: Just trying to make trouble, Congressman. Just trying to make trouble. Let`s talk about foreign and defense policy for a moment. Congressman, if the Soviet Union sends troops into Poland, should the United States intervene militarily?

ANDERSON: I think that you have to, first of all, realize that the fate of Poland, the situation in Poland, is one that deeply concerns our partners in the Atlantic Alliance as well. For example, the whole fate of West German Ostpolitik may hang on what happens in that country and how that in turn would affect conditions in East Germany and so on. So, the first thing that we ought to do is, I think, have very, very intensive consultations with the Germans, the French, the British, our allies in NATO, and we ought to work out a common position. We shouldn`t go lurching out with some unilateral policy. I think there`s got to be a common position by the Atlantic Alliance on that situation. And to talk in terms of military intervention would be extremely unwise at this juncture.

LEHRER: But, Congressman, at that meeting of our allies, obviously the president of the United States--and if you were president of the United States, obviously our allies would be interested in what the president of the United States would suggest. Do you think that Poland and all that`s involved in that kind of move, if that move should happen, would be important enough to the United States to intervene militarily?

ANDERSON: I am not one who advocates military solutions, who thinks that we ought to, at the drop of a hat, suggest that military intervention is going to deal with a problem. There are some very severe economic problems in Poland today. If it were not for the fact that a consortium of Western European bankers were willing to make a loan to Poland to enable thepi to service their external debt, that country would literally be in bankruptcy. So, I think we have to took to economic means of assisting the people of Poland, and not talk in terms of military intervention.

LEHRER: Governor, what`s your view on what we should do in Poland?

LUCEY: I have no problem with what the congressman has said about it. I think that it would be irresponsible and very inappropriate for either of us to say flat out, yes, we would intervene militarily. I think that it is a matter that ought to be discussed with our allies in Western Europe, and that we ought not to act unilaterally, as Mr. Carter did when he initiated his Carter policy for the Persian Gulf without consulting our allies or without consulting the countries that he proposed to protect.

LEHRER: One more question on this, and we`ll move on. Congressman, you said one day last week that we couldn`t intervene militarily in Poland even if we wanted to because we`re too weak. What did you mean by that?

ANDERSON: Well, I think when you took at the conventional capabilities of the United States, I don`t believe that we are in a position, even if we wanted to, that we have the airlift capacity, for example, to transport manpower in sufficient amount to fight a war in Poland. So, I merely meant what I think was--

LEHRER: So it`s not even an option, then?

ANDERSON: It is really not a realistic option, no, not at all.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: Yes. Coming back to what happened at the--with the UAW today, how do you both assess the chances of your ticket now if even disaffected Democrats like Douglas Fraser are swinging over to Mr. Carter? Governor?

LUCEY: I think that there`s a very good chance that John Anderson will be the next president of the United States, and I don`t think it`s going to be determined by what a few leaders among various economic groups decide. I think that the decision will be made on the basis of direct contact between the candidates and the voters. The middleman in politics has ceased to be much of a factor, whether he`s a leader of an economic group or whether he`s an old-fashioned ward-heeler. I think that the contact will be made directly. People will make up their own minds, and I really am appalled at the number of people who say, `We`ve got to vote for Carter, because it`s the surest way to beat Reagan.` The fact is that that`s sort of an elitism. People ought to took at this thing in terms of who is best qualified to be president, and if you applied the standard that most people apply to picking a county executive or a mayor, you would not only say that John Anderson is the best-qualified candidate, you would have to conclude that he is the only one of the three who is qualified by any reasonable measure to be president of this country. And if people will make the judgment on the basis of the best-qualified candidate, we don`t have to worry about how the vote is divided among the other two.

MacNEIL: But Congressman, if people like Douglas Fraser, well-known for his liberal sympathies in the Democratic Party, and. Senator Kennedy himself can both make their peace, what hope do you have to be able to attract to the magnet of your campaign enough dissident Democrats to make it really viable?

ANDERSON: Well, I want to repeat what 1 said earlier, maybe add something first, and that is that this campaign is not going to be won on the basis of endorsements. I think that people in this country today are sufficiently disturbed by what the president himself has identified as two crises, not Candidate Anderson or Governor Lucey--but Jimmy Carter has said that we face a crisis in the economy of this country. He said that this year, when he delivered his budget message to the Congress. He also spoke of our international situation as being in a state of crisis. And I believe that he has convinced the American people that indeed those things are true. And that therefore, they`re not going to be listening to endorsements. They`re going to be looking very, very carefully at the candidates, at what they say, and whether or not they have the kinds of ideas that seem likely to bring us out of that state of crisis in which we are. So, I am confident that the average person in this country is intelligent enough --and that certainly includes a tot of disaffected, dissident Democrats who walked out of that convention in Madison Square Garden despite the facade, the paper facade of unity that was attempted on the platform the closing night of the convention, walked out feeling, as Governor Lucey felt, that Jimmy Carter had deserted the basic ideals of the Democratic Party. And I think therefore they are going to be attracted to the Anderson-Lucey ticket.

MacNEIL: Speaking tactically, gentlemen, how crucial is it to your campaign to get into these debates that the League of Women Voters is organizing with Mr. Reagan and President Carter? Congressman?

ANDERSON: Oh, I`ve made no secret of the fact that it is very important. I wouldn`t say that it is an absolute precondition to winning the election, but we know from what happened in 1976 that it was an important factor in the decision that many people made. So, I have every reason to believe--You just reported earlier on this program, the latest poll. Roper poll, that shows that we are two percentage points above the standard that was mentioned in the criteria by the League of Women Voters. And we`ve met the other qualifications. We will be on the ballot of all 50 states. So, I`m confident that we will in fact be in those debates. The current machinations that Jimmy Carter and his campaign managers are going through in an effort to try to exclude us from the initial debate, I think calls into question his really devotion to the idea that the public, the American people, have a right to know. He`s trying to perceive some political advantage in having that initial debate without me participating, and I think that that may react against him and against his campaign when the American people become aware of what he`s trying to do.

MacNEIL: He, Mr. Carter, today accepted, late today, an invitation from the National Press Club to debate Mr. Reagan atone before the first of the debates scheduled by the League of Women Voters. Mr. Reagan has not yet accepted, as I understand. What is your view of that maneuver?

ANDERSON: Well, this is the first, very frankly, that I had heard of that, and if that be the case, 1 will certainly go to work and very promptly suggest to the National Press Club that they ought to include me on the platform on that occasion as well.

LUCEY: I would think if Mr. Reagan wanted to be consistent with his position in New Hampshire when he claimed to have paid for the microphone, that he would insist on your being included in the debate.

MacNEIL: How crucial do you view this. Governor? You`ve had a tong experience in politics. This inclusion in the debates, is that--? LUCEY: If I were an incumbent president of the United States, and had almost $30 million of taxpayers` money to spend on my re-election. I don`t believe I would begrudge an independent candidate the opportunity to participate in a debate with me.

MacNEIL: I see. Well, I`d like to thank you both, gentlemen, for joining us this evening, Governor Lucey and Congressman Anderson, the independent ticket for the presidency and vice presidency. That`s all for tonight. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: We will be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.