An Interview with the President: "The Jury Is Out"

TIME's Man of the Year was interviewed by Editor in Chief Hedley Donovan and Managing Editor Henry Grunwald last week at the White House. With them were Washington Bureau Chief Hugh Sidey and White House Correspondent Jerrold Schecter. Excerpts:

MR. PRESIDENT, OF THE MANY DECISIONS THAT YOU HAD TO MAKE IN THIS PAST YEAR, COULD YOU TELL US WHICH WAS THE TOUGHEST? GIVE US AN EVALUATION.

The most important decision that I made this year was the decision to open communications with China. I could do it where others could not. I believe that it will make a greater contribution to the next generation, to peace in the world, than anything else we have done. It was a difficult decision because it was a mixed bag as far as public reaction was concerned. I knew that it posed many problems with many of our friends in the world. But it had to be done and this country had to make that move. No other country could; ironically, the Soviet Union was unable to.

On the domestic front, the most difficult decision was economic. It became apparent that if the U.S. was going to maintain its competitive position in the world, some very strong medicine had to be taken by the patient, the U.S., and also given to our trading partners in the world.

THAT DECISION CERTAINLY WENT AGAINST WHAT WAS TAKEN TO BE YOUR ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY, AND AGAINST MANY THINGS YOU AND YOUR ADVISERS HAD ASSURED US. WERE YOU TROUBLED BY THE NEED TO REVERSE YOUR POSITION SO DRAMATICALLY?

I was troubled by it because I am committed to the free market. But I would be much more troubled if this had been done by someone else. I don't believe in controls as an end in themselves or on a permanent basis. On the other hand, I am an activist--nobody believed that until this year. Being an activist, I felt we had to jolt the American economy on the inflation side.

AREN'T YOU GRATIFIED, NOT TO SAY SURPRISED, HOW WELL THE PUBLIC RECEIVES ACTIVISM IN THESE AREAS, INCLUDING CHINA?

I think we should all be pleased that the American people so generally have supported the wage-price freeze and controls. However, there is a warning note to be sounded here. A great number of Americans might say, "Let's continue to have the controls." I don't want that, because if our people and this economy get used to that crutch, we will never throw it away.

Now in terms of China, I think we would be less than candid were we not to admit that what really matters here is not the fact that the trip to China is announced, the meeting with the Soviets is announced, but how they work. Our people have become accustomed to the spectaculars. It is exciting. A trip to China is like going to the moon.

On the other hand, the American people are very volatile. They can be caught up emotionally with a big move, but if it fails, they can turn away just as fast. That is why it is so important that the China trip not be just cosmetics, that it be cast in terms of building to the long-term future. It may well benefit not the present occupant of this office, but somebody five, ten or 15 years from now.

WAS THERE ANY DANGER THAT THE INDO-PAKISTANI WAR MIGHT HAVE STRAINED U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS TO THE POINT OF YOUR RECONSIDERING YOUR MAY VISIT TO MOSCOW?

We had differences with the Soviets in South Asia at the beginning of the war, although not at the end, when both sides used restraint. The Soviets deserve credit for restraint after East Pakistan went down, to get the ceasefire; that stopped what would inevitably have been the conquest of West Pakistan as well. But anywhere the Soviet Union and the U.S. find themselves disagreeing potentially jeopardizes the possibility of their going forward in other areas. Whereas any area where we agree helps. I think what really led both sides to the determination to go forward with the summit was Berlin. Berlin was the critical move. Once Berlin was made, Brezhnev on his side, and I on my side, through an exchange of letters, and also other various conversations, thought this was the time [to set a date for meeting].

YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT THE INDIA CONQUEST OF WEST PAKISTAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN "INEVITABLE" BUT FOR U.S. AND SOVIET RESTRAINING MEASURES. WAS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE INDIANS PLANNED TO MOVE ON WEST PAKISTAN?

I would not like to contend that the Indians had a deliberate plan to do that. But once these passions of war and success in war are set loose, they tend to run their course. It is my conviction, based on our intelligence reports as to the forces that were working in the Indian government, that they would have gone on to reduce once and for all the danger that they had consistently seen in Pakistan. We have no military assistance to India. The Soviet Union, of course, is indispensable to India. Under the circumstances, we, in communication with the Soviet Union, played a constructive role. The basic point in South Asia was the principle that any nation has a right to its integrity, and that the attempt of its neighbors to engulf it with the support of a superpower from outside will be resisted. That was the principle at stake.

WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN PEKING? WHAT CAN YOU REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BRING BACK?

The jury is still out. The success of our move toward China, the success of our meeting with the Soviets, will be determined by what follows those meetings, not the communiques that come out of them. Although the communiques may be important, particularly the one regarding the Soviets, which will be the more substantive. The Peking visit is just to open communication. The Soviet one is basically a substantive meeting. But success will be determined by what follows in the relationship of the U.S. with these two great powers in the world in the years to come.

IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO HELP MAKE PEACE BETWEEN THE SOVIET UNION AND CHINA?

You can get a pretty good argument from some people who say, "Why don't we let Russia and China fight?" And they say the reason we go to China is to make the Russians mad. And then when you go to Russia, well, that makes the Chinese mad. But I do not accept at all the proposition that the two of us [the U.S. and Russia] should contain China. That is good short-range policy and utterly disastrous long-range policy. If China and Russia--just running it out hypothetically--get involved in a conflict, it would inevitably involve their neighbors there, and possibly their neighbors over here. What I am suggesting is not that the United States should be so conceited that we feel that we can be the peacemakers between these two powers. But on the other hand, it is not the purpose of our policy to get them at each other's throats. It should not be.

WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO ANNOUNCE YOUR CANDIDACY FOR '72?

When I do announce the decision, I won't be coy about it. Whatever the decision is, I have determined that the presidential hat must be worn most of the year, and not the candidate's hat. I cannot and will not engage in any political activities until after the convention. I suppose some of our good partisans will say: "Here are the candidates of the other party romping up and down the country and all you are doing is being President." I suppose one answer to that would be: "Maybe that is the best way to be a candidate. On the other hand, I see no way to conduct [serious international and domestic programs] if I would go swinging out through the country, being at fund-raising gatherings and getting down frankly into the arena. It will be a very close contest and I am afraid we are going to be plagued with this for some time to come, when neither man who wins will get a majority."

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT ISSUES WILL DOMINATE THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? HOW DOES THE BATTLE SHAPE UP?

The issues could be quite different from anything on the horizon now. The issue of Viet Nam will not be an issue in the campaign, as far as this Administration is concerned, because we will have brought the American involvement to an end.

If the economy is moving upward strongly, and we believe it will be, then nobody is going to make a successful issue of it. That leaves what, then? Issues that could be made: health, the problems of the cities, of youth, of race, of hypocrisy. The opposition always finds one. That's its duty. But we have the peace issue, and in a much broader sense than ending Viet Nam--that is our greatest strength. I say our greatest strength; it will be the greatest strength, whoever is the Republican nominee, because ending the war in Viet Nam is inevitable.

THE CHIEF ISSUE THE DEMOCRATS MAY BE LEFT WITH COULD BE YOUR PERSONALITY. CRITICS OFTEN SUGGEST THAT YOU LACK CHARISMA. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT AS A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE?

Well, that is a legitimate issue in its way. I think we have become rather conscious of it in the United States because of our superheated media. I think the idea is rather prevalent among a great number of people that what the country needs is a spectacular, if not flamboyant, charismatic figure as a leader. There are some others, however, who might say that when you really have a crunch, when it is really tough, when the decision made in this office may determine the future of war and peace, not just now but for generations to come, that you had better make the choice in terms of an individual who is totally cool, detached and with some experience. Now I am not describing anybody, of course . . .

I have felt that certainly over the past three years, this country, and perhaps America's relations in the world, needed to cool down some. I would be the first to say that I am not a table thumper or a shouter--not often at least --but of course charisma is something else. Charisma, basically, I think most sophisticates say, is style. I don't intend to change my style. I determined that when I came into office. Of course I couldn't if I wanted to.

Now I must admit that the very drama of the announcement I made on China did not need any charisma to get it across. It lasted only two minutes; I wrote it myself. Some of my friends afterwards said, "My God, why did you take just two minutes? That is a tremendous thing." I told them, "Don't worry--it will play." Where an event truly is a great event it does not need a lot of rhetoric. Where you need a lot of rhetoric, a lot of jazz, a lot of flamboyance, is when you don't have much to sell.

I would say that when I came into office this country was in deep trouble. I called it the crisis of the spirit. Others have done a much better job of describing it.

NOW WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT SORT OF SITUATION? WHAT REMEDIES ARE THERE?

Well, the President can go out and harangue people and say, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and all that, and maybe the people are lifted up. I don't think it would work now. I think our people had their expectations raised so high in the '60s and then had to drop down so far that a certain, perhaps healthy skepticism had arisen, healthy up to a point. But then it can be self-destructive when we become so skeptical about our country and say, "My God, we have fouled up our foreign policies. Why did we get in Viet Nam? We do everything wrong. The United States is not fit to be a world leader. Let's turn inward and handle our own problems." We were escaping from that usual American ideal of trying to do our best, trying harder, if I may borrow from Avis. Americans--many decent Americans--just began to doubt their senses.

WHERE ARE WE NOW? HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY AS WE ENTER THE NEW YEAR?

We can talk about programs, and that's what makes hard news--China, Russia, the New Economic Policy, our new tax policy, which may come along, the New American Revolution, revenue sharing and the rest. But as I see it, what I would hope to have come out of next year is to instill again in the American people a sense of confidence in themselves, pride in the fact that with all of our failings in foreign policy --and we have had failures--we are doing our level best, whether it is in a miserable place like the conflict in South Asia, or in the Mideast or other places, to keep the peace rather than to break it.

On the domestic front, look where we were. Look where we have come. Look at that quiet revolution that has taken place in the South in three years. Who ever thought it could happen? It has. It isn't perfect; it's never going to be. Because black people are different from white people. They always will be--and that will enrich the country in the long run. But what we have to realize is that whether it is relations between the races or relations between the generations, this country is, in my view, doing very well.

I am confident that the United States right now is on the brink of exercising its power to do good in the world. Such good as never has been done in the history of civilization because we now can muster our moral force, our economic force and we, of course, have the military power to back up our words. Our aim is to build a structure of peace such as we could not dream of after World War II; we couldn't dream of this when Eisenhower was President. It wasn't the right time. It wasn't the right time when Kennedy was there. But now the time may have come, and we must seize the moment--seize the moment in our relationships with the superpowers.

We must remember the only time in the history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. So I believe in a world in which the United States is powerful. I think it will be a safer world and a better world if we have a strong, healthy United States, Europe, Soviet Union, China, Japan, each balancing the other, not playing one against the other, an even balance.

DO YOU ENJOY YOUR JOB? DO YOU ENJOY BEING PRESIDENT?

Well, in terms of all the trappings of office, all the power of office, that does not appeal to me. I must say I don't particularly enjoy the struggle with the bureaucracy, the press, and all that. But what I do like about the job is the possibility, in the brief time I have, of doing something that someone else might not have been able to do.

I am not one of those who believe that there is any indispensable man for the presidency. I think any man who gets in this position will be up to the position. You grow into it. We have had very few poor Presidents. Perhaps very few great ones. But the main point is that I have probably the most unusual opportunity, the greatest opportunity of any President in history, due to the fact that in just the way the cards happen to fall I may be able to do things which can create a new structure of peace in the world. To the extent that I am able to make progress toward that goal, I would very thoroughly enjoy that job. But if you put it in terms of "Do you enjoy the job in terms of the everyday battles?"--no, not particularly. I could do without a lot of that.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.