HOW THEY STAND ON THE OTHER ISSUES

With the possible exception of the economy, voters have viewed the 1976 presidential campaign as essentially an examination of character. Easily lost in the weeks of personality analysis, rhetoric and misadventure have been the candidates' positions on specific subjects of national concern. Here is a comparison of their views on seven vital topics:

Foreign Policy

Ford: For the President the centerpiece of foreign policy--as laid down by his mentor Henry Kissinger--is the prevention of nuclear war. This means giving the highest priority to U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. Although Ford purged the word detente from his political vocabulary earlier this year, it remains his desire to relax tensions with Moscow and engage it in a web of technological, cultural and economic interrelations that presumably would make it too costly for the Soviets to return to cold war confrontation. Ford is also pressing for a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) based on the agreement he reached with Soviet Party Boss Leonid Brezhnev at their November 1974 meeting in Vladivostok; it would limit each superpower to 2,400 strategic nuclear-weapon launchers. This accord has been delayed because of disagreements (within the Administration as well as between Washington and Moscow) over the definition of "strategic nuclear weapon."

In the volatile Middle East, Ford has authorized massive support for Israel ($4.3 billion in aid in the past two years), along with measures designed to gain the trust of the Arab states, such as economic aid and arms sales. Acknowledging that Kissinger's tactic of step-by-step diplomacy may have achieved all it can, Ford suggests that the next move toward a Middle East peace probably should be a general conference.

Ford denies that he has not given sufficient priority to U.S. relations with its allies. He points to the kind of intimate consultation on economic matters that went on at the summit meetings at Rambouillet, France, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, when he met with the leaders of Western Europe and Japan.

Advocating "quiet diplomacy," Ford is willing to authorize secret negotiations when he thinks they are necessary and occasional CIA covert operations. He also argues that any U.S. action concerning internal repression in such countries as Iran and South Korea is best advanced "quietly" rather than by public threats to curtail aid or trade. Drawing a distinction between morality and moralizing, Kissinger noted last week that a key test of morality is "what we are able to implement," adding that the Administration has secured the release of "hundreds of prisoners throughout the world" without publicity.

Carter: The Democratic challenger raises no dramatic objections to the basics of the Ford foreign policy. Carter approves of detente (and he does not shy away from the word), the normalization of relations with China and the attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East and to avoid bloodshed in southern Africa. Like Ford, he is a strong supporter of Israel. Where Carter differs from Ford is on matters of emphasis and style. Instead of what the Georgian derisively calls Kissinger's "Lone Ranger, one-man policy of international adventure," Carter proposes to make greater use of Congress, the State Department and the Cabinet in formulating foreign policy. In place of what he terms Kissinger's "balance of power" outlook, Carter vows to pursue what he calls "world order politics" and says he would be a tougher negotiator with the Kremlin. What all this means in practice, however, is somewhat unclear. Carter is similarly vague in explaining how he might succeed (where Ford has had trouble) in convincing Moscow--and the Pentagon--that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. should begin reducing their nuclear arsenals. It is also uncertain how Carter, in practical terms, would fulfill his promise to do more than Ford to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.

On a number of other matters Carter advocates important changes in U.S. policy. In the Middle East he seems considerably less willing than Ford to court the Arabs by granting them economic and military aid and selling them weapons. While both candidates declare they would not tolerate any future oil embargo imposed by Arabs, Carter specifically warns that such an action would be regarded by him as an "economic declaration of war" warranting a virtual halt of all U.S. trade with the boycotters.

Making morality in foreign affairs a major issue, Carter charges that it is wrong for the U.S. to be the world's leading arms salesman. He finds it "repugnant" that Washington backs authoritarian regimes like South Korea and has suggested that either Seoul start reforming or the U.S. should consider a cutback in aid or in U.S. security forces there. Carter also feels that the U.S. has a moral obligation to do significantly more than it has to help underdeveloped countries and to participate in what could be very costly international commodity agreements to bolster the economies of such countries.

Energy

Ford: Having accomplished little in the past two years to free the nation from its increasing dependence on foreign oil, the President still lacks a comprehensive policy for energy. His $100 billion crash program to subsidize nonpetroleum sources of power was roundly defeated by Congress last year because it was considered extravagant. As an alternative strategy, Ford has pushed--and Congress has blocked--complete deregulation of oil and gas prices to allow what he calls "the efficient means" of market forces to encourage conservation and development of new energy supplies. The President is also calling for programs to increase the use of coal, to harness "the unlimited potential of solar energy and fusion power," and to facilitate the construction of nuclear-power plants. He is generally opposed, however, to mandatory energy conservation measures.

Carter: Expressing horror at the nation's lack of an energy program, Carter has called for the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to develop and consolidate all energy policies. Because he feels oil may be gone as a fuel source in 30 years, he proposes "Government inducements" to foster a shift to coal from oil and gas and to find a way to exploit solar power. Carter believes the development of more efficient automobiles, improved insulation for houses and a variable rate structure for utility companies, which discourages profligate use of electricity, must all be fostered by the Government. If these steps fail to conserve sufficient energy, then Carter wants stand-by power to levy taxes on petroleum products to reduce consumption. Unlike Ford, Carter feels "dependence on nuclear power should be kept to an absolute minimum," primarily because of the "many risks" involved.

Defense

Ford: His repeated assertion that he has proposed the biggest defense budget in U.S. history ($112.7 billion for 1977) is the President's way of emphasizing his commitment to increased military spending. His promise: "To keep the U.S. the single most powerful nation on earth." He is deeply worried--as are many experts, including former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who has briefed Carter on national security matters--by the Soviet Union's outspending the U.S. on arms in recent years. The concern is that the strategic balance by which war is deterred may be upset. Ford wants the U.S. to have a bigger navy, more jet fighters and newer tanks. He is also insistent that the U.S. go ahead with production and deployment of advanced strategic weapons. Among them: the MX, a powerful and highly accurate intercontinental missile; the B-1 bomber, a supersonic jet capable of evading Soviet antiaircraft defenses and delivering nuclear warheads with pinpoint accuracy; the Trident submarine, whose increased missile range makes the U.S. underwater-based deterrent less vulnerable to Soviet attack.

Ford especially prizes the MX and B-1 (the bomber program's cost is $21 billion) for their accuracy, which could enable them to hit Soviet military and industrial sites. This fits into a recent and still controversial change in U.S. strategy that seeks an ability to respond to a Soviet provocation in a forceful but limited way that is not absolutely certain to trigger a total nuclear war. Ford opposes any significant reduction in the number of troops based abroad (434,000, down from 519,000 in 1974), arguing that such forces are seen by U.S. allies and potential aggressors as evidence of Washington's determination to protect its friends and fight its foes. The President says Carter's proposed budget reductions in the Defense Department would make it "impossible" for the country to defend itself and that "cutting muscle out of America's defense . . . is the best way to destroy [peace]."

Carter: A militarily mighty U.S. is also advocated by Carter, though with more qualifications than offered by Ford. Says he: "The No. 1 responsibility of any President is to guarantee the security of our country." But because he regards the Pentagon as "the most wasteful bureaucracy in Washington," Carter believes he can slash $5 billion to $7 billion from defense expenditures without weakening U.S. forces. (Carter once, 19 months ago, suggested a $15 billion defense cut--an abandoned proposal that Ford keeps bringing up and attacking.) To achieve the savings, Carter calls for the brass to improve its managerial techniques and reduce the percentage of support troops relative to combat troops. He also urges a reduction in the number of high-salaried generals and admirals and the withdrawal of some U.S. troops from overseas bases. A special target is South Korea, from which he suggests removing "most of our troops ... in carefully staged withdrawals" over a period of five years. He says, however, that he would consult Tokyo and Seoul before pulling out the G.I.s.

Carter deplores any talk about the possibility of using nuclear weapons for tactical, limited purposes. He has called for a U.S.Soviet five-year moratorium on all nuclear testing (without specifically indicating how this could be monitored) and for tougher enforcement of international safeguards on nuclear processes and technology (without explaining how he would prevent U.S. allies, such as France and West Germany, from selling sophisticated nuclear reactors to developing countries). He opposes construction of the B-1 bomber because he thinks it is "wasteful of taxpayers' dollars," but favors continuing research on it as well as upgrading and extending the useful life of the B-52 supersonic bomber. He also might delay the $30 billion MX missile program. However, Annapolis graduate and former submariner that he is, Carter is willing to go full steam ahead with the Trident submarine program; eleven are planned at $885 million each.

Environment

Ford: Perhaps the single issue that most cleanly divides Ford and Carter is their approach to preserving the environment. The nonpartisan League of Conservation Voters, which includes the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, rates the former Georgia Governor as "outstanding" and the President as "hopeless." That is overstating the case, but Ford -- given the hard choice of protecting the environment or fostering economic development -- has usually decided in favor of industry and jobs. Says the President: "Unemployment is as real and as sickening a blight as any pollutant that threatens the nation." Thus, Ford has twice vetoed bills that would control strip mining, which scars the earth, and he has eased deadlines for industry to comply with federal clean-air directives. Last week he vetoed a bill, supported by environmentalists, to create a federal plan for the use of the nation's land and water resources. (His reason: the bill could create a "large and costly bureaucracy" and limit local government prerogatives.) In an about-face, Ford did propose a $1.5 billion program in August to more than double the nation's parklands in a decade; but he lost credibility when it turned out that most of the "new" land he had in mind was to be taken from 80 million acres previously set aside for public use in Alaska. To put Ford in a corner, the Democrats then sent to the White House an even more ambitious parks development and expansion plan, calling for spending $8.5 billion over a ten-year period. His hand forced, the President signed the measure in September. However, more than 250 environmentalists, doubting his conviction to follow through and considering his record as a whole, last week accused the President of "unprecedented insensitivity" to conservation issues.

Carter: The Democratic candidate argues that economic development does not have to harm the environment, but frankly declares: "I want to make it clear that if there is ever a conflict, I will go for beauty, clean air, water and landscape." According to Lewis Regenstein, executive vice president of the Fund for Animals, "Carter has taken a stronger stand [on environmental issues] than any other candidate in modern times." In contrast to Ford, Carter favors a federal role in long-range land-use planning, tougher controls on air and water pollution and a bill that would "require reclamation of the land as a condition of strip mining." One of Carter's villains is the U.S. Army's Corps of Engineers, which he claims is far too eager to build dams that end up drowning scenic areas. Carter promises in campaign speeches "to put the Corps of Engineers out of the dam-building business." The environment is an issue on which Carter has a well-established record. While serving as Governor of Georgia, he managed to block the Army -- although it was supported by the state legislature, previous Governors and Georgia congressmen -- from constructing a dam that would have impeded the Flint River, the last free-flowing river in the Piedmont section of the state. Carter also fought successfully to help preserve Georgia's coastline and wetlands. He established a Heritage Trust Commission to preserve choice natural areas, as well as historical and cultural sites. While reorganizing the state government, Carter combined the state's environmental agencies into a single department of natural resources and upped its budget. He also made some outstanding appointments to key environmental posts, and conservationists came to believe that they had the ear of his administration.

Race

Ford: Although he has pledged himself to carry out laws and court orders on busing, the President is dead set against the practice. Says he: "I do not believe that court-ordered, forced busing to achieve racial balance is the right way to get quality education." At Ford's direction, the Administration is now looking for other ways to achieve integration while improving the quality of schools. Claiming that some federal judges "have gone too far," Ford sent Congress a proposal--which died in committee--that would limit the courts to .ordering busing for no longer than five years in districts making good-faith efforts to desegregate. He has also suggested that he would seek tax credits for parents who send their children to parochial or private schools. Although he supports the fair-housing laws, Ford is opposed to federal plans to break up homogeneous neighborhoods--a point he emphasizes while campaigning hard for the big-city ethnic vote. Ford may have hurt himself with blacks by not moving quickly enough to fire Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz after his racist remarks.

Carter: "I favor school integration," says the Georgian. "I do not favor mandatory busing. The only kids who get bused are the poor children. I've never seen a rich kid bused." In general, Carter's views parallel Ford's but are more sharply defined. He backs a "voluntary" busing plan along the lines of the one worked out in Atlanta while he was Governor. No child would be bused against his wishes, and the key to the plan would be getting representatives of minority groups into the decision-making process. Carter's famed remark about wanting to preserve the "ethnic purity" of a neighborhood (later qualified to "ethnic character, ethnic heritage") also represents a viewpoint close to Ford's. As Carter sees it, the Government should not force "a particular ethnic or economic mix" upon an established neighborhood. Despite these views, Carter has the overwhelming support of blacks, who admire his excellent record on civil rights while Governor. Well remembered is Carter's characterization of the 1960s' civil rights legislation as "the best thing that ever happened to the South in my lifetime."

Welfare

Ford: The President believes that welfare programs got out of hand long ago, citing as proof the fact that in the past year New York City had to pay $700 million in benefits while teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. He has called for a "sweeping overhaul" of what he describes as the welfare "mess," but he has not spelled out in detail the reforms he deems necessary. Because of the complexity of welfare programs, Ford believes the basic system could not be changed much before the end of the decade. In the interim, he has asked Congress for permission--still not granted--to crack down on welfare cheaters by rewriting the rules of federal programs "to make [them] more equitable and efficient." Prodded by Ford, the Department of Agriculture tried to revamp the $5 billion food-stamp program, seeking to cut red tape as well as to tighten up regulations. The proposals, now blocked in the courts, would remove an estimated 5 million people from the list of 19 million receiving stamps. In broad terms, Ford's instincts are to give welfare to those who cannot help themselves, but to get those who can work off the dole by improving the economy and thus generating more jobs. This conforms with his basic philosophy that government should try to improve the business climate with jobs that come from private enterprise.

Carter: From the start of his campaign. Carter has urged a major change. He would replace the entire jerry-built welfare system that hands out money in a welter of ways with one making single payments. Adjusted for cost of living differences around the country, the allotments would largely end the migration of jobless families from areas with low benefits (like Mississippi) to high-paying areas (like New York City). The cities, which now carry part of the welfare burden, would no longer be required to pay anything; the bill would be divided between the Federal Government--the lion's share--and the states. Carter argues that 90% of the 12 million people now on welfare cannot provide properly for themselves and hence "should be treated with love and compassion and respect and dignity." As for the 10% able to work, he would give them special training and, provided the private sector cannot hire them--a solution he prefers--he would generate jobs through federal programs. If these welfare recipients refused to go to work, vows Carter, "I wouldn't pay them any more money"--a line that customarily draws cheers from his audiences. He says that there are 2 million welfare workers "bogged down in red tape" serving the 12 million recipients--a l-to-6 ratio that reorganization could improve.

Abortion

Ford: "I am opposed to abortion on demand," says the President, although he would condone the practice in the case of a woman who has been raped. Ford is against a proposed constitutional amendment--backed by the Roman Catholic Church and the right-to-lifers --that would outlaw abortion throughout the U.S. However, he favors an amendment to the Constitution that would give each state the right to set up its own standards for abortion. Ford's critics protest that he is dodging the issue, since such an amendment has little chance of passing. It must be approved not only by two-thirds of the Senate and House but by three-fourths of the states. Yet twelve states had already passed laws approving abortion in one form or other prior to the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortion on demand up to the third month of pregnancy.

Carter: Like his opponent, the Democratic candidate is personally opposed to abortion and against the use of federal funds to pay for the operation. He favors increased federal birth-control programs to reduce the need for abortions. The key difference between Carter and Ford is that the Georgian is opposed to any constitutional amendment on the subject, including one that would leave the matter up to the individual states. After a meeting with Carter, six Catholic bishops said they were "disappointed" in his approach (they were "encouraged" by Ford's), and Carter--in one of the worst moments of his campaign--waffled. He said he was not necessarily opposed to all anti-abortion amendments, just the ones he had heard about so far. Carter soon reverted to his earlier anti-amendment position. He would not change his mind, he tells Catholic audiences, "just to win an election."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.