Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon Fourth Joint Radio-Television Broadcast, October 21, 1960 | JFK Library

[ Text, format and dash are as published in Freedom of Communications : concluding report card of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate …, Part III : The Joint Appearances of Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon and other 1960 Campaign Presentations. 87th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 994, Part 3. Washington : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. ]
Friday, October 21, 1960
Originating ABC, New York, N.Y., All Networks Carried
Moderator : quincy Howe, ABC .
Moderator: Quincy Howe, ABC .
Panelists: John Edwards, ABC ; Walter Cronkite, CBS ; Frank Singiser, MBS ; John Chancellor, NBC.

MR. HOWE: I am Quincy Howe of CB — of ABC News saying estimable even from New York where the two major candidates for President of the United States are about to engage in their fourth radio-television discussion of the salute campaign .
Tonight these men will confine that discussion to foreign policy. good even, Vice President Nixon .
MR. NIXON: adept even, Mr. Howe .
MR. HOWE: And good evening, Senator Kennedy .
MR. KENNEDY: well evening, Mr. Howe .
MR. HOWE: now let me read the rules and conditions under which the candidates themselves have agreed to proceed. As they did in their first meeting, both men will make afford statements of about 8 minutes each, and closing statements of adequate clock time, running 3 to 5 minutes each. During the half hour between the opening and conclusion statements the candidates will answer and comment upon questions from a panel of four correspondents chosen by the nationally networks that carry the program .
Each candidate will be questioned in turn with opportunity for gossip by the early. Each answer will be limited to 2 1/2 minutes. Each gossip to 1 1/2 minutes .
The correspondents are absolve to ask any questions they choose in the field of extraneous affairs. Neither campaigner knows what questions will be asked .
Time alone will determine the concluding interrogate .
Reversing the order in their first merging, Senator Kennedy will make the second open statement and the first base close argument .
For the first open statement, here is Vice President Nixon .
MR. NIXON: Mr. Howe, Senator Kennedy, my colleague Americans. Since this campaign began I have had a very rare privilege. I have traveled to 48 of the 50 states and in my travels I have learned what the people of the United States are thinking about .
There is one exit that stands out above all the rest ; one in which every American is concerned, careless of what group he may be a member and careless of where he may live. And that exit, identical simply stated, is this : How can we keep the peace ; keep it without surrender ? How can we extend freedom ; extend it without war ?
now, in determining how we deal with this consequence, we must find the answer to a very crucial but simpleton interview : Who threatens the peace ? Who threatens freedom in the world ?
There is merely one threat to peace and one threat to exemption : that that is presented by the international Communist movement ; and consequently, if we are to have peace, if we are to keep our own freedom and extend it to others without war, we must know how to deal with the Communists and their leaders .
I know Mr. Khrushchev. I besides have had the opportunity of knowing and meeting early communist leaders in the world. I believe there are certain principles we must find in dealing with him and his colleagues, principles if followed, that will keep the peace and that besides can extend exemption .
first, we have to learn from the past, because we can not afford to make the mistakes of the past. In the 7 years before this presidency came into might in Washington, we found that 600 million people went behind the Iron Curtain, and at the end of that 7 years we were engaged in a war in Korea which cost of over 30,000 american lives .
In the past 7 years, in President Eisenhower ‘s administration, this site has been reversed. We ended the Korean War by strong, tauten leadership. We have kept out of other wars and we have avoided capitulation of principle or district at the league table .
nowadays, why were we successful as our predecessors were not successful ? I think there ‘re several reasons. In the first place, they made a fatal error in misjudging the Communists in trying to apply to them the lapp rules of conduct that you would apply to the leaders of the complimentary earth .
One of the major errors they made was the matchless that led to the Korean War. In ruling out the defense mechanism of Korea, they invited aggression in that sphere. They thought they were going to have peace. It brought war. We learned from their mistakes. And so, in our 7 years, we find that we have been firm in our statesmanship .
We have never made concessions without getting concessions in render. We have always been uncoerced to go the excess mile to negotiate for disarming or in any other area, but we have never been willing to do anything that, in effect, surrendered freedom any invest in the world. That is why President Eisenhower was right in not apologizing or expressing regrets to Mr. Khrushchev at the Paris Conference, as Senator Kennedy suggested he could have done. That is why Senator — President Eisenhower was besides correct in his policy in the Formosa Straits where he declined and refused to follow the recommendations, recommendations which Senator Kennedy voted for in 1955, again made in 1959, again repeated in his debates, that you have heard, recommendations with regard to again slicing off a man of free territory, and abandoning it effect, to the Communists .
Why did the President feel this was wrong and why was the President right and his critics incorrect ? Because again, this showed a lack of agreement of dictators, a lack of understanding peculiarly of Communists because every clock time you make such a concession it does not lead to peace. It merely encourages them to blackmail you. It encourages them to begin a war .
And thus I say that the phonograph record shows that we know how to keep the peace, to keep it without surrender. Let us move now to the future .
It is not enough to stand on this record because we are dealing with the most pitiless, fanatic leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the sixties America must move forward in every area. First of all, although we are nowadays, as Senator Kennedy has admitted, the strongest nation in the world militarily, we must increase our force, increase it then that we will always have enough lastingness that careless of what our likely opponents have, if they should launch a storm attack we will be able to destroy their war-making capabilities .
They must know, in early words, that it is national suicide if they begin anything. We need this kind of force because we ‘re the guardians of the peace .
In addition to military forte we need to see that the economy of this country continues to grow. It has grown in the past 7 years. It can and will grow even more in the following 4. And the reason that it must grow even more is because we have things to do at home, and besides because we ‘re in a race for survival ; a race in which it is n’t enough to be ahead ; it is n’t enough merely to be complacent. We have to move ahead in club to stay ahead. And that is why, in this battlefield I have made recommendations which I am confident will move the american economy ahead, move it firm and thoroughly so that there will never be a clock when the Soviet Union will be able to challenge our superiority in this field .
And so we need military potency. We need economic lastingness. We besides need the correct diplomatic policies. What are they ? Again we turn to the past. Firmness but no belligerence, and by “ no aggressiveness ” I mean that we do not answer diss by abuse .
When you are gallant and confident of your forte, you do not get down to the level of Mr. Khrushchev and his colleagues .
And that example that President Eisenhower has set we will continue to follow .
But all this by itself, is not adequate. It is not enough for us merely to be the strongest state militarily, the strongest economically and besides to have tauten diplomacy .
We must have a bang-up goal, and that is : not fair to keep freedom for ourselves but to extend it to all the world. To extend it to all the earth because that is America ‘s destiny. To extend it to all the world because the Communist target is not to hold their own but to extend communism. And you can not fight a victory for communism or a scheme of victory for communism with a strategy merely of holding the line .
And thus I say that we believe that our policies of military strength, of economic force, of diplomatic resoluteness first will keep the peace and keep it without surrender .
We besides believe that in the big field of ideals that we can lead America to the victory for exemption, victory in the newly developing countries, victory besides in the captive countries, provided we have faith in ourselves and faith in our principles .
MR. HOWE: now the opening statement of Senator Kennedy .
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Howe, Mr. Vice President, first let me again try to correct the record on the matter of Quemoy and Matsu. I voted for the Formosa resoluteness in 1955. I have sustained it since then. I have said that I agree with the administration policy. Mr. Nixon early indicated that he would defend Quemoy and Matsu even if the attack on these islands, 2 miles off the slide of China, were not part of a general assail an Formosa and the Pescadores. I indicated that I would defend those islands if the assail were directed against Pescadores and Formosa, which is contribution of the Eisenhower policy. I have supported that policy .
In the final workweek, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I reread the testimony of General Twining representing the administration in 1959, and the Assistant Secretary of State before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1958, and I have accurately described the government policy, and I support it wholeheartedly. So that very is n’t an exit in this campaign. It is n’t an issue with Mr. Nixon, who immediately says that he besides supports the eisenhower policy .
Nor is the interview that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign. The question is : embody we moving in the focus of peace and security ? Is our relative forte growing ? Is — as Mr. Nixon says — our prestige at an alltime high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communists at an alltime low ? I do n’t believe it is. I do n’t believe that our proportional forte is increasing, and I say that not as a democratic standard pallbearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States .
I look at Cuba, 90 miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957 I was in Havana. I talked to the american Ambassador there. He said that he was the irregular most brawny man in Cuba, and even even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican Ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the marxist influences around Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last 6 weeks, that in hurt of their warnings to the american Government, nothing was done .
Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any american, looking at the situation in Latin America, feel contented with what ‘s happening today, when a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil feels it necessity to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but on Castro in Havana, in rate to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil ?
At the american Conference — Inter-American conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we could n’t even get the Inter-American group to join in concert in denouncing Castro. It was quite a obscure statement that they finally made .
Do you know today that the Comm — the Russians broadcast 10 times as many programs in spanish to Latin America as we do ?
Do you know we do n’t have a one program sponsored by our government to Cuba, to tell them our narrative, to tell them that we are their friends, that we want them to be loose again ?
Africa is immediately the emerging area of the global. It contains 25 percentage of all the members of the General Assembly. We did n’t flush have a Bureau of African Affairs until 1957. In the Africa, south of the Sahara, which is the major new section, we have less students from all of Africa in that sphere studying under Government auspices nowadays than from the country of Thailand. If there ‘s one thing Africa needs, it ‘s technical aid, and so far last year we gave them less than 5 percentage of all the technical aid funds that we distributed around the world. We relied in the Middle East on the Baghdad Pact, and so far when the Iraqi Government was changed, the Baghdad Pact broke down .
We relied on the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East which passed the Senate. There is n’t one country in the Middle East that now endorses the Eisenhower Doctrine .
We look to Euro — to Asia, because the conflict is in the underdeveloped global. Which system, communism or freedom, will triumph in the following 5 or 10 years ? That ‘s what should concern us, not the history of 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. But are we doing adequate in these areas ? What are freedom ‘s chances in those areas ?
By 1965 or 1970 will there be early Cubas in Latin America ? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independent countries of Africa, will there be others ? Will the Congo go Communist ? Will other countries ? Are we doing enough in that area ?
And what about Asia ? Is India going to win the economic struggle or is China going to win it ? Who will dominate Asia in the next 5 or 10 years ? communism ? The Chinese ? Or will freedom ?
The question which we have to decide as Americans : Are we doing adequate today ? Is our military capability and prestige rise ? Do people want to be identified with us ? Do they want to follow the United States leadership ? I do n’t think they do adequate. And that ‘s what concerns me .
In Africa these countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the interrogate of entree of Red China, only two countries in all of Africa voted with us : liberia and the Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us .
I believe that this contend is going to go on and it may be well decided in the future decade .
I have seen Cuba go to the Communists. I have seen communist determine and Castro influence surface in Latin America. I have seen us ignore Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations. There is n’t a one american diplomatic representative in any of those six .
When Guinea became autonomous, the soviet ambassador showed up that identical day. We did n’t recognize them for 2 months ; the american Ambassador did n’t show up for about 8 months. I believe that the world is changing fast, and I do n’t think this administration has shown the foresight, has shown the cognition, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of surviving, to live better .
The average income in some of those countries is $ 25 a year. The Communists say, “ Come with us ; look what we ‘ve done. ” And we ‘ve been, on the solid, uninterested .
I think we ‘re going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about our being the strongest nation in the global. I think we are nowadays, but we were army for the liberation of rwanda stronger relative to the Communists 5 years ago, and what is of big concern is that the libra of ability is in danger of moving with them .
They made a breakthrough in missiles, and by 1961, ‘ 2, and ‘ 3, they will be outnumbering us in missiles .
I ‘m not equally confident as he is that we will be the strongest military exponent by 1963 .
He talks about economic growth as a great indicator of exemption. I agree with him. What we do in this nation, the kind of society that we build : That will tell whether freedom will be sustained around the populace and even in the last 9 months of this year we ‘ve had a drop in our economic growth preferably than a gain .
We ‘ve had the lowest rate of increase of economic growth in the last 9 months of any major industrialized society in the universe .
I look up and see the soviet flag on the moon. The fact is that the State Department polls on our prestige and influence around the world have shown such a shrill drop curtain that up public treasury now the State Department has been unwilling to release them and however they were polled by the USIA .
The point of all this is : This is a clamber in which we ‘re engaged. We want peace. We want freedom. We want security. We want to be stronger. We want exemption to gain. But I do n’t believe, in these change and rotatory times, this administration has known that the world is changing, has identified itself with that switch .
I think the Communists have been moving with vigor. Laos, Africa, Cuba — all around the world they ‘re on the move. I think we have to revita1ize our company. I think we have to demonstrate to the people of the populace that we ‘re determined in this free country of ours to be first — not first “ if ” and not first base “ but ” and not first “ when ” but foremost .
And when we are strong and when we are beginning, then exemption gains. then the prospects for peace increase. then the prospects for our society profit .
MR. HOWE: That completes the open statements. immediately the candidates will answer and comment upon questions put by these four correspondents : Frank Singiser of Mutual News, John Edwards of ABC News, Walter Cronkite of CBS News, John Chancellor of NBC News .
Frank Singiser has the beginning question for Vice President Nixon .
MR. SINGISER: Mr. Vice President, I ‘d like to pin down the deviation between the way you would handle Castro ‘s government and prevent the establishment of communist governments in the Western Hemisphere and the way that deoxythymidine monophosphate Senator Kennedy would proceed. Vice President Nixon, in what important respects do you feel there are differences between you, and why do you believe your policy is better for the peace and security of the United States and the Western Hemisphere ?
MR. NIXON: Our policies are very different. I think that Senator Kennedy ‘s policies and recommendations for the treatment of the Castro regimen are credibly the most perilously irresponsible recommendations that he ‘s made during the naturally of this campaign. In effect, what Senator Kennedy recommends is that the United States Government should give help to the exiles and to those within Cuba who oppose the Castro regimen, provided they are anti-Batista .
now let ‘s fair see what this means. We have five treaties with Latin America, including the one setting up the Organization of American States in Bogota in 1948, in which we have agreed not to intervene in the home affairs of any other american english country, and they american samoa well have agreed to do alike .
The charter of the United Nations, its preamble, Article I and Article II besides provide that there shall be no intervention by one state in the internal affairs of another. now I do n’t know what Senator Kennedy suggests when he says that we should help those who oppose the Castro regimen both in Cuba and without. But I do know this, that if we were to follow that recommendation that we would lose all of our friends in Latin America, we would probably be condemned in the United Nations, and we would not accomplish our objective. I know something else. It would be an open invitation for Mr. Khrushchev to come in, to come into Latin America and to engage us in what would be a civil war, and possibly even worse than that .
This is the major recommendation that he ‘s made. now, what can we do ? We can do what we did with Guatemala. There was a communist authoritarian that we inherited from the previous government. We quarantined Mr. Arbenz. The solution was that the Guatemalan people themselves finally rose up and they threw him out. We are quarantining Mr. Castro today. We are quarantining him diplomatically by bringing back our ambassador ; economically by cutting off deal — and Senator Kennedy ‘s suggestion that the craft that we cut off is not significant is precisely 100 percentage wrong. We are cutting off the significant items that the Cuban regimen needs in ordering to survive. By cutting off deal, by cutting off our diplomatic relations as we have, we will quarantine this regimen sol that the people of Cuba themselves will take wish of Mr. Castro. But for us to do what Senator Kennedy has suggested, would bring results which I know he would not want and surely which the american people would not want .
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Nixon shows himself misinformed. He surely must be aware that most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States, flowed out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains. There is n’t any doubt about that, No. 1 .
No. 2, I believe that if any economic sanctions against Latin America are going to be successful, they have to be multilateral, they have to include the other countries of Latin America. The very minute consequence of the action which has been taken this week on Cuba ‘s economy, I believe Castro can replace those markets very easily through Latin America, through Europe, and through Eastern Europe. If the United States had stronger prestige and influence in Latin America it could persuade, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1940, the countries of Latin America to join in an economic quarantine of Castro. That ‘s the only manner you can bring real economic pressure on the Castro regimen and besides the countries of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, and the others .
No. 3, Castro is only the begin of our difficulties throughout Latin America. The big conflict will be to prevent the influence of Castro spreading to other countries — Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia. We ‘re going to have to try to provide closer ties to associate ourselves with the great hope of these people for a better life if we ‘re going to prevent Castro ‘s influence from spreading throughout all of Latin America. His influence is impregnable enough today to prevent us from getting the early countries of Latin America to join with us in economic quarantine. His influence is growing, by and large because this administration has ignored Latin America. You yourself said, Mr. Vice President, a calendar month ago, that if we had provided the kind of economic care 5 years ago that we are now providing, we might never have had Castro. Why did n’t we ?
MR. HOWE: John Edwards has his first interview for Senator Kennedy .
MR. EDWARDS: Senator Kennedy, one quiz of a new President ‘s leadership will be the quality of his appointments. It ‘s a topic of sake here and overseas as to who will be the new Secretary of State. nowadays under our rules I must ask this question of you but I would hope that the Vice President besides would answer it .
Will you give us the names of three or four Americans, each of whom, if appointed, would serve with eminence in your judgment as Secretary of State ?
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Edwards, I do n’t think it ‘s a wise mind for presidential candidates to appoint the members of his cabinet prospectively or suggest four people and indicate that one of them surely will be appointed. This is a decision that the President of the United States must make. The stopping point candidate who indicated that — who his Cabinet was going to be, was Mr. Dewey in 1948. This is a race between the Vice President and myself for the Presidency of the United States. There are a beneficial many able men who could be Secretary of State. I have made no judgment about who should be the Secretary of State. I think that judgment could be made after election if I am successful. The people have to make a choice between Mr. Nixon and myself, between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, between our approach to the problems which now disturb us as a state and disturb us as a world baron. The President bears the constitutional duty, not the Secretary of State, for the conduct of foreign affairs .
Some Presidents have been strong in alien policy. Others have relied heavily on the Secretary of State. I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have run for the presidency with full cognition that his capital responsibility actually given to him by the Constitution and by the impel of events is in the field of extraneous affairs. I ‘m asking the people ‘s support as President ; we will select the best man we can get, but I have not made a judgment and I have not narrowed down a tilt of three or four people among whom would be the candidate .
MR. HOWE: Mr. Vice President, do you have a comment ?
MR. NIXON: Well Mr. Edwards, as you credibly know, I have systematically answered all questions with attentiveness to who will be in the following Cabinet by saying that that is the responsibility of the adjacent President and it would be inappropriate to make any decisions on that or to announce any prior to the time that I had the right to do so. So that is my answer to this wonder .
If you do n’t mind, I would like to use the symmetry of the time to respond to one of the comments that Senator Kennedy made on the previous wonder. He was talking about the Castro government and what we had been doing in Latin America. I would like to point out that when we look at our programs in Latin America, we find that we have appropriated five times ampere much for Latin America as was appropriated by the previous administration. We find that we have $ 2 billion more for the Export-Import Bank. We have a newly bank for Latin America alone of a billion dollars. We have the new program which was submitted at the Bogota Conference, this new program that President Eisenhower submitted, approved by the stopping point Congress for $ 500 million. We have moved in Latin America very efficaciously, and I ‘d besides like to point this out. Senator Kennedy complains very appropriately about our inadequate radio broadcasts for Latin America. Let me point out again that his Congress, the democratic Congress, has cut $ 80 million off of the Voice of America appropriations. now, he has to get a better job out of his Congress if he ‘s going to get us the money that we need to conduct the alien affairs of this nation in Latin America or any rate else .
MR. HOWE: Walter Cronkite, you have your first doubt for Vice President Nixon .
MR. CRONKITE: Thank you Quincy. Mr. Vice President, Senator Fulbright and now tonight Senator Kennedy maintain that the administration is suppressing a report by the United States Information Agency that shows a descent in United States prestige oversea. Are you mindful of such a report, and if you are mindful of the being of such a report, should not that report because of the bang-up importance this issue has been given in this campaign, be released to the populace ?
MR. NIXON: Mr. Cronkite, I naturally am mindful of it because I, of course, pay attention to everything Senator Kennedy says, equally well as Senator Fulbright .
now, in this connection I want to point out that the facts plainly are n’t as stated. First of all, the report to which Senator Kennedy refers is one that was made many, many months ago and related peculiarly to the period immediately after Sputnik .
second, a far as this report is concerned, I would have no objection to having it made public .
Third, I would say this with respect to this report, with respect to Gallup Polls of prestige afield and everything else that we ‘ve been hearing about “ what about american english prestige afield ? ”
America ‘s prestige afield will be just american samoa high as the spokesmen for America allow it to be .
now, when we have a presidential campaigner — for example, Senator Kennedy — stating over and over again that the United States is second in space, and the fact of the count is that the space score today is 28 to 8 ; we ‘ve had 28 successful shots ; they ‘ve had 8. When he states that we are second in education, and I have seen soviet education and I ‘ve seen ours, and we ‘re not. That we ‘re second in skill because they may be ahead in one area or another, when overall we ‘re means ahead of the Soviet Union and all early countries in skill. When he says, as he did in January of this year, that we have the worst slums, that we have the most push schools, when he says that 17 million people go to bed hungry every night — when he makes statements like this, what does this do to American prestige ? Well, it can lone have the effect, surely, of reducing it.

now, let me make one thing clear. Senator Kennedy has a province to criticize those things that are wrong but he has besides a duty to be right in his criticism .
Every one of these items that I have mentioned he ‘s been wrong — dead wrong. And for that reason he has contributed to any miss of prestige .
ultimately, let me say this : a far as prestige is concerned, the first target it would show up would be in the United Nations. now Senator Kennedy has referred to the vote on Communist China. Let ‘s expect at the vote on Hungary. There we got more votes for condemning Hungary and looking into that site than we got the last year .
Let ‘s look at the chemical reaction to Khrushchev and Eisenhower at the last U.N. seance. Did Khrushchev gain because he took his brake shoe off and pounded the table and shouted and insulted ? not at all. The President gained .
America gained by continuing the dignity, the decency that has characterized us and it ‘s that that keeps the prestige of America up — not running down America the direction Senator Kennedy has been running her polish .
MR. HOWE: Comment, Senator Kennedy ?
MR. KENNEDY: I in truth do n’t need Mr. Nixon to tell me about what my responsibilities are as a citizen. I ‘ve served this country for 14 years in the Congress and before that in the service. I have merely adenine high a devotion, and just american samoa high gear an public opinion. What I downgrade, Mr. Nixon, is the leadership the area is getting, not the country. now, I did n’t make most of the statements that you said I made. I believe the Soviet Union is beginning in out space. We may have made more shots, but the size of their rocket lunge and all the rest — you, yourself, said to Khrushchev, “ You may be ahead of us in rocket lunge but we ‘re ahead of you in color television receiver ” in your celebrated discussion in the kitchen .
I think that color television receiver is not vitamin a authoritative as skyrocket thrust .
second, I did n’t say we had the worst slums in the populace. I said we had excessively many slums, that they are badly and we ought to do something about them and we ought to support housing legislation which this government has opposed. I did n’t say we had the worst department of education in the populace. What I said was that 10 years ago, we were producing doubly a many scientists and engineers as the Soviet Union, and today they ‘re producing twice american samoa many as we are and that this affects our security around the world .
And fourthly, I believe that the polls and other studies and votes in the United Nations and anyone reading the newspaper and any citizen of the United States must come to the conclusion that the United States no longer carries the same persona of a full of life society, on the move, with its brightest days ahead as it carried a decade or two decades ago .
part of that is because we ‘ve stood even hera at dwelling. Because we have n’t met our problems in the United States. Because we have n’t had a moving economy. character of that, as the Gallup Poll showed, is because the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in out outer space. Mr. George Allen, head of your data Services, said that that made the people of the world begin to wonder whether we were first in skill. We are inaugural in other areas of science but in quad, which is the new science, we ‘re not first .
MR. HOWE: John Chancellor, your first interview for Senator Kennedy .
MR. CHANCELLOR: Senator, another question in connection with our relations with the Russians. There have been stories from Washington from the Atomic Energy Commission hinting that the Russians may have resumed the test of nuclear devices. now sir, if this is dependable, should the United States resume nuclear screen ? And if the Russians do not start testing, can you foresee any circumstances in 1961 in which the United States might resume its own serial of tests ?
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I think the future President of the United States should make one last campaign to secure an agreement on the cessation of tests — No. 1. I think we should go binding to Geneva — whoever ‘s elected President, Mr. Nixon or myself, and try once again. If we fail then, if we ‘re unable to come to an agreement, and I hope we can come to an agreement because it does not merely involve now the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union as nuclear powers. Because modern breakthroughs in atomic energy engineering, there ‘s some indications that by the prison term the following President ‘s term of office has come to an end, there may be 10, 15, or 20 countries with an nuclear capacity, possibly that many testing bombs with all the effect that it could have on the atmosphere and with all the chances that more and more countries will have an atomic capacity, with more and more prospect of war .
so, one more feat should be made. I do n’t think that tied if that effort fails that it will be necessary to carry on tests in the air which pollute the atmosphere .
They can be carried out metro, they could be carried on in out quad. But I believe the effort should be made once more by whoever ‘s elected President of the United States. If we fail, it ‘s been a great serious failure for everyone, for the homo race. I hope we can succeed. But then if we fail duty will be intelligibly on the Russians and then we ‘ll have to meet our responsibilities to the security of the United States, and there may have to be testing metro, if the Atomic Energy Committee is prepared for it. There may be testing in out space. I hope it will not be necessary for any power to resume testing in the atmosphere. It ‘s possible to detect those kind of tests. The kind of tests which you ca n’t detect are clandestine or in — possibly in forbidden distance .
So that I ‘m aspirant we can try once more. If we fail, then we must meet our responsibilities to ourselves .
But I ‘m most concerned about the unharmed trouble of the gap of nuclear weapons. China may have it by 1963 — Egypt — war has been the constant company of world. then, to have these weapons disseminated around the world, I believe, means that we ‘re going to move through a menstruation of venture in the future few years. We ought to make one death feat .
MR. HOWE: Any gossip, Mr. Vice President ?
MR. NIXON: Yes. I would say, first of all, that we must have in mind the fact that we have been negotiating to get tests inspected and to get an agreement for many, many months. As a count of fact, there ‘s been a moratorium on testing as a result of the fact that we have been negotiating. I ‘ve reached the conclusion that the Soviet Union is actually filibustering. I ‘ve reached the ending, besides, based on the reports that have been made that they may be cheating. I do n’t think we can wait until the following President is inaugurated and then selects a raw team and then all the months of negotiating that will take home before we reach a decision. I think that immediately after this election we should set a timetable — the following President, working with the present President, President Eisenhower — a timetable to break the soviet filibuster .
There should be no tests in the atmosphere. That rules out any fallout. But deoxyadenosine monophosphate far as underground tests for developing passive uses of atomic energy, we should not allow this soviet filibuster to continue. I think it ‘s fourth dimension for them to fish or cut bait .
I think that the future President, immediately after his election should sit down with the President, work out a timetable, and get a decision on this before January of future year .
MR. HOWE: Our second base cycle of questions begins with one from Mr. Edwards for the Vice President .
MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Nixon, carrying forward this business about a timetable, as you know, the pressures are increasing for a peak conference. now, both you and Senator Kennedy have said that there are sealed conditions which must be met before you would meet with Khrushchev. Will you be more particular about these conditions ?
MR. NIXON: well, the conditions I laid out in one of our previous television debates, and it ‘s quite difficult to be much more specific than that .
First of all, we have to have adequate preparation for a summit conference. This means at the Secretary of State level and at the ambassadorial flush. By adequate homework I mean that at that level we must prepare an agenda, an agenda agreed upon with the approval of the heads of state involved. nowadays, this agenda should delineate those issues on which there is a possibility of some agreement or negotiation. I do n’t believe we should go to a summit conference unless we have such an agenda, unless we have some reasonable assurance from Mr. Khrushchev that he intends seriously to negotiate on those points .
now this may seem like a rigid, inflexible situation. But let ‘s look at the other english of the coin. If we build up the hopes of the world by having a summit conference that is not adequately prepared, and then, if Mr. Khrushchev finds some excuse for breaking it up, as he did this one, because he is n’t going to get his way, we set back the campaign of peace. We do not help it .
We can, in other words, negotiate many of these items of difference between us without going to the peak. I think we have to make a greater feat than we have been making at the Secretary of State level, at the ambassadorial level, to work out the differences that we have .
And indeed far as the summit conference is concerned, it should lone be entered in upon, it should only be agreed upon, if the negotiations have reached a detail that we have some fair assurance that something is going to come out of it, other than some “ bogus spirit, ” a spirit of Geneva, or Camp David, or whatever it is. When I say “ hypocrite heart, ” I mean hypocrite, not because the spirit is not well on our side, but because the Soviet Union plainly does n’t intend to carry out what they say .
now, these are the conditions that I can lay out. I could not be more accurate than that, because until we see what Mr. Khrushchev does and what he says, we can not indicate what our plans will be .
MR. HOWE: Any comments, Senator Kennedy ?
MR. KENNEDY: Well, I think the President of the United States last winter indicated that before he ‘d go to the acme in May, as he did last fall, he indicated that there should be some agenda, that there should be some prior agreement. He hoped that there would be uh – b- be an agreement in part in disarming. He besides expressed the hope that there should be some agreement of the general site in Berlin. The Soviet Union refused to agree to that, and we went to the acme and it was black .
I believe we should not go to the acme until there is some rationality to believe that a meet of minds can be obtained on either Berlin, extinct quad, or general disarming, including nuclear test. In summation, I believe the next President in January and February should go to work in building the potency of the United States. The Soviet Union does understand potency. “ We arm to parley, ” Winston Churchill said 10 years ago. If we are strong, particularly as we face a crisis over Berlin, which we may in the spring or in the winter, it ‘s authoritative that we maintain our decision here, that we indicate that we ‘re building our intensity, that we are determined to protect our situation, that we ‘re determined to protect our commitments, and then I believe we should indicate our desire to live at peace with the world .
But until we ‘re potent here, until we ‘re moving here, I believe a summit could not be successful. I hope that before we do meet, there will be preliminary agreements on those four questions, or at least two of them, or even one of them, which would warrant such a meeting .
I think if we had stuck by that place last winter, we would have been in a better status in May .
MR. HOWE: We have meter for only one or two more questions before the close statements. now Walter Cronkite ‘s interrogate for Senator Kennedy .
MR. CRONKITE: Senator, the charge has been made frequently that the United States for many years has been on the defensive around the worldly concern, that our policy has been one of reaction to the Soviet Union preferably than positive action on our own. What areas do you see where the United States might take the offensive in a challenge to Communism over the next 4 to 8 years ?
MR. KENNEDY: One of the areas, and, of naturally, the most vulnerable sphere, I have felt, has been Eastern Europe. I ‘ve been critical of the administration ‘s failure to suggest policies which would make it potential for us to establish, for exercise, closer relations with Poland, particularly after the ’55-’56 period and the hungarian revolution. We indicated at that prison term that we were not going to intervene militarily, but there was a time period there when Poland demonstrated a national independence, and even the polish Government moved some diff — distance away from the Soviet Union. I suggested that we amend our legislation so that we could enjoy closer economic ties. We received the corroborate first of the administration, and then not, and were defeated by one vote in the Senate. We passed a bill in the Senate this year, but it did n’t pass the House. I would say Eastern Europe is the area of vulnerability of the Soviet Union .
second, the relations between Russia and China. They are now engaged in a argue over whether war is the means of Communizing the populace or whether they should use subversion, infiltration, economic struggles and all the rest. No one can say what that naturally of natural process will be, but I think the future President of the United States should watch it cautiously. If those two powers should split, it could have capital effects throughout the entire universe .
third, I believe that India represents a great area for approving carry through by the unblock world. India started from about the same set that China did. taiwanese Communists have been moving ahead the last 10 years. India, under a loose company, has been making some advance, but if India does not succeed with her 450 million people she ca n’t make freedom bring, then people around the world are going to determine, particularly in the developing global, that the only way that they can develop their resources is through the Communist arrangement .
Fourth, let me say that in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the big force on our side is the desire of people to be free. This has expressed itself in the revolts in Eastern Europe ; it ‘s expressed itself in the desire of the people of Africa to be freelancer of westerly Europe. They want to be free .
And my opinion is that they do n’t want to give their exemption up to become Communists. They want to stay free, autonomous possibly of us, but surely mugwump of the Communists. And I believe if we identify ourselves with that force, if we identify ourselves with it as Lincoln — as Wilson did, as Franklin Roosevelt did, if we become known as the supporter of exemption, sustaining exemption, helping exemption, helping these people in the contend against poverty and ignorance and disease, helping them build their lives. I believe in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, finally in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, surely in Western Europe, we can strengthen freedom, we can make it move, we can put the Communists on the defensive .
MR. HOWE: Your comment, Mr. Vice President ?
MR. NIXON: First, with regard to Poland, when I talked to Mr. Gomulka, the present leader of Poland, for 6 hours in Warsaw last class, I learned something about their problems and particularly his. Right under the Soviet gunman, with soviet troops there, he is in a very difficult position in taking anything independent — a put which would be freelancer of the Soviet Union. And so far, let ‘s just see what we ‘ve done for Poland. A half a billion dollars worth of help has gone to Poland, chiefly economic, chiefly to go to the people of Poland .
This should continue, and it can be stepped astir, to give them hope and to keep alive the hope for freedom that I can testify they have thus deeply within them .
In addition we can have more exchange with Poland or with any early of the Iron Curtain countries, which show some desire to take a different path than the path that has been taken by the ones that are complete satellites of the Soviet Union .
nowadays, equally far as the counterweight of the world is concerned, I, of naturally do n’t have a much time as Senator Kennedy had, I would equitable like to add this one point. If we are going to have the inaugural in the world, we must remember that the people of Africa and Asia and Latin America do n’t want to be pawns merely in a struggle between two great powers, the Soviet Union and the United States. We have to let them know that we want to help them, not because we ‘re merely trying to save our own skins, not because we ‘re plainly trying to fight communism, but because we care for them, because we stand for exemption, because if there were no communism in the worldly concern we would calm fight poverty, and misery, and disease, and dictatorship. If we can get that across to the people of these countries in this ten of the sixties the fight for freedom will be won .
MR. HOWE: John Chancellor ‘s motion for Vice President Nixon .
MR. CHANCELLOR: Sir, I ‘d like to ask you another question about Quemoy and Matsu. Both you and Senator Kennedy say you agree with the President on this subjugate and with our treaty obligations, but the capable remains in the political campaign as an emergence. now, sir, is this because each of you feels obliged to respond to the early when he talks about Quemoy and Matsu ? And if that ‘s on-key, do you think an end should be called to this discussion, or will it stay with us as a campaign consequence ?
MR. NIXON: I would say that the exit will stay with us as a campaign issue just american samoa retentive as Senator Kennedy persists in what I think is a fundamental error. He says he supports the President ‘s put. He says that he voted for the resolution. Well, precisely let me point this out ; he voted for the resolution in 1955 which gave the President the baron to use the forces of the United States to defend Formosa and the offshore islands. But he besides voted then for an amendment, which was lost, fortunately, an amendment which would have drawn a line and left out those islands and denied correct to the President to defend those islands if he thought that it was an attack on Formosa .
He repeated that error in 1959 in the address that he made. He repeated it again in a television debate that we had .
now, my distributor point is this : senator Kennedy has got to be consistent here. Either he ‘s for the President and he ‘s against the position that those who opposed the President in ’55 and ’59 — and the Senator ‘s position itself stated the other day in our argument — either he is for the President and against that position, or we simply have a disagreement here that must continue to be debated .
now, if the Senator in his answer to this interrogate will say “ I now will depart, or retract my former views ; I think I was faulty in 1955 ; I think I was improper in 1959 ; and I think I was ill-timed in our television receiver debate, to say that we should draw a line, leaving out Quemoy and Matsu, draw a line in effect abandoning these islands to the Communists, ” then this will be right out of the campaign, because there will be no issue between us .
I support the President ‘s position. I have always opposed drawing a trace. I have opposed drawing a line because I know that the moment you draw a argumentation, that is an encouragement for the Communists to attack, to step up their blackmail and to force you into the war that none of us want .
And so I would hope that Senator Kennedy in his answer today would clear it up. It is n’t enough for him to say “ I support the President ‘s status, that I voted for the resoluteness. ” Of course he voted for the resolution. It was about solid. But the point is, what about his erroneousness in voting for the amendment, which was not adopted ? And then persisting in it in ’59, persisting in it in the debate ?
It ‘s very simple for him to clear it up. He can say now that he no longer believes that a line should be drawn leaving these islands out of the circumference of defense. If he says that, this consequence will not be discussed in the crusade .
MR. HOWE: Senator Kennedy, your gossip ?
MR. KENNEDY: well, Mr. Nixon, to go back to 1955, the resoluteness commits the President and the United States, which I supported, to defend Formosa, the Pescadores, and if it was his military judgment, these islands. then the President sent a mission composed of Admiral Radford and Mr. Robertson to persuade Chiang Kai-shek in the spring of ’55 to withdraw from the two islands because they were exposed. The President was abortive ; Chiang Kai-shek would not withdraw .
I referred to the fact that in 1958, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am very familiar with the place that the United States took in negotiating with the taiwanese Communists on these two islands. General Twining in January ’59 described the stead of the United States. The position of the United States has been that this buildup, in the words of the President has been foolish. Mr. Herter has said these islands are indefensible. Chiang Kai-shek will not withdraw. Because he will not withdraw, because he ‘s committed to these islands, because we ‘ve been unable to persuade him to withdraw, we are in a identical unmanageable stead, and consequently the President ‘s judgment has been that we should defend the islands if in his military judgment and the sagacity of the commander in the field, the fire on these islands should be part of an overall attack on Formosa .
I support that, in position of the difficulties we ‘ve had with the islands, in view of the difficulties and disputes we ‘ve had with Chiang Kai-shek. That ‘s the alone place we can take. That ‘s not the position you took, however. The first gear military position you took, when this matter first base came up was that we should draw the occupation and invest ourselves as a matter of principle to defend these islands, not as region of the defense of Formosa and the Pescadores. You showed no recognition of the administration program to try to persuade Chiang Kai-shek for the concluding 5 years to withdraw from the islands. And I challenge you tonight to deny that the administration has sent at least respective missions to persuade Chiang Kai-shek ‘s withdrawal from these islands .
MR. HOWE: Under the match —
MR. KENNEDY: ( continuing ). .. and that ‘s the testimony of General Twining and the Assistant Secretary of State in ’58t .
MR. HOWE: Under the agreed rules, gentlemen, we ‘ve exhausted the time for questions. Each candidate will now have 4 minutes and 30 seconds for his conclusion instruction. Senator Kennedy will make the first gear final close statement .
MR. KENNEDY: I said that I ‘ve served this area for 14 years. I served it in the war. I am devoted to it. If I lose this election, I will continue in the Senate to try to build a stronger country. But I run because I believe this year the United States has a great opportunity to make a go ahead, to make a decision here at home and around the earth, that it ‘s going to reestablish itself as a vigorous club .
My judgment is that the Republican party has stood still here in the United States, and it ‘s besides stood placid around the worldly concern. We ‘re using about 50 percentage of our steel capacity nowadays. We had a recess in ’58. We had a recession in ’54. We ‘re not moving ahead in education the means we should. We did n’t make a judgment in ’57, in ’56, in ’55, in ’54 that forbidden space would be important. If we stand silent here, if we appoint people to ambassadorships and positions in Washington who have a status quo mentality, who do n’t recognize that this is a revolutionary time, then the United States does not maintain its determine. And if we fail, the cause of exemption fails .
I believe it incumbent upon the future President of the United States to get this area moving again, to get our economy moving ahead, to set before the american people its goals, its unfinished commercial enterprise, and then throughout the world appoint the best people we can get, ambassadors who can speak the terminology, not merely people who made a political contribution, but who can speak the lyric, bring students here ; let them see what kind of a state we have. Mr. Nixon said that we should not regard them as pawns in the cold war, we should identify ourselves with them. If that were genuine why did n’t we identify ourselves with the people of Africa ? Why did n’t we bring students over hera ? Why did we on the spur of the moment offer Congo 300 students last June when they had the enormous disgust ? That was more than we had offered to all of Africa before from the federal Government .
I believe that this party, Republican party, has stood still truly for 25 years ; its leadership has. It opposed all of the programs of President Roosevelt and other, for minimal wage, and for house, and economic growth, and growth of our natural resources, the Tennessee Valley and all the remainder. And, I believe that if we can get a party which believes in movement, which believes in going ahead, then we can reestablish our status in the global, firm in defense, potent in economic growth, justice for our people, guarantee of constitutional rights, so that people will believe that we exercise what we preach. And then around the world, particularly to try to reestablish the standard atmosphere which existed in Latin America at the time of Franklin Roosevelt. He was a good neighbor in Latin America because he was a good neighbor in the United States, because they saw us as a club that was compassionate, that cared about people, that was moving this nation ahead .
I believe it my responsibility as the drawing card of the Democratic party in 1960 to try to warn the american english people that in this all-important time we can no longer afford to stand still. We can no longer afford to be second best .
I want people all over the earth to look to the United States again, to feel that we ‘re on the move, to feel that our high gear noon is in the future. I want Mr. Khrushchev to know that a new generation of Americans who fought in Europe and Italy and the Pacific for exemption in World War II have now taken over in the United States, and that they ‘re going to put this country back to work again. I do n’t believe that there is anything this country can not do. I do n’t believe there ‘s any burden, or any responsibility, that any American would not assume to protect his nation, to protect our security, to advance the cause of exemption. And I believe it incumbent upon us now to do that .
Franklin Roosevelt said in 1936 that that generation of Americans had a “ tryst with destiny. ” I believe in 1960 and ’61e and ‘ 2 and ‘ 3 we have a “ tryst with fortune. ” And I believe it incumbent upon us to be the defenders of the United States and the defenders of exemption ; and to do that, we must give this country leadership and we must get America moving again .
MR. HOWE: immediately, Vice President Nixon, your close up affirmation .
MR. NIXON: Well, Senator Kennedy has said tonight again what he has said several times in the course of these debates and in the campaig : that America is standing hush. America is not standing inactive ; it has not been standing hush. And let ‘s set the phonograph record straight right nowadays by looking at the criminal record, as Al Smith used to say. He talks about housing. We built more houses in the last 7 years than in any presidency, and 30 percentage more than in the former presidency. We talk about schools. Three times adenine many classrooms built in the past administration in Eisenhower than under the Truman administration .
Let ‘s talk about civil rights ; more build up in the past 8 years than in the wholly 80 years earlier .
He talks about the advance in the field of slum headroom and the like. We find four times as many projects undertake and completed in this presidency than in the previous one .
Anybody that says America has been standing still for the concluding 7 1/2 years has n’t been traveling in America. He ‘s been in some other area. Let ‘s get that straight correctly away .
immediately, the second point we have to understand is this, however, America has not been standing even. But America can not stand pat. We ca n’t stand pat for the reason that we ‘re in a race, as I have indicated .
We ca n’t stand tap because it is essential with the conflict that we have around the world, that we not just hold our own ; that we not keep just exemption for ourselves. It is all-important that we extend freedom — extend it to all the global. And this means more than what we ‘ve been doing. It means keeping America even stronger militarily than she is. It means seeing that our economy moves ahead even faster than it has. It means making more progress in civil rights than we have thus that we can be a excellent model for all the worldly concern to see of democracy in action at its best .
immediately, looking at the early parts of the world : South America, talking about our record and the previous one ; we had a good neighbor policy, yes. It sounded ticket. But let ‘s look at it. There were 11 dictators when we came into world power in 1953 in Latin America. There are alone three left .
Let ‘s attend at Africa. Twenty modern countries in Africa during the course of this administration. not one of them selected a communist government. All of them voted for exemption — a detached type of government .
Does this display that communism has the bigger pull, or freedom has the bigger pull ? Am I trying to indicate that we have no problems in Africa or Latin America or Asia ? Of course not .
What I am trying to indicate is that the tide of history is on our side and that we can keep it on our side because we ‘re on the right field side. We ‘re on the english of exemption. We ‘re on the side of judge, against the forces of bondage, against the forces of injustice .
But we are n’t going to move America ahead and we are n’t going to be able to lead the global to win this struggle for exemption if we have a permanent wave inferiority complex about american achievements. Because we are first in the worldly concern in space, as I have indicated. We are inaugural in skill. We are first in department of education and we ‘re going to move even further ahead with the kind of leadership that we can provide in these years ahead .
One other detail I would make. What could you do ? Senator Kennedy and I are candidates for the Presidency of the United States. And in the years to come it will be written that one or the other of us was elected and that he was or was not a bang-up President. What will determine whether Senator Kennedy or I, if I am elected, was a great President ? It will not be our ambition that will determine it, because greatness is not something that is written on a political campaign bill poster. It will be determined to the extent that we represent the deep ideals, the highest feelings and religion of the american people. In other words, the future President, as he leads America in the exempt world, can be merely angstrom bang-up as the american people are great .
And so I say, in decision, keep America ‘s religion strong. See that the young people of America particularly have faith in the ideals of exemption and faith in God which distinguishes us from the atheistic materialists who oppose us .
MR. HOWE: Thank you gentlemen. Both candidates have asked me to express their thanks to the networks for this opportunity to appear on this discussion .
May I repeat that all those concerned in tonight ‘s discussion have sometimes reluctantly followed the rules and conditions read at the beginning and agreed to in advance by the candidates and the networks .
The opening statements ran 8 minutes each. The close statements ran 4 minutes 30 seconds. The regulate of speak was reversed from their first joint appearance, when they followed the lapp procedure. The dialog box of newsmen questioned each candidate alternately. Each had 2 1/2 minutes to reply. The other had a minute and a half to comment. But the first discussion dealt only with domestic policy. This one dealt only with foreign policy .
One survive bible, as members of a new political generation, Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy have used new means of communication to pioneer a new type of political debate.

The character and courage with which these two men have spoken sets a high standard for generations to come. surely, they have set a fresh precedent. possibly they have established a new tradition .
This is Quincy Howe. good night from New York .
associate documents : Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. Presidential Campaign Files, 1960, Box 1052, “ television debates : ABC transcript : fourth argue. ” John F. Kennedy Presidential Library .

source :
Category : Finance

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.