flf >-v

Q: How would you describe your brand of conservatism, and what has it contributed to the political process?

1 A: I believe that the founding principles of this country are as valid today as they were 200 years ago: a belief that our rights come from God, that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, as well as a recognition that the marketplace is better equipped to allocate resources than is the bureau-,

cracy.

In terms of impact on the political process, we've really filled a vacuum. People who are credentialed and legitimated by society should be doing the things we are doing. For example, in 1978, it was left to the to raise the issue of the treaties. Both major political parties supported the surrender of U.S. fights in the Canal Zone. In terms of abortion, the opposition leadership has come from outside the major political parties. In terms of other so-called social issues like ERA, and in terms of national defense issues like SALT II, it has been left to the New Right to mobilize public opinion at the grass roots level.

When I was in the Nixon Administration, from 1969 through 1973, I initially re garded that as a culmination of years of effort on behalf of and the Republican Party with a view that at last the ideas which I held dear would be con verted to public policy and that our efforts within the Repiiblican Party would bear fruit. But I came to the sad realization that people in both political parties were far more concerned with the exercise of power and the enjoyment of its per quisites than they were with securing ciny particular policy result.

/ In the course of seeking to influence policy, I discovered that decision makers — whether they were in the courts, the bureaucracy, or the Congress — were far more responsive to considerations of power than considerations of principle. It was from that experience that Ihe Conservative Caucus emerged cind similar exper iences led to the development of other New Right organizations.

Q: Aside from the fact that the New Right doesn't have the numbers in Congress, what do you believe is the greatest challenge confronting conservatives today?

A: I believe that our country is in grave peril. Our political difficulties are mere ly one manifestation of an overall moral decline which has permeated every aspect of our civilization. Our task is to be an instrument for warning the American people of what the problem is, how the problem has arisen, and what can be done about it.

In any society, the basic elements of power must include the ability to define the issues - the ability to set the agenda for public debate. As long as public policy IS debated and decided nationally, liberals are far better arrayed than conserva tives to influence the outcome. They determine what is important; they tell the people what is to be celebrated and who is to be celebrated; who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.

Looking at the recent political history of this country, we have seen notable ex amples of how that ability to set the agenda for debate has influenced events. For example, in 1964, the characterization^^ of as a dangerous radical who might get us into .a land war in Asia certainly influenced the overwhelming electoral success of Lyndon Johnson.

In 1972, Nixon was smart enough to perceive that opposition to McGovem radicalism was far greater than support for Richard Nixon, so he made the election a referendum on McGovem radicalism. I think his strength reflected the sentiments and beliefs of a vast majority of Americans who have essentially sound values, even if they don't always act on them.

In 1974, the liberals changed the subject. They said that election was not a refer endum on defense, or busing, or victory in Vietnam, or quotas, high taxes, burden some bureaucracy, but a referendum on Watergate. They were able to make Watergate the centerpiece issue in that campaign, and they had the power to do it.

Whenever we let the liberals determine what the issue is, we reduce our prospects for success. That is why we concertedly sought to bring to public attention issues like the Panama Canal treaties in 1978. That is why in 1980 we want the election not to be a referendum on 's hair dye or John Connelly's milk trial, but we want it to be a referendum on the survival of Western civilization - our national security strategy and on SALT II.

To the extent that we can fill the void which now exists and provide issues around which people can rally, then we can have a positive impact on the outcome. The major political parties today are simply instruments for gaining power. They may use issues, but issues are not intrinsic to their meaning or purpose. The Left has known that for quite some time, recognizing that people who are motivated by issues are far more reliable than people who are merely motivated by the lust for power or the desire for patronage. While the Left has done that for years, the Right has only begun to do it. But we have a far greater opportunity to do it successfully, simply because there are far more people concerned with controlling the circumstances of their children's education, for example, than there are ag grieved homosexuals or supporters of Sacco-^^zetti, or whatever the particular cause the Left has used to build its base. We have a greater opportunity for base- building, and just as the Left has organized around certain groups to influence the direction of political parties, increasingly the political parties will respond to us if they want to remain successful.

Q: Aren't many of the problems facing the nation largely technical or administrative in nature and not solvable in terms of liberal vs. conservative approach?

A; I believe that virtually all of the problems facing the nation are moral. In the civil service system, for example, an interesting paradox has developed. The para dox is that while credentials, merit and experience have been projected as the key to success in the civil service system, in fact the decisions which civil servants are called upon to make increasingly flow far more from their basic ethical perspective^ moral values, and political beliefs than from any particular / degree or credential. In the social agencies, the decisions that are made everyday about the values that are communicated in education or through the National Endowment for the Arts, or through the legal services program, or through the ACTION agency or through the community development block grant program are inescapably reflections of someone's view of the nature of man.

In the defense policy area, decisions are likewise based on moral considerations. The McNamara doctrine, whic^^ided our national defense strategy for so many years, is one that I regard as profoundly immoral. It is a doctrine which basical ly says that the absence of conflict is to be more highly prized than is the survival of virtue or the defeat of evil. It is a strategy based on the notion that the U.S. should allow the Soviet Union to catch up in weapons development and deployment while we unilaterally disarm in the hope that it will lead to an appropriate atmosphere for aimis control. Of course, it neglected, the whole his tory of mankind which shows that the only way in which you can truly preserve a just peace is when the non-ag^ssor nation is stronger than the aggressor nation.

So, I don't know of a single area of policy which can be separated from morality. Although technical expertise is certainly to be prized and valued, it can be taught far more easily tha^^norality. If I had to choose between an employee who was thoroughly lacking in experience but whose values were sound and another whose values were unsound but who had great experience, I would choose the man

or woman with the sound values.

Q: In your opinion, has the New Right yet achieved the credibility required to shake the image of being a mere fringe element in American politics?

A: That's an important consideration because to a great extent perception ^fects reality. Many times power is merely the illusion of power. Certainly the people who now set the agenda for public debate have created many power illusions in the last couple of decades. The illusion of the gay rights movement, the feminist movement and the anti-war movement of- the 'SOs was converted into reality through advertising. We are now witnessing the attempt to convert incest, abortion and other aberrations into acceptable behavior by those who have the ability to control that which is set before the minds of most Americans.

We have to recognize that the people who are defining our perceptions are pre ponderantly quite inimical to all that we stand for and all that we hope to / achieve. There are some who are neutral, but in the final analysis the people / who control the levers of power in the media and other decision-making and opinion-shaping sectors of society are thoroughly hostile to the things we be lieve in. Our strategy must take that into account and overcome it. We must re cognize the need to develop our own systems for communication so that we are not dependent upon the errors or good natures of our adversaries in order to commiini-

cate our views.

The New Right would not have emerged at all had it not been for our ability to use direct mail. I have no doubt that as our effectiveness increases, the Left will try to choke off our ability to use direct mail through increased postal rstes, tax laws and new regulations. We must also develop our own profit-seeking publications because they will be the last thing liberals will be able to take away from us. One of the reasons \r\couSeassSi^^i^^ras^^^s t^^ids is that in order to strip away First Amendment rights/the Left woii^d also have to jeopardize the rights of Washington Post and the New York Times, which they are not aboi^ to do. Rely ing on tax-exempt statusf^'j^ oes and othe3?J^fc^ TZszs^ .- ., . (I ^ 9&n/£fvrK5H'i/ctvrP>, /|A rxa ^ of being regulated out of business.

Q: Some political observers say the New Right is just a temporary phenomenon and claim that fewer and fewer people will be able to live up to the rigid stand ards of ideological purity it demands of true conservatives. Eventually, they say, it will recede into the background much like the did in the late 1950's. What do you say?

A: If we are simply a figment of the media's imagination, we can recede into the background whenever the media determines we have ceased to be significant. There have been organizations and activities in the past which have been brought to public attention by the media and removed from public attention by the media. To some degree tt^ New Right tSaai^Bi^iven a size and an influence greater than the facts warrant^Sfbut I think we have caught up with that illusion.

The question of our future, however, is in our own hands. As long as we intelligently and responsibly act on the concerns of millions of Americans, we will have impact. Our impact can be limited by laws, regulations, media smears and an adverse economy -which significantly affects our level of funding far more than the funding of the Left^which relies primarily on the taxpayer for the sustenance of its activities.

Q: Conservatives like to talk of the "New Majority." What is your definition of

that term?

A: The New Majority is really the voiceless majority — those tens of millions of Americans who believe in God, family and country; who believe that America is worth preserving and defending; who believe they pather than the state are respon sible for the rearing and education of their children; who believe they are en titled to keep a fairer share of that which they earn and not have it spent for them by government; who believe that people should be judged not on the basis of sex, age, race, religion or ethnic background; who believe that people should be judged on the basis of individual merit and achievement as they once were in

this country.

In other words, the New Majority is really that great majority of Americans who have really never accepted the cultural perversion and corruption which permeates the leadership elite of our society today.

Q: If people are tired of footing the bill for new social welfare schemes and com plying with govenunerit-imposed controls on their behavior, as you seem to sug gest, how do you explain the support such programs have in Congress?

A: There is a problem in this country of people not being educated to liberty. People today are being,increasingly educated to dependence. The government actually spends money to encourage"people to accept welfare and go on food stamps. We are being educated to slavery; we are being sold to dependence with our own tax dollars.

Members of Congress are well aware that the average citizen has no idea of what Congress is up to. At the same time, every conceivable interest group is well in formed about congressional action on matters of importance to them. The rest of us are too busy trying to raise our families aind earn a living.

The congressmain who is merely interested in perpetuating his incumbency considers the fact that the easiest way to continue is to accomodate those special interests. Second, bvureaucrats hold political power. They have the ability to elect or defeat a congressman who is hostile to them. They can put into his district programs that will publish newspapers which regularly denounce him, organizations which can build constituencies that work against his re-election, which register voters

and have access to the media.

In addition, the congressman knows the media elite of this country is far more sympathetic to the expansion of federal power and the perm^Snt implantation of Marxist ideology in our government. The media will make him look far better if he goes along with those plans than if he opposes them.

I don't think there's a more outstanding United States Senator in this century, perhaps longer, than . On issue after issue — Rhodesia, Panama, Taiwan, the energy crisis, the gold standard, legal services, abortion, prayer in the schools, textbooks^— he has been the leader or in the forefront of leadership. But instead of^celebrated for his courage, his character, for his knowledge and outstanding staff, he is instead treated as something of an aberration by the press. All the while, total ciphers like Frank Church, Birch Bayh and Ted Kennedy are given the full treatment.

So, a person who is simply governed by ambition knows that as long as there is an absence of an informed electorate in his constituency, the easiest thing for him to do is go along with the predominant and destructive trends in our society.

Q: You have singled out such companies as Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola as being among the major forces that are trying-to thwart New Right objectives and undermining

traditional American values. How so?

A: There is some irony in the Pepsi Cola Company developing the Soviet market during the Nixon administration and the Coca Cola Company developing the red Chinese mar ket under the Carter administration. Unfortunately, there's nothing unusual about these two companies. Most of the major corporations in our society today are more concerned with short term profit than they are with the survival of Western civil ization or the economy.

The development of our Communist enemy has certainly been aided by greedy business men seeking to pad their profit margins at the expense of higher principles and of their own countrymen.

This concern with profits is also manifested in the sorts of things they subsidize on television, and the pornography and perversion that big business underwrites on our television screens, and the causes they fund. Exxon Corporation, for example, provides ample funding for countless abortions through its support of Planned Parenthood and Atlantic Richfield Company is a major force behind the Aspen Insti- tute for Humanistic Studies. I can't think of very many corporations in America which are friends of liberty or friends of the free market.

Q: Can you name one?

A: There are some marvelous businessmen, but they are small'businessmen. Most of them or- are entrepeneurs who started the companies themselves who still retain con trol - people like Roger Millik^of lfef^/^^iiiik& in South Carolina, Joe Coors in Colorado, Ray Shamie with the Metal Bellows Corporation, Bob Kr/eble with the Loctite Corporation, and Mike Val^io with Papa Gino's Corporation. These are men of unusual courage.

Q: What is the purpose of the Conservative Caucus, and how is it organized?

A: The Conservative Caucus is an organizational manifestation of the strategic per ceptions and concerns that we have been discussing. It's based on the idea that there is a "golden screw," which if you undo, will cause liberalism's pants to _ fall down. The golden screw is the Congress. Under our constitutional system, as long as we are permitted to have free elections, it is possible to turn America right side up. But in order to turn America right side up, we have to have domin ant influence over the House and/or Senate. Of course,..if you .have a president who is conflict-oriented and is willing to break his lance against the liberal establishment, all he needs is the support of one-third plus one in either house to sustain his veto. But when you have a president like Jimmy Carter, two-thirds in both houses is needed so you can override vetoes.

In order to be in that position, we've got to have members of Congress who are backed up at the constituency level. Our whole strategy is based on the idea that we cannot beat the liberals in Washington given the manpower and monetary re sources we have at the moment. The only way we can beat them is at the congression al district level. Anyone in politics knows that 300 active workers in a district is a most extraordinary force. Our goal is to put together about 300 active workers in as many congressional districts as possible. When we have that many/ workers in a district, assuming that a lesser force is on the opposite side, con- . servative views can predominate.

Our purpose is to influence federal policy through action at the congressional district level. There are a number of organizations that engage in direct lobbying in Washington. We don't do that because we are not convinced that it carries as much weight as the concern of an informed constituency in the congressman's own

district.

Q: You have vowed revenge on congressmen who voted to implement the Panama Canal treaties passed by the Senate in 1311. What measures has the Conservative Caucus taken to punish the treaty supporters?

A: The word "revenge" was a press headline. What the supporters of the treaties most have to fear is that we will tell the truth about them. We are going to fill the gap that was created by the media when they failed to give people an understanding of what the Panama Canal treaties really entailed in terms of its impact on our energy supply, the tax burden and rising Soviet influence in the Carribean. We are going to get those facts out to the American people and let them know how their

congressmen, behaved on the issue.

Our hope is that in 50 congressional districts we will be able to put out tabloids or other publications which report on how these senators and congressmen voted. We won't be bringing about revenge. We will simply be telling people what happened. If there is revenge to be brought, it will be by the electorate newly alerted to the outrages perpetrated against it by those to whom they have entrusted power.

Q: How do you view the decision by the government of Panama to give the deposed Shah asylum? Doesn't this prove you were wrong about the loyalty and motives of Omar Torrijos?

A; I view the decision with the greatest amusement. We have always maintained that one reason for the sense of urgency which the Carter administration exhibited with respect to the treaties was related to the fact that Mr. Torrijos owed more than $2 billion to international banks, many of them American and that those bankers included close allies of Jimmy Carter who were concerned that their bills would never be paid unless Mr. Torrijos was given control of the canal and given the means to raise rates and expand his treasury.

1 think it s more than coincidental that the Chase Manhattan Bank is owed money by Mr. Torrijos and controls the portfolio of the Shah of Iran. I think we would be more than "if we failed to see the connection between those two circum

stances.

Q: Do you believe that the business-as-usual attitude of American multinational corporations has contributed to the weak position of the U.S. in its dealings with other nations? very much the case that the officials of multinational corporations very often ® 9^®^ter loyalty to their companies than they do to their country. That un doubtedly has an effect on policy. There are many companies that have eagerly sought the opportunity to transfer vital technology to our adversaries in return for pro fit. In order to accomodate themselves to profit opportunities in other countries, they have sought to influence our domestic political process in a way that some would consider to be adverse.

The breakdovnj,''''^ loyalty to the United States and the emergence of other patterns of loyaltjr iaSw become a significant threat to humcin liberty. To the degree that the United States surrenders decision-making authority to international organiza tions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the , and the surrenders are reinforced by other relationships and entanglements, our ability to defend the interests of our citizens is reduced.

One of the perfect examples of this is the human rights treaty which President Car ter signed this year and which is being considered for ratification by the Senate. Should the treaty be ratified by the United States, it would give international bodies a right to intervene in domestic laws affecting marriage and education. It make it a matter of international law to require that women be conscripted if con scription were renewed. i \

One of the reasons Carter was so eager to ratify this kind of intfemational non sense is that he sees his loyalty not to God, family and country,) but to^Vntema— tional humanity/^No American right is enhanced by loyalty to some ill-defined^\n- temational humanityThe best guarantor of our liberties is the strengthening of our ability to act independently in the world. The best way to promote the liberties of people in other coimtries whose freedoms are restricted is to have a strong and / independent United States. But increasingly, the American Gulliver is being tied down by an international association of Lillip^j^utians who are not only restricting our ability to act on behalf of others, but to defend our own liberties and inter

ests.

Q: Would you say that the root of our present difficulties in the foreign policy arena is merely ideological timidity, or is it something more substantial?

A: It's a combination of things. We're paying the price1 r'P ^facfi mistakes of many years. In 1962, agreed to withdraw Soviet missies from Cuba not because of Kennedy

10 charisma, but because he knew in the event of a nuclear exchange there would be ten dead Russians to every American. Today, the United States is impotent in seeking to E^^^^or even slow down the buildup of Soviet forces in Cuba because in the event of a nuclear exchange, th^ratio would be at least reversed.

The other factor is a moral one: what is the role of the United States in the world? I believe the role of the United States is to stand up for our own inter ests and liberties and to be prepared to stand up in some manner for the rights of people elsewhere. If we are unprepared to nimwrtwr^n ^11 1miinnirir^ cmhers whose liberties and rights are under assgE^lt, then it is only a matter of time before we will rightly lose our own liberties.

Q: Does your morality countenance the support of reactionary and repressive regimes if they are with us in the~struggle against Communism?

A: The best way to answer that question is to deal in specifics. Would the people of Ciiba have more or less liberty under Batjfista than they do under Castro? Did the people of the Soviet Union have more or less liberty under the Czar than under the present Coinm\mist government? Will the people of Nicaragua in five years have more liberty under the Sandanistas than they enjoy under Samoza?

For all of the corruption that may be present in a Batista government or a ^^moza government, it is nevertheless the case that there is economic and religious liberty. The authoritarianism is not totalitarian. It restricts political rights to some degree, but it does no^r4^M^t economic and religious rights. On the contrary under Castro, every liberty is proscribed because it is believed that the state 4.S God — that all rights and power flow from the state.

Even in the worst excesses of a Bat^ista or a S^^oza, there are more liberties than under any Marxist regime.

Q: Has the Carter Administration's emphasis on human rights helped or hindered our ability to effectively implement foreign policy objectives?

A: President Carter doesn't really believe in human rights as I would define, them. Human rights must include the right to own and dispose of private property. Car ter's philosophy is basically a Marxist p^hilosophy — he wouldn't call it that, but

11 IS what it is.

If he would consistently apply a doctrine of human rights as a basis of foreign policy, I would applaud it. But he's never done that. He's never applied human rights in his dealings with Omar Torrijos. According to Freedom House, Panama has fewer rights than many of the authoritarian countries against which Carter and

his minions have taken action.

Certainly, Carter has never applied human rights doctrine to his dealings with the Soviet Union, otherwise how could he continue to supply grain and precious technology to the Communists?

Reference to human rights by Mr. Carter's administration is the purest form of hypocr^^y.

Q: You've said on many occasions' during the SALT II debate that the survival of Western civilization is at stake. Isn't that a bit far-fetched, and doesn't that kind of rhetoric play into the hands of critics who seek to perpetuate the image of the New Right as a mere haven for political misfits?

A; The SALT II debate is a debate about who shall rule the world. Unless we are pre pared to reassert our independence, which requires a willingness to recognize that there are things more to be feared than world tensions, within ten years this will be a Soviet world. This is not an exaggeration. We are at war; it is the war called peace and we've been at it with the Soviet Union since 1917. Tragically, our lead ers have not recognized it.

If what we are saying may sound more extreme than what is reported on the evening news, it is only because the facts are extreme. The type of humiliation which the United States is being subjected to in Iran is only the beginning and it is the direct result of Soviet military superiority and the loss of U.S. capability.

I The sacrifices which we will be called upon to make now are not nearly so great as the sacrifices which we will be called upon to make later if we fail to' act now. Tragically, those sacrafices which we may have to make later might be without effect, whereas the actions we can take today might still turn things around.

12