Guests: Norman Lamont, Conservative Minister

The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material.

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010

o FIRinG Line

Guests: Norman Lamont, Conservative minister of Parliament Neil Kinnock, Labour minister of Parliament Helene Middleweek Hayman, Labour minister of Parliament Subject: "THREE BRITISH ~1.P.'s AGAINST WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR."

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION SECA PRESENTS ® FIRinG Line

HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. Guests: Norman Lamont, Conservative minister The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational of Parliament Communications Association, 928 Woodrow St., P.O. Box 5966, Columbia, S.C., 29250 and is transmitted through the facilities of the 'Public Broadcasting Service. Neil Kinnock, Labour minister of Production of these programs is made possible through a grant from the. of Parliament Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FIRING LINE can be seen and heard each Helene Middleweek Hayman, Labour minister week through public television and radio stations throughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and time in your area. of Parliament Subject: "THREE BRITISH M.P.'s AGAINST WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR." FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL This is a transcript of the FIRING LINE program taped in London on February 4, 1975, and originally telecast on PBS on February 16, 1975. SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION © Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. MR. BUCKLEY: Six months have gone by, it is time again for the semiannual shift in roles, the purpose of which is to inflict on the host of FIRING LINE what he is free during the rest of the year to inflict unto others. I can only hope tha~ our guests today will follow the exemplary standards of courte sy, understanding, and fairplay for which I am celebrated. We have with us here in London three young members of Parliament, two socialists and one conservative. The conservative is Mr. Norman Lamont, elected in May, 1972. He was educated at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where he studied economics, served as president of the Cambridge Union, and as chairman of the University Conservative Association, He has served also as chairman of the Bow Group, a conservative research organization designed to build the intellectual case for the Tory party. Manifestly, there is work left to do. . Mr. Neil Kinnock is a Labour member from South Wales, whose principal sponsor is the General Transport Union. He was educated at the University of Wales, where he specialized in history and industrial relations. He is an activist in a number of causes and a writer for the left weekly Tribune. He will be visiting the United States this spring as a guest of the State Depart ment. And finally, our old friend, Helene Middleweek, who has appeared on this program dozens of times over the years. Since last appearing, she has (al become Mrs. Helene Middleweek Hayman, (bl become a member of Parliament, where she occupies the seat vacated by Mr. Enoch Powell, and I wish I could add (cl" has become a responsible citizen, but she is still a socialist. Mrs. Hayman had a distinguished career at Cambridge, majoring in law, and serving, like Mr. Lamont, as president of the Cambridge Union. Mrs. Hayman. MRS. HAYMAN: I'm very interested just in what you said now about the normal,. courteous way in which you cannot reconcile socialism and responsibility, why it is that you seem so incapable of accepting that people can, in all sincerity, analyze problems on a world level or on a national level as in need of a solu tion which your own particular philosophy does not give them, which they think © 1975 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL a different philosophy, a different set of practices would do, and that they strive democratically to persuade other people that these are the means that COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION would be better at solving those problems and that they, in goodwill and with good heart, attempt solutions through those particular means. I think that you always tend to juxtapose communism and conservatism, and never see any possibility of democratic socialism. I'd like to know why. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I've never doubted the sincerity of socialists, and I would even acknowledge the qualitative difference between those who sincerely want to dominate my life and those who insincerely want to dominate my life. But ultimately it seems to me that the victi"m of a socialist society is a victim in either case. Socialism is about the achievement of power over other people; conservatism is a quest for a society in which the people are left, as substantially as possible, to exercise their own decisions. And, under the circumstances, while, as I say, I would prefer to be governed by sincere socialists rather than insincere socialists, in the last analysis, both of them are getting in my way. MR. KINNOCK: You're afraid of being dominated, Mr. Buckely. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MR. KINNOCK: But what you don't concede, as far as I can see in any of your performances or writings, is that the philosophy by which and for which you stand, of conservative capitalism, contradicts all the tenets of freedom that any libertarian would hold to be self-evident in that there is a subtle and unlegislated control that every employer can have over his employee and, indeed, an even more subtle and even less legislated control that the great corporations exercise, even among democratic governments, that can control and guide your life. Now, not so much particularly your life, because you are a self-confident, well-educated, well-heeled American citizen, but for the overwhelming majority of your fellow American citizens and my fellow

© Board of Trustees of the I land Stanford Jr. University. men who vote more money than in fact we tax, leaving us in this current state British citizens,.and indeed most in what we call the free Western world, they of economic devastation. do not have the ~lberty that comes from the kind of aggressive self-confidence But, of course, our devastation is beyond the dreams of anything that that you and I m1ght have as public practitioners. Now, that kind of control most people in socialist societies will ever realize. I deeply object to and I think that it is a great deal worse than even the MR. LAMONT: But we have exactly the same argument in this country. Our level picture of socialism that you present. But you don't concede that conserva of inflation is in fact around the three percent mark and we think that in tive capitalism seeks to control. this country that is-- MR. BUCKLEY: I attempt to defend a political philosophy that acknowledges MR. BUCKLEY: Of unemployment. public realities. It's certainly true that if I apply for a job with a London MR. LAMONT: Unemployment, sorry. Unemployment is around the three percent newspaper and the editor tells me to cover this event, I am in a sense being mark; yours is around seven percent. But we would have exactly the same ·dominated by his wishes. If I were to say to him, "No, I eschew that event arguments that you have about the number of people changing jobs, the number and wi 11 cover this event," he woul d fi re me. of people who don't want work. And I must say, my feelings are very much on Now, there is that kind of dependence in every society and I acknowledge the side of you in this argument. it. The question, however, arises: In what kind of a society does the indi But it does seem to me, looking at what you've written about this that vidual ·have the maximum mobility? It seems to me plainly in the society in ~ou~tries f~ce ~ ~imilar co~tradiction which one is able to choose among as many alternatives as possible; therefore, ?ur two very or a very similar problem the society in which the private sector, as distinguished from the public 1n that 1t 1S becomlng 1ncreas1ngly diff1cult to get democratic electorates to ~ccept t~e higher level ?f unem~loyment that is necessary for a prolonged sector, dominates, because within the private sector there is a plurality of per10d of t1me to make any 1mpact 1n the rate of inflation. When you take agencies. In the public sector there is only one. deflationary policies, it's always the unemployment that appears first and it . We were talking ~bout the dominance of the great corporations. YOll know, 1f the great corporat1ons were all that powerful, you'd think one of the first appears fo~ a year be~ore you get any impact on inflation at all. And reading things they would do is maintain the value of their own equity on the stock what you say and read1ng what people say about our economic situation here market, which they fail to do. I'm beginning to wonder whether democracies actually do have the willpower: MR. KINNOCK: I wouldn't quarrel with their ineptitude. That is certainly or whether democratic politicians have the willpower to overcome inflation. remarkable and repeated; but we're not talking about their inept assertion or And the answer, I'm beginning to wonder--I'm beginning to think they don't. their failure to implement the kind of system that they want. MR. KINNOCK: That's very dangerous. M~. BUCKLEY: Now, wait a minute. What ineptitude? They ground out enough MR. BUCKLEY: I don't think, by any means. Anyone who's entitled to answer a1rplanes and tanks for you to beat away Hitler. that optimistically--There is much too much demagogy in the air. Now, maybe MR: KINNOCK: Sure, yes. Through the direct sponsorship, the direct sponsor we'll go through,some sort of an Orwellian process by which we simply change Sh1P and payment by the taxpayer and the state. Left to their own devices the labels of th1ngs. If we were to take everyone in the United States who is receiving ~enefits, Feder~l, s~ate benefits, and simply call them employed- they've made an almost complete mess of just about everything they set their ask them to f1ll out a questl0nna1re and say they are questionnaire fillers hands to, out--we would reduce the unemployment figure from seven percent to about one MR. BUCKLEY: You must be kidding. percent. Now, this would simply be a terminological shift which would not MR. KINNOCK: Not at all. trans~ribe fac~ c~ange MR. BUCKLEY: We had more automobiles in 1905 in America than the Soviet Union in any in the human situation. Nobody in America is has now after 50 years of socialism, so cut it out. starv1ng; nobody 1n Amer1ca hasn't access to medical facilities; but it is MR. KINNOCK: And that's choice. true that the unemployment figure, which simply reflects the fact that other MR. BUCKLEY: What? people have stopped purchasing things, is having an effect. MR. KINNOCK: And that's choice. You know, this is the capitalist--The Now, suppose the majority of the members of a society decide to postpone central part of the capitalist prayer is this business of choice that you've by one year the purchase of a new automobile. A lot of the eco-freaks think just been talkin~ about. For the unemployed man--and God knows, you've got this is a terrific development--you know, the greening of America, and so on enough of those 1n the States, as we have here--there is no reality of choice. and so fort~, walk m?re,and all that., But instantly somebody gets unemployed. For the disadvantaged youngster or the black in several parts of the United Now, there 1S no soc1al1st answer to 1t, except that evasion which carries the States and, indeed, in several parts of this country, there is no real choice. terminological argument a step further, of the Soviet Union, where there is And choice in those circumstances, for a very large number of people through no "unemployment." But-- MR. KINNOCK: But don't confuse the Soviet Union with socialism. I mean, I out the worl d, is a myth and it's a 'dangerous myth when it I S a myth that's pervaded by politicains and opinion-influencers like ·yourself. would have thought that someone who had followed the world scene as closely MR. BUCKLEY: In the first place, the unemployment level that we have now at as you for so long, even though you're not all that much older than I, would seven percent, is three percent above the level of marginal unemployment that not be making still the mistake of confusing the Soviet Union's system, either is quite widely accepted as institutionally necessary for a mobile market. economically or politically, with anything resembling the kind of socialism MR. KINNOCK: For capitalism. to which Helene Hayman whom you know very well, and myself, whom you don't MR. BUCKLEY: You mayor may not be aware, Mr. Kinnock, that we have very high know at all, [subscribe]. It's relative. rates of unemployment in boom periods-- . MR. BUCKLEY: I cherish the difference between the kind of socialism you want MR. KINNOCK: Sure. and the kind of socialism they practice there, but if I were looking at you M~ .. BUCKLEY: --for one very simple reason, which is that the more opportu and at them, I would say that they're definitely senior to you in respect of n1t1es there are, the more people tend to quit the jop they have in search the right to define the implementation of socialism. for a better job. Now, this registers in our machines as unemployment. Now, MR. KINNOCK: I don't think that you can give rights to definition by senior I don't doubt and I don't deny that the situation is screwed up right now, ity; otherwise, you could take out all the professors over 40. a~d.the situation, however, is not screwed up as a result of the hyperac MR. BUCKLEY: No, the body of literature over there is much more thorough t1V1ty of General Motors, but of the hyperactivity of Democratic congress- than your own. They've got a cosmology, which you don't.

2 3

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. MRS. HAYMAN: But, Bill, you were coming on to exactly where I think your citizen on the next U.S. generation, as it is the case--not so much the case, weakness is--the literature, the philosophy, the theory of it all, not looking but in some parts the case in this country--the consequence of that total at a problem and how you solve it, the choice-- output is that you have a whole generation less well-equipped by an education MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, I can understand it embarrasses you. system on the basis of the finance that has been expended than it need be.' (laughter) That is the consequence of providing a system where there is an unmarketabfe MRS. HAYMAN: It doesn't embarrass me at all, because I will take no responsi product like education or medicine or the right to security or pensions and bil i ty for-- trying to put it in a marketplace, which means that some people can buy pref MR. BUCKLEY: For Beatrice Webb. erence. That's a consequence of the market system in that respect. It's (1 aughter) very inefficient, too. t1RS. HAYMAN: I don't think Beatrice Webb would really take responsibil ity for MR. BUCKELY: In the first place, I agree with you that, on the whole, the 'what the Kremlin does now, but I certainly wouldn't. I'll take responsibility accomplishments of American public education are disastrous. It also happens for the steps one is doing in a democratic socialist government attempting to to be the largest socialized industry in America, the public schools. move toward not aggregating power to government, but giving more power back MR. KINNOCK: If you mean it's state-run. to individuals. And I think this is one of your great blanks about being MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. able to understand what socialism is about. It is to give more choice, more MR. KINNOCK: State-run. power. MR. BUCKLEY: If you don't mind, I'll use public, the way they understand it MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I know that the British Socialists set out to nationalize in America. a bunch of industries, and did so after the war, in order to give economic MR. KINNOCK: Sure, but that means the same thing as socialism. democracy to the people. And I also know that, 25 years later, they were the MR. BUCKLEY: The public schools in America, on the whole, are poor, not doing people who were most dissatisfied. Who on earth led all those strikes a year as good a job. We see the reading figures in New York City, for instance- ago? The coal miners, the people who run the railroads, the people who run they go down, down, down. But let me introduce you to a datum which you can the utilities, and so on and so forth. Why aren't they all happyand-- go home and ponder, which is that recent studies show no correlation whatever t1R. LM10NT: Isn't the answer that the state can't give power back to people- between the amount of money spent on education, beyond a certain level, and MR. BUCKLEY: Of course not. the accomplishments of the students. That is to say, in some states where MR. LAMONT: --by taking away from--and people in this country, as I'm sure they spend $500 per year per student, they end up with better testing scores you would agree, don't feel that they have any greater participation in the than others in which they spend $1,000 per year. Now, the variables, in economy because they notionally own .0001 percent of British railways. I other words, are extra-economic, on the whole. mean, it's a complete contradiction to think that you can confiscate power Now, I do. think that it is time for educational reform in America and from private citizens and give it to anyone other than the government. Isn't that the most obviously indicated reform is the so-called voucher plan, that right? according to which parents would be given a voucher which would be cashable MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that's exactly right. at any school of their choice, giving them the kind of freedom precisely to MRS. HAYMAN: No. In the whole question of nationalization, one is talking insist on standards that they consider appropriate for their own children. not just of ownership but one is talking of control, and I will accept some of So I'm grateful that you brought the subject up. the responsibility--even though I wasn't there--for the mistakes we have made MRS. HAYMAN: But how would you feel-- in the organization of nationalized industries in the past because I think MR. KINNOCK: What you want is people to inherit disadvantage. their indictment is that they are as remote from the person working in them MRS. HAYMAN: Yes. as any other employer, large employer. They're bureaucratized, they're remJte. MR. BUCKLEY:, Why do I want to do that? What's in it for me? And for that reason and because waeje controls in this country have been MR. KINNOCK: Well, what's in it for you is the working out of your system. used by success i ve governl.1ents more successfully in the pu - That's what's in it for you. public sector than in the private sector--that's the answer to why you've had MRS. HAYMAN: Yes, how would you feel, Bill-- more discontent in terms of strikes in that particular sector. But when you MR. BUCKLEY: Well, you see, but my system, I happen to think, is a very move on to a sector like education, and where the private and the public philanthropic system, and to the extent that it succeeds, it succeeds in balance comes, you are always very fond of saying there's no poverty in Amer abolishing poverty, which our society has come closer to doing than any ica, or there's no one going hungry in America, there~s no one in need of other society in the history of the world. Now, I'm all for that. I'm not medical care in America who doesn't get it. Now, I'm sure you wouldn't say saying it's going to make people happy, because I don't think it does neces to me that everyone in America gets as good an education-- sarily; but I'm for it simply for its own sake. MR. BUCKLEY: No. MR. KINNOCK: Yes. Can I say to you, Mr. Buckley, that my grandfather was t~RS. HAYr~AN: --or everyone gets as good medical care-- put in jail by a philanthropist for standing up for workingmen's rights. I MR. BUCKLEY: Nobody anywhere gets as good an education. You can go to the don't trust philanthropy or philanthropists as an end for the emancipation same school and not get as good an education as somebody else, because he of human beings. might happen to get a better teacher than you do. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I don't necessarily, in a due process situation, trust MR. KINNOCK: Well, when you boast about the choice of education in America, the unchallenged word of your grandfather on the subject. My grandfather then qual ify it by saying that because of the existence of this theoretical was a sheri ff-- choice in education as divided between those who can afford to pay immense MR. KINNOCK: Oh, indeed, if he were here to speak for himself, perhaps he sums for their children's educations and those who can afford to pay less, could put the case rather more strongly than I. that the consequence of that is that you have a smallish proportion of people MRS. HAYr~AN: Would you like to define poverty? who get virtually no education at all, a large number of people who get a MR. BUCKLEY: Well, my grandfather was a sheriff and I'm sure he put a lot of substantial education, and some of them who get an absolutely coddling edu people in jail and that they had a lot of arguments against going to jail- cation. But in the general terms of expenditure on education by the U.S. MR. KINNOCK: Sure, but he wasn't doing it as a philanthropist or as a coal

4 5

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. owner. you walk into; you know, when you have total welfarism. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, it depends, it depends. I think it's extremely philan MRS. HAYMAN: But surely poverty is also about access to resources and that thropic to put some people in jail. I would say that an absolute-- MR. KINNOCK: Sure, yes. MR. BUCKLEY: You're talking about opportunity now? MR. BUCKLEY: A lot of people are out of jail who should be in jail and we'd MRS. HAYMAN: Opportunity, access to resources of all sorts, whether it's have a better society on that account. medical care or a job, training, education. And, to me, an absolute def MR. KINNOCK: Isn't it regrettable that so many people who have been put in inition of poverty for this country is unsatisfactory in lots of ways- jail for philanthropic reasons spend much of their time trying to get out? MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, I think lots of things are unsatisfactory. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think it's human instinct to try to get out, and also MRS. HAYMAN: --because you still have people disadvantaged. ,to write, you know, a little historical revisionism about what got you in MR. BUCKLEY: Right, yes. But I'll tell you this. For instance, in America there. we have 25 percent transient population. Now, that does suggest that~- (1 aughter) MRS. HAYMAN: Transient from where to where? MR. KINNOCK: Yes, sure. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, maybe from one end of London to the other; but the fact MRS. HAYMAN: Would you like to define poverty? Do you think it's capable of that there is that movement suggests that there is that mobility, and, under definition in absolute terms? the circumstances, you can impressionistically see that in America there are MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I can give you the working definition. President Kennedy a tremendous number of people who change houses, who change jobs, who move asked the question quite factually, and the approach in 1961, when poverty from one state to another, presumably in search of better rather than worse became a thing to declare war on, was as follows: They took the budgets of jobs, better rather than worse houses. low-income families and calculated how much money was required to feed each MR. LAMONT: To try to define poverty relatively--I mean, surely nonsensical. member. They then accepted that that would be 30 percent of their annual I mean, in this country almost anyone who earns below average earnings is budget. According to that they reached, in 1961, the figure $3200 in America defined as beinq poor. But it's rather difficult logically to see how you for a family of four. Now, taking those terms in fixed dollars, we saw that can have an average of which everybody below it is poor. Furthermore, if you by those standards something like 85 percent of Americans were poor in 1900, insist on defining it relatively in terms of other people's differentials, and 50 percent in 1920, and 30 percent in 1940, and today we're inching up that may rob the whole economy of some of its dynamic and may mean that the toward seven percent; so we're qetting there, although last year was a rever number of people in absolute poverty is all that the greater, right. sal--the first, as you know, in a number of years. MR. BUCKLEY: Of course, of course. In the first place, there can't be any MRS. HAYMAN: I'm interested (a) that you hark back to Kennedy for your def philanthropy unless there's a residue, and in order to have a residue, you've inition, and (b) that you take-- got to have profit. In order to have profit, you've got to have economic MR. BUCKLEY: Well, because you asked for a definition, and it was he who activity. commissioned this study. MR. LAMONT: So you need inequality in order to remove poverty. MRS. HAYMAN: Yes, and (b) that you take it on so factual a level. Can I ask MR. BUCKLEY: Opportunity. you to be a bit more philosophical about it? MR. KINNOCK: But Norman just told us earlier, and you agreed with him, that MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I can talk about the Sermon on the Mount, if you want. you can't confi scate from pri vate' citizens wea lth-- MRS. HAYMAN: Yes, I'd be interested, because I think your religious views and MR. BUCKLEY: ShouLdn't. your political ones-- MR. KINNOCK: No, he said you can't. MR. BUCKLEY: But I didn't understand you to be asking me about people who MR. BUCKLEY: Well, you obviously can. You do it every day. were poor in spirit. MR. KINNOCK: ~-and return it to the people. Now, you know, that essentially- ~'RS. HAYMAN: Bill, I'm talking about people who are poorer than other people. MR. BUCKLEY: What do you mean "return it"? MR. LAMONT: But presumably you would define-- MR. KINNOCK: When we were talking about nationalization- MR. BUCKLEY: Well, obviously, relative poverty is highly measurable. We're MR. BUCKLEY: What do you mean "return it"? all poorer than the Queen, and she's probably poorer than H. L. Hunt. MR. KINNOCK: When we were talking about nationalization, I mean, I wanted at MRS. HAYMAN: And is this a good thing-- this stage to quarrel with your description of the history of nationalization MR. KINNOCK: I don't think so. in this country, but perhaps we can get another chance at that. MR. BUCKLEY: You don't think so? I mean, you agreed with the idea that you can't confiscate a private MR. KINNOCK: No, I don't. , wealth holding in the form of nationalization of an enterprise and return it MR. BUCKLEY: You and Mr. Hamilton, eh? to the people in the form of generalized wealth. MR. LAMONT: But it only makes sense to define poverty absolutely, doesn't it? MR. BUCKLEY: Now, don't say return it. We, in this country, we try to have a statutory definition of poverty rather MR. KINNOCK: Now precisely you're saying that as long as the individual who like the one you have just quoted-- takes the product of the efforts of a large number of other citizens, their MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. work, turns it into a profit, he then has the right to decide how much of it MR. LAMONT: We discovered that more and more people were becoming poorer the he disperses from philanthropic motives. Now, I think that that is standing, more we adjusted the line. It was merely a reflection of our increasing not just democracy, but economics and logic, right on its head. It's certain affluence that we kept adjusting the amounts, and I imagine the same is true ly got nothing to do with liberty. of America. MR. BUCKLEY: I really find it difficult to understand your reasoning. But MR. BUCKLEY: Also there are the anomalies. You have, for instance, the let's look at it microcosmically. If I take a fancy to your necktie-- lowest income group in America, those who earn $2,000 a year or less, pay HR. KINNOCK: Sure. 20 percent of their income in property tax. Why? Because they are old people, HR. BUCKLEY: --and offer to pay you two pounds for it- they own their homes, but they've got to pay a tax on their homes and it eats MR. KINNOCK: Done. up 20 percent of their cash income. Now, this is one of'the paradoxes that MR. BUCKLEY: --and you give it to me and I give you two pounds, and you only

7 6

© Board of Trustees of the L and Stanford Jr. University. paid one pound for it in the first instance, my conclusion is that that extra pound is yours. It was a free transaction. There was no coercion by either too left-wing in this respect, in that I-- par~y. ~ow,.h~w you sp~nd that ~ound I would be glad to advise you on, but I MR. KINNOCK: I wish this was British television. don t th1nk 1t s my bus1ness to 1nstruct you on. Now, in what sense can I say (laughter) that Helene can take your pound and return it to me? MR. LAMONT: --really don't think that I could subscribe to the view that we MR. KINNOCK: Yes, it depends, of course, on how much I needed your pound. If ought to have the power to vote away our freedom. But, I mean, even leaving I had no other money and no other resources and this is the only thing that I that aside, would you then think that, say, the United States, in the event ha? to get rid of, then, of course, I would listen very closely both to the of our deciding through our democratic machinery to do away with our democratic pr1ce that you offered me and to the advice which you offered me on how to rig~ts, would then have a right on its part, in basis of realpolitik, perhaps, . spend the pound. Indeed, you might advise me that the only place I could buy to 1ntervene and to prevent us following that course of action, a la Chile in ·food with that pound is in your shop, which is not an unprecedented economic Britain? situation in either of our economies. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. It's rather a subtle question. Take Portugal now. Now, real!y, you kn?w, to tr~at i~ microcosmically, as you say, we can go Portugal may very well be on the brink of introducing a communist dictatorship. on by analogy 1nto all k1nds of sltuat1ons. What I'm saying is that both for Interesting question: Do we therefore view this as a legitimate evolution ,in you and Norman Lamont as conservati ves, with bi g or small C' s, that really you Portugese politics, or do we say that our pledge, our NATO pledge, to help want to pervert all the laws of logic to fit in with the particular prejudice each other would become operative? you've got about the individual's right to accumulate wealth and to spend it MR. KINNOCK: Yes. just how he likes, regardless of the disadvantage to which it puts his fellow MR. BUCKLEY: I think it's an open question. citizens. MR. KINNOCK: Here's another false distinction- MR. BUCKLEY: If you mean that the right of property- MR. LAMONT: Yes, I am sure-- MR. KINNOCK: Right. MR. BUCKLEY: And I would hope that you would think it an open question if, MR. BUCKLEY: --is only a contingent right, then I absolutely disagree with let's say, a Hitler took over in my country and we were looking for outside you. Suppose I elect to use my property to start a magazine for the purpose help to resist him. I would very much welcome a little generosity on your of berating you and your ideas. Is this a legitimate use of property in this part of a kind that I think we have extended in the past-- country? MR. LAMONT: Yes. MR. KINNOCK: Sure. MR. BUCKLEY: --but to other people who had trouble with totalitarians. MR. BUCKLEY: You write for a magazine that berates me and my ideas regularly. MRS. HAYMAN: Why not go back to Chile, because we-- Now, should I say, "Well, property is being put to an antisocial use, namely MR. KINNOCK: Right. the berating of my best friends"? MR. BUCKLEY: What do you mean go back to Chile? You mean go to Chile. We ~R. KINNOCK: You have chosen one of the few examples where by definition it weren't there. 1S an honest declaration of prejudice by one magazine or the other against MRS. HAYMAN: We were discussing Chile- one person or another. What we're talking about is a much more subtle manip MR. KINNOCK: He 'mentioned it. ulation of people's lives, not in the written or spoken word but in the con (laughter) ditions of work and life to which they're subjected. MRS. HAYMAN: --and you went very neatly on to Portugal, which is easier in MR. BUCKLEY: I can't think of anything subtle about an act of Parliament that many ways, and there's a NATO, and Chile is-- simply takes somebody's property away from him and announces that beginning MR. KINNOCK: Sure, yes, he agrees with what happened in Chile. He doesn't tomorrow it's going to be returned, quotes, "returned," to people who never agree with what happened in Portugal. had it in the first instance. MR. BUCKLEY: What? Well, no, I certainly agree with the deposition of Allende. MR. KINNOCK: But you would also sustain with an attitude of sanctity that I I'm totally out of sympathy with what I take to be the practices of the cur personally would not adopt, and certainly Norman Lamont would, that the will rent government. Now, whether it would be different in England, because of Parliament is final and absolute until it can be overturned by a successive England is so much more civilized than Chile, I don't know. I've never seen Parliament with a different majority. England--I did see England hanging Lord Haw Haw, which I thought was a little MR. BUCKLEY: You're asking a procedural point. If you're asking me the point bit unnecessary (laughter), and I did see Charles de Gaulle executing 50,000 technically does the British government have the power to eliminate or virtu partisans when he walked into power--50,OOO is the figure--when he'walked into ally to eliminate the freedoms of its people, I say yes. power. Now, the Chileans had a 7,000 percent inflation over a period of three MR. KINNOCK: The right. years; they had a civil war, something very akin to civil war; they had total MR. BUCKLEY: They have. Well, the right--You're asking a moral question. an? ~bsolute chaos; their universities closed down, and the bad guy, in my MR. KINNOCK: Well, that's an argument-- op1n1on, was thrown out, but some bad guys have replaced him. Now-- MR. BUCKLEY: They have the power. That is to say, if the majority of the MRS. HAYMAN: By whom was the bad guy thrown out? House of Parliament should choose to abolish free speech, they have the right MR. BUCKLEY: By the Chileans. Nothing is more obvious than that. to do it. We don't in America. We'd need a constitutional amendment. Sir MR. KINNOCK: No, not by the Chileans. Not by the Chileans. By the armed Keith Joseph, as I understand, is even proposing a bill of rights for you forces of Chile, who didn't just chuck him out. They bombed him, in the people to save you from the excesses of Parliament. (laughter) And I wish you presidential palace, to death-- all kinds of 1uck. MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, sure. MR. KINNOCK: That'll be the day, that'll be the day. MR. KINNOCK: They also took out 30,000 of his fellow citizens and, inciden MR. BUCKLEY: But that is a procedural question. Now, if you want to say, tally-- "00 you have the right, sub specie aeternitatis, to take somebody else's MR. BUCKLEY: I'll reminrl you that there was a general strike only a few freedom away from him?" I'd say, "No, you don't." weeks before. MR. LAMONT: That's right. I think I find you a bit too liberal and a bit MR. KINNOCK: Sure. Well, no, there was a general strike of lorry drivers. And the other things, I mean, a lot of the history--

8 9

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. standards, but giv~n that I think that there is a qua1itative difference MR. BUCKLEY: There were lots of general 'stri kes; there were mass ive between the assertlon ?f,state power agalnst the i~dividual rights of people demonstrations. and the standards of llvlng of people beLween fasclst regimes and communist MR. KINNOCK: Yes, a lot of them--The immediate-- regimes in most of'the places that we have seen them, then I think that MR.' BUCKLEY: The fact of the matter is that the military did move, but the possibly your analysis is rather clouded by a sneaking sympathy for the kind military moved in concert with the majority of the people, just as it did in of order and conservatism that fascism represents. Portugal, by the way, when it overthrew Caetano. MR. BUCKLEY: No. No, no, no, it's not any sympathy. It is I think a MR. KINNOCK: But it's only since the developments have taken place from the hi~tory overthrow of Caetano in Portugal that your critical faculty has developed of historical perspective. We all know a little bit about Portugese the kind of government that might succeed in Portugal. and you and I, I'm sure, would probably have left Portugal after 1927 rather , Now, let me say, I would very much regret the takeover of another dicta- than submit to the depriv~tion of political liberty; but I could find perfect torship of right or of left in Portugal. But what does appear to be strange ly reasonable people preferring to have lived under Salazar over against the is that for the 40 years that Salazar and Caetano ru'led Portugal with the people who governed Portugal with regicides and assassinations and chaos and secret police force and all the trappings of a fascist, totalitarian state- inflation during the preceding 15 years. MR. BUCKLEY: No. No, no. Democracy exists in exactly, at the last count, 20 countries in the world. MR. KINNOCK: --they enjoyed-- Now, under the circumstances, I think that although it is desirable that democ MR. BUCKLEY: No, not totalitarian. Fascist, but not totalitarian. racy, political democracy, be extended, it is by no means predictable that it MR. KINNOCK: They enjoyed the uncritical support of both Britain in the old will be because it is uniformly rejected; i.e., people opt not to exercise alliance, and of the United States of America because of their partnership in those inhibitions without which it is impossible to have democracy. As an NATO. It is only now that-- intellectual who exiled himself from the cabinet of Franco in protest against MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, come on. Franco's refusal to restore the liberties after the war said, "I'm a great MR. KINNOCK: --that 'relationship is being felt. admirer of the American Constitution, but if I wanted the American Constitution MR. BUCKLEY: You have the uncritical support of the Soviet Union, for God's to prevail in Spain, I would import not it, but Americans." And it seems to me sake. You recognized Mao Tse-tung 15 minutes after he took over. You have he made a very good point. When we lose an election or you lose an election the no:-~hat do you mean? Would you give me an example of somebody whom you have minority simply sits down, tightens its belt, and hopes that things will change. crltlcally supported so that I can understand the differnece between critical When they lose an election in Portugal, they start shooting the people who won. and uncritical support? But I do think you should distinguish between a totalitarian government and the MR. KINNOCK: I mean, uncritical support is sycophantic- Fascist or despotic government. In Portugal, under Salazar, you could read any MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, where-- book you wanted to, you could practice any religion you wanted to, you could MR. KINNOCK: --association with. leave the country if you wanted to. Under a totalitarian state, it insists on MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, really? taking over all of the institutions of the country--the churches, the press. MR. KINNOCK: Right. And what I'm saying is-- In Peru they're headed toward totalitarianism. MR. BUCKLEY: Oid you give a lot of parades for Salazar? How many times was MR. KINNOCK: I'm sorry. Look, I've met trade union and political activists he in England during the last 25 years? who lived under Salazar and Caetano, and they have had their fingernails torn MR. KINNOCK: Rather-- off and their heads smashed in, and they weren't permitted any of the quite MRS. HAYMAN: For our 500-year anniversary-- nominal liberties that are permitted in your state and in mine. And they MR. KINNOCK: You're not talking--600-year, 600-year. would find it difficult to distinguish, to make the semantic distinction MRS. HAYMAN: 600-year, then. between authoritarian or despotic or totalitarian states. MR. BUCKLEY: How many times was he over here, though? MR. BUCKLEY: No, no. If Ammesty International is to be believed, torture is MR. KINNOCK: Twice, I think, since the war. in fact practiced in every country in the world. MR. BUCKLEY: Could you elaborate on the sycophancy that you showed? MR. KINNOCK: Sure. MR. KINNOCK: T~e sycophancy was that the then government, as it happens it MR. BUCKLEY: However, to be sure, more in some than in others. What you was a Conservatlve government--and the Labour opposition disassociated so obviously can't do in a political dictatorship is exercise free politics. This did the trade union movement, and so on--had the flags out in Whitehall and is what they tear your fingernails out, or whatever, for doing. But short of I think they had a ceremony in Westminster Abbey and he met the Queen, and that there are other and quite substantial freedoms. they did the whole thing. This was about two years ago. MR. KINNOCK: The freedom to get out, substantially that's-- MR. BUCKLEY: Well, the freedom to get out, the freedom to read, the freedom MR. BUCKLEY: Well, but the Queen met Khrushchev in 1956. f' MR. KINNOCK: Sure, sure, sure. to worship, the freedom of private discussion provided it does not seek to MR. BUCKLEY: Is that something that-~By the way, did the trade unions object replace the chief executive. Frankly I find more intellectual freedom in to that? Did they raise flags and picket the-- Madrid than I do in Harvard. (laughter) There's much less conformity in MR. KINNOCK: Indeed, there were many quarrels involved in that particular- Madrid. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, I remember one speech by Muggeridge in Liverpool. That MRS. HAYMAN: You've built up the picture of what a totalitarian state is, was the quarrel. and then we went back further, talking about in a democratic state, as you MR. KINNOCK: Sure, okay. Now, okay, we got onto your favorite ground of the would define it, the limit to the control that the state exercised or the alleged dual standards of liberals in that they are (a) soft on Commies, and community exercised over your freedom of action. I'd be interested to hear (b) super-hard on Fascists. how far you think the state, the community, has any responsibility whatsoever MR. BUCKLEY: Squishy-soft, we call it. in providing for the needs of fellow members of that community. In fact- (1 aughter) MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think you can draft people and declare war to protect r1R. KINNOCK: Yes, squishy-soft on Commies (laughter), and rock-hard, granite the state. I think this is clearly a community right. I agree with you. hard on Fascists. Okay, well, I concede to the fact that there are dual MRS. HAYMAN: Okay, fine. Well, let's go from that one to your education

10 11

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University, argument. Now, would you say that the state had a right to insist that every families who only use their voucher, or the people who would, say, choose to parent use the voucher for his child's education? use the voucher only and to buy another automobile or whatever it is. I MR. BUCKLEY: Up to a reasonable point, yes. For so long- don't think there's a lot of freedom of choice for the children involved; but, MRS. HAYMAN: Five years old, ten years old? okay so you're assuming that parental choice coincides with children's choice MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, I say reasonable. I think it preposterous to insist that in this particular matter. they go to school until they are 16 years old, for instance, which they do in MR. BUCKLEY: Well, there's no alternative; that is to say, you can't have a New York State, and they're considering repealing that and changing it to 14, summit conference with your. eight-year-old daughter about the preferences or which I think would make more sense. I don't know what it is here. about the skills of this school over against the skills of another school. MRS. HAYMAN: Sixteen. MRS. HAYMAN: No, but the community can, and in some societies does, show MR.. BUCKLEY: You know, we're sort of obsessed with educa tion. As a percentage, such an interest in the welfare and education of children that it sets minimum more of our blacks go to college than English, so that we tend to have a pretty standards and provides an educational system that sees that a child cannot be sort of quantitative fixation about education. The more years you spend at deprived of the opportunity to explore its own potential. That surely is school, the more you learn. It isn't so, and we're slowly discovering this. what you'd like. For so long as a society requires in order to vote that a citizen be able to' MR. BUCKLEY: I think that's reasonable. No, I think that's reasonable. Yes. read, it seems to me that it has a logical responsibility to make available, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that any school in which a voucher for instance, a facility for teaching him how to read. may be used cannot, for instance, discriminate on racial grounds, must submit MR. LAMONT: Would your voucher be the same for everybody, or would it be just its students to certain tests in rudimentary mathematics and reading, and that to poorer income groups, or would it be redistributive in any sense? any school that doesn't meet those basic requirements would lose the right to MR. BUCKLEY: No, I should think it ought to be absolutely the same for every cash in a voucher. That's reasonable. body, with only the following differences; namely, that some account should MR. LAMONT: Under your philosophy you would still insist that laws about be taken of different pay rates. You have to pay a teacher more in New York racial discrimination should apply to the educational system. I'm surprised City than you do in Oxford, Mississippi, because it costs more to live. that from your philosophy on the right that you wouldn't even have some qualms MR. LAMONT: Yes, but within New York. under such a system about arguing whether people shouldn't segregate them MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that's right. selves-- MR. LAMONT: Yes. MR. BUCKLEY: I do have qualms about it, but I overcome them. I think the MR. KINNOCK: Would you also have a topping up system? ideal--In an ideal world, there would be no advantage to the wealthy person MRS. HAYMAN: But would your school fees be the same? that the less wealthy person has as regards the choice of a school for his MR. KINNOCK: You also would have a situation in which your voucher is your child. But, under the circumstances, just as the rich aren't encumbered by- deposit, as it were. For some people it would be the total financial commit if they choose to have an all-white school, they can have it; the poor, ment to their children's education because they can't afford more. But for presumably, ought to have the same rights. But for so long as it is in any other people, you would have the "freedom" for people to pay over and above sense public money, I think the basic considerations of fairness and respect the voucher, would you? for the Fourteenth Amendment would require-- MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, sure. Of course. MR. KINNOCK: But that does very much depend on whether you allow topping up, MR. KINNOCK: Right. as Helene was saying, on whether it is-- MR. BUCKLEY: I think they should be free to do anything they want. MR. BUCKLEY: What does that mean, "topping up"? MR. LAMONT: The great attraction, too, would be that if a school didn't MR. LAMONT: Whether people can use their own money to--whether it is iust a attract enough people, the school would be able to go bankrupt, wouldn't it? basic amount for each group or whether people are also expected to provide I mean just like a company. out of their own income. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that's right. Exactly, yes. MR. BUCKLEY: Oh. MR. LAMONT: And so the bad schools would be--There'd be no lame ducks in MR. LAMONT: That seems to me a totally different sort of scheme. I think it the educational system. explains why in America, as I understand it, a lot of liberal groups are in MR. BUCKLEY: That's exactly right, yes. favor of vouchers, whereas in this country vouchers are exclusively a very MR. LAMONT: I think that's very attractive. right-wing, conservative idea. And I've actually attended meetings where very MR. BUCKLEY: I saw in the paper this morning that an English school just left-wing democrats have come across and argued in favor of voucher systems to finished closing down because not enough people patronized it. extremely puzzled Conservatives. MR. LAMONT: That ought to happen more often. MR. KINNOCK: Well, sure. When you've got a substantial number of people below MR. BUCKLEY: I'm not going to weep about that. whatever arbitrary advantage line you've drawn, and you want to draw as many MR. LAMONT: Yes, right. people up as possible, then, of course, any uniformizing system is to be ac MR. BUCKLEY: It seems to me perfectly reasonable for schools that aren't cepted. Therefore, the American liberal Democrat will adopt that system;whereas, doing the job to close their doors. hopefully, we've advanced a little beyond this in this country and we would MRS. HAYMAN: Would you say that the state had any role in the supervision of only think of a voucher system as one that would introduce a new level of the standards of education within-- privilege and purchase ability, a new market system in education, and would MR. BUCKLEY: Of the what? disadvantage hundreds of thousands of our school children and families, MRS. HAYMAN: The standards of education within the different types of schools, especially working-class families-- the different costings of schools. . MR. BUCKLEY: To advantage John is not to disadvantage James. MR. BUCKLEY: You mean, who should set the standards? MR. KINNOCK: Yes. MRS. HAYMAN: Yes. Whether the state has any influence- MR. BUCKLEY: It's to advantage John. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MR. KINNOCK: No, no. MRS. HAYMAN: --because, you see, I'm interested in this low-income group of MR. BUCKLEY: But let me just tell you something that you may not have thought

12 13

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. ~1RS. HAYMAN When did women get the vote in the States? of. In New York City, for instance, they spend about $1300 per child per year. ~1R. BUC KLEY 1919. They get really not a very good education on the whole for that $1300. Now ~1RS. HAYMAN About the same time. in New York City, there are five administrators for every nine teachers. If MR. BUCKLEY Yes. you gave somebody a voucher worth $1200, you would, in my estimation, by MR. KINNOCK That's right, but there are much more democratic forms of freeing him of the overhead, bureaucratic overhead, hugely maximize the government, in any case, in the States, but because of the novelty of the chances of his getting a first-class education. Hell, four or five families soci ety- could have a private school with Oxford tutors at that $1200 per voucher. MR. BUCKLEY: Do you agree with that, Mr. Lamont? MR. KINNOCK: But you're not making a case for the marketing of education' MR. LAMONT: But you've gone away on this great red herring because you you're making a very good case for the democratization of education, beca~se couldn't answer the question that was put to you: What do you mean by where parents, as the main or secondary consumers of education through their democratizing education? This is a nonsensical phrase. I mean, I think children, have got direct access to educational policy-making--and I mean what democratizing education, if it had any sense, must mean, would be direct, I don't mean the superficial nonsense that I think you've got in your actually giving some choice back to the parents. And, at the moment, in our ~ystem, and I suspect also in the United States, an awful lot of the choice country and we certainly have got in our country through the system of state 1S taken away from parents and put in the hands of teachers, and the great governorships and so on--they would absolutely insure to safeguard their advantage of a voucher system is that it would give the individual parent pUb~ic m?ney, let alone ~he ~rivate money which they mayor may not spend on tremendous freedom from educational fashion. If you dodn't want your child the1r ch11dren, but pub11C f1nance and the education of their children would to be educated so that he couldn't read and spent all his time banging drums demand that the system wasn't top-heavy with administrators or lousy teachers. and measuring each other's ear lobes, you don't need to send them to that But they don't have that, because in both countries to a greater or lesser school. extent, the education professions and the band of administrators which sur MR. KINNOCK: You are reactionary, Norman. rounds them like a hard shell, have managed to push themselves almost beyond MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, that's right. Exactly right. ~he.pa1e of democratic ac~ountabi1ity. Now, that isn't an argument for putting MR. KINNO~K: Norman, you are terribly reactionary, but you haven't answered 1t 1nto the market; that 1S an argument for making it democratic. And when- the quest10n. you said earlier, you see-- MR. LAMONT: Give me a chance: MR. BUCKLEY: I don't know what you mean by making something democratic. That MR. BUCKLEY: There is no effective protest now except for the rich. doesn't mean anything. That's cant. MR. LAMONT: Right. MR. KINNQCK: All right, I'll use a much--No, it isn't cant at all. I'll use a much slmp1er word. It might be cant in the States in view of your recent MR. BUCKLEY: The rich have to actua11y--They can send somebody away, but a experience. I don't think it's cant in this country because we've yet to poorer person has to physically move his home-- MR. LAMONT: That's right. have that experience. MR. BUCKLEY: --if he's not satisfied with the school to which he is directed MR. BUCKLEY: What experience? by some martinet to send his poor child. MR. KINNOCK: Well, the experience of President Nixon and the general fungus- MR. KINNOCK: But, listen-- MR. LAMONT: Let's not get on that. MR. LAMONT: The more his government intervenes in education, here trying to MR. KINNOCK: --that hangs on the American governmental system. I think that, restrict choice, the more it will distort our property market. without making too much pride out of it, there's a hell of a lot wrong with our (laughter) s~st~m, but the kinds of things that are wrong with our system are at least MR. KINNOCK: You're doing your best to ...Oh, no. We then infringe upon the w1th1n the change of democratically organized forces, inside and outside-- inner sanctum of the temple, the property market, because, you know, that's MR. BUCKLEY: Like the Suez war. absolutely essential to your creed. You have just painted a glorious picture MR. KINNOCK: Whereas--Yes, but look at the lessons she learned from that. of a school as a kind of educational supermarket where, if it wasn't efficient MR. BUCKLEY: Just a third-rate war -- ~t MR. KINNOCK: Okay, okay. Can you insure-- and.if didn't meet the need because people were spending their own money MR. BUCKLEY: --as Ziegler would have called it. on 1t, 1t would close down and that would be great. Now, having put it into MR. KINNOCK: Can you insure that the kind of system, the breakdown that you've the marketplace, do you then want to construct rules that take it out of the marketplace insofar as you say, "But, of course, if they discriminated had, will never happen again? against blacks or they didn't meet this standard or that standard or conform MR. BUCKLEY: I don't know. I don't know. You've been at it for a thousand to this prejudice," which you call parental choice, "or that prejudice--" years and you still have Suez wars. MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, because I'm a reasonable man. MR. KINNOCK: Oh, come on. Listen-- MR. LAMONT: Is parental choice a prejudice? MR. BUCKLEY: I'm sure sometime in the 21st century some power-hungry American ~R. KINNOCK: Okay. All that happens then is that you say you're going to president is going to listen in on somebody's conversations. 1nsu1ate education, then, from educational fashions; you will replace the MR. KINNOCK: Your democracy is older than ours, you know. fashion or the current prevailing prejudice of the parents. I mean look MR. BUCKLEY: What's that? at experience in village schoo1s-- ' MR. KINNOCK: Your democracy is older than ours. MR. BUCKLEY: But there's no substitute. There's no substitute. MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, come on. MR. KINNOCK: Well, okay, if you've got any pretensions to be a democrat MR. KINNOCK: Well, of course it is. MR. LAMONT: Sure, it is. it's stopped there and then because-- ' MR. KINNOCK: In any kind of real terms. We three here, average age 32- ~1R. LAMONT: l've got pretensions to be a father rather than a democrat. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I know that Jews and Catholics couldn't vote well into MR. BUCKLEY: Sure, naturally. It's our legacy, our-- the 19th century. MR. KINNOCK: You're taking a terrible gamble with your kids here. MR. KINNOCK: This is only the second generation of democracy in this country, MR. BUCKLEY: It's what Dr. Johnson called prescriptive bias. you know.

14 15

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. MR. KINNOCK: Yes. And he only lived 200 years ago. MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I can't think of anybody who lived since who's said any thing wiser than he. MR. KINNOCK: Well, perhaps that-- ucational argument, how would your voucher system help, if you want to help, MR. BUCKLEY: For instance, that the end of political liberty is personal the child of poor parents who cannot afford to top up or to add to that? 1i berty. MR. BUCKLEY: You wouldn't have to top up. MR. KINNOCK: Well, sure, I will make a selective appraisal of Dr. Johnson, MRS. HAYMAN: Yes. and accept some of what he says in the same way as you do, and use it in MR. BUCKLEY: Twelve hundred dollars is plenty for perfectly good educational much the same way. The fact remains that if you are seeking to generalize- attention per year. You don't have to top up at all. They're spending that MR. BUCKLEY: But he was in favor of generalized education. right now, but a lot of it is going for unnecessary, frivolous education. .MR. KINNOCK: You're seeking to generalize from what Dr. Johnson says about MR. KINNOCK: But it would happen in any case, wouldn't it? Because for those educational standards in 1975. I think the first man to admit to his short who could afford it, not by sacrifice but by having a surplus-- comings in making that kind of assessment, not a man known for his great MR. BUCKLEY: No-- humility, would be Dr. Johnson. I don't think that he would think that he MR. KINNOCK:. --they would buy it in any case in order to buy preference. You was equi pped, as someone who never bore chi] dren himself, to make any gener wouldn't believe in human nature, would you, Bill? alizations about the standard of education we should have 200 years after MRS. HAYMAN: If 1200 pounds in enough. his death. MR. BUCKLEY: Take a community like New Canaan, Connecticut, or Greenwich, MRS. HAYMAN: But I disagree with you, Neil. I think that he has as much Connecticut. All the people there send their children to public school- right and concern as anyone of us who is childless, because we are members MR. KINNOCK: Sure. of a community, and the next generation-- MR. BUCKLEY: --because it's a very good school. MR. KINNOCK: I'm sorry--Are we talking--Do you have any kids, Bill? MR. KINNOCK: They do in all the major suburbs-- MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. MR. BUCKLEY: They don't have to top up. They don't have to top up. MR. KINNOCK: Oh, sure. I thought you--Sorry. I was talking about Dr. MR. KINNOCK: --in London as well. And the more middle class, the more they Johnson. I thought you thought. I was talking about Bill. send their kids to the local-- MRS. HAYMAN: No, no, no. I was talking about Dr. Johnson as well. MR. BUCKLEY: I really don't understand your argument. If you're saying that MR. BUCKLEY: They often confuse us. . $1200, which is what the voucher would be worth by contemporary standards, (1 aughter) isn't enough to buy a good, day-time education, the answer is that's incorrect. MRS. HAYMAN: I wouldn't confuse him with Bill. It's plenty. MR. KINNOCK: I thought he was God. MRS. HAYMAN: Well, then why would people use more money? MRS. HAYMAN: A society has an interest in its health, well-being, and if MR. BUCKLEY: You mean, why would somebody elect to go to a school that costs you're interested in fairness and justice, in the opportunities that are more than $1200? given to its children and to its sick and to its handicapped. MRS. HAYMAN: To send their child. MR. BUCKLEY: Which is the argument against socialism, I agree. The more MR. BUCKLEY: Well, suppose you want a boarding school? You've got to pay socialism, the less opportunity. them for the food. Public schools don't give you a cubicle to sleep in and (laughter) three meals a day and, under the circumstances, all they give you is instruc MRS. HAYMAN: Well, I'm glad at least our aims are the same if not our methods. tion. But $1200 will buy you a lot of instruction. Unfortunately, our time Now, I mean, I would like to hear, for a change, your way of helping. I read is up. something when you absolutely dismissed the concept of America helping India Thank you very much. with her food problem. You dismissed the concept of socialism-- MR. BUCKLEY: No, I didn't dismiss it. I didn't dismiss it. I said-- MRS. HAYMAN: You said because you didn't cause it, you had no reason to help it. MR. BUCKLEY: No, I didn't say that at all. Most people that we help, we help without any reference at all. God knows, we had nothing to do with your diplomacy in Europe in the Thirties, but we were willing to help. That has nothing to do with whether we caused it. It has to do with how best to help it, and there are Indian intellectuals, and I think their arguments ought to be heard, who say that much of American aid has actually impeded the dev.elop ment of Indian agriculture. As a matter of fact, we were balled out by the Chinese, the Communist Chinese representative, in Rome. What was his argument? That· the United States was really responsible for world hunger. Why? Because we had given away so much agriculture and, under the circumstances, were simply dumping allover world markets and depressing the incentive. Rather amusing to hear this from a Maoist, isn't it? So the argument against continuing help to India is a strategic argument, not a tactical argument. MRS. HAYMAN: I'm not defending the form of aid. I'm defending the concept of aid, as members of a world community in which there's, hate me to say it, relative poverty. And some nations and some people are poorer than other people. And to translate that back to an American experience and the ed-.

16 17