So As I Was Saying . . .: My Somewhat Eventful Life (25 page)

If that is the perspective on the Kennedys some (or even many) people want, they are not lacking for sources, real and imagined, to give it to them. But it is not the perspective on the Kennedy brothers I feel is important. To me, they embody the most basic tenet of politics in a democracy—the desire to win—and the fundamental issue with which this country has wrestled since before its founding: how best to reconcile individual rights with collective needs, particularly in an industrial and postindustrial society.

John Kennedy, as I saw him at the time, and as his brothers seemed to see him, was a man of the center who allowed himself to be pulled in various directions, not in the name of what fit with a particular ideology, but in service to what was morally right (and thus politically beneficial in the long run) and what was expedient. His slow, but ultimately firm and outspoken, advocacy of civil rights legislation is a good example. His embrace of stimulating economic growth via significant tax cuts shows the ease with which he abandoned ideological labels. Both liberals and conservatives today embrace many of these cuts; liberals call them a prime example of “trickle up” economics, stimulating growth by putting purchasing power in the hands of poor and middle-class people; conservatives cite Kennedy as the first “supply-sider” because he believed tapping into people’s personal incentives would stimulate economic growth.

Ted, the last of the Kennedy brothers, has an almost fifty-year public record of votes and advocacy in the U.S. Senate. Historians have ample evidence with which to judge him. My impression from countless conversations with him and from watching him in action on what seems like an inexhaustible range of national and international issues is he will be remembered for his capacity to push government—and the country—further to the left than it was willing or able to believe it wanted to go in service to “the least of these.”

My biases are showing, but I think Robert Kennedy showed a capacity to grow and change not easy to find in his brothers. RFK did not change in the years I knew him; he had already changed. However he had started out, he was, by the time he reached the Senate, a unique kind of “liberal.” He held basically “liberal” positions, but he had not fought for them his entire life. He resisted calling himself a “liberal” or signing liberal manifestos, but as a newcomer to liberalism—even radicalism—he was quite willing to see its weaknesses and failures: for example, the times when larger government programs would produce denser bureaucracies, and resources, and decision-making power had to devolve to the lowest possible levels. Such beliefs would often cause liberals to distrust or attack him, which was a prime reason he feared for his senatorial reelection prospects in 1970.

His most formidable opponent, he thought, would be the liberal Republican John Lindsay, elected mayor of New York City in 1965. Through the fall of 1967, for example, as I (along with others) urged RFK to challenge LBJ for the Democratic presidential nomination, he would often respond, “You should focus less on the California primary and more on how to get me to upstate counties where the votes are.” And during those months in late 1967 and early 1968 that historians now seem to remember for his Hamlet-like indecision about his national ambitions, he spent far more time, for instance, focused on targeted federal tax incentives to foster job-producing enterprise zones in Brooklyn’s most impoverished neighborhoods.

*   *   *

Prominent on YouTube is a little-known and long-forgotten debate between Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. It took place on May 15, 1967, and was billed as “Town Meeting of the World: ‘The Image of America and the Youth of the World’ with Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Gov. Ronald Reagan.”

Don Hewitt of CBS News, later to achieve great renown as the inventor and executive producer of
60 Minutes,
had the idea—and proposed it one day in 1967—of a debate between Ronald Reagan and Robert Kennedy as a wonderful way to display CBS’s new and then-revolutionary technical wonder called a satellite. “We can bring people in, live, from anywhere in the world,” he said. “Not really from anywhere, but anywhere we have satellite equipment. What we’ll do is we’ll have Bobby here in Washington, we’ll have Reagan in California, and then we’ll have students in London, some in Moscow, and maybe India, and they’ll ask questions. They’ll be questioners just like at a presidential debate. What do you say?”

I didn’t understand what he was talking about technically, but I understood what he wanted to do, which is he wanted to have a debate between our guy in Washington, D.C., and Ronald Reagan, the new governor of California. “Just pick an evening, I’m sure he’ll do it,” I said. Reagan had just been elected. “What the hell,” I thought. “We’d be going up against this class B actor, this bogus politician. Not even a particularly good actor.” So, of course I thought we should do it. Faux politician. I went and checked it with the senator, and he took my advice. “Let’s do it,” he said. CBS soon began to promote it heavily. Attention and expectations built up. I continued to see no downside and thought RFK would virtually destroy this actor who had somehow stumbled into the governorship of California. I repeatedly assured Kennedy the debate would be no problem—maybe not even hard work.

So they set it up. A satellite interview—actually, two simultaneous separate interviews, a debate actually, it was a very special setup. After all, Kennedy was in Washington and Reagan in California, each in a sound studio, a small room. And they’re each
alone
in that room, with just a camera and a TV monitor. I had not given Kennedy much advice about how to answer and act on television, except very basic: Always look at the camera, not the monitor. Beyond that, neither he nor I had felt he needed advice. He was good on his feet and knew he was good.

The first question went to Bob; he had been designated by coin toss as the first to answer. The question, which came from a student in London, was about Vietnam, and I quickly sensed we were in trouble. Kennedy, predictably, thought about his answer, mentioned that there were “difficult questions” involved. He came down on the right side, but only after a lengthy explanation and a good deal of thought, during which he made no eye contact with the camera and thus no eye contact with the viewing audience. Governor Reagan, well coached and a professional, stepped into the camera and, making instant eye contact, answered clearly and quickly: “We have always been a generous people, and we seek only to share the benefits of democracy and a healthy economy.”

As the questions continued from students in India and elsewhere, it only got worse. I had been completely unaware of the implications, but when you’re doing this kind of broadcast, it’s truly remote. You’re not standing at two lecterns where you can look at the other guy and at the audience. Usually, you can pick someone out in the audience and, in effect, talk to that person. But in a broadcast like this, I realized, you can’t pick anyone out in the audience. The room is totally blank, except for the monitor screen. One thing the CBS people and I had stressed, “Always look at the camera. Look at the red light on the camera, never the monitor. Look at the red light and nothing but the red light, no matter how silly or distracting or unnatural this may seem.” So, alas, when Bob started to answer the question,
he looked at the monitor,
at the picture of the kid in England, and he seemed shifty-eyed and as though he were ducking the question. When Reagan got a question, he looked right at the camera and
spoke with natural ease
.

It was a disaster for our side. Reagan, a master of on-camera speaking developed through years of introducing the
General Electric Theater,
was in command from the beginning. I knew something was wrong right away, but was in the studio with no way to communicate with Bob. It was the most one-sided debate I’d ever seen. Reagan hit every mark, as they say in showbiz, and RFK seemed all over the place, and furtive to boot. It’s no wonder the
National Review
Web site now calls it “The Great Forgotten Debate.” One of Reagan’s many strengths was that he did not indulge in nuance, and one of Robert Kennedy’s many strengths was that he did indeed see, and ponder, nuances. Reagan’s way can work brilliantly in this kind of satellite debate.

*   *   *

In addition to television, the RFK-Reagan debate was broadcast live nationally on CBS Radio, and it seems logical Reagan dominated with that audience, too. Ever since the first JFK-Nixon debate in 1960, we’ve known things can sound very different if there’s nothing to look at. But in retrospect, the Robert Kennedy–Ronald Reagan debate demonstrates how different sight and sound are from old-fashioned reading—in this case of a transcript. Here, for example, in their entirety, are the first question and the first answers. Did Reagan “win”? Sure. But reading the transcript now, especially after so many decades, we can see beyond impressions created by and emotions generated by live television. Ronald Reagan, for example, says with a formal declaration of war antiwar demonstrations in the United States would not be “legal”—something just wrong on the facts.

STEPHEN MARKS [A STUDENT IN ENGLAND]:
Senator Kennedy, I’d like to ask you what you think of Dean Rusk’s recent claim that the effect of anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the States may actually be to prolong the war rather than to shorten it?

SENATOR ROBERT KENNEDY:
The war is going on in Vietnam, being extended in Vietnam, really, because of the determination of those who are our adversaries, the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, National Liberation Front.

I’m sure to some extent the fact that there are some protests gives some encouragement to Ho Chi Minh and to others. But I don’t—I certainly don’t think that that’s the reason the war is continuing, and why the casualties are going up.

GOVERNOR REAGAN:
Well, I definitely think the demonstrations are prolonging the war in that they’re giving the enemy, who I believe must face defeat on relative comparison of the power of the two nations, they are giving him encouragement to continue, to hold out in the hope that division here in America will bring about a peace without defeat for that enemy.

Many of the demonstrations now taking place in this country could not legally take place if there was a legal declaration of war, so we, I think, are faced with a choice here. But again, and I’m sure the Senator agrees with me, America will jealously guard this right of dissent, because I think the greatness of our country has been based on our thinking that everyone has a right even to be wrong.

I do not think now it was all such a disaster for Robert Kennedy. Nor do I think—when reading them now—that his other answers were bad. The debate covered a range of issues, including the military dictatorship in Greece and proposed new civil rights laws in the United States, but to keep the focus here on Vietnam—certainly as complex and emotional a subject as any at the time—reading the transcript now makes me think both RFK and Reagan are intelligent, well-meaning men.

ANNA FORD [A STUDENT IN INDIA]:
I believe the war in Vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable and economically motivated. Could either of you agree with this?

KENNEDY:
I don’t agree with that. I have some reservations as I’ve stated them before about some aspects of the war, but I think that the United States is making every effort to try to make it possible for the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny.

REAGAN:
Well, I think we’re very much in agreement on this, that this country of ours has a long history of non-aggression but also a willingness to befriend and go to the aid of those who would want to be free and determine their own destiny.

After this joint appearance with Ronald Reagan, whenever a brisk discussion would occur later among our staff or advisers over the wisdom or non-wisdom of a particular activity, he would often stop the discussion and turn to me and ask, “Aren’t you the fellow who got me into the debate with Ronald Reagan?” Everyone, including Bob and I, would laugh because we all knew that Reagan had so clearly dominated the broadcast. But reading the transcript now, I can see many things Kennedy said hold up well with time, especially in contrast with Reagan:

KENNEDY:
I don’t think that communism is a monolithic political system at the moment. I think there are very major differences between the Soviet Union and Communist China; and I think that’s recognized in the United States, as I think it’s recognized in Europe and recognized elsewhere around the globe. I agree that I don’t think that the Communist system wishes us well, but I think that it’s recognized that—that it’s a different system than it was 20 years ago.

Their final statements, read now, are also revealing. Among other things, you see Robert Kennedy citing ancient Greeks, as he did during his 1968 presidential campaign.

KENNEDY:
Just how much we’ve enjoyed [this debate], and I’m sure Governor Reagan has, and obviously we don’t agree on all of these matters. But it’s so extremely important within our own country that we have a dialogue.

But the world is so close together now because of technology, because of a lot of different things, that it’s so important that we have these kind of exchanges, and particularly as the world belongs to you, that what we do and the decisions that we make have an effect on your lives, that you continue where you see that we make mistakes, that you continue to criticize.

Plato once said that all things are to be questioned—and all things are to be examined, and brought into question—there is no limit set to thought, and I think that has to apply for all of us, particularly those who have the advantage of an education. Thank you.

REAGAN:
Well, I do second it. The very fact that we have discussion and differences, I think, brings me to the point being the oldest one here, I can take the liberty of giving a little advice to the young people.

I believe the highest aspiration of man should be individual freedom and the development of the—of the individual, that there is a sacredness to individual rights.