I really very glad to be here because Minneapolis and the state have always played an important role and getting real issues into politics and we're in a curious State curious condition right now. Here we are. in the last month of a national political campaign with people running for congress Governor State offices all over the country and we are also in the midst of a year in which one of the the most serious moral issue that we confront the issue would prevent a nuclear war has surfaced so dramatically and I asked you Do the political campaigns that we're now hearing about and reading about do they reflect this moral issue? Yes, there are people who are running and saying that they're for the fries and some who are saying that they're not for the fries until we get ahead. But is this fundamental issue really being talked about and argue? In the political campaigns that are being carried out. How do we know what someone running for congress will do when we get before Congress a real move toward disarmament. How do we know where they stand on disarmament if these things aren't being discussed and one of the reasons why I think the citizens party. There are campaigns all over the country are so important is that we are devoted to relating electoral politics to the real issues. That reminds me. I tell you a funny story now about the 1980 campaign. It was the funniest and most tragic thing that happened happened in Albuquerque. The television reporter said to me doctor, I want to ask you an important question. I said, yes. Okay. He said aren't you a serious candidate or you just running on the issues? That's what it's about. That's what it's about. And I noticed today that the first draft of the Catholic Bishops letter about nuclear war was published in the in the New York Times and they raised the question of whether a nuclear war or the preparation for nuclear war could ever be justified. There is a fundamental moral issue that every candidate should be addressing and they're not and so what I want to do tonight is to talk about how we can make the link between electoral politics and this fundamental issue of War and Peace. How do we do it? No, I think we have to recognize that. We've gone through a whole series of moral concerns in this country. You know, I think if someone from outer space ET or someone came down and looked around since World War II they would say, you know, this is a left-wing Progressive country. Look what they've done since World War II. There's been a huge Civil Rights Movement, which is achieved many games a woman's movement and environmental movement is solar energy against nuclear power plants the movement that succeeded in pulling us out of the war in Vietnam. And now a new disarmament movement every one of these Progressive even radical issues that arose out of out of public concern and you would say this is a country that's really got a strong Progressive Movement. So how come Reagan isn't office the very interesting paradox? And I think we have to ask ourselves. Why is it that these movements and the one we're in now? This is the spring and fall of disarmament Every Spring wheat, you know, it's either environment or solar energy or anti-nuclear power. This spring is disarmament. Well, are we going to go up and then down again? Like these other things? How do we translate this intense vastly supported Morrow movement into practical politics and that's what I want to discuss. Well, let's recognize what politics is about today. It's about the economy. Wherever you go you fine people are addressing the very serious issue of unemployment. The failure of Reagan's a pretty kooky economic theories to get anywhere. I think that's beginning, you know, a lot of economic theories of poopy butt Reagan is pick the worst of them. And this evidence, you know in New York City. We had this really interesting upset everybody expected Ed Koch who is the Democrats Republican to win, you know, he was the one who in the on solidarity day when the unions were marching. He had Reagan in New York ending him a big check for Westway and I bought an environmental Abomination. I think the check bounced to hand & Koch has been a supporter really of Reagan and he was surprisingly defeated by Cuomo who is back by the unions and I think that represents people understanding that the kind of problems of the Union space unemployment. The economic problems are what is important take the override of Reagan of Reagan's veto the budget. That too was a sign the what I'm saying is that we have to accept accept the fact that politics right now is largely concerned with the fact that we are getting into a depression and I one of the best signs of it. You know, what signal did depression in the 1930s was Herbert Hoover telling everybody that Prosperity was right around the corner. Now, of course, we've got another Western are who rides a horse. So he says it's just around the bend. But it's the same story and you begin to worry when they tell you what's around the bend that it's not going to be there very soon and the Democrats and Republicans are squabbling over who's at fault and so on. The point I want to make is that if that's what politics is about in 1982 and there's no reason why it shouldn't be about the economy the great irony. That a major reason for the absence of any fundamental analysis of our economic problem. And just a lot of squabbling is that the politicians have failed to see the link between our economic predicament and our military policy and what I'm saying, is that the key the link between Politics on the one hand electoral politics Congressional races. And the moral question of preventing nuclear war the thing that links the two is the issue of the economy. And what I want to show you tonight is that if we understand the way in which our military policy is influencing the economy, we will see that no politician who claims to be a friend of Labor a friend of environmentalist a progressive who at the same time stands for increasing the military budget. can be believed in other words, there is an absolute test. I think of any Progressive politician and that is if you believe in restoring Social Services, if you believe in doing something about unemployment, you have got to come out for a drastic cut in the military budget because and I say this quite openly because in this congressional district must disable is running on a progressive. Program is for social services for economic development. He's for environmental programs while I tell you flat if you're for restoring the strength of the country's environmental programs, its solar energy programs, which have been cut by 95% Your support is meaningless, unless you say we're going to get the money to do that by cutting the military now. Those are nice words, but I now want to demonstrate why our military policy has had such a profound effect on the economy and why we cannot restore the economy without cutting the military budget and facing the political consequences of coming out for a drastic reduction in our military activities. Let me remind you what the core of our economic problem is. It's basically a matter of efficiency. Our economy is now very inefficient to realize for example, we've invested in normal amounts of capital in the steel industry in normous amounts of human labor of community effort. There are entire communities that it depends on the steel industry. There. It is a huge Monumental investment. It is now running at 40% of capacity. Think of what a waste of economic human and Community Resources that represents and more generally speaking productivity is the measure of the efficiency with which we turn Capital labor and resources into economic output and I have to tell you that in the last 10 years. The measure of the Improvement of productivity in the United States has been the lowest of any industrial country in the world. And we're crop. So we have to keep our eye on that productivity and ask what does War and the preparation for war have to do with that fundamental aspect of our economy. The first point I want to make is war is very expensive and the preparation for war is very expensive. If you look at the Historical development of the cost of War you discover that in the 19th century Wars took about 10% of a country's gross national product World War average throughout 25% World War II in the various countries between 45 and 70% of the GNP was devoted to the war. And the reason is that the cost of weapons has gone up if you wanted to buy a tank in World War II it cost about $55,000. You want to buy a tank today? It's $1000000. The submarine and World War II was $5000000 today 350 million dollars a bomber in World War 2 .4 million dollars today 94 million dollars World War II counting everything it did cost the world something like four trillion dollars. And the cost of preparing for war now is going up. So it's expensive as a result that builds up a large military program such as the United States discovers that it can't afford to do other things because you're dealing with a very expensive program that explains why the Reagan budget was not a cut in government expenditures. It was very simply a transfer of domestic expenditures to the military budget. And it's the huge cost of the military budget. That means that you cannot have. A good environmental program good schooling program a good health program and carry this huge and growing burden of the military. Now the consequences of this shift is that it has caused major economic issue that everybody's talking about unemployment. the shift of money from hospitals and schools To the military has cost us jobs. Let me give you the figures. You know, there are input output tables that allow you to figure out how much money spent in what industry causes the creation of how many jobs and it's true. If you spend a million a billion dollars in military procurement. It creates for 18,000 new jobs. But a billion dollars spent in hospitals and schools from which you're taking the billion dollars represents 55,000 jobs. So for every billion dollars that we transfer from Social Services to the military. We lose 41,000 jobs the figures I've quoted from Marian Anderson study. The Department of Labor has done similar ones. There's no question that if it weren't for the large size of our military budget unemployment would be lower now. My guess is probably close to 10% unemployment now if it weren't for the military budget unemployment would now be 7% which is a very big difference. So there is a direct cost in jobs never mind the cost in closed schools and hospitals and you all know the figures, you know, how many schools you could build for one bomber and so on but that's only part of the story because the way in which we spend military money. Destroys the catalytic effect of money on our economy and I'm talking about the capital capital is invested in Goods, which if you invest right build up the economy. So for example, if there's a supermarket opening nearby and the owner of the supermarket buys a truck that truck is an instrument of production and the investment of some let's say $10,000 in that truck or $25,000 isn't that simply an expenditure? It has a catalytic effect on the economy. It allow the owner to hire somebody to drive the truck. It'll carry Goods to the store. It will build up the economy of the neighborhood. That same truck. You don't even have to repaint it and sell it to the Army and if we're lucky it does nothing. It is not an instrument of production. In the end it may be an instrument of Destruction. But the likely thing is it'll just rushed and there you have a tool which is not being used and the same is true of a 747 sold to Northwest Airlines. It's an instrument of production. It builds up the economy the same airplane sold to the Air Force. Takes away from the economy millions of dollars that could be used to build up the economy. This is I think apps absolutely crucial element in our thinking about the economy and the military and there's a set of Statistics. That is absolutely startling. and practically nobody talks about when they worry about our lack of productivity cuz you understand the way in which productivity increases the way in which we improve the efficiency of the economy is my investing capital in more efficient Tools in more modern steel factories and so on and if you are diverting cap away from a productive at building up of the economy, And using it for the military inevitably you can expect large military expenditures to reduce the productivity to produce to reduce the improvements in the productivity of the economy and the data are absolutely startling. For example between 1960 and 1979 the United States spent about six and a half percent of its GNP each year on the military. The result was that that Capital was diverted from business investment and business investment represented 15% of the gross national product. Our growth in productivity in manufacturing Industries where the data or clearest was 2% a year over that. Now can trash that was Japan. Japan was very clever. They lost World War II. And as a result, they don't have a very large military program and in that period of time where we spent six and a half percent of rgnp on the military Japan spend less than 1 as a result instead of investing 15% of the GNP in new business Investments. They they put in 26% and sure enough that productivity growth and average right not have 2% out of 8% And I can tell you during the 1880 campaign. I learned how to draw graphs in the air and I'll draw one for you right now. It's pretty easy. In fact, I know how to do it backwards so you can see it right side too. If you make a plot hear the growth and productivity of different countries economies this way and this way the percent of the GNP that goes into the military as I've called you. Japan is down here around 1% with the highest rate of him productivity. We're down here. Most of the other points on the curve of the different industrial countries will fall right on that line. You can get a PhD thesis out of that set of day. It's absolutely straightforward thing and when you get Reagan or Kennedy or anyone else talking about the need to improve productivity, do you ever hear them say by the way? A large reason for our inability to improve it is our large military budget, you know, I wouldn't mind so much if Reagan said listen, we've got to improve productivity and I know that we could do it by cutting the military budget but I've got reasons for not doing that that would at least be honest. And the point I'm making is this rigid relationship between military expenditures and the debilitation of the economy is something which every conventional politician avoids. well finally and you have to recognize this to that the huge development of what has now become a very technically sophisticated military program takes away scientists engineers, mathematicians computer experts exactly the people needed to develop a high productivity steel mill or new kind of Auto or solar energy takes them out of the civilian activities and puts them into the military. In the World At Large and it's worse in the United States 25% of the scientific Personnel are working on Military projects. In other words, it has cost us the long-term development of personnel who are needed in the economy being put into military activities. What are try to show you is that the military program has a powerful effect on the economy and it is devastating the US economy and the world economy. And it is preventing us from dealing with civilian activities. Now some people will argue that that's not the real story. Look at what happened after before World War II, what was World War II and if you look at the economic statistics, you will see that things were in bad shape and as we began to arm for World War II the economy revived That argument I think is specious because the peculiar thing about the preparation for World War II is that it required the rebuilding of Industries you want to remember we did not have an aerospace industry in the United States. There was no significant airplane manufacturing industry in the United States until the government invested in building the factories in order to make war planes. And at the end of World War II they would hand it over to Boeing Etc. And suddenly we had a new industry so that in that peculiar way, they expenditures for World War 2 created productive instruments. A Chrysler has a tank plant who built it we did in World War II the entire petrochemical industry. There were no synthetic rubber plants in the United States until in World War II. For military reasons the plants were built then they were turned over to Dow and Dupont. So that world war is not a good argument because that was a peculiar. In which the economy had declined a great deal. And also those of you were into Science and Technology realized that World War I shed it was a point at which enormously important developments in chemistry and physics were turned from the laboratory into an into factories nuclear power synthetic chemistry and someone so that I don't think that argument holes what I'm saying is that You cannot escape the fact that a large part of our economic Trouble Comes about from our huge military budget. well You got at this point and you come to the conclusion that if we drastically cut the military budget and devoted the money to rebuilding. Our streets our roadways are Industries. We could really restore the economy put people back to work. I mean just think of what the cost of our military budget is. It's the loss of in the social services that we've already seen unemployment declining me conomic growth the whole Declaration of research and education and finally The Emptiness of politics because we're not talking about this. And if we were to attack the military budget, we could confront all of these problems. Why don't we because there's a taboo? There's a political taboo on anything that interferes with what is called National Security and if you are to confront Miss disable or Reagan or Kennedy or anyone else inside, why aren't you for the 50% cut in the military budget, please? We have to defend the country can't do that. This is a taboo. What I'm saying is this. If the consequence of this budget military program is so serious. That it may lead us to commit World suicide and meanwhile destroy the economy put people out of work and all the other things. Really we better be very clear that we need to do it. Let's discuss the real reason why we need all of these tanks and submarines and airplanes and other words. We have to examine the military policy of the United States and decide whether it truly serves National Security because of the military budget imposes without even asking the question. What is this for? And we've got to do this and I think this is the essence of politics in the next decade and it isn't being done. Do you realize? That the Reagan administration's military policy. On their acknowledgement was devised in April 1982. Long after they had slashed the domestic budget and increase the military budget and in April 1982, they issued a document which and I want a quote. This is from a New York Times story, which says the secretary who were proved the Weinberger who approved the classified document known as a defense guidance about two months ago. This is a story in June and he approved it in April 1982 said in a covering memorandum that it was the first such a document of this Administration. In April 1982. He said the administration now knows why it's spending the money. The call the goal of Weinberger and Reagan to slash the domestic budget cause all of the economic difficulty beginning in January 1981 without having a program that could justify. That is the substance of our understanding of what this thing is all about and incidentally, what is the guidance document? What does it say? Well, same story says the document adopted a strategy for fighting a protracted nuclear war. That's what it was about. And I'm quoting the American forces quote must Prevail and be able to force the Soviet Union to seek early as termination of hostilities on terms favorable to the United States. They came up in April of this year finally with the intellectual justification for all of this. And that is that way going to carry out a nuclear war over a. Of years pure Insanity pure insanity. And we have to understand incidentally it when weinberger's ask doesn't that mean that you've decided that we could win a nuclear war? He says we don't mean to imply that the war is winnable. We just going to prevail. So what we're getting from the administration? I think I put it to very simply it's dishonest Dishonored. They aren't talking about what this is really about. And in fact, they impose the expenditures honest without even having lately honesty. Preparing a document with said what it's about. What are the Democrats doing? Not much. Have you heard of democrat talk the way I am? No. I take bus to Kennedy quintessential Democrat is for the fries. I he is for negotiating reductions in nuclear arms, and he is for increasing conventional armament. What do I do to the economy of the military budget only 15% of the budget is represented by nuclear weapons. There's no way we're going to cut the military budget by increasing conventional arms. And I think you are Miss disabled takes that position to he is for increasing conventional Armament as I understand it although he swore the fries so that the real issue of asking what is all this about hasn't been confronted now, I have to tell you something. That I don't want to get on my high horse and say looking Republicans Democrats. They're not thinking about what is the military program? Really? Why do we have to spend all this money? That's true of us in the citizens party too and is true of most people on the left. I have to tell you this in the 1980 campaign. We were for cutting the military budget. I want anybody asked me how much I said. Oh 30% I never asked myself until recently. What did I think that ever seven 70% was for? Very interesting question, you know saying the anti-nuclear organ has nuclear war organization and honorable and very effective organization puts out each year a an alternative military budget and this year's budget comes up with a 1/3 cut my figure in the military budget and if you read it, it's a very careful analysis program by program of the military budget and it one place. They say that the multi-billion dollar expenditure for the 818 Hunter aircraft is unnecessary because the A7 aircraft which we have will do just as well. And you have to ask yourself. What are we doing with the A7 aircraft? So I want to remind you that it's not just the Democrats and the Republicans who have not look at the military policy treated it as a taboo, but a lot of us haven't done it until now well until now I am now I'll do it briefly. I'm going to talk about what I think I'm military policy debate and then we'll see how much it cost. I love you, very briefly say that there are four categories of military activities that we preparing one is nuclear war. Another is intervention all over the world dickly in third world countries. Europe is a special problem with gel set aside. And then finally there's the point that everybody forgets the talk about next defending our Shores. Okay, let's talk about this four categories. The first one you and I can just dismiss immediately and we all know that nuclear war is incapable of defending the country suicide is not a practical method of Defense. And therefore the whole nuclear war system is useless and we can cut that out of the budget. But for as the lawyers say, well don't we needed to deter the USSR Mr. Weinberger says and I quote. The Soviet Union poses a greater threat to the American people than any other foreign power in our history. now Hitler Nazi Germany posed a great I am I suppressing my own opinion pose a great threat to the United States. I was in the Navy during the war and I did it voluntarily because I thought that Nazi Germany and Italy Japanese allies were threat a real threat to the United States and the world and I regard the war that we conducted to stop the Nazis as a just War a just War. And if there were another entity like that threatening us, then you can justify the entire military program are various ways of looking at it. Some people say look at Russia huge armaments. And they're pretty belligerent and going to Poland Czechoslovakia Afghanistan. They help the Cubans in the Ethiopians and Angola and so on and they can be up to no good. militarily strong and talkin loud Well the trouble with that argument is it is equally good on directed toward the United States. We are powerfully. militarized and Wellbutrin and if they're up to no good in the same argument holds to us, so we have to that's a draw we set that aside. Then what you have to say is that they're participating in the arms race in other words and racing means that you're trying to get somewhere. And then running very hard to be more powerful than us probably because they want to attack us or wipe out your well have to look at this. And of course it's the nuclear arms race, which is crucial and the fact of the matter is we started the race in 1945 by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the first Soviet response to that was the proposed that every nation give up nuclear weapons and forego that they would forgo the building of nuclear weapons and we would give up with whatever weapons we had. So we started and they said let's stop. We refused it's all on the record. Will you refused and so find a four years later in 1949 the USSR exploded its first atomic bomb. We started the race Summit going on behind us. And for a number of years. That's exactly what happened in 1948. We built the first InterContinental Barbara now, we had the bomb we had to deliver it. This is the Strange Love Thing remember the movie I just saw it again. It isn't funny anymore. By the way over there. That was a 1948. They got their first InterContinental bomber in 1955. We had an h-bomb in 1954. They were pretty fast. They had one in 1955. Then they beat us out on something. They had the First Intercontinental missile 1958 and 1957 and we had ours in 1958 so that they were Taking an initiative there since then we've been a header all the way in 1960. We had the first submarine missiles. They had them in 1966 and 1966. We had the multiple Warheads. They had it in 1968 the cruise missile in the neutron bomb, which we're going into now. They haven't even decided to do so then I think to be fair about it. You would have to say we started the arms race and the Russians have been trying their damnedest to keep up with us. So that you can't blame them for starting the arms race trying to use it in order to wipe us out. Well, then there's the question but they so aggressive and again there are facts to deal with. Yes. They are aggressive. They wanted to Czechoslovakia hungry the certainly intervening in Poland. They've gone into Afghanistan. We have gone into Korea. We've gone into Vietnam Cambodia to Dominican Republic we've intervened in a ran and I mean when we threw mossadegh out but the Shaw in and in Chile, so now I examine those two sets of data and you see it very interesting thing. Our incursions are all over the globe. There's are all on their borders and you have to ask this is like this like a PhD thesis compare and contrast the aggressive moves of the US and the USSR and you notice that they are aggressive on their borders and that I think begins to tell us what the purpose of their aggression is, and I'll make this as an hypothesis. My hypothesis is this at the aggressive moves made by the Soviet Union are reflection of an internal political problem in the structure of Soviet Socialist. The Soviet Union has developed socialism and continued a dictatorial control of the governance which many of its Socialist Communist adherents deplore. In fact the most serious criticism of the Soviet policy there comes from the largest Communist party in Western Europe the Italian Communist party, which criticized the invasion of Hungary Czechoslovakia, the Polish military government the invasion of Afghanistan. And after the new military government came in and Poland the Italian Communist Party announced that it would no longer regard the Socialist system in the Soviet Union as the proper path to develop socialism because it was trying to impose a dictatorial governments over the society. Now I go into that you may say this is sort of esoteric and someone I go into it because look if we're talkin if we say in response to every argument we've got four piece. Somebody comes along says what we can't trust the Russians are going to overrun us. We better understand what rush is about. I've been trying to describe the reasons for war. But if you ask where are the warp speed who's been fighting the wars? We haven't been fighting many of them. The Soviet Union has been fighting many of them 95% the wars since World War II have taken place in third world countries most of the casualties and they've been 25 million. 25 million have been blacks, Asian and Hispanic The engine of War since World War II is the gap between the rich countries and the poor countries. And is that Gap and you know what I'm talking about. If you sat over the North Pole and look down you would see most of the engineers teachers machines schools hospitals in the world. And if you said over the South Pole and look down you'll see most of the people And we are in a situation in which these countries are trying to raise themselves out of poverty and despair and they have for a long time been ruled by some group usually outside the country. They're trying to take over their own lives. Obviously they is going to Bill do it by force if necessary we come in and the Russians come in without competing ideologies and the result is basically Wars have been fought by blacks Hispanics and Asians third world wars as pawns as proxies for the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union we have poured on into these countries. Look at the figures. Wheatley in 1979 developing countries got 20 billion dollars in economic aid and they got ten billion dollars in military aid. Set between 1970 and 1979 non-opec third world countries non-opec countries spent 64 billion dollars on arms where the largest alarm salesman in the history of the world in other words. Here is this conflict going on. What is the link between that and everything? I've been saying about our military buildup and the Russians military building while I want to close by suggesting again is a high as on hypothesis. What the link is I think the link is this there is a basic question of how to govern the economy which arises in third world countries. These are countries which you're interested than Ashton the nationalistic they're interested in rebuilding a nation and then examine the various ways of doing it and say we are going to develop an economic policy, which is governed by the national interest and very often that results in the creation of something like a socialist society. Why because in a capitalist Society the only factor that governs whether you build a new steel factory or by Marathon Oil, which u.s. Steel did what do you build gas guzzlers or fuel efficient car? The one factor that makes that determination is maximization of private profit. That is what the magic of the marketplace is all about show the capitalism is not well suited to the development of an economy that is aimed at creating at a national interest. And I think now we can begin to see what ties it all together. The Soviet Union and the socialist countries believe in but they don't practice it social governance of the means of production here in the United States. We have an economy, which is being Degraded because we don't do make decisions that are in the National interest. It's profitable for us steel to buy Marathon the Marathon Oil company, but it produces need to steal your oil when they borrow money and that merger is carried out and what I'm saying is that we have to open up the whole question as to whether our economy or to be re-examined from the point of view of its ability to serve the national in wrist and whether we shouldn't break the grip of the corporation's on the structure of the entire economy. And I think that's what ties the whole thing together. Very very quickly. Say what I think all this is been a very abstract discussion in the sense, but you know, I'm a professor and I I like to do these things but I think this is the nub of electoral politics today. Take the the the issues and I know all of your concern with the fries. How are we going to get from that good step to literally disarm. How are we going to intrude and change the government's military policy. Every move that we and I assume we're all we all feel this way every move that we make we better the Reagan Administration. Please freezer. Please do this. We can't act because the Pentagon and the White House or in charge of the button. What I say is we have to look for things that we can do and I want to suggest you the citizens party has developed developing a national campaign to do the one thing with respect to the military, but we have the power to act and that is to pull every city and every state out of the evacuation civil defense program. You realize that the Pentagon can't push a button and get evacuation and I have to tell you the Reagan Administration to said flatly evacuation program is an essential part of our military policy. It tells the Russians that we're ready to conduct a nuclear war. And they say that that's what it's about. Well, we can block it because you can't push a button and get evacuation to do that. You've got to get the fire department and the police department in the hospitals in the traffic department in every city that's going to be evacuated to cooperate and I should tell you that in June the city council of New York refused the funds for an evacuation program and Philadelphia has done the same and about 20 smaller cities around the country and we in the citizens party. I try are going to try to get every city out of the civil defense program and at that point the Reagan Administration will have to say well our policy is not quite up to scratch and that's something we can do and I think we should act on The other thing that we can do is to recognize the links that I've been talkin about and I'll say again that you've got Miss disable running here. Traditionally liberal Progressive man in favor of the environment and so on and for the reasons, which I now hope I've made clear you cannot honestly stand for restoring the 95% cut in the Solar budget and the cuts and EPA unless you're willing to cut the military budget to get the money and I say that every liberal Progressive or to be challenged and asked to consider the fundamental question. What is our military policy about and at least open up the discussion so that we can get rid of this taboo? Why is this important? Because I think without it Are American electoral politics politics will continue to be the charade that we've been living through for the last 25 or 30 years 50% of the people don't vote them out apathetic. They don't see any reason to choose between the policies that are offered. and when they're the issues that we've been thinking about it and talking about debate turn up in the debates. Never. So that what we've got to do is to begin to attack this question. In order to rebuild the Vitality of American politics that is the instrument that we have to change the country's policies and the trouble trouble with that instrument is that it's become debilitated because it no longer confronts the difficult serious issues that explains why the citizens party was Bill. People always say all you know third parties. They never work. Look at Henry Wallace in the Peace and Freedom Party and so on they always forget the one third party that work the Republican party why because for years the country was faced with a moral issue the abolition of slavery and the Whigs and the Democrats the two main parties wouldn't touch every candidate they put up with a nonentity who wouldn't talk about slavery. That's why you don't remember the names of the presidents. So we liked it then Harrison pulp pierced Tyler then it is every one of them. They were chosen to being on that disease and of course. Carter Ford Reagan will be the 92 days of the current generation. Because they are afraid to deal with this fundamental issue of the real basis of peace and to do that. We have to have an independent political entity and that's what the citizens party is about. That's why we're running 82 candidates in 20 States. We've already elected three of three people to the city council of Burlington Vermont. Otherwise known as the People's Republic of Burlington. We came within six tenths of 1% of electing a city council member in Atlanta, Georgia, and we going to be electing people this fall and we're going to go on and introduced into Politics the real issues on which our economic survival and the survival of the world depends. Thank you. there are a number of ways in which people individually can can act in order to raise the level of Consciousness to remind people of their conscience and I respect all of those things as ways of of doing the problem with it is that that is again, Begging let me read you an interesting statement that Weinberger made. He said well, I can't find about tell you what it is. You said the trouble with the people are asking for peace is they aren't telling us how to prevent a war weinberger's position. Is that by arming with preventing a Soviet attack? And I think that's one problem. The other problem is that it's a question of who has the political power certainly demonstrations a very important 12th demonstration in New York three-quarters of a million people an unprecedented outpouring of people. What effect is it had on the policy of the United States government zero really it hasn't even had an effect on the discussion of the issue because here we are having campaigns and yes, there are few people saying I'm for the fries and the other guy says well, I'm for the pretty fries after we balance out the Armament and the Jew. 12 momentum is lost. And I think the reason for it is that we haven't learned how to translate our individual feelings, which is what was expressed that on June 12th. Into Collective political action, but you know, we can do things like that to let me tell you my own scheme for the 1984 elections, you know in the 80 elections people didn't a lot of our supporters didn't vote for us because they were afraid of Reagan they were right. They voted for Carter and what he's supposed going to happen in 84 most progressives are going to say let's get rid of Reagan. Then we'll start all over again. Don't bother me with citizens Party candidate and yet we want to keep going politically in my own suggestion, which I've already made within the party and I'll make it here is that what we are to do is run a presidential campaign in exactly one state Vermont to win. the win goes to electoral votes that will not throw the election to write, you know, whoever the Republican is. And if it turns out to be so close that those two electoral votes count. We will promise to support the Democrat in exchange for cabinet position. Let's say Are the reason why I mentioned it which I will likely do this. The reason why I mentioned it is that we have to be learned this kind of flexibility or gorilla tactics if you like