(00:00:00) Minnesota meeting has invited the major party presidential candidates to speak on a substantive issue of interest to our members. Today's speaker. Mr. Patrick Buchanan has emerged as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And in the spirit of April Fool's Day a lifelong liberal Democrat has been recruited to introduce him. Pat Buchanan has served as senior adviser to presidents Nixon Ford and Reagan. He traveled with President Nixon to the People's Republic of China accompanied. Mr. Nixon to the Moscow Yalta Summit and was with President Reagan at two Summits with mr. Gorbachev in Geneva and Rekha Vic. Rekha Vic as I recall was where President Reagan had to be restrained from agreeing as President Carter had once suggested that all nations should get rid of nuclear weapons whether our guest today was among those who helped haul him back from the brink of Peace. The public record does not reveal. Except for his years in and around the White House his Latter-Day months and his Latter-Day months of aspiring to occupy. It Pat Buchanan has been out as been a card-carrying journalist the card he carries his from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. He was writing editorials for the st. Louis globe-democrat at the age of 23, but unable to delete the word Democrat from his employers Masthead. He became an early staffer to Richard Nixon in one of that durable political leaders several resurrections. The one that brought him to the presidency by narrowly defeating Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey with the help of Minnesota's Gene McCarthy in 1968. When he left political office Pat Buchanan did not abandon politics in his syndicated column into Lively books as host of CNN's Crossfire and capital gang as panelist on the NBC PBS program McLaughlin group. He honed his analytical and debating skills. Fortunately for George Bush. The delegate count will probably save the president from an open public debate with Pat Buchanan a confrontation, which the television audience especially the Democrats would have greatly enjoyed. So with pleasure for boating and anticipation here is Patrick Buchanan. (00:02:52) Thank you very much. Mr. Ambassador for that extraordinarily gracious introduction. You know, whenever I receive one that witty and gracious and extended it always reminds me of another introduction I received when I was in Richard Nixon's White House back in 1974 after six years in that white house and it was the shortest introduction. I'd ever received in somewhat different many of my former colleagues Haldeman Colson ehrlichman and (00:03:21) Mitchell (00:03:23) had all gone off to their separate minimum security facilities. And I was invited to defend the Nixon administration at one of those Tony ivy league campuses. And the young Professor said, mr. Buchanan. Your introduction will be very brief and he got up and said students, please welcome. The only member of Richard Nixon's Inner Circle who could have traveled all this distance without first Consulting his parole (00:03:51) officer. (00:03:55) I recalled for the Ambassador that I had met him once before and it was in 1967 and I had joined Richard Nixon in 1966 as a young X editorial writer and mr. Nixon took four trips abroad in 67 and preparation for his Run for the presidency and he took me along on the fourth and final trip through the Middle East and Africa and we arrived in Morocco and as we got off the plane the Ambassador came up and said to his Raley's have struck and the Six-Day War was on and fortunately we had arrived in Morocco rather than Algeria where we were going to be the next day because our Embassy staff was locked up in a vault there. And so mr. Nixon and I had to cancel our entire trip to the Arab states and we flew back to Paris and the Ambassador came down to was right there then because the US was still in NATO was a US ambassador to Nato and I sat outside. Mr. Nixon's offices. He met General lemnitzer. I believe it was who headed NATO went on to see de Gaulle and the Ambassador was extraordinarily helpful. And I said, he is the quintessence of a diplomat. He was Ambassador to Nato and I have to tell you. Mr. Ambassador. I made up my mind. I was going to be ambassador to Nato one day. So 20 years later about our 1986. I applied for that job. As I was leaving the Reagan White House and then Iran-Contra hit and I have to say I went over to the state department and I flunked my orals before George Shultz so we didn't get the job. But I recall well your graciousness to mr. Nixon and myself and we were in Paris. Are interrupted trip. Let me talk about why I'm in the race. I am staying in the race what I think I've accomplished and what I think can be accomplished in terms of policy before we go to questions. When I first announced back in December, my friends in Washington said, this is just Pat trying to get away for a couple of weeks from Michael Kinsley on CrossFire. That's all this is about. And we did extraordinarily well in New Hampshire and subsequently in Georgia in terms of votes. We got almost 40 percent of the vote against the sitting president of United States in just 10 weeks of campaigning coming from no political office and no political base and there are reasons for that and some of the reasons I think are the reasons Jerry Brown is doing well in this country and that is in both parties. There is a deep alienation and disaffection from the leadership in Washington from the White House and certainly from the Congress of the United States. And so I have campaigned for about 15 weeks only now and I think we've had a dramatic (00:06:55) impact (00:06:57) certainly on President Bush we have thus far I think gotten the president to concede he made a mistake. And raising taxes and make a mistake in the budget deal. He agreed to and made a mistake in terms of spending too much. In other words. The purpose of my candidacy has been not only to capture the nomination if you can get it and win the presidency the big pot of gold but there are limited goals that are behind the Buchanan candidacy and I'd like to talk about some of them because they are why I'm continuing in this race despite the fact that we are losing something like fifteen to one among delegates, even though we're only losing 221 among votes. I think in some ways Pat Buchanan has been winning the national debate. Mr. Bush has been moving in our direction as many of you know, his speeches sound as though he picked up a copy of a Buchanan addressed. It was dropped somewhere along the trail in Georgia. He is becoming much more conservative and even more partisan in his rhetoric. But I'm going to stay in the race because the difference is within the Republican party as they are within the Democratic party are very very great. And this debate ought not to be shut off as long as some ideas and issues have not been heard by as many people as we can get to hear them. Let me tell you some of the areas of disagreement in terms of Economic Policy clearly the president raise taxes. He worked with Congress domestic spending has increased to 25 percent of gross national product. If you add defense that's the highest level in our history taxes are at the highest level and mr. Bush is regulations. He's been called the regulation president are at the highest level in our history much of what Ronald Reagan did and had done has been reversed in three years of George Bush. It is my argument. Whether you are a democrat or a republican, there is no question, but that the philosophy has failed us. If deficit spending with a road to Prosperity, we would have it because we have the greatest deficit now in American history four hundred billion dollars in Rising and if tax increases by the way to close that deficit, it would be closed because mr. Bush agreed with Congress on the largest tax increase in history to close that deficit both ideas were tried, I believe and have failed and considering the challenges. We now face, I believe the Cold War is Over is ending and the challenges we confront in the future are going to come from a dynamic European community and they're going to come from Dynamic Asian capitalism led by Japan. I don't think we can continue to carry the burden of 37 percent of our gross national product consumed by the federal government. When the Japanese government consumes only 33% I don't think we can continue with the highest tax rates on investment and Savings in terms of capital gains taxes and taxes on interest in the industrial world. If we want to get the kind of savings and investment, we're going to need to create the jobs that are not being created in places like New Hampshire where I visited I don't think there is any other alternative for our country but to get back up on what I call Freedom Road, and so I believe that a new Administration whether it's Democrat or Republican And I think only a republican would move it in that direction a Conservative Republican. You are going to have to deregulate this American economy. You're going to have to take the resources that government now consumes and return them to people to businesses and to Industries. You're going to have to squeeze the resources out of government and give them back. Otherwise American businesses small businesses, and I've talked to countless numbers of them. They will tell you we are going to Mexico they say we don't have OSHA regulations down there. We don't have EPA Afters. We don't pay those huge tax rates. We don't have minimum wage. We don't have Union rules and regulations and salaries many American liberals moderates have been responsible for a lot of the reforms. They consider a lot of the regulations imposed on business at the same time business charges higher prices because of these we are opening up the borders in terms of free trade two countries, which are going to take away American jobs in the thousands and the tens of thousands, you know, I used to be a dogmatic free Trader. In Ronald Reagan's White House. I was the one that told the president we're going to have to veto this shoebill. It's inconsistent with our beliefs and philosophy. But let me tell you a story. I went up to a small Mill in Northern New Hampshire. If any of you know it it's a beautiful portion of our country right up on the Canadian border in the snow and the whole economy up there is contingent upon one plant the James River paper mill 20% of the economy. And I went in there early in the campaign and I never campaign before and I saw these tough-looking characters along the wall glaring at me. And I said they've obviously seen me on CrossFire and they do not like me. And so I was hesitant to go up to talk to them. But when I did I went over to him and started shaking hands and one of them short stocky tough-looking fellow about my age looked up and he said save our jobs. And then I came down to Manchester figuring how I'm going to propose to do that and I saw with the American export-import Bank was lending money to an American businessman who was going to build a new paper mill in Mexico. There is an alienation out there among the American people. They believe that their government does not represent them anymore. And I think they have a point the let me get to an area now. I think I'm going to get a lot of disagreement in this room Pat Buchanan speaks for an America First foreign policy. I put that in contrast and in contradiction to mr. Bush's New World Order President Bush has been unwilling to come out in debate me. He has not even defined what he means by the new world order. But let me talk about one of the aspects of it where I disagree and that is in the issue of foreign aid. During the Cold War I supported foreign aid governments, like turkey and Pakistan and certainly in Central America to the contras El Salvador in elsewhere because I thought my country was engaged in a global and Titanic struggle against a malevolent Empire, which was bent upon our ruin. And I think that was correct, but that cold war is over and we have got to ask ourselves why this country for trillion in debt four hundred billion dollars in deficit continues to send out a check every single week for three hundred million dollars to third world and socialist regimes not one of which has gotten off Uncle Sam's welfare rolls in 20 years. Not one has gotten all foreign aid in 20 years. I think the American people are asking that question. I just saw on the wires George Bush today. And again, this has not been thought through as come out and endorsed to 24 billion dollar foreign aid package. (00:14:49) For the (00:14:50) Commonwealth of independent states the successor republics to the old dead Soviet Union. I think the president is making a terrible mistake. I'll tell you (00:15:00) why. (00:15:03) I don't think we want to get the Russian government hooked on foreign aid first and foremost. Secondly the Russian government it is itself mired in corruption and bureaucracy that has seen 50 billion dollars in various investment in foreign aid in the last two years sunk and lost. This is going to accomplish nothing. It will accomplish one thing because a lot of it is going through the international monetary fund and that is to bail out the German government and bail out the German banks. They are responsible for something like forty billion dollars in lending in the last several years to Gorbachev's dying regime. They are the ones who are holding all the paper when the international monetary fund gives the money to the Russian government to repay its debts. The American people are going to be signing on and underwriting loans to Russia which will be used to pay off loans from Germany of two and three years ago. I think that's a mistake. I think Russia needs to be helped the Ukraine need to be helped. They need humanitarian Aid whenever they need it and wherever it's possible, but the main thing they need is relief from the burden of debt. The old Soviet Union ran up its debt from 30 billion to 80 billion dollars under Gorbachev alone. Some of us who are conservatives at the time said don't lend the money. And the United States by and large did not we guaranteed about three or four billion dollars in agricultural loans. We will never see that money again. It will wind up on the national debt of the United States. But the Germans are the ones who poured in The Lending and for once the German government in the German banks should take the hit in this should not be imposed on I believe the taxpayers the United States and added on to our national debt as we just did with the Polish debt and the Egyptian debt. So I disagree with mr. Bush. I disagree with him in his policy toward Europe. We have won the Cold War Eisenhower said in 1950. We are going to Europe. For ten years to put our troops there to provide a shield behind which the Europeans can rebuild and our troops will remain 10 years. That's 42 years ago. Mr. Bush says we still need 150,000 troops. In Germany in Europe, why when the Red Army has gone home in the Soviet Union doesn't even exist. I think it is time that the German government undertook the full economic and Troop burden of its own defense and the same is true of the Japanese government and the same is true of the Korean government. I think we've got to take a look at all the institutions we all supported and built during the Cold War and see if they are relevant to the new age. And I don't think we are doing that. I don't think mr. Bush is I think he's a good decent honorable Patriotic Man Who has served his country ably in war and in peace, but I do believe that George Bush is a man of yesterday and he is not looking in my judgment at the issues of tomorrow. (00:18:36) So those are two of the (00:18:37) areas where I disagree with mr. Bush and I deeply regret that we have not had a national debate on this. What do we argue about in Michigan? Why did Pat Buchanan buy his wife a Mercedes? Three years ago that is a substitute for debate as is all the epithets and attack ads and all the rest of it. We've been getting as a substitute for debate. So finally, let me tell you why I'm running and why I think Minnesota minnesotans even those who disagree should vote for Pat Buchanan. One let's keep the national debate going even if I can't get the nomination. I don't think the Republican party or the Republic are going to be deeply damaged by an open Free Fair debate on where we are going as a country. Are we going toward greater and greater government? And are we going toward this new world order or should we sit down in debate American foreign policy and whether we ought to move toward a more traditional American foreign policy where we are engaged in the Affairs of mankind in travel and tourism and culture and trade maintaining friendships with every nation that wants to be a friend of the United States, but diminish and reduce some of these military alliances which will put our country Forever at risk of going to war in Corals in conflicts where no vital interest of the United States is engaged. And where we I believe have no real business many of you may have seen that Pentagon document that came out about three weeks ago. It would have the United States maintained (00:20:24) its (00:20:25) its single-minded Gemini militarily in the world and us going to war whenever our friends interests Were Somehow jeopardized mean that is not American tradition and I think there are some great old traditions that can be restored. They call me an isolationist, but that's not true. The United States of America 250 million strong is going to be the greatest force in the world indefinitely. But is it really necessary for the United States to automatically have its soldiers be the first to die. If the North Koreans should invade South Korea again. These are all valid questions. So again, I'm going to stay in the race as long as we have resources to do so. In order to keep the national debate going in order to provide a vehicle of protest against not only the Republican establishment in the white house, but this Congressional establishment, which I believe is is so as out of touch with the country and which desperately needs turning over. This check kiting Scandal is is really the the final straw you've seen the S&L Scandal the chip can check kiting Scandal. You've seen the secret midnight pay raises. They give businessmen orders on how to manage your their Affairs and these fellows have not balanced a budget in 23 years. They can't even manage their own post office and their own rinky-dink bank and they're given the whole country lectures on how it should conduct himself. They exempt themselves from civil rights laws. Any discrimination laws wage and hour laws EPA laws. I think the country wants a vehicle of protest against the establishment of both political. Parties and even if we can't turn them over this year, we're going to continue to provide that vehicle of protest and that's another reason why I would hope that some voters would say in Minnesota Shake Up The Establishment. There's no better way to do that than a ballot on Tuesday for Patrick J Buchanan. Thank you very much. I'll be happy to go to your (00:22:32) questions. (00:22:45) Thank you. Mr. Buchanan have a first question over here from Carlos Louise. Mr. Buchanan. You probably don't remember me, but I remember you very vividly. We had a long conversation that a party that was thrown by secretary stands and attorney general or the Attorney General Mitchell when they escaped from the court in, New York. And you were a Patrick Buchanan at that time with a lot of ideas very youthful and very aggressive now. I've you were not useful anymore. You were not exactly that same Pat Buchanan many times when I've watched you on CrossFire and now since you'll become candidate you Cannon you don't seem to be the same Buchanan again that was on CrossFire and I've wondering if you do happen to get elected. Are you hot what confidence can we have that you will be a President Buchanan? That is the same as the candidate Buchanan. Well, yours is a question variations of which. I've gotten all through the campaign and they say it much more bluntly. I said, how do we know we can trust you? And it's a very good question because the American people and the people of Minnesota have placed their faith in one political leader after another only to see them go to Washington and betray that Faith or do the exact opposite of what they said they would do. That cynicism that is out. There is something that is there and I can't change it and the skepticism extends to me. All I can tell them is listen. I was had to what do you think? I came off this television show to challenge the president of the United States and what everybody said was a futile and ridiculous effort. If I didn't if I wasn't as fed up or even more so than you with what has been done in my name and by leaders of my party who said they would do otherwise so you're at right. I'm going to have to ask people to put a measure of trust in me. Now you say Pat Buchanan is different. He may be older. He's not youthful. But I think if you take what Pat Buchanan was saying and writing is an editorial writer in nineteen, sixty two and three and four and five with what I'm saying in 1992, you will find a greater and stronger thread of consistency than you will find in the political record of almost anyone else in American politics and you take a look and I think you will find that thread of consistency. There's no question that My Views are changing on certain things with regard to trade the free trade and with regard to troops in Europe. I mean, I opposed all the old man's field amendments. I said, we've got to keep our troops right there because to draw them down would invite some sort of Soviet adventurism when Khrushchev or Brezhnev was in charge, but that situation has changed. And so I think as our condition is a new we have to think and act Anew and but the principles you will find are as consistent as with anyone in American politics liberal or conservative. (00:26:04) Thank you. Mr. Buchanan. We have a question now from Barry night. (00:26:07) Mr. Buchanan. Let's assume that (00:26:10) it's July or August and bushes the nominee for the Republicans and someone for the Democrats. Would you support the candidacy of H Ross Perot? (00:26:22) No for president. I think that's what Ross is thinking up. No, I've got a belief an old belief that if you run for the nomination of your party and you are beaten in a fair fight and by and large, it's been a fair fight that you got an obligation to support the nominee who defeats you so I would support George Bush for that reason. Secondly, I think mr. Bush has done some good things. Bangs and I'm a Republican and I've always supported our party's nominee, even though I supported Governor Reagan against President Ford in 1976. So I'm not going to support any Third Party candidate and I'm not going to run as a third party candidate but I think Ross Perot has a potential to do real damage ultimately to the Republican Party in the general election because Ross Perot basically is much closer to Pat Buchanan. He is to Jerry Brown, although he is getting the votes in these polls of both Buchanan's people and Browns people. So I think he's got potential to do real damage to mr. Bush. And this is the that's a second wake-up call to the White House. We gave me a wake-up call and December and January that they won't forget and now they're getting another one and I think it if this will put pressure on mr. Bush to move closer to the positions of Pat Buchanan, I think, But I think he's got a potential to do real damage in the fall. Thank you. Mr. Buchanan a question here from Ron speed. You've mentioned some of the areas in which you take issue with the president. I wondered if you might comment on some of the issues in which you're the most most supportive of the president. I think that one area where the president has proceeded along the lines that that Ronald Reagan did is is in appointments to the Supreme Court in the federal Judiciary. I'm a Believer in strict constructionists. I don't want to get into the whole debate over over the young lady and Clarence Thomas, but I do think in terms of choosing nominees. Mr. Bush has chosen individuals who would not interpret who would really interpret the laws and hold them up against the constitution in terms of original intent. I think that's exactly right. So certainly in court appointments. I think mr. Bush has done a good job and number of other areas though. I believe he has been a big government Republican Elation Republican and and and the New World Order and this is why I got into this race. I'm like Teddy Kennedy getting in against Jimmy Carter where their disagreements I think we're more personality my disagreements with the way. Mr. Bush has governed are very Broad and very deep and when you hear my old friend and his old friend Ronald Reagan's say, I don't know where George Bush really stands. I think that's what it summarizes the sentiment of a number of us. And I think what is happening in America is maybe the parties are splitting up a new coalition's and alliances are forming and I think mr. Bush is honest and sincere. He is a man of government. He believes in what he is doing and he believes I think in his new world order even though he doesn't defend it and and maybe mean I belong in the Republican party, but we are clearly on opposite sides of it. So I can't think of anything right now any major area right now where I'm an enthusiastic agreement with? Mr. Bush, except it. Billy Clinton should not be president. (00:29:49) Thank you. We have a question now from Tim Stoddard. If you were elected president and next year this time the Japanese government gave you a call and said how would you like to come over and pay us a visit? I'd like to know what would be on your agenda first who if any corporate Executives you'd invite along. (00:30:12) First I would say I'd like to see the menu you served. Mr. Bush and we're not going to have that. I'll tell you I guess when you get out on the campaign Trail your called things like Japan Basher and the rest. I am not I think the Japanese have worked very very hard for everything. They've gotten in the post-war era. They have strong family values there. They work they sacrifice and save and invest and they do they make tremendous products and it's a testimony both to us the tremendous job. We did in the post-war era in Japan and it's a testament to them. But my view looking at the world is different than mr. Bush's I think he sees it as sort of Skull and Bones International All the members of the club and we all get together and decide what's best for the club. I don't I see it much more in a darwinian sense. If you will, I think the Japanese Mitte Japanese industry the government. I think all of them are determined and dedicated to make their country first first economically and whatever comes after that. I think they are sacrificing and saving and planning with the same measure of attentiveness with which 60 years ago their military planners planned and I think they're doing it now in terms of economics and they're seeking economic hegemony and Asia and eventually in the world and they want Japan to be first and I think we need a president who puts America first. You go over to the Japanese you sit down and you say we have given you extraordinary access to America's markets when you were flat on your back and you've used that to Great advantage and it was a good thing that we did but now there's going to be full reciprocity. We get full access to your markets are you don't get full access to our markets. It's as simple as that the idea that you sell 2 million cars in the United States, both Imports and domestic products and we sell 16,000. There isn't an equity we're going to deal with it some way. We know that you're buying up trying to build supercomputers in the rest and we know your tactics and strategies of getting American ideas replicating them building excellent products charging higher in your own market and then dumping in America's market the way you took over VCRs and radios and TVs. We know how that works. That's not our system. It's your system you can Keep it. We're not gonna let you bring down our Industries the way you've been bringing them down in the past and we're going to play hardball and so in the sense, I am no longer in that sense of free Trader and with our European friends. There's a four-nation cartel building Airbus subsidizing with tens of billions of dollars and one of its executive said, you know, we'll give them away if we have to their purpose is very simple. They don't make profits. They want market share their up around 30 percent now lockheed's out of the business McDonnell Douglas is shaky and they're going after bowing and I would tell the Europeans. I know what you're doing. We're not socialist you maybe but we are not going to let you bring down the companies that built the planes at KIPP Europe free it is as simple as that and I would be prepared to act on behalf of us interests. And this is a disagreement with mr. Bush. I am very much an economic nationalist. And I think he is a globalist and I think the country is moving in my direction. I know it is there are Folks up there in New Hampshire and in Michigan, even those who wouldn't let me into their union halls and let me into their plants who are very very angry and who are justifiably so and so I would be very tough and defending the national interest of my country as I saw them. Let me give you another example on trade. I went down to this Alice Alice textile manufacturing plant in South Carolina. It is a magnificent thing. It's nothing like it New Hampshire spreads over acre after acre. They brought in all the latest equipment some of it they brought abroad and they turn out now five hundred thousand yards a week and these giant balloons are machines are rolling this out. They've only got 400 employees and they've tripled production with the same number of employees and they said I'll tell you this though. Mr. Buchanan, we pay our workers 850 an hour half of them are minorities and women would give me 115 our and benefits including Health Care $10 an hour, but we can't compete with 28 cents an hour Chinese slave labor. Chinese are dumping their products textile products and apparel into the United States. And if you open it up, they'll take this company down and every textile manufacturer in the United States. So those of us who are free Traders have to ask ourselves. Do we want to see the textile industry taken down in the United States and destroyed if that is the price we have to pay for religious adherence to the doctrines of free trade and in my own mind. I've come around to the view. No. No, my view is we put our own country on our own people first and if that requires sacrifices of us as consumers in order to help our unemployed fellow Americans who are fellow citizens, so be it. So this is one of the corals it's going on inside conservatism today, but I think even though our side is if you will has no support on the op-ed pages in The editorial Pages its support in the country is growing. So I would be at a trade Hawk. I'm not a protectionist, but I would be a trade Hawk. Thank you. You are listening to Patrick Buchanan candidate for the Republican nomination for president speaking to the Minnesota meeting on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio have a next question here from Helen (00:36:17) Yates. Mr. Buchanan, how would you describe the present delivery of Healthcare in the United States? And if you are the (00:36:26) president what changes or agenda or reform would you direct well, the quality of the health care that is provided in the United States. And of course Minnesota is the nation's leading example is the best in the world. I mean when individuals foreign dictators who can't stand us get sick. They come to the Good Ol USA in Canada where they have a system more socialized Healthcare people who have who need heart surgery. They go down to Cleveland come in a hundred a year to Cleveland. So I think what the United States has is this outstanding medical system and Technology far ahead of anyone in the world that we want to maintain. At the same time we have a very large segment of the population which has no real access to it, especially for catastrophic illness. And that's the working class folks who have no health insurance. Well, those are going to welfare have Medicaid and that's an inequity and that's an injustice in the system. The problem with correcting it now is the extraordinary cost involved more than 12 percent of our gross national product goes for healthcare. I think that's double what they have in Great Britain, Senator. Bob carries program would have involved a seven percent payroll tax increase to provide Health Care to these people I'm talking about that would have sunk 10 to 25% of the small businesses in the USA. Our problem is we have this need out there at the same time. We have our four hundred billion dollar deficit So my view is the direction in which this is and Tehran speeds question. Mr. Bush is headed in the right direction on health care. I think through tax credit ideas, but the problem is we don't have the money right now and let me give you an example of that. I was in Ronald Reagan's White House and argued against the catastrophic health insurance plan because a lot of people who knew a lot more than I did about it, which was a great majority came in and told me this isn't going to work and sure enough. We work with Congress and passed it placing the burden on rich older folks to pay for the catastrophic health insurance for those on Social Security who really needed it most and the next scene. We saw was the gray Panthers chasing Danny rostenkowski down a little Sal Street to his limousine on national television, and he went back to Washington and they repealed the whole thing. And so I've used this example up in New Hampshire to say before we do something that is enormous compared to that relatively small catastrophic Health thing. We've got is we've got to take a good hard look at costs and consequences. And and so that's sort of basically my view. I'm much more simple sympathetic to mr. Bush's Fabian approach if you will, thank you. Next question here from Ken darling. (00:39:19) Thank you. I've got a hypothetical for you. Mr. Buchanan. Let's say tomorrow a nephew or a grandson came to Big Shiner broken arm may be cracked ribs, very injured and said Grand dad or Uncle Pat six guys jumped me yesterday and beat me up. I'm gay. That's why they did this to me. They beat me up. Brutally. Hmm. (00:39:40) Well you speak out against anti-gay violence, or will you continue on the path that you followed so far in this campaign and inflamed people (00:39:47) who want to hurt gays and lesbians in our (00:39:50) society. Well the premise of your question Is is wrong. I think obviously if if the boy had been beaten up by six people they older and had been beaten up badly wasn't simply a schoolyard fistfight or wasn't a playground fight and amounted to a criminal assault. Then I would go down to the police station. We would file charges against the individuals. I think the reason first we haven't even discussed the issue of lesbian and gay rights because it has not been an issue in any single primary. I've been involved in but let me give you my views on it. Anyhow, I don't think and it was not the issue of homosexuality was never even an issue when I was writing editorials or in the 70s what made it an issue is a demand by out of the closet homosexual gay and lesbians to be included in civil rights laws as a protected group along with blacks and Hispanics and women and I oppose that I still oppose that I don't want it included in the in the civil rights laws at the federal level and I'm gonna continue to say so because I believe that proclivity aside people are responsible for their behavior. And I don't think that is moral behavior. And I don't think it's behavior that should be sanctioned by law. So that's my view and I realized that gets me called a lot of names but I will say this that I probably have been called many more names in this campaign that I've called anyone including individuals who are gay and lesbian of whom I know I have many friends and and who's many of whom I respect but I disagree with them on their agenda. And that's why I get called names and it's why I get called names by the supporters of the Israeli Lobby in Washington and the so-called civil rights Lobby when it's demanding quotas and I'm going to hold on to those views despite the names. (00:41:52) Thank you. Mr. Buchanan. We have a question now from Bob stassen. (00:41:57) Mr. Buchanan number of questions have been asked or what you would do. If you were elected president (00:42:04) you indicate that your that really isn't your primary goal at this point, (00:42:07) but you was Republican party further to the right. I would like to ask you what specific strategies and tactics. Will you employ at the Republican convention or leading up to the National Convention to attempt to move the Republican Party closer to your views? All right, I wouldn't first. I don't know that I would use the views right and left and anymore and a lot of these issues but I haven't decided what strategy I'm going to use it to Convention. I haven't figured out how I'm going to get into the Hall. Yet you have to win five states to get nominated and we're 5 short of that right now. I think they've got a ten o'clock slot on Saturday morning for 10 minutes for me to speak right now. I don't know what we're going to do and I'm not going to let that bother me because I didn't get in the campaign to deliver a speech on national television and but I will say this the Republican Party better wake up. Under Ronald Reagan like him or not. We were the party of ideas. He whether supply-side economics or Reagan Doctrine STI. We had ideas. We're willing to debate ideas with our antagonists and with our friends. Under mr. Bush, we have become a party that is terrified of ideas and refuses to bait and wins primaries by keeping me off balance and out of convention Halls. Now you can do that for a while and keep power. But the American people are catching on and if I were, mr. Bush and his people I would say, you know, we beat Buchanan well with attack ads and overwhelmed him with money and we had surrogates we had mrs. Bush and Air Force One and we have to spend him for and 521. But he was getting 37 35 percent of the vote and a lot of our voters who are voting for us. They said in the polls that they agreed more with him when we asked them about issues. So maybe we ought to have these issues and ideas aired at our (00:44:13) convention. (00:44:15) And so that's what we're going to want to do get them aired and get these get his get as much as we can before the country at that convention because that's what it's all about. But that call is really up to them. They're going to run rules. They're going to stack all the platform committees. They can decide who speaks and who doesn't so I think they're going to they're going to give an accounting of themselves at that convention, but we're ready to go there and do battle for the things. We believe in me and my 46 delegates. Thank you. Mr. Because we're going to get a couple in Minnesota though because here it is proportional question from Howard self. (00:44:52) Mr. Buchanan, it would seem that following the collapse of the Communist imperialism. They're generally would be on the world scene either two choices order or disorder. (00:45:04) We know that you don't like the New World Order (00:45:06) concept which hasn't been defined. But what do you see for the 21st century basically order or (00:45:13) disorder? Good question. I see disorder. I see it. In the Soviet Union, let me say this. I see radical change, but I don't think we ought to be afraid of change. We had the most dramatic changes we've seen almost in our lifetimes in the Soviet Union in the last two years and they have been for the better. I think radical change when it comes to China and Cuba is going to be for the better and that's coming to but again, here's where I disagree with. Mr. Bush. I think the defining force of the new era is going to be nationalism. We see it in the breakup of the Soviet Union. There is a healthy nationalism. We saw in the Baltic republics and we see in Croatia and Slovenia and Ukraine and of course, there's a rabbit in unhealthy nationalism. We saw in the 1930s, but nationalism economic and political are going to be the driving forces. They are already in Russia in the old Soviet Union in Central Europe. I think nationalism is going to take apart the European Community. I think my streak is the high point of the EC. I think that the German tendency to try to dominate EC now with raising interest rates and initiating the recognition of Croatian and Meeting with what's his name down in Austria. I think what we're going to see is the European Community pull further apart as the people's there come to recognize what is involved in a lessening of their sovereignty to go into the European Community giving up their currency giving up their foreign policy giving up Environmental Policy. I think nationalism is the coming driving force in the United States as we know ethnic self-identity. You see it rapidly in New York City you see Canada almost breaking up over over language and culture. So I think what you're going to see is sort of devolution. I mean Scotland pulling away Lombardi and Italy pulling away and I think all these larger units are going to be breaking be broken down or attempts are going to be made to break them down. Just as a Soviet Union didn't survive. I don't know that India is going to survive as a single unit. And so I think these are the forces that are going to be driving for change my view of the United States of America though is by and large these forces don't threaten us indeed in many cases. They have been allies of the things we believe in I think we should have recognized Croatia and Slovenia and the breakup of Yugoslavia doesn't threaten us and I think what came out of the Soviet Union is certainly better than what was before. And so I think the United States ought to take something of a hands-off attitude toward quarrels where we don't have any vital interest threatened. And let mean in stand back and let some of these Regional Powers Germany and Japan and others strengthen themselves build up their own defenses be responsible for problems in their own backyard rather than have us being responsible. But I think you know in this is as much analysis as it is advocacy and I think it's coming and I think America First is a foreign policy is coming. I think foreign AIDS going to be phased out. I think no matter what happens to me. Those troops are coming home from Europe in look at that four hundred billion dollar deficit. Look at the problems Americans have God look at mr. Bush how he hesitates about bailing out the Soviet Union when all the establishments are both parties want him to do it. He knows the sentiment of this country and I think that's the way we're (00:49:01) headed. Thank you. We have a question now from Bob White. Question about the domestic economic growth and economic policy and the legacy of the Reagan Administration some studies over the last week or so suggest that that the very top income earners in the 80s got most of the growth Kevin Phillips suggested a week ago that the upper class got the gold mine in the middle class got the shaft and what has (00:49:30) an excellent way of putting things (00:49:34) whether you're not agree with his his analysis if those numbers are anywhere near correct? What would you suggest be done about it in the 1990s? (00:49:45) I know Kevin's thesis and I've read his book and he got the gold mine and I got the shaft as an old country music song from about 40 years ago. I think that's that's hyperbole. There's no doubt that the well-to-do in America did extremely well in the night. 80s and some of them especially some of these Wall Street Buccaneers virtually gave capitalism a bad name. I think with the tearing apart of various companies simply dilute them and milk them of the resources and then cast aside the various parts without any consideration for the people who work there and The Barbarians at the gate if you want to read a book that is an excellent description of where capitalism I think was right and where it was wrong as an excellent example that but where Kevin Phillips is wrong is under Ronald Reagan's economic growth United States of America created 20 million jobs, 20 million new jobs. Now Ivan boesky didn't get all of those jobs. And so an awful lot of people went to work and had jobs black teenage unemployment. One of the indicators that was always at 50% in the Reagan years fell some years to 30% So I think the Reagan years in the Reagan Revolution did some tremendous things for this country. The European said, how did the Americans create this great jobs machine. And so I think he did some tremendous things but things did happen in the Reagan years some of which the president couldn't control and one is the family breakup mean we found I was in the White House that the increase in poverty was almost exclusively among women who had been abandoned by their husbands or boyfriends who just walked off and left him with the kids and they fell into poverty. So women and children increased in poverty. I don't know what Ronald Reagan was supposed to do about that. As for what we do economically, I think if we get into the old business of saying well the way to solve our economic problems. It's let's go get Ross Perot's billion dollars and spend it on good causes by taxing him back at 70 percent or 50 percent or 90 percent. I think that would be a terrible mistake. I think Reagan moved in the right direction. His failures came and the fact that he did not cut back the growth of government using the veto as much as he said he would he did the right thing on taxes and he did the wrong thing on spending too often and I think he agrees with that many times. He should have vetoed those continuing resolutions that came down from Congress and shut the government down temporarily put it on emergency status simply to show the country that he stood for Less spending and and they was the Democrats who were for more spending, but I think the 80s I mean, especially in comparison with the 1990s if you take a look at it. In one one statistic under Ronald Reagan. We had 90 months of economic growth the longest peacetime growth in the history of the United States under George Bush. We have had three years with virtually zero growth Reagan did give us 200 billion dollar deficits and 90 months of growth George Bush gave us four hundred billion dollar deficits and zero growth. So there is a difference.