Flint, Michigan Interview With Joe Stroud and Remer Tyson of the Detroit Free Press.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AUTOMOBILE

INDUSTRY

Q. Well, let's start off with the unemployment, which a lot of people are talking about in Michigan—in view of the hardship that some people in Flint, as you pointed out, have endured and so forth, explain to us how you can ask somebody who's unemployed to vote for you again. Why should he?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, first of all, you have to analyze the source of the unemployment and the reasons for it. I believe we've done everything we could to add jobs in this Nation, at an increase of 8 1/2 million in the last 3 1/2 years. The unemployment rate has been fairly stable now in spite of the tremendous adverse impact of oil prices doubling. And we've had a chance to assess the problems, specifically in the automobile industry, which is crucial to this particular area.

The fact that 'OPEC prices went up 120 percent in 1 year—and the cumulative effect of that and the previous increases have made Americans shift their buying habits for cars has created I think what's a transient problem in the automobile industry of this Nation. The manufacturers have announced collectively that they will invest about $80 billion in modernization over the next 5 years—an unprecedented investment, I might say, in any industry in our country. And I think that the new desire of American people to both produce cars and to buy the kind that we are making now is a healthy thing for the future.

We've extended unemployment compensation. The TRA program has helped to provide a transient opportunity for workers to shift and to accommodate unfair import impact. We've had a chance to increase the commitment of funds for CETA and are trying to expand the youth program. We are opening up additional opportunities for the export of American goods. We've tried and successfully tried, to keep the dollar stable. I believe that what we've done in the economic area so far has minimized the damage caused by uncontrollable and unpredictable change in American buying habits and its impact on the automobile industry.

The other thing that we've done for this industry is to form a working partnership between government and the automobile industry and, I think, we've helped to form a working partnership between management and labor in the automobile industry to deal with this crisis, but which will have a permanently beneficial impact.

I think you know that we've provided loan guarantees for Chrysler, when my opponent said, you know—what did he say exactly?

Q. "What's wrong with bankruptcy?"

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, "what's wrong with bankruptcy?" He's also characterized unemployment compensation as "prepaid insurance for loafers." He's been against the minimum wage. He's been against many of the programs that we've advocated that would be helpful in this respect.

So, I think when you compare what we've done, what we have in mind for the future, the new partnership that we have which has enthusiastically been endorsed by all the elements involved, and in comparison between me and Reagan, the arguments for voting for me are very formidable.

Q. But what you're saying is, as tough as the problems are and how the difficulty overcome, the voter would be a lot better off with you than if he was with Reagan?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes. I think there's no doubt about that. And the primary measure of an objective analysis would be the United Automobile Workers, and I think they've analyzed it probably as deeply and as personally and as intensely as any group could possibly do. And I believe that the message that they are sending out is to confirm what I just described to you.

POLITICAL ROLE OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

Q. One of the questions that came up in the Baltimore debate and has had a good bit of attention has been the question of the proper role of organized religion in politics. There's been discussion of it both in terms of the right-wing Evangelicals and the Catholic bishops. As a born-again Christian, what do you think is the proper role of religion on such questions as abortion and prayer in the schools and equal rights, other issues?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think anyone has a right to voice a personal opinion, whether it be a believer in a particular religious faith or a minister or pastor or rabbi who is a leader of a congregation or a flock. I see nothing wrong with that, and I believe it's vital in our society to let those views be expressed.

When there is an organized attempt, highly financed, to shape the outcome of an election by a religious group, using tax-exempt status or using the right to the public airwaves, it brings into the scope of the question an additional concern. Also, the attempt to equate a belief, on whether or not we have a Department of Education or whether or not there's a treaty between us and Panama, with a particular definition of whether that person is a Christian I think that exceeds the boundary of what has been the case in the past with acceptable religious groups.

I have never found any incompatibility between my own religious faith and my duties as President. I believe in the separation of church and state. I don't believe that these "radical" groups are going to have a profound effect on the political system of our country, because I trust the sound judgment of the American people. And although there might be some transient effect because of the newness of it and the fact that Americans haven't yet assessed the long-range impact, I believe that there won't be any permanent adverse consequences from it.

U.S. MILITARY STRENGTH

Q. Ronald Reagan says your vacillation and our military weakness has led to an imbalance of power in the Middle East, and that's led to the war there. And also, today you mentioned over at Flint High School that he said he'd withdraw the SALT II treaty because "the one card that's been missing in these negotiations has meant the possibility of an arms race, Now the Soviets have been racing, but with no competition." Have we been letting military power get away from us?

THE PRESIDENT. The Republicans ran the White House for 8 years before I got there. Seven of those years we had a real decrease in expenditures for defense in dollars, discounting inflation. I'm a professional military officer—that's my training-and I'm also from the South, where strong defense is a major commitment of almost any person who runs for public office. And when I became President, I believed that we needed to strengthen our defense commitment instead of letting it deteriorate further as the Republicans had done.

We've had a steady, sustained, predictable, well-organized increase each year in real dollars, above and beyond inflation, in our defense establishment. We had to change some of the ill-advised Republican proposals like, for instance, the B-1 bomber and shift toward more efficient means of protecting our so-called triad in the strategic weapon field by the airlaunched cruise missiles. The Trident submarine program was at a stalemate when I took over. We're now progressing on schedule with the Trident submarines and the associated missiles with it. And, of course, the MX missile needs to be deployed, and we've worked out a mobile system for deployment that will make it relatively invulnerable to Soviet attack.

I'm deeply concerned about what Governor Reagan said concerning abandoning the SALT II treaty and injecting, for the first time since Harry Truman was President, the concept of an arms race, nuclear arms race, as a factor in the control of those weapons that could destroy the world. This is a radical departure from what other Presidents have done. And as you know, the SALT II treaty was the culmination of negotiations that were originated under President Nixon, carried out by President Ford, and concluded by me.

I have a reluctance to comment specifically on this matter, because it is so profoundly important a matter, until I can study what Reagan actually said and assess the consequences of what he would propose on our relationship with the Soviet Union, prospects for future control of nuclear weaponry, the impact on our allies, who are deeply concerned about successful implementation of SALT treaties. I think until I have a chance to consider more carefully the far-reaching effect of his proposal or the implementation of it for our country, I'd rather limit my response to what I've already said.

PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN STYLE

Q. Mr. President, there's been some talk lately—and the Reagan camp has made a good bit of it—about what's sort of called the "meanness issue," that there's somehow a mean side of Jimmy Carter that shows up in such issues as the Atlanta speech and the painting of Reagan as warmonger. Would you talk a little about that? I saw an editorial just a few days ago that speculated at some length about that.

THE PRESIDENT. In your paper?

Q. No. [Laughter]

THE PRESIDENT. There've been a couple of editorials in your paper that I've read. I have always tried to be very moderate in my campaign. I very seldom mention my opponents' names. And I try to spell out issues so the audience can understand them. And when I have, in an extemporaneous forum, as a candidate for State senator or Governor or President in '76 or President now, made some comment that was misinterpreted or which because of brevity didn't adequately describe my real feelings, I've always tried immediately to correct any misimpressions.

After the Atlanta speech, I had a national press conference, as you remember. I think I had four questions on the subject. In each case I said I did not intend to imply and did not imply in my mind that Reagan was a racist. I do not think he is and have never thought he was. I did deplore the injection into the campaign from any source of the Ku Klux Klan or racism.

Also, following the statement in Los Angeles, I was going down a litany of differences that might exist between success or failure, prosperity and so forth, and war and peace as a result of the outcome of the election. I didn't intend to imply and did not imply that any President, including Reagan if he should become President, wanted a war. But immediately I had a television interview, which was distributed—a transcript—to all of the press—and then Jody pointed out that on many occasions in the last few years, eight or ten occasions, Governor Reagan has indeed advocated the injection of American military forces into an area of the world that was troubled, where the solution to the trouble was obviously diplomatic in scope. This involved Peru, Cyprus, Lebanon, Angola, and other places around the world, Korea, Cuba.

I don't know what Reagan would do if he were President, if a crisis like that should arise—whether his inclination to put military forces into a troubled area would be terminated if he should become President, or if that would be part of his attitude towards the crisis.

I do know this—that the Presidency is a lonely job. You have to make a decision on your own. You can't turn over the Presidency to advisers or to a Vice President. On almost every crucial issue, advisers are divided in their counsel to you, and the more vivid an issue is, the more important it is, and the more profoundly significant it might be, the more likely the advisers are to be 50-50 or divided almost equally. The best thing for a President to do if faced with a potential crisis is to handle it so it does not become a crisis, so that it doesn't affect hundreds of lives or hundreds of millions of lives.

I think that that judgment and that management of a crisis, that general inclination towards peace or a peaceful settlement of a dispute or the attempt to settle a dispute by weapons is a legitimate issue in the campaign. And I say that being cautious about my words, but also reemphasizing that I'm not accusing Reagan of wanting a war. But I do know that in a troubled world, on the closest possible margins of decision, there is the option of either the use of weapons or the commitment to try to resolve a dispute peacefully, and that's a judgment that the American people will have to make.

AMERICAN HOSTAGES IN IRAN

Q. There's another thing that Reagan has said, and as a matter of fact, I think he said it today. I heard on a newscast that you were accused of using the hostage issue in the primaries for your political gain. And he would expect an October surprise, and he wouldn't be surprised if the hostages came home before election. If you're trailing Reagan in the polls in the last week in October, are the hostages coming home before election day?

THE PRESIDENT. I would pray that the hostages would come home at the earliest possible moment regardless of the date of the election. I have never failed, any morning when I woke up, to pray that God would let those hostages come home safe at the earliest possible moment. I've never used the hostage issue for political purposes and never will.

The allegation that I would play with the lives of innocent hostages for political purposes or delay their coming home to have some good news just before an election is ridiculous, and his further statement that I somehow or another caused the war between the Iranians and the Iraqis is, you know, is ridiculous.

Q. Talk just a minute about.—

THE PRESIDENT.—try to avoid saying things, you know, about that.

Q. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

THE PRESIDENT. It's all right.

Q. But there was an awfully early press conference just before the Wisconsin primary-not a press conference, but appearance—and you talked about the hostages, and a lot of people said, "There's Jimmy Carter now trying to get onto the 'Today' show so he can stop Teddy Kennedy in Wisconsin to win." And I'd just like for you to respond to that.

THE PRESIDENT. One time since last November we have had every element in Iran committed to let those hostages go, and that was that particular morning. It happened to be the morning of some primaries. We had an average, I think, of six Primaries a week during that whole period. I mean it was almost impossible to find a time that wasn't before or after or during a primary.

We got up at 4 o'clock that morning, waiting for the final culminating public statement from the President of Iran that would confirm that the negotiations that we had formed with them were successful. The militant students had agreed to let the hostages go, the President of Iran had agreed to let the hostages go, the Revolutionary Council had agreed to let the hostages go, and the Foreign Minister had agreed to let the hostages go. The only thing we had to do was to wait until, I believe, I 1 o'clock or 12 o'clock noon in Iran, when the President of that nation was going to make a public statement

confirming that the agreement was legitimate.

He made that statement publicly. We monitored it very quickly. It was transmitted to me in the White House. The Secretary of State was there; the Secretary of Defense was there; the national security adviser was there; the Vice President was there; Jody [Powell] was there. We'd been there since 4 o'clock in the morning. And when that message got to me confirming that point, I went before the American people and said we believe we have finally arrived at the point where the hostages will be coming home.

Because of timidity on the part of some of the Iranian officials and some argument about things like how will the hostages be actually carried physically out of the compound to the airport, there was a delay. And subsequent to that, instead of having the Revolutionary Council prevail, with only two dissenting votes—I think there are 15 or 20 on the Revolutionary Council—Bani-Sadr, the President, said, "We've got to have a unanimous vote in the Revolutionary Council." And the agreement that we had evolved, using intermediaries and the most detailed negotiating techniques, did not come to pass. It was a great surprise to us, a disappointment, a profound disappointment.

That's the only time during this whole period when we thought we had a final agreement involving all of the people involved in Iran.

Q. But the Wisconsin primary wasn't on your mind during that time?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I knew the Wisconsin primary was there, but the Wisconsin primary was not any more important to me than the Minnesota primary or the Michigan primary or the Illinois primary or the New York primary or the Florida primary. We had primaries and caucuses, and I was in all of them.

What we did was wait until the public statement was made in Iran. We analyzed-we had it translated into English from Farsi. We read the statement to make sure that the agreement was confirmed publicly, and then I went to the American people. It was a very logical time schedule. This is the first time I've ever explained that, by the way.

VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENCY

Q. This is a question that probably we wouldn't have asked before seeing the Roger Mudd interview of Ted Kennedy last fall. But what is it that would drive you through all this long process? What is it you hope to do with a second term? Why is it that you want to be President for a second term? What do you hope to do for the country?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think there's a normal human trait that arouses legitimate ambition, to analyze your own talent or ability or opportunity and to make the most of one's life, whether it's in the field of journalism or education or science or medicine or politics. Also there is a confluence of events or circumstances sometimes that makes it possible for a southerner—a person from Georgia, a southerner-to have a chance to be elected, to heal the Nation's wounds following the civil rights transition, a Democrat to be coming into the White House following the embarrassment of Watergate and the trauma of Vietnam, the CIA revelations-that was what let it be possible for me to serve as President.

We've got ongoing programs now that I think are very important. I want to keep the country at peace. We've been at peace under difficult circumstances for the last 3 1/2 years. I believe I can do that. I've got an understanding and a degree of experience on the knowledge of other nations and their leaders, of the complexities of regional and worldwide interrelationships-that I believe I could use for the benefit of our Nation in maintaining peace.

I've got clear in my own mind the route toward adequately strengthening our Nation's defenses in an orderly way, a predictable way, with harmony existing between me and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Congress, and I think an understanding of the American people. I see the need to control nuclear weapons. And I believe that having gone through this torturous process of negotiating the SALT II treaty that I'm almost uniquely qualified to take this Nation towards success in a further reduction, leading towards the ultimate goal, many years in the future, of complete elimination of the threat of nuclear weaponry from the world.

We've got a remarkably united Democratic Party now and programs concerning better health for our Nation, better education for our people, more security for the aged, better job opportunities for all Americans and particularly for young people; the correlation of different agencies, Labor plus Education, to match training with job opportunities, the enhancement of civil or human rights that are now still in a transient stage. We're approaching the culmination of securing, once and for all, equality of opportunity for all our people, including not just minority groups but women. This is important to me.

The economic shock that has hit the world, primarily resulting from OPEC oil price explosions, has to be assimilated in the steel industry, the coal industry, the entire energy concept, automobiles. I think we're well on the way toward bringing it together—government, labor, management in those key basic industries to our country.

Reagan would dismantle the Energy Department. He would eliminate the windfall profits tax. He would denigrate the commitment that we've made to conservation. I think this would be a shock to our country and to the rest of the world, if we abandoned the leadership role that we have carefully forged in this first term.

So, the culmination of what I've already implemented and the realization of those kinds of hopes and dreams for our country, I think, can only be carried out effectively, in my perhaps biased judgment, by someone who has been there, who's experienced, and who knows all the very complicated factors involved.

RONALD REAGAN

Q. What kind of President do you think Reagan would make?

THE PRESIDENT. I don't think he would be a good President. I think his election would not be good for this country.

Q. Why do you say that?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, I think that the answer to that question is so complicated. It involves, I would say, almost everything that we've discussed in this interview.

Q. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT. Thank you very much.