Remarks Opening the Young Republican Leadership Conference.

Chairman Bush, Chairman Smith, all of the distinguished guests on the platform, and all of the distinguished delegates to this Young Republican Leadership Conference:

Let me say first that when I was just meeting George Bush before coming in, I said, "What do you call Mr. Smith? Is he a chairman or a president?" He said, "He is a chairman, but he is trying to be a president someday."

I want you to know that tomorrow when David Eisenhower--because Julie will be unable to be present--he will be your host at the White House for the tour of the White House, a special tour that will be arranged for all of you, that one of the reasons that I particularly wanted you to see it was that I know there are several in this audience who expect to be President one day, and I thought you should have a chance to look the place over before you decided to make the effort.

Also, you may have noted we had a little mix-up as to which side of the platform I should be on, and Charlene said, "Not on the left, Mr. President, on the right."

And from seeing the speakers that you have, I see that all segments of our party are represented, as they should be.

I know that you will be, of course, hearing from Senators, from other distinguished leaders of the party, during the course of your 4-day visit here to Washington. They will be going into the various issues in which they are interested, in which the Nation are interested, in which you, of course, will be carrying the message back to your constituencies throughout the 50 States of the Nation.

In my opening remarks to keynote this convention or meeting, I therefore would like to put it all in perspective, if I could, in a very few moments, put it in perspective in terms of young people looking to the future, rather than young people looking to the past. Because one thing I have found in talking to young people is that you realize that the future is yours. It is what you make it. And at this particular time, it is very important that we understand what young Republicans--and not just young Republicans but young Americans-what we have as the challenge of the future in this year 1974, where we are going, what we can build, what the world is going to look like in 1976 at the 200th anniversary of our country. And perhaps even further down the line, what is the world going to be in the year 2000, when one of you or perhaps another young person in this country will be in the house in which we now live.

In addressing that subject, let me begin by saying that I was talking to a young person the other day, a young man who was very brilliant, one who has without question, in my opinion, a fine political future ahead, and he was analyzing some of the young people and their attitudes of today.

He said he was distressed to find that among many there was an attitude of, rather, disillusionment with regard to the Nation, its future, its challenges, that there was growing either one or two things-one, a nostalgia, of looking back, you know, the fifties and all that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I prefer the movies of the fifties to some of the stuff that comes out today. As a matter of fact, I am having a group of Congressmen and Senators over to see a movie at the White House tonight, and I asked Julie to pick one out. And she finally had to go back to the fifties, because the only other ones that they had required parental guidance, and I didn't have room for their parents.

But going against what may be the current line among many, that this is rather a poor time to be young, a poor time to be thinking of what you may contribute to your Nation, let me tell you this is a good time to be your age, it is a good time to be living in America, and it is a good time to be interested in and to participate in politics.

Having said that, I realize that 5 years ago, when I first came into office and took a trip to Europe, I talked to an outstanding European statesman, and we were talking about youth in America and youth in Europe, and there were frustrations in both places.

As you recall, youth in America at that time was concerned about the war, and many of them let their concerns be known in, shall we say, rather vigorous terms as they trooped around the White House by the hundreds of thousands, indicating their disapproval of a very difficult, a very long, and finally a war which came to an end as a result of our efforts.

My friend, the European statesman, had a very interesting reaction to something I said to him. I said, "You know, once we get this war over and once we get the draft ended, then our young people are going to be all right because that is what is bugging them." He said, "Don't you believe it." He said, "The problem of your young people is war; the problem of our young people is peace."

Think of that for just a moment. We think that as we look at the war years and the draft and all of the problems that it caused for the young people of America, that those were the most difficult problems that we could possibly face, but now we have peace. We have no draft for the first time in 25 years. We have no war for the first time in 12 years. And you can take pride that you supported the men and the women and the policies that made it possible for us to end a war which was here when we got into office.

But as all of you undoubtedly are students of history and, particularly, political history will agree, great nations find often that their greater problems occur not when they are faced with a dramatic challenge-which a war always presents to a nation, be it a large war or a small one--but they are faced with enormous problems in terms of national spirit in times of peace, when they wonder what are we going to do with the peace. And then there is a" tendency to let down, there is a tendency to say, well, now that we have it, we should be able to do our thing, and doing our thing too often means doing a very selfish thing, rather than thinking in terms of the Nation, the community, or a cause bigger than ourselves.

I am not suggesting, of course, that what we need is a war, which, of course, is always something that requires an effort bigger than ourselves. But I am suggesting that to live in a time when the challenges are the challenges of peace, that is a great time.

Let's remember that, and let's use this peace and use it well over the next 3 years and the next 8 years after that, because we are going to be there for a long time.

I would like to refer to all of the programs that I touched upon in the State of the Union Message, but I shall not do so today. That would take too much time, and other speakers will direct their remarks, I am sure, to many of those programs.

But I would say that looking over the next 3 years, some of the goals that we can set for ourselves and can achieve are these:

First, in terms of our economy, what we are trying to build is a new prosperity, one without war and without inflation. Now, that is a great goal. It is not easy to achieve, but it can be achieved only through recognizing a fundamental principle: The way to a real new prosperity in America without war and without inflation is not through more and more reliance on government, but more and more reliance on people. We are the party of people.

That is why, when I had to consider the options on our health program, there were those who suggested that what we ought to do is to go all the way. We had problems on health, problems in terms of many people who could not get health care because they could not afford it. And there were those who suggested, because there were problems, we should simply get rid of the present health care system altogether and go to the kind of systems that have been tried abroad, a complete government-controlled system, government-controlled from top to bottom.

I rejected that. I rejected it for this reason: because whatever the problems of health care in America are, just remember, we have the highest quality of medical care in the United States today. And I can tell you that if you visit the countries that have gone down the road of a complete government-controlled system and you find an individual who, if he can afford it, wants to get the best care, he comes here, he doesn't stay there. Let's not destroy that quality.

And that is why we have sent to the Congress and we ask your support for a program which provides the opportunity for health insurance for all Americans which is not compulsory, as far as the Americans are concerned, which provides, particularly, health care for those who need it, which provides for health care for catastrophic illnesses, but which rejects any program which would add $80 billion or $100 billion to the tax burden on American people and particularly which, rather than throwing out our present private medical care system, our present private insurance system, works through them.

If I may repeat what I have said on many occasions: I always want to have a health care system in the United States in which the doctor is working for the patient and not for the Government.

Let me turn now to the problem of energy, and you see that problem. You see it in the gas lines that people line up for gasoline, and they wonder why can't we do something about those gas lines, why can't the Government solve the problem? The Congress yesterday passed a bill, well intentioned, I am sure, but one that goes in the wrong direction. It did something that I know everybody, when he thinks of it just superficially, would like to have done. It rolls back the price of gasoline. So we will roll back the price of gasoline, and many would say that will solve the problem.

The difficulty with that, of course, is this. The difficulty is that the bill passed by the Congress, which would provide for a rollback of prices of gasoline, something that we would all like to achieve in the end, that bill will result in longer gas lines and also would inevitably lead to compulsory rationing in this country. And that we are not going to have and we should not have.

And I shall veto that bill. And I am going to veto it, not because I am against lower prices--because I am for lower prices--not because I am against more gas and oil available to the American people, but because I am for more gas and oil available to the American people at prices they can afford to pay.

But the answer is for the Congress to act on the proposals that we have had before them--not for months, in some cases for years which would increase the supply of energy in this country, increase it, and by increasing the supply, the price will go down, the gas lines will certainly disappear, and we can move forward as a country with the energy that we need.

The other point I want to make in this respect is that the problem of energy is not limited to the United States, it is a worldwide problem. In one sense that is a good thing. It means that the nations of the world, poor nations that never thought of having as much uses for energy as they now have, do have those demands, richer nations like ours and the nations of Europe and Japan, who have increasing demands for energy, as those demands have gone up worldwide, certainly it has the inevitable result of creating an energy shortage which must be dealt with.

The point I want to make, however, is that the United States is in a very fortunate position. Of all the free nations of the world, with the possible exception of Canada, we are the only nation that has the resources right here in this country to become totally independent of any other country in the world for our energy. Let's get out and get those resources out of the ground.

For example, we have half the coal in the world. But that coal isn't going to be mined and it isn't going to be used unless we make the necessary steps which we have asked the Congress to take in terms of certain environmental regulations which in the long run we can have, but in the short run must be amended, because the important thing for us to remember is that the coal resources of this Nation must be put to work in order to get rid of the energy shortage.

The deregulation of natural gas, some of the other efforts that we are making, not to mention, of course, the efforts in the international field to remove the embargo, which presently is plaguing us, particularly on the eastern seaboard.

The major point I would make with regard to energy, however, is this. You have heard about the big Government program we are going to have. It is necessary. We are going to put $ 15 billion from the Government into developing our energy resources over the next 5 years.

We have set as a goal in 1980 becoming completely independent. We call it Project Independence for 1980. We can achieve that, but we are not going to achieve it simply because of what Government does. Government will help. Government will provide the seed money.

I saw an interesting statistic, and it is this: When the Government puts in $15 billion into energy, private enterprise over the same 5-year period will be putting in $200 billion and, over a 10-year period, $500 billion. In other words, 15 to 20 times as much will come from private enterprise.

I come back to my fundamental theme, and it applies to every problem that we have in this country today. The answer to the problem, a problem in America, is not through bigger and bigger government. The answer is through unleashing and encouraging and providing incentives to private enterprise to do the job that needs to be done.

So, that is why I veto a bill that would lead to longer gas lines, that would lead to compulsory rationing across this country. That is why I come down, as I hope you will come down, for a program in which we will increase the supply, because that is the way to get rid of the gas lines and to avoid rationing.

Let me come to another subject that will be of considerable interest to this group.

It happens that the 28th of February, in addition to being the day that the British are voting, is also a day that is somewhat of an anniversary for Mrs. Nixon and me. It is the day we returned from the People's Republic of China 2 years ago. It seems like a very long time ago, and I know that many in this audience had concerns about that trip when it was announced.

You also have concerns about our programs for negotiation rather than confrontation with the Communist nations, including the Soviet Union, because of the differences that we nave, deep ideological differences between our system and theirs.

Let me explain that policy to you in just a few words.

Negotiation with another country does not mean approval of their system of government. What we have to consider is what the alternative is. The alternative to negotiation with another super power is mutual destruction. What we are trying to build is a world in which nations with different systems of government can settle those differences without having those inevitable confrontations and even possible clashes which could lead to nuclear destruction.

Let me say there are easier ways to demagog this problem. There are ways which say, if it is a system of government we don't like, have nothing to do with them, threaten them, deny them this, do this or that or the other thing.

If those ways could succeed, that would be one thing, but we must look at the real world. I know the leaders of the real world. I know the leaders of the Soviet Union. I know the leaders of the People's Republic of China. I know the leaders of the other Communist nations.

I totally disagree with their systems; they totally disagree with ours. But I can assure you that the primary objective that we in America must have is to settle those differences without going to the inevitable confrontation which could lead to nuclear destruction.

That is what our peace initiatives are about, and that is why today--25 years. after World War II, not just because we ended a long and difficult war in Vietnam and ended it with honor and respect for America but because we have begun negotiations and discussions with those who might be our potential adversaries---that is why today the chances for a generation of peace and, for that matter, a much longer period of peace are better than they have been in this century. We want to build on that chance. You can be proud of what we have done in the past, but let me say, over the next 3 years and the years after that, this is a great goal.

And now I come to the part America must play. Talking to my young friend, he was telling me that many young people today say, "Look, after going through Vietnam, you took the trip to China, and now we are negotiating with the Soviet Union on limiting nuclear arms and in other areas, we are working out a settlement which we trust may be fair and just and permanent in the Mideast. We are going to work out, we hope, a mutual reduction of forces in Europe. In view of all this progress, hasn't the time now come when the United States lays down this great burden that we have carried for so long in which we provide the shield for other free nations in Asia and in Europe and in other parts of the world, where the United States, for example, this year increases its defense budget in order to meet its responsibilities in the world?"

It is a very tempting proposition. Believe me, when I think of the needs in this country, when I think of what we want to do in the fields of education and greater opportunity for every American-housing, transit, and the rest--we are going to be spending a great deal, more than some think we should spend. And we could spend even more if we were to opt out, bug out, as far as our responsibilities in the world are concerned.

But to my young Republican friends and to my young American friends who are listening to me here today, let me say this: It is your future, that those of us who make decisions now, that we are making these decisions about.

As far as the next year is concerned, the next e years, the next 3 years, the next 4 years, a United States that becomes weaker, a United States that becomes the second strongest power in the world, isn't probably going to make much difference as to whether or not there will be war, peace, or confrontation. But let me say that unless the United States takes upon itself the responsibilities of keeping the peace in the world, there are others who will assume that responsibility whose interests are very different from ours.

Let's look back before World War I and before World War II. The United States then could, with justification, say, "Why should we become involved?" Because there were other great free nations-the British, the French, for example-who could take up that burden. But today, as we look around the great free world in which we live, these great and proud nations-and they are great and they are proud and some of them are strong--but there is not one of them alone, and not all of them collectively, who could provide the strength which would command the respect which would deter potential aggression or potential adventurism in any part of the world.

In other words, if the peace is to be kept, the United States must maintain the strength that every nation in the world will respect. Because peace---or I should put it in another sense--strength in our hands is in good hands.

Consider for a moment that statement. I know there are those who say power in the hands of the United States is a very dangerous thing, we will use it irresponsibly. We have made our mistakes in foreign policy through our history, but in this century four wars have been fought. Consider them: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam. In every case the United States did not fight for conquest; in every case we got nothing out of it in terms of territory; in every case the United States was fighting to defend freedom, not to destroy it; in every case we were fighting to build a world of peace rather than a world of conquest and destruction.

And I say that as far as strength is concerned, as long as we live in a world in which strength is important, let's be sure that the United States never is the second strongest nation in the world. Let's keep it strong.

And so, looking over these next 3 years, I believe that we can continue to build a structure of peace. We can make great progress, particularly toward a reduction of tensions in Europe and also building a permanent peace in the Mideast, a goal that has eluded man not only in this century but for centuries before.

I believe also that on the home front we can move forward with our programs for medical care for all, opportunity for all, better education for our people, a better transit system, and prosperity without war and without inflation.

Something else is required. That is something that you have--enthusiasm, spirit, faith, belief. You know, when this country was so young, 13 States, 3 million people, it was weak, it was poor. But America had something that caught the imagination of the world, and the Americans knew it. Jefferson spoke of, we act not just for ourselves but for the whole human race. And Democrats and Republicans, be they Presidents or other leaders, through the years have talked that way.

It didn't really matter that much what America did when it was weak and poor, but today it is the indispensable element. America's strength, its wealth, its prosperity is essential, but most important is the American spirit. Do we have faith in ourselves, do we have a belief in our destiny, are we willing to assume the responsibilities of leadership in the world or are we going to turn away from them?

That is where your leadership comes in, and I know that we can count on you-count on you to support these great goals rather than to take that easy way, after going through a long and difficult war, of bugging out of our responsibilities. The Americans are not quitters. We are going to continue to fight for those things we believe.

George Bush told me, in addition to talking about some of these national-international issues, that this was, after all, a conference of potential political leaders, candidates for Congress or the Senate or President, or some other minor office, whatever you may say. [Laughter]

And so, I close today with just a few words of advice for the potential politicians who may be in this room, men and women.

First, and this one is going to surprise you, don't assume that the time to run for an office is only when it is a sure thing. Show me a candidate who is not a hungry candidate, show me a candidate who isn't willing to take a risk and risk all, even risk losing, and I will show you a lousy candidate.

Show me a candidate who is willing to get in there and fight when it is hardest and when it is toughest, and I will show you a good candidate.

So, number one, when the battle looks toughest, get in there and fight for the cause. Believe in it, because next time around, if you lose this time, you will be there.

Second, in life generally and in politics particularly, you don't win them all. I am an expert on that. And also, you never win even when you win big and just assume, well, now the job is done because the battle always goes on. That is our system. That is the way it should be.

You learn from your defeats, and then you go on to fight again--never quit, never quit. Always go on and fight for those things you believe in.

Third, and this comes to something that is very difficult to describe, but it is something that you feel deep within your own selves, your own innermost spirit: Keep your faith, keep your confidence. There is a tendency to become disillusioned with politics. Mistakes are made. Mistakes are made by people who are in your own party. They are made by other people in political life. And there is a tendency to throw up our hands and say, "Oh, I am not going to have anything to do with it."

You see what that would mean, however. Then you leave it to those who don't care about those mistakes so much, and the answer, therefore, if you think that there are things wrong with our political system--and there are things that are wrong with it then get in and do something about it.

This is the time that we need our young Republicans with your idealism, with your enthusiasm, and with your faith, not only to build the Republican Party--and that is a great goal--as one of our two great parties but to build a new America and to build a new world.

That is the challenge I give to you, and you are going to meet it.

Thank you.