Lyndon B. Johnson photo

Text of Interview With the President Published in "America Illustrated" for Distribution in the Soviet Union.

September 27, 1966

Q. MR. PRESIDENT, 10 years have elapsed since the United States and the Soviet Union began to exchange "America" magazine and "Soviet Life" in an effort to achieve better understanding between our countries. I wonder, sir, if you would comment on the state of relations between the two countries over the past decade?

A. That's a question frequently asked, and one which is always difficult to answer. It is easy to be a hopeful optimist--and just as easy to be a fearful pessimist. What is important in these complicated times is to be a realist. Time and again, in many parts of the world, we and the Soviet Union find ourselves on the opposite sides of a question. But, over the years, we've gained a lot of experience in working out many of our differences. And we've taken a few very important constructive steps together. I have in mind the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which forbids testing of these destructive weapons in the atmosphere or under the ocean and thus eliminates the dangerous hazard of fallout. I also think of the history of the cultural exchange program which broadened the opportunities for our best scientists, teachers, and artists to share their creativity with one another. These are positive, concrete steps. They help create a more favorable atmosphere for further steps, and further normalization of relations between countries. My prayerful hope is that they will endure and expand, despite differences of view we may have.

Q. What do you consider to be some of the future possibilities for additional constructive steps?

A. I think we must work toward progress in the field of disarmament and in greater cooperative efforts between our two countries in space exploration, medical research, and communications. This administration strongly supports these efforts. And then, too, there are what you might call the basics.

You know, in Texas, when we go to buy a farm, we don't put too much importance on the manmade disappointments--like a rundown barn or a badly fenced pasture. A good farmer goes out to the fields and sees what's growing. He stoops down and tastes a little bit of the soil. He looks at the stock and the streams and the spring. If these are ample or can be made so by the sweat of his brow, the farmer knows the place holds a future. I grew up on that land. Some of it was mighty poor and rocky--but some of it was good. I learned not to be afraid of disappointments--of the weeds and rocks--but to value the good soil and the hard, constructive work.

I think there's considerable good soil for U.S.-Soviet relations to grow and prosper with the right cultivation and care. We have more in common than we sometimes realize. I have considerable faith in the people of the Soviet Union. We are both large countries. We both possess an incredible variety of natural resources. Our people are energetic, generous, and talented. We Americans really came to know and to admire the Russian people in World War II. And, I hope, they share some of the same feeling for us. So, I would say that our people are more naturally friends than enemies. I would like to see us exchange goods and ideas and technology--all of the means to achieving common progress and prosperity.

Q. Mr. President, this decade has been one of economic progress for both the United States and the Soviet Union. Does this progress directly affect the issues of war and peace?

A. This decade of progress has undermined the goals of those who have preached that the ideological differences between America and the Soviet Union must inevitably lead to war. We see now that we can both prosper in spite of the differences. The two nations have never gone to war with one another. The fact is that no two nations have more to lose in war than the United States or the Soviet Union.

The past 10 years are a good example of what I mean. Just think how much we've achieved here in America: We've reached out into space, we've begun a new era of progress for our Negro citizens, our poor, our elderly, our students. We've realized so many of the dreams of the New Deal of the 1930's and 40's. We were prompted to act then because of a great depression. Today, we are acting at a time when our economy is at the highest point in history. But we want to have all our people share in our bounties. And we want to inject excellence into all aspects of our national life--on our farms, in our cities, in our classrooms, in the arts, in our factories. This is the Great Society.

But we are not the only ones building on our dreams. Think of what the Soviet people have accomplished after experiencing a most destructive war in which they lost 20 million people. They have not only rebuilt their country, but they also have achieved splendid technological and scientific accomplishments. Neither country would like to see all these advances go up in smoke.

Q. Do you think then, sir, that we have reached a point in our relations with the Soviets where both sides accept the proposition that nuclear war is impossible?

A. There is no question but that the American people and the Russian people are absolutely opposed to war. I wish I could say that nuclear war is impossible. The United States, as I said before, will never start any war, nuclear or otherwise. But this world of ours is filled with dangers. We can never know what may suddenly erupt to bring new tensions and threats to the peace.

Under President Kennedy's leadership we proposed the most comprehensive plan yet advanced for general disarmament in stages, so that no nation would be at a disadvantage at any stage. Pending action on this broad plan, we have proposed a treaty to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons and to reduce stockpiles. We hope that current disarmament talks will produce progress toward such a treaty. This government has devoted considerable time and effort to this problem. In fact, we began negotiating right after the war. At that time we were the only nation in the world with the atomic bomb, but our reason then was no less compelling than it is today: The world simply cannot be free of danger as long as any nation possesses a nuclear arsenal. But general disarmament will not, in my view, become a universal fact until we can develop a compelling substitute for armed might in international relations. Once we had a terrible bloody war between the States here in America. Since that time, we have established a rule of law that regulates our national life and shapes the relations between the National Government and the State and local governments. I think that the United Nations, through principles enunciated in its founding charter, points the way toward a truly ordered structure of world law. World law can bring world order. But it also must reflect the desires of men and nations. When law ignores this cardinal principle, law itself is ignored. I think we may be evolving a world consensus on which law can stand. For example, in the time since I became President, the United States has participated in more international conferences--about 650, I believe--than during the first 150 years of our history. And so, I believe we must pursue avenues of cooperative effort and agreement with the Soviet Union wherever they are to be found. We've got to get into the habit of peaceful cooperation. The Test Ban Treaty was a significant step. There have been others since 1963. We have agreed not to put bombs in orbit, we are working together on a number of other important ventures--in desalination, weather information, exchanges of scientists, artists, and yes, magazines.

Q. What about the ideological barriers, Mr. President? Do you think we can really find social and political accord with the Soviet Union as long as we are in such diverse ideological camps?

A. I think both sides must realize that neither is going to convert the other. The United States has no interest in remaking the Soviet Union in our image. And I don't see any evidence that America will go Communist. I think that the real interests of nations transcend the ideological differences. For instance, some of the nations with which we work closely have moved toward planned economies. But this makes no difference to us--or to them. We work together out of mutual trust and respect and because we share many of the same ideals and aspirations.

We Americans believe that our democracy and our system of a mixed economy with a wide scope for free enterprise works best for us. But we support and respect the rights of all peoples freely to choose their own system. We oppose the practice of imposing one's system on others. If everyone would abide by the principle of self-determination and reject aggression and subversion, the world would be a happier place.

Q. Mr. President, as a practitioner of what has been called "consensus politics," I wonder if you would comment on the differences between achieving a popular consensus for your domestic programs and for matters dealing with foreign policy?

A. We are a democracy, and Americans have the basic right to disagree with any policy of their government--foreign or domestic. As we well know, Americans are not bashful about using this right. Now, there are a few important points I'd like to make about achieving a so-called consensus. First, I am a firm believer in the principle of national unity. I believe that our people have more reason to work together than apart to build a country we can be proud of. We may divide along many sectional, regional, political, and special interest lines on the best way of approaching some of our Problems--but I do think the vast majority agrees on what our problems are and the need for doing something about them. The challenge then is for the President to assert his leadership, to take a position on these issues by formulating legislative programs on which the Congress can act. The Congress, of course, can reject the President's programs--and it often does. But a President must do what he thinks is right. He must think in terms of the national interest and the Nation's security--even if this means stirring up some segments of public opinion, no matter how vociferous. I confess that on the home front it is easier for the public to understand what an administration is trying to do. They see that some of our schools are overcrowded, that we must do something to help our Negro citizens, that we are rapidly outgrowing our cities, and they are responsive to programs that seek remedies. But when the President takes an extremely serious step in foreign matters, then it is really a more difficult proposition for people to grasp. Certainly, there are dissenters-those who disagree. But the great majority of the American people strongly support their government. You know, the concept of consensus politics is just one expression in day-to-day political terms of the fundamental proposition of American government--government by consent of the governed. Either a President has achieved a popular mandate in office, or after his four years were up the people achieved a consensus of their own and voted him into retirement. So, in either case, the principle of government by consent of the governed has always been upheld.

Q. Mr. President, what are your hopes for the next 10 years?

A. You know, I've been in public life now for 35 years. And it's a sad commentary on the human condition when we realize that not once in any of those years has the world been wholly at peace. We've seen a lot of social and scientific advancement in the past 10 years. My hope for the next 10, like any sane man's hope, is that this will be matched in building a peaceful world. Then we will have something really to be proud of. Peace, after all, is the bedrock of all our hopes. Without peace, all of our work and progress come to naught. Think of all the important and beneficial work that the United States and the Soviet Union could undertake with the vast sums now being spent on the instruments of war. Why, it staggers the imagination. We could use that wealth to help the two thirds of the world that is afflicted with poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease. These have-not nations want their place in the sun, their chance for a better life. And as I have often said, the wall between the rich and poor is made of glass, through which all can see. Men everywhere want the opportunity to grow, to become what they are capable of becoming. And this has a special meaning for me. Fifty years ago I stood as a boy in the Texas hill country and wondered whether there would ever be any opportunity beyond those hills. We who have attained our dreams must respond to the dreams of others--the revolution of rising expectations. I hope we can work toward a world of greater interdependence among nations--where countries will increasingly cooperate in economic, social and cultural undertakings.

The United States and the Soviet Union still have an agenda of unresolved differences, some of them quite serious. I believe we can settle these disputes, honorably and peacefully. We in the United States are determined to try. What has changed in recent years is not the size of our problems, but the means for solving them. The United States and the Soviet Union now possess--for the first time in history--the technology and productive capacity for extending mankind's benefits to all men. The alternative, of course, is that the world can fall victim to its fears and antagonisms and plunge humanity into the nuclear abyss. I happen to prefer the positive way.

Q. Do you see any indication that we can achieve this "positive way?"

A. Oh, yes, I do. I think that cultural exchange between our two countries is extremely important. We must get to know each other better. The political realities are such that we too often dwell on one another's mistakes and weaknesses. Let's admit that every nation has its infirmities. We all make mistakes, and injustice is not the product of any one geographic area. That's why I value this magazine exchange: "America Illustrated" and "Soviet Life" show what both countries are doing in constructive social and cultural ways. Here, both nations put their best foot forward, show their best products, their finest accomplishments, their creative ability. This is a most positive step toward better understanding. And understanding is essential to the quest for peace.

As I said earlier: If you take an objective look at our two countries--not just at the issues which divide us--you see the two most powerful nations on earth with every reason to want peace and no rational reason to want war. I am an optimist about mankind. I believe men, with enough effort, can get what they want. And so I believe that the good soil will prevail over the rocks and weeds. The responsibility for the future rests in large part on the United States and the Soviet Union. We differ on many things. The Soviet leaders are often convinced of the rightness of their actions when we think they are wrong. And they sometimes think we are wrong when we feel strongly that our cause is just. As great powers, our two nations will undoubtedly have commitments that will conflict. But there is one commitment I hope we both share: the commitment to a warless world. However you define it, this is mankind's age of greatest promise. We must move toward it--not toward war. We must find ways toward disarmament and an international rule of law strong enough to take the place of arms.

As President of the United States, as a citizen of this troubled planet, as the father of two daughters who want to bring children into a peaceful world, I say we not only want peace--we in America are willing to expend every effort to achieve this goal. And, really, as responsible citizens living in the nuclear age, we can do no less.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President.

Note: The interview appears in "America Illustrated" for September 1966--the 10th anniversary issue of the Russian-language monthly magazine published by the United States Information Agency for distribution in the Soviet Union. Copies of the magazine with the English version of the interview were made available by the White House Press Office on September 27, the date on which the issue went on sale in Moscow. The interview was not made public in the form of a White House press release. It was based on written questions submitted to the President early in the summer.

Lyndon B. Johnson, Text of Interview With the President Published in "America Illustrated" for Distribution in the Soviet Union. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/238525

Filed Under

Categories

Location

Washington, DC

Simple Search of Our Archives