Remarks to Southern News Media Representatives Attending a Briefing on Domestic Policy in Birmingham, Alabama

Gentlemen, I do know that from the schedule that I have read that you have been exposed to a great amount of material already with regard to some of our domestic programs. I know, too, that you are aware of the fact that this is the first of four regional briefings we are going to have on domestic policy, just as we previously had four on foreign policy, and perhaps we will be able to repeat these from time to time in the future as various issues develop.

Now when I read your schedule, I could see that there was not much left for me to talk about, because Governor Romney, of course, covered various aspects of revenue sharing; and Secretary Hodgson covered other aspects of manpower training; Herb Stein knows all about the economy--I wish he would tell me, but he knows all about it--and, of course, John Ehrlichman, in terms of Government reorganization and the other issues, has talked to you and answered questions; and I know that Herb Klein, too, has filled you in on some aspects of it.

What I would like to do is to try to put • these domestic programs in this period of the seventies in a broader perspective. In order to do so, it will be necessary for me to talk about foreign policy first, not in precise details, as would be the case in a foreign policy briefing, but in more general terms, so that we can see why domestic programs of the types you have been hearing about today, programs that normally just don't make the first lead on television or a front page today in the newspapers due to the overwhelming interest in foreign policy, why that domestic policy is so important for the future.

I begin with the developments in foreign policy with which you are all familiar. While it must seem at times that the more things change in foreign policy, the more they remain the same, I think that a sophisticated observer would have to agree that historians in the future will look to this period, and they will probably write that the American people--and through the American people, through their relations with other people in the world--were going through a very historic change insofar as our relations with other nations in the world were concerned.

The word "new era" is overused. I will only say that if there was ever a new era in the field of foreign policy, we are now in the middle of it. We are on the threshold of it.

I think the most significant changes in American foreign policy and the most significant changes in the relations between major nations in the world are taking place now than at any period since World War II.

Now this is not because we made it so. I speak of "we" in terms of this Administration. We played a role, but what has happened here is that we see a number of developments coming together contemporaneously. The one that of course is first and foremost in your minds, and should be, is the war in Vietnam.

There is argument about how that war should be ended, when it should be ended. There is no argument, however, among any sophisticated observers on the point that the war in Vietnam, after a long period---5 years--in which no end was in sight, in which more and more Americans went to Vietnam, and in which more and more casualties occurred in Vietnam, that now the situation is changed. Americans are coming home. Casualties are going down, and we can say confidently today that the war in Vietnam will be ended.

You know the arguments, and I will not go into them now, why we cannot, in our national interest, accept the proposition of setting a deadline as far as our own withdrawal is concerned. I will only say that there is no question but that this Administration's policy is succeeding and bringing the war to an end and bringing it to an end in a way which I believe will contribute to our goal of discouraging that kind of war, that kind of aggression that brought this war on, in the future, and thereby bringing it to an end in a way that will not guarantee--we can never guarantee anything in world events--but that will give us a chance to have a more peaceful Southeast Asia, a more peaceful Pacific.

Now, if we are able to accomplish this goal--and I am confident that we are accomplishing it and that we can see it now in sight--this is in itself, by itself--although by itself it is not the major development which we are presently seeing-but this by itself has enormous significance, because both World War II and the Korean war, as far as the United States was concerned, did come from the Pacific, and so did Vietnam.

So a peaceful Pacific and an end to this conflict in a way that will maintain the position of confidence of the United States in the Pacific is enormously important in terms of achieving our broader goal of peace in the world.

The second point, of course, that has been much in the news this past week is our relations with the Soviet Union. Here, the announcement that I made last week deliberately was brief. I will not expand on it now, because that would not be in the interest of achieving the goal that the announcement set forth. Suffice it to say that now at the highest level of the two super powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, the leaders have committed themselves to taking a first, very significant step toward limiting both defensive and offensive nuclear weapons.

That commitment, having been taken publicly, thereby gives us at this period-since it was committed publicly in terms of attempting to achieve it and hoping to achieve it this year--it gives us an idea as to what could develop from now on out between the two super powers.

Again, it does not guarantee that because the two super powers may agree that their mutual interest will be served by a limitation, on the one hand, on our part of defensive weapons and a limitation on the part of the Soviet Union as far as offensive weapons are concerned, that the two powers are not going to have other differences.

It does not guarantee that they will agree on everything else, that they will agree on the Mideast, that they will agree on East-West relations insofar as Europe is concerned, et cetera. But the fact that this step is being taken in the field of negotiation is enormously significant simply because it has happened.

The announcement is significant; the commitment on the part of the leaders is significant; but even more important, if that commitment can become a reality-and it will take hard negotiating on the part of both sides to bring that reality into being--but if that can become a reality, then the two super powers, not by rhetoric, and we have had cool rhetoric ever since this Administration came into Washington, but in deeds the two super powers will have entered into a new period of better relations.

You can see what that would mean in contributing to the peace of the world, because wherever the two super powers rub against each other, whether it is in the Mideast or whether it is in the Caribbean or whether it happens to be tangentially in a place like Vietnam, where it is tangential as far as the Soviet is concerned, but nevertheless real, or whether it is where the blue chip is involved in the heart of Europe, all of this, of course, potentially carries within it the danger of conflict at the very highest level. And so making movement toward reducing or limiting arms, making this kind of step indicates and gives us at least some hope that a different relationship between the two powers will, on a step-by-step basis, develop in the years ahead.

A few weeks ago you all, of course, covered in your newspapers, on your television and radio programs, the developments with regard to China, Mainland China.

In a recent press conference, you may recall that I said that--when asked about what this meant--I said we must realize that what happened was significant; not simply the visit of the table tennis team, that had some significance and, of course, great interest because of its rather bizarre character as far as we were concerned. But because in the field of travel and in the field of trade, in the field of exchange of persons and in the field of trade, to put it more precisely, we see a very significant change occurring for the first time since the Government which presently is in power in Mainland China---the People's Republic of China--for the first time that Government and the Government of the United States have found two areas, exchange of persons and travel, where again, on a precise step-by-step basis, they are beginning to have a different relationship than they had previously. As I put it, what we have done really is broken the ice; now we have to test the water to see how deep it is. More steps will be taken on our part and on their part when it is to the reciprocal interest of both to do so.

I do not suggest that any steps are presently being contemplated on either side. That would not be in the interest of having that come about. But I do say that the very fact that the United States and the Government on Mainland China, the People's Republic of China, have finally moved in these limited areas toward a relation of normalcy gives us hope that not immediately--not within a year, for example--but looking to the future, that 800 million Chinese will not be isolated from the rest of the world.

Let me just say parenthetically that when we think of the dangers to peace of the world, I can think of none that would quite exceed the fact that 800 million, and then perhaps in 25 years a billion, of the most capable and able people in the world would be isolated from the rest of the world, living there, not knowing the rest of the world, and with a growing and very dangerous nuclear capability.

I do not suggest that the steps that we have taken have dealt with that problem conclusively up to this point, but again we have made movement and more movement will take place as we, on either side, find that it is in our best interest.

We look to another area of conflict, the Mideast. Here the Secretary of State has just completed a very significant trip. It did not, and none of the reporters who went with him expected it to happen-and they, incidentally, wrote it very objectively and, it seems to me, in a highly professional way--it did not settle the differences. We did not expect that to happen.

But when we look at that troubled area of the world, it can be said now that we have had a truce for 9 months and that is some progress. It can be seen that while the two parties are still, it seems, very, very far apart with irreconcilable difference--that is what it seems on the surface-there is still the fact of discussion going on through third parties, but nevertheless going on, which will not resolve those differences completely. And no one suggests that they may be resolved completely at any time in the future, but that may resolve them in part, again on a step-by-step basis.

Now let me put all of this together in terms of what it means in foreign policy and then why our own policies in the United States in the domestic field are so important as they relate to this.

Let's look to the future, what could happen. Here we must put our hopes high. As I said at Mobile earlier today, every President in this century, and I suppose every President long before this century, has spoken in terms of peace, not only for America but for the world.

Woodrow Wilson, I think, honestly felt that the war that he was involved in, World War I, would be a war that would end wars.

Franklin D. Roosevelt felt very strongly that World War II, particularly with the United Nations following it, could be the war that, as far as major powers were concerned, that would be the last great war.

And certainly my predecessors, President Eisenhower, President Truman, President Kennedy, President Johnson, were all dedicated to that proposition, as I am.

At this time I think we could say that because of these significant developments, one, the end of the American involvement in Vietnam, which we know is coming, and on a basis which, in my view, will contribute to a more peaceful rather than a less peaceful era in the Pacific.

Second, a significant change in the relation between the Soviet Union and the United States--still a long way to go, but still a significant change at the highest level with the leaders involved.

Third, a change, not as significant, as far as our relations with the Mainland Government are concerned in China, but nevertheless looking down the road, with great historical possibilities.

Fourth, the situation in the Mideast that I have just referred to.

With all of these developments occurring, what we in the United States may be facing and may be confronted with-and this is something I guess we would all like to be confronted with--is an era in which we could have peace for a generation.

Now having said that, that will also carry with it enormous problems for this country--enormous problems because once you have peace, what do you do with it? How do you maintain it? How do you keep it?

Here I think that we have to be---as opinion leaders in the South, I would commend these thoughts to you as they have been commended to me by my advisers-here we must recognize that there will be no instant peace in any part of the world. Once these different relationships occur, if they do, if progress is made with the Soviet Union, later with China, the People's Republic, in the Mideast and in Vietnam and the rest, this does not mean that as a result of these developments that the differences between nations end, that their interests will be the same, and that the need for a continued, strong American presence in the world and strong defense will have evaporated.

On the contrary, we must recognize the fact that we are going to continue to have differences, very significant and deep differences with other nations in the world.

And looking again at a very difficult and explosive part of the world, the Mideast, no matter what kind of arrangement is made there, no matter what kind of an agreement is agreed to, because of the historical differences that have existed there for centuries, there is not going to be a period when people are going to have a relationship that can be a completely comfortable one.

But on the other hand, we are entering that period when there is a chance to have a live-and-let-live attitude, a settlement of differences by peaceful means, peaceful competition, so on down the road.

Now, what must the United States do in this period? First, it is almost a cliche to say that we must maintain our strength. That does not mean we maintain our strength out of any sense of jingoism, but it does mean that we only reduce our strength on a mutual basis.

Now there are many well-intentioned people who constantly--whether in the Senate or sometimes in columns in the press or on radio and television--suggest that the way that the United States can demonstrate its interest in disarmament, and thereby in peace, is to discontinue our ABM system, reduce our offensive capabilities in the nuclear area, and that that demonstration will lead others to do likewise.

That is not the way it will happen. In my view, wherever you have two nations--as you have in the Soviet Union and the United States--wherever you have two nations that are competitive, whose interests are different, where both mutually reduce their forces, that contributes to peace.

But where one or the other unilaterally reduces its force, and becomes very significantly weaker than the other, that enormously increases the danger of war. Therefore, the United States--and I would say the same if I were a leader of the Soviet Union--the United States does not serve the cause of peace by unilaterally reducing its forces without at the same time mutually negotiating a reduction on the part of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union leaders, I think, understand that. That has certainly been the way they approached the problem. We understand their position. We do not expect them to reduce their forces unilaterally; we will not ours. So whether it is our forces of a conventional type in Europe or whether it is our nuclear forces, offensive or defensive, the United States, it seems to me, serves the cause of peace by maintaining its strength and reducing that strength only as others who may have different interests reduce theirs.

The second point that I would make is on the economic field. We enter a period when it is enormously important that the United States not lose the position of economic leadership which it presently has in the world. I say presently. That position is being jeopardized. It is being jeopardized perhaps not so much because of our failings, although that may be partially the reason, but it is being jeopardized because the whole situation is changed, and we should be gratified in a sense that it has changed, since World War II.

Take the two defeated nations of World War II, the two major ones, the Japanese and the Germans. At the present time they are our major competitors in the world, and as they compete and as they become more efficient, the United States finds that as far as its world markets are concerned, and as far also as its markets in the United States are concerned, that Japanese competition, German, and, as Britain enters the Common Market, European competition, is going to be a continuingly more difficult problem.

So let me put that in perspective, as far as our economic policy is concerned. First a strong American economy is essential if we are going to be able to maintain the military strength that we need to maintain in order to create the processes that will lead to a peaceful balance in the world, and that is what we seek.

Second, it is going to be essential, in order for the United States to maintain the movement forward and upward of greater opportunity, more jobs, higher wages, a higher standard of living to which Americans have become accustomed for 190 years. It is a remarkable program of progress--a few ups and downs, depressions, recessions and the rest, but the trend line is up, and it must continue to go up or we will have problems not only abroad, we will have enormous problems at home where these rising expectations will be bitterly disappointed.

So that brings us to our economy. Looking at the economy, I am sure Herb Stein has indicated to you that what we find is that there is argument at the present time not about whether the economy is moving up; there is argument--and this is fortunately a good subject to have the argument on--on how fast it is moving up.

It is moving up. It will continue to move up. The question is whether we can have upward movement in the economy and have it with two major factors that are quite different from upward movements in some periods of growth in the past.

First, it will be an upward movement without war and with a decreasing military budget. I do not suggest that that will happen now, but looking to the future, in the event that some of these relationships that I have indicated do come together, that could be the prospect in the future.

But in any event, our goal is a peacetime economy, an economy without war and with the military commitment dependent upon whether we are able to work out concomitant arrangements with other competing powers in the world for mutual reduction of forces.

If that happens, on the one side we are most gratified. Most Americans--all Americans would rather have their energies and their creative ability devoted to the works of peace rather than to weapons of war. On the other hand, when you consider the fact that since this Administration came into office, as a result of the winding down of the war in Vietnam, and the reduction of our forces in places like Korea and Thailand and the Philippines and in other parts of the world, as well as in the continental United States, 2.1 million Americans have been added to the labor force, let out of the Armed Forces and let out of defense plants.

This has a traumatic effect--we believe temporary--but it is certainly very difficult, particularly while it goes on in the Pacific Northwest, southern California, areas like that with which you are familiar.

We will survive it. We will see it through, but it means that we have got to develop within this basic economy of ours new activities that will take up that lag that the military expenditure no longer is filling.

Second, there is the problem that you are all familiar with: How can we have an increasing American economy, an upward movement without reigniting the fires of inflation? There are no easy answers to that problem.

The easy one, of course, is wage and price controls, governmentally imposed. The difficulty is that the answer would bring on, in the opinion of most of us, it certainly could well bring on, much worse problems than it was curing. It would have some effect on unemployment.

I was just looking at the figures recently and when the OPA [Office of Price Administration] was finally discontinued in 1945, there were 57,000 Americans that were working for OPA so we could get at the unemployment to a certain extent by moving to wage and price controls at a national basis. That is not the most significant point to mention if we do not have other problems.

But turning to the problem, this means that in two respects the United States must face up to these problems. One, insofar as our Federal budget is concerned, it must be responsible. By responsible we believe that while the economy is not at full capacity, the Federal Government has a responsibility to spend more than it takes in in order to take up that capacity; that there must be a limitation on how far that goes or otherwise you have, inevitably, inflation.
That is why we say that under no circumstances should a budget exceed what the economy would produce at full capacity, or full employment as some describe it.

On the other hand, having said that, on simply having a limitation with regard to what the Federal Government spends, it is only part of the problem; there is the problem of monetary policy. I will not get into it except to say it must be also responsible enough to fuel the growing economy yet not so much as to reignite the fires of inflation.

On the other side of the coin, there is the very nagging problem of a wage-price spiral. Here there is no reason to place blame in any quarter except simply to say that as the United States looks at its competitive position around the world, we must recognize that a wage-price spiral-in other words very significant wage increases which go far beyond increases in productivity--will inevitably have the effect not only of contributing to inflation but of pricing those particular industries out of the world market and, for that matter, out of the domestic market.

The upcoming steel negotiations are a case in point. Without getting into those negotiations specifically, we simply can look at what the numbers are.

Back 20 years ago, in 1950, and you have to go back only that far, Japan produced 5 million tons of steel and the United States produced 50 percent of all the steel in the world. Today Japan produces 100 million tons of steel; the United States produces only 27 percent of all the steel in the world, and within 2 years, Japan will pass the United States in steel production.

That is not bad in and of itself, except to point up the fact that the American steel industry, and certainly we want a steel industry, we need a steel industry--here in this city, in Birmingham, we all understand what steel means; it is a very basic industry.

If the United States is going to continue to have a strong steel industry, the wage policies and the price policies--and the productivity insofar as that is concerned and affects it--of the American industry, will have to be reexamined, because we cannot continue to have a wage push and then a price push with the United States getting a continually decreasing share of the world market.

Now, a third area that we should look to, having covered both the defense area and the economic area, relates to this whole matter of the organization of government. Since it has been covered so extensively by the previous speakers I will simply summarize it this way: The American people, at the present time, feel that we need some very significant changes in government, and they are right. They are fed up with government at all levels. They think it costs too much; they think it does not work; and they think they don't have enough to say about it.

All of our plans in revenue sharing, general revenue sharing, special revenue sharing, Government reorganization, are designed to get at those three nagging questions that Americans want. We are trying to make government cost less; we are trying to make it work better, and we are trying to give people who are affected by government more of a voice in what kind of government they want, how much government they want.

Those who suggest that our general and special revenue sharing, or either or both, or reorganization, any of these programs, would have the effect of having Washington have a bigger voice, of course, are 180 degrees wrong; because what has happened is that as we have grown in categorical grants, with over 400 major ones at the present time, this means that the Congress, the Federal Government, passes out money, in effect, to the States and the cities, and the Governors and the mayors, et cetera, simply become clerks for the purpose of dispensing it according to whatever rules are handed down by the Federal Government.

We want to change that, and as the briefers have already indicated, we think this historic change is needed. We think the people want it. It goes far beyond simply rescuing the States and cities from a fiscal crisis. That is not enough reason. It goes to the heart of the problem of government in this country, and it is something that is basically needed if our government is to meet the responsibilities that it will have to meet in this very competitive and very crucial time in the last third of this century when the quality of American government, the quality of American leadership, and the faith of the American people in their government may determine not only our future but the future of hundreds of millions of other people on this earth. That I firmly believe and that is why I consider this so important.

I come now to another point that perhaps may seem somewhat--in view of the rather hard news points that I have tried to emphasize up to this time--that seem not as realistic, but which I think in the final analysis may be even more important.

If the United States is to play the role that it needs to play, we need first to have military strength. We need a strong economy. We need a government that is responsive to the peoples' needs, that costs less, that works better.

But we can have all these and still fail unless this country develops a new spirit. I say a new spirit. I am not speaking of any one individual or one area. I am speaking of the Nation as a whole--a new spirit of unity, a new spirit among its people of confidence in ourselves and faith in our future.

Now I don't mean to suggest that-most Americans, I think most, still have confidence in this country. They believe in it. They have faith in our future. We are a confident people by nature. We are a very idealistic people by nature. We want to hear good news. We are terribly depressed by bad news.

That is why it is very difficult for us to be a world leader. We cannot take the ups and downs as the great powers of the past have taken them and ridden them through.

But at the present time, it is vitally important that this Nation attain a sense of unity which can only come from sharing our concerns about our common ideals. Let me not cover it in detail--that would take too much time--but simply to touch upon three or four points very briefly.

I referred a moment ago to Woodrow Wilson's remarks when he came to Mobile in 1913, the year I was born, and he spoke of the end of imperialism. He said, "American imperialism in the world," but I am sure that he believed that. We think of what has happened since that time, four wars, and America was in all of them-World War II, World War I, Korea, and then Vietnam. And then we look at those wars and what do we say to our young people about them, about all of them? We can argue about whether it was a mistake to go into any.

My mother and grandmother and my grandmother on my mother's side would have said, yes, it was a mistake, because they were pacifists and they even disagreed when I was in World War II. Many others would say that.

But when we look at the U.S. role in the world in those four wars, whatever our mistakes may have been, we at least can be proud of the fact that we did not start any of them, we gained nothing from them and asked nothing from them in the way of domination over any other people, and third we came to the aid of people whose freedom was threatened.

Now I will not go into a rather meaningless debate at this point, because we all have our views, and we are probably pretty concrete about them, about the war in which we are presently engaged. But as far as the motivation of America, why we are doing what we are doing, its motivation has no imperialistic overtones, its motivation as was the case in Korea, World War I, and World War II is to help another nation whose freedom, independence, call it what you will, is threatened and also to build a more peaceful world. That is a record that we can be proud of.

Second, as far as America's strength in the world is concerned, we need not be apologetic about it. At the present time, is there any other nation in the world that you would rather have this strength? I have been to 70 countries. I talked to the leaders of countries--leaders of countries with very different philosophies. I have yet to find a leader that feared the United States of America, that feared that we would use our armed strength for the purpose of invading it, of conquest, or for any other purpose except to help them maintain their independence. We made our mistakes. We make them now, but we in America, as we play our world role, perhaps we are naive, but we are basically idealistic, we maintain our strength for purposes of peace and not for other purposes.

Turning to the domestic field, we have many faults here. I spoke in Mobile of the fact that we have differences between regions, we have differences between races, we have differences between religions, we have differences between the generations today, and these differences have at times been very destructive. We must recognize that we will always have those differences. People of different races, different religions, from different backgrounds, and of different ages are not always going to agree.

The question is, can those differences be resolved peacefully, and second, can they be made creative rather than destructive? Must they be a drain upon us? Must they go so far that they destroy the confidence and faith of this great Nation. in its destiny and its future? I do not believe that that is necessary,

Two specific points that I would like to mention. I would say this in the North if I were speaking there; I say it in the South. I know the difficult problems most of you in the Southern States have had on the school desegregation problem. I went to school in the South, and so, therefore, I am more familiar with how Southerners feel about that problem than others. Also, I went to school in the North, or the West I should say, and I have nothing but utter contempt for the double hypocritical standard of Northerners who look at the South and point the finger and say, "Why don't those Southerners do something about their race problem?"

Let's look at the facts. In the past year, 2 years, there has been a peaceful, relatively quiet, very significant revolution. Oh, it is not over, there are problems-there was one in Chattanooga, I understand, the last couple days; there will be more. But look what has happened in the South. Today 38 percent of all black children in the South go to majority white schools. Today only 28 percent of all black children in the North go to majority white schools. There has been no progress in the North in the past 2 years in that respect. There has been significant progress in the South.

How did it come about? It came about because farsighted leaders in the South, black and white, some of whom I am sure did not agree with the opinions handed down by the Supreme Court which were the law of the land, recognized as law-abiding citizens that they had the responsibility to meet that law of the land, and they had dealt with the problem--not completely, there is more yet to be done. The recent decision of the Supreme Court presents some more problems, but I am confident that over a period of time those problems will also be handled in a peaceful and orderly way for the most part.

But let's look at the deeper significance of this. As I speak today in what is called the Heart of Dixie, I realize that America at this time needs to become one country. Too long we have been divided. It has been North versus South versus West; Wall Street versus the country and the country versus the city and the rest. That does not mean we don't have differences and will not continue to have them, but those regional differences, it seems to me, must go. Presidents of the United States should come to Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia and Louisiana more than once, more often than every 50 years or every 100 years as the case might be, to some of the cities, and they should come because this is one nation, and we must speak as one nation, we must work as one nation.

Second, and here this is difficult, but we have made enormous progress, and we are going to make more. The problems of race can be and must be solved. They must be solved in an orderly way recognizing we will continue to have differences, but recognizing that unless they are solved, this destructive force, this division over an issue of this type is going to weaken this part of the country in a way that could be very, very detrimental to the national interest and weaken other parts of the country where there are also racial problems.

What I am simply suggesting is this: I am suggesting that we are at a period in our country when America needs to be strong militarily, it must be strong economically, and it must be strong in its spirit, strong in its heart.

I think the South traditionally has contributed to the military strength of this country. More Southerners voluntarily serve in the Armed Forces than any other part of the country. I think the New South has a greater contribution to make in terms of economic growth than perhaps any other section of the country, because the South starts from a lower base and now is moving up, not evenly, but moving up very significantly and will continue to.

So, you have a great role to play in that respect. I think, too, that this part o$ the country has a very significant role to play insofar as the spirit of this country is concerned. I speak of such square things as patriotism; I speak of such things as religious faith. I also speak of such things as respect for law, even those laws that you don't like. And if this great and powerful and vibrant and dynamic part of the country can make the contribution of which it is capable, then America will have a better chance to meet the responsibility that it must meet in the world to be strong militarily, economically together with the ideological and spiritual strength which will enable us to meet our challenges.

I simply close with a last thought. There is another point of view, I recognize it, I respect it, I totally disagree with it. It is that at this time America should turn away from the problems of the world and turn inward. It is a point of view which rejects new ventures, whether it is an SST or an exploration in space or whatever the case might be, because we have such terrible problems at home.

It is one in which every time we see a chance for progress we consult our fears rather than our hopes. And I would simply say that I am convinced that as opinion leaders in this country, you and me, we all have an obligation to see that America, after 190 years, now that we are the strongest nation in the world, still the richest, with more freedom, more opportunity here than any place in the world, that we do not, at this point, because of internal differences, differences between races, between religions, between regions, between ages, turn inward to attempt to solve those problems at the exclusion of moving forward, whether it is in playing our role in the world or exploring the unknown.

I don't agree with everything General de Gaulle said, because he said many things about this country that were very uncomplimentary and other things that he may have been wrong about. But he was a great judge of the spirit of the people. That was his contribution to France. And he restored the French spirit and he said France is her true self only when she is engaged in a great enterprise.

And America, in my view, will cease to be her true self when we cease to be engaged in an enterprise greater than ourselves, whether it is in playing our role in the world to bring peace with freedom wherever we can, whether it is exploring the unknown, whether it is moving forward in these problems, very difficult ones, human problems that we have between races and religions and generations in this country.

I simply want to say that one of the reasons that these regional briefings, I think, are very important to me as an individual, it gives me an opportunity to meet the opinion leaders, to share with you my concerns and to tell you that I will, of course, do everything that I can to end the war that we are in, to have better relations to build a lasting peace, to keep the Nation strong militarily, to get this economy moving so that we can get at unemployment and resist the high inflation.

But in this other field we desperately need your help to restore America's sense of confidence and sense of faith. Don't gloss over our failures. They are many. But recognize that this is a great country; that we are very fortunate to live here.

As we travel over the world, much as we see, much as we may want to go again, that when we return we realize that we have had good fortune to live in this country at a time when what we do matters--matters to us, matters to the world. We must meet that challenge, and we can meet it materially.

The question is, can we meet it spiritually and I think we can if we can get the right leadership from the opinion makers like yourselves in this room.