Vice President Ford: "Why I Will Not Run in '76": An Exclusive Interview

Q  Are you of the view, like the late Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, of your State, that political partisanship has no part in our foreign policy?

A  I've tried to follow that policy. When I served in Congress under Democratic Presidents I supported, for example, President Kennedy.

I supported President Johnson on Vietnam—at least as to objectives, although I vigorously disagreed with him on the proper utilization of military power. I supported President Truman on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and on foreign aid.

It seems to me that if we are to have a national foreign policy, it ought to be bipartisan.

That bipartisanship deteriorated in 1971 and '72, as far as Vietnam was concerned. But now that we're over that hump, I feel it's essential that we re-establish the bipartisan approach.

Q  On domestic affairs, how would you describe your political philosophy?

A  I have voted consistently as a "conservative" on financial affairs. I think that is the right policy. I've been among the top members of Congress, as rated by different organizations, in voting for less-expensive programs or for reduced amounts for various programs.

Q  Are you talking about social programs?

A  Right.

Q   In your confirmation hearings, some civil-rights groups criticized your record in that area. What is your comment?

A  No. 1, I think I was voting the sentiments of my district in my votes on civil-rights legislation. No. 2, I frequently voted for amendments to various pieces of legislation when I thought the measures went too far. And I think I was right.

In the end, after we'd gone through the amending process in both the House and Senate, and we'd had a conference report reconciling the differences, it's my recollection that I voted finally for every civil-rights measure, whether it involved voting rights or housing or whatever.

But I certainly exercised my option to vote for amendments that I thought were desirable. I think almost all of the criticism of the civil-rights groups was aimed at my votes on amendments, not my final votes on civil-rights bills.

On the other hand, there was some testimony on my behalf by blacks. Art Fletcher [a former Assistant Secretary of Labor] came up and testified before the House committee and praised my efforts on behalf of the Philadelphia Plan to provide a certain proportion of construction jobs for blacks.

I had many favorable letters from blacks in my congressional district. We have a black mayor in Grand Rapids, Mich., and a black man heads the city's human-relations office. They both wrote letters supporting me. We've had several blacks involved in our community-action programs and related efforts, all of whom either wrote letters or communicated in some way to the two committees that—from a functional point of view, at the local level—I had shown an interest and had helped them immeasurably.

Q  What is your position on busing children to improve racial balance in school enrollments?

A  I strongly feel that there's a better way than busing to improve educational opportunity for the disadvantaged. I think compensatory education—where you put more money in to provide more and better teachers and facilities—that's the way to improve education for all, particularly the disadvantaged. And that's really the worthwhile goal.

But as for arbitrary court action seeking to get a numerical racial balance as a means of improving education—I think that's the wrong approach.

Q  One result of Watergate has been a move in Congress to change the methods of raising money to financing to finance political campaigns. Do you favor public financing of campaigns as the answer to this problem?