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

This story originally appeared in the December 17, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report.

Q  Mr. Ford, as a Vice President who was not elected by the people, do you think this will hamper or inhibit you in any way in your performance in office?

A  I see no reason why it should. As a matter of fact, it's quite possible that, with the kind of investigation that I went through, I have taken office with a cleaner bill of health than some people who might have been chosen in the traditional way.

Q  Are you referring to the investigation that preceded your confirmation by Congress? How intensive was it?

A  The Federal Bureau of Investigation sent 70 agents into Grand Rapid, Mich., my home town, for a week. That was in addition to the FBI's regular force of about 10 people in that office. Across the nation, I am told, the FBI used a total of about 350 agents to look into my affairs.

There was a good reason for a big force, because there was a great deal of pressure to get this massive investigation completed as quickly as possible. As you might imagine, the impact on a town the size of Grand Rapids was very substantial.

As for my finances, four FBI auditors spend several days checking my income-tax returns. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service also sent in three auditors who checked my income-tax returns, going back seven years. They came up with a list of about 120 items that were in some dispute. We cleared up all but one in my favor. Frankly, I would have contested that one except that I didn't consider it worth the trouble. I ended up paying $435.27.

In addition to that, of course, the House Committee on the Judiciary went to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation and asked some of their people to go to my accountant—a certified public accountant—for another examination. They took all of my check stubs from my two personal accounts and three business accounts, reconstructing a cash-flow chart for the past seven years. They came up with, really, nothing unusual at all.

I agree it was necessary to conduct such an investigation. I don't think the public or the Congress would have been satisfied otherwise.

Q  Do you think that, in the future, it might be a good ideal for all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to undergo such an investigation before an election?

A  If it were practical, I think it would be good for a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate to go through this kind of scrutiny. But with the nominating and electing process that we have, I don't think it would be feasible.

Can you imagine a Republican nominee going before a committee controlled by Democrats—or vice-versa? I don't think it would work satisfactorily.

Q  Will you spend more time working on relations with Congress than Vice President Spiro Agnew did?

A  I hope so. That's what the President wants me to do. I think that was the major reason he selected me. Particularly with [White House aid] Melvin Laird probably leaving his job in the future, I think somebody has to assume that responsibility. Mel has been a great help in that area and I think the Administration needs that kind of liaison very badly. I wish Mel would stay, because it's a big enough job for two or more people.

Working with Congress will certainly be my major responsibility, as I see it.

Q  Is it the plan that you would help sell President's program to Congress?

A  I don't think "selling the President's program" is quite the right way to put it. You must start with the assumption that there are some differences between the President's program and what a majority of the Democrats in the House or Senate might want. I would hope that I could get into the formulation of legislation at an early stage so that at the subcommittee or committee level and on the floor we could avoid polarization, so we could avoid situations where a presidential veto became necessary, followed by a congressional sustaining of the veto, and at that point have to go back and start the whole legislating process all over.

Q  Aside from this principal duty of liaison with Congress, what else do you expect to do, viewing your job in its broadest aspects?

A  Based on the experience I've had so far, the White House quite frequently will ask me to take speaking engagements that the President doesn't have time to accept.

Then of course, there are party functions that will require attention. I was asked several times in my confirmation hearings: Would I be out on the hustings campaigning for Republican candidates? And I said, to the degree that I could, time permitting of course, I would.

In my appearances around the country, I have my own speaking style. But I think it's part of my responsibility to promote affirmatively the programs the Administration believes in.

Q  What about foreign travel? A Vice President is often used as a sort of good-will ambassador, or on special assignments abroad. Do you anticipate doing much of that?

A  Possibly, but that certainly isn't in my early planning.

Q  Just how much campaigning for other Republican candidates do you expect to do?

A  I can only say that to the degree that I can help Republican candidates and still maintain my work load here, I will do it. However, I recognize that there is some concern about travel of this kind that involves the use of aviation fuel. The energy crisis could restrict my activities.

Q  How closely will you be working with the Republican Governors and local leaders across the country?

A  I went to the Republican Governors Conference in Memphis last month because I want to continue the relationship I had established with them beginning in 1965, when I became Minority Leader of the House.

I went to virtually every one of the Republican Governors meetings in the capacity, and I didn't want them to feel that in my new area of responsibility I was going to change. I hope to go to a number of other Republican regional meetings.

When I go for a particular purpose, such as supporting a congressional candidate, obviously I'll also be working with the local Republican Party.

Since I'm not going to be a candidate in 1976, I'm not as "suspect" as some others might be in the sense of being personally ambitious, and therefore, I can perhaps be more helpful in bringing the party together.

Q  You say you're not going to be a candidate in 1976. Can you envision a situation where your name might be very high in the thoughts of leaders of your party in '76 as a presidential candidate?

A  I can envision such a situation. But I assure you that my own personal feeling is that I will not be a candidate—and I mean that very strongly and very sincerely.

Q  Why will you not be a candidate?

A  Primarily, the reason why I will not run in '76 is that I think I can do a better job for the Administration and the party by not involving myself in the prospects of a personal campaign for the Presidency. I think being a candidate or a potential candidate would significantly undercut what I hope I can do as Vice president.

Q  Do you mean that people would be suspicious of you or your actions and motives if you were a potential candidate?

A  Right.

Q  Once it became 1976, would that still be a valid argument?

A  Well, I suppose you can make that point. But we have now—and I'm sure we'll have in '76—some good potential candidates.

Q  Are you definitely foreclosing the option that might be open you thee years from now?

A  I am foreclosing that.

Q  Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman once said, in effect, that if nominated he would not run, and if elected, he would not serve. Are you, in effect, making a Sherman-like commitment—or is there a crack left in the door?

A  I have not make a Sherman-like commitment, but as far as I can foresee there is no possibility of my being a candidate in '76.

Q  Does this mean that if—for any reason—you became President before 1976, you would step aside and not run to stay in that office?

A  Yes, that is what I am saying.

"NO EVIDENCE" TO IMPEACH NIXON—

Q  While we're on this subject: Do you expect President Nixon to serve out the full remainder of his term?

A  I do. I've seen what he has said in public. I have talked with him personally, and I can assure you that he has no intention whatsoever of resigning.

Q  How would you evaluate, as of now, the movement in Congress to impeach the President?

A  I have said that, to clear the air, the investigation by the House Judiciary Committee ought to proceed.

On the other hand, I have said just as strongly that there is no evidence, in my opinion, that would justify the Committee or the House passing the resolution necessary to impeach. I do not see sufficient evidence under the constitutional definition of grounds for impeachment—"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Q  Would you anticipate, as many have speculated, that with you in office as Vice President, the congressional effort to impeach Mr. Nixon might intensify?

A  The House Judiciary Committee is finished with the job of investigating me and so will be free to undertake an impeachment investigation. They have just been voted a million dollars for that purpose.

I suspect there will be some action by the Committee staff to investigate the various "charges" that have been made against the President. But as I look at the so-called charges, they just don't fit what the Constitution cites as ground for impeachment.

Q  What are the people back home telling their Congressmen on this impeachment matter now?

A  At the height—or, you might say, the depth—of Watergate, whichever you want to call it, several weeks ago the mail was running very strongly along the line that the President should either resign or be impeached.

But there's been a significant switch, a very decided change. Today I would say the mail, at least in my office, is running about equal—for and against resignation or impeachment. From my talks with other members of Congress, I think that's rather typical of the mail that most are receiving.

Q  Will you be helping the President in the "operation candor" to bolster the public's confidence in him?

A  I've made some suggestions over the last month or so which have been reflected in some of the things he has done in "operation candor." I have strongly urged that he get out and make speeches to various groups, as he has done. I hope he continues it. I think it's absolutely essential that he appear before groups, not only here but elsewhere throughout the country.

I've urged that the White House tapes and any other documents that involve Watergate and related matters be made available to the courts, and the Senate investigating committee, and to the public generally.

I am positive the President is innocent of any involvement in Watergate, and I'm told that these documents including the tapes, will verify that.

Q  Should the President appear before the Senate investigating committee where there would be questions to and answers by the President?

A  I don't think the President should go up to the Committee as a whole and testify. There may be another way to do it. And there are, I think, some alternatives being examined.

Q  What sorts of alternatives?

A  One would be to have the Committee chairman, a Democrat, and the vice chairman, a Republican, go to the White House; or perhaps the Committee could submit some questions and have the President answer them in writing. I don't know all the alternatives that are being discussed, but I do know that some are under consideration.

WHY WATERGATE "HAS FESTERED"—

Q  Looking back, where do you think the Administration went wrong in its handling of the Watergate case?

A  Somebody should have been held responsible and fired at the very outset. If that had been done, I think there would have been nothing like the turmoil that we've seen. Either someone was negligent in not pressing for the kind of action, or else it was hoped that time would take care of the problem. But it hasn't. And the net result is that this problem has festered and festered and festered.

Q  Do you believe there was a deliberate cover-up attempt at the White House?

A  I really don't know that. I don't believe—and I say this strongly—I don't believe that the President himself had any knowledge of the operation.

Somebody, somewhere along the line, did not come clean with the President.

Q  Do you feel the Special Prosecutor and his staff are proceeding in a fair and impartial way in their investigations of Watergate and related cases?

A  As far as I can see, the answer is yes.

Q  Looking ahead, how can something like Watergate be prevented from happening again? Do you think that we need new laws?

A  We don't have to pass new laws to discourage people from doing the sort of thing the Watergate conspirators did break into the Democratic headquarters. That kind of act is already covered by criminal statutes.

It seems to me one problem was that there weren't enough people over at the Committee for the Re-election of the President who had had practical campaign experience. Nobody with such experience would have approved such a stupid thing as breaking into the Democratic headquarters. Even if it had been successful, it would have been absolutely without any benefit at all. You can get information from most campaign committees simply by reading the newspapers. There was just nothing that would justify that kind of stupid operation.

As for the alleged cover-up, I don't think you have to pass any more laws to deal with such actions, either. Those involved will be brought to court, either for perjury or for obstruction of justice or whatever they may be accused of.

Q  Do you believe the President's "operation candor" is succeeding thus far?

A  It has made a decided change in public opinion. And yet, there's a long way to go. The pendulum, as I see it, has begun to swing. But the President can't stop now. He's got to expand it and continue at the same pace that he has been going the last few weeks.

Q  How much of a setback has resulted from the recent disclosures of gaps in those White House tapes?

A  I think it's too early to assess that. The thing that has to happen quickly-or as quickly as possible—is to reveal the content of the tapes that are available. If they contain what I believe they contain, that will be extremely helpful.

But all the public knows, so far, is that, first, the tapes weren't going to be released by the White House, and then, when they were released to the court, there were gaps or there were tapes that were missing altogether. Nobody has yet heard what's on the tapes—and that's got to be made available.

Now the people involved are saying that a technical investigation of the authenticity of the tapes might take several weeks. That could mean it might be after New Year's before anybody knows what's in the tapes. That's very unfortunate. I think that if they have transcripts of the tapes' contents, the White House ought to release them right now—the sooner the better.

Q  Is there a question that some of the tapes might contain sensitive material relating to national security?

A  As I understand it, Judge [John J.] Sirica, in camera, is going to weed out those portions of the tapes that are not relevant to the judicial proceedings. You could always have a difference of opinion as to what is relevant and what the White House feels would involve national security. Maybe that's why the White House is somewhat hesitant. I haven't discussed this in detailed.

Q  Is the Special Prosecutor having any trouble getting other White House files, besides the tapes?

A  I haven't gotten into the details of that, either. My understanding is that the White House is going to co-operate fully.

Q  Aside from the national-security problem, do you see any obstacle to the President's turning over anything that's sought by the court?

A  I wouldn't think so.

Q  Do you see the principle of executive privilege as an obstacle?

A  It appears now that the President has decided that in the national interest, executive privilege ought to—in effect—be waived.

I think that was a wise decision.

PROSPECTS NOW FOR REPUBLICANS

Q  What effect is the Watergate case and its related affairs likely to have on next year's congressional elections?

A  My theory is that if the world is at peace, which I think it will be, and if our economy is healthy, which I think it will be, then I don't think Watergate will have much impact.

On the other hand, if we are having serious problems diplomatically, militarily or economically, then Watergate will be an issue that will get blown up out of all proportion to its real magnitude.

Q  Will it still be around as an issue in 1976?

A  I hope not.

Q  How can the Republican Party—as distinct from the President—overcome the political effects of Watergate?

A  In the first place—and I say this in political gatherings—there isn't a Republican member of the House or Senate that was involved in Watergate. No party organization—the Republican National Committee or any other Republican organization—had any involvement. It was a relative handful of misguided individuals who precipitated the Watergate crisis.

So, since the party has no involvement and no incumbent candidate has any involvement, the Republican Party and the individual candidate can campaign on the record.

Q  Are some Republican candidates trying to disassociate themselves from Watergate by demonstrating their independence from the White House?

A  It's quite interesting to see the letters we get. A lot of letters really castigate some Republicans for not supporting the President.

Q You have recently taken the lead in reviving the Republican Co-ordinating Committee. Why? What is that organization intended to do?

A  The re-establishment, or the revival, of the Republican Co-ordinating Committee was stimulated by Senator [Hugh] Scott [Senate Republican Leader] and George Bush [the Republican National Chairman] and myself, because we felt it had done a good job in '65, '66 and up through '68, at a time when we were at a low, low level. We were a lot lower in '65 than we are today, in my judgment.

In any case, that organization was put together then and its aim today is to bring the party, the leadership, together and to start planning for '76, as we did back in the previous era in planning for '68. It brings in Governors, it brings in State legislators, it brings in party officials, it brings in the congressional leadership, and it brings in the White House. This can't help but have a beneficial impact as we expand it and as we get into some of the political as well as policy areas.

Q  Whom do you see now as the leading Republican candidate for President in 1976?

A  I wouldn't like to pick a leading one. There are men we all know about—Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, Governor Ronald Reagan of California and former Governor John Connally of Texas. I think those are the leading prospects. Then you also have Senator Charles Percy of Illinois and Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee. And I gather there's some movement for Government Tom McCall out in Oregon.

Q  Mr. Ford, suppose you were to become President before 1976. What kind of Administration would you organize? Would you have the same officials stay on or would you bring in new ones?

A  If, as a result of some unfortunate incident, I were put in that position, I would say that I would want most of the people now in the Administration to stay on. I think the President's Cabinet today is a good one. But I think it's bad for me to even speculate about that prospect.

Q  Getting back to the role you expect to play as Vice President: How much freedom do you expect to have to take positions independent of the President?

A  The positions I took before the two congressional committees that held hearings on my nomination were, in five or six instances, different from those that the President himself has taken. I think he and I had an understanding that, although we would have a high degree of unanimity on foreign policy, it wasn't quite as essential to have so close an identity on domestic policy. By that arrangement, I think we agreed that I could have a certain flexibility in areas other than foreign policy. That's what I did as far as my committee hearings were concerned.

Q  Do you expect to continue the same kind of arrangement as Vice President?

A  Yes, except that I think it might work a little differently. I would hope to be a part of the process by which programs are finalized—to have an input in their formulation.

There have been in the past—and probably will be in the future—instances where, after all that process of program planning has been completed, I still would not agree. For example, I didn't agree for a long time and still don't agree with the diversion of Highway Trust Fund to help finance mass transit.

Now, supposing you go through that process, and you have an opportunity to make you input, and you still have some serious reservations. The question then arises: Do you go out and crusade about the difference that exists between the Administration's view and your own? Or do you just remain silent and let others sell the President's idea, while you maintain your own position but don't go out and publicly undercut the President's program?

Q  Which course would you follow?

A  I think I would try to be a team player. There could be instances where I would have a serious, very deep-seated difference of opinion. I suppose in that instance, if I were asked, I'd have to indicate my difference.

But whether I would go out and crusade about it—that's another matter. I think we'll just have to wait and see how things go.

Q  What about your personal relations with the President? How much direct access do you expect?

A  So far, I've had all the access to the President that I thought was necessary.

After my nomination, I was at the White House to see him in my capacity as Minority Leader about four times with Republican leaders, and probably two or three times in bipartisan meetings. I met with the President personally four or five times, alone. And I talked to him on the phone—I can't count how many times. I would hope that this access to the President will continue. I'm positive there won't be any problem in that regard.

Q  As Vice President do you expect to have a personal staff of your own, or do you plan to use the White House staff?

A  We are in the process of finding out what the staff arrangements were for previous Vice Presidents. We find it has varied, in size and in the kinds of people. It appears that we will have a different type of staff than the most recent Vice President, Mr. Agnew—probably not as large. In some areas, rather than setting up a duplicate staff, we expect to rely on the White House.

TAKING PART IN DEFENSE POLICY

Q  As a member of the National Security Council, do you see yourself becoming involved in the formulation of national-security policy?

A  Since I am the vice chairman of the NSC, and also of the Domestic Council, I do definitely plan to participate. Fortunately, in the case of the National Security Council, much of my background in Congress before I became Minority Leader was in the area of military policy because of my 12 years on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Central Intelligence Agency Subcommittee and the Foreign Aid Subcommittee. So I have a lot of background in that area.

I don't mean to say that I will be active in the formulation of foreign policy. But I will be in on some decision making on military programs and policies, and that does get indirectly into the foreign-policy field.

Q  Your predecessor, Spiro Agnew, was described as "the cutting edge" of the Administration. Do you envision your role as different from that of Mr. Agnew?

A  I do, because our style is different, for one thing. I don't think I could have as many friends on Capitol Hill as I do—on both sides of the aisle—if I had been contentious or abrasive. So, although I can be very firm and can make a strong partisan speech—and have done so many times on the floor of the House—I don't end up in a confrontation with people or cause them to take offense at the approach I have taken.

Q  You mentioned you difference in style, which brings us back to a previous question: If you became President, would you organize an Administration differently from the current one—a White House to fit your own style?

A  Of course we all have different ways of running our offices or our business. But again, I don't want to speculate on that.

Q  Would your philosophy indicate shifts from policy directions as we've known them in the Administration?

A  I don't think it's healthy for me to say what I would do as a President that would be different from what the present President is trying to do. You see, that could, right at the outset, bring a division between him and me. I just don't think I ought to be entering my new office with that problem.

"I'M A REFORMED ISOLATIONIST"

Q  Mr. Vice President, how would you describe you political philosophy?

A  In foreign policy I have said—and I really say it emphatically—I consider myself an internationalist. I'm a reformed isolationist who, before World War II, was mistaken like a lot of people. Through a series of events—military service and otherwise—I have become, I think, a very ardent internationalist.

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?

A  I have many reservations about it.

What worries me is that no committee of Congress has seriously studied public financing of presidential or senatorial or congressional campaigns. Every time the matter has come up it's been brought up as a floor amendment—usually on the Senate side—without committee hearings on the subject.

To this day, there has never been a thorough investigation of how to do it or how it would work.

What concerns me is that once you start down the road of public financing on a major scale, I don't think you'll ever be able to go back. We ought to look thoroughly at the alternatives and where we might end up. It's a serious matter that deserves more than just a few Senators or a few House members putting together a bill and shooting it directly to floor.

Public financing may be desirable. It may be an answer. But I just don't believe it has been given serious-enough consideration.

Q  It is constitutional to use taxpayers' money to finance campaigns for candidates they may not favor?

A  I'm sure questions will be raised about it in the courts. There are very able lawyers who will take the position that it is unconstitutional, at least as far as minority-party candidates are concerned.

Q  Mr. Vice President, do you think the executive branch of the Government—the Presidency—has acquired or asserted too much authority over the years? Should Congress reassert or expand its authority, as against the White House?

A  Unquestionably, there has been a transition of power from the Congress to the executive. I think most of it took place during World War II and subsequent periods of military conflict.

There has also been some authority given up by Congress, even in peacetime. In many instances, I would say the Congress has done this willingly. But, to some extent, Congress may have been bludgeoned into it.

I hear these cries that Congress is not going to give up any more power to the President and is going to retrieve some that it has already given up.

Yet, in this legislation to deal with the energy emergency, Congress is giving up potentially more authority than it has given up in almost any other area.

Q  Is this bad?

A  It may be necessary. I'm not saying it isn't. All I'm saying is that I wish Congress would stop protesting about loss of power one day and then giving up more power the next day, figuratively speaking.

Q  Do you expect to see a reversal of this flow of power—back toward Congress and away from the executive?

A  Not in any major way.

Q  How serious do you think this energy situation is? And how long do you think the emergency will last?

A  I've listened to a lot of experts, and the experts say we've got a crisis right now, and it's not going to get materially better for another 12 months—and it's going to continue to be a real problem all through the 1970s.

Of course, if there should be a settlement in the Middle East and the oil embargo by Arab nations is lifted, that would help significantly.

But experts seem to agree there would have been a fuel-oil and gasoline shortage even if there hadn't been the embargo—not because of a lack of crude oil, but because of a lack of refinery capability. The refinery shortage can be remedied, as I understand it, in maybe a year or 18 months. But if you don't remedy the crude-oil situation, more refinery capacity won't help.

Q  What solutions do you suggest?

A  Congress ought to move on deregulation of natural gas at the wellhead. You should talk to people from Louisiana or Texas. I was with several Congressmen from those areas recently, and it's amazing to hear the stories they tell about gas wells that have been capped and will not be uncapped, because the owners will not sell the gas at the price the Federal Power Commission fixes. They're just going to keep that gas in the ground.

There are some other things that ought to be done. We ought to expedite the process by which we plan and bring into operation our nuclear power plants. It takes us about twice as long as it does in Japan and Western Europe to get our nuclear plants into operation.

Obviously, we ought to find better ways to utilize our coal reserves. Research has been slow, but it certainly can be expedited to find the means by which we can use coal in a cleaner and more efficient way.

Q  Should we open up our naval oil reserves, as long as we can't supply our Mediterranean and Pacific fleets out of oil from the Persian Gulf?

A  I think there ought to be some leeway there. I'm told that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed the idea, but I think they're unwise, because a healthy economy is necessary to support an adequate defense program. If you have a depression as a result of a fuel shortage, the defense program is not going to be very well financed.

WHEN VOTERS GROW SHORT OF FUEL

Q  What could be the political consequences of this fuel emergency? You said it will last at least a year. That carries it right up through the 1974 elections. If people are cold, can't get gas to drive their cars, and factories are shut down, forcing people out of work—how are the people going to vote?

A  I think they'll vote against all the incumbents—Democratic or Republican. I don't think any member of Congress can absolve himself from some responsibility. So incumbents of both parties are going to be in trouble.

Now, under the dire circumstances that you suggest, there may be more Republicans hurt than Democrats, because people do tend to blame things on the party in power. But I don't think any incumbent is going to have a pleasant time if the fuel shortage is really severe at the time of the 1974 elections.