 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening, this is David Ross. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope. Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. James H.R. Cromwell, former United States minister to Canada. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States senator from Oklahoma. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Senator Kerr, since you are a distinguished senator from Oklahoma and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, it's a pleasure to have you here tonight, sir, to discuss some of your views with our audience. Now, as a first question, sir, where do you fit in the Democratic firmament? Would you call yourself a new dealer or a fair dealer, sir? Well, you know, terms mean just what those who use them intend that they mean. I have supported Roosevelt, and in the main I have supported Truman. I call myself a liberal, Jeffersonian Democrat. I see. Now, would you care to say whether you think of yourself as being a Truman fair dealer? Are you in support of what is known as Truman's fair deal that he's now insisting on and has been insisting on while he's been there? Well, I could tell you a number of things which he is supposed to have included in what has been termed a fair deal that I don't agree with. State medicine, for instance. Socialized medicine and some things which we might go into, but in the main I am a liberal Democrat. Senator, you have quite a record as the governor of Oklahoma for having, I believe, changed the state deficit into a considerable saving. I believe that, isn't it true that when you were in office, the deficit was 45 million and when you left, what was the situation? I became governor, we were that much in debt in Oklahoma. When I left four years later, the last dollar of the debt had been paid and we had a $40 million surplus. Well, Senator, I read a very interesting little squib in the paper the other day to the effect that during the war, I think it was the year 1944 that our federal expenditures were and taxes were around $44 billion. And now in 52, with no war going on, it's we're gonna spend, I understand, between 80 and $90 billion. Now, as a man whose record is so excellent in trying to save money for the taxpayer, how would you handle a situation like that were you president? Well, as I remember in 1944, the tax income was under $50 billion, but the total expenditure was around $100 billion. Those were the years in which we increased the national debt, as you will recall, from about $40 billion to over $260 billion. Now, in the last five years, the combined income of the government has exceeded its expenses about $8 billion. This year, we'll have a deficit of less, however, than that amount. Next year, a greater one, but we're paying as we go almost. And as in view of the fact that we passed the peak of the defense spending next year, I think we can and will be back on a pay-as-we-go basis after the next fiscal year. To come back to the Democratic Party, Senator Kerr, as I understand it, there have been two movements in the party itself. There's been a movement toward compromise and playing down the differences within the party, the differences between the conservative and the more liberal elements. And then lately, even on the part of the president, there's been a sort of belligerent attitude on the part of the New Deal Fair Deal group. Now, are you one of those Truman belligerents that wants to drive on toward more and more so-called social gains? Or do you believe that the time has come for some compromise within the Democratic Party? Well, all progress comes about through compromise. There are those who wanna go faster than others. I must say to you that I'm about in the middle between the two extremes in the Democratic Party, Mr. Hewitt. You, much as the president was reported yesterday, is insisting that the big issue in 1952 should be Trumanism, that he'd like to see the election decided on the issue of Trumanism and that he expected to stump the country in the same manner that he did in 1948. Well, I'm sure that the president will support the ticket. But if he wanted to make the issues, he should have been the candidate. The issues will be made by the Democratic Convention in Chicago and the new nominee. Then I take it that you're none too anxious to make Trumanism the issue in 1952. Well, I'm neither anxious to make it nor to keep it from it. I recognize the reality that the issue will be the record and program of the Democratic Party on the one hand in contrast to the lack of either on the part of the Republican Party. How do you stand, Senator, on the so-called welfare state? Do you believe in what is generally known as the welfare state that the state should do all kinds of things for the citizen, such as unemployment insurance, social security? Do you suggest express the idea that you did not approve of socialized medicine, I believe? Never in any form or degree, but I am for the things that you have talked about to my mind, they don't have themselves identify anything as a welfare state. That's just another term. The federal government belongs to the people and they expect it to serve them. And as it does so constructively, they will support it. And if it doesn't, they'll repudiate it. But the greatest service it can render the people is to improve the opportunity of the average citizen to build his own security. But at the same time, recognize that the many reforms and improvements in the way of social progress and social security, which we have brought about are to the people's benefit and the people aim to keep them. Now, Senator, I'm sure that our audience would like a few questions on yourself. Now, I believe it is true that you are one of those tremendously wealthy oilmen from the Southwest. Do you plead guilty to that charge? Yeah, my opponents have always accused me of being a big rich oil man and then they go out and prove it on me, see? Well, you're the biggest and richest man that's running this time for president. I doubt that, but I can tell you briefly a little illustration of that. When I started running for governor, I thought the oil men would be for me. And two, three of them were. But they found out I was a new dealer and it hurt me. But I want to tell you when the new dealers found out I was an oil man, it almost beat me. Well, now, do you see anything in Congress, anything unusual about a big, rich Oklahoma oil man being such a fiery supporter of Trumanism or the New Deal or social legislation? I've said this before and in spite of the fact that it's reputation, I want to say to you, you should have seen me and my family under Hoover. We made every dollar we've got under Truman and Roosevelt. And so far as I know most everybody else did, I'd venture to say maybe that you did. And I believe this, that those who have improved their conditions under Roosevelt and Truman should vote for a continuation of that program and those who have suffered might be justified in voting against it. There's one other question I believe you have. It's true that you are a Baptist and a Sunday school teacher, or rather pious man, isn't that? Well, I'm a Baptist and a Sunday school teacher. I make no claim to being pious. Well, since you have that background, sir, how has all this corruption and scandals and the indication of thievery down in Washington? What have you thought about that, sir? I'm just as much against that as any other good, red-blooded American citizen can be and ought to be. You think you could clean it up? I know I could. Are you, speaking generally, sir, do you, as a citizen and as an American, are you concerned about the fact that the federal government may be gaining too much power over the individual citizen of this country? I'm always concerned about any level of government gaining too much power over the individual citizen. You're suspicious of power. Always, wherever it may be, economic power or governmental power. Do you believe in these very large expenditures for foreign aid? I have supported the foreign aid program thus far, provided, believing that it was buying us a greater amount of national security than any other of the defense expenditures we made. Just a word, sir, on your own campaign plans. Could you tell our audience something about what you expect to do between now and the convention? Are you entered in any other states? I'm not entered in any other state primary. I'm visiting every state that I can reach. I'm speaking to the democratic conventions and gatherings in those states. I am making myself as well known as I can to the delegates and the alternates and to the people generally. How many delegates do you expect to have committed to you by the time of the convention? Well, I would hope that I would have more than I expect to have. And as a final question, sir, it's been alleged and stated by people on both sides that perhaps there's some danger of both parties nominating the same man this time. Now, first, do you think that there is any likelihood of both parties nominating the same individual for president? I think if there were any possibility of it, it would be a great danger. But I don't think there's any possibility of it. You, at any event, you wouldn't be in favor of any such thing. No, sir. Any man that wants to carry that Republican banner so far as I'm concerned is going to have to carry it alone. Well, I'm sure that our audience very much appreciates your views tonight, sir. And thank you very much for being with us. Thank you for this opportunity. The editorial board for this edition of the Laund gene chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. James H.R. Cromwell. Our distinguished guest for this evening was the honorable Robert S. Kerr, United States Senator from Oklahoma. Do you have the problem of selecting a gift of great prestige for someone important to you? For Father on Father's Day, for instance? Well, that problem is most happily solved with Laund gene, the world's most honored watch, the cause of the outstanding quality of the watch itself, and because of what the name Laund gene stands for. To the whole world, Laund gene stands as the only watch in history to win the highest of all awards 38 times at World Spheres and International Expositions, including 10 grand prizes and 28 gold medals. Laund gene, the world's most honored watch, also stands for the watch of first choice in sports, aviation, science, and other fields of precise timing. And Laund gene stands for the watch to be classified first at the four great government observatories, Washington, Geneva, Q. Teddington, and Neuchâtel. The gift of great prestige for any occasion for Father on Father's Day or for your favorite graduate is Laund gene, the world's most honored watch. And throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much. Yet you may buy and own or buy and proudly give the Laund gene watch for as little as 7,150. Laund gene, the world's most honored watch, premiere product of the Laund gene Wittner Watch Company since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. This is David Ross speaking for your regular host, Frank Knight, inviting you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at the same time for the Laund gene Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Laund gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion for the world honored Laund gene, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laund gene Wittner watches. This is the CBS television network.