 But a legend with his ability to break up Jack Benny. Yes, yes. Well, I spent a long time with him. I interviewed him at Playboy Magazine back in 1977. And the stories he told about it back then about George Jaisal and that whole group. Wonderful. Mr. President, this interview will be published July 3. So what thoughts do you have this year as America prepares to celebrate Independence Day? Well, I think that, first of all, I think that that holiday, the celebration of our nation's birthday, has continued to be a really great holiday in the spirit of our country. But I think right now, there's every reason for our people to feel patriotic and proud of their country out of this economic problem that we've had. The way the country has rallied and supported private initiatives, efforts to resolve some of the problems without turning to government. In a time when we're economically strapped, you would expect some things such as charities and worthwhile efforts of that kind to suffer. But if they haven't, we've been breaking records with people's willingness to contribute to help. And our own effort here to stimulate private enterprise projects to resolve some of these problems has just taken off like a skyrocket. We have in the computer here more than 3,000 programs in community levels or service levels or organizations that have formed within communities and areas to take care of everything from the needy to the getting jobs for the unemployed to just almost every community project you could think of. We have them computerized so that other people who want to answer some problem, respond to some problem, can put them in touch with individuals that already have a program doing whatever it is that concerns them. But all of it, and our armed forces, the same thing that has happened to them from just 2 and 1 half years ago when morale was at zero, when people were saying that the volunteer military was a failure that only through compulsion could we then provide what we needed. In this short time, it is a tremendous success. We have a higher level of individual in the armed services, both with regard to intelligence and education than we've ever had in the history, even when we had traps. A morale that is sky high the other day tying in with those private administrators things. The fact that we've asked government employees in our budget requests to do without things, such as increases or meeting any cost of living pay raises and so forth, I received a letter from Italy. 100 Marines are so over there that signed that letter just voluntarily to tell me that if that would be of help to the nation, they'd be happy to do without any federation. Mr. President, let me ask you a question about the Central American policies. Some of the reaction to your policies has been very emotional. The name Vietnam has been invoked often. How do the situations in the two areas differ so that you can offer assurances that US troops will not fight in Central America? I think to begin with, it's a different situation. We have in El Salvador, for example, a country that has proven its confidence in its own people by submitting to an election, even while there were armed guerrillas attacking that government. And the people with an 80% turnout better of the vote upheld the government and proved that the guerrillas did not reflect the desires of the people at all. They have never asked for the kind of military help that was delivered to Vietnam. True, they need material, but still, our economic help, 77 cents out of every dollar that has been for economic help, only 23 cents has gone for military training or equipment. But in Vietnam, you had a situation in which a long time colony of France called France Indochina, in the decolonizing that took place after World War II, the great nations met in Geneva, including our own, to help in this process what would take place in formerly France Indochina. Now, when that separation was made, two countries were created, South Vietnam and North Vietnam. They had been separated before the French made the whole area a colony, early history. So two nations were created again. Now, the one growing out of a force that had come together to resist the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, Ho Chi Minh's group in North Vietnam, they just automatically were the government of North Vietnam. South Vietnam was, you might say, a new country now that had to be taught and provided with all the things that go with being a government. And we were there to advise on how you could prepare and build a military for self-defense or their own defense. It was a case starting from scratch. You didn't have any officer corps or anything else. And that's how we were in there with advisors, in civilian clothes, not even in uniform. Supposedly, there was a revolutionary factor or faction within South Vietnam. But now that the North Vietnamese have conquered, we find out that no, they were North Vietnamese military who were infiltrated in to pretend to be South Vietnamese rebels. And they themselves have exposed themselves. I think there were mistakes made if we were going to send the military on the idea that no military defense had yet been organized in South Vietnam. Then it should have been sent in enough force to have ensured that there wouldn't be combat. But to draw that parallel to what we're doing in Central America, the only parallel that you can bring between the two Vietnamese or between Vietnam and Central America, I should say, the only parallel is that after we had withdrawn and after we had brought the South Vietnamese up to where we believed they did have a military that could defend themselves, we participated in the kind of negotiations which are being urged today by some in the Congress. Negotiations not on the basis of participating in a democratic election in El Salvador, but negotiations that the guerrillas still armed as an armed force should be negotiated with as to their right to share in the government without taking it to the people for a vote. And we did negotiate in the Paris Accords that South Vietnam would stay where it was. North Vietnam would, South Vietnam's army would take over its own defense. And the United States would guarantee to provide the ammunition and the arms if North Vietnam broke the treaty, which North Vietnam did. And then the Congress of the United States refused to keep the pledge that had been made by this country and provide the funds for helping to warm South Vietnam. Isn't that what some are kind of urging on us today without us ever having been involved in El Salvador, to take the wherewithal away from the El Salvadoran government? Mr. President, Richard Nixon, among others, has suggested that you should meet soon with Soviet leader Yuri Andropov. Do you think a meeting with Andropov would be useful? And do you have plans for such a summit? We're prepared to that. We've stayed in touch with the Soviet Union, communication with the Soviet Union. The one thing, and I don't think that Mr. President Nixon spoke contrary to this, because I know his views on that, you don't have a summit just for the sake of getting acquainted to say, well, we met. Too many hopes are raised when you have a summit meeting. Too many people are waiting for some tangible result. And then, well, we saw this example once under President Johnson, then to just come home empty-handed and say, well, yeah, we shook hands and had a nice visit. People's hopes nose-dive. When there is an agenda, when there is something to really be resolved, yes, we should have a summit meeting. And I'm prepared to do so. Mr. Nixon also once commented that you spoke maybe too nice to be president. How do you respond to that? Well, first of all, I appreciate being called too nice. I don't know if that's true or not. But no, I don't see any reason why you have to have a streak of villainy in order to hold this job. Jimmy Carter told us in an interview recently that he regrets not developing a closer relationship with the press. How would you describe your relationship with the press? And how well was the press doing in covering your administration? Well, I think personally, on a personal basis, I think we get along well. On the other hand, I think that there's a broad section of the press that does have a political bias or a political viewpoint that is contrary to mine. And therefore, I find myself bothered at times that I don't believe that they've looked at both sides of some issues. What has been your single greatest accomplishment since taking office? I would have to say the economic turnaround. What we proposed when we came here, our administration, was a complete reversal of what has been going on for literally almost 50 years as to the theory of government. And during all those years, the debate between, let's say, the side that I represent and the democratic majority, which has been in control, even though it did not hold a White House all the time. There has been a democratic majority in both houses to Congress for a very few years. And the only debated economic measures had to do with how much would be spent. Could we reduce some of the increases in government intervention in the private sector of government spending for additional social reforms and social tinkering? And we've turned that around. And the debate now is over how much will the cuts be in spending. What on the other side of the point, what has been your greatest disappointment? We didn't get as much of what we asked for as we should. If we had gotten all that we asked for in reductions in the increase in government spending, and this is something that has not been properly told to the people and that the people don't understand, we have never asked for a reduction in what was being spent. We have asked for a reduction in the projected increases. When we came here, government was increasing in cost of a rate of better than 17% a year. And we have that almost immediately and continue to bring it down since. But even so, and as I say, we never did ask to go backward and have a budget less than the budget before. And yet most people, we've talked budget cuts so much that in their minds, we have taken away from government programs. We've reduced government spending. And my regret is that if we had been given the reductions we asked for in increase of spending, the deficit, projected deficit for this year would be more than $40 billion less than it's going to be. What was the biggest misconception you had about the presidency before you occupied it? Well, the truth is there weren't any real surprises. And I lay that to the eight years as governor of California. We've turned to other than governors for a long time as presidential material. And the truth is the only political job in the country that is closest in experience to the presidency is to be governor of the state, not a number of the legislature. And therefore, I have to say that the routine was pretty much what it always had been, granted that it's on a bigger scale and granted also that as a state you don't have a foreign policy. But there haven't been. I think I was kind of braced for what was going to happen. Have you seen any information recently that would indicate that the nuclear freeze movement is being orchestrated or manipulated by the communists? Well, we do know this, that voice was first given to the idea of a nuclear freeze in Moscow. Brezhnev proposed this. We also do know that they have instructed their representatives throughout the world, their agents, to propagandize their masters of disinformation and to keep this stirred up and going. Now, when I once criticized the movement because of this factor, there were many people that thought this was red-baiting and that I was intimating that everybody involved was somehow a communist tool. I didn't mean that at all. And I believe that the bulk of the people are truly sincere and well-meaning. But I don't think in many instances that they're aware of the fact that the Soviet Union is continuing to propagandize this worldwide is providing disinformation that some people innocently pick up and use. And I know that what I'm saying is probably going to cause a furor again, but this is evident to the leaders in Western democracies in Europe. They know that this is done. And it takes me back to the riotous days on the campus at the time of the Vietnam War when I was governor. We knew this from police intelligence. We knew it from any number of reliable sources. That we're once upon a time, the Soviet Union during what was called the Cold War, dealt in communist front organizations in our country and went in to promote things behind the front of some kind of organization. Their tactic had changed at the time of the student riots. And what their mission was then was to be on both sides, that wherever there was a division or a controversy or a split, see if you couldn't widen it and keep it going. And so maybe something of that same thing is going on here with regard to this movement. Mr. President, you said that you're not in favor of a single four-year term for the presidency. Would you favor a single six-year term of office? I must say I'm toyed with that idea. I can't tell you that I've got a firm belief in that. I really can't. I know that four years for a single term in this office, I learned that as governor also. Many of the great accomplishments that we had in California, the welfare reform, things of that kind, though only the foundation had been laid in the first term. It takes a while, so you can get into, find out where all the buttons are. I can't really answer you as to whether six would be enough in a single term. But would be one thing about it, you'd be automatically a lame duck from the first day in office. Lou Cannon and Tip O'Neill, to name two, have concluded that you will not run for reelection. How reliable are their predictions? I think they're guessing. And maybe the way they're guessing is their own wish is fathered to the thought. I haven't made a decision, because I've simply reframed from it from the standpoint that, number one, I think it is too soon. There are hazards in either way that you would decide. You then would be a lame duck if you decided to really. Or you would then be accused of everything you wanted to do, that it was because of political campaigning. And besides, campaigns are too long. We don't give the people any rest in between, in this country anymore. But I've also reframed from even thinking about it, figuring that that is a decision to come down the road, that to start thinking about it now, whether you don't want to or not, could flavor your decisions on things that have to be decided. You can be the most honest person in the world. If you're playing cards and you inadvertently see another player's card, you can't take out of your mind that you know where that card is. So I don't even want to hear, and the people in the cabinet know that, and the cabinet needs, I don't even want to hear the political ramifications. Will your wife, the doctor, her feelings be the deciding factor of your decision to rent? Well, no, but we always have done things together. I don't imagine either one of us has made any important decision in our lives without it being a mutual decision. Are you both comfortable with the situation with the presidency? Yes. What would you hope to achieve if you serve the second term? Oh, the complete turnaround to a government that was spending within its means, to a government that was less of an interventionist in the private sector, and to a government that had succeeded in restoring more authority and autonomy to local and state governments. I think we have gone a long way, and I think also that we've reversed or at least slowed down that process. We've gone a long way toward forgetting that the greatness of this country was based on being a federation of sovereign states. There was a concerted effort, and it belonged to the philosophy of the majority party. Started years ago at the time of the Great Depression, that we needed to centralize authority in Washington, and that the states should just be administrative districts to the federal government. Well, the thing that makes us unique in all the world is that sovereignty of the states. That if you're tried for murder in this country, you were tried for having violated a state's laws. It is the state that tries you and punishes you. But many other things were left to the states with the founding fathers and their wisdom, and they properly belong there. Mr. President, how has the assassination attempt changed your outlook philosophically and your priorities? Well, I don't know that there's been any great change. Maybe I'm a little more aware of security now. I thought I was before because I had that kind of security for eight years, and I was right as days as governor. But no, if there is one change from a standpoint of not even knowing I'd been shot to begin with, to then later discovering how close I had come and being aware of a succession of miracles, happenings that lessened the danger to site one on the day that I walked into that emergency room at the hospital. As I say, not knowing I'd been shot. And as I developed the bullet was about one inch from my heart that the entire medical staff of the hospital, every doctor, was there. They were in a meeting. There was no having to wait a half an hour for calling for some doctor or 20 minutes or whatever would take for them to get there. They were all there. And things of that kind, I guess I have a feeling that whatever time I have left belongs to the power that was responsible for those miracles. Where do you take your troubles? How do you refresh your soul away from this pressure cooker? I've always loved one line in the scriptures that I look to the heels from whence come with my strength. Now, if I can't get to the ranch in California, at least between times, I can get to Cab David, but there's something about that. And getting on a horse out there in the countryside that does things. President Kennedy used to relax by reading Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. Do you have any similar reading in relaxation? I like to read. I've always been a voracious reader. Time I was a kid. And I love to read. One of my frustrations is now that there are books that I'd love to read novels on. But there are also books that I feel I should read, not only biographical but technical books and so forth. But in all of that, mainly my reading is nighttime when I get in bed and read myself to sleep. First, I have a whole pack of homework I have to go through. And I'm getting pretty sleepy by the time I finish with that homework. And I have books two or three up there with the leaf dog ear, where I've, as far as I've gotten in them, and some of them have been there many weeks before I can get back and pick them up again. For our sports fans, in 1930, Babe Ruth signed a contract for $80,000. And some sports writer cracked. Now you're making more money than the president. And the Babe replied, I had a better year than he did. These days, nearly every pro athlete makes more money than the president. Is this fair? Yes, I think so. I think the president gets enough, and the very fact that he is then pensioned and so forth, no problem there. I do feel this. We really have a puritan streak in this nation. And there are many positions in government, not the presidency, in which the type of personnel you get, for example, in our cabinet, people that are willing to serve their country and leave incomes that are as much as 10 to 15 times greater than they're allowed to receive as a cabinet member. And this extends below the cabinet, other appointed positions of the same kind that an individual has to make a tremendous sacrifice to hold those jobs. Now, maybe that could be reviewed for government. But more than that, suppose the salary stays the same and they continue to make the financial sacrifice. Over the years, there's been a body of legislation built up that really is demeaning as if somehow those people got those jobs to benefit themselves in some way. For example, you can no longer get a Christmas present, even from a friend you've been exchanging gifts with for years without you having to make it public and tell how much it cost. Now, someone close friend sends you a sweater for Christmas. How do you call him and say how much did this cost? There are things of that kind, the questions that have to be answered by an appointee before he is confirmed in a government position. Are questions that are almost in the asking of the question a challenge to his integrity and a denial that he has been willing to make the sacrifice he's been willing to make? And many of them are unnecessary with regard to proving someone's integrity. They are an unwarranted invasion of privacy. And you'd be surprised sometimes that an individual just has too much pride and was willing to accept a position and said, when he sees all of that, he says, I'm sorry. Mr. President, how would you like your political epitaph to read? Well, I hadn't thought about it. What about what he said he'd do? He did. And one final question. As a high school senior in 1928, you wrote, life is just one brain sweet song, so start the music. Now, 55 years later, do you still endorse that optimistic sentiment? I found the tune is pretty good. It plays? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I like that epitaph. If you want to turn that over from all the years I've been in the business, I don't know that I'm too complicated. They always scare me. I'm always afraid that they won't record. Well, if they don't or you lost anything, you might. Yeah, we got you going. We've got it. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.