 The thing about start was, we feel and felt then that the destabilizing weapons, the things that have the world on edge and kids having nightmares, are weapons that you push a button and 30 minutes later the world blows up and there's nobody can do anything about it after you've pushed it. What we said was, the whole subject is so complicated, let's start with that. But we told the Soviets, then we'll go to these others. The conventional weapons that deliver those other missiles, the submarine or the airplane, they can be intercepted, but not turn back their missile after they've fired it. No, I knew that. But I knew that. Every president I've ever dealt with at some time or another is in shorthand, you know, mentioned that. But it's always been the same. That's what I thought. Listen, now you're very kind to see us. Thank you. I would like, if I could, just to dwell on one subject which has kind of been the theme of this convention up till now, and that is, and you mentioned it when you arrived about making the Republican Party America's party. And so many of the speakers have said put out a hand to the Democrats that are disaffected or looking for something else. And what I'd like to do is just talk a little about that. All right. What are you going to do with the Republican Party at this time? Is there a chance for a major realignment in this country in this election? Well, actually, in a way there is a realignment, except that people have retained their party allegiance. Now, I understand that. Having been a Democrat who changed, I can tell you how kind of traumatic it was the first time, or not the first time I voted for a Republican, but when it actually came down to re-registering and saying, I am a member of another party, when you've spent your life in one, what prompted that in your life? Well, Hugh, actually, I talked myself into it. When I, here's what I mean about, and maybe this will partly answer your question, then I'll give a better answer to it too. When I voted in 1932 for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I'm going to mention tonight in my remarks. That the Democratic platform then pledged 25% cut in federal spending and pledged the elimination of useless bureaus and departments. And Roosevelt, for whom I'd voted, campaigned, having been a governor, on returning authority to local levels of government and to the states and to the people who, he said, had lost authority to the government that had unjustly seized this power. Now, I went on, I was a loyal Democrat, and I used to campaign and help. I was an activist in all those times, but at the same time, you know, I've often used the expression that when I was in Hollywood that if you don't sing or dance, you wind up as an after-dinner speaker, so I was out on the mashed potato circuit, if I made a personal appearance it was to make a speech. And I always did my own, and for a time I talked about things like the industry, the motion picture industry. But more and more I was talking about what I thought was unnecessary encroachment by government in that industry. And I realized as I went on that to be of interest to other audiences, I'd have to show where they had a stake in this, too. And I began to talk more and more of how government had expanded and was infringing on liberties and interfering with private enterprise and so forth until it finally grew to the point that one day I came home from a speaking tour and said to Nancy, I go out there and make these speeches, which I believe are my own speeches. And then every four years I find myself campaigning for the people that are doing the things I'm speaking against. And I said, I'm on the wrong side. And in 1960 was when I was going to change. But I campaigned for the Republican ticket. But they asked me as long as I was a Democrat to stay a Democrat because it would be helpful to show that I could be for them and still be a Democrat. But when that was over, I said, no, I want to be a member of the party and switch. Now a few years ago, this is very interesting, there were some political scientists who did some studies of the two conventions. I can't remember whether it was the one before last or two elections back. What they studied was they took the delegates at the convention as the national leadership of a party, which I think was fair to say they were. And they studied to find out, was the leadership at the convention, where did it rank on all the issues with the rank and file membership of the party? In the Republican party, they found very little difference. The Republican rank and file were in agreement with the principles laid down by the leadership of the convention. In the Democratic party, they found there was almost a 180-degree difference on the major issues between the rank and file and their leadership. But strangely enough, they found that the rank and file Democrats were virtually in agreement with the Republican rank and file and leadership. Well if that is true, a political party isn't a fraternity, it isn't something like the old school tie that you wear, you band together in a political party because of certain beliefs of what government should be. Now if that many Democrats have come to believe in the same things the Republicans believe in, then there should be an amalgam of those two elements of the party. Just as if there are Republicans, and there are, who find themselves more sympathetic to some of the reforms and things that the Democratic party wants. But how do you bring that about? How do you get them to actually give up one label and take another? Well, I haven't thought of any great movement to bring that about, but it is happening increasingly. You saw a Democrat speaking at the Republican National Convention, Shane Kirkpatrick. We have seen some of our congressmen change, and right now one of them, who I think showed his great honor, and how honorable he is, was when having been sent back to Congress, Phil Graham, as a Democratic congressman from Texas. He realized he could no longer follow the leadership of his party. He became a Republican and then resigned his seat to go back and run over again in his district because he thought the people were entitled to vote on him again since he had changed his party label. Is this as great as opportunity as 1932, do you think, to realign the parties where we got the great Democratic majority that lasted so long? Well, I don't think we have the traumatic thing going on then. You had, having been a veteran of that, and I know that more than half the people in this country, many more than half, have no recollection of it at all. You would have had to live through it, and I lived at a particular time. I got out of school in 32 and was looking for my first job in the very depths of the Great Depression, 26% unemployed. The government putting ads on radio, telling people to stay home and not leave home looking for work because there was none. And there were no, none of the social safeguards then, nothing like unemployment insurance or anything of that kind. Now how do you appeal now? What is it? Who is the person you're going to get? Well, I think we have gotten a lot of them. I thought it was significant in the 76s and the primaries, but the primaries I won were the primaries in which there was a crossover allowed, where Democrats could vote in a Republican primary and vice versa. I won those states. What you do is keep enunciating the principles that we believe in and not shutting the door to these other people, but saying, can you continue to support? Well, it started in 1936 that early with Al Smith, who had been there, the 1928 Democratic candidate for president. Al Smith was Mr. Democrat himself, and in 1936, after only four years of the New Deal, he came before the American people on radio at a national broadcast and said, I can no longer follow the leadership of my party. It is out of step with everything my party represents. I am taking a walk. And he listed the points at which they were out of step. When I voted Democratic the first time, the Democratic Party, one of its strongest positions was states' rights. They are the party that abandoned that and said, oh, states' rights has been a synonym for imposing on the people and violating civil rights. But nonetheless, I gather you think this is a rather historic time, even though it may not rank as 1932, while you reach, though, say a young black in the ghetto who has grown up with no father, no hope, knows nothing but destitution, why should somebody like that appeal, the Republicans appeal to somebody like that? That is basically you. And I know that this is an oversimplification and a lumping into two broad terms, which is the only way to answer the question. Basically the Democratic Party has said, we'll take care of you. We'll see that you have food and shelter and so forth. But then, what is he? He's as beholden to that government institution as once upon a time they were beholden in slavery to the fellow that lived in the big house on the hill. Their party is saying to them, we want the kind of equality of opportunity that there would be no barriers whatsoever between you and whatever you want to dream and want to try to be. The only barrier will be within yourself is to your own ability to achieve your dreams. And I think this is what they want. I heard an interview of one of our delegates, a young lady who was black on the floor of the event last night. And it was exciting and thrilling. The man who was questioning around television was trying to get at, why are you here with the Republicans? What can they do? And she was answering so lucidly why there was greater opportunity. I think we've made great gains. Having lived as long as I have, I remember a time when, believe me, the problem in this country was so great and so unappreciated by many people. They just ignored it. But today we've come so far. Now here's what our goal must be. The goal must be that one day whatever is done to or for someone in this country is not done because of any difference in race or the color of their skin. It could be summed up a little bit with the line that Eisenhower spoke once in the war trying to, you know how he held the allies from having any interfraternity strife. And he said to some American officers who were impatient with some of the things that were going on, he said, look, you can come in and call them. And he said a word that I won't use here. And he said you can call them that. But don't come in and call them a British that. He said they're either that just because they as individuals are, but not because of their national alignment. Which segments of society that perhaps we would suggest are aligned with the Democratic Party, would you like to see switch over? Or is it labor? Would you like to see more blacks? What bothers you most? I think the minorities have far more to gain from the Republican Party. We are the ones who want them to have the same equality to fly as high and far as they can on their own ability, as far as it will take them. So the minority is yes. Labor? Yes. I have to say, in spite of the endorsement by the AFL-CIO, and I'm the only president who's ever served, who is a lifetime member of an AFL-CIO union, but that endorsement has not reached down into the rank and file. And 1980, I got a great deal of blue collar support, and I hope I'll get a great deal more here in 84. But they're aware that the things we've done are what have created 7 million new jobs, the things that we've done, are what have the industries booming again. What do you do now if you get this started in passing the mantle on to somebody to follow you? Time's up. Are you going to play a role in, if you're reelected and you have four years, are you going to play a role in picking your successor? Oh, no, certainly not what I hold this office, but I certainly would be campaigning for a candidate who espouse the things that we're trying to do. If we're successful in what we're trying to accomplish, and we've been successful so far, this recovery is evidence of that. I'm sorry. I said recovery. I said economists tell me that I should be calling it an expansion. We're past the recovery stage. But if we are, then I think the pattern is set for the next election as well. One last question here, Mr. President. You've been in show business, so you know kind of audience response. Your personal popularity is extremely high at this point. Why? How you've gone through some rough times. You've had a lot of criticism. The Democrats took you apart, and yet you're right back up there. What do you attribute to that? Hugh, I don't really know unless maybe the people have a way of sensing that I like them. And I do. I don't know how anyone could be in this business and not like people. And yet I know a lot of politicians may be out of fear because they have to worry about getting their votes, that really you sense they think of them as adversaries. They don't like them. No, I like people. How much do you want to win by? I am running as if I'm one point behind. I think the greatest enemy we have in this election is possible complacency. I'm going to heed the words of President Dewey. Don't get overconfident. Very good. Thanks a lot, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm going to hook you up here too.