"People Are Looking for Answers"

Candidate Jackson talked with TIME Correspondent Stanley Cloud last week in Washington, B.C. Highlights of the interview:

How would your presidency differ from others?

Mine would be an activist, provocative Administration. Let us first talk about the economy. True, we can't totally tame the business cycle. But I think that it can be influenced in a substantial way to be less troublesome and to unleash the enormous resources of this country. What has happened is that there has been a tendency to deal with effects and not causes, so we have had a lot of patchwork, ad hoc solutions that do not deal with the overriding issues of growth and wage-price stability.

I would use the resources of the Government and of the private sector to take inventory of what our requirements are for the next ten, 15, even 20 years, much as A T & T and other big companies do. I would look at the requirements in terms of both available resources and what we need to do. We have to think in terms of new technologies, new materials, what is required in education, training and so on, both in the sciences and the simple trades. When I look at our needs and I look at our resources and what we need to do, I see an America in which everyone is going to be fully employed. I see an America where, literally, we will rebuild the country. We will have to do it with great skill, of course, because resources are finite. We can't corrupt the atmosphere and the water and the land in the name of growth.

What policy changes would you advocate in foreign affairs?

Looking ahead, the biggest problem will be in maintaining a proper equilibrium among the three powers--Russia, China and the U.S. The U.S. has a tremendous responsibility to maintain a credible posture both in material terms and in being able to deter wars. We will need the kind of skill in diplomacy that will avoid brinkmanship and the possibility of miscalculation.

How would your foreign policy differ from President Ford's?

The broad outline of better relations and communications with Russia and China would continue to be the objective. We have made a beginning, but it is going to be a very, very difficult road, full of booby traps. I don't want to be specific right now, but people who assume that I am rigid in every area are wrong. I am not a wild man, but I am also not the kind who is prone to the status quo. I am not frightened of embarking on new courses that are going to upset a lot of people.

You have been accused of having in effect prolonged the cold war by pressing for freer emigration of Soviet Jews. What is your response?

The immediate reaction of some people to the announcement that the Russians were backing out of the trade agreement was that detente is off. Very candidly, the Russians have given every indication that they want to continue detente.

We should not let the Russians decide that we are patsies. They are watching the American reaction. If we cave in, the Russians will decide that they can get away with things like this. But if they want to break off detente, it won't be over an issue of this kind.

Many people fear that you would issue a blank check to the Pentagon for new weapons. Is there any end to the development of new means of annihilation?

Science is not on a plateau, and we will not be able to outlaw new theoretical methods of annihilation. I think though that we do need a more effective code of arms limitation. We need a better way of monitoring [the other side] to reassure other nations of the limitation on destruction. That can be carried out if we can get the Soviets to agree to on-site inspection.

Why are you hopeful that an agreement of that kind is possible?

Over the long run, I think that the Russians are going to have to look more at the problems that they have internally; the technological gap between the Soviets and ourselves is widening. They want to buy the means by which they can close the gap and therein, I think, lies an opportunity for the U.S. to use its economic power to help create world peace.

Even your friends say that you lack charisma. Will this be a problem in the campaign?

I don't think that it is the problem that it once was, because the voters now are really much tougher in evaluating appearances. The American people have heard a lot of promises that just weren't delivered on. They are not cynical; they are skeptical. They are leary of the guy who comes in promising everything and who has the magic touch. With big crowds, charisma can be effective. But when voters sit down to decide, they want to know whether a candidate has real answers. That is why the Democrats are in a position where, having won by wide margins, they must deliver some programs. People are really looking for answers.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.