Carter: Seeking Clear Goals

Thirty-six hours after his triumph in Pennsylvania, Jimmy Carter took off from Plains, Ga., for Texas to resume his pursuit of the presidency. Relaxing in shirtsleeves aboard his chartered commercial jet, Carter sipped coffee and discussed politics and policy with TIME Correspondent Dean E. Fischer:

Q. Assuming you are the Democratic nominee and President Ford the Republican, what do you think will be the principal issues in the campaign?

A. Well, I think where Ford is most vulnerable is the absence of leadership capabilities that he has demonstrated since he's been in the White House--his inability to work with members of Congress; his timidity about dealing with domestic problems concerning Government reorganization, unemployment, inflation; the absence of policy concerning energy, agriculture, transportation, welfare, health, housing; his lack of comprehension, apparently, of international policy; his deferral to the Secretary of State as the single person who shapes basic foreign policy decisions.

I think there's a very good likelihood that we'll have roughly 7% inflation and 7% unemployment in November. If it's better than that, it can't be attributed to any action on the part of Ford.

Q. In your Chicago speech on March 15, you said that this nation's foreign policy has never been in greater disarray than it is at present. What did you mean?

A. The foreign policy of a country derives its strength ultimately from the people of the country: their understanding of it, their evolution of it, their role in the consummation of it. Our foreign policy is without focus. It is not understood by the people, by the Congress or by foreign nations.

It is primarily comprised of Mr. Kissinger's own ideas, his own goals, most often derived and maintained in secrecy. I don't think the President plays any substantial role in the evolution of our foreign policy. Kissinger has tended to neglect our natural allies and friends in consultation on major policy decisions. Our neighbors in this hemisphere feel that they've been neglected; the Japanese feel that we've ignored their interests; the European nations feel that our commitment to them is suspect; plus there's no attitude of respect or natural purpose toward the developing nations.

Our participation with developing nations is peripheral and unplanned. We have treated them almost with contempt. A small amount of investment and genuine interest would pay rich dividends. I think the small nations are hungry for a more predictable and mutually advantageous relationship with our country.

Q. Beyond improving the process of consultation with developing countries, what else would you do? Would you increase foreign economic aid?

A. I don't think gifts are the major need for the establishment of good relationships. We need trade agreements, and maybe a foreign aid expenditure equivalent to one-half of 1 % of our gross national product, plus a reorientation of the ultimate beneficiaries of that foreign aid. One of my advisers has said that we should no longer tax the poor people of a rich country to give aid to the rich people in the poor countries. I think that's what we have been doing. We also have very little predictability with respect to foreign aid. We lack openly expressed and clearly understood goals. The American people are not part of the process. The Congress is not part of the process. We've lost our very precious bipartisan support that involved both Congress and the Executive.

Q. Where else do you disagree in substance and specifics with the Ford-Kissinger foreign policy?

A. I think Kissinger still deals in his negotiations on the concept of power blocs. I think we need to deal more directly with individual nations, and to strengthen our bilateral friendships with those nations.

We need to strengthen our presence at the United Nations. Our chief spokesman at the United Nations should have his position strengthened in relation to the Secretary of State and the President.

Q. I assume you believe that the President and not the Secretary of State should be the principal formulator and chief spokesman of foreign affairs.

A. That's right. And 1 would use a wide range of emissaries, including my own family members and members of the Cabinet other than the Secretary of State, to magnify the presence of the United States around the world. I would make sure we had a choice of diplomats who would enhance our presence in countries throughout the world. There is, for example, a tremendous reservoir of talented black leaders who I think would be uniquely effective in African countries. And the same with Latin Americans.

Q. Do you believe that the policy of detente has been in the best interest of the United States?

A. I approve of the concept of detente. I don't think we'll have a permanent settlement in the Middle East without the full cooperation of the Soviet Union. Our interests are best served by strengthening cultural exchanges, promoting trade agreements, tourism, student exchange with the Soviet Union. But I would be a tough bargainer. Whenever the Soviet Union derived a benefit from negotiations, I would want to derive an equivalent benefit.

Q. When you say that you would support the right of individuals to move into any neighborhood of their choice, but that you would not direct the Federal Government to try to make changes in the ethnic character of the neighborhoods, does that really address itself to the issue involved? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible for the Federal Government to provide low-cost housing in the suburbs.

A. The Supreme Court said that when there is a historical pattern of racial discrimination and when the needs of a low-income group cannot be met within the city, then the federal court does have a right to require that low-income housing be built in the suburbs. I agree with the Supreme Court decision. I have no objections to that at all.

Q. But would you take an affirmative approach that might go beyond what the Supreme Court said in order to provide low-cost housing in areas outside poor neighborhoods ?

A. Yes, if the goal is to provide low-cost housing for poor families. But if the goal is to change the ethnic character of a neighborhood, no.

Q. You have said that you don't plan to bring up Watergate during this campaign. Why not, given the fact that it was a major Republican scandal, and given the fact that Nixon appointed Ford and Ford pardoned Nixon?

A. I'd like during my campaign to contribute to the healing of the nation's wounds and not exacerbate them. Also, I don't believe Ford ought to be held responsible for the Watergate scandal. I think it would be unfair.

Q. If you were President, would you consider pardoning Watergate defendants in prison or awaiting sentence?

A. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to say anything on the subject of Watergate pardons. During my first week in office, I would issue a pardon to all Viet Nam defectors.

Q. You have conducted your campaign with a relatively small staff. As President, would you also have a small staff?

A. Yes, I had a small staff when I was Governor, with complete accessibility of the staff to me. As President, I would want to meld the Office of Management and Budget more closely to the White House than it is now. That would enhance my plans to adopt zero-based budgeting and to reorganize the Executive Branch. I would want top civil servants to play a larger role. I'd try to have a wide range of sources to staff my Administration. I feel it would be very beneficial to have representatives of minority groups on the staff and in the Cabinet. They would bring a sensitivity to the Administration.

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