i can't tell you. >> all right. >> i'm only about three days ahead of myself. >> each week until the 2016 presidential election, american history tv will bring you coverage of president presidential candidates. next on road to the white house rewind, we look back to the 1988 campaign of massachusetts governor michael dukakis. he answers reporters questions about his campaign and the democratic party at a luncheon in washington, d.c. governor dukakis won the nomination but was defeated by george bush in the '88 election. >> i want to welcome you to our washington bureau and another in our series of news maker hundred cons. our guest today is governor michael dukakis of massachusetts, a leading democratic contender for his party's nomination more president. he is serving his third term on beacon hill. his first ended in an election

defeat with massachusetts in deep economic trouble. he spent four years at harvard's kennedy school of government emerging to run for governor again in 1982, widely regarded as a changed man. he was elected, re-elected in 1986 and takes credit for what is also now widely heralded as an economic miracle in massachuset massachusetts. welcome. >> good to be here. >> i'd like to start by asking you, a recent poll showed you second with about 17% and showed none of the above with about 43%, why do you think none of the democratic contenders, yourself included has yet broken out of pact and established himself? >> first, let me say with all due respect to the poll takers

and publisher who is pay them good money since they will all be obsolete the day after iowa, i would suggest you save your money. these polls don't tell us much except that people recognize certain people and don't recognize others. i don't think the situation this time is very different from what it's been in presidential election after presidential election. i remember as a recently graduated law student in 1960 going out to the democratic national convention in los angeles, hundreds and hundreds of democrats were demonstrating to bring adelaide stephens back the third time. i think what will happen, i think it was one of the nation's leading pollsters a few weeks ago said this. this is a campaign that is desperate need of voters. about two months the first real live american citizens will go to caucuses.

i'm pleased so far how are campaign has been going. i think we're in good position and well ahead of where we thought it would be in terms of organization and financing and relative strength. these are all very preliminary things. i think as time goes on, that will continue to be the case. sooner or later voters make choices. one, two, three of us or so will

begin to move ahead. >> the question kind of arise, how does any future president present himself to deal with this new star of the international horizon? >> can't think of anybody better than a seasoned chief executive, nine years of experience going into his tenth. >> he strikes me as a tough,

savvy guy to deal with great pressure at home to deal with economic situation that isn't turning around. may be that the veevents of thi week help him to do that. i think somebody who recognizes that and is tough and i hope reasonable by intelligent can go work and take advantage of what this week means and go well beyond it. >> what's the biggest character building obstacle you've had to face in life. the toughest thing you've had to deal with. >> in my life?

>> yeah. >> 1978. that was a personal rejection of michael dukakis by the people who had voted for me in first place. people who loved working with in state i loved and a circumstance where we were making significant progress that's unquestionable. toughest experience in my life. >> you chuckled when i said you were widely regard eed as a changed man. >> how did you change and what changed you? >> most of us reasonably successful. i love doing it.

it makes significant progress and change. what it meant was i had what i from my involvement. >> to get a certain perspective on what i've been doing. also to do so in environment where as you teach experience public managers, you're also reflecting on what you did. i had 110, 150 people in the class. all of whom wanted to know i taught the case method, how would you have done it. for a while i was reluctant to tell them. i would say this is what i would

have done. it was a terrific opportunity to share. i have a dear friend who is a former attorney general of massachusetts who lost more elections than i did before he was finally elected attorney general for three terms. much better today than i was when i started out. i will be a much better president for having gone

through the experience. >> governor. both you and bruce babbot and other democrats seeking the nomination have made much of the fact you balanced state government budgets and administered the state in a way that claimed. i had lunch like this in a setting with paul simon. he seemed to ridicule that notion. what he said was kind of said the budgets, the combined state budgets of arizona and massachusetts would keep the pentagon running for about three days. the point is this was much bigger and the budget things are so much larger than that of a medium sized state. i'd like you to respond. >> the principal is the same. you make tough choices. do you provide the kind of executive leadership that you have to provide in these circumstances. i've gone through the last three weeks in which i've been putting my tenth executive budget together. there may be fewer zeroes on the

end of the number. i had to confront the fact that my top budget guy had come to me and said sorry. i don't know what that would work out to at the national level. it's significant. i've had to go back to the drawing board. i'll have to say no to a lot of people, a lot of constituencies and priorities that i believe in very strongly because the reality is that those revenue estimates are down another $200 million. i don't care if you're dealing with a budget of a trillion or something in between. fundamentally, you've got to make some tough choices and confront the pressures of having to deal with unmet needs that you would like to meet and a certain finite amount of resources. the problem in this town for the past several years is people have had a difficult time doing

that. i don't fault the congressman. i'm not going to be defensive about the congress because your legislative body always has a role to play. i'll tell you this. i've been a legislature and a cleef executive. on these issues of spending and taxes, if the chief executive doesn't lead, the result is chaos, confusion. that's what we've had here. in those areas experience of having to step up to the plate and submit an executive budget, which a responsible document is an important strength that one has that one doesn't get.

>> is it better at economic issues and prosperity than democrats. as a democrat you've attempted to shape your message around a theme of the economy. how are you going to get over what appears to be fairly partisan obstacles and perceptions in the american public in. >> i'm not sure it runs deep, ken. if you look at what's happening you see democrats winning year after year and governor, senator, congressmen, local officials. the democratic party in this country is the majority party of the state and local level and has been for a long time. guys like me and others keep winning. as a matter of fact we've had a substantial congressional majority during the reagan years and we're back in majority position in the senate.

i think it's was a at the state and local level, there is the very strong perception that democrats, by and large, are very good and effective on the issues of jobs and economy. no question that we've been having difficulty at the national level making that same message. if there's one strength i bring to this campaign it's some credibility. i think that's an important strength. whoever the democratic nominee is, it better be somebody that can go to the people with real credibility not only in the economic issues but the fiscal issues. that's another area where somebody who has balanced budgets and made the tough choices really can present a very strong face with the democratic party. i wasn't kidding on the nbc debate when i said i would love to get one of those republicans up in the platform in the debate of 1988 to talk about borrowing

and spending and the kinds of fiscal policies we had. somebody who comes to that platform with a record of strength on fiscal as well as economic issues brings something that is important. there's no question that the democratic party stuck and trade historical lally since the new has been strength on jobs and economy. when we lose that issue, we lose elections. my hope is we get it back. >> brought the notion of management style as reagan was accused or charged with having a management style. what's your management credo? >> i have a reputation for being a strong manager. i delegate a lot better now than i used to i think that may be

the natural revolution of a management style that most of us have. when you're a new governor and when you're anxious to put your imprint on the government right away, you tend to get deeply involved in lots of detail. i think as you learn on the job and most of us learn on the job, if you are growing and evolving you make it. i think i'm a better listener and reflect a little longer on things. i also know that from nine years of experience at this, the caliber the people you pick is extremely important part of what to do. your ability to build a good relationship with your legislative bodies a very important part of what you do. i think i do those things a lot

better. while i met somebody to delegate to the extent the president delegate, i think i do a better job of finding balance between the two. >> would you schedule time on the white house tennis court? >> would i be the scheduler, no. >> jimmy carter is on one end of the spectrum and ronald reagan -- >> i'm kind of in the middle. there's a good deal more delegation. i spend more of my time working with my legislature, building coalitions. thinking more what about i'm saying and how i say it.

if i were to be president, what you'd see is something about halfway between the two. >> when president reagan was elected, a lot of people afterwards were surprised at some of his cabinet selections. people said reagan seems like a nice guy. this guy watts or fill in the blank. can you give us some idea of the types of people you would have in the white house in your administration? >> can't name names. >> why not? i haven't thought about it that much and i wouldn't any way to be frank. i don't think this is the time or the place. >> doesn't that put voters in the position of putting their complete trust -- >> no because one of the thing yo yos you get from somebody that's been a chief executive for nine years. you'll see a strong and able group of people.

i will say that that there my thinking has evolved as well. i would be very unlikely to pick somebody for a top position in my staff or cabinet that didn't have some public sector experience. i want people who are skilled at politics and in the best sense of the world. skilled government and working effectively in the public sector. we've had some substantial experience in the public sector

and deal with the congress and deal with the press and constituencies as well as have the brains and intellect to do the job. >> it looks quite possible that an opportunity is coming up to reduce the offensive weapons. the next president will have to finalize that deal or get it ratified. what is your own ideas to safe and appropriate level the go down to and mix a weapons where you don't increase vulnerability to a first strike. you increase our security and stability. >> i'm not sure i could spell it out in detail for you. within the negotiating process, at least the word today is that some of those supplement vs been reached. from what i've seen, i think they are quite reasonable and appropriate. i think a 50% cut is an achie

achievable cut for a major step in the right direction if it were successful and over time verification inspection was working. it's just as important. for another ij the senate and the congress are going to insist on it. then i think that's an opportunity to be pursued. i think the combination of the inf agreement and 50% cut of strategic weapons is significant achievement. since i don't think star wars is

in our national interest, yet alone the interest of effective negotiations, that wouldn't be an obstacle. we have this rather interesting situation. i have no problem saying this i think this is an important achievement. i'd proud of the fact only one of the six republicans is. i suspect without knowing he will get his greatest support in the congress from the democratic majority many the senate. shortly after the debate radical right has got the primary machine in the this country. i think it's a plus for us.

he's done the right thing. >> super tuesday will be a big prize this year. the south is generally a conservative region. why do the conservative south vote for a liberal government from all places, massachusetts? >> for the same reason they did in 1960, and they did. they did because, i think they saw in john kennedy somebody who had a vision of the future, had the kind of strength and energy and leadership ability that they wanted in the white house.

in states like georgia kennedy got a higher percentage than in massachusetts. people are concerned about the economic future and concerned about jobs and schools. also would like to see us work doing surprisingingly well. those are issues that concern them and concern me. the only other thing is i don't understand what the definition of liberal and conservative is. i'm a guy that's balanced nine budgets in a row and cut taxes

the in the last five years. you can't build a strong economic future with this country. we've got a bunch of conservatives in the white house. i happen to be a guy who is very tough about violent crime. my state has had a bigger drop in crime. this administration takes the rule of law very seriously. i don't know what these labels mean anymore. i do think that people in the south are concerned about some very basic issues that face this country and issues i'm concerned about. aisle going to do everything i

can to campaign hard and successfully on those issues in the south. >> governor, if you were the president on october 19th, what would you have done as opposed to what ronald reagan did? how do you handle it? >> well, i don't think it would have happened for one thing. it's not directly responsive answer. these fiscal policies that we've been, hate to say implementing because i'm not sure they are being implemented. somebody like myself just mind boggling. this isn't voodoo economics. it's whacko economics. i remember some you have may have been covering, i remember the mid winter meeting in february of 1983. i had just come back into office when with great effort, 49 of

the 50 governors, produced a detailed deficit reduction and bipartisan basis which we worked at very hard and felt pretty good about. with considerable pride, bipartisan scott and jim thompson presented this deficit reduction. after an hour and a half all of us came out of white house scratching our heads. we couldn't believe it. here was this massive deficit ballooning up all over the place. here we were 50 men and women who were sweating bullets to deal with some very severe

fiscal problems. >> seems to be on tough choice, to use your phrase causing a deficit. something about entitlements. >> i like bruce a lot. i also believe with him that we, and i mean the american people, cannot let themselves get trapped by what this administration has been attempting to do for the past seven years and what david post h humous humously told us what he would do. i won't let myself be put in

that box. >> deliberate effort. >> not an argument. it's been documented. the social security trust fund ought to be taken out of budget. this is a phony budget balancing exercise. the trust fund is only be used for social security. trying to show a lower deficit is phony and bad policy. i've side repeatedly and i'll say it repeatedly in the course of the campaign and afterwards that no serious candidate for the presidency can rule out taxes. vice president tried to on a saturday, and by monday he was like the captain saying hardly

ever. i've also said and will continue to say when there's $110 billion in uncollected taxes out there, the first thing you ought to do is collect every dime you can of that 110 billion. if we still need additional tax, you ask for additional taxes. i think that's very straightforward and very direct. i'm not going to -- i think it's unfair and unnecessary to be talking about eliminating or sharply reducing modest cost of living increasing for elderly people in this country in an effort to, as i say in rather phony way, balance the budget. >> do you think any domestic programs should be cut? >> sure. i wouldn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars on space plane that make it possible to travel from washington to tokyo in three hours.

it's the domestic side of the budget that's been taking the hits for the past seven years. i think that most of the cutting will have to take place on the defense side. i've been fairly specific about where the cuts ought to take place. >> new trade figures are out today showing record setting trade deficit. what would you do if you were president to reduce the trade deficit? >> i'd begin by getting the country's fiscal house in order. the reason we have massive trade deficit is because the president of the united states was able to persuade the congress that you could raise defense spending and cut taxes and balance the budget.

we gave everything being produced outside of this country a 40% discount on foreign manufacturers and producers. destroyed industries, took over markets and they're not going to lightly give us those markets. i think overtime there will be some reduction in that trade balance if only because american goods now relatively are a good deal cheaper in the international market than they used to be. we're seeing fantastic ining s improvements in the manufacturing side of things. the dollar terms it will take a good long time to do that. it's got to begin with clear demonstration on the part of this country that we're prepared to get our fiscal house in order and get serious about some economic policies that make us competitive again. this policy, this problem is not going to go away. it will be with us for quite a

while. >> as you may know the internal revenue service doesn't think of that idea at the federal level. >> amnesty. >> the amnesty. they argue the state programs that have been modestly successful or more so, picked up taxpayers but already on the federal tax rolls. something like 97%. what is your response to that? >> my response is that the irs itself says that tax compliance is now at 81% in this country. obviously, there's no way that state will pick up people who decide they will pay state taxes but not federal taxes.

one in five taxpayers aren't paying. on the 20% noncompliance. that is a very, very big amount of money. the federal revenue enforcement, we can give them -- >> is that your current estimate what you can get from this? >> i think we can do more than that. the dorgan task force estimated

35 billion thereafter. >> pretty well challenged. weren't there a lot of controversy. >> i don't think the figures -- those are quite conservative. no amnesty. i would do amnesty as part of it. that's just the beginning. the figures we have on that are about 10 billion. there was an analysis done. recent study done by a couple of cal tech economists. we used to audit about two and a half percent of returns. that gives you range. we'll never know until president comes to office and serious about this.

one of my running mate, rival, said if it was so much money why wouldn't the congress put it in the budget. congress doesn't collect revenue. if you don't have an administration that's prepared to say question do 10 billion or 30 billion, you can hardly blame congress for not nputting in it estimates. i think there's tremendous potential out there. the first thing you do is collect your receivables. >> the you were president and the russians renigged on the agreement, what would you do? >> have to rethink your options and decide whether or not you want to reintroduce medium and short range missiles in europe or something else you want to do. i don't think there's -- i think the russians are operating here

in good faith. every evidence is that they are. all the evidence we have to date in the soviet union is while gorbachev's initiatives internationally are well regarded, life for the average russian citizen hasn't changed at all. that's why i thought he was the guy under very heavy domestic pressure to produce, which is one of the reasons why i think they're likely to comply. if they don't then all bets are off. we have to do what we've got to do. >> you seem to be advocating you're running for president on the platform of taxpayer who is get audited next year. >> more than that. >> you sense the support.

>> one of the most popular things i've done in my governorship has been revenue enforcement. the vast majority of americans pay their taxes, pay them on time. don't have any option. it's usually taken out of our paycheck. they don't like the notion that something is getting away with murder. it's in the 90s in my polls. p it's very popular effort. i will tell you based on my experience it's one of the most popular things i've done. providing good taxpayer service. in my state you get your refund nine days after you finish your tax return. no joke, nine days. i get letters from people saying

thank you for my refund. that's the way you encourage voluntary compliance. we answer the phones. >> if you're saying if you're president, the irs will answer the phone. you may will held to that. this is not just going after the evade evaders. it's creating a system in which honest taxpayers are treated well. you increase compliance.

you've got to do it with lots of visibility and lots of -- i'm th not kidding you when i tell you this is one of the most popular things i've done. i think they will tell you it's been in the only that but you get a lot of people who have been walking around with this thing on their conscious for a long time. you give them an opportunity to finally fess up and get into the computer permanently. >> let's come back to nuclear strategy for a moment. i'm struck by something you said in answer to a question by bob. there's a wide school of thought that one of the reasons an inf treaty was signed this week this washington and we appear to be making the progress. we appear to be making on long range weapons is because president reagan has hung so tough on star wars. i just heard you give away the store from the reagan point of view.

what is the bargaining chip. what is the incentusecentive on soviet union to come to the table and make a deal with you as opposed to a president from whom they are trying to get something. >> a domestic situation which is very, very serious. >> soviet union will be a second or third rate economic power if they don't begin shifting some resources from the military. i don't think there's any question about that. what you have is a society in deep trouble and new soviet leadership that understands that and trying to dig themselves out of this mess. i don't know how you continue with the heavy handed planning.

they'll have to take some of the frictions in a free and more open economy. that has been, by far, the most powerful incentive to get to the table and stay there. i don't know whether gorbachev believe what is he says but if he says a strategic weapons reduction agreement is in hand and if the united states is prepared to abide by the treaty interpretation then i assume the agreement would be in hand. what's the need for bargaining chip. >> a minute ago you computed the words liberal.

this came up in the south a lot. >> in your administration would the federal government take on more responsibility or attempt to shed some responsibilities? >> it depends. it would be a much more aggressive and activist economic kind of leadership. i'll tell you one of the most exciting things about campaigning is to see it going on all over the country. universities and colleges getting deeply involved in all of this and i think what's needed is a president who

understands what's going on out there and can build on that and provide some resources with the congress and a lot of leadership to take advantage of what is very exciting new era, i think in economic partnerships all over the country. that's a much different attitude about presidential leadership on the economic front than we have today. it's not a heavy handed kind of leadership. it's a leadership which builds on what's going on and the research in north carolina. places all over the state of texas where this kind of thing is going on. very promising things in ohio and michigan and the older industrial states, state governments and local communities are doing but looking for some federal help, some federal support and leadership. that's what i think. >> is that a priority with you about whether the government takes on more responsibility.

i think it depends on the particular problem. within the past several weeks i've become the first governor to propose a health plan for every one of my citizens. it's not a plan that's going to involve a state insurance company. it's plan designed to use the existing insurance mechanism and existing health care providers but we will require most employers to provide basic health insurance through the private sector. we will take what is already a hidd hidden certex in everybody's premium and prepaid care for those who aren't employed. is that government taking on more responsibility? in some ways and in the other hand it's not going to mean the creation of vast new state run insurance fund. that's not what we're talking

about. in 1987, the united states ought not to be the only nation, in addition to south africa, that doesn't provide its citizens with some kind of basic health security. we're using the existing health care system and insurance system to provide it. >> the other day, a fellow democrat said that none of you currently running could carry the south against beneficiary or d -- against bush or doyle. he says none of you measure up to doyle or bush. that doesn't help the democratic cause in the south. obviously, the republicans will seize that.

what's your response? >> i think i can change his mind. >> how are you going to do that? >> he and terry sanford were the two young southern political leaders in 1960 that were prepared to step out and support a guy named jack kennedy when nobody thought he could win in the south. they were prepared to do that and did it to their credit credit. i think if question have a republican incumbent vice president running, can persuade fritz to do the same. >> what you describe sounds to me as regional warfare on the economic front. i'm wondering what role you see the federal government having and evening out dislocations? >> a lot. it's manager i happen to believe in strongly. if there's one thing the massachusetts miracle has demonstrated, it's a combination of public resources and private initiative working together can

make an enormous difference in turning around depressed and declining regions. there has to be a very strong presidential leadership to make that work. if all we end up in this country is one state outbidding another by granting more and more concessions to x company, then this thing isn't going to work. that's why very strong national leadership is required to not only create a sense of community this which we're all in this together but in providing some federal resources which will make it possible to provide special help for those states, regions and businesses who are prepared to invest and expand into the regions. now, in that sense, i think what's happened in my state is really quite encouraging because we had exactly that same situation. we have been extremely successful in helping seriously depressed regions of the state turn around and come back. >> you did that at the

disadvantage of another state as president. >> no, no. it might have been thought we were doing it at the disadvantage of other regions. one of the tests and the challenges of a president is to create a sense of and a feeling of community and common purpose which has everybody pulling together so that not only a massachusetts continues to do well with 2.7% unemployment rate but there's a kind of national commitment to helping beaumont texas at 14% and the rio grande valley at 21%. that's something a president can provide. i think i've been able to do that in my state. that's the kind of leadership that you have to provide if there's going to be sense that special funds, special grants,

special incentury tisecentives provided to encourage the rebuilding of troubled regional economies. i think a president can do that. >> governor, you're on a tight schedule. one last brief question and we'll wrap this up. >> with your emphasize on the massachusetts economy in your campaign, as you know that every time plant closes or something in massachusetts, it has the tendency or potential to become a big deal in the campaign. do you see any signs that the massachusetts economy is weakening, and if it did would that be a problem for you? >> let me say this, obviously, one of the things i bring to this campaign is a certain amount of experience. sfrl in dealing with serious economic problems.

at the same time i take my responsibilitys as governor very seriously. i am working very hard to make sure that the kind of economic success that my state experience continues. our unemployment rate last month was 2.7%. we have a serious labor shortage is a wonderful problem to have, i can tell you. it's serious. we have thousands and thousands of job. everything i do will be to see if we can't reach out to every citizen that isn't sharing our economic success and provide training and day care to help those folks become part of our success and be independent and self-sufficient. there isn't a state in the country that's better equipped to do that. we'll work very hard to do it.

every once in a while there will be plant closing or layoff. that's the nature. the thing that makes massachusetts different and i hope these are policies which i can bring to the country as well. we have one of the few states that have a comprehensive closing law that not only provides notice to people before you throw them out on the street but has an industrial program to help the companies turn around and come back before they die and a very, very strong and effective retraining program. i think most people will tell you it's a real model to the country. we continue to work hard and build that economic strength, that job is something that i and

my people look at every day. we also know not enough people will be buying chevrolet celebrities. i can't tell the cars to general motors. i got to sell them. they put a quarter of a billion dollars into that plant so they've got to use it. they can't keep producing more. my own sense is the plant will probably open up in the spring. it's not first time that operations have been suspended. we are fortunately looking at an economic future which has some national catastrophes. the thing that pleases me the most is that it is not economic success. it's limited to boston and route

128. i was in south eastern massachusetts monday. it's the most wonderful thing in the world to go into a region that had 14, 15 and 16% unemployment five years ago and see help wanted signs. that has not been on accident. we have worked very, very hard to turn it around. the sense of pride and spirit, confidence about the future that we have in that region and other region s terrific. that's why it's possible to create this sense of real national community. at least i want to try. >> thank you, governor. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. >> thank you.

sunday afternoon at 4:00, on real america, the cbs news special report by morly on the five-week battle with interviews with officers and listed men and the widow of a combat casualty. american history tv all weekend and on holidays too only on c-span3. up next on american history tv, historian discussing his

book. the book looks at president nixon's relationship with the iran and its impact on u.s. foreign policy during the cold hosted this event. it's a little over half an hour. [ applause ] >> thank you all for being here. thank you roham for coming all the way from london for this talk. i urge everyone to read this boonl book if you really want to understand the u.s./iran relationship today. but let me ask you, what inspired you to write this, undertake this project? >> well, first of all, can i just say thank you to the nixon foundation and to jonathan for the very kind invitation to come. taken such good care of me. i haven't been to calni