Richard Nixon Quotes

First, the desire to bring peace in the world again. That was uppermost in the minds of women voters across this country, not the illusory peace that comes from simply ending a war, but the kind of a peace that is lasting, ending a war on a basis that will discourage other wars. The women wanted that kind of leadership. They weren't satisfied with the past leadership. They voted for new leadership. That, therefore, was a major issue. A second major issue was the desire upon the people of this country, among them, to stop the rise in taxes and stop the rise in prices. Women particularly were concerned about that issue because women have the responsibility for the family budget, and having the responsibility for the family budget, they know that unless we deal effectively in handling the problems of the Federal budget, you are not going to be able to balance the family budget. They voted for new leadership to stop the rise in prices and stop the rise in taxes so that millions of Americans would do a better job and have a better chance to balance that family budget. Then there is another great issue that I found--whether it was in the North, the East, the West, or the South--that women particularly were interested in, and that was to stop the rise in crime and reestablish respect for law and order throughout the United States. This administration has been in office for almost 3 months. I know that many are quite impatient, perhaps, or might be impatient as to why we don't have peace, why we haven't stopped inflation, and why we haven't stopped the rise in crime and reestablished respect for law with justice and order throughout this country. I could stand here and tell you that it had been done. That would not be true. I could stand here and promise you when it would be done. But that would not be responsible. But I will tell you this: There are no three issues that have a higher priority in this administration than those three. I can tell you that on this day, for example, not only in the morning but throughout the afternoon, and when I leave this meeting to return to the White House for further meetings tonight, those were the three great issues on which my time was being spent.

Listen to Professor Peter Drucker analyze the problem of government today: "There is mounting evidence that government is big rather than strong; that it is fat and flabby rather than powerful; that it costs a great deal but does not achieve much .... Indeed, government is sick--and just at the time when we need a strong, healthy, and vigorous government." The problem has not been a lack of good intentions, and not merely a lack of money. Methods inherited from the thirties proved to be out of date in the sixties. Structures put together in the thirties broke down under the load of the sixties. Overcentralized, over-bureaucratized, the Federal Government became unresponsive as well as inefficient. In their struggle to keep up, States and localities found the going increasingly difficult. In the space of only 10 years, State and local expenditures rose by two and a half times---from $44 billion in 1958 to $108 billion in 1968. States alone have had to seek more than 200 tax increases in the past 8 years. You know--you as Governors--and I know, that simply piling tax on tax is not the long range solution to the problems we face together. We have to devise a new way to make our revenue system meet the needs of the seventies. We have to put the money where the problems are, and we have to get a dollar's worth of return for a dollar spent. Our new strategy for the seventies begins with the reform of government: overhauling its structure; pruning out those programs that have failed or that have outlived their time; ensuring that its delivery systems actually deliver the intended services to the intended beneficiaries; gearing its programs to the concept of social investment; focusing its activities not only on tomorrow, but on the day after tomorrow. This must be a cooperative venture among governments at all levels, because it centers on what I have called the "New Federalism"--in which power, funds, and authority are channeled increasingly to those governments that are closest to the people. The essence of the New Federalism is to help regain control of our national destiny by returning a greater share of control to State and local governments and to the people. This in turn requires constant attention to raising the quality of government at all levels.

I have been trying to think of something that I could pick out as a mistake, you know, so that we could do better next time. But I found only one thing: I found on one of my schedules---I don't know who happened to prepare this, but nevertheless, the schedule said, with regard to the first dinner, the dinner that President de Gaulle was the host--the second one, as you know, was in Ambassador Shriver's residence, and I was the host there--but at the first dinner where he was the host, he was supposed to make a toast and I was supposed to prepare one to him. On my schedule it said: "President Nixon will speak for 10 minutes and then his speech will be translated into English." I knew I had troubles in communicating, but not that much. But whether it was my French or English or whatever the case might be, that was the only thing I could find--and we need to have a little humor in a trip. I think it was put in deliberately for that very purpose. But could I go one step further? Also, in this room are people who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Government of the United States, some in the Foreign Service and some in other branches of the service. You have been in this post; you have been in many others.

I am reminded of a lesson that I have never forgotten: I remember in 1952, right after being nominated for Vice President, naturally, as a young Senator and a young candidate for Vice President-the youngest in history except for one up to that time--I felt, you know, rather puffed up about it, and I was put in my place at one of the first receptions. I remember it was in Nebraska. It was one of those long handshakers, and people came through the line over and over again saying, "Congratulations. This was fine," and so forth and so on. Then one fellow came through the line. He said that he came from a farm and had driven over 200 miles to that meeting. He put it quite directly. He said, "Dick, I want to tell you something"--because he had seen me out there before when I had spoken as a Congressman and as a Senator. If there is any place I have not spoken, you name it. But believe me, he said to me, "I just want you to know that as I stand here and shake hands with you, I congratulate you for what you did. But never forget this: You are controversial, but everybody likes Pat." So you see, I know the asset of the women in my family. I know what assets the Cabinet wives and all of the women in this administration are to this administration. I know what each of you has done in this campaign, and I thank you for it.

When our astronauts returned safely to earth last Friday, the whole world rejoiced with us. We could have had no more eloquent demonstration of a profound truth--that the greatest force working for peace in the world today is the fact that men and women everywhere, regardless of differences in race, religion, nationality, or political philosophy, value the life of a human being. We were as one as we thought of those brave men, their wives, their children, their parents. The death of a single man in war, whether he is an American, a South Vietnamese, a Vietcong, or a North Vietnamese, is a human tragedy. That is why we want to end this war and achieve a just peace. We call upon our adversaries to join us in working at the conference table toward that goal. No Presidential statement on Vietnam would be complete without an expression of our concern for the fate of the American prisoners of war. The callous exploitation of the anxieties and anguish of the parents, the wives, the children of these brave men, as negotiating pawns, is an unforgivable breach of the elementary rules of conduct between civilized peoples. We shall continue to make every possible effort to get Hanoi to provide information on the whereabouts of all prisoners, to allow them to communicate with their families, to permit inspection of prisoners-of-war camps, and to provide for the early release of at least the sick and the wounded. My fellow Americans, 5 years ago American combat troops were first sent to Vietnam. The war since that time has been the longest and one of the most costly and difficult conflicts in our history.

We have proposed, as all of you know because you have discussed it in this conference, the first major reform of welfare in the history of welfare. This would abolish the discredited Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, and launch in its place a new system that for the first time would insure a minimum income for every family with dependent children--and at the same time provide a coordinated structure of work requirements, work incentives, and training designed to move people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls in the United States. Now I realize that some object to some of these proposals--understandably--as seeming to favor one region over another, or because they give the rich States more or less than they give to poorer States. I considered these arguments, rejected them, because, as Buford Ellington indicated in his introduction, we are one country. We must think in terms of the people and their needs--wherever they are. We must meet our problems where the problems are. Because, unless we act to meet the problems of human need in the places where they exist, the problems and troubles of rural America today will be the problems of urban America tomorrow. Consider for a moment the name of this Nation: the United States of America. We establish minimum national standards because we are united; we encourage local supplements because we are a federation of States; and we care for the unfortunate because this is America.

As Senator Dirksen has indicated, I don't think I have ever seen so many women in one place and I have seen them upstairs and downstairs. I want you to know, too, as I stand here before you, I realize that over these past few days you have heard from a number of representatives from the new administration. I have not spoken to you. I will speak to you tonight briefly. I am going to make a promise, though, with regard to what I will do next year. That will come later. But before referring to that, I want to say just a few words about those whom you are honoring tonight. As I understand it, you are honoring women generally. First I want to tell you how proud I am of the women that we have in the present administration. I am not going to name any one of them by name, except for Mary Brooks. She is typical of them and all that I can say is we wish we had more. We need more like Mary Brooks in this administration.

Other administration amendments to the Family Assistance Act make important changes. For example: Phasing out the special program for unemployed fathers, thus eliminating one of the most serious disincentives noted by the Senate Finance Committee; Limiting the welfare burden of the States by placing a ceiling on their financial obligations under the program; Strengthening the work requirement; and reducing areas of administrative discretion. Nowhere has the failure of government been more tragically apparent in past years than in its efforts to help the poor. The 91st Congress has an historic but rapidly vanishing opportunity to reverse that record by enacting the Family Assistance Act of 1970. Let there be no mistake about this administration's total commitment to passage of this legislative milestone this year.

I think Secretary Hickel has demonstrated under fire that he has courage, that he is an honest man, and I know that he loves the land, this whole land, and loves it much. I got that impression not simply from seeing him here in Washington as you have, but seeing him in his home State of Alaska and to hear him talk, as he does, about that State and of its resources and of all the possibilities of its development in the future, not just its development for industrial purposes, but its development in the sense of the environment, the beauty of the land, the opportunity for people to come there and live there and enjoy it. I knew from that that he was a man who would understand all of these varying interests that must be reconciled within this Department.

Now, I think Ev Dirksen and Jerry Ford have well described the great issues that brought us here. There are really three that stand out above all the others, the ones that stood out during the election campaign, and the ones that are on the minds and in the hearts of every person in this audience. The first is peace, the desire to have the kind of a peace that will give us a chance not only to end the war in which we presently are engaged, but a chance to avoid other wars of that type, or any type, in the years ahead. So that goal, the goal of peace--the American people who have not known peace for 4 years--is one that they want the new administration to achieve. The second goal is the goal closely related to the problem of peace abroad, and that is the problem of peace at home. The American people want to stop the rise in crime, as Ev Dirksen and Jerry Ford indicated, and they want to restore respect for law in this country. That was the second great issue of the last campaign. Then the third goal that the American people want achieved by their new administration is to stop the rise in taxes and the rise in prices, and to have the orderly progress, prosperity without inflation, that the American people are entitled to. Now there are other issues, of course, local issues and some national. But these are the three great issues that seemed to be on the minds of most of the people during the campaign, and from my mail and from my discussions with Congressmen and Senators, these are the issues that the American people are going to judge the new administration by.

I leave you gentleman now. You will now write it; you will interpret it; that's your right. But as I leave you I want you to know.... just think how much you're going to be missing. You don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference, and I hope that what I have said today will at least make television, radio, the press recognize that they have a right and a responsibility, if they're against a candidate give him the shaft, but also recognize if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who'll report what the candidate says now and then. Thank you, gentlemen, and good day.

We cannot have a peaceful community of nations if one nation sponsors armed subversion in another's territory. The ninth meeting of American Foreign Ministers clearly enunciated this principle. The "export" of revolution is an intervention which our system cannot condone, and a nation like Cuba which seeks to practice it can hardly expect to share in the benefits of this community. And now, finally, a word about what all this can mean--not just for the Americas but for the world. Today, the world's most fervent hope is for a lasting peace in which life is secure, progress is possible, and freedom can flourish. In each part of the world we can have lasting peace and progress only if the nations directly concerned take the lead themselves in achieving it, and in no part of the world can there be a true partnership if one partner dictates its direction. I can think of no assembly of nations better suited than ours to point the way to developing such a partnership. A successfully progressing Western Hemisphere, here in this new world, demonstrating in action mutual help and mutual respect, will be an example for the world. Once again, by this example, we will stand for something larger than ourselves. For three quarters of a century, many of us have been linked together in the Organization of American States and its predecessors in a joint quest for a better future. Eleven years ago, Operation Pan America was launched as a Brazilian initiative. More recently, we have joined in a noble Alliance for Progress, whose principles still guide us. And now I suggest that our goal for the seventies should be a decade of "action for progress" for the Americas.

We have tremendous problems abroad--no question about that--a war in Vietnam and threats of war in other areas. We have tremendous problems at home--the crisis of our cities, environmental and others. But on the other hand, look at it in terms as young people should look at the problems--not in terms of the threat, but in terms of the opportunity. Never has this Nation, any nation, had more of an opportunity to do something about its problems, the productivity of our farms, of our factories, and the rest. It is all there if we can only bring it together and get it properly distributed. Also, have this in mind: Have in mind the fact that because you were born in the United States of America and because you live in the United States of America, you in this Nation can play a great role in the affairs of the world--a greater role, actually, than any people in any nation of the world. This is not to downgrade any other great people in the world, because greatness does not come simply from the size of a nation and from the accident of where we happen to be born. But it just does happen that because of the great waves of history that at this time and place the decisions made in the United States of America, as far as the free world is concerned, will determine whether peace and freedom survive in the world. That is the challenge of young America, looking down to the end of this century. It is an exciting challenge, not a burden to be carried and whimpered about, but one to be accepted with all of the excitement that we have when we meet any kind of new experience, any kind of a challenge.

Looking back over the history of the cases, as I said when you were here before on the; Burger matter, among my heroes of the Court is Louis Brandeis. If philosophy were a test for him, he would have been ruled out because he was too liberal. Another was Charles Evans Hughes. If philosophy had been a test for him he would have been ruled out because he was too conservative in representing the business interests. As far as philosophy is concerned, I would be inclined to agree with the writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch who said he thought Judge Haynsworth was a man with a razor sharp mind and a middle of the road record on the major issues. But if Judge Haynsworth's philosophy leans to the conservative side, in my view that recommends him to me. I think the Court needs balance, and I think that the Court needs a man who is conservative and I use the term not in terms of economics, but conservative, as I said of Judge Burger, conservative in respect to his attitude towards the Constitution. It is the judge's responsibility and the Supreme Court's responsibility, to interpret the Constitution and interpret the law, and not to go beyond that in putting his own socio-economic philosophy into decisions in a way that goes beyond the law, beyond the Constitution

Whether our values are maintained depends ultimately not on government, but on people. A nation can only be as great as the people want it to be. A nation can only be as free as its people insist that it be. A nation's laws are only as strong as the people's will to see them enforced. A nation's freedoms are only as secure as the people's determination to see them maintained. And a nation's values are only as lasting as the ability of each generation to pass them on to the next. We often have a tendency to turn away from the familiar because it is familiar, and turn to the new because it is new. To those intoxicated with the romance of violent revolution, the continuing revolution of democracy may sometimes seem quite unexciting. But no system has ever liberated the spirits of so many so fully. Nothing has ever "turned on" man's energies, his imagination, his unfettered creativity, the way the ideal of freedom has. We can be proud that we have that legacy and that we celebrate it today. Now there are some who see America's vast wealth and protest that this has made us materialistic. But we should not be apologetic about our abundance. We should not fall into the easy trap of confusing the production of things with the worship of things. We produce abundantly, but our values turn not on what we have but on what we believe. And what we believe very simply is this: We believe in liberty, in decency, and the process of freedom. On these beliefs we rest our pride as a nation. In these beliefs we rest our hopes for the future. And by our fidelity to the process of freedom we can assure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of freedom.