JIM LEHRER: Good evening from Austin, Texas, home of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library at the University of Texas, where a group of people with a lot on their mind went at it today in an all-day seminar on the subject of the press, its freedom and its responsibility. The participants were from the worlds of politics, law, and journalism. Many of whom with a special perspective, not only on the seminar subject of the day, but on the tragic events of this week -- the wounding in Washington by an assassin of President Reagan, his press secretary, and two law enforcement officers.
Earlier today I sat down with the two principal speakers of the day. John Connally and Jody Powell, for a bit of quiet conversation about it all. Mr. Connally, while governor of Texas, was wounded himself in the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas. He was later Secretary of the Treasury, and a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Mr. Powell, press secretary to President Jimmy Carter, is now writing a book on the relationship between the press and the presidency. Gentlemen, welcome. Governor, since 1963 assassination seems to have become a common occurrence in this country. Why? What`s happened?
Gov. JOHN CONNALLY: Jim, once something like this starts, it continues. We saw kidnapping start in the 1930s. There was a whole wave of it until it was made a capital offense. We saw hijacking start -- hijacking of airplanes, international commerce. That continues almost unabated. The assassination of President Kennedy started it all over again in terms of assassinations in this country that have been commonplace in other nations around the world. I`m afraid we`re not through with it.
LEHRER: What are your thoughts on that, Jody?
Mr. POWELL: I`m afraid that I tend to agree. You can point to all sorts of things that I`m sure-- that will be part of the aftermath of this tragic event, as it has always been a current in our society, and so forth. I think we ought to be careful about jumping too broadly to conclusions about condemning our whole society, and so forth, but I do fear that what we have seen -- and whatever the motivating forces -- is not something we`ve yet to see the end of.
LEHRER: Do you mean-- what you`re saying is before 1963. assassinations as such were unthinkable: as a result of 1963. they are now thinkable, and they just continue to happen. Is that--
Gov. CONNALLY: They weren`t unthinkable, as you know, because we had had other assassination attempts and assassinations, beginning with President Lincoln, and coming up to the time when [Chicago] Mayor [Anton J.] Cormack was assassinated while riding with President [-elect. Franklin D.] Roosevelt. But what I`m saying is, that once an event like this occurs, it somehow triggers the unstable and deranged minds of a great many people in the country, and it`s apt to be repeated. And particularly when you have a situation where the two attempts on President Ford`s life resulted in two women being sent to prison. The assassin of Robert Kennedy has been in prison, he`s had his case up on appeal for years and years: he`s still in prison, now, but he`s due to get out before too long. And yet. here`s a man who assassinated a candidate for President of the United States. And until we make it abundantly clear to them that this is not going to be tolerated -- cannot be accepted in this free society -- then I think you`re going to have more of them.
LEHRER: You mean the death penalty?
GOV. CONNALLY: Sure. I think you have to have the death penalty.
LEHRER: Is being vulnerable to an assassin`s attack simply the price one has to pay for being a public figure -- candidate for President, or being President -- Jody?
Mr. POWELL: It certainly should not be. I`m afraid to some extent it is. I think most people who seek and hold high public office live with that possibility and that threat, and I suspect most of them -- certainly President Carter -- knew it was there, but could not afford to dwell on it.
LEHRER: Did he ever talk about it? Did you all ever talk about it at all?
Mr. POWELL: Only on those occasions when the Secret Service would have some particular reason to be even more concerned about security than they had in the past, and would ask for extraordinary measures to be taken, there would be those sorts of discussions, but not in a philosophical sense, not in a sense of exploring the feeling of being under that.
LEHRER: What was Mr. Carter`s attitude toward security generally and toward recommendations that he would get from the Secret Service?
Mr. POWELL: He tended to be-- to talk it out with them, to try to follow their procedures. But I don`t suppose any president ever conducts himself exactly the way that the Secret Service would like. Their one responsibility is the President`s life. A president has a broader responsibility, and I think most presidents would say that they have a greater responsibility than just the protection of their own safety at a given level of protection. And certainly, we can`t-- the American President would not be the American President if we took those steps which would insure his safety. Now, I don`t think any president would do that.
LEHRER: Do you agree with that?
Gov. CONNALLY: I do. I think every president knows that he faces a potential threat, but I think he understands that he can`t be totally and completely safe or he`d go nowhere and do nothing. And so he has to, in his own mind, make a decision about what level of security he can have, and still live up to the responsibilities that he has as a leader and spokesman for this nation.
LEHRER: After what happened to you in 1963, Governor, did that-- does that still linger in your mind? I mean, when you go-- when you-- you`ve run for office since then; you`ve been around crowds. Do you ever occasionally find yourself scanning the crowd?
GOV. CONNALLY: Oh, yes. I do that. But not-- it doesn`t-- it doesn`t bother me, Jim. It`s something that you consciously have in mind. The only visible reaction that I ever have is if there is some unexplained or unexpected loud noise, like a shot, then I`ll react sometimes almost violently to it.
LEHRER: What do you mean?
Gov. CONNALLY: Well, involuntarily, I`ll just literally jump or just tense if something like that occurs. But other than that, it`s not something that you worry about every day.
LEHRER: You haven`t ever been reluctant to go into a crowd, say. as a campaigner or whatever? GOV. CONNALLY: No.
LEHRER: You know President Reagan. What do you think his attitude is going to be once he gets out of the hospital and that sort of thing? Do you think it`s going to be business as usual from a security standpoint?
Gov. CONNALLY: I think so. I think it clearly has to be. He`s going to be fairly. I think, philosophical about it. He has already shown that. He`s not going to let it worry him. I think perhaps one thing that he might do is wear a bullet-proof vest a bit more when he`s out in public or where he`s going to be around crowds. He didn`t have it on in this particular case, and I`m sure the Secret Service will try to insist that he wear it more often in the future.
LEHRER: Did Mr. Carter wear a bullet-proof vest?
Mr. POWELL: On occasion, yes. But some of the descriptions of those vests over the past few days have made them seem a good deal more convenient and as though it were sort of nothing more than a t-shirt, and they arc not quite that easily worn. It`s not that they`re so thick, but they are stiff and they are uncomfortable, and they are hot.
LEHRER: Somebody was suggesting to me the other day. Jody, that the routine of publishing the President`s daily schedule in the Washington newspapers-- for instance, it was pointed out to me that both the Post and the Star on Monday -- this Monday -- printed President Reagan`s schedule -- said he was going to be at the Washington Hilton Hotel, then he was going to be returning to the White House. It wasn`t a lot of detail, but it was enough there. It`s a little thing. I realize, but what`s your thought about that? Is that too much information?
Mr. POWELL: Obviously. It obviously would help someone like this to know where to be. It may have, in fact, given this person knowledge that helped him. I never thought the publication of those schedules with the times was particularly-- was particularly necessary, frankly. The list of appointments. I think, would probably accommodate. On the other hand, those of us in the White House, we want people to know where the President`s going. We--
LEHRER: It`s the whole point of the exercise.
Mr. POWELL: We enjoy seeing the crowds--? the crowds turn out, and all of that. We all in a way, it seems to me, help to contribute to the vulnerability of a president. We all complain about security procedures: the White House staff does; the press does; the public does; 364 days a year. We complain and we push. We try to get the Secret Service to compromise, and to be less strict, and to make our jobs easier, and then-- then when that horrible day comes, unfortunately, I think, sometimes then we forget about that. We don`t look to our own skirts, and we immediately begin questioning the Secret Service about lax security.
LEHRER: Somebody asked me in Washington the other day. what would have been the reaction of the press if, say, at the Washington Hilton Hotel Mr. Reagan had gone through a back entrance way where there was not visibility at all, would the White House press corps which was covering him really raised all kinds of cain about it. The answer, obviously, is probably "yes."
Mr. POWELL: I don`t think so.
LEHRER: No?
Mr. POWELL: I don`t think it would probably have been pointed out as a -- or possibly so -- as perhaps some concern for security, although that walk to the car is not something that the press -- except for their hope that they can get a president to stop and turn aside and answer a few questions that he probably wouldn`t answer under other circ*mstances, and that his staff and others don`t want him to answer on the fly. and all that. [The press] see that sort of thing as an opportunity, and so forth. I do think that there`s one thing we ought to-- we ought to clear up here, that during that day, Monday, there were repeated statements from people who were at the scene that this gunman had penetrated a restricted press area, and that the Secret Service had been warned, and did nothing about it; the implication being, that if the Service had done its job with regard to that press area, this might not have happened. That is very unfair. It is also absolutely untrue. That was not a restricted press area. I have, never know any White House to use a restricted press area -- that is one that has ropes on four sides instead of one -- in a situation like that. I don`t know why those people said that, except perhaps the emotion at the time, but it`s just not fair to the Service.
LEHRER: Yeah, some of the press said-
Mr. POWELL: That`s where it came from.
LEHRER: There`s no way to control that kind of situation like that, is there?
Mr. POWELL: Well, you could. It is a debate always about how many restricted areas--? but that debate goes to the White House press office and how easy its job is, and the press and how easy its job is. It`s a legitimate question, but it has nothing to do with security.
LEHRER: Gentlemen, let me ask you this. The two of you thus far have pretty well said what a lot of people have said up `til now -- that there is not really an awful lot that can be done about this kind of thing. Now, I was watching CBS Morning News this morning, and Maureen Reagan, the daughter of President Reagan -- and it was a very emotional thing -- said [that] that is absolutely wrong. We Americans are copping out when we say we can`t do anything about this, these kinds of attacks. What do you say to people like her who are angry, who are upset, and want something done? What do you say to them?
Gov. CONNALLY: What did she suggest?
LEHRER: Well, she suggested gun control, for one thing, which her father, of course, is opposed to. And you are. too. is that correct?
Gov. CONNALLY: That`s correct
LEHRER: Has anything-- has what happened on Monday changed your views on that?
Gov. CONNALLY: No, I don`t think so. We have registration of guns now. The only other thing you can do-- the registration clearly led the Secret Service and the FBI right to the store where he bought these guns, so they do-- they could track down who bought them, who owned them. In this case, they already knew who had them. The only thing you can do is commandeer and confiscate all the handguns and rifles in this country, and take them away from every homeowner, and I don`t believe you can do that. Politically, I don`t believe that`s an acceptable answer.
LEHRER: Well, what`s your view on the role that proliferation of handguns may have on all this. Jody?
Mr. POWELL: I happen to favor -- although I come from essentially the same background that Governor Connally does, that is, I grew up hunting and still do, and would very much hate to see my right to do that restricted -- I do happen to believe that we ought to have at least a more strict and centralized process of registration for handguns than we do now. I have to say at the same time, though. I would not claim that that will solve the problem. I suspect at most it might make it somewhat more difficult for people to obtain these things without some planning ahead of time, and it might make it a little bit easier to run them down. And probably would help more in attacks upon less well-known people -- the average citizen -- than it does upon on public figures. I think you could-- there are experiments with various types of mandatory sentencing, and stiffer-- and much stiffer penalties for people that use handguns, and so forth. But even if we stop making handguns-- now. there are what, 50 million of them in the country right now? You certainly-- there`s no way on this earth that you would ever get them all back, and politically, I don`t think there`s any chance that the Congress is going to do even the sort of minimal sort of things I was talking about.
LEHRER: So there`s nothing to be done?
GOV. CONNALLY: Except, I think, punishment. Punishment has to be swift. Punishment has to be certain.
LEHRER: Governor, in your speech this morning, you talked about what has happened in the last 35 years since World War II, and one of the things you mentioned was that people in this country are afraid. They`re afraid to walk the streets in their own neighborhoods. The crime rate has gone up and up at an unprecedented rate. What`s happening? What`s happening to us?
GOV. CONNALLY: We`ve lost our sense of discipline. We`ve lost our respect, first, for persons and for institutions. We`ve succumbed to the idea that-- that we can all do our thing. That all we have to do is do our thing. We do what we want to do. You can`t do that in a free society and in a complex society. You have to operate within constraints, and with 225 million people in this country, those constraints have to be fairly severe. You have to adhere to the mores of society and the laws that society passes. If you violate them, you do so at great risk to yourself. And that has to be abundantly clear. Our court systems have broken down -- failed -- to a large extent. We`ve permitted a whole permissive psychology to sweep the country. And we have to purge that from our minds. This is, in my judgment, one of the principal reasons for the rise of the-- of the so-called Moral Majority in this country. This is why you`re seeing the real exposure of the evangelical preachers -- because they`re preaching a very fundamental type of religion, a very fundamental type of living.
LEHRER: What`s your view of this, Jody?
Mr. POWELL: Well, on two points: there is-- there is absolutely no doubt, and the Governor has much better -- because of his legal background -- to comment on it than I am. but having dealt with it to some extent both at the state and at the federal level, that our court system is not able to handle and to mete out that firm and swift punishment and justice that we need in this society. I find myself agreeing to some extent, too. with what has happened to us as I now try to raise a child -- a family -- what has happened to us as a society -- how different we are from what we were when I was the age of my daughter -- the pressures she will face, the lack of respect for institutions, and for-- and to some extent, that belief that if we like it, if it feels good, if it`s something we want to do, we ought to- - we sort of ought to have a-- have a right to do it: this sort of "everything understood, everything excused" attitude I don`t-- I do agree to some extent with the Governor`s statement about why the Moral Majority - - as it has come to be known -- has attained some prominence. I have some rather severe doubts as a Southern Baptist myself about whether or not in the end that sort of approach is going to do much for society, or for the denomination -- the religious beliefs I happen to hold.
LEHRER: Well, what you all are talking about is a change-- I mean, you`re talking about deep change. You`re talking about the change that got us to where we are now -- this permissive attitude -- and you`re talking about an even deeper change going back. How`s that going to be accomplished? I mean, the Moral Majority certainly isn`t going to do it. It turns off as many people as it--
Gov. CONNALLY: I didn`t mean to suggest that they were going to do it; I merely suggested that that was one manifestation of the feeling on the part of some people that they were reaching out to try to rind an answer to it. It has many faces. Jim. Not the least of which is parental guidance. This goes back to bow do you live in your home. What`s the lifestyle? What do people do? This gets back to the fact that today, young people, by the time they finish high school will have spent more hours watching television than they will have going to school. You know, this sort of thing. What is affecting our lives? Clearly, we`ve lost-- we`ve lost parental discipline in our--
LEHRER: You think television has taken over too big a role in people`s lives ?-- in young people`s lives?
Gov. CONNALLY: It takes over a big one. yeah. It has probably a greater impact than the schoolteacher or the parents today. Part of it is-- let me tell you another thing that`s happened, and we haven`t learned to cope with it. You have working mothers today. That changes society. Now, don`t tell me that it doesn`t. I think when a woman has to leave home, leave her children in a nursery school or with a maid or with somebody else, in order that she can go out and work and try to make a living, you`re having an impact on those children.
LEHRER: An old-- that`s a very old-fashioned view. Governor.
GOV. CONNALLY: I don`t care how old-fashioned it is. I think that may be right. It may be old-fashioned, but I believe it.
Mr. POWELL: My wife happens to work, but I think she would agree that indeed it does make that job of-- you can`t do it the way it was done to many of us. and you have to find a way if you want to combine two parents working. One way-- one thing that obviously ought to be done is. in a situation like that, is the father can`t leave it to the mother to-- and I say that with a great sense of guilt, given my-- in many ways, the lack of time that I`ve spent with my daughter over, particularly, the last 10 years. But we, I think, even though we`re talking about big things here, and we`re talking about long-term sort of things, I also think you are-- you do sec in this country people beginning to realize-- to reach out for something that they can put their hands on. or something they can stand on. and a recognition that everything is not relative. There are some things that you just ought not to do under any circ*mstances, and you can`t excuse them away. And this is, I hope, is a movement certainly born out of frustration, but something that can be turned in a positive direction.
LEHRER: That limits can be seen, you mean, that there arc limits to what we can do?
GOV. CONNALLY: To what we can do and should do. and as a decent law-abiding citizen. You accused me of being old-fashioned a moment ago--
LEHRER: A friendly comment--
GOV. CONNALLY: I understand, and I plead guilty to it. But the truth of the matter is. I grew up in a time where you understood that you had to work, and maybe out of a lifetime of work, you could really achieve something. You could acquire something that you could hold and treasure, and leave to your children, and so forth. Today -- and my children. I think, are pretty good about it, but they`re no different from anyone else`s -- but everyone believes in instant gratification. They don`t want to make it when they`re 50 or 60. They want it now. They want it right now. Whatever there is around, they want it now.
LEHRER: Well, a lot of people have gotten it now. I guess that`s the reason. I mean, it is attainable now to a lot of folks.
GOV. CONNALLY: It is. For a lot of different reasons.
Mr. POWELL: And for a lot of folks, it`s not, too. And that is clearly a tension in our society -- that we`ve been struggling to deal with. now. in an aggressive way. for 20 or 30 years. We haven`t found the answer to it. but we do have so many of us that have so much that so easily acquired it, it would seem, and then that very large number of people that don`t have it, [and] probably see that it`s very unlikely that they`re ever going to get it-
Gov. CONNALLY: And they have the same motivation. They want it as well. This is what leads them to take it, whether by robbery or burglary, or whatever, they go after it because they see others get it that they think don`t deserve it any more than they do.
LEHRER: Does the press have any responsibility for the way we are now? I mean, that particular subject is what brought all three of us to Austin today. You obviously believe it`s had a tremendous negative effect, right. Governor, the press has?
Gov. CONNALLY: I think the press deals and dwells too much with the negative in society. Too much with the sensational. Too much with the spectacular. Too much with the out of the ordinary. Let me give you an example. You got a bunch of wonderful congressional wives in Washington. They lead a hard life. Jody can tell you. They lead a hard life. Yet who gets built up? Who gets the publicity? What`s her name? Jenrette.
LEHRER: Right.
Gov. CONNALLY: And what does-- how does she get it? She gets newspaper publicity, magazine publicity, television publicity. She`s suddenly a personality. Well, is this-- is this really what congressional wives are all about? I don`t think so. I don`t think it reflects the norm; I don`t think it reflects the average; I don`t think it reflects the good. But yet the press dwells on it to an inordinate degree, and so, obviously, anyone who wants to achieve something or wants to get somewhere has to do something bizarre, something out of the ordinary, as she described. She made love on the Capitol steps -- probably the only congressional wife in history.
LEHRER: You have to admit that was a story.
Gov. CONNALLY: Oh, well. Yes. it`s a story. You can find a story at every bordello in town if you want those kinds of stories, but my point is that that`s not all that society deals with.
LEHRER: Jody, you had-- you spent most of your waking moments with the press and dealing with the press in the last four years. Did you come out of it with a bad taste in your mouth?
Mr. POWELL: Not really, no. I came out of it hopefully having learned some things that I didn`t know when I went in. and would have been better off had I known. I think I might be inclined to be a little-- a little less harsh than what I read Governor Connally to be saying here -- that we just talked about society and what it is, and the attitudes and so forth that have taken over. The press didn`t create those, basically, I don`t think. They grew out of a lot of other changes in society. There is no doubt that in reflecting those in some cases, and reflecting them and magnifying them, perhaps we -- the press -- perpetuates that. But I don`t see other than in a marginal way that we`re going-- we will deal with these dilemmas in our society primarily by attempting to reshape the relationship of the press to society. I don`t see that as a way-- as a way out for us. I don`t think it is-- it is wrong, however, for that institution to be nudged, perhaps sharply, every now and then. But think about what they do, and the fact that they are a part of society in this country, and they bear responsibility for the role they play in making us what we are.
LEHRER: Have the press-- we, I shouldn`t say "they" -- have we not-- have we not met our responsibilities. Governor?
Gov. CONNALLY: Oh. I wouldn`t-- I`m certainly not going to engage in any blanket indictment of the press. I think the press has done fundamentally a good job. The point I was trying to make was that once the press starts giving publicity to these-- to the types of bizarre incidents and personalities that I mentioned a moment ago. then that encourages others to become bizarre and sensational in order to get press. Then they get notoriety: then they get economic advantages and so on. What would golf be today? Would they be paying the prizes if it wasn`t on national television? Could you do it with basketball? Would they be earning the salaries?
LEHRER: We have to leave it there. I`ve enjoyed it very much. Good night. Governor. Thank you. Jody Powell. And Robert MacNeil and I will be back on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night from Austin. Texas.
