This business of the military keeping things from me and trying to influence me-Buzz Wheeler never tried to influence or force a decision on me from the day I took the Presidency until I left and he was Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff. If there was ever a judicious, fair man he was that man. Now he'd say, "Here are the arguments for it; here are the arguments against it; here's why I believe you ought to do this." And that was it. And then Mr. McNamara might tear him to pieces or Rusk might give his side of the thing or Clifford would give his side. And when it was all over, you couldn't pass the buck, you had to face up and there was nobody responsible but yourself, and they were my decisions. And if they were bad ones, it falls on my broad shoulders. And that's true of every President.

CRONKITE. Why did President Kennedy have a difficult time getting his legislation through Congress?

LBJ. Well first, he didn't live long enough. He had 3 years in that place and all the people were new and a complete change of government. I had the benefit of the better people in his administration. And he got some measures through. He had others that I think would have been passed. They were passed easier in the wake of the tragedy and the fact that his name was on them helped us pass them.

His people were new; they became experienced. I didn't do what I should have done or could have done from the legislative standpoint to pass some of the measures. I don't know if it would have made a bit of difference. I always wanted to, but President Kennedy didn't feel the Vice President ought to be mixing in those things. He wanted to rely on the accepted procedures and things of that nature, and so only on one or two occasions did he ever ask me to. I told him I would never meddle in any Senate affair. And then the leadership in the Senate made it clear that they were perfectly capable of looking after their responsibilities, without any help from the Vice President. I'd been on very close terms with the leadership on both sides, and I considered them friends, but they always told me the truth. This business of the President being kept in the dark is a lot of poppycock, it's just not true. If he makes mistakes, he makes them and I'm not going to be the least bit hesitant to say that if Mr. Nixon makes a mistake, that he didn't make the mistake, he's not responsible; some general's responsible, or some Cabinet Officer's responsible, Secretary Rogers or Kissinger or what-not. I'm going to say Mr. Nixon's responsible, because you can't make me believe that any one of them has got as much over-all judgment, sense as he's got. He's got more information than any one of the individuals has got. If he makes a judgment and it turns out to be a disaster, he has nobody to blame but himself.

CRONKITE. Sounds to me like you're about ready to campaign in '72, Mr. President.

LBJ. Well, I never run from my duty, and I don't know if there's a thing in the world I can do and I don't know if there's a thing in the world I will do. The American people have been wonderful to me. They've given me every office I ever asked for. They've supported me in everything I ever tried to do, and I'm not going to dodge anything and I don't welcome-at my station in life and at this period-I don't look forward eagerly to getting out and getting on the coldchicken circuit again. But if I thought it could help my party or help my country by giving my views on a subject, I would do it. Most of the time I think we can better serve our country by letting those who have the responsibility and have the information, do it, but if I think they're doing it wrong and it's bad, I will speak up because there were plenty of them spoke up during my time. CRONKITE. Thank you Mr. President.

[From the New York Times, Jan. 28, 1972]

JOHNSON DISPUTES THE THEORY THAT HE WAS MISLED BY AIDES

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27.-Former President Lyndon B. Johnson said tonight that it was "a lot of bosh-tommy rot" that he had been misled by the military and his civilian advisers in his five years in the White House.

Mr. Johnson, who declined to seek re-election in 1968, also declared in a television interview that it might be in the best interest of the United States to limit the President to a single six-year term.

In an hour-long reminiscence about his years as a politician, telecast by the Columbia Broadcasting System, the former President acknowledged that opposi

tion to his Vietnam policies had made him "quite controversial and identified as a symbol."

But he told Walter Cronkite, his interviewer, that it would be a "misapprehension" to conclude, as some chroniclers of his Administration have done, that he was a victim of bad advice.

The decisions were his own, Mr. Johnson said. "And if they were bad ones, it falls on my broad shoulders," he added.

Mr. Johnson said that all politicians faced with re-election were "inclined to put off" hard decisions and that it would thus be worth exploring the possibility of changing the Constitution, which permits a President two consecutive fouryear terms.

"I believe," the former President said, "that if a man knew that he just had one term and he had to get everything through in six years, that he didn't have to play to any political group and he didn't have to satisfy any segment of our society, and this was the only chance he was going to have and he couldn't put it off, I think it would probably-and I say probably-be in the best interests of the nation." [From the New York Times, Jan. 3, 1972]

A VOTE FOR 2-TERM ACCOUNTABILITY

(By James C. Hagerty, vice president of American Broadcasting Company, Inc., was press secretary to President Eisenhower)

"I see nothing wrong with the political aspect of the Presidency."

There has been increasing discussion recently of the joint Senate resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the President to a single six-year term. Proponents advance the "statesmanship argument" that such a single term would free the President from resorting to partisan politics to seek reelection and permit him to concentrate his total efforts on the momentous domestic and foreign problems of our times.

With due respect for the contention that argument for the single terms is "overwhelmingly simple," I cannot see any practical or pressing reason to change the present two-term Presidential limitation. Nor can I understand how the office of the President can be "simply" eliminated from American politics without endangering and weakening both the operations of the office and our basic twoparty system. Let me attempt to expand on these two major objections to the proposal.

First and foremost, it is a fact that the office of the President, like the chief of state of any nation, is a political office. It is futile to pretend that it is not or that a President should, or could, be elevated above or set apart from the legitimate and essential political functioning of our form of government.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the political aspect of the Presidency if you apply the word "political" in its true meaning-the art of government, accomplishment for the public good through reasonable compromise without surrender of principle or integrity. In this true sense it becomes an indispensable strength of the office. Without it a President would be seriously handicapped in working effectively with the Congress where political finesse and power is always respected and understood; with the leaders of the nations of the world where widespread popular support at home is often the measure of strength; and with the American public who expect a President to use his political adroitness to advance the public interest.

Furthermore, I do not think you can divorce a President from the political parties and candidates which plague and threaten the stability of many nations today. Or, even worse, it might result eventually in the establishment of an all powerful one-party system with the President controlling and personally selecting his successor, a process not uncommon in some countries presently practicing the single-term policy.

Here in our country, I cannot see how we could nominate and elect a President through our two-party procedure and then reasonably expect him to remain aloof from the legitimate political techniques and actions so vital to the performance of his duties. If he did so he would be publicly assailed by friend and foe alike for remaining "above the battle" and without sensitivity to or understanding of the urgent needs of our complex and changing society.

Undoubtedly, any President is interested in re-election and feels that four years are not sufficient to carry out his policies and his program. But I doubt

that any President, faced with major foreign or domestic questions or problems, makes his final decisions on a purely selfish basis simply to gratify his own personal political gain. He must act on what he believes is best for the nation, not for his own self-aggrandizement.

Under the two-term limitation, he is called to account for his first four years in office. The Presidential election is a national referendum to determine whether he and his Administration-or his nominated successor-have the support of the majority of the voting public.

The elimination of this four-year accountability by a single six-year term could weaken our system of government and the Presidency. It could tend to make the office of the President less flexible to changing times and not sufficiently responsive to shifting tides of public attitudes and concerns. It could increase the tendency to freeze particular situations, especially in the executive branch of Government for six long years instead of four or less. And those two extra static years could be perilous to the nation and its people.

For example, I wonder if the country could have withstood two more years of the Great Depression of the late nineteen-twenties and early nineteen-thirties or a similar period of deep involvement in Vietnam in the late nineteen-sixties. In each case, the four-year national referendum on the Presidency reversed the trend of those times. It probably could not have occurred under a single sixyears Presidential term or at least not as soon as it did. I firmly believe that we should not, as a nation, take that risk.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 15, 1971]

A TERM-AND-A-HALF FOR PRESIDENT

(By Jack Valenti, a former aide to President Johnson, is president of the Motion Picture Association of America)

A six-year term for the American President, with ineligibility for reelection, has become an active public issue. Senators Mansfield and Aiken, two of that parliamentary chamber's most respected members, are now urging this on Congress. This kind of sponsorship persuades us that serious thought be given, particularly by those who believe the torment and risk that resides in today's problems force new ideas upon a reluctant Congress and its constituency.

The argument for the six-year term is overwhelmingly simple, which may be one reason why it has not caught on. The one six-year term would allow the President to concentrate on lifting the quality of life in this country, and not on the election calendar and a reelection campaign. This is the advantage of the six-year term, and it is considerable.

Every working politician knows that the quickest passage of the calendar is calculated by the span between victory day at the polls and the visitation of re-election day. There is no known piece of earth time that passes so swiftly. Political professionals understand that the President, any President of either party, begins his first four years in office by trying to insure he will have four

more.

A good many of us argue incessantly about what needs to be done for the good of the country, and the necessity for leaders to be candid and energetic in doing that which ought to be done, regardless of the political consequences. Yet we continue to tempt our leader by engaging his attention in re-election realisms rather than the difficult duties to which his oath commands him. (How many times have we heard a Senator or a Congressman say that he would want to do this or that because he believes it is right, but in order to get re-elected, he must choose another course?)

What are the arguments against the six-year term?

The noisy one, the one most often put forth, is this: The President becomes a lame duck the day he takes office and thus he reduces his effective powers for political persuasion. No one, goes the argument, chooses to follow a leader whose tenure is so marked in its limits.

But the counter-argument is that the re-elected President becomes a lame duck the day he begins his second term, since the 22d Amendment prohibits more than two terms.

A strong President can bring to bear enormous influence on his successor and thereby reclaim whatever eroded reach the six-year term imposes. President Johnson was able to pass through Congress a controversial tax bill as well as

the hotly debated equal housing legislation after he renounced nomination for a second full term. One does not easily flout political clout from the White House, lame duck or not.

But the prime asset of the six-year term is the spacious arena it provides the President, the opportunity to make the hard choices in the public interest without nagging doubts about his reelectability.

Yes, say the critics, but if the President attempts to coerce the country with unhappy decisions (as the critics define unhappiness), six years is a mighty long time to live with him. Not really so. If that untoward event should occur (as it can occur now), the people can, by their election of Congressmen, stand in the Presidential doorway and demand he stop whatever the hell it is he is doing.

Six years is neither too short nor too long. Indeed, one of the blessed attributes of what we call our "system" is brief Presidential tenure. Arrogance which does not have time to harden has a softer bite and it is an accepted political fact that power which is transient seldom is fatal to the people.

There is no unerasable sancity in the four-year term with eligibility to reelection for a second term. Our Constitutional Convention in 1787 did not receive the four-year term from some divine inspiration. It was the result of some gristly debate in which the Presidential term went through several sculpturings before it was finally cast. You will recall that in these debates a seven-year term without re-election eligibility was first decided on, and then changed, not because of any sturdy logic but mainly because the four-year term was the least opposed of all suggestions, and because Benjamin Franklin wanted re-election eligibility.

Change is always hard. Tradition, doing it the way we have always done it, is always offended by the insertion of new values.

But if we accept the fact that the stakes today are so high and the game so invaded by peril, and if we agree that we simply must free the President from every diversion of his energy (and his purpose), then the six-year term begins to make clear, plain sense.

[From the Boston Sunday Advertiser, Nov. 21, 1971]

MARIANNE MEANS' WASHINGTON-6-YEAR PRESIDENCY?

Washington-Sen. Birch Bayh had a half-hour conversation on the telephone about the Presidency with ex-President Lyndon Johnson the other day.

No, Sen. Bayh has not changed his mind and decided to seek the 1972 Democratic nomination after all. The two men discussed the wisdom of changing the Constitution to limit a Presidential term to a single six-year span.

The concept is a favorite of Johnson, who first suggested it publicly five years ago and who brought it up again his new book, “Vantage Point."

Sen. Bayh's subcommittee on constitutional amendments recently held hearings on the six-year proposal, which is sponsored in the Senate by Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) and Sen. George Aiken (R-Vt). A variety of exgovernment officials argued the pros and cons of the plan. Privately, Sen. Bayh and a majority of the subcommittee concluded the amendment was not a good idea.

But the subcommittee plans to hold further hearings into other ways in which the current four-year term with its two-term limit might be improved. The next plan to be debated would elimintae the two-term limit so that a President might serve an indefinite number of four-year terms, if he can persuade the people to keep re-electing him.

Constitutional change comes slowly. But in this era when all institutions are under challenge for failing to meet the needs of modern society, the Presidency must be re-examined along with other aspects of government.

Proponents of a single six-year term argue that it would enable a President to forget politics and simply be a statesman. It would also strengthen the role of Congressmen, who could deal with legislation on its merits without worrying bout whether or not it would help a President get re-elected.

They also contend that six years is long enough for any individual to undergo the tensions of the White House, which can take a horrible physical toll. In addition, they point out that the federal budgetary process is so slow and complicated that a President needs six years just to get new programs implemented. Another argument for a six-year term is that public confidence in the Presidenev (as in most of the establishment) is very low; the political motives of a President who could not succeed himself would be less suspect and therefore his actions more credible.

Those who oppose changing the present Presidential form, however, counter that politics and statesmanship cannot be separated. Adroit practice of the former is the only way to be effective in the latter, they contend.

They argue that a lame-duck President would be severely restricted in his political clout and his bargaining power. Traditionally, Presidents are most effective legislatively their first two years and suffer a loss of power at the midterm elections. The remaining four years (as opposed to two) is a long time for the country to have a relatively politically inactive President.

Opponents also suggested that six years is too lengthy a period for any President to go without a public vote of confidence on how he is doing. Under such circumstances they say, other ways of challenging the President and objecting to policies will emerge. For instance, Congress might fall back upon its impeacement powers (a development they viewed with alarm).

Perhaps those who favor a six-year team ascribe more noble motives to the occupants of the White House than those who do not. In any event, the argument is likely to be around for a long time.

[From the New Republic, Nov. 20, 1971]

A SIX-YEAR PRESIDENT

Two of the Senate's leaders, George Aiken (R, Vt.) and Mike Mansfield (D, Mont.), want a constitutional amendment to limit the presidency to a single sixyear term. They believe it would "allow the President to make decisions free from the temptation of political expediency" (Aiken) and lift him above the "pedestrian partisan arena" (Mansfield). In two days of generally neglected hearings, only three of eight witnesses present endorsed the proposal, and two of those were its sponsors. Joe Califano, former special assistant to Lyndon Johnson, spoke for the amendment, as did his old boss, whom the committee questioned by telephone. The sharpest criticism came from Johnson's former press secretary George Reedy, and from historian James MacGregor Burns.

Reedy, whose recent book tells how a President's advisers isolate him from public reaction, said that "Presidents who fail to understand and practice the art of politics are doomed to failure-and so are their programs." An effective politician would have no difficulty winning a full eight years to carry out his projects; he would not benefit from the amendment. But an ineffective politician would gain by it: "The only conceivable outcome in this case is two extra years of frustration and weak government."

Burns placed special emphasis on the need for party responsibility. He would like to do away with the 22nd amendment limiting the President to two terms of office, and instead readjust congressional terms to run concurrently with the President's, so that all federal politicians would face election at four-year intervals. This would give the parties greater power to set national policy, Burns argued, making voters more conscious of ideology than personality, and subordinating local issues to national; the amendment would strip voters of their right to pass judgment on the government's performance and make every President a lame duck-ineffective in Congress and neglected by his own party allies, who after a few years would begin to promote the next nominee.

Senator Aiken set little stock by this: the presidency is a powerful office, he believes, and no one would take it less seriously because of the one-term limit. Furthermore, the President would continue to dominate party politics because he would still have the greatest voice in choosing the next nominee, and Aiken believes, the President would keep in touch with the national mood through congressional elections, which would still occur every two years. Asked about the possibility of getting stuck with a bad President under his proposal, he admitted it was "a calculated risk . . . We take risks every day; this is just another." But why risk two years more of a bad President and guarantee two years less for a good one?

[From Today, Cocoa, Fla., Nov. 11, 1971]

How LONG IN WHITE HOUSE?

Congress is again taking soundings on the question of changing the length of presidential terms. Hearings on the issue were held last month in Washington. "These hearings are intended to set people to thinking-congressmen, political scientists, columnists, the public," said Peter W. Coogan, general counsel to Sen. Birch Bayh's Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.