alternatehistory.com

Part 1: A Tale of Two Shamrocks


May 1, 1966
42nd and 11th Avenues, New York
11:30 p.m.



It was a pitch-black night in the city that never sleeps. On that night, neither was William Buckley. His new show, Firing Line, was due to premier in two weeks and he had still not found an inaugural guest to spar with. What Buckley did know is exactly who he wanted it to be, and was determined to start off debating the best, which meant one man. He continued walking down the street, lost in thought, when suddenly he felt a pair of eyes upon him. Buckley ignored it, and continued on his way, but still had not shaken off the feeling he was being watched. Who is this, and what do they want? Turning around, he found the first part of his mission accomplished, or at least he thought. It was difficult to make out who it was in the dense fog, but for the man opposite Buckley, there was no hesitation. “So, Mr. Buckley, at long last, we finally meet.” “Senator, I didn’t expect to see-““Nor did I, but I got yesterday’s message and want to talk with you. Walk with me.” Buckley followed Robert Kennedy down the dimly lit, foggy street, but didn’t know where they were going. “Where exactly are we going? 21?””You of all people should know that if we go there our picture will be splashed all over tomorrow’s papers, and I have no interest in that.” “Who’s to say your picture won’t be there tomorrow anyways?” Kennedy, laughing, replied “because I didn’t pay for an ad in the Times, the check came late this month. Now, let’s get down to business. You want me to debate you in two weeks’ time on Firing Line. I’m busy the rest of this week and weekend, but next Monday I’m free in the morning if you want to do a taping session then.” “That’s fine with me.” As the two men continued walking and talking, Kennedy suddenly stopped abruptly. They were about to cross an alley, but voices caught his attention: “here, try it- supposed to be excellent” and suddenly two young boys appeared, fumbling with cigarettes. “Drop those right now!” barked Kennedy as they crossed the two’s path. Stunned, the two boys turned around and dropped the cigarillos. “We’re sorry Mr. Kennedy; we promise we’ll never do it again.” As they turned, they asked “Senator, can we have your autograph?” “Here, I’ll sign your caps; on the condition you don’t ever do that again.” After the kids left, Bobby laughed: “You and I are hardly tobacco Nazis, but 12 year olds are far too young for that.” The two continued on their way along 42nd, now passing 9th Avenue...
May 12, WTOR Studio 1-A, 9:00 AM

WTOR Presents: Firing Line


HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
GUEST: Robert F. Kennedy, U.S. Senator from New York
This is a transcript of the FIRING LINE program taped in New York City on May 7, 1966, and originally telecast on WTOR on May 12, 1966.
MR. BUCKLEY: Welcome to the first episode of Firing Line. I’m your host, William Buckley. Today our guest is a man who may very well be the 37th President of the United States, and who has graciously agreed to appear here today. Ladies and gentlemen, with me today is Senator Robert Kennedy. Senator, thanks for being here.


SEN. KENNEDY: My pleasure to be here.


MR. BUCKLEY: I should like to begin by asking Senator Kennedy about a comment he made during a hearing of the Senate’s Health and Education Committee last week. If I am not mistaken, you said that the administration’s Model Cities program is a ‘drop in the bucket’ and that Federal spending should be dramatically increased on urban development. The administration has vigorously defended itself against these allegations, in which you were joined by Senators Ribicoff and your seat-mate, Jack Javits. Republicans agree with you on the goals but not on the methods. My question to you is as follows; to which programs should those funds be directed, and what programs do you favour to combat the ills of urban decay? Last week your quote was ‘a Marshall Plan for the cities’. What do you mean by this?
SEN. KENNEDY: When I said a Marshall Plan, I mean that the federal government should not simply throw taxpayers’ dollars away willy-nilly, without a clear accounting of how, when and by whom those dollars should be spelt. The administration should be providing block grants to state and local authorities to administer the programs, but under no circumstances should the programs be run by the federal government. What this country needs is a return to federalist principles, as enunciated so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson over 150 years ago, in the infancy of our Republic. Now, here in New York, I have founded the Bedford-Stuyvesant Development Corporation, a public-private partnership, and encouraged the private sector to invest in these poor neighbourhoods. The only way to improve living standards is to get adults into long-term employment and have youth training and entertainment centres to avoid having kids out on the street with nothing to do. Sin, and in this case crime, thrives on idleness. I would do it through tax incentives to the private sector, using government- ideally VISTA- as the employer of last resort. I think business can handle most of it if we can make it economically attractive. The fact of the matter is that community leaders know what is best for local conditions, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington. Everyone knows that the private sector is inherently more efficient than government because-
MR. BUCKLEY: There is an incentive to demand higher productivity and profits; otherwise you’ll fall behind the competition.
SEN. KENNEDY: Precisely.
MR. BUCKLEY: Senator, you are alone among Democrats- though in plenty of Republican company, in opposing a guaranteed minimum wage, and opposing increases in welfare spending. Among those who are with you on this is Ronald Reagan, who’s running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in California, and of course Richard Nixon. One prominent economist who favours a minimum guaranteed income is Milton Friedman. It might shock you Senator, but we agree on this question.
SEN. KENNEDY: (laughs) I’m always happy to have bipartisan support on policy questions. I oppose a minimum guaranteed income because we should not be in the business of creating a dependency culture where the poor are virtual serfs dependent on government benevolence. A negative income tax would reduce the motivation of a man to go out and find work to become a productive member of our society. Welfare is a corrosive that is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men.
MR. BUCKLEY: If you could pass welfare reform bill right now and passage was guaranteed, or if you were President, what would be included?
SEN. KENNEDY: Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits; placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births, enhancing enforcement of child support, and most importantly, ending it as an entitlement program. Mr. Reagan was absolutely correct when he said that able-bodied men should not receive a check for sitting on the front porch. We disagree on the methods but agree on the goal. Now, I don’t want to dismantle the federal government as is being advocated by Mr. Reagan here in the United States and by Mr. Powell in the United Kingdom- it’s sort of heresy on my part to talk of decentralization- but I think a lot of things now being done by Washington could be done on the local level and by private business. This would not only be more efficient; it would enrich the life of the individual, and that is what this country is for.
MR. BUCKLEY: Now, on other domestic priorities such as healthcare and education, we have not heard from you on those issues as much- specific proposals, as detailed as the welfare plan you just proposed.
SEN. KENNEDY: Are you calling me a one-trick pony?
MR. BUCKLEY: Those are your words, not mine, Senator. But you have proven to be a man of many talents.
SEN. KENNEDY: (Laughs) In any case, we give students marks, and we should also give them to the system. I don’t think they’d be very high in parts of the country. We don’t just need more classrooms; we need to worry about what happens in the classrooms. We talk so much about poverty, we can't forget other people have serious problems—whether it's high prices and interest rates, crime, pollution and all the rest. If we are trying to improve the lives of everyone, that in turn will make us more willing to make a real effort for the poor. If the country recognizes the serious concerns of the middle class, we can get greater understanding for the concerns of the poor. I want to be an advocate for all New Yorkers, and focusing exclusively on certain socioeconomic or census-defined groups is not going to do that.
MR. BUCKLEY: We have to take a break now. When we return, Senator Kennedy and I will wrap up our discussion of national issues and move on to international affairs.
Top