© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview A-0045, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
Reubin Askew, governor of Florida at the time of this interview, describes his approach to politics and comments on the political character of Florida and the American South. Askew was running for reelection at the time of this interview (a race he later won), and he uses it to celebrate his agenda, pointing to his successes in office and burnishing his image as a straight shooter. While he denies an interest in national politics, he sees the South, strengthened by economic growth, and southern politicians playing an increasingly important role in the United States.
Florida governor Reubin Askew describes his approach to politics and comments on the political character of Florida and the American South.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
In Florida politics, what are the changes that have occurred in the last twenty-five years?
Well, you have already touched on what probably are the two biggest changes, and that is the advent of the two-party system and reapportionment. Reapportionment, probably, was more traumatic than even the advent of the two-party system. I came to the legislature sixteen years ago and we had, oh, as I can recall, I think that we had maybe about five Republicans in the house and no Republicans, I think, in the senate. They might have had one. And then when I got elected to the senate, there was one Republican who is now Congressman Bill Young. And with the advent of reapportionment . . . reapportionment helped bring about the two-party system, because most of the growth in the Republican Party has taken place in the urban areas. So that after the court ordered reapportionment, there was a fairly substantial increase in the Republicans presence in the senate. There was one there, and then a second one was elected. Well, there were only two Republicans out of thirty-eight senators when we first went into real reapportionment, which was in 1965. And then we went from twelve to twenty, something like that. That was at the high point, I think that we have maybe fifteen or sixteen now. But reapportionment played a part in it.
But prior to reapportionment, we had rather rigid lines within both
houses that separated essentially the
We then, when we reapportioned, and I helped lead the fight for
reapportionment in both houses. And coming from an area that stood to
lose by it, it was somewhat of a misunderstood issue in my own
constituency, but one that I felt very strongly about. Because I could
see tremendous problems in the urban areas where the state government
was simply not being responsive. And I think that it was fundamental
just in representation. And it developed a tremendous amount of new
leadership. Younger, more aggressive, well-educated, well-motivated men
and women. And it gave, really, the legislature a real shot in the arm
by developing a lot of this new leadership. Which essentially could not
have been developed, by the way, prior to reapportionment. And then
because reapportionment broke hope in this question of urban areas, then
you were able to get more Republicans in and I think that it has had a
healthy effect, over all, on state politics. Because I think, really,
that a two-party system has been the difference in this country. And I
think that it distinguishes us from so many other countries in the world
where your political party system is so proliferated that they have to
put together a really weak coalition in order to have a working
majority. Which creates indecisiveness and instability, which certainly
isn't desirable in a world where you really
So that both of these, I think, have been the real major change in the last twenty-five years in Florida. And of course, both of them have come about really, in the last ten years. And I think that they have been good for Florida and then when we came along with a more aggressive, able type of legislator, meaning no disrespect to those that preceeded us, and with the determination on the part of the legislature, of which I was a part of at that time, of really staffing properly the legislative branch. Because for two many years, the legislature had to depend upon lobbyists, either from the commercial sector or the executive branch, to know what the facts were. And with the advent of the reapportionment, we then started staffing the legislative branch much better. And so, we have now adopted a new constitution. We have reorganized the executive branch, we have restructured our entire judicial system and I believe that while we still have additional reorganization in the executive branch, I think that overall, Florida government has come a long way in the last ten years.
One of the reasons, apparently, for all those changes was this group of legislators that came in in the sixties. Like the speaker of the house, Mallory Horne, we see . . .
Dick Pettigrew, probably.
Pettigrew, Don Reed and so on. They are all leaving the legislature. Now, thinking ahead over the next five or six years, is that going to have any impact on the legislature and its product?
It may well have. It may well have a very appreciable effect on
I didn't mean that you were going to go back to the era of the "Pork Choppers," but you had more changes occurring in about eight or ten years than just about any state we can find in the South.
That's right. And to a large extent, I really do think that we need to
catch our breath and to review where we are and how well some of the
things
For instance, disclosure. I think that the very fact that we put a law on the books for financial disclosure, you know, is really significant. It may not be all that a lot of people would like for it to be, and it certainly is far more than a lot of other people would like, but when you see who is covered by it, it is substantial. And for the first time, we are going to be requiring that. Well, it isn't as much as I wanted, and so that will be something that we will continue to work in. Now, it may well be that if we had some of the ones that you mentioned before, our chances of success might be projected to be greater than they may be now as we look at the leadership for the next two years, but the leadership for the second two years certainly hasn't been decided. And you may come up with again, some more active leadership. I have the feeling that Don Tucker, who is scheduled to be the speaker of the house in the next two years, of course, that decision will ultimately come after the election, and the final analysis. There's some question of whether he will or he won't, but assuming for the minute that he will be, I think he's going to be a great deal more active than people now assume that he will be. Senator Barron may not have that same tendency. But bear in mind that it was Senator Barron who really helped put the revised judicial article through the legislature. And I'm telling you, believe me, that was a boat-rocking job. So, I think that they will find that to the extent that Senator Barron becomes convinced of a particular program, I believe they are going to find him willing to fight hard for that as well.
So, I think some of the feeling
And if I have the privilege of serving for another four years, while I
intend to constantly review what we have done, I don't intend to be a
caretaker for another four years either. We may not have as many
programs because, frankly, we just won't need to do as much as we did
before. You know, when you change basically the tax structure of the
state, and when you revise the court system, and we had tremendous . . .
you know, it defied our best efforts for twenty-five years . . . and
when you put the environmental laws on the books that we did and really
substantially changed our allocation of educational funding, you really
begin to see that some of our most pressing problems are on their way
now. We had no community correctional centers when I became governor, we
now have thirty-three, ten more in this budget and two in conversion to
prisons. We still have problems, but we have appropriated more money
since I have been governor. I have never compared the statistics, but I
daresay that you could compile all that we had done for several years
back and it would not come close to it. And that was a fairly unpopular
thing when I first started talking about it, but I think that people are
realizing now that the place to find crime, one of the best places,
is
Fiscally, when I became governor, we had a bad problem. We had a projected two hundred million dollar deficit and we have had surpluses three out of four years. Now, admittedly, we have had an overheated economy nationally and inflation and when you have as much of your base on sales tax, you obviously are going to get more money, but the way that we handled it was important, because we have in effect banked, in one way or another, over a hundred million dollars each year as an average over these four years. By putting a hundred and five million in a working capital reserve fund, two hundred and fourteen million we have advanced to interstate construction on advanced construction units with the federal government, which will come back at the end of the decade in the early eighties. A hundred million dollars to front money for a revolving fund for a sewage abatement facilities, so fiscally, we have made a lot of changes.
I don't think the need for change will be nearly as great in many areas
that we have broken into. Such as housing, where the first time that I
suggested it, it met with less than overwhelming reaction by the
legislature, and it is now becoming abundantly clear that a state does
have an appropriate role. It must move cautiously so as not to
overextend itself, because the state has no business getting into any
type of subsidy. Only the federal government can do that. But a lot of
what we were going into, workman's compensation benefits, we had one of
the lowest in the nation, and it is up substantially and we've put it on
a formula basis. Unemployment was the same way, we don't have it on a
formula basis. But the need for change, I don't think, will be as great
as
So, we've got our work cut out for us substantially, but it may be more
in the implementation in the right way of what we have on the books
right now, with the environmental and water use management act, and to
put together its water resources districts all over the state. So, the
greater challenge may not be so much in terms of legislation per se, but making work what is on the books. And see
if we have any deficiencies, for instance in ethics and disclosure, that
should be strengthened and not be hesitant to do it.
How do you approach the growth problem in Florida? I mean, do you view it as a problem?
Oh yes, I don't think that there is any question that when you grow a
thousand a day, you may label it as an opportunity, as a challenge, but
regardless of the semantics, the fact is that it is something that you
have to try to come to grips with. And it's not an easy thing,
obviously, because of the mobility assured by the United States
Constitution. And I think that you see in Oregon an attempt that tried
to limit it and it resulted in it growing substantially more. Of course,
you don't know if it wouldn't have grown otherwise or whether it called
it to everybody's attention and they had more growth than they would
otherwise have had, but I see, essentially, trying to assure a better
quality of development in such a way to where you simply don't permit a
bunch of little crackerboxes all over the state. You know, in big
developments, without the proper services, without quality development,
with no particular regard to question of sewage, drainage,
transportation, all of these things. And now, with the new Environmental
and Water Management Act of 1972, see, all of these will come under
Are you concerned with the general economic standards in Florida, particularly the high percentage, in the job market, the service-related jobs?
I think that this is one of my concerns, because I think that Florida's
employment base needs to be diversified, and we are trying to move in
that direction. When you recognize what a large role tourism plays, and
it is anywhere from ten to fifteen percent of our gross state product,
depending upon who is doing the figuring on what they contribute
directly to tourism. But we have a tremendous service-oriented
employment and we really should try to come up with what is broadly
categorized as "manufacturing." Although that is a code word to some
people in terms of industry, pollution, but I think that's a misnomer.
Because it depends upon what you bring in. That's why I think that it's
important that Florida continue to develop economically. And it was a
competitive thing before such time as we had the environmental
standards.
I want to ask you this: when you ran for governor, did you think you could win? A lot of people said they . . .
Oh, I had a feeling that I had a good chance if I properly presented myself to the people, but I was certainly not what you would call confident at the very beginning.
Were you in that situation that many people with leadership in state legislatures find themselves when they either want to be . . . to go into politics full-time or either get out . . .
Yes, I had made up my mind that I get all out or all in. Because it
became a very difficult strain economically to stay in the
legislature
But I felt like it was important that if I were to win, I would be
absolutely free to do the type of job, because you simply couldn't have
taken some of the stands that I've taken and be committed to the very
people that you have to oppose. You take, for instance, Associated
Industries, which is a very influential body in Florida. You couldn't go
down like we did and confront them on the issue of the
Didn't Claude Kirk have something to do with that? Four years of Kirk. Considering the environment, reapportionment occurring, Kirk occurring . . .
I think that probably that my election required several circumstances,
one of which if it had not come into place, I could not have gotten
elected. I think my coming along behind Kirk, you know, who was
described as flamboyant. I was described as serious. Well, I have worked
since I was nine years old, and I am serious. And I used to say, you
know, in the campaign, "Don't you think it's time to have some
seriousness in the governor's office?" And you could feel the pulse of
the people. But coming along behind him, you know, I think played an
important role in my winning. Because obviously, the contrast was
substantial. I think the
Well, didn't the fact that in a sense you took the nomination away from the old party pros, that you did it the way it wasn't supposed to be done, set the climate for the next four years in terms of the leadership in the Democratic Party?
Yes. And I think that Lawton Chiles did the same thing. You know, I can
recall the most, what I would say, electrified gathering politically
I've ever been in in my life, was when Lawton and I came together at a
joint meeting shortly after we both won the nomination. In a meeting in
Miami, and when we came in together, you know, in that group, you could
just feel it in the air. Because I think, really, that both of us
represented in a different sort of way, a new attitude in politics and a
new confidence in the people. You know, if a politican was willing to be
honest with them and to try to properly motivate them, they would
respond. And I think that Lawton did this by his walk. And I think that
we did it essentially by the type of program we had, on a willingness to
take on a lot of the "sacred cows" frontally, you know, and to set
really a new tone. Because, if any one thing motivated me to run for
governor, it was the desire to try to establish a new tone in the
office. Because, you know, it had gotten to be sort of a . . . well,
If you were assessing your contributions to the state now, would that be one of them, one of the most important? That you did prove that?
Yes. And I think also that our campaign demonstrated that you could get elected without making all of the traditional commitments and promises that had been characteristic of gubernatorial campaigns. Not always characteristic, but generally characteristic.
The question is frequently asked, "Is Florida really a southern state?"
Well, I think Florida is almost a microcosm of the country, in a sense.
You have a substantial part of Florida that is very, very much a
southern state. You have other parts of it that really are more
metropolitan, but overall, I would judge Florida as a southern state. I
think that you have some people all the way down from Pensacola to Key
West, you know, in Miami, up to Jacksonville, that are pretty southern.
But I believe that the influx of people from the other parts of the
nation has had a very good effect upon Florida. The same way that people
coming from other parts of the world came to the United States. To a
large extent, Florida is a melting pot of the country.
What political impact does Florida's . . . at least compared with the rest of the South, Florida's relatively large Jewish population have on the state's politics?
Well, I think that you have . . . you had two outstanding people, you know, of the Jewish faith who have served on the cabinet of Florida, the attorney general and the secretary of state, at the same time. I think that the Jewish community has been the source of a tremendous amount of incisive state leadership and I think it has been . . . most, of course, coming out of the Miami area. I think that it has helped a great deal in furnishing an element of leadership that is needed in the state. By that I don't mean to say that I would relegate it just to Jewish people, but I think that it has had an impact toward the state being more willing to face up to some of the human problems than it might otherwise have done.
V. O. Key in his book said that if you understood the politics of race, you understood the politics of the South. Is that true in Florida?
I wouldn't think so. I would think that you would have certain parts of Florida where that may be correct. But I don't think that generally I could accept that as a valid premise in all of Florida.
Governor, we were present when you addressed, I guess it was the Florida Voters League. It was in May at the Holiday Inn and you caught some fairly heavy static afterwards when you made a reference to "boy" once or twice. Were you surprised at that?
Well, I think that first of all you have to understand a little of
What do you think it will take for Florida to rejoin the national Democratic Party?
Expand that to the South, if you would.
I think that the South right now is poised, so to speak, to become very much a part of the Democratic national party. Some of the problems that have characteristically been thought of as southern problems in terms of race are not just southern problems anymore. I think that some of the other parts of the country are now facing up to a lot of the self-questioning that the South has gone through and I think come out pretty well. I think that the South is going to solve its racial problems before other parts of the country will.
Why?
Because I think that it is facing up to them and it has had to face up to
them because we had a lot of them as a matter of law, whereas certain
other parts of the country . . . and when I say "other parts of the
country," I'm talking about other parts of the country that are urban
One of the questions that we have asked other people in Florida
I wouldn't even attempt to speculate.
What has been the effect of the sunshine law?
I think substantially good. I can recall that when I first opened up a conference committee in appropriations, everybody thought, "What's happening?" And yet, for collection decisions, I really do believe that it has had a good effect.
You operated in the legislature under the sunshine law and also as governor, can you give us some specific examples as to how it has effected policy making?
Well, within the executive branch, for instance, it had gotten to be
fairly traditional and accepted that the cabinet, sometimes the governor
and the cabinet, would just meet before each cabinet meeting and thrash
out all their decisions, because it was considered improper to wash your
dirty linen in public and then when they had the cabinet meetings . . .
once in a while, they would have some differences and express them in
open meetings, but for the most part they just got ironed out, during
the Kirk administration, the cabinet met . . . up until the passage of
the sunshine law . . . with regularity at the Duval Hotel every Tuesday
morning for breakfast, you know, and made all the decisions they wanted
to make and then they just went in and formalized them. In the
legislative branch, they were, of course, covered by their own rules and
particularly in the area of the senate, where prior to when a handful of
us simply refused to have any more executive sessions,
What do you think that it has meant in terms of public confidence in the government?
Oh, I think that it has substantially improved it. I think that having
meetings in the open, and I have scrupulously avoided in my own case,
any meetings, you know, with the cabinet that could possibly be
considered violations, because I'm the one in the final analysis that
has to suspend, not the cabinet members, of course, they are subject
only to impeachment, but to the others. And this whole tone . . . plus,
I believe that those of us, and there were a few of us in the very
beginning, particularly the attorney general and myself, that disclosed
all our finances to begin with. I think that the very fact that I came
forward and disclosed all of my net worth, the topics of my income tax
return, and I've done it every year since, and in openess, I think that
it has had a lot to do with people's attitudes toward their government,
and I think that even disclosure, I would concede that in a sense, it is
an invasion of privacy. An extraordinary thing, but I think that in
the
Do you think that the sunshine law makes government more effective, efficient?
Well, when you say efficient, you know, many people say that the most efficient form of government is a dictatorial one, so I don't know . . .
Does it make a more democratic form of government?
Yes. I certainly think so. Because I think that you have a greater awareness of how you spend a dollar, I think that you have to justify it. I made a mistake a couple of years ago in which . . . you understand we used to have what was called a Budget Commission, the governor and the cabinet. They drew up the executive budget. The legislature met every two years for sixty days, pretty much rubber-stamped what the governor and the cabinet prepared for them and wherein they disagreed after they left, the governor vetoed it out with great flexibility and it didn't come back for two years and it was looped. So, you really didn't have it. When I became governor I felt strongly that you've got to give it to them while they were here, but . . . tell me, what was your question again, I just rambled to another point. Bring me back on track.
You were talking about your mistake with the legislature.
O.K., so what happened was that it used to almost be a charade anyway. Everybody would come up and there was a PR pitch. I used to sit through it as a legislator as well, and when I became governor, I said, "You know, I don't have the time to waste on a bunch of superficial questions. I need to just meet with these department heads, look over their budget and ask them some hard questions." And I said, "In order to try an eliminate a bunch of speeches, I will just go in and meet with them myself, since the new constitution placed that whole responsibility in the governor and not the cabinet." It was no reflective decision, so the sunshine law, of course, wouldn't affect any singular public official in terms of him making his own decisions. It goes to collective decisions. And so, I just made up my mind that that was a better way to do it. Well, the press just jammed the room out here, you know, big lights. They had never paid so much attention to it. And of course, what I was trying to do, to have a more effective budegtary process, was completely overshadowed by the fact that here I was having a secret meeting with a department head, you know. Finally I just realized that I had made a mistake. That the importance, really, of trying to convey what I wanted to convey was more important than worrying about whether I was putting the department head on the spot by asking him a hard question and making him respond. So, I walked out into the office and I think that they thoroughly expected me to make some type of defense of it, and I just walked out and said, "I've made a mistake." I said, "I really shouldn't have done it, because it didn't work out like I had pictured." I said, "It's all open."
Well, no one stayed. I think that one reporter stayed, all the cameras
disappeared, you know, but I learned
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
. . . together, and they have to ventilate a little, you know, to where
you simply wouldn't get that. So, there may be some exceptions. Since
that time, I've not even particularly attempted to do that. Because I
found, really, that I was bearing the brunt for some decisions, when
sometimes other people were unwilling to more clearly demonstrate what
their position was. But the point is, that I think it has been probably
the single biggest good effect upon government since I have been in
politics. I think that, in and of itself, and I believe that it is the
single biggest thing that could help in Washington. The problem is that
politicians, it just scares them to death. It is a traumatic thing to
think that they have to justify their decisions publicly, but really, I
have the feeling that with the exception of legitimate national defense
and maybe some
Does the size and kind of the state capital press corps that you have have any bearing on this? Apparently, it is the first or second largest in the country, coming to the state house.
It's not only the size, but you've got some pretty sharp people. And they follow it and follow it closely. They had that even before we opened up. But I think that opening it up enables them to do their job so much more effectively.
Governor, several years ago you and John West, Bob Scott, Linwood Holton were all featured in some interviews that David Gillespie did for a Presbyterian magazine, and what role did religion play for you and mean in your political decisions and your political life?
Well, first of all, I cannot separate my faith from any other part of my life. And I think that if I attempted to do it, it would reflect a lack of understanding or commitment to it. I don't believe that you can compartmentalize your faith. I think that your faith has to be at the center of your life and from it must emanate all of your decisions. As far as attempting to impose any religious dogma as a result of it, I really don't believe that I have done that. But the approach to any decision making, I just don't think that you can separate your faith nor would I ever try to.
To what extent do you think that religion plays a role in southern
politics? A number of people have remarked that it is a factor and that
particularly the large fundamentalist groups that dominate in many of
the southern states, less so in Florida than some of the other states,
that it has a very significant political effect. Do you perceive
Well, I think that . . . I don't believe that this is peculiar, just say for Florida, that the people would like to know what type of person they are electing. And I think that faith plays an important role in it, not necessarily what you profess, but how you live that which you profess. And I think that you are going to find that in the years ahead, nationally, people are going to be concerned about that. Again, not the particular faith, you know, but the type of person. I think that more and more, the electorate is going to look beyond what a politician says and to see what he has done and how he has lived.
When you talk about faith, that you couldn't separate your own religious faith and religion from decision making, how did that effect, say, you decision in entering the busing controversy in '72?
I think that my faith would have gone much more into my fundamental
feeling that I have about the race question per se,
rather than just any question of busing.
But that was one sort of controversial decision, when you took what was generally considered to be an unpopular position.
It was a very controversial position that I took and I think it largely
reflects my feeling of which my faith is a part of, you know, that God
meant all of us to have a chance. As far as the device of busing, I
don't think that my faith tells you what is right or wrong in that
regard, nor did I attempt to pass judgment on this question. I just felt
that I needed to share with the people of Florida why I felt as I did
and why I thought it was important that we not do anything that would
limit our ability to dismantle a dual system of public schools and to
work toward the equality of educational opportunities for every child. I
am a product
How do other politicians react to you when you take those sorts of stands? People who have been in this business a long time. You take very deliberate, controversial public positions, which any politician in his right mind wouldn't take and . . .
Well, when I first advocated reapportionment, coming from northwest Florida, which was a somewhat comparable thing and I had a great deal of advice from friends that I shouldn't take that position, but I have always felt like, you know, that . . . I have an expression that I have to explain, that "I haven't lost a thing in politics." And by that, I mean that I don't have to be in it. That it is very much a part of my life, but if I really don't believe that I'm making a contribution and being honest with the people whose trust they have placed in me, then I really shouldn't be there. And I know that many times, political expediency would dictate something otherwise, but I just have had a lot of them say, "Well, I agree with what you are saying, you know, but I certainly don't want to run the risk of taking that position." But here again, it depends on how bad you want to be in politics. I simply don't want to be in politics that badly. I mean, as much as it means to me to be governor, I simply would not want to be governor if I really didn't feel like I could level with the people.
And I think Don, without necessarily quoting me, because it sounds
somewhat self-serving . . . but there was a poll taken about ninety days
after the
One of the toughest political issues I had during my whole political
career was on the question of whether to convert or not to convert the
Pensacola Junior College into a four-year degree granting institution.
And I had just been elected senator and they were all over me. Because
the community overwhelmingly, with the prodding of the faculty at the
community college, says, "Make us a four-year college." And I had the
whole legislature against me. I had one public official in all of the
county, one guy on the city council, who favored my position, and he was
really for it, because the city manager was against it and he was always
against what the city manager was for. But again, I made up my mind then
that I would be taking the easy way out and selling young
How many times have they told you that?
Well, a good bit, but I . . .
So, what do you think about all that conventional wisdom?
I think that it's wrong. Because I believe that one of the fundamental responsibilites of people in public service is to have a willingness to lead and not simply just to respond. I think a public official must be responsive, but he also must have enough confidence in the people, in their choice of him or her, that he should share with them why he feels like he does to try and help them reconcile their views. And I feel strongly against government by poll, you know, to find out exactly how the people feel without having the benefit of the information that goes into public decisions. And this goes to the whole heart of a representative form of government, you know, because you elect people and you place a certain trust in them. Now, if they are not responsive to your satisfaction, you have an opportunity to show that by dramatically removing them.
Do you believe in polling as a tool in decision making?
No, I've never used it.
But a good poll would have told you that the conventional wisdom was wrong, that the people indeed wanted that leadership.
Let's put it this way. I have felt very deeply that ever since the day I got in politics, I have felt like that is shortsighted. I would much rather rest my case with the people and be judged on the totality of my service than worrying about whether every decision meets with a majority favorable reaction. And I think that more and more people are looking at the person rather than just how they take a position on every issue. And that's how I'm willing to be judged. When I first ran, you know, there were efforts to close down the public school system and when I first ran for the legislature, I took positions against closing the public school system, what was then called the Last Resort Bill. And people just said, "Well, you won't get elected, not over here." But I came within a few votes of beating five people in the first primary and won decisively in the second and I've never had a close election. Again, I don't want to be quoted on that, because that sounds self-serving, but I'm telling you why I feel that if you have enough confidence in the people and can properly present yourself and your views they will respond if they feel that you are talking straight to them. And I think that is essentially what leadership is about.
Governor, we are talking in terms of a book to be published in 1976, and how do you feel that the Democratic Party nationally should treat George Wallace?
I don't know. That's a question that a lot of people are thinking about. I really don't know.
Do you think that there will be a southerner on the ticket in 1976?
I don't know that either.
What do you think it will take to get the South back, what kind of candidate for president?
Well, I think to present a candidate that is acceptable to the South.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that you are not going to have anybody that is considered exceptionally liberal, in the classic terms that most people quote it today, and to be acceptable in the South. I just don't think that's going to happen. And everybody in the South knows that.
And yet, a Gallup poll taken earlier this year showed that Ted Kennedy was running about the same in the South that he is in the rest of the country, may be slightly below, but it's close.
Well, there may be a rationale for that that can be explained. Because you have a certain element in the South that would, but it is not anywhere approaching a majority, I'll tell you that. I think that right now, between now and the time that you publish your book, you probably are going to do an awful lot of revisions in terms of conclusions, because you are going to find that so much is going to happen that it is impossible at this point to predict what may be the outcome in 1976.
Let's assume that you get reelected by a very comfortable margin, what do you think that would mean insofar as Florida voters are concerned?
Well, I think that it would probably be an endorsement of our administration.
But beyond that, how do you think they perceive that administration?
How they perceive it? I think they perceive it as one that has been responsive to them and one that did what it said it was going to do. This is one of the things that I hear so much as I go throughout the state, you know, that "you did what you said you were going to do." When I first got elected, Jack, people said . . . and then I called an immediate special session in January and got the corporate profits tax passed as a constitutional amendment, but we couldn't get the three-fourths vote until the regular session to have it as a special election. But I had a lot of people, much to my consternation, that supported me, that said, "Look, you are elected now. Make a good college try at it, you know, but you don't need a special session right away." It disturbed me because I don't do much guessing, but that's one I had to do. And it really disturbed me because I said, "You weren't listening to what I was saying. We are going to have a special session and I'm going to strike while the iron is hot." And then after we finally got the vote, and it was difficult. It took a three-fourths vote. And then they said, "Well, just let it simmer and then vote on it in 1972 instead of a year earlier." It required a three-fifths vote to put it as an amendment on the ballot at the next general election and a three-fourths statutory vote to move it up to a special election in between. And a lot of people said, "Look, stop while you are ahead, you know." But then we fought, and we got it right on then. I just felt like that was what I told the people I was going to do and I did everything I could to accomplish it and we accomplished it. And I think that has meant a great deal to the people of Florida, almost more than the question of the corporate profits tax, is that someone did what they said they were going to do. But I never intended to do anything but that, if given the chance.
If you get reelected by a substantial margin and the polls indicate a very strong probability of that, and you are not satisfied with anyone that comes forward in the Democratic Party for national leadership, and Florida being as you say, a microcosm of the country and one of the early states with a presidential primary, do you see any circumstances under which you would seek the presidential nomination?
No. No, I don't.
I understand that in '72 you sent word to George McGovern that you were not interested in being on the ticket.
Yes, I did.
Would there be any chance that you might reconsider the second spot depending upon whom the nominee and circumstance . . .
I wouldn't think so. I sent it to Senator McGovern because he had been
saying some very nice things publicly and I felt that it was one thing
to be turned down by Muskie and Humphrey and Kennedy, but to be turned
down by a political unknown would not have particularly helped him, so
that's why I sent word that I told him . . . I would not have run with
anybody, period. Because I had just become governor and I had no
intentions of being diverted from the job I had been given. He then, you
know, when he was searching for a replacement to Eagleton, he called me
and asked me to run with him and I then reiterated my position. I was
never asked at Miami. I had just gone up to North Carolina for a
vacation and he called me early on the morning that I left and I told
him that I would not do it, gave him some advice, and then he called me
up that afternoon in North Carolina and offered it to me for the first
time in a clear fashion. But I really had no intention of getting
involved in
How about in the future?
I would doubt that I would get involved.
Don't you see an increasing role, though, for some southern governors in the national . . .
Well . . .
Like Bumpers and yourself and . . .
That's right, and there are those who are desirous of it, you know.
But isn't that a significant development in and of itself?
Oh, yes. From a different standpoint too. What they are talking about now
is different from what it used to be, in other words, a "throw a bone to
the South" type of thing to bring them in. I think that it is more of a
recognition that the South has become a factor in terms of contributing
leadership as opposed to just balancing the ticket. I think that it is
possible to have a presidential candidate from the South. You know,
Lyndon Johnson, of course, came in by way of the vice-presidency and in
many respects is considered a westerner as opposed to a southerner,
although most of us in the South consider both Oklahoma and Texas as
southern states. But I think that you will find a greater acceptance and
I think that one of the important consequences of Governor Wallace's
forays into the North showed that he was not a regional candidate and
that he has the ability to be a national candidate. And it wasn't until
he was successful in some northern states, both in wins and near-wins,
that people realized that he had a candidacy of possible national
proportions. So, I don't really see at this point where a
presidential
And television is the way to do that, is that right?
Yes, but I think . . .
Is that it in your case?
Yes, but I also think that people are somewhat suspect of being packaged.
I think a few years ago you could package a candidate, you know, like a
bar of soap. I don't think that you can do that anymore, as much as you
once could. There's always a certain element of it, but I think they are
more interested in seeing a candidate in free discussion as opposed to
just a commerical recitation. But television has obviously
revolutionized politics in the country, because it's brought it into the
home and you no longer have your delivery of large ethnic groups and
large city groups, you know, in the traditional coalition that for many
years held the Democratic Party together. I think that it has had the
effect of going into the home, and I think that these telethons have had
a good effect, a positive effect, on the Democratic Party. Because it is
reestablishing the traditional grassroots appeal of the Democratic Party
to people and I think that's what the Democratic Party has got to do.
We're writing a book on southern politics. Is the South as a region that much different from the other regions of the country? Can you detect the difference say, among your colleagues at the National Governors Conference?
Well, I think that you might well have a little stronger affinity of people within the South as a region than you might have in any other one.
What holds them together?
Oh, I think traditional affinity. I think you have this sort of in the New England states, you have this close feeling in New England as you do in the South. The others, you don't necessarily have that. And I think that it is just the traditional feeling of regionalism, but I believe that that now is giving way, because of the recognition that it's important that the South be an integral part of national politics. Almost individually, in addition to its any impact as a region.
You see that happening?
Yes. But here again, in the final analysis, it has to be judged at the
polls, you know, political parties by sense are not debating societies.
We've got lots of amateur dinner clubs. The ultimate test of a political
party is its success at winning, which is its justification for
existence, you know, as an integral part of furnishing leadership for a
party and stability of checks and balances within the poltical
structure. And I think that the South is moving into it and it may be
this time, or it may be next time, but it is not so much crystalized
as
There are two states where the Democratic Party seems to have been revitalized and strangely, it's Arkansas and Florida, where you had four years of Claude Kirk and four years of Winthrop Rockefeller. Right?
True.
Four Republican years in those states to completely revitalize the party in terms of younger, more dynamic and energetic people being involved in the process.
But I think a lot of it was the personality too, of Dale Bumpers. I think that he is an exceptionally . . .
But it also created a climate there again for Dale Bumpers, in that he came literally out of nowhere, Charleston, Arkansas. He wasn't supposed to win either. He didn't believe in the conventional wisdom either.
I know.
He took on the sacred cows. Does that suggest something to you about a pattern?
Possibly. I think that the same thing happened in Wendell Anderson's
case. Wendell Anderson took on the same things that I took on in
Florida. He had a different situation than Dale and myself, because as
people said, we literally did come out of nowhere. But I think that the
climate was ripe in 1970 and I think that we have had with these
Republican preceeding administrations . . . because Arkansas has been
substantially a Democratic state more than any other state in the
South,
What role does organized labor play in Florida?
I think that it is playing an increasingly important role. I don't think that it is anywhere near a factor as it is in a lot of your other states, because labor is really not monolithic in Florida. You have some competent labor leadership, but it's still, you know, it really isn't that cohesive at this point and . . .
Is it getting stronger?
I think so. I think that one of the things that is going to make labor a great deal stronger is collective bargaining among public employees. I think that you are going to find substantial leadership that is going to be emanating from the public sector, but labor has, I think, improved its image a great deal in the last several years and has worked toward that. And of course, we are a right-to-work state, in which we have a great deal of non-labor union as well. So, you don't really have so much of the . . . well, it just isn't a highly unionized state as you find in some of your states in the Northeast, the Midwest.
Governor, I would like to ask you one more theoretical question about '76, and that is, if the Secretary of State of Florida put your name on that ballot, under the Florida law, is there anything that you just might do nothing.
Well, I don't think that is going to happen.
He has his obligations under the law, doesn't he?
Well, the law may be different by the time that '76 comes.
About the state legislature, it appears to us that because of the better staffing, the salaries and the offices and so on, and the various services that the legislature has, it's probably one of the best equipped in the country.
Yes, I think that it is the best in the nation.
Can you see if that affects the outcome of the legislation passed? Is there a distinguishable difference between equality which it now has, say with 1966 to '67, when you were in the legislature?
Well, I don't know that you would say the quality in drafting, not from a drafting standpoint, but certainly the quality of the type of legislation. I saw some pretty poorly drafted bills come out of this last session, the last few days when you have . . . I've always sort of felt that they ought to go home for about a week before they come back for their last week, or take a few days off before their last day, you know, because they get in all these conference reports and they come out with some very intricate legislation. But it has so improved that you can hardly distinguish it. When I came to the legislature, for instance, we didn't even have copies of veto messages. We didn't even have copies of the previous bills concerning veto messages. You only met once every two years, so you took up all the other bills and . . . I was appointed to a committee, having taken a position on reapportionment, that had never even met. That was my committee and then when I called that meeting, I had a guy on a very controversial bill concerning some land in the Florida Keys, Burnie Pappy, who is now deceased, was interested in and Collins had vetoed the bill and I got together and held a hearing. And our committee recommended sustaining the governor's objection and he had already evidently worked the floor and thought that he had the commitments on it and we upheld the governor. But that was the first time that they had ever had copies of the bill.
Until '47 or '48, they didn't even have copies of bills before them and we had no legislative reference bureau, we had no offices. Our office was a desk on the floor and we had a few extra desks up off the top thing, we had one secretary and so what you did was, you just came over here and made a lot of hectic decisions without a great deal of work. We had some effective inter-committee work. And now you see, the very fact that your bills come up to where they have to delete, you know, scratch through what's there, underline the new part and you can look at that now and say, "What is the change?" Before you get a substantial rewording, you have to get the statute books out, but before, you could have a four-page bill and change a couple of words and made an amendments, and then you try to figure what was in that bill. And yet now we have adopted a procedure which many states are adopting now, where you can look at it just like that and you can find out what difference it has made. So, the process mechanically is substantially better, but toward the last of the session, we still experience some problems in putting together conference reports. And I think they are looking to the question of meeting for awhile ever so often, rather than just jam it up in one period of time.
Plus, I'm not at all sure that Florida should stay on an annual budget. I
think that if they went into a biennial budget with a critical anuual
review, it might be better, rather than to have all my department heads
constantly involved in budgets to where they don't even have any time to
devote to the substantive aspects of their program. They are either
working on next year's budget, submitting this year's budget, filing an
operating budget, or amendments to the budgets. But you see, the federal
government, they work under a lot of continuing resolutions which are
not particularly good either. But I
Do you think that legislative salaries are sufficient?
I think, yes, I think they are. You know, when you say sufficient and your book comes out in '76, I don't know whether I would want to say in '76 that they are sufficient, but I would say that right now they are sufficient. But I also feel like the legislature has got themselves having to do too much work and it makes it difficult for good people to stay in, but increasing the salary may not be the answer to that.
. . . increased in their relationship to the executive branch, but the executive branch has also increased in strength, hasn't it?
Oh yes. Well, the executive branch . . .
One didn't take away from the other, that's what I . . .
Well, the executive branch didn't increase as much as the office of governor increased.
All right, but you've got the budget function and you've got . . .
You see, in executive reorganization, the office of governor in Florida,
which was a strong one to begin with, you know, you've got a couple of
states in the union which, South Carolina for instance, where the
legislature even appoints the judges, you know, so you have some
differences there. And incidentally, that was a fundamental thing that
we did when we came in, on the appointment of judges. I relinquished
voluntarily the right to initiate judgeship appointments, to take them
out of politics and set up nominating commissions, to where I am kept
just to the three. And now, we put that in the constitution when we
revised the articles. But I think that . . . tell me again what your
Well, I think that the power flowed from the cabinet to the executive while . . .
Well, that's true and both have substantially increased. But more so the office of governor. The governor and the cabinet collectively, in effect, the responsibility has been substantial because of all the environmental responsibility that it is giving them collectively. And ninety percent of our controversial decisions on boards that we sit collectively on are environmental. But the office of governor, the whole budgetary process was a substantial increase. All of your health and rehabilitative services programs. So, most of the functions of state government are under the governor.
That cabinet is unique. Do you think that it ought to be done away with?
Well, I think that there is strength in the visibility that it affords, but I think that sometimes certain members are too sensitive toward any change that can make the system even better. From the standpoint of a governor, it really is very difficult to spend time becoming acquainted with very minor items in order to preside over meetings of the governor and cabinet. At a sacrifice of time that could be spent on much more major decisions regarding the office of governor itself. That's why the fact that we meet only twice a month substantially helped me. When we were meeting every week, it was very difficult as far as time commitments are concerned.
O.K., thank you very much.
END OF INTERVIEW