© 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-0066, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
Jack Bass and Walter DeVries talk with then-Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter about the unique aspects of southern politics, the viability of the Democratic Party, the importance of citizen participation, and the changes brought on by the civil rights movement. Carter argues that the Democratic Party is recovering from the backlash against President Johnson and will overtake the Republican Party in many state elections in the coming years. Carter suggests several ways that southern politics have changed for the better since the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act, specifically in a noticeable shift toward pleasing voters rather than local business leaders. He argues that citizens' desire for personal contact with politicians, experience with social change, and religious beliefs give southern politics unique traits that will soon affect United States politics in general.
Jimmy Carter, the governor of Georgia, discusses the growing influence of the Democratic Party in southern states and links it to distinctly southern trends, such as increased voter participation and the impact of the civil rights movement.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
In his book, Key said the key to understanding politics is race, basically. And I wanted to know how you feel about that now, both in southern politics and Georgia politics.
I don't believe that's a factor any more, that it was in 1948. It's still
a factor. You know, if you look at the results of the elections in
recent years . . . and in 1970 there was a whole group of governors
elected, none of whom, you know, were identified as racist or inclined
toward any substantial degree of additional segregation than their
opponents. In the election of major figures around the country at the
local level, we've seen a substantial trend toward the election of
candidates who are either black themselves or who openly profess to
believe in the equal treatment of black and white citizens. Georgia . .
. I'd say Atlanta is not any more liberal in its attitude than, say,
Thomasville, Georgia. So we've got a black congressman, now, and as you
know [Atlanta elected a] black vice mayor to mayor's position. And our
second largest city, Columbus, which is probably one of the most
conservative in the state, they've got a black vice mayor who was mayor
a good portion of this year. We've got the largest number of black
legislators in Georgia of any state, I think, in
Key also theorized that a preoccupation with race tends to submerge other issues and prevent development of a two-party structure. Is there a two-party structure in Georgia at this time, in your opinion?
Well, there has been. That's another point that I think would be
pertinent and illustrative in the question that you asked before. The
Republicans came into Georgia in 1964 . . . the Republican influence
came into Georgia in 1964 with Goldwater. And Goldwater's popularity,
and Bo Callaway's popularity as a congressman from the third district,
and others around the state, was heavily based on the racial question.
And there was an aberration, in my opinion, that occurred because of
that, that
I think we've been able to absorb the traumatic and very disturbing
social change of insuring the legal equality of our black citizens. I
don't think that any responsible person in the South would want to go
back to a segregated society. We are still trying to adapt in some areas
to the new competition of black workers, when unemployment is a threat.
Luckily in Georgia we have less than three and a half percent
unemployment, which is practically zero, so there's no major factor in
the economic competition for jobs that results from the liberated black
working force. But in general, I'd say that the trend—after a change
toward the Republicans because of the race issue with Goldwater and as a
result of the '68 conventions—has been toward a more enlightened
attitude
You don't think the South's becoming two-party competitive, as it is in the rest of the country? You don't see this trend continuing?
Well, I think it already has become a two-party competitive location, but if you look at what's happened in Florida where you went to a Republican governor and back to a Democrat. I mean, you look at what happened in Georgia, which I've just described. When you look at the situation in Tennessee, which I expect to be improved. When you look at a nationwide trend from eighteen Democratic governors in 1970 to thirty-two now. All the trends have shown that you've got a strong Republican Party mechanism, probably better organized than the Democratic Party mechanism. But a very detectable reservoir of Democratic Party allegiance among the people that have weathered this aberration toward the Republican Party based on the race issue, and who have now come back to the Democratic Party as their permanent home. There are obviously some exceptions. In Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, you have exceptions to the rule. But I would say that in Louisiana and Texas and Oklahoma and Arkansas, which had a Republican governor, and in Kentucky we had a Republican governor. In Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, you know, you've had movements toward the Republican Party and a reverse back toward the Democratic Party.
Someone suggested what happened is that the old-line establishment Democrats were thrown out of power because people were just fed up with them. Then they went to a Republican governor, then reorganized, in a sense, the party structure. Then went back to the Democrats. And that all the southern states are going to go through that sort of a thing.
Well, I think that has not only happened in the governors' elections, but
it happened in a lot of mayors' elections in Georgia. All the cities in
Georgia except one have gone through that process. That one exception is
Augusta, Georgia. But this is not a matter of race or party allegiance.
I think that's a separate factor, that's obviously related to it. And
that is, to express it in very simplistic terms, that the inclination of
the voters to have direct relationships with the candidate, rather than
accepting the leadership of intermediaries who in the past have been
very powerful, and who are sometimes referred to as the establishment. I
think that frequently in the past, the endorsement in a particular
county of a sheriff or a judge or a newspaper editor or a banker,
depending on the circumstances, was almost adequate to ensure that the
voters would follow that leadership. When I ran for governor in 1970, my
opponent—who was a very attractive, very wealthy, young, handsome
candidate, who was a former governor, and who was extremely popular when
he went out of office—he predicated his campaign on the old-fashioned
concept that endorsements of public figures, members of the legislature
and others than I mentioned, was an indication to the people that he was
an acceptable candidate. I think, in retrospect, and I had the feeling
at the time, that every time he got one of these public endorsements
it
Well, does this suggest to you that we're moving back to another one-party South?
No, I don't think so. I believe that both Democratic and Republican
candidates who have been elected—say, Winfield Dunn in Tennessee and
Holshouser in North Carolina and Linwood Holton earlier in Virginia—were
candidates who did not enjoy the support of the powerful special
interest groups. Who may be benevolent in nature, but who have in the
past been the leaders, with their positions of leadership adequate to
influence voters. I think those of us who either had to forego their
support because we couldn't get it, or who wisely chose not to depend on
those powerful people but to go directly to the voter, in every instance
I can remember, the one who went directly to the voter was elected. And
that includes George Wallace. Wallace lost the support of the bankers,
the power company, the utility company, and so forth, the newspaper
editors. Although he had been a former incumbent, he had to go directly
to the
But if the Democratic Party, for example, in North Carolina, could pull itself back together, and set someone up with a new face, wouldn't the same thing happen in that state that happened here and in Florida and in other states?
In my opinion it would. I don't know whether . . . the word "populism" is so abused and has so many connotations, I hesitate to use it. But to the extent that a candidate goes directly to the people themselves on an individual basis, and convinces them that, "When I'm elected governor, or mayor, you don't have to go through some big shot to get to me." Those approaches have been successful in almost every instance. There have been a couple of exceptions, which are notable, where that trend has been clouded by other issues. One recently in Virginia, where Henry Howell, obviously a populist figure, had lost the support of every congressman in the state, for instance, Democrats and Republicans. And where he was accused of being in favor of busing, and he was accused of many other things. He couldn't fight those particular factors.
Do you think the significance of that race is the fact that Howell came so close?
I do, yes. Because he didn't have the support of Democratic Party
officials. He had the open opposition of Democratic Party officials. And
the race, unfortunately, was clouded, as I said, by three very sensitive
issues, that arose pretty much toward the end of the campaign. One, he
was accused of wanting to appeal the right-to-work law, which he denied.
He was accused of wanting to confiscate all people's firearms, which he
denied. And he was accused of wanting to support mandatory busing,
even
Yeah.
We've seen the suggestion that Democratic candidates who take this populist point of view, and promise an open administration, no special interests, and so on, would have the chance in the next few years, to win back in those states like North Carolina what they've lost.
Now, I said both Democratic and Republican candidates who turn to the
populist view can win. But there's an inherent difference, in my
opinion, between Democrats and Republicans. In my opinion, the basic
nature of the difference between the two parties is that the Democratic
Party is always predicating its support on the people themselves. There
have been times that an oligarchy could arise in a state, with major
corporations, power companies, other utility companies, railroads, and
so forth, banks, you know, speaking for the people in the absence of
their inclination to speak for themselves. But, in general, Democratic
candidates—there are obviously notable examples—tend to go directly to
the people and understand what the people want. The Republican Party, at
the national level and otherwise, basically predicate their financial
support and their organizational structure on the fact that a few very
prominent people and very highly qualified people and very influential
people, can be spokesmen for a vast number of citizens. And they get a
lot of money from individual contributors with a small number of
contributions on the average. Democrats, on the average, get a lot of
small contributions. There's a basic difference in the two parties'
philosophy, and I think this
And you don't think that ticket splitting at the national level . . .
I think so. There again, I think McGovern had a handicap equivalent to
what Henry Howell suffered this election. There were some issues that
you know about as well as I that were very important to individual
voters. Amnesty, welfare reform, adequate defense, and so forth. Where
McGovern didn't quite understand, you know, the moderate to conservative
inclination of the voters. I think his heart was in the right place, but
he just wasn't trusted. And that can be an overriding issue. But in
general, I think the trend is toward the Democratic Party. And I think
to the extent
. . . an established party to be his spokesman, would fall in the same category as one who depended on the bankers' association to help him. You know, I think each individual candidate has got to go directly to the people. And we have had . . . I've seen this happen all over the country. I've had a unique opportunity this year, as I say, to meet with Democratic leaders in almost all the states. The only two states I missed were Oregon and New York. Just because of scheduling difficulties I had to let my staff meet those commitments. But I think that this is a trend all over. And even when the Republicans were elected, like Winfield Dunn . . . you know, he was fighting a kind of an establishment-oriented party organization there.
So was Holshouser in North Carolina.
So was Holshouser, yes. And I think Bob Scott was to some degree an establishment figure. But, as you know, he won by just two or three thousand votes. I think it was about a week after the election before we knew he won. But that trend is a strong one. And I . . . if I ever run for office again in the future, I would be extremely reluctant to accept any public endorsements from organizations or from individually . . . .
Well, that should be demonstrated next year, shouldn't it?
I think so. I think so. And we've seen through Watergate . . . I don't
think Democrats ought to depend on Watergate as an issue to get elected.
I think it would be a mistake. It lulls you into a false sense of
security. And I think the people will resent it. I think the Watergate
issue is something that the Republicans are embarrassed about, and they
don't
So the access as well as the populism are the two keys, the way you see it?
I do. And just a feeling on the part of the average voter that, "if that guy's elected, he'll understand my problems, he'll be open to me, he'll receive my suggestions, and he'll listen to me if I have anything to say."
Do many people come on these Visitor's Days?
The least we've ever had is 93, and the most I've ever had is 250 or so. And I sit there and listen every single one of them.
You know, we started an
Once a week? I do it once a month.
The first thing that happened, he started to refer everybody back to me. And finally, after about two months, he was having . . .
. . . sometimes as little as a minute for somebody. But I listened to
their problems, and if it related to prisons, I'd call a prison official
over to
Do you feel it keeps you in better touch with reality?
I certainly do. Ninety percent of them are frivolous. They want to touch the governor, or they want to . . . they might . . . some state patrolman might have said something ugly to them and they want to just tell me about it. A lot of them want to come give me a petition, or some of them want to have a picture taken with me, or some are repeaters that come, and they just want . . . they have some psychological aberration.
But one of the things it does, Jack, is reinforce the notion that the governor's office is open. What happened to us is we had a great increase in correspondence . . .
I even move the state capitol around the state. I think myself and all my employees and go to . . .
You're still doing that?
. . . to Savannah, yeah, go to Moultrie, go up to Dalton. This is also
helpful. But, now, I'd say in every day's session five or ten of them,
out of maybe a hundred and fifty, will have some complaint that
illustrates a failure in state government about which I would never have
known otherwise. To give you an example that's unbelievable, one guy
came to me with a withered hand. He said they wouldn't let him take the
merit
Can I go back to your visits around the country? You probably have travelled outside of the South more than any other southern governor. Do you find any different changes in perception in the way people see the South today, as you go around the country?
Yes. Compared to previous years, you mean? Well, I've lived all over the
country, you know, in Connecticut and New York and Hawaii and California
and so forth, in the Navy. Virginia. And in the past there has been a
tendency on the part of the rest of the nation to look on the South as
kind of a backward region, as you know, economically. And very
ultraconservative politically. And completely wedded to one basic
political philosophy. Now, I believe an accurate assessment would be
that the rest of the nation, particularly those who are interested in
politics, look on the South as a bellwether portion of the nation. And
consider the average southern voter to be very representative of what
the nation feels about politics on major issues. This is an
all-pervasive belief. And I'll give you an illustration that at least
proves it in my own mind. Without any prior planning at all, both the
national Democratic and Republican Party within the last year have
turned to the Southeast for leadership in an
We have eight major positions in the Democratic Party, for instance, seven of which are filled by people who live in the Southeast. In the Southern Governors' Conference . . . the Republican Party has ten major positions in their hierarchy, and out of those ten positions, nine of them are filled by people from the Southeast. An extraordinary circumstance. The Republicans have a couple of extra appointments. For instance, they have a National Women's Chairman, and we don't have that as far as I know. But I'm the coordinator of a campaign. Bob Strauss is chairman of the party. Mrs. McCulsky and Terry Sanford are the leaders of two major party mechanism studies. The chairman of the Senate Reelection Campaign Committee is Senator Bentsen from down in Texas. The chairman of the Democratic Governors' Conference is the governor of Kentucky. And the only exception to the rule is the eighth person, who happens to be from Ohio, Congressman Wayne Hays, who is chairman of the election committee for the members of the U.S. Congress. You have an exactly equivalent position circumstances in the Republican Party.
We also see, in the inclinations of major candidates, when they want to
assess the feeling of the nation, quite often they make a tour through
the South. It may be that I have a parochial perspective on that, in
that other regions receive an equal number of major political visitors,
but I think that Senator Kennedy coming down to Alabama, and President
Nixon on his recent trip, are indicative . . . their actions are
indicative of the inclinations of others, who are looking toward the
1976 elections, that the southern people are very accurate mirrors, in
my opinion, of the average American voter. They are basically
progressive, deeply patriotic, moderate to conservative in political
orientation. I think that they have a basic allegiance to the Democratic
Party, but it can't
Do you think the South has lost any distinctiveness it had politically?
I think to some degree it has. Of course, one of the distinctions Georgia had was an unswerving allegiance to the Democratic Party no matter who was the candidate. Up until 1960, Georgia had never voted for anyone other than a Democrat in the presidential elections, and we gave Kennedy then, in spite of the fact that he was a Catholic and Georgia's overwhelmingly Protestant, we gave Kennedy one of the highest majority of support of any state in the nation. I think that presumption of unswerving allegiance to a party, no matter what its attitudes toward our people, has been broken.
Would you say that the South politically, as part of its racial
attitudes, is really not that much different than the rest of the
Well, I think there are some distinctive things. I just mentioned a few of them. I think on the average the southern people are more heavily inclined toward strong national defense. We're the first ones that come forward statistically to volunteer to fight. And we have the highest number of casualties and the most POWs and so forth. I think this is a matter of heritage, and a matter of having had strong southern leaders in positions of responsibility in the national Congress on the armed services. I think the South, the southeastern region, is heavily oriented toward a fairly conservative religious ethic, which permeates workers' attitudes. We have. . . .
What do you think is the political effect of that?
One very interesting political effect is that the South has a tendency to be hopeful about the future, and to have confidence in our governmental structure. And I'll come back to that in a minute.
You think that derives from its religious conservatism?
I think so. Recently there have been some definitive polls run by Pat
Caddell and others, which have shown that on a nationwide basis, for the
first time in the history of polling, the people look on the future with
less expectation than they do on the present and the past as far as
realization of hopes is concerned. In the past we've always had . . . I
don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but they have an
eleven-position ladder, they call it, and you place yourself and your
present circumstances in the middle at number five, and then you
estimate where you think you'll be five years in the future, and where
you were in
Do you think that comes in part, also, because of the southern experience in the Civil War defeat?
I think so. I talked to Pat Caddell at length about this last week, and
you may have talked to him yourself. But I believe that this experience
of resurgence has been a part of the southern life on two different
occasions. Obviously, the most of important of which was the War Between
The States. And I think the second one has been an escape, in more
recent years, from the constraints on our lives brought about by a
preoccupation with the race issue. We've gone through a very great
ordeal, a traumatic experience, in recent years, in changing our basic
social relationships with black citizens. And I think we feel, again,
Is that the basis of what you were referring to yesterday when you spoke of southerners having a sense of freedom?
Yes. No, when I was talking about a new freedom I meant the freedom of the southern voter to express himself directly and not let some intermediary speak for him. I think in the past, you know, powerful special interest groups . . . well, I hate to call their names, but you know who I'm talking about. Some of them are very benevolent in nature. I'd say the major corporations, banks, and so forth have got an almost unbelievable lock on the election of local and state officials, extending to the U.S. Senate race. And I think that in the last four or five years, we've seen that become, not an asset, that powerful influence, but a detriment to a candidate. I think the people have reacted adversely to it. That's really what I was talking about when I used the phrase "new freedom" yesterday. Because we do really enjoy a new freedom from the debilitating circumstance of racism.
If the South is a bellwether for the rest of the country, what do you see in terms of national politics over the next ten or fifteen years?
Well, that's a complicated question, and the answer to it would be very
complicated. I think there is a faith in the basic institutions of our
government. I think there's going to be a resurgence of patriotism. A
higher standard of ethics demanded on the part of public servants. A
quiet individual reaction against the ones involved in the Watergate
scandals. A new searching for a return to . . . well, I'd say the
integrity of Washington, and the wisdom of Franklin, and the belief in
the common man of Jefferson, and so forth. I believe that
On that point, it's very well argued that in the last eight years there's
been more social progress on more social problems in the South than in
any other democracy. We were reminiscing yesterday with John Lewis that
it was just eight years ago he got his skull fractured in Selma. What is
it about the South that allowed that kind of social change, those
traumas, to take place and really be accommodated
I know. Well, I happen to be deeply religious, and I think that for decades, since the subject of discrimination was raised so that we had to face it—I'd say a couple of decades—that there has been a soul-searching among many leaders, about how can we accommodate our religious beliefs with a patent and obvious lack of compassion and concern and communication and understanding and unselfishness towards the minority groups. And I think that although we had to go through an ordeal of accommodating a major change, which you've just described, we've done it with a sense of relief, and not reluctance. You know, it was something that had to be forced on us from outside so that we could accept it, without admitting that we had always been wrong. We said, "Well, the federal courts made us do it." But I think that in many instances, maybe even a majority of the instances, we accepted it with secret gratitude, that it was brought on us. And now there is a pride, you can tell there's a pride on my part, in what has been accomplished. And I don't think anybody would want to revert back to a formal attitude of, you know, separation of black and whites, of lesser degree of citizenship, and so forth. So I think that here again, a deep religious ethic, although it was used in some degrees to perpetuate racial discrimination, once we had to confront the fact that we were right or wrong in the eyes of God, we said we're wrong, and if we can find a way to make this change without losing face, we'll do it. And the Supreme Court and other court orders were the things that permitted us to do it without losing face. And in many instances we did it with a great sense of relief.
But had that not been in the context of the Christian religion you think it would have been very difficult to accomplish, don't you?
I don't say, obviously, that was the only factor. But I think it was a major factor. Also, there's one more social factor that's involved. And that is that we have always, just because of the nature of our lives, lived in close proximity to our black citizens. You know, in Plains, Georgia, my next-door neighbor is black. And we've always worked in the same fields and have worked in the same factories. We've been alongside of one another. And there was this artificial delineation in public facilities and school buildings, and so forth. And we understand one another. When I grew up in Archery, Georgia, there were twenty-five black families and two white families. Mine and one more. When I played on the baseball team as a grammar school and high school child, there were eight black players and two white players. We had ten then. We had a catcher and a back-up catcher. We didn't have a backstop, so we had two catchers. But this is the kind of heritage that we had. And as you know, there are a remarkably large number of southern people whose backgrounds are oriented towards rural areas. We've had a mass movement into the urban areas, but we still have this basic sense of friendship and understanding with individual members of the black race.
You think maybe the rural aspect is a factor in it, too?
I don't know. I just know that there's a personal interrelationship. You
know, we said, "The blacks that I know are very good people." We even
said this a long time ago. But the black citizens as
On the presidential level, there's always been something called "presidential Republicans" in South Carolina, even when Key wrote his book. In the last two presidential elections, Texas in one of them went to the Democratic Party, narrowly, and it's the only southern state that did. Do you see the South moving back into the Democratic Party in presidential elections? If so, what would you require to bring that about?
Yes, I do. The only thing that we'd have to do, I think, would be to
provide a candidate that would exemplify the feelings of the southern
voter, and also would show an overt inclination to acquire the southern
vote. In the last . . . well, in 1964, Johnson deliberately wrote off
the South in order to cast himself as a nationwide candidate. He didn't
come to Georgia, he didn't campaign in our state, and so forth. And I
think this was a very wise strategic move. He was from Texas, and he had
to show the rest of the country that he wasn't just a southern
politician. Humphrey, in 1968, again deliberately wrote off the
South,
It might even be stronger than that if the South is bellwether, and if people look to the South for solutions to problems like the racial problem, would even suggest that perhaps major candidates might even be coming from the South, more in the future than they have in the past.
I believe that would be a trend.
Let me ask you something related to that. '68 was the first year since 1944 that there was not even a southern or border state person on the national Democratic ticket for president or vice president. Do you think that the Democratic Party will revert to that trend, and will it be necessary to have, in effect, a southerner or border state person on the ticket?
Yes, I think so.
You think that was a factor in that defection?
I believe so. I do. I think that McGovern felt that he didn't have a
chance in the world, you know, to carry a southern state. He made some .
. . I guess he gave some thought to that in the selection of his first
vice presidential candidate, but I think it was primarily a matter of
assuaging labor and the Catholic vote. But I don't think there was any
feeling, you know, "I got to tie the southern voters to me." But I think
that's a mistake that's been made for the last time. The South is a
cohesive group, too. I guess you realize this, but we . . . I know in
the Georgia legislature, well, say in my election, I carried the south
of Georgia. Some of those counties, ten to one. And now in legislative
matters, if an issue is clearly defined, ninety percent of the members
of the general assembly of a certain region of, say, south Georgia will
vote harmoniously, without having to compare notes with one another. The
Atlanta region, which has twenty-three members of the legislature,
they'll ordinarily divide twelve to eleven. So they in effect have one
net vote, either in the governor's race or in a general assembly battle,
whereas the southern part of the state, that is more rurally inclined,
tend to vote the same way. And they have a much heavier preponderance
You mean in relationship to people in the North, or candidates from the North, or—?
Just among ourselves. And I think that relationship has been re-cemented. We were shaken, obviously, by going through the ordeal of the racial question. And I think it was mirrored in the nationwide elections. But I think now that we've weathered that adequately. There's the closest possible relationship among the governors of the South, and this applies . . .
I was going to ask about that. Is there more cohesiveness among southern governors than the national governors?
I believe so.
I notice that when I attend those conferences too.
But I frequently visit, either on the telephone or in person, you know,
with David Hall and with Reubin Askew and with Edwards, with Bill
Wallen, with John West. And with Dale Bumpers and others. Just as a
matter, not only of friendship, but I feel we have a common purpose and
a common region to develop. The organization recently of our Southern
Growth Policy Board is a major indication of that effect. I've just been
elected chairman of it, and in the next twelve months we'll be working
just to say what are the goals of the South, in every aspect of life.
And what can we do to bind our states closer together. How can we look
to the future with a common purpose. How can we share experiences
across
Well, if the South is different as a region within the country, how is Georgia different within the South?
I don't know. I think Georgia, again, is probably the most typical state in the South. Miami is a rapidly changing population. They have a thousand new people coming in every year . . . every day, as a matter of fact. And Georgia, I think, has a very fine combination of being relatively stable in population, very strong economic growth—between fifteen and twenty percent a year, which is very strong. It's now recognized as a center for the Southeast, as far as international trade, and culture, and education is concerned. Atlanta is the largest city in the Southeast, and probably the strongest as far as development is concerned. We've got the second busiest airport in the world here. We've got a heavy, brand new concentration of foreign consultates. We have twenty-five honorary consultates now in Atlanta, seven full time professional consultates with the opening of the Japanese the first of January. So I'd say Georgia is not only because of its location but because Atlanta's kind of a crossroad, and we have a very stable population but a very rapid economic growth would be significant. But I wouldn't describe it as any more influential politically than, say, Florida or others.
Yeah, but if you strengthen the ties between the southern states, don't you tend to build it as a power bloc?
Yes. I think so.
Not only within the Congress, but the National Governors' Conference and so on.
Yes, that's true.
Because I know in the Midwestern Governors' Conference, they don't have the kind of elan and spirit and all that sort of thing that you have in the Southern Governors' Conference.
Anybody who's ever been to a governors' conference would say—and you all have—I think the Southern Governors' Conference, as far as the substance of the program, the closeness of the people involved, far transcends the National Governors' Conference. Now, I don't go to the other regional conferences. I've only been to one, just as a visitor, but it was practically a nonexistent entity compared to what we have in the Southeast.
What was the political impact in Georgia of the end of the county unit system?
Well, I think that as far as a control or influence in the state
legislature, it hasn't been as profound as had been expected. But I
think that was a major factor in breaking down this spokesman role in
individual counties, in the political process. You know, it used to be
that the tiny counties would have two votes, and Atlanta would have six,
and Macon would have four. Well, this meant that thirty small counties
with less population than Atlanta, as you well know, would have sixty
votes and Atlanta would have six votes. And it made it possible for
large amounts of both money and other kinds of influence to be exerted
to win the votes in the small counties. It also meant that the fewer
people that you could have voting in a county, the
Well, what do you suggest is the proper role of political parties at the state level?
Well, it varies from one state to another.
In Georgia.
In Georgia, we have always kind of looked on the Democratic Party itself as a necessary evil. We have built individual campaign organizations, predicated exclusively on allegiance to a single candidate, rather than an allegiance to a party mechanism. And I think this is probably going to be the case in the future. I believe that the Democratic Party can provide a very useful service, which it hasn't in the past. And this is what I'm trying to do on a nationwide basis. The training of candidates, the uniformity of direct mail lists, the sharing of opinion poll results, the delineation of issues in a clear way so that the candidates themselves can understand them. The attraction to the state of major figures who can enhance the attitudes of the people toward the Democratic Party. A strong role in the mechanism of the national Democratic Party itself. But with all that said, plus other more minor things like the raising of some funds, and so forth, the essence of the Georgia attitude toward the Democratic Party would be, as far as running an election or telling me how to vote, stay out of it. We still prefer to deal directly with a candidate, and I think that the organizations for the winning of elections will still be predicated on allegiance to a particular candidate.
On any of these questions that you want to just not attribute them, cut
this thing off, just tell us. I did want to ask you this question. What
is the actual role of organized labor in Georgia?
They're fairly weak but increasing in strength and influence. I would say that organized labor in the past has been heavily suspect in Georgia, and has been heavily controlled from the national labor organization headquarters. That's not the case, anymore.
Who would be the single most influential labor person in Georgia?
Herb Mabry. Herb Mabry is the new president of the AFL-CIO. And he works very closely with me. He works very closely with the Democratic Party officials. He ran for membership on the Democratic National Committee, and was elected, himself. He enjoys a very fine reputation among the members of the General Assembly. And now when candidates in some of the areas of the state are running for office, they come to the labor organizations for the first time for financial and organizational help. And I think that because organized labor is not a major divisive factor in the state, there's very little stigma attached to being associated with the labor organizations, you know, during some portions of a campaign. For instance, in the elections in the metropolitan area of Atlanta here, for Congress and for mayor and vice mayor, organized labor played a major role, both in financing and organization of telephone pools . . . the Communication Workers of America worked.
Who were they supporting?
They supported in every instance the most recent winners. Maynard
Jackson, Wyche Fowler, and Andrew Young. In my county—I come from one of
the more rural counties, Americus is the county
END OF TRANSCRIPT