Editors Note: James L. Buckley, a conservative and member of the Buckley clan from Sharon, who won a U.S. Senate seat in New York in 1970, died on Tuesday, Aug. 18 in Washington. He was 100.
In a Dec, 13, 1979, interview with the late editor of this newspaper, Robert Estabrook, Buckley outlined his positions and discussed his challenge to Christopher Dodd for the U.S. Senate, an election Buckley lost.
Jim Buckley presents a relaxed appearance as he chats in his Sharon living room about his decision to seek the Republican nomination for United States Senator from Connecticut, sipping one of his many daily cups of coffee. His blue eyes twinkle, and he looks remarkably fit for a man of 56.
He has a body of experience, he says, that is relevant to the formulation of policy in the Senate during an “extremely dangerous international situation” in which the United States is becoming “significantly inferior” to the Soviet Union in certain aspects of defense. This is an area in which he feels he can contribute as a legislator.
Moreover, he adds, there has been a substantial movement of opinion toward “where I have been” on such issues as big government. “There are increasing signs I was ahead of my time,” he declares, in the views he expressed as U.S. Senator from New York from 1971 to 1977.
For example, the growth of federal bureaucracy “tends to leave the citizen feeling helpless.” Many of the woes of in f la t ion could have been avoided by a more satisfactory fiscal policy. Industry and the economy have been so overburdened with taxes they cannot compete.
‘Uphill Battle’
For such reasons Buckley has chosen to mount what he says will be an uphill battle against U. S. Rep. Christopher Dodd, who is expected to be the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff. Acknowledging that Connecticut has been a Democratic state in recent years, Buckley recalls that it was known as a Republican stronghold when he was practicing law in New Haven. He feels that significant inroads have been made into Democratic strength. Moreover, he notes than in his unsuccessful 1976 Senate race when Daniel Patrick Moynihan ousted him, he garnered 22 per cent of the black vote in New York.
As if to anticipate criticism of his change of official residence from New York to Connecticut (he registered in Sharon as a Republican several months ago), Buckley points out that he grew up in Sharon and has maintained his personal home there all along. His red brick house is two doors away from Great Elm, the family estate for which a plan to convert it into a retirement community-nursing home complex-stirred controversy in Sharon.
‘The Road Has Veered’
In 1970 Buckley was nominated by the Conservative Party in New York although he described himself as a Republican, and he has been identified with a number of right-wing causes. Has his position changed to put him more in the center?
“The road has veered,” Buckley replies, with the result that he seems closer to the center. Emphasizing that he shuns labels and categorizing, he explains that he has “learned an awful lot about the difficulties of moving where you want to go.”
He regards Chris Dodd’s voting record as the major campaign issue. Many persons, he contends, are unaware of Dodd’s role as “Mr. Flxit” with the “explosion” of federal programs. Dodd, he insists is “locked in policies of the past” and does not understand that cuts in federal spending is “essential to get economic growth.” But not in defense.
Buckley criticizes Dodd for advocating cuts in defense spending “except for submarines in his district,” and for voting to eliminate the B-1 bomber.
Opposes SALT
This brings up the general subject of defense. Buckley acknowledges that his views on the strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union are close to those of the Committee on the Present Danger, a Washington-based group in which he participates. He cites a string of reasons why he is against the SALT treaty, starting with the point that it would not be adequately verifiable. SALT would leave the United States inferior to the Soviet Union in several respects and would help the Soviets “Finlandize” NATO. In short, “it would not achieve its purpose” for the U.S.
In similar vein, Buckley finds President Carter’s foreign policy so “irresolute” and “shifting” that it has “dismayed our friends and encouraged our enemies.”
Although he believes the U.S. should use its influence to encourage respect for its standards in human rights, a selective application has discredited the effort.
Countries coping with a terrorism problem need some understanding.
The Soviet Union and Cuba encourage regimes, especially in Southeast Asia, that utilize brutality and terror as instruments of state policy. The U.S. could use its control over grain shipments to the Soviet Union to do some discreet bargaining.
Although Buckley concedes that the Shah of Iran may have been responsible for some or many of the abuses of which he is accused, he feels that the deposed Iranian ruler should not be “thrown to the wolves” because “he has stuck his neck out for us.” During the 1973 Yom Kippur war when NATO countries except for Portugal forbade overflights by planes ferrying U.S. arms to Israel, the Shah made it possible for Israel to be supplied.
Profits Bring Energy
On energy policy Buckley believes that the less governmental intervention there is in the development of oil, gas and coal, the less disruption there will be. He thinks the New England states ought to get together and agree on where to put a new refinery, a need that now can be met with minimal environmental damage.
Nuclear energy policy troubles Buckley because he is not satisfied he has all the facts. His general conclusion is that the present generation of nuclear power plants ought to be permitted to continue with careful attention to safeguards. Waste disposal is another problem. Buckley believes the technology exists to bury toxic wastes safely in deep, stable geological formations. The problem, be feels, is political, not scientific.
Alternative sources of energy will be developed most quickly, he continues, if profit incentives are permitted to encourage the inventiveness of Americans through tax advantages and writeoffs — but not through loan guarantees. Buckley is against the proposed Chrysler loan (and voted against the Lockheed loan) because he thinks it a bailout for stockholders, not the workers. The tanks produced by Chrysler will be produced elsewhere, be says, and skilled workers will be able to get jobs.
“I ’m persuaded we are going to set tbe clock back, not forward, if we have the Federal Government move into those areas which would enhance development only in the nearer term,” he asserts. When the price is right there will be “an enormous rush” into gasohol and wind and solar power.
Where the Federal Government should concentrate its efforts is in areas where the prospect of private reward is too far away to encourage development. He includes in this nuclear fusion and dry geothermal power.
Rule Of Subsidiarity
Here Buckley follows a principle to which he alludes frequently — the rule of subsidiarity. The Federal Government should do only what lower units of government are unable to do.
In this category he includes PCBs in the Housatonic River. Where clean air and water are concerned, Buckley sees a proper federal role. He cites with pride his longtime membership in tbe Housatonic Audubon Society.
Respecting other policies, Buckley
feels:
• On catastrophic illness the Federal Government ought to make it possible to extend protection through private insurance companies.
• On labor relations, the present situation is not bad. Buckley would aim at protecting both workers and management against coercion.
• The windfall profits tax is misnamed, for it really will be an excise tax on newly discovered oil. This will have a depressing influence on what is found and produced over the next 20 years. Buckley would have preferred to maintain existing policies on existing production and free all future production.
Limit Programs
+ On inflation, the Administration should have listened to economist Milton Friedman and tried to limit money growth to real economic growth. Buckley wouldplace a limit on growth of existing governmental programs .
• Private carriers ought tobe freed to compete for carrying first-class mail in the cities, as with the United Pared Service. The Government has a responsibility to see to it that there is adequate service to hard-to-reach areas.
• Overregulation by tbe Interstate Commerce Commission was largely responsible for tbe plight of the railroads.
Now it is necessary to look at tbe energy efficiency of all sources of transportation, including trucking, which is not bad far certain types of hauls. Buckley favored a public works project in 1975 to put people to work rebuilding rail roadbeds, but the plan was dribbled away.
After all of this, which presidential candidate will Buckley support? He is nicely noncommittal. “Whoever survives the process,” he replies.
