© 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-0124, in
the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern Historical
Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill”
Jesse Helms, at the beginning of a long career as a Republican senator from North Carolina, discusses his entry into politics, describes some of his political positions, and reflects on the state of the Republican Party. A Democrat, Helms was inspired to switch parties after hearing a speech delivered by Richard Nixon; shortly after doing so, he won a Senate seat. In the Senate, and in this interview, he argued forcefully against busing to achieve desegregation, against the welfare system, and against government interference in the free market. At the time of this interview, in 1974, he does not see a significant political shift in North Carolina's future despite the recent, historic election of a Republican as governor. He maintains that voters cast their ballots for candidates rather than for parties. The issues that Helms hopes to engage include what he sees as family values—which would indeed come to dominate political discourse—and the racial issues that signaled the growing strength of the frustrated white voters who would cast their votes for Republicans in the 1970s and 1980s. This interview provides a useful look into the mind of one of the most influential southern senators of the post-1960s era, as well as into the budding conservative movement.
Senator Jesse Helms describes some of his political positions, and reflects on the state of the Republican Party.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
Senator Helms, basically how did you get active in the Republican Party and in politics? You don't have a tradition of being a "politician".
Well, I've been on the perimeter of politics, I guess, all my life, all my adult life. As you know, I was a Democrat by registration until September of 1970, even though I never voted for a Democrat nominee for president. Never had that experience. I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic Party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party. But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican Party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two-party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters.
So I quietly switched my registration, with no idea
You said initially Democrats came to you, though?
Oh, yes.
Were they interested in you running as a Democrat?
Oh, yes.
In the primary.
Yes. They came for two reasons. One was an apprehension, which I did not share, that Senator Jordan would be defeated in the primary. Or that he might not survive. Now, that's a delicate thing, and I want you to be careful how you handle that, putting it in the book.
Right. Okay. Because of his health situation at that time.
Yes. I ask you, especially, that you handle this with care, because Senator . . . is still alive. He's in bad shape, but . . . there were many of his friends who were fearful that he could not survive the campaign. Of course, they were proved wrong. Then there were others who were disenchanted with Senator Jordan because they disagreed with him on his handling of the Bobby Baker case and for a variety of reasons. But they wanted some fire insurance in the event that something should happen to Senator Jordan, either defeat or worse, and that Mr. Galifianakis should prove to be the nominee. I didn't think that Mr. Galifianakis would be the nominee. I thought Mr. Jordan would. But they were right and I was wrong.
Do you see a realignment developing in North Carolina? Where do you see the conservative Democrats in North Carolina going? And by conservative Democrats, I think I'm really speaking of the kind of Democrat that you see in eastern North Carolina.
Well, I think that . . .
Who frequently, say, votes for George Wallace, who has a large following in the east.
Well, I think that Governor Wallace is a symbol to a vast number of people in our state. I don't necessarily say that they're conservatives or moderates or liberals. I simply say that they are frustrated, because what they want, in my judgment, is somebody who will tell . . . who will level with them. Whether they agree with him or not. But who will tell them what he thinks and what he will do, and then do it. And George Wallace comes through as a man of that image. I'm sure that a lot of people who don't fully agree with George Wallace voted for him, simply because they felt that they could rely on his word. I hope, of course, that some of them voted for me for that reason. And . . . to answer your question, I don't think there's going to be any realignment until there is a persuasive force in the political life of our state, that can get across this message that I'm going to tell you the truth, and I'm going to do what I say to the best of my ability. Now, whether the Republican Party can do that, or whether the Democratic Party can do that, I don't know. It remains to be seen.
Do you think politics in North Carolina, then, are more likely to revolve around personalities than parties?
No, I think they revolve around issues. And a complete disenchantment with headstrong government that intruded into the lives of every citizen, whether it be in North Carolina or otherwise. And the people basically, both consciously and subconsciously, are rejecting the kind of government that deprives them of their decision making right. They are unhappy about inflation, and why shouldn't they be? They are unhappy about forced busing. You could pull any thread from the fabric, and you can find discontent. There's just a welling up of sentiment against too much government.
When you use the term forced busing, what do you refer to specifically?
Well, I am speaking, of course, of government assignment of students on the basis of race. Now, we've got discrimination in reverse now, in this forced busing. In the idea of children being assigned to schools on the other side of town, just to achieve some sort of "racial balance" that satisfies the whims or caprice of some bureaucrat or judge or both. And that's the way I'd describe forced busing.
So with the Supreme Court mandate what it is at the moment, so far as school desegregation is concerned, and in urban areas where housing patterns tend to be based predominantly on race, how . . . what other means would be available to desegregate the schools?
Well, I'm not saying that desegregation is the important thing. I think education is the important thing, and one thing that everybody agrees on is that the quality of education is deteriorating. Now, I know you've seen the same polls that I've seen, that not . . . this is not a racial issue any longer, because black parents object to forced busing just as much as the white parents. And the hostilities in the schools and the frustration of the teacher in trying to cope with the situation, when the psychology of the classroom is just one of destruction and apathy and all the rest of it. Now, our schools are going to pot. Now, I think that my dear colleagues on the floor of the Senate are mistaking the mood of the people, and this may well affect their futures. I hope it will, because if they can't change their mind in the face of obvious fact, when they have been proved wrong, then they need to be eliminated from the Senate. If I'm wrong, they well may eliminate me. But I don't think I'm wrong.
Insofar as the Republican Party in North Carolina is concerned, how do you view your role in the party?
Well, I think my first duty is to be as effective a senator in espousing and defending the principles which I believe. I don't want a faction in the Republican Party. I don't want to control the Republican Party, and I've never done anything to indicate otherwise. But if I have a role in the Republican Party, I hope it is one of persuading all Republicans that we have got to stand for principles. That we can't be honest, let alone win an election, by being a little bit liberal than the Democrats. We can't be all things to all men. We have got to take our stand. Now, if I can to any degree persuade the of the Republican Party that this is the way to go, in terms of being intellectually honest and politically successful, that I accept that role, if I can do it.
What do you see as the formula for growth of the Republican Party in North Carolina? There're two patterns that we keep hearing, talking to the Republicans throughout the South. One is the talk of realignment, attracting conservative Democrats who are uncomfortable in the Democratic Party. The other is broadening the base of the Republican party by attracting blacks, by attracting urban moderates, they usually refer to. By expanding their base in that direction.
Well, I think it's sheer folly to try to expand the base on any ethnic
ratio. I would hope that we would expand the base by attracting all
people, whatever their race, whatever age, religion, and all the rest of
it, who share the fundamental concerns of what I believe the Republican
Party should be . . . I think we should take our stand, win or lose, and
let it all hang out. If we try to cajole and compromise, that's the road
to defeat. The Republican Party has no future because the Democratic
Party has demonstrated through the years, for a generation now, that it
intends to
How do you view the party . . . define the fundamental concerns of the Republican Party, as you see them.
Well, I'm trying to articulate them, as a United States senator. Ask me specific questions and . . . that would launch . . . to answer that question in a general way would take up forty-five minutes. If you ask me specific questions . . .
If you had to encompass your basic philosophy, as you see it, applying to the Republican Party. If you had to summarize it, say, in one or two sentences, how would you summarize it?
Well, I couldn't do it, and no man alive could. But . . . and that's the
trouble, trying to get a short cliche that'll fit. I think you've got to
go on this . . . you've got to go, for example, with the absolute that
this government cannot survive if it continues this fiscal
irresponsibility, that has been practiced for a generation now. We have
got to balance the budget. We have got to reduce government spending. We
have got to remove the federal government from the lives of the people.
The federal government was never envisioned to be a provider, a welfare
organization. The Constitution very clearly tells us what the purpose of
the federal government, the government was intended to be. And so, to .
. . in the broadest possible sense, I think we've got to look at the
historic fundamentals of this country. And to realize what government
Now, what does the . . . when the Constitution refers to one of the roles of the federal government, to promote the general welfare, what does that mean to you?
It has nothing to do with the welfare system. Implicit, or perhaps explicit, in your question is the fact that you realize that. It would never envision that we'd have welfare payments, doles and handouts. I do think that the truly needy and worthy of society ought to be taken care of. I try to practice that in my private life as well as in my public life. But . . .
When you say "taken care of," do you mean by government or by private . . .
Well, I would hope privately. And there was a time in this country when
the brotherhood of man was important to most people. The churches were
not so politically involved, and they did that sort of work. And other
organizations. But even government's role, I would accept, on the basis
that aid was limited to those who truly needed it and deserve it.
What do you think has been the effect of Watergate on the conservative cause?
I think that Watergate has had no effect on the conservative cause, except in, perhaps, as frustrated individual conservatives, who realize that Richard Nixon is a symbol of conservativism, while not being a conservative.
I don't want to get into Watergate in any detail, for obvious reasons, at this time, but what effect do you think it will have on the development of the Republican Party in North Carolina and the South?
Well, I don't know. In a case like that it's highly theoretical at best.
Our gain, I think, it depends on how many Republicans are willing to
exert the energy to do the necessary work in standing up for things that
really matter. There are two sides to this Watergate thing. The passage
of time has obscured public awareness of the frame of reference for
Watergate. I expect that if Mr. Nixon, in the fall of '72, or whenever
it was, the publicity was mushrooming, began to mushroom about
Watergate. If he had stepped forward and said, "Yes, we tried to find
out about Ellsberg, because Ellsberg is a thief. He was perfectly
willing to be a traitor." I think that, instead of condemning the
burglary, that the American people, right or wrong, would have cheered.
People have forgotten, now, that a bomb went off in the capitol over
And I think, also, that the Republicans ought to make the American people aware that the United States Senate—and you can go to the record and look at it—that the United States Senate overtly refused to examine any corruption in politics except that one year. We tried to get an overall picture of it, so that the purpose of the Committee, as I understand the way these things operate, and that is to see if further legislation is needed. That's the only excuse for a congressional committee, by the way. To see whether we ought to take care that there is not a repeat performance of Bobby Kennedy, who tapped the telephones of everybody in sight, including thirty-eight senators of the United States. But you never read about that. The Republicans . . . the Watergate crowd, I disassociate the Republican Party from the Committee to Re-elect. And I don't do that as a matter of convenience. I think it's a fact, because the Republican National Committee had no idea what was going on. There's plenty of evidence for that.
But I think it's time the Republicans put this thing in perspective, not
only as to the prevailing conditions at the time it happened, but let's
see who else has been doing it. And collect the whole smelly mess of
American politics. But, no, the Ervin Committee was set up for the one
purpose of dragging through this 1972 campaign, period. Not a thing was
said about the Democratic primary, presidential primary of '72, when all
sorts of dirty tricks went on. Not a thing was said about Jack
KennedyNew York Times. If
that's too harsh, so be it.
Getting back to the Republican Party in North Carolina, at least I think there's a general public perception there being, basically, a Helms wing and a Holshouser wing, and there's been, within the party, the Rouse-Bennett fight, as it's called. And then there's been the maneuverings, if I may use that word, leading up to the senatorial, the announcements of the senatorial campaign, the current one, between Senator Horton and Stevens. How do you feel about all of that? Those affairs?
Well, I remember a question like that was asked of the governor of North Carolina. He said, "Yes." You must be the guy who'll put the Lord's Prayer on the head of a pin. You'll have to break it down again, and I apologize for being so verbose, but there's no simple . . .
Well, let me ask you this question. Do you feel that Governor Holshouser's moving in the wrong direction to build the Republican Party in North Carolina?
I couldn't say that he is. I don't know. What do you think?
I certainly don't know. If you were governor, what would you be doing to build the Republican Party?
Well, I would have been for the med school at East Carolina
Am I correct in assuming that that's a reference to Gene Anderson's role?
Well, I have to let you draw your own conclusions about that. I don't want to attack anybody, but I . . . because I don't know for sure . . . but I have been told that the governor was perfectly willing to work with Rouse and others were not. But I would have seen, had it been Jesse Helms—now I may well have been in there, or had I been governor, which I'm not—speaking hypothetically, but I would have seen an opportunity to weld together the two elements of the party. I would have certainly tried it. Maybe it couldn't have been done. But I took the position in the Rouse thing, that . . . while Frank himself will acknowledge that at times he's been a bull in a china shop, the fact remains that he was chairman of the party when the state of North Carolina elected the first Republican senator and the first Republican governor of the twentieth century. And I simply thought the man was owed some credit. Furthermore, Rouse did his best to help me in 1972, and I could not forget that, so, with that statement, I sort of stayed out of it. But . . . I forgot where I was . . . I think that's all I want to say on it.
Well, how about on the Horton-Stevens situation, where Senator Horton also was a supporter of yours?
Well, I can only tell you the chronology of the events as I viewed them.
I've known Mr. Stevens only casually. Ham Horton I have known somewhat
better. My contacts with both have been limited. I was strongly in favor
of Wilmer Mizell running, and I did what I could to encourage
Now, at this point, I'll have to tell you what I understand the situation to have been, as reported to me by Tom Ellis, who was my campaign manager. Tom met with Governor Holshouser and Gene Anderson and Horton and others—I won't attempt . . . Tom will give you the names if you're interested, and he can give you a more accurate resume of what happened. But both the governor's people and Mr. Ellis apparently agreed that Ham would be an excellent candidate. Tom knew of no mention of Mr. Stevens, no consideration by Mr. Stevens concerning the candidacy. Tom and others went to Ham and urged him to run. I was called and told of the meeting with the governor, and what did I think of Ham Horton? I said, "Well, I think he'll be a fine candidate." They said, "Well, fine. Would you send Ham a wire?" I did. It so happens I sent him a wire the same day that I talked about thirty minutes on the telephone with Mr. Stevens about a furniture price control problem, and we discussed everything in the book, and he didn't mention his candidacy.
The very next day, I had a call from Mr. Broyhill, Jim Broyhill, the Republican congressman, asking me if I was supporting Stevens for the nomination. And I said, "What are you talking about?" I said, "I sent a wire yesterday for Ham Horton and I talked to Bill yesterday and he didn't mention it. Is he running?" He said, "Oh, yes." And that was the first time . . . knowledge I had of the Stevens candidacy. So, I agreed to write a letter to Stevens, in which I commended him for his interest in government and all the rest. I simply said the same thing I said to Ham. And that's all there was to it.
Now, whether any sandbagging
Will this whole episode affect how much effort you put into the Republican campaign this fall, insofar as that Senate race is concerned?
No. My efforts in any case would have been limited, because the Senate's going to be in session and . . . but I'll do what I properly can. Because Mr. Stevens is a fine man. Now will this book be published after the election?
Yes, it will.
Is there any way that it could be disclosed publicly prior to November that my anticipation was going to be, if I tell you?
Probably could.
Well, I won't say it, then.
Oh, no. I thought you wanted me to. No, no. No. No. No.
. . . Holshouser in '72. How did you campaign, what was your relationship in that campaign?
We . . . Jim felt that we ought to go our own ways, and run as a team, but yet run our own campaigns. There was no coordination of the two campaigns. No. And I think the same is true in the Democratic Party. I ran for the Senate, Jim ran for governor. Skipper Bowles ran for governor, and Nick Galifianakis ran for Senate. This is historic. To make anything unique out of that would be a mistake. It's always been that way, according to my observation. Now, furthermore, Jim had appeal that I did not possess. I may have had some that he did not possess. I had strength in the east, no question about that. Showed up in the map. He had strength in the west. How much vote he got in the east as a result of my being on the ticket, I don't know. How much vote I got in the west as a result of him being on the ticket, I don't know. But we had a . . . it was a pretty good situation because of the complexity and diversity of the many aspects of the four campaigns. That is to say, Galifianakis, Helms, Bowles, and Holshouser. So it all fit into the funnel, came out right, from my standpoint and Holshouser's standpoint. I don't know whether this could be repeated in another year or not. I don't know.
If you had to . . . where do you see the . . . well, two questions. Where do you see the Republican Party going now, in party building and grooming candidates? Do you see them emerging as a majority party in North Carolina, state level?
Not any time soon.
And why? I mean, what's the major problem that they have to overcome on that?
Well, I think we've already answered that. They've got to groom
candidates . . . you don't . . . you don't . . . you don't take over and
be the
If George Wallace endorses some campaigns on the national Democratic ticket in 1976, whether or not he's on it, what effect do you think that'll have in North Carolina and in the South?
Well, it depends on who he endorses. If he endorses Ted Kennedy or somebody like that, George McGovern, it wouldn't make a particle of difference. You'd have to name me the candidate.
You don't think the fact of Wallace's endorsement in campaigning for the ticket in itself would be a factor?
Well, it would be a factor, but not a compelling one. There are a lot of people who love George Wallace, but they're not necessarily going to transfer their allegiance to him to somebody that he likes. And this is historically politics, too. Even Franklin Roosevelt, who tried to purge Walter George down in Georgia. You just can't transfer it, I don't think. Do you?
It's difficult.
Right.
Suppose it was someone like Scoop Jackson. What would be the difference between Wallace staying out of it, and Wallace being actively involved? As an endorser or a campaigner?
Well, you get into a situation there where you would have to throw into that equation what is going to be done to analyze Senator Jackson's posture on various issues. For example, he three times participated in the blocking of an anti-busing amendment of mine. Well, he didn't have to do it. Now, this would be made known to the people of the South. I told Scoop, I said, "You have just thrown away the South." And it shook him. And the second time around he wouldn't . . . if you go to the record and you can find where he and Javits did a toe dance on who was going to make the motion to table my amendment—it was "Oh, you do it." "No, I'd be happy for you to do it, Senator."—on the floor. Because Scoop knew what was involved in the thing. So I would say that Wallace's endorsement of Jackson would be negated immediately by a complete revelation of what Senator Jackson did on the anti-busing thing, for example. And there would be other issues. This energy situation has not been brought fully to the attention of the American people. Jackson took the point of view that the way to solve it was to cuss out the oil companies, and limit prices and all the rest of it. But I think that it's perfectly possible that the American people can be persuaded that this was exactly the wrong approach, to solve the crisis.
You know, your critics . . . some of your critics say that when you bring up anti-busing, that in effect it's arousing traditional southern racial fears and antagonisms.
Baloney. They know they're talking through their hats. It's
Without the southern part, how about their charge that it does arouse racial antagonisms and fears?
Well, baloney again, because the surveys show that eighty, eighty-seven percent, isn't it? Eighty-seven percent of the Negro parents polled objected to forced busing. I've not had one black to write to me saying that he wanted forced busing for his child. We have had many blacks to write to us saying, "Senator, I didn't vote for you, but you're right about this. I prefer my child to walk to school."
Is there anything else you wanted to comment on concerning southern or North Carolina politics, that we haven't discussed?
I can't think of a thing.
END OF INTERVIEW