Composed of clergymen of the houston area who have been invited by the association. The meeting is about to be called to order by the president , reverend george wreck. May i call this special meeting of the association of ministers of greater houston to order. Let us stand for prayer. God be merciful onto us and bless us and cause his face to shine upon us. God shall bless us and all of the ends of the earth shall praise him. With these words of the psalmist, we stand before the god as our only sovereign lord. Give us good, lord, and show us mercy. Let the grace rest upon our nation and do not take the gospel from us. Show us always the truth that makes and keeps men free. In the name of our lord jesus christ, we pray, amen. We are very happy that so many of you ministers are present at this meeting. The treasurer of our association has wondered to me if some of you would not like to pay your dues for this time. This year, which begins the september. Im sure he will be in the lobby after this session ready to shake your hand. [ laughter ] we are very happy to see so many of you ministers present. And we want this to be a true meeting of the association. Under the policy of your executive committee this year, we wish to have as guests for regular and special meetings, as many personalities of note and reputation as possible. The purpose, of course, is to provide not only a good program, but to give knowledge and enlightenment to the spiritual leaders of your community. Thus a similar invitation was extended by the association to mr. Nixon. Please understand that this is not a political rally. This is a meeting of the association of ministers. And we rely upon your sense for good order, proper respect for the nominee to the highest office of our land and good christian behavior generally. Our little mouse has grown into a lion of significance. This has not been our original intention, but things happen these ways. May the atmosphere be informal here. An informal gathering of and may the atmosphere be maintained. May i speak a welcome to all of you. Im the reverend herbert mesa and our program chairman. This program this evening does not constitute an endorsement of either the speaker or the party which he represents. The program has been motivated by the religious issues in this campaign. Issues that are not modern. There are some who insist that nothing has changed within the Roman Catholic church and there are others who insist that nothing should change. The problem is not the denial of the religious issue or to brand as intolerant those who raise it. We are to determine where the candidate stands in relationship to that perspective. The extremist on both sides can dominate the debate. Contrary to common propaganda, the south is not a hotbed of religious or racial intolerance. There are many honest mines that are raising honest questions. Many catholics differ with us on many questions that are relevant to the welfare of our country. The fact that the senator is with us tonight is to concede that a religious issue does exist. It is because there are many serious minds decently raising questions that we have invited the speaker of the evening and its for that same reason that we have allowed this meeting to be broadcast. To that end, i should like to introduce at this time, the senator from massachusetts and the democratic candidate for the president of the United States, senator john f. Kennedy. [ applause ] governor, im grateful for your generous invitation to state my views. For the socalled religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight. I want to emphasis from the outset that i believe that we have far more Critical Issues in the 1960 campaign. The spread of communist influence until it now festers only 90 miles from the coast of florida, the humiliating treatment of your president and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power, the hungry children i saw in West Virginia the old people who cannot pay their doctors bills, the families forced to sell their farms and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues for war and hunger, and ignorance and despair, no know religious barrier. Because i am a catholic and no catholic has ever been elected president , the real issues in this campaign have been obscured, perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state, once again, not what kind of church i believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of america that i believe in. I believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute. No protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. With no church or Church School is granted any public funds or political preference. And where no man is denied Public Office merely because his religious differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an america that is officially neither catholic, protestant nor jewish. No public official accepts instruction on Public Policy from the pope, the National Council of churches or any other source. Where religious liberty is so indevisable that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For while this year it may be a catholic against who the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been and may someday be again, a jew or a quaker or a unitarian or a baptist. Today i may be the victim but tomorrow it may be you. Until the whole fabric of our Harmonious Society is ripped apart at a time of Great National peril. I believe in an america where religious tolerance will end, all men and all churches are treated as equals. Every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice. Theres no catholic vote, no anticatholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind and where catholics, protestants and jews will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past and promote instead the american ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of america in which i believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which i believe. A great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religion group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily holding it, its occupancy of the members of any one group. I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed by the nation as a condition to holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the first amendments guarantees of religious liberty, nor would our system of checks and balanc balances permit him to do so. Even by indirection, if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it. I want a chief executive whose acts are responsible to all and obligated to none. Who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner, his office may appropriately require him to fulfill and so whose fulfillment of the president ial office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation. This is the kind of america i believe in and this is the kind of america i fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in europe. No one suggested then that we might have a divided loyalty. That we did not believe in liberty. Or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the freedoms for which our forefathers died. In fact, this is the kind of america for which our forefathers did die. When they fled here to escape religious oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the constitution, the bill of rights, the virginia statute of religious freedom. When they fought at the shrine i visited today, the alamo. Side by side with bowie and crocket, no one knows whether they were catholics or not. For there was no religious test there. I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the congress. On my declared stands against the ambassador to the vatican, against unconstitutional aid per roek yal schools. Instead of doing this, do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries and rarely relevant to any situation here. And always admitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops of 1948 which strongly endorsed Church State Separation and which reflects the views of almost every american catholic. I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts, why should you . But let me say with respect to all countries, i am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, catholic or protestant, to compel, prohibit, or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion and that goes for any persecution at any time by anyone in any country. And i hope that you and i condemn with equal fervor those who deny it to protestants and catholics. Rather than cite those who differ, i would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as france and ireland, and the independence of such statesman. Let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, im not the catholic candidate for president. I am the democratic partys candidate for president who happens also to be a catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters. And the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as president , if i should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, i will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscious tells me to be in the National Interest and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates and no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. If the time should come, and i do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible, when my office would require me to violate my conscious or the National Interest, then i would resign the office and i hope any other Public Servant would do otherwise. But i do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either catholic or protestant faith, nor do i intend to disavow my views or my church in order to win this election. If i should lose on the real issues, i shall return to my seat in the senate, satisfied that i tried my best and was fairly judged. If this election is decided on the basis that 40 million americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptisted, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of catholics and noncatholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people. But if on the other hand i should win this election, then i shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency. Practically identical, i might add, with the oath i have taken for 14 years in the congress. Without reservation, i can and i quote solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution so help me god. [ applause ] gentlemen, due to the press of time, we should begin immediately with our questionandanswer period. You know the ground rules. Are there any questions . I think i speak for many that do not in any sense discount or any sense doubt your loyalty or love to this nation. Your position with regard to the separation of church of state, and now were just two men facing each other. If this meeting were being held in the sanctuary of my church, its the policy in my city that has many catholics to forbid them to attend a protestant service. If we tonight were in the sanctuary of my church, would you attend as you have here. Yes, i could. I could attend any as i said in my statement, i would attend any service in the interest that had any to my Public Office, weddings, funerals, so on, of course i would participate and have participated. I think the only question would be whether i could participate as a participant, a believer in your faith and maintain my membership in my church. That comes within the private beliefs that a catholic might have. As far as whether i could attend this sort of a function in this church, whether i could attend a function in our Service Connected with my position of office, then i could attend. And would attend. Was the position in regard of the chapel of the chaplain, which i believe you have accepted the invitation to attend and then the press said i believe the cardinal brought pressure and you refused and did not attend i would be delighted to explain. That seems to be a matter of great interest. I was invited in 1947 to attend a dinner to raise funds for an interfaith chapel in honor of the four chaplains who went down in dorchester 14 years ago. I was delighted to accept. Because i thought it was a useful and worthwhile cause. A few days before i was due to accept, i learned through a my Administrative Assistant who was had friends in philadelphia that two things, first, that i was listed this is in dr. Pollings book, as the spokesman for the catholic faith at the dinner. Senator lehman was to be the spokesman for the jewish faith. The chapel, instead of being located as an interfaith chapel was located in the basement of another church. It was not in that sense interfaith chapel. Theres never been a service of my church because of the physical location. I therefore informed dr. Polling that while i would be glad to come as a citizen, in fact many catholics did go to the dinner, i did not feel i had very good credentials to attend as the spokesman for the catholic faith at that dinner to raise funds when the whole Catholic Church group in philadelphia were not participating and because the chapel has never been consecrated. My grounds for not going were private. I had no credentials to speak for the catholic faith at the chapel for which no Catholic Service massahas ever been held. But i think if i may separate this, if this were a public matter, i would be glad to go as an individual, but i could not go as a spokesman. Mr. Kennedy, i read this platform and the planks in it with great interest and especially in the realms of freedom. And i note that in the educational section, the right of education for each person is guaranteed or offered for a guarantee. It also says that there shall be equal opportunity for employment and in another section it says there shall be equal rights to housing and recreation. All of these speak in a wonderful sense for the freedom which we want to keep here in america. Yet, on the other hand, there is in another place in the platform i read these words, we will repeal the authorization for right to work laws. Now, it seems to me that in this aspect here, and i feel that these are much more important than any religious issue, here you are abolishing an open shop. Youre taking away the freedom of the individual worker, whether he wants to work and wants to belong to this union or not. Now, isnt this sort of double talk . Youre guaranteeing freedom on the one hand and yet youre going to take it away on the other. I dont agree with that. I think theres a db dichoto on the platform. I think its a decision which goes to economic and political views. I dont think it involves a constitutional guarantee of freedom. Under the provisions of the taft hartley law, they were not permitted to guarantee a closed shop. Uniformity is valuable and therefore i hold with a view that its better to have uniform laws and not a law which is in interstate commerce which permits one condition in one state and another in another. Its not a new provision and its been there for the last three platforms. Thank you. Pastor of first church of god in houston and im a member of the Houston Association of ministers. Mr. Kennedy, you very clearly stated your position tonight in regard to the propagation of the gospel by all religious groups and i appreciated that much because partisans are michigssiy people. If you are elected president , will you use your influence to get the Roman Catholic countries of south america and spain to stop persecuting protestant michigans a missionaries . I would use my influence as president of the United States to permit to encourage the development of freedom all over the world. One of the rights which i consider to be important is the right of free speech, the right of assembly, free religious practice and i would hope that the United States and the president would stand for those rights all around the globe without regardless to geography or religion. Thank you. [ applause ] pastor of the south main baptist church. I received today a copy of the resolution passed by the baptist pastors conference from st. Louis and theyre going to confront you with this tomorrow night. This is the resolution, with deep sincerity and in christian grace, we plead with senator john f. Kennedy as the person presently concerned in this matter to appeal to the cardinal, mr. Kennedys superior in boston, to present to the vatican, mr. Kennedy, and religious freedom as represented in the constitution of the United States, in order that the vatican may officially authorize such a belief for all Roman Catholics in the United States. [ applause ] may i say as i do not accept the right of any official to tell me what i shall do in the sphere of my public responsibility as an elected official, i do not propose also to ask the cardinal to ask the vatican to take some action. I will not interfere with their free right to do what they want. [ applause ] theres no doubt in my mind that the viewpoint that i have expressed tonight publicly represents the opinion of the overwhelming majority of american catholics. Mr. Kennedy what my view, i have no doubt, is known to catholics around the world. Im just hopeful that by my stating it quite precisely, and i state it in the tradition of the america catholic, way back to bishop john carol. I hope this will clarify it. This is the position i think of the american Catholic Church in the United States with which im associated. We appreciate your forthright statement. Until we know this is the position of your church because there will be in catholics who will be appointed if youre elected president. We would like to know that they too are free to make such statements as youve been so courageous to make [ applause ] anyone that i would appoint to office as a senator or president would i hope hold the same view of the necessity of their living up to not only the letter of the constitution, but the spirit. If i may say so, im a catholic. Ive stated my view very clearly. I dont find any difficulty in stating that view. In my judgment, it is the view of american catholics from one end of the country to the other. Why . Because as long as i can state it in a way that i hope is satisfactory to you, why do you doubt that i represent a viewpoint which is hostile to the Catholic Church in the United States. Im stating the viewpoint that catholics in this country hold towards the happy relationship which exists between church and state. Do you state it with the approval of the vatican . I dont have to have approval in that sense. [ applause ] i have not submitted my statement before i read it to the vatican. I did not submit it to the cardinal, but my judgment is that Cardinal Cushing would approve of this statement. In my judgment, and im not a student of theology, im stating what i believe to be the position of my personal position and also the position of the great majority of catholics youve been watching senator john kennedy appearing in an unrehearsed questionandanswer period. Today i had telephone conversation with dr. Polling and received this telegram from him. Im sure you would like to clear this matter up. Let me read briefly from the telegram, there is a section on the polling incident. This section contains errors. I believe the senator will wish to correct the errors or that he will wish to withdraw that section. The original draft of the program on the interfaith dinner held in the hotel on december 15, 1947, identified mr. Kennedy as honorable john f. Kennedy. He was never invited as an official represented of an official organization, no speaker on that occasion was identified by his faith. Two days before the dinner occasion, mr. Kennedy canceled his engagement, he expressed his regret and grief but stated since he was requested not to come, it was an alternative. I will state again, the words that i used or quotation from the reverend pollings, the book which was produced about a year ago which first discussed this incident. My memory of the incident is quite clear. In fact, its as good as reverend pollings. He stated that the incident took place in 1950. Its only in the last two months that its come toward that the incident took place in 1947. Thirdly, i never discussed the matter with the cardinal. Ive never spoken to the cardinal. I first learned of it through my Administrative Assistant who knew of mr. Doyle who worked for the welfare conference who stated there was a good deal of concern among many of the Church People in philadelphia because the location of the chapel and because no service would ever be held in it because it was located in the basement of another church. It was an entirely different situation than the one that i had confronted when i first accepted it. There were three speakers. Kennedy was one of them, taft was the second, senator lehman was the third. I dont think i misstated that one of them was supposed to speak for the catholic faith as a spokesman, one of them for the protestant faith, one for the jewish faith. This chapel, i would glad to accept the invitation. I did not clear the invitation with anyone. It was only when i was informed that i was speaking and invited because i was a serviceman that i was informed that i was there really in a sense without any credentials, the chapel has never had a Catholic Service. Its not an interfaith chapel. Therefore, for me to participate as a spokesman in that sense for the catholic faith would have given an erroneous impression. Ive been there 14 years. This took place in 1947. I had been in politics two months and was inexperienced. I should have inquired before getting into the incident. Is this the best that can be done after 14 years . Is this the only incident that can be shown . [ applause ] this was a private dinner. This was not a public dinner. This was a private dinner, it did not involve my responsibilities as a public official. It was my judgment was bad accepting it without all of the facts. I had voted on hundreds of matters, probably thousands of matter which involve all kinds of public questions , and quite obviously that record must be reasonably good, or we wouldnt keep hearing about the polling incident. Senator kennedy in addition i dont mean to be disrespectful. I have high regard for dr. Polling. But i must say even looking back, i think it was imprudent of me to accepted without more information. But i dont really feel that it demonstrates an unfitness to hold a Public Office. The reason for our concern is the fact that your church has stated that it has the privilege and the right and the responsibility to direct its members in various members of life including the political realm. We believe that history and observation indicate that it has done so and we raise the question because we would like to know if you are elected president and your church elects to use that privilege and obligation, what your response will be under those circumstances. If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was inproper or affected my responsibilities as a Public Servant, then i would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part, that it was one to which i could not subscribe, that i was opposed to it, and that the it would been an unfortunate breach with the american system. Im confident there would be no such breach. My judgment is that an american who is a catholic, who is as sensitive as a catholic must be, exposed to the pressures that whirl around us, that he will be extremely diligent in his protection of the constitutional separation. We would be much happy to have such a statement from the vatican. [ applause ] because of the briefness of the time, lets cut out the applause. Senator kennedy, minister of the church of christ. First of all, i should like to quote some quotations from catholic sources and then propose a question. Knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie. Catholic encyclopedia, page 696, quoting, however, were also under an obligation to keep secrets faithfully and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false or tell a lie. Catholic encyclopedia, volume 10, page 105. When mental reservation is permissible, it is lawfully to cooperate ones utterances by an oath if there be add article of clause, volume 11, page 696, quoting again, the truth we proclaim under oath is relative and not absolute. Explanation of catholic morals, page 130. Just recently from the vatican in rome, this news release was given from the official vatican newspaper, and im quoting that update may 19, 1960. The Roman Catholic hierarchy had the right to duty to intervention in the political field to guide its flock. They rejected the absurd split of conscious between the believer and the citizen. However, it was made clear that its stern pronouncement was valid for Roman Catholic laymen everywhere, it deplored the great confusion of ideas that is spreading especially between catholic doctrine and social and Political Activities and between the hierarchy and the lay faithful in the civil field. Pope john xxiii recently gave this statement, date of december 12th, 1958, quote, catholics may unit their strength toward the common aid and the catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding them. Question, sir, do you subscribe to the doctrine of mental reservation which i have quoted from the catholic authorities . Do you submit to the authority of the present pope which i have quoted from in these quotations . Let me say in the first place, ive not read the catholic encyclopedia and i do not know all of the quotation which youre giving me. I think probably i could get make a better comment if i had the entire quotation before me. I have not read it before and if the quotation is meant to imply that when you take an oath, you dont mean it or if its proper for you to take oaths and break them, its probably for you to lie, if that is what this states, i dont know whether thats what it states unless i read it all in context, then, of course, i would not agree with it. On the article, once again, i have that in full. I read the statement of last december where some of the catholics were active in the co communist party. Theres no standing as far as binding me. Thirdly, quotation of pope john of 1958. I didnt catch all of that and if you read that again, ill tell you whether that i feel whether i support that at all. Pope john xxiii recently stated, quoting, catholics must unit their strength toward the common aid and the catholic hierarchy has the right and duty of guiding them. Yes, well do you subscribe to that . I couldnt area . If youre talking about in the area of faith and morals, in the instructions of the church, i would think any baptist minister or congregational minister has the right and duty to try to guide his flock. If you mean by that statement that the pope or anyone else could bind me in the fulfillment, by a statement in the fulfillment of my public duties, i say no. If that statement is intended to mean, and its very difficult to comment on a sentence taken out of an article which i have not read, but if that is intended to imply that the hierarchy has some obligation, or has an obligation to attempt to guide the members of the Catholic Church, then that may be proper. But it all depends on the previous language of what you mean by guide. If you mean direct or instruct on matters dealing with the organization of the faith, the details of the faith, then of course they have that obligation. If you mean that, by that, under that, he could guide me or anyone could guide or direct me in fulfilling my public duty, then i do not agree. Thank you, sir. Then you do not agree with the pope on that statement . You see, thats why i want to be careful, because in a statement, it seems to me, is taken out of context which you just made to me. I could not tell what you the pope meant unless i had the entire article. I would be glad to state to you that no one can direct me in the fulfillment of my duties as a public official under the United States constitution. That i am directed to do to the people of the United States and sworn to, an oath to god. That is my flat statement. I would not want to go into details on a sentence that you read to me which i may not understand completely. I think my statement is quite clear. [ applause ] gentlemen, we have time, we have time for one more question if it can be handled briefly. Senator kennedy, Robert Mclaren from Westminster Presbyterian church here in houston. You have been quite clear, and i think laudably so, on this matter of the separation of church and state. And you have answered very graciously the many questions that have come up around it. There is one question, however, which seems to me quite relevant. If you found by some remote possibility a real conflict between your oath of office as president that you would resign that office if it were in real reflect with your church. No, i said with my conscience. With your conscience. In the syllabus of errors of pope leo ix which catholic encyclopedia states is still binding on all catholics, there are three very specific things which are denounced including the separation of state and the church, the freedom of religions other than catholic to propagate themselves, and the freedom of conscience. Do you still feel, these being binding upon you, that you hold your oath of office above your allegiance to the pope on these issues . Lets go through the issues, because i dont think theres a conflict on these three issues. First issue, as i understood it, was on the relationship between the catholics and the state and other faiths . The separation of church and state, he explicitly considers i support that. I support that. And in my judgment, the American Bishops statement of 1948 clearly supported it. That in my judgment is the view held by the contact licatholics country, they support the separation of church and state. The right of religions other than Roman Catholics to propagate themselves. They have a right to propagate themselves, any faith, without any restriction or encouragement by the power of the state. The third was freedom of conscience in matters of religion. This also extends to freedom of the mind in the realms of science. Yes, well, i believe in freedom of conscience. Let me just i guess our time is coming to an end but let me say finally that i am delighted to come here today. I dont want anyone to think that because they interrogate me on this very important question, that i regard that as unfair questions or unreasonable or that somebody who is concerned about the matter is prejudiced or bigoted. I think this fight for religious freedom is basic in the establishment of the american system. Therefore any candidate for office should submit himself to the questions of any reasonable man. My only objection would be [ applause ] my only limit would be if somebody said regardless of senator kennedys position, regardless of how much evidence hes given that had a he says he means, i still wouldnt vote for him because hes a member of that church, i would consider that unreasonable. What i consider to be reasonable and an exercise of free will and free choice is to ask the candidate to state his views as broadly as possible, investigate his record to see whether he states he believes, and then make an independent, rational judgment as to whether he could be entrusted with this highly important position. So i want you to know that im grateful to you for inviting me tonight. Im sure i have made no converts to my church. But i do hope [ laughter ] i do hope that at least my view, which i believe to be the view of my fellow catholics who hold office, i hope that it may be of some value in at least assisting you to make a careful judgment. Thank you. [ applause ] were going to shall we remain standing . You have been watching senator john kennedy appearing in an unrehearsed question and answer period. The telecast of this meeting was sponsored by the Kennedy JohnsonTexas Campaign committee on behalf of senator kennedys candidacy for president of the United States. This has been a special Texas State Network program. Every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3, go inside a Different College classroom and hear about topics ranging from the american revolution, civil rights, and United States president s to 9 11. Thanks for your patience and for logging into class. With most College Campuses closed due to the impact of the coronavirus, watch professors transfer teaching to a virtual seth to engage with their students. Gorbachev did most of the work to change the soviet union but reagan met him halfway. Reagan encouraged him. Reagan supported him. Freedom of the press, which well get to later, madison originally called it freedom of the use of the press. And it is freedom to print things and publish things. It is not a freedom for what we now refer to institutionally as the press. Lectures in history on American History tv on cspan3. Every saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Lectures in history is also available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Youre watching cspan3, your unfiltered view of government. Created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Weeknights this month were featuring American History tv programs as a previoew of what available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight university of maryland Professor William crawly discusses the life and legacy of thomas jefferson, especially his actions on slavery and race. This is from the universitys great lives lecture series, at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. In the fall of 1964, Ronald Reagan entered the National Political stage with his a time for choosing speech in support of republican president ial nominee barry goldwater. In 1966 he ran and won his campaign for california governor of this next on reel america, Ronald Reagans critique on president Lyndon Johnsons policies in this speech called the myth of the great society. The exact date and location of his remarks are