Playboy Interview: John V. Lindsay

During his campaign for mayor of New York in the spring of 1965, John Vliet Lindsay often told audiences how he had boarded a New York--bound train in Washington and found himself in a car full of grim, unsmiling men with arms folded across their chests. "Who are they?" he asked the conductor. "They're patients going to an insane asylum," came the answer. "And where are you going?" "To New York to run for mayor," said the candidate. "Then," replied the conductor, "you stay right here." In the opinion of most political observers at the time, the conductor had a point. As far as they were concerned, the idealistic, Yale-educated young Congressman seemed to be courting almost certain defeat in pursuing a job that had won a richly deserved reputation as a graveyard for rising political hopefuls. As a Republican, he also had to face the fact that New York had not elected a member of his party since Fiorello La Guardia in the Thirties.

And by 1965, the problems of this "ungovernable" metropolis had so proliferated that they seemed insoluble. The urbane and elegant city of Cole Porter and Scott Fitzgerald had become, for many, a national symbol of urban drift and decay. Increasingly, it was a place for the very rich and the very poor. Its crime rate was spiraling upward; its air and water had been polluted by decades of industrial wastes. The blight of the slums had spread over all the boroughs and filled the pockets of profiteering landlords and corrupt bureaucrats. And the city was also deeply in debt; interest payments alone amounted to $1,400,000 daily.

Contrary to expectations, Lindsay decided to meet the decline of New York head on. An activist and a pragmatist with an almost sensual joy in tackling and solving problems, he attacked the entrenched Democratic machine with fiery sincerity. In synagogues and tenements, between blintzes and knishes, he promised to make "our city great again, the Empire City of the world." At first, the hacks of the regular Democratic organization--and their affably colorless candidate, Abe Beame--refused to take Lindsay seriously. He seemed to them a ludicrous anomaly: a Park Avenue Episcopalian, an Ivy Leaguer in a city accustomed to the ways of homespun Irish, Italian and Jewish politicians. Lindsay's shining idealism, his movie-star looks and his almost naïve reformist zeal marked him as an amateur, according to the tough codebook of Tammany politics. Undaunted, Lindsay patched together an unlikely alliance of supporters from every ethnic group and political persuasion, and launched a horde of youthful volunteer workers into the streets. The candidate joined them--displaying an athletic vigor that was sorely tested by six months of strenuous campaigning. In the early hours of Election Day, he was still searching for votes--walking the deserted streets, visiting a Harlem theater and answering questions from a Negro radio audience.

It all paid off with a stunning upset, and a triumph for moderate Republicanism--within months of the Johnson landslide--as Lindsay outpolled Beame decisively in a balloting pattern that crisscrossed party lines, religious blocs and ethnic allegiances all over the city. In the wake of what G.O.P. National Chairman Ray Bliss called "the victory of the decade," commentators were already sizing up Lindsay as a Presidential prospect in 1968 or 1972. As one New York politician said: "Wait till Lindsay and Kennedy hit. It has to happen."

Lindsay's past provides few clues to the compelling passion for politics that has carried him so far. His father, George Lindsay, was the son of a Scotch-Irish brickmaker, and a self-made man who rose to become vice-president of a Wall Street investment banking house. His mother, Eleanor Vliet Lindsay, was a promising young actress who abandoned her career to raise a family. John and his twin brother, David, were born on November 24, 1921, in a modest West Side Manhattan apartment--but the Lindsays' style of living soon improved; by 1962, at his death, George Lindsay was worth over $700,000. John went to Manhattan's exclusive Buckley School, then to St. Paul's--where he played football and was elected president of his class--and finally entered Yale as World War Two was approaching.

Impatient to move on, he was graduated in 1943 with a degree in history after only 31 months, and immediately plunged into the War; three years later, he emerged with a naval lieutenant's stripes and five battle stars. In his first civilian job, he worked as a bank clerk--until he nearly set his desk afire trying to hide a cigarette from an approaching senior partner. Lindsay next enrolled in the Yale Law School, where his interest in politics first began to develop. After three years, a Manhattan firm hired him at a princely $3600 a year--but the bright young comer was soon named a full partner. A brilliant trial lawyer, Lindsay was commended for his skill by Justice Frankfurter after arguing a case before the Supreme Court.

In 1958, after a short stint in the Attorney General's office, Lindsay decided to enter the political arena in earnest--a decision thoughtfully described in his forthcoming book, "Journey into Politics." Already president of New York's influential Young Republicans Club, he entered the party's Congressional primary for New York's affluent "Silk Stocking" district--the 17th--and won, despite the opposition of local G.O.P. leaders; he then edged his Democratic opponent by 7800 votes. In Congress, Lindsay soon won a reputation for stubborn independence and fierce concern for civil liberties. When Charles Halleck, G.O.P. minority leader at the time, asked Lindsay why he so steadfastly opposed legislation designed to combat pornography and communism, the young Congressman replied that those were the major industries in his district, and if they went, "the 17th would be a depressed area." Such out-spoken liberalism soon alienated Lindsay from the G.O.P. leadership--but not from the voters, who returned him to Washington with 59.8 percent of the ballots in 1960, 68.7 percent in 1962 and 71.5 percent in 1964.

Since becoming New York's mayor, Lindsay has been constantly embattled. A transit strike only hours after his inauguration was followed by a fare hike. Faced with an empty exchequer, he was forced to impose a new city income tax. Today, thanks in part to still more strikes, the streets are still dirty, the ghetto is still scabrous and the inevitable letdown from the high hopes built up by a fresh face has taken its toll on the mayor's popularity. Predictably, Lindsay has also drawn criticism for his aggressive impetuosity and his disdain for traditional political practices. As one aide recalls, "We were foolish enough to think that if we ran fast enough, we could get everything done in six weeks." A prominent clergyman sighed: "He tends to divide rather than unite." And a disillusioned journalist added: "Lindsay's an intellectual lightweight."

Still, for all the brickbats, there is a growing belief in New York that Lindsay just may manage to make the Empire City more livable. He terms his administration a "wild show" and puts into practice his doctrine of "visible government" by prowling the streets day and night, appearing at the scene of fires and crimes as well as at banquets and theater openings; by presiding over street-corner discussions in the slums as well as at benefit balls and art galleries. Above all, he has been able to communicate to the electorate an infectious joie de vivre--whether capering on a Manhattan bridge with a film crew to encourage movie production in the city or playing touch foot-ball in Central Park.

In the midst of the taxing task of running New York City, Lindsay agreed to grant Playboy an exclusive interview. The many conversations that followed--with interviewer Hunter Lewis--were squeezed into a succession of arduous workdays that began at seven each morning and ended around midnight at City Hall. "On each occasion," Lewis reports, "Lindsay was elegantly attired in blue suit, silk handkerchief, long-point button-down shirt and black wing-tip loafers. He began each meeting by stretching his long six-foot, four-inch frame and running a hand through his tousled hair; he then fixed his brilliant blue eyes on mine and invited me to fire the first question. Speaking in cool, clipped accents, he rarely changed expression in the course of our conversations. Only occasionally, when discussing his love of the theater or the pleasure of living in New York, did he abandon his rigid self-control. The mayor has learned from long experience in politics to regard the press as a friendly adversary. And he is a polished and practiced performer--whether quietly emphasizing a point, deftly turning aside a probing question or sincerely expounding on the desperate problems of the cities in the Sixties."

[Q] Playboy: How do you account for your election as mayor in a city where there are over three times as many registered Democrats as Republicans?

[A] Lindsay: I wish you hadn't sprung that one on me this early in the morning. I'd simply say the people decided that they'd take a chance on a change. They wanted a change from top to bottom, so they voted for me.

[Q] Playboy: How do you feel about the charge that you ran for mayor only because New York G.O.P. luminaries such as Senator Jacob Javits and Governor Rockefeller had blocked any other avenues of advancement open to you?

[A] Lindsay: I wouldn't call that a charge; it was a speculation on the part of a lot of people. The fact of the matter is that there are no blockades in this business if you're determined enough and patient for the changes of time and history. I ran for mayor because I just felt the job had to be done. In good conscience, I couldn't refuse the support that appeared to be growing for it. I'd been talking about the city and the needs of the city for a long time, both as a member of the Congress and as a member of the community, and my wife, Mary, and I decided that I couldn't be in public life and turn my back on it. I never would have been happy if I had.

[Q] Playboy: Still, with your Congressional experience and interest in national affairs, wouldn't you have preferred to serve as Senator or governor, if the opportunity had presented itself?

[A] Lindsay: No. I don't care how many other political avenues might have opened. I'm sure this statement will be challenged by many; but even if other political avenues had been open at the time, I believe I still would have run for mayor. It was strictly a matter of personal conscience.

[Q] Playboy: During the campaign, many people wondered at President Johnson's faint and grudging endorsement of your Democratic opponent, Abe Beame. What's your reaction to the report that L.B.J. favored your election over Beame on the grounds that you would better counterbalance Robert Kennedy's power in New York?

[A] Lindsay: I don't really think you can analyze the quiet recesses of any person's mind. A very wise friend of mine once told me that in the business of politics watching, it's better to judge on the basis of performance than motivation.

[Q] Playboy: Before we talk about your performance, let's discuss your image. Many people have noted abundant similarities between yourself and the late President Kennedy: the athletic vigor, the good looks, the winning smile, the common background--Navy, fashionable Eastern private schools--even the use of a "Let's get things moving" political theme. Do you see yourself as a Kennedyesque figure?

[A] Lindsay: No, definitely not.

[Q] Playboy: Are you annoyed by the comparison of yourself with Kennedy?

[A] Lindsay: Not in the slightest.

[Q] Playboy: Did he influence your political style?

[A] Lindsay: I was certainly an admirer of the late President, but I have consistently approached politics in much the same manner that I approached my previous work as a trial lawyer. I think I have my own individual style.

[Q] Playboy: Commentators have noted that, like Kennedy, you have the kind of "star quality" that might have been the basis for a career in the theater. Unlike the late President, you seem to have pursued that possibility by appearing Off-Broadway in John Brown's Body and in a television spot on The Farmer's Daughter. Did you ever seriously consider an acting career?

[A] Lindsay: Not really.

[Q] Playboy: How did you first become interested in acting?

[A] Lindsay: It's a personal devotion of mine. I'm sure some of it was inherited. My mother was on the stage, briefly. When she graduated from college in 1911, she was quite an advanced person for her time. She went on the road in bit parts until she met my father, got married and immediately started having children--five of them. That put an end to acting. But she never lost her love for it, and I can remember that during my school days she never had a broader grin on her face than when one of my brothers or I had a part in a school play. I'm sure some of that was passed along to me.

[Q] Playboy: What made you decide against acting as a career?

[A] Lindsay: I like acting; I'm a buff. But I also understand the terrible hazards and hardships of the theater. It's one of the toughest professions in the world, without any doubt at all. I don't think I would have been successful in it. I just don't have that much talent.

[Q] Playboy: Some of the critics disagree. The New York Times particularly praised a reading you did of Copeland's Lincoln Portrait at Philharmonic Hall. In view of recent elections in California, do you feel that a show-business background is becoming a valuable asset in politics?

[A] Lindsay: Not at all.

[Q] Playboy: Then what do you make of the Ronald Reagan--George Murphy phenomenon? In terms of projecting an attractive public personality, hasn't their success as politicians been due in large part to their movie fame and acting experience?

[A] Lindsay: It's hard to tell. They do seem to win elections. Of course, any person in public life is required to speak. The whole art of politics is communication, and to the extent that Reagan and Murphy had training in delivery and platform speaking, I'm sure it was helpful to them.

[Q] Playboy: With so many outside interests, and with some inherited income from your father, you might have been expected to shun the infighting of politics. What led you to run for office? Did your family encourage you in this direction?

[A] Lindsay: No, they didn't. I simply felt an urge, a desire to do more than lead my life in a private circle. That was the basic reason. I went down to Washington as executive assistant to the then--Attorney General of the U.S. [Herbert Brownell]. After I had dealt with matters that affected the country and had argued cases before the Supreme Court that affected the future of government, I was infected.

[Q] Playboy: Some of your friends have said that your interest in politics expresses an activist's desire to be where the decisions are made. One of them, quoted in Life, remarked: "He has a great appetite for command. He wants to be governor. He wants to be President." Is the quote correct?

[A] Lindsay: I think that's a very flattering statement. I don't know exactly who said it, but that's a very generous statement.

[Q] Playboy: In Congress, you were known as a loner, and some observers feel that this reputation hampered your effectiveness as a legislator. How do you account for your poor relations with the G.O.P. leadership in the House?

[A] Lindsay: At times I was a loner, but I don't think it seriously hampered my effectiveness. And my personal relationship with the G.O.P. leadership was fine; we understood each other.

[Q] Playboy: Then why did you once tell a Newsweek writer that "the Republican leadership in the Congress and I were at constant odds."

[A] Lindsay: Well, we certainly disagreed very often, and I'm sure that once in a while this prejudiced their feelings toward me. But I don't think I was one of those who was so far out that his effectiveness was impaired. I just tried to be constructive--particularly in matters in which I had a special interest. And occasionally I influenced the thinking of the leadership and affected the behavior of the minority side.

[Q] Playboy: Throughout your career, you have conveyed the image of a young man struggling against older politicians, whether in the House or in city government. Perhaps as a result, young people tend to sympathize and identify with you--as was demonstrated by the large number of youthful volunteers you attracted in your campaign for mayor. How do you feel about youth today? Do you agree with those who believe that young people have become too radical and militant both socially and politically?

[A] Lindsay: No, I think young people are doing fine. They're moving about; they're being heard from; they're involving themselves. I'm delighted when college and high school students in New York involve themselves in community problems. Young people are a swinging lot. They ought to be encouraged, because they're what this town needs; they're what this country needs. Let's face it, the average age of the population is getting younger each year. As a nation, we're becoming more youthful--and that's all to the good.

[Q] Playboy: Does your approval of militant youth extend to such student activists as Mario Savio of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley and the young radicals of the Students for a Democratic Society?

[A] Lindsay: I hope the thrust of what they do isn't just negative, isn't just down with this, down with that. Protest should be combined with constructive action. And it usually is.

[Q] Playboy: What success have you had attracting talented young personnel to help you in running New York City?

[A] Lindsay: Enough to make our young people the butt of quite a few jokes. When I first took office, the press teased us about "the boy scouts at City Hall," because of our youth. The team I've picked is a young group--and that's good; this is a young city. There's a lot of changing to be done, a lot of growing, and we need young people to hasten the process. The young aren't as jaded and pessimistic as their elders; they believe we can make this a better city. And they're smart enough to do it, I think.

[Q] Playboy: Let's discuss your job as mayor. Before the 1965 election, you were inexperienced in municipal politics. Has this turned out to be an advantage or a disadvantage?

[A] Lindsay: Both. I've had to put considerable time into becoming thoroughly familiar with the depths and intricacies of the system as it is. You can't change the system unless you know exactly what you're dealing with. In this respect, my inexperience was a disadvantage. The advantage lies in the fact that I have had no preconceptions about change. Sometimes I'm sure I've waded in where only fools go and angels fear, but that's an advantage, because things have to be shaken up constantly, questions asked, even at the risk of stumbling in the process. It needs doing in a bureaucracy of this kind.

[Q] Playboy: During the campaign, you continually dismissed the old canard that New York is ungovernable. Do you still feel that way?

[A] Lindsay: Yes, I do.

[Q] Playboy: Yet, since your inauguration, New York has been beset by one crisis after another, from the transit strike to the budget controversy. Seemingly, even your hard work and enthusiasm have failed to bring dramatic change thus far. Why?

[A] Lindsay: Actually, there have been some dramatic changes. The first thing we did was to save the city from bankruptcy. The employees of the city were not going to be paid. The previous administration had left the city broke, with a galloping deficit. But in the first months, we restored the cash position of the city, bolstered its reserves, reorganized its taxes. We got rid of the gross receipt tax, which everyone had been urging for years. And we imposed a regional tax upon the area around New York; a lot of people would have thought that impossible in an election year, after only six months in office. It took the Kennedy Administration two years to draft, much less win, legislative approval for a nation-wide tax reorganization that wasn't as complicated as the one we worked out for the city. We're in the midst of a reorganization and reshaping of the whole city government. We're getting performance out of the police department and other service departments that is prompt and superior. In addition, for the first time, there is strong support in neighborhoods around the city for better municipal government; whereas before, there was apathy, resentment, fatalism and a kind of gloom. That's all changed. People are beginning to use the parks again. We've had neighborhood drives to clean up the city. We've improved the climate for business. A new Public Development Corporation has been created, with special powers to attract new industry, new talent, new sciences to New York. We also have reorganized the financial affairs of the city. We've inaugurated innovative budgeting operations and we've established a wholly new administration on finance. We've also established a new administration on human resources that is designed to consolidate the Welfare Department, Youth Board, Department of Labor and all ancillary institutions. And we're establishing a general services administration to incorporate the housekeeping work of the city: purchase, sales and sanitation. In short, we're reorganizing approximately 50 agencies and bureaus and regrouping them into about ten central administrations.

[Q] Playboy: Aren't you concerned that this centralization may further remove the municipal bureaucracy from the people it serves?

[A] Lindsay: Not at all. At the same time, we're decentralizing the major service agencies that deal with the problems of health, poverty and slum clearance. These agencies have an immediate impact on individual neighborhoods, so we want them to operate out of neighborhood centers.

[Q] Playboy: Has the reorganization raised or lowered municipal expenses?

[A] Lindsay: Over the past year, the city has saved more than $100,000,000 by eliminating dozens of boards, committees and agencies that either served no demonstrably useful purpose or could be absorbed by other governmental units. At the same time, we've saved money and improved services by bringing modern research techniques to bear on the sometimes rigid and musty routines of government. So I think you could say that there have been some dramatic changes during this new administration.

[Q] Playboy: It's an old saying that the mayor has all the responsibility but none of the power in New York. Do you have enough authority to carry out all these programs you've initiated?

[A] Lindsay: I'd like to have more. As a matter of political science, I'm not sure how much more I should have; but without more executive power, I can't move things along as quickly as I would like. Some of these areas that have been separated from the mayor's office have to be re-examined.

[Q] Playboy: Would you name some of them?

[A] Lindsay: For example, the Board of Education and the empire that is underneath it. This whole monolithic apparatus of municipal education has to be made more responsive to community needs and wants by decentralizing reforms. Surely, the mayor ought to be able to help guide that along. Under the present system, however, the mayor can't do much. He can dent the problems, but not much more.

[Q] Playboy: Isn't there some intrinsic value in maintaining the freedom of the educational system from political influence? James E. Allen, the State Education Commissioner, has said, "It is essential that educational planning be assigned to the Board of Education, not to the mayor, if we are to avoid the danger of decisions being made on a political rather than on an educational basis."

[A] Lindsay: I don't agree. New York's school system serves a social as well as an educational function. The schools contain more than 87,000 students who don't speak English and more than 25,000 pupils who are mentally retarded, physically handicapped or emotionally disturbed. We have other big-city problems, such as truancy and delinquency, that are better cured in the classroom than in a jail cell. In any case, politics and education are already intertwined in New York. In building a public educational system so strong that it can attract the very best students, while at the same time it assists the needy, the city's flexibility is severely compromised by state restraints--such as the general constitutional limitation on the power of the localities to set real-estate taxes and to borrow for educational purposes.

[Q] Playboy: How do you propose to increase the mayor's authority in these areas?

[A] Lindsay: That depends. For the moment, we're trying to reorganize the city government with what executive power we have. But in due course, some aspects of this reorganization will require legislation.

[Q] Playboy: Throughout most of the country--despite all of the progress you've mentioned--New York City continues to have a reputation for being a nice place to visit but a terrible place to live for all but the very rich. How do you answer the common complaints that New York is dirty, overcrowded, expensive, polluted, crime-ridden and often incapacitated by strikes?

[A] Lindsay: You have to live in New York to understand its strength, its assets, its wonderful power. Then try to move away and see how unhappy you are; you'll come back to New York in the end. Sure, New York is a difficult town in which to live, but that's compensated for by what it gives you. In this town, there is everything necessary to satisfy any person's highest dreams and ambitions--whether in business, finance, the arts or science. There are creativity, variety, wide associations, even anonymity available to those who seek it. Of course, one has to make an effort in New York to live a completely full and happy life--but that's all to the good. It's healthy to have some tension in the air. I have watched institutions and groups of people who were once productive leave the city for other parts to avoid the tension and strain and busy pace--and I've seen them deteriorate and become unproductive.

[Q] Playboy: But what about the specific complaints we mentioned? New York's soaring crime rate, for instance. Haven't the strained relations between the Lindsay administration and the police department--caused by your unsuccessful opposition to a well-financed police campaign against the creation of a civilian review board--made the problem of adequate law enforcement even more difficult?

[A] Lindsay: Actually, we're getting better performance from the police. We have developed fast-moving tactical units that have proved extremely helpful in crime prevention. We're working on an improved police communications system. And we're modernizing the police academy.

[Q] Playboy: Recently, both New York's police and firemen threatened to resort to picket lines in order to realize their wage demands. And your administration came into being in the middle of a mass transit strike that immobilized the entire city. Have you been able to find any alternative to the chronic pattern of crippling public strikes and labor threats?

[A] Lindsay: As most corporations do, we have our share of labor troubles. In an effort to eliminate the cliff-hanger settlement of contract disputes in the past, we have proposed--and the City Council now is considering--the creation of an Office of Collective Bargaining. Its purpose is to lay out procedures whereby contracts can be negotiated to a conclusion well before the eleventh-hour-crisis atmosphere that has pervaded talks in the past. The new office will not mean the end of strikes; but I'm convinced that if it's endorsed by the City Council, it will make many strikes unnecessary.

[Q] Playboy: You were confronted with another problem of crisis dimensions last year, when an unprecedented blanket of polluted air settled over the city for three days. The Federal Government has shown consistent interest in pollution control ever since the original Air Pollution Control Act of 1955; but many city governments--particularly, New York's--seem to have lagged behind. Why?

[A] Lindsay: I don't think we have. My administration has tackled this critical problem on many fronts. First, the City Council has passed, and I have signed, a local law placing the strictest controls ever imposed by an American city on private incinerators. The 17,000 incinerators now operating in New York, most of them in apartment houses, spew some 10,000 tons of soot into the air each year. Under the new regulation, no incinerators will be allowed in buildings constructed here after May of 1968. Building owners will be required to compress their garbage and trash in compacting devices, so that these may be hauled to city incinerators or land-fill disposal sites. At the same time, we banned open-pit burning of trash or other wastes within the city limits.

[Q] Playboy: The power facilities of Consolidated Edison are responsible for almost half of the dangerous sulphur dioxide pumped into New York City's atmosphere. Have you been able to impose any legal restrictions to cut down this pollution?

[A] Lindsay: Last May, Con Ed agreed to present a plan for constructing generating units outside the city that would enable the dismantling of older generating facilities here. The company is also installing electrostatic precipitators on the stacks of its Ravenswood generating plant, at a cost of about $30,000,000; these devices will eliminate most of the smoke and soot. Finally, the company has pledged, in the next ten years, to reduce by more than half its burning of coal and oil. In addition, we've suggested to Con Ed that it immediately reduce its monthly sulphur-dioxide emissions from 23,000 to 16,000 tons during the winter months. This can be done by eliminating certain particularly poisonous fuel oils.

[Q] Playboy: What are you doing about city incinerators?

[A] Lindsay: We're moving toward a major reduction of the fly ash produced by our municipally operated incinerators with a pilot project under which we will test electrostatic precipitators for minimizing smoke and soot. The project is being financed with a $218,000 grant from the Federal Public Health Service, the first such award to any city for a demonstration project of this nature.

[Q] Playboy: How do you expect to enforce compliance with these antipollution measures?

[A] Lindsay: It won't be easy. But we're expanding our air-quality surveillance system by establishing 37 monitoring stations throughout the city. We also intend next year, the city's financial condition permitting, to increase our field-inspection staff from 27 to 94.

[Q] Playboy: These are all stopgap measures. Are there any fundamental solutions in sight?

[A] Lindsay: We haven't forgotten the need for long-range research. We're completing negotiations with Columbia University's School of Public Health and Administrative Medicine for the establishment of an Institute of Air Pollution Control Research. The Institute will supervise studies of the medical and biological effects of air pollution. Cooper Union has agreed to set up an environmental engineering center to bring the physical sciences to bear on the air-pollution problem. And New York University is undertaking programs calculated to establish modern standards and criteria for air-pollution control activities. We're also seeking closer regional cooperation in attacking the common menace of polluted air. To this end, I plan to recommend an area-wide conference on air pollution. I shall suggest that the Governors Hughes of New Jersey, Dempsey of Connecticut and Rockefeller of New York be invited to participate, along with interested chief executives of local jurisdictions throughout the metropolitan region. Together, we may be able to work out a concerted campaign against all of the elements--not just a few components--of the area's atmospheric problems. New York City incinerators, Connecticut automobiles and New Jersey industry are interrelated contributors to air pollution; they must be dealt with together in working out solutions.

[Q] Playboy: Let's turn to another urban problem. In your inaugural speech, you said: "Let those who compile riches from the misery of slums hear this message as their eviction notice: There will be no compromise with the profiteers of poverty." What has your administration accomplished in the area of slum clearance?

[A] Lindsay: When I took office, I set up a task force that included some of the top housing and planning experts in the country. Those experts have called for the most sweeping reorganization of a municipal housing structure ever attempted. It takes the present assemblage of housing agencies and departments--now loosely connected and often overlapping--and consolidates them into a strong, central Housing and Development Administration. This means that the separate staffs of architects, engineers and other specialists are being brought together. The four agencies conducting slum rehabilitation programs are being merged, and so are the tenant-relocation efforts of the Housing and Redevelopment Board and the Department of Relocation. We have also decided to concentrate all our urban-renewal resources in the ghetto communities. This is a marked departure from the past. Up to this time, there has been scattershot urban renewal, most of it in the white communities of New York, and less than 20 percent of it focused in Harlem, South Bronx, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville and the eastern New York districts of Brooklyn. We are changing this completely for the immediate future. In addition, we have a comprehensive legislative package for housing that may enable us to achieve a doubling of our production of low-income housing.

[Q] Playboy: Will even a doubling be sufficient? One hundred and thirty-five thousand New York families are on the waiting list for public housing. What about the years of delay before an urban-renewal project can get started, and the tangle of regulations delaying enforcement of the housing code?

[A] Lindsay: These are all terrible problems. But my legislative package represents a real start toward their solution.

[Q] Playboy: What does the package provide?

[A] Lindsay: Firstly, it recommends the early acquisition of land in renewal areas. Up to now, land for urban renewal could be acquired only after a formal and detailed plan had been prepared for the site and approved by the Federal Government. This involved four years of needless, heartless delay. We want to allow the city to acquire land under limited circumstances while planning continues. Secondly, we propose to give private industry a chance to try its hand at the construction of public housing. Not long ago, a private builder in Washington turned over to the city's housing authority the key to a new 343-unit public housing project. It was estimated that the private builder did the job in one fourth the time and at $3000 per apartment less than could have been done under public authority. We have also included a dozen legislative proposals aimed at aiding the tenants of shoddy dwellings. These deal with the serving of dispossess notices, the protection of tenants against retaliation by landlords for tenants' having asserted their legal rights, the deposit of rent money in court for the purpose of repair and the rights of the tenant to use rent money to provide utilities that the landlord has failed to provide.

[Q] Playboy: All this legislation is pending. In the meantime, what can be done for slum clearance?

[A] Lindsay: Much can be and has been done. Take the problem of abandoned buildings. Every year, about 750 buildings are abandoned, most of them in slum areas. These eyesores, firetraps and gang hide-outs tend to depress further already blemished neighborhoods. The Wagner administration was demolishing abandoned buildings at the rate of only 250 per year, and each demolition required about 15 months. My administration has established goals of 1000 demolitions during 1967 and 1500 for 1968. If the present rate of demolition continues, these goals will be met.

[Q] Playboy: Have you been able to utilize Federal programs such as the Model Cities Act?

[A] Lindsay: New York City has a large stake in the Model Cities program. I recommended $25,000,000 in my budget as a local contribution to the Federal effort. This makes New York the first city in the nation to commit its own funds to the national Administration's program for urban renewal.

[Q] Playboy: New York's most urgent target area for urban renewal is Harlem. How else do you plan to upgrade this blighted area?

[A] Lindsay: In addition to applying all the newest techniques of urban renewal, we've tried to produce an effective program for human renewal. So far, the missing ingredient has been resources. We need money; we need people--to clean up the area, to reform the laws governing tenements, to finance new construction.

[Q] Playboy: Some social commentators have suggested that the only solution for Harlem is to raze the whole place and start again. How do you feel about it?

[A] Lindsay: You can't and shouldn't just raze Harlem and build a new one. There are great value and power and many assets in Harlem; to appreciate that, you'd have to know the Harlem community, its many neighborhoods, its variety and its special qualities. It would be a great mistake to come in with a steam shovel and remove all that. Urban renewal has to be accomplished sensitively and selectively. These great assets shouldn't be plowed under. In the meantime, there are many things that can be done.

[Q] Playboy: Would you name some?

[A] Lindsay: Well, recently I was in Harlem at the opening of a new store with Negro equity ownership. We were all overjoyed to see this example of a trend that is developing all over the community: the trend toward neighborhood--that is to say, Negro--rather than nonresident ownership. I sense a growing pride in Harlem. The community is beginning to see what's being done and can be done on its own. And the prospects are exciting. Of course, Harlem needs a great deal of outside aid as well. It needs the resources and tools with which to build.

[Q] Playboy: Do you see any solution to the related problems of unemployment and poor schooling in Harlem?

[A] Lindsay: That's the job of our new Human Resources Administration. We see a direct relationship between good schools and full employment. Our philosophy is that these areas should not be served by institutions that are totally autonomous and independent. That's what I meant a while ago when I said that there must be more responsiveness to the over-all problems of the community on the part of the Board of Education and the apparatus under its direction. In the future, I believe the Human Resources Administration, which includes the Office of Education, will respond to the needs of the total man--whether education, jobs or something else. You might, incidentally, be interested in our "earn while learning" program, which enables young people from low-income families to learn a skill while simultaneously earning a salary, thus permitting them to make a financial contribution to their families.

[Q] Playboy: You have been both praised and criticized for your frequent appearances on the scene of trouble in Harlem and elsewhere in the city. Some of your critics have called these appearances window dressing and a waste of time. How do you feel about them?

[A] Lindsay: I feel that the mayor of a great city must know the city and its people and that the people should have a sense of his presence at all times. He must be a leader, and this means exposing himself to the residents of the city and learning firsthand what their problems are.

[Q] Playboy: Last summer, on one occasion, an angry Negro mob greeted your arrival in their midst by raising you up on their shoulders and cheering. Has this kind of spontaneous response to your efforts been unusual?

[A] Lindsay: I don't know if it's unusual or not, but I do know that I should be there. It's my job to be where the action is, and that's what I try to do.

[Q] Playboy: Your cleanup campaign in Harlem has received a fair amount of publicity. The image of the mayor of New York trudging through littered streets with a broom in hand has alternately pleased and amused many people. What do you think is actually accomplished by such a show? The New York Times reported that one Negro teenager watched you toiling and objected: "What's the Sanitation Department for?" Don't you ask yourself the same question?

[A] Lindsay: No. It's going to take a long time to get this city as clean as I want it to be, and I intend to do as much as I can by personal example. I'll pick up the litter in the streets and try to get other people to do the same. I'll focus on the problem until we get it licked. Our Sanitation Department has to do a better job than it's doing. My unannounced walks let me know what's being done. I find that when I move around the city by prior notice, the areas I visit have been cleaned up. Maybe if I made a daily practice of walking through every block in every neighborhood, this city would finally be cleaned up. But failing that, unannounced visits serve a definite purpose. I don't tell the commissioners I'm coming--just a few key staff people and the police department. After I've been through an area, I request reports from the Sanitation Department--the number of weekly pickups and the schedule for sanitation trucks. After my walk, I can see that the reports are baloney; the streets are dirty. All that is going to change.

[Q] Playboy: Vice-President Humphrey caused quite a public stir last summer when he said that he would personally feel justified in rioting if he lived in a slum. Do you agree with him?

[A] Lindsay: I can understand why a slum dweller would feel that way, but rioting is certainly not the answer. Rioting will occur, however, unless and until a slum community knows that the government and the establishment of the town are aware of their problems and are at least trying to do something about them. If the inhabitants of the slums don't sense concern, then they'll take steps to make "the power structure" aware of their dissatisfaction. But rioting accomplishes nothing; it's disruptive and destructive, frightens industry and jobs away, frightens middle-class people away. It's not the answer. But one can understand why it occurs.

[Q] Playboy: Has the concept of Black Power affected race relations in New York?

[A] Lindsay: I hope it won't, but it could. Black Power is a term that largely is understood by the community as reverse racism. For this reason, it's unfortunate. It's a term we ought to drop. What is needed is neither Black Power nor white power but citizen power.

[Q] Playboy: As an avowed liberal in race relations, how do you feel about the alienation of black militants from white supporters such as yourself?

[A] Lindsay: Well, this is a trend that could have been anticipated. If one studies history, this alienation of white moderates should come as no surprise. This sort of thing is always a part of peaceful revolutionary change in a free country. It isn't even necessarily an unhealthy sign. It usually means that there is an acute consciousness of social problems--and that something is being done about these problems.

[Q] Playboy: One of New York's most militant--and controversial--champions of the Negro cause is Harlem's Adam Clayton Powell. As a former Congressman, how do you feel about his censure by the House of Representatives?

[A] Lindsay: It was not a wise decision to expel Powell. The deliberations of the Celler select committee were fair and just, and its disciplinary proposals exceeded anything handed down before--even in the case of Senator McCarthy. The Congress should not have reacted as rashly as it did. I think it was a blunder.

[Q] Playboy: As an ex-lawyer, do you believe the House had the right to take the action it did?

[A] Lindsay: I couldn't really say. That's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

[Q] Playboy: Do you think Powell has effectively represented the people of Harlem?

[A] Lindsay: Well, the district certainly wants him. He's been elected and re-elected by large majorities. Of course, Powell's style is not my style, and I don't approve of all he's done. But if Powell has breached the rules and standards of the Congress, he should be disciplined, not expelled.

[Q] Playboy: Another of New York's most serious problems--particularly in Harlem--is overpopulation. Do you expect that New York City will eventually reach a saturation point in numbers of residents?

[A] Lindsay: No. It's not a well-known fact, but the population of the city is no longer growing. More importantly, we have finally achieved a stable racial mix. Our rate of racial change was very rapid for a while, but no longer. In the meantime, you'll notice that suburban communities are changing very rapidly, indeed--in terms of both population growth and racial composition. So are smaller towns. So, if one is seeking stability, one should look to the big cities these days. New York, in particular, is relatively free from the violent transformation of a great many towns, smaller cities and suburbs.

[Q] Playboy: Recent experiments with mice and monkeys have shown that animals develop serious neuroses when too many are forced to live in a limited area. Do you think this effect may account in part for the high crime rate and racial tension in overcrowded big-city ghettos?

[A] Lindsay: You're referring to the "This is my turf, and we want all strangers to stay off of my turf" mentality. This has always been a problem. The "turf" mentality is a sociological phenomenon that exists everywhere; but it may be worse in cities--though I'm not sure how much of this is due to overcrowding. Sometimes, as a matter of fact, the crowding together of peoples in cities--provided they have decent places to live, of course--can have a civilizing influence on them; over a long period of time, this has resulted in gradual assimilation and elimination of the turf psychology. Sometimes big cities are not so dangerous in this respect as less crowded areas--particularly suburban communities and small towns that are changing rapidly. There the changes contribute more to the turf problem and create more tension than would overcrowding in a big city.

[Q] Playboy: If New York is emerging from a period of rapid racial and demographic change, will this contribute to better management of welfare and other public-service programs?

[A] Lindsay: Over the long run, yes. In the meantime, we've worked out innovational short-term plans that should contribute to better welfare service. One program, for example, is designed to meet the mounting expense of providing welfare assistance to 400,000 mothers and children by finding employment for the mothers. We believe many of them can qualify as nurse's aides, welfare casework trainees or supervisors of daycare centers. This system, I think, will go far toward instilling the independence and self-respect that have been missing from welfare programs in the past. I might note, also, that the city has obtained permission from the State Board of Social Welfare to allow Welfare Department caseworkers to advise mothers that information on family planning is available to them. Until last December's ruling, caseworkers were forbidden to volunteer any information on the subject. The result was that many mothers receiving welfare assistance had no knowledge that births could be controlled.

[Q] Playboy: In many ghetto areas, drug addiction is almost as serious a problem as unemployment. What has your administration done about it?

[A] Lindsay: We've made major strides here, too. We've opened up a radical new program of neighborhood antinarcotics warfare. I have attracted to New York an extremely imaginative and capable doctor named Ramirez, who achieved miracles in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in combating drug addiction. And he's genuinely caught fire in the neighborhoods. Under his leadership, we're beginning to establish what amounts to storefront anti-narcotics treatment centers, and we've coupled this approach with experimental methods such as the Methodon Treatment for hard-core, deeply troubled addicts. [The Methodon Treatment is a program of chemotherapy involving the administration of a narcoticlike but relatively harmless drug calculated to phase an addict gradually out of the heroin habit.] In the meantime, we're using Federal and state money to extend the Ramirez program throughout the entire city. Part of the program's effectiveness lies in the staffing of the neighborhood anti-addiction centers with ex-addicts. For the first time in the history of the city, we've hired ex-addicts in key jobs. I think this is going to make a difference. We're going to have results.

[Q] Playboy: As you stated earlier, the city faced bankruptcy last year--a situation that you saved by economies, increased state aid and passage of new commuter and resident taxes. Yet a new budget crisis is expected this year. How did this happen?

[A] Lindsay: It was inevitable. The 1966 program provided only half the taxing authority the city requested. The receipts from the city income and earnings taxes for this fiscal year will bring in less than $160,000,000--not even enough to finance next year's operation of the Fire Department. The entire program will not, in a year's time, produce as much as the $256,000,000 borrowed by the previous administration in 1965 to finance routine operating expenses. It is this administration's inherited obligation to repay that loan at the rate of $50,000,000 a year, plus an average of $6,000,000 in annual interest. The city's budgetary prognosis is made even gloomier by legally mandated rising costs that we cannot escape. The principal increases are pledged to schools, debt service, welfare, wage increases and broadened fringe benefits imposed by law or by ordinary collective-bargaining agreements. Less than one fifth of the prospective gap can be ascribed to outlays that are in any sense optional. So the projected crisis for 1967 comes as no surprise to me.

[Q] Playboy: How can you avoid a succession of worsening economic crises each year as long as expenses continue to rise?

[A] Lindsay: By further belt tightening, toughness, economies, reorganizations and reforms, by lopping off a function here and there. At the same time, we will have to work for greater contributions from the state and the Federal governments. The cities deserve more money and they have to get it.

[Q] Playboy: Do you feel that President Johnson's call in this year's State of the Union address for new partnerships between the Federal Government and the cities of America will have much meaning in terms of concrete assistance?

[A] Lindsay: I hope so. It won't be clear until the specifics of the President's budget are before the Congress. I agree with the President's emphasis on the important beginnings that have been made in recent years in dealing with the problems of our cities. I hope we will now move beyond these beginnings to programs as big as our problems, and not just token efforts or reshufflings of what has been started. Certainly the President's call for reorganization of local government is welcome, coming as it does at a time when my own administration has already developed a broader reorganization than has ever been attempted in any American city.

[Q] Playboy: During the mayoral campaign, you bitterly criticized Mayor Wagner for losing $15,000,000 in Federal funds for the city by filing the necessary papers too late. A few months later, under your own administration, the Federal Government announced that New York would be denied $10,000,000 in poverty funds because the proper machinery was not set up in time. What happened?

[A] Lindsay: Any problems we had in the poverty area last year in New York City government were the result of a chaotic machinery that we inherited. The confusion, the overlapping and duplication that were present in the three antipoverty bodies that existed when we came into power were beyond mortal comprehension. We had to deal with the problem of setting that house in order while at the same time developing and executing programs to help the city's poor. Under these circumstances, it's a miracle that anything was accomplished at all, and I think we can point with pride to the excellence of our antipoverty programs during the summer of 1966. We had a cool summer in New York, all predictions to the contrary, and the poverty program was a key factor.

[Q] Playboy: The belief is widespread that at least part of New York's financial troubles stems from general economic decline. The decision of companies such as Pepsi Cola to move from Manhattan to the suburbs reinforces this impression. What can be done to revitalize the city's economy?

[A] Lindsay: Actually, business in New York is in vibrantly good health. Virtually all sectors of the city's business life have registered gains during this year, with employment increasing and unemployment decreasing. The city has been making steady gains in finance, which includes insurance and real estate, for the past decade. And this year, through numerous programs--such as low-interest, long-term loans, zoning relief and general promotion of manufacturing advantages in the city--we managed to stem the tide of job losses in manufacturing. It seems to me unfair for the prophets of gloom to lump 15 years of decline with present conditions. It's time they recognized that the downtrend in industrial employment in New York City has been halted.

[Q] Playboy: Apart from the crises we've discussed, what would you consider the greatest long-term problem for New York over the next decade?

[A] Lindsay: The long-range problem of New York City--and most major U.S. cities--is to attract the resources, public and private, that are necessary for the preservation and improvement of the core city. We need the resources to tackle the problems of sanitation and traffic; we need urbanists and professionals who can organize the city government, give it a sense of style and excitement and energize the citizens it serves. We have to establish governments that are progressive, in tune with the people's wishes, staffed with the right people and structured in an effective way.

[Q] Playboy: Toward that end, The New York Times Magazine reports, you spend much of your working day roaming the streets of New York in your limousine--moving from one area to another while you keep several telephones buzzing. Do you really govern New York from your limousine?

[A] Lindsay: Not really, but I do try to move about--to keep in touch with the city. I use the limousine if there's work that can be done there. But I also get around on foot--or even by helicopter. And I like taxis, because the drivers tell me what's on their minds. I also occasionally take the subway, so that I can find some complaints for the transit authority.

[Q] Playboy: How do you keep in touch with the everyday operations of the departments under your control? Isn't there a tendency for the mayor's office to become isolated from the self-sustaining bureaucratic machinery, which always remains the same, whatever the change in administration?

[A] Lindsay: I manage to keep in touch. The first time I phoned the police department for news late at night, they thought I was a drunk. They've since learned to know better. I try to call all the various departments at unexpected moments. And if I get a sullen answer, I let the official know how I feel.

[Q] Playboy: Not long ago, the Associated Press and Time magazine reported on another mayoral idiosyncrasy: the Lindsay technique for opening parks. Supposedly, you conscripted Bess Myerson to row you across Central Park pond, splashed photographers in a nearby boat, claimed a jutting rock for the city of New York and returned ashore to enjoy quite a few glasses of wine. Do you think it's seemly for an elected official to carry on so playfully in public?

[A] Lindsay: Why not? The people of this city like to enjoy themselves. They enjoy action and they like to see smiles, not just doom and gloom. I enjoy being the mayor of this city. It's a town full of joy and it offers potential for happiness. I have a good time and I don't mind people watching me have a good time.

[Q] Playboy: During your campaign for mayor--the year after Goldwater's Presidential candidacy--you hardly seemed proud of your Republicanism. One G.O.P. leader was quoted in Life after your election as saying: "He got up every morning and slapped his own party in the teeth. And now he's the hottest Republican around." Do you feel that this statement is unfair?

[A] Lindsay: Of course it's unfair. I ran for mayor as a fusion candidate. I made absolutely clear my belief that the city must be run by a nonpartisan mayor. But I'm a Republican and I'm proud of it. And I will never do anything to hurt my party; I'll always do what I think is best for it.

[Q] Playboy: But you must admit that it's somewhat difficult to distinguish your political ideology from that of a host of liberal Democrats. In fact, some of your Liberal Party and Reform Democratic supporters openly wondered why someone of your persuasion would want to run as a Republican.

[A] Lindsay: I'm a Republican, and not a Democrat, for quite basic reasons. I believe in individual liberties, in governmental checks and balances and in the importance of the private sector of the economy. And I think these beliefs are best expressed by the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Vandenberg and Stimson and Taft and Eisenhower. In addition, as a New Yorker, I find that the Democrats in the big cities are often captives of special-interest groups and bloc politics.

[Q] Playboy: Governor Romney of Michigan has said that the 1966 elections have placed the Republican Party in a position to defeat President Johnson and the Democrats in 1968. Do you agree with the judgment? Has the G.O.P. finally weathered the crisis of the last three years?

[A] Lindsay: The party has certainly bounced back from the 1964 elections. Anyone who reads the newspapers today can see that the Republicans are in an extremely good political position. As to whether this means that a Republican candidate will defeat Johnson in 1968, it's impossible to say at the moment; there are too many factors that will influence that election. But the upward sweep of the Republicans is clearly established.

[Q] Playboy: What is your personal appraisal of the two leading contenders for the G.O.P. nomination in 1968--George Romney and Richard Nixon--and what do you think their chances will be against Johnson?

[A] Lindsay: I think they're both good men, but I don't feel it would be proper for me to make any assessment of any of the many possible contenders for the Presidency. Nor would it be sensible at this point to evaluate any man's chances against Johnson.

[Q] Playboy: Some time ago, Barry Gold-water met with the representatives of four major conservative splinter groups to form a new conservative "superlobby" within the Republican Party. Do you think the conservatives can maintain their new unity? And if they can permanently overcome their divisions, do you think they might desert the G.O.P. to form a third national party?

[A] Lindsay: I think there is a great deal of energy and zeal among the conservative members of the Republican Party, and I suppose this zeal will unite them for some time to come. But I doubt seriously the development of any third national party.

[Q] Playboy: What are your own plans for 1968? Evans and Novak, the Washington columnists, mentioned that you plan to seek the G.O.P. Vice-Presidential nomination.

[A] Lindsay: In 1968, I plan to be right where I am now--mayor of New York City. I am pledged to serve the full four-year term to which I was elected in 1965, and I stand by that pledge.

[Q] Playboy: As a rule, mayors of great cities have difficulty projecting themselves as candidates for higher office. Within recent memory, Collins of Boston, Cavanagh of Detroit, Dilworth of Philadelphia and even your predecessor, Robert Wagner, have all failed in their bids for Senator or governor of their respective states. Do you think the mayor's job in New York may be a dead end?

[A] Lindsay: It's not true that being mayor of New York is a dead end. Some mayors of New York have gone far. Some have had to go far. One went to Mexico. Another went to Europe. I think the mayor of a great city ought to forget about running for other offices. He ought to exhaust himself politically in his job of the moment. As for myself, I have no inclination or wish to run for any other office.

[Q] Playboy: According to a number of political prognosticators, the 1972 Democratic convention is shaping up as a Humphrey-Kennedy battle. What, in your opinion, will happen? If Robert Kennedy is nominated, could any Republican defeat him--including yourself?

[A] Lindsay: I really don't think of myself as being in a position even to project what I'll be doing in 1972, much less the Democratic Party. That's such a long way off that it would be idle to speculate about it.

[Q] Playboy: How would you rate Kennedy as a Senator from New York?

[A] Lindsay: I have real respect for the junior Senator. I think he and Senator Javits have worked hard and well for the state.

[Q] Playboy: In view of his past record, how sincere do you feel is Kennedy's liberalism?

[A] Lindsay: It's certainly not for me to talk about his sincerity or any other man's sincerity. I take what he states publicly to be his true beliefs.

[Q] Playboy: In 1962, as Attorney General, Kennedy made a good-will tour around the world, and you wrote to Secretary of State Rusk questioning the wisdom of "freewheeling foreign missions on the part of highly placed amateurs." What was your reaction to his most recent overseas trip, from which he was said to have returned with an unofficial peace feeler from Hanoi, delivered to him through the French?

[A] Lindsay: I have only one thing to say about that. When Vice-President Humphrey returned from his official visit to Europe, I sent him a message. It read: "Better eggs in Rome than peace feelers in Paris."

[Q] Playboy: Is there a possibility that you might oppose Senator Kennedy for the governorship in 1970?

[A] Lindsay: It would be just as useless to speculate about 1970 as about 1972. I have a more immediate job--being mayor of New York.

[Q] Playboy: Let's talk about another Kennedy, then. What is your estimate of the stature and accomplishments of the late President?

[A] Lindsay: President Kennedy brought a lift to the country, particularly to the young people, that was very important. I would say that his greatest accomplishment, without any question, was the people he attracted into government--young talent. That's an essential thing in this country.

[Q] Playboy: How would you compare the Kennedy and Johnson Presidencies?

[A] Lindsay: As persons, they're entirely different and their approaches are correspondingly different. One can't really compare the two. President Kennedy brought us movement, style and light--and even the beginnings of change in the Federal system. But President Kennedy was frightfully deadlocked in the Congress of which I was a member. Though I wouldn't want to attempt to guess the reasons, I would doubt that it was Kennedy's fault. President Johnson, of course, produced results in the Congress his first year in office. But it must be borne in mind that he was picking up measures that had been begun by President Kennedy. Many of those measures represented change, and since legislative bodies very often resist change, considerable time is sometimes necessary for passage. I saw it as a member of Congress, and that was my particular bird's-eye--or worm's-eye--view.

[Q] Playboy: How would you compare the Johnson and Kennedy foreign policies?

[A] Lindsay: President Johnson has wanted to concentrate on the domestic scene. There is good reason for this, because domestic policy needs a lot of attention. But in foreign policy, there's much that can and should be done. One gets the impression that the President is not entirely at home in foreign policy and that the governments of other countries, including allied countries, sense this. In particular, I have been concerned about the massive frustrations that have progressively been building up in the Western community. President Kennedy had a grand design for the unification of the European-Atlantic community. It didn't work; he wasn't able to bring it about. President Johnson subsequently inherited a deterioration in relations. Whether, ultimately, by statesmanship, he can reverse this deteriorating situation in the Atlantic community remains to be seen. It will require far greater attention than he's been able to give it thus far.

[Q] Playboy: The principal reason for Johnson's inattention to European affairs, of course, is the war in Vietnam. How do you feel about his decision to escalate the conflict?

[A] Lindsay: I think the nature of our involvement in Vietnam is unwise, and I don't think that escalation is the answer. Bombing solves nothing. The more escalation, the less chance there is for negotiation. We've got to work things out in Vietnam on a diplomatic level.

[Q] Playboy: How do you feel about our stated China policy of "containment without isolation"?

[A] Lindsay: I think it needs rethinking--but I'm not prepared to go beyond that at this point. Right now, I've got to concentrate on the vital task of providing New York City with the kind of leadership it deserves. Rebuilding the cities of America is the major task of my generation. All the great metropolitan areas, not just New York, have to turn the corner from the mire of decline and decay. There are those who say that the problem of our cities must wait until the war in Vietnam is resolved or a man is placed on the moon. But I say that these problems won't wait, and by any reasonable set of values, they shouldn't have to wait. In the meantime, New York is a test case; we mean to be in the vanguard of a national movement toward a new urban age and a better life. I sincerely believe that the real opportunities for better living in America today lie in the cities. As mayor, I want to do everything I can to grasp these opportunities here in New York.