Playboy Interview: Jesse Jackson

No matter what eventually happens at the Democratic Convention this summer in San Francisco, Jesse Jackson has already won some big prizes. Since he announced for the Presidency last November, the panache, pace and ever-present controversy of his candidacy have transformed the sharp-dressing, eloquent 42-year-old Baptist minister and civil rights activist from a party irritant to a force at large.

Jackson has been prominent on the national scene ever since his days as a college activist in his native South during the Sixties, when he followed the call of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to complete the emancipation of blacks through nonviolent civil disobedience. Born to segregation in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson emerged in his college days as a hero to those intimidated by racists and Southern sheriffs and as a firebrand to those who found segregation less offensive than the turmoil of the civil rights movement.

He was with Dr. King in Memphis at the time of his assassination and moved forcibly--some thought too forcibly--to provide leadership to a movement suddenly deprived of King's overshadowing presence. Returning to his base in Chicago to organize the poor for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the then-27-year-old minister came to be known for a fiery rhetoric that did not always seem to jibe with the Gandhian philosophy of non-violence, which Jackson espouses.

His experiences in the early civil rights movement and later in Push, the anti-poverty and self-help organization he founded, left Jackson with many admirers and detractors--but few who are indifferent. To many, especially in the black community, he is talked about with a reverence and adulation that would seem appropriate for a combination of saint and rock star. To many others--surprisingly, as much among liberals as in the strongholds of white racism--he is seen as a scourge and an opportunist.

Now, in the 1984 Presidential campaign, Jackson is a player on the highest level. Mixing Bible Belt moralizing with a fierce commitment to dispossessed constituencies--from gays to Indians and, some would add, Arabs--he sparked the Democratic race with both his candidacy and his daring mission to Syria to free a captured airman, Lieutenant Robert Goodman, Jr. Before Senator Gary Hart began to give Walter Mondale a run for his money in New Hampshire, columnist Jack Anderson wrote, "The Reverend Jesse Jackson, bless his heart, has succeeded singlehandedly in lifting the Democratic Presidential race out of the terminal doldrums that threaten to bore us all to death." Others who concede the effectiveness of Jackson's thundering oratory nevertheless charge that his style smacks of demagoguery. "In passing out misinformation, the Democrats now have their own Ronald Reagan," wrote The Washington Post's Richard Cohen.

Like it or not, Jackson reached center stage, representing not only blacks but a much larger constituency within the Democratic Party. As The New York Times put it recently, "Jackson is now making history, not as a black Presidential candidate but as a 'serious' black Presidential candidate. That development alone is likely to have far-reaching effects on the American political scene by energizing the black vote and by altering the perceptions among whites of black candidates for elective office."

But the Times indicated that the real prize lay beyond electoral politics and concerns, involving nothing less than the mantle of black leadership, one passed around or, more accurately, grasped at but never comfortably worn since an assassin's bullet killed King 16 years ago. What Jackson "really seeks to be," the Times noted, is "the nation's premier black leader: a mover and shaker with a constituency within the Democratic Party."

Jackson denies that he wants to be the predominant black leader and dutifully ticks off the names of the scores of elected black officials he holds in high esteem. But whatever his intentions, the enormous publicity surrounding his campaign, as well as his proven ability to attract what he calls the Rainbow Coalition of supporters--including many whites--makes Jackson a man for more than just this electoral season. (In fact, this is his second appearance in the "Playboy Interview" slot. His first was in November 1969, just over a year and a half after King's death.)

Jackson watching is not a placid journalistic assignment. The reverend has a lot of ups and downs, with contretemps dotting his candidacy at almost every stop.

Just what significance should be attached to the various charges ranging from financial mismanagement of Push to "tainted" contributions from the Arab League? Why does Jackson say the things he says? Is he against whites? Is he against Jews? And if not, what is the fuss in the media all about? Could it be, as the reverend thinks, that he has been subjected to a double standard of criticism because he is the first black to run seriously for the Presidency?

Given Jackson's prominence, the answers to those questions will remain important long after the election. To try to get some of them, Playboy assigned Robert Scheer, whose political reporting for Playboy ("Interview"s with Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter, profiles of Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan) is well known to its readers. Scheer, a national reporter for the Los Angeles Times, followed Jackson through the early primaries and filed the following report:

"Jesse Jackson is hard to ignore. He is tall, muscular, bright and quick and uses all of that to let an interviewer know that he intends to finish his thoughts. Looking down on the questioner, he rears back and rocks a bit, punctuating the air with his finger while the cadenced statements roll on and on until the point to be made is wrapped and delivered. Then, and only then, another question. Jackson takes questions cheerfully but with the air of one who has heard most of them before. And he has. All of his adult life has been spent parrying questions about blacks and politics, and he knows what he knows. He does not require issues experts, pollsters and media analysts to figure out his stance.

"Jackson most often listens to a question with his head slightly tilted to suggest a cocked ear and with just the barest hint of a condescending smile about to flicker across his otherwise passive face. On those occasions when the question is not familiar, a suspicion as to the interviewer's motives may mark his manner, and the mood can get tense--not threatening but suddenly more serious and personal than one had bargained for. It's less a matter of intimidation than one of the force of personality and presence of someone who's battle-scarred.

"Like Ronald Reagan, whom I have also interviewed at some length, Jackson is a veteran of past battles over issues that truly matter to him. And while he may--again, like Reagan--occasionally get some facts wrong and exaggerate others, he remains committed to core beliefs.

"For Jackson, those beliefs revolve around whatever he feels is necessary for the advancement of blacks, and while one may take issue with his preoccupation and/or his prescriptions for change, personal exposure to the man did not, in my case, support a cynical view of his level of commitment.

"Both Jackson and Reagan are clearly in the political arena to do serious battle over the social direction of this country, no matter what other material and psychological rewards may be provided by the exercise. For both, it has been a long and not always fashionable political struggle.

"Neither gentleman is of the school of the modern politician touted by hip pollsters and committed only to winning. Jackson and Reagan may say and do wrong things, but when they do, it is with the altruistic aplomb of the true believer certain of the virtue of his ends and convinced that he is not driven by personal political ambition. And when they do commit a grand gaffe, they find it next to impossible to offer a profound apology, because soul-searching and doubt are simply alien to their make-up. But they are not shallow. Both have paid their dues, anguishing over causes rather than over the political style of the moment.

"There the similarity ends. Indeed, what is perhaps most interesting about Jackson is that he has risen to challenge the assumptions of Reaganism as a political philosophy more directly and energetically than has any of the other candidates.

"After hours of interviews with Jackson, I found myself fantasizing about Reagan's taking my place in the room. Let them argue about the truly needy, about affirmative action, civil disobedience and the Third World. Let them match programs for ending poverty and crime in Chicago and bringing peace to the Middle East. Do we need more weapons or fewer? More social programs or fewer? Is God, whom they both invoke incessantly, a staunch free enterpriser or a closet liberal? Now, that would be the debate for this election year.

"But Jackson will not just go away after this election any more than Reagan did following his many times out on the hustings. Both have a constituency. Jackson may not have succeeded in building his Rainbow Coalition, but his campaign has demonstrated his basic appeal to the growing number of black voters. Thus, what Jackson has to say in this campaign and in this 'Interview' warrants serious attention, for it will likely present itself again and with even greater force in the future."

[Q] Playboy: As we speak, it looks as if either Hart or Mondale will be the Democratic nominee. What do you see as the difference between you and them?

[A] Jackson: As Democrats, we share many common social values. But I believe they represent liberalism, which is advocacy for change; I represent liberation, which is action for change. They hoped Goodman would be released from Syria; I went to get him. They supported the voting-rights act; I marched for it. They call for U.S. corporations to become more responsive; I had to boycott them to get change. They say they have no objection to a woman as Vice-President; I say, "Put one on the ticket."

[Q] Playboy: But will those differences stop you from backing either of them if one is the Democratic nominee?

[A] Jackson: No. I'm not trying to impeach their characters; I'm just drawing a distinction. I'm saying that within the framework of the Democratic Party, I've paid heavier dues in the struggle for social justice than either of those two men.

[Q] Playboy: However you fare in the Presidential race, your Rainbow Coalition calls for unity among the poor, women, the handicapped, gays, people of all colors. Is that realistic?

[A] Jackson: Yes. I guess what's impressed me, what's almost seemed miraculous, is that there is less static about the Rainbow Coalition than there was about integration. Somehow, many groups are very threatened by integration--it conjures up so many fears and negative conceptions--yet the message in the Rainbow Coalition is the same: It's just that you can be black, brown, yellow or red or gay or rich or poor and you still fit in the spectrum without being threatened.

[Q] Playboy: You're claiming to be more than a black candidate. Why are you optimistic that white America would support a black?

[A] Jackson: Well, since Reagan took office, the nation has undergone a devastating period of racial and class polarization and a kind of willful perpetuation of the gender gap. Most Americans find that distasteful. The sense of selfishness and greed of the present Administration has set a climate in the country that most Americans don't identify with in their heart of hearts. So there is a search now by people to go another way, to seek a new course. When I walked through the plant of The Boston Globe recently, you could hear workers, many of whom had Archie Bunker as a frame of reference, cheering, telling me, "I'm glad you brought the boy [Lieutenant Goodman] back home!" We are growing up as a nation. Those guys probably didn't want Sam Jethroe to play baseball for the Boston Braves, probably heckled Sam Jones and K. C. Jones when they played for the Celtics. And though Boston went through a period of Louise Day Hicks-type polarization, the city obviously prefers the image of Mel King and the Rainbow Coalition to that of Hicks and the rocks and the buses.

[A] Another reason the Rainbow Coalition isn't threatening is that there are no psychological or sexual hang-ups, as there are in integration. There are deep-seated fears in this country, perpetuated over a long period of time, that are based on sexual myths, on the fear of interracial marriage. It's the old Archie Bunker thing: We can work together and you can play ball with us and go to school with us, even socialize with us, but don't come home with us. The Rainbow Coalition is made up of independent groups--you don't have to lose your group's identity to another group. It's not threatening on the personal level.

[Q] Playboy: One group that does feel threatened is the Jewish community. In fact, a couple of your statements about Jews have nearly derailed your campaign. Let's settle them once and for all. Why did you use the word Hymies in referring to Jews?

[A] Jackson: It was unfortunate. That word never had a negative meaning to it, either politically or religiously. It was an unfortunate use of words, but no different from someone's saying he's going up to Harlem to see "Mose" or "Mosela." You know, said with a lighthearted ring. And at least some people realized that. When I spoke recently in Tallahassee, there were some Jewish people holding up a big 12' x 12' sign saying, Hymies Love Jesse.

[A] Historically, the word kike was equivalent to the word nigger, which is a very offensive term. If I had been angry and said, "You kike," or "You nigger," that would have been different. But it was blown up into something far beyond ... well, we'll almost have to put the word Hymie into the dictionary now, because it's taken on so much meaning. And I do regret the pain it caused people because of the way the press played it.

[A] The disadvantage was the personal hurt to these people. But there's been an advantage: There is now a dialog under way that hasn't existed in a decade. And that's a consolation I find sufficient, because strong leaders are not perfect, we're public servants. When Jimmy Carter made his statement about ethnic purity, people forgave him, because they realized that didn't reflect his basic character. Last summer, Ted Koppel referred to some politicians as "Amos and Andy." It was an unfortunate use of words, but that's not his basic character. Just recently, Bill Moyers referred to me on TV as the "Kingfish of black politicians." When I pointed out that the word Kingfish might be seen as insensitive because of the Kingfish character in the Amos 'N Andy show, he said he was referring to Huey Long. You see how sensitive people can be?

[Q] Playboy: You said the flap over your remarks had a good side to it. Are you serious?

[A] Jackson: I hope we can seize the moment. There's been more interest in meetings between blacks and Jews in the past eight or ten days than there has been in the past eight or ten years. But, of course, until now, it's just been a war of quotations--who said what last, which is very unhealthy. It's been a period of great agony, but I think we're going to come out of it.

[Q] Playboy: You've portrayed yourself as a potential mediator among Jews, blacks and Arabs. Especially now, though, would most Jewish groups ever accept your position on the Mideast?

[A] Jackson: Well, I may never accept the Israeli position on South Africa, either; but we can talk. We can agree to disagree. You know, a number of Jewish people here and in Israel have written to me, asking for help in getting their relatives out of Syria. OK? Now, the people who don't talk with their perceived enemies can't help them; isn't that right? Mondale, Glenn, Hart. The idea of not talking with a friend's enemies is not a wise strategy. The biggest contribution one could make to Israel would be to get her neighbors to recognize her, to end the armed struggle, to end the holy war. And now, through all the chaos and confusion, I emerge with the capacity to talk to both sides.

[Q] Playboy: Including the P.L.O.?

[A] Jackson: I think the P.L.O. has to recognize Israel's right to exist. But I don't think either Israel or the P.L.O. can initiate the talks that would be required for each side to recognize the other, the way Israel and Egypt couldn't do it themselves. They needed a mediator. If we had the strength of leadership to negotiate that strategy, the P.L.O. would change its position of not recognizing Israel.

[Q] Playboy: Even though it's written into the covenant of the P.L.O. that Israel should be destroyed?

[A] Jackson: Nasser made a statement 20 to 25 years ago about driving the Jews into the sea, and the nation of the guy who made that statement has now signed a peace treaty with Israel. If you keep digging up last year's rhetoric about a given situation, you'll never move forward to forgiveness and redemption. There have been some pretty cruel things said about each other by both sides, which is standard for people who are angry at each other.

[Q] Playboy: Which brings us back to another of the things you said about Jews. Why did you say you were tired of hearing about the Jewish holocaust?

[A] Jackson: It was a statement taken completely out of context. In 1971 or 1972, I was in Africa with my wife and the Staple Singers and Roberta Flack. We decided to go see where the slaves had been kept. We were taken to some caves. They were damp and ugly, and what had started out as a tourist visit became quietness and then singing and prayers and tears. By the time we got out at the other end, there was a kind of anger, a real resentment among us. But then I said to my wife, "You know, if we rehearsed this slavery ritual every day, or often, we could develop the kind of resentment toward the blacks who sold us and the whites who captured and then enslaved us that would never lend itself to making human progress. I would just be so bitter!"

[A] Later, in a private talk with two guys, I referred to the Jewish holocaust in that context. We had seen several references to the holocaust on television that year, and I said that while I appreciated the memory of it as a basis for saying "Never again," we really had to move beyond that and not linger at the graveside. That was analogous to our own experience, having come through the holocaust of slavery, having lost 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 people in slavery. My remark was one of personal experience, not one that was designed to be negative or hostile. That was the context of that statement, because I, too, am a member of a race that has known a holocaust and has known subjugation in this land, not just as a matter of history but as a matter of personal experience. I look at those striped uniforms that the Jews wore in those Nazi camps and I recall that I grew up watching the police act like Nazis every weekend and lock up blacks, charging them with vagrancy, making them wear striped uniforms and putting chains on their ankles. What they really were looking for were street cleaners they wouldn't have to pay, and they'd sentence a black to ten days in prison for being drunk on his own porch and stuff like that. So it wasn't the first time I had seen those striped uniforms.

[Q] Playboy: Nonetheless, didn't you also call Zionism a "poisonous weed"?

[A] Jackson: Again, it was out of context. That was said during a debate about Zionism, which is built upon the premise of race, while Judaism is built upon faith. Now, there's been an attempt by some to equate the two. But the state of Israel is not the state of Judaism. Zionism is not a religion, it's a political philosophy. Many Zionists are, in fact, agnostics and atheists. Judaism is built upon faith and forgiveness and is really an optimistic view of the future, and Zionism tends to be much more narrow than that. Having said that, I believe Jews have a right to be Zionist politically, but one need not equate Judaism and Zionism. And I accept the right of Israel to exist. The fact is that from a religious standpoint, there is something about Judaism that appeals to me. I'm Judaeo-Christian; my religious roots are there. There is a kind of boldness, a kind of universality, espoused in the faith that is eternal. And I just don't equate the two.

[Q] Playboy: Then what does it mean to say that Zionism is a poisonous weed?

[A] Jackson: If people lose religious faith, which is eternal, and begin to put their faith in a political arrangement, which is temporary, well, one to me represents oxygen and flowering and growth, while the other represents the choking of that growth. To the extent that my description was offensive, I regret it, because my point is not to be offensive.

[Q] Playboy: But to some people, your denunciation of Zionism was another way of denying Israel's legitimacy.

[A] Jackson: Well, to the extent that it was misunderstood, I regret it. Right now, of course, we're going well beyond the context we were in when I said it. Many Jews, as you know, reject Zionism. They see it as very bad, so it's not just a personal position I have. And historically, the best experience of the Jewish people has been in their religious faith, the chastising, courageous strength of the prophets who challenged their own politicians. I mean, historically, a guy like Menachem Begin would have been challenged far more strongly by the Jewish prophets, and maybe the prophetic voice in Israel today tends to be that of the Peace Now movement.

[Q] Playboy: You're talking about the leftist coalition in Israel--but a lot of them would consider themselves Zionists, too, so you wouldn't get much support there. It seems as if politicians get deeper in trouble when they try to explain things away instead of just admitting they made a mistake. Wouldn't it be better to just say that your use of the phrase poisonous weed was a lousy choice of words?

[A] Jackson: I don't know what your point is. You almost sound as if you're trying to chastise me, which I'm beginning to resent. I'm trying to say, as clearly as I can, that my point is that Zionism and Judaism are different things. Why keep wrestling with it?

[Q] Playboy: That's precisely our point. You keep wrestling with a phrase that most people think is anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic, instead of saying it was a mistake and being done with it.

[A] Jackson: I've said that about five times a night. I mean, to the extent to which it's offensive, I regret it, because that was not what my intent was. And I think that the more that journalists like yourself keep dwelling on that----

[Q] Playboy: We're trying to clear it up, not dwell on it.

[A] Jackson: OK. Well, I made a mistake. There is a sensitivity to the phrase that I underestimated, frankly. You simply walk into buzz saws by hitting the wrong buzz words. Even with most people I know who are in conflict with Jewish people on a given issue, that conflict is not for the most part philosophical, it's usually political.

[Q] Playboy: That's true, but since the Peace Now people in Israel consider themselves Zionists, they don't consider Zionism a poisonous weed. That was what we were trying to clarify.

[A] Jackson: I understand.

[Q] Playboy: And if you said to one of them, "Zionism is a poisonous weed," it would be the end of the dialog, because they see themselves as Zionists who are nonetheless in favor of such moves as returning the West Bank to the Arabs.

[A] Jackson: I agree. And I tend to identify with their politics, because I think there is righteousness there, a quest for fair play. I think that they will be capable of coexisting with the Palestinians in ways that will be beneficial for them as well as for world peace. The talks we had with them when we were in Israel were enjoyable experiences that have etched a lasting place in my memory.

[Q] Playboy: Do you regret having been caught up in all this?

[A] Jackson: No, I tremble from the pain of it all, but I see a silver lining beyond the dark cloud. The whole period has been a crucifying experience for all of us. I think that joy is coming in the morning. It's almost like you have to go through a crucifixion before you can get to a resurrection. I can feel the stone being rolled away.

[Q] Playboy: You've said that other experiences etched in your memory are responsible for your view of the world. Back when segregation was widespread, was there one experience that had a profound effect on you?

[A] Jackson: Yes. There was a store in Greenville, South Carolina, that was typical of the black South. It was owned by whites, because black people seldom owned any stores, and the owner's children grew up with the rest of us, so you were allowed to play with them. But as they grew to replace their father in business, they began to grow in their father's ways. They began to take on the likeness of the master. I used to play with the children of Jack, the store owner.

[A] This particular day, I was in a hurry, because my grandfather was outside and he gave me a nickel to get some Mary Janes and cookies or something. There were eight or ten black people in there, and I said, "Jack, can I have a cookie?" He had been cutting bologna or something. I whistled for his attention. Suddenly, he was on me with a gun pointed at my head. He said, "Never whistle at me again!" The thing that stood out in my mind was that the other blacks who were in the store acted as if they didn't see it. They stayed busy. They had a deep and abiding fear. I was not so much afraid of the gun as I was of what my father would do. He had just gotten back from World War Two, and I knew he had not only a temper but a mind that had been opened up after being exposed to Europe during the war. He had become more resentful of the system. I knew that if my father heard about it, he'd either kill Jack or get killed. So I suppressed it. It came out many years later. But that was the nature of life in the occupied zone.

[Q] Playboy: You've kept your own resentments fairly well suppressed through this campaign. In fact, overall, your views are a lot less strident than they were during your first Interview with us. You were pretty tough on the white establishment in 1969. You were only 28 then, right?

[A] Jackson: Yes.

[Q] Playboy: You were a kid.

[A] Jackson: Yes. In many ways.

[Q] Playboy: How have you changed?

[A] Jackson: I've matured, obviously. People mature or they rot. I've been blessed. A lot of people have allowed me to grow, have been tolerant of my mistakes. I've maintained my will to work, but I've needed a lot of help from people in keeping my equilibrium. I've grown up in a goldfish bowl, with the temptations and oppressions of this job, learning to use public admiration and prestige with prudence and discipline.

[Q] Playboy: When you say you grew up in a goldfish bowl, do you mean you've held a prominent position since you were young?

[A] Jackson: Yes. I was a big deal in home-town football at 13; you know, being the quarterback and hearing your name over the loud-speaker. That was a kind of public exposure. Then there was college football and student activities, all that. And in Greensboro, I became prominent in the civil rights movement, went to jail as sort of a hero in 1965. So it's been almost 30 years of that life, nonstop. There've been lots of opportunities and a lot of growing up to do. I'm glad I chose this work, glad this work chose me.

[Q] Playboy: What do you actually do about the pressure, the tension? You don't drink; do you exercise, work out?

[A] Jackson: I play basketball sometimes. I read. No, I think. I've been blessed with a creative mind, you know, and while some people tend to read in their spare time, I think in mine. Reading is looking back and wrestling with other people's ideas. But when you think, you can focus on your own ideas. A big difference.

[Q] Playboy: What's an example?

[A] Jackson: Take the election of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor. Before the election, Walter Mondale came to town to support Richard Daley's son, while Ted Kennedy came to support then-mayor Jane Byrne. In other words, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was moving to the right. What could we do? Most people got upset. I said, "We've got to figure a way out of this. Think. Hear me? Think!" Now, we couldn't just wring our hands and act as if Jack, the old store owner back in Greenville, were holding a gun to our heads and we couldn't tell our daddy. This time, we had to have a plan! Our liberal allies, Kennedy and Mondale, come riding into town with smoking guns, supporting party regulars over the progressive black candidate. Most folks looked at it and pretended it didn't happen. But it did happen. If Kennedy and Mondale had had their way, Washington wouldn't have won. If it had been left to them, the rise of the black political movement would have been stopped, stillborn. So what do you do? You can't go Republican; that's too devastatingly right wing. Can't stay with the Democrats as they are, right? So ... take them on in the primaries! Aha! The best of both worlds. You can act, challenge the Democrats in their own primaries, challenge the Republicans in the general election, do all of it! Think. I couldn't have gotten that reading a book. There hasn't been any book written on this.

[Q] Playboy: So that's really the origin of your campaign--trying to counter what you see as Kennedy's and Mondale's defections?

[A] Jackson: Yes. I heard about it on the news. I couldn't believe it. How can progressive Democrats make a commitment to Chicago--which is 40 percent black and 15 percent Hispanic and only three percent Irish--and choose two Irish candidates over the black candidate? But I'm not angry now; look what the result was: this campaign. It's like a child born out of wedlock, as I was--you aren't angry forever that your father isn't around. If it's negative that he's not there, it's positive that you were born. So you focus on the positive and keep on steppin'.

[Q] Playboy: And this campaign, no matter what happens at the convention, is positive as far as blacks are concerned?

[A] Jackson: Blacks will never again be taken for granted. Politics in America is quite different tonight from what it was a year ago. Quite different.

[Q] Playboy: All right, back to your candidacy. As a civil rights activist, you've never even held public office. Isn't it presumptuous of you to run for President? Do you think you're equipped to deal with substantial foreign-policy matters?

[A] Jackson: The media projection of me as being not involved in foreign policy, not aware of what our options are, is a misperception of reality. I've met with most African heads of state, most Arab heads of state, and I've traveled throughout Europe. I went down to Panama, trying to get the Panama Canal treaty through. I made major presentations on Salt II, trying to get that passed. Our leaders have an obligation to meet the other leaders of the world to establish rapport. Everybody knows that the personal relationship between Kennedy and Khrushchev was crucial in that period. All of life really does boil down to personal relationships. Legend says that war and peace often start and end in the bedroom. The woman asks the man, "Are you going to take that from that guy?" So the guy declares war. If Andropov and Reagan had met each other and communicated and expressed their common desire to avoid mutual annihilation, with a real desire to do it, those two men could have relieved tension in this world, but they didn't know each other. So they talked at each other rather than relate to each other, and that violent noncommunication has us on the brink of disaster.

[Q] Playboy: It's your view of the Third World that separates you from most other leaders in this country. How would you change America's relationship with it?

[A] Jackson: Well, America looks upon the Third World with a lot of arrogance and contempt. Some of our contempt for Third World nations is based upon their poverty, some of it is based upon their color, some of it is built upon our relationship with the oppressors of those societies. Some of it is based upon our corporations' exploitative relationship with those nations. The reasons we do this are essentially immoral or contemptuous. The Third World is mostly poor, uneducated, diseased, desperate for human rights, desperate for economic development, more inclined toward America than toward the Soviet Union. It's mostly black, brown, yellow, red, non-Christian, non-English-speaking. So why waste all the time on the East-West, U.S.A.-and-U.S.S.R. aspect of the problem?

[Q] Playboy: So you'd agree with George McGovern that we have a fixation on communism?

[A] Jackson: Oh, he's right about that. As opposed to affirming our point of view, we've found ourselves running from another point of view. Anybody who rebels we call a Communist. In the South, we were fighting for civil rights, basic public accommodations. We were called Communists. Fighting for the right to vote, we were called Communists. So if the peasants fight to overcome the landed gentry, calling them Communists does not make them so. And even when they get desperate--when we refuse support because they're also getting aid from another area--that doesn't mean that they agree with that other viewpoint. If a man is drowning, he'll reach for any raft; it's his only way of surviving. We should be putting life rafts into the water rather than toxic waste.

[Q] Playboy: But communism is a fact of life in some parts of Latin America. What would you do about it?

[A] Jackson: We should open a dialog with Cuba and normalize relations. Among other things, Cuba is 90 miles away. If we can relate to Soviet communism, we certainly can relate to Cuba's. Also, by ignoring Cuba, we make it bigger; we make Castro bigger than he really is. We allowed ourselves to be put in the position of Goliath, with Castro as David, and the longer we boycott him and he survives without us, the longer it makes him the hero of South, Central and Latin America and the Caribbean. For the most part, I am convinced, Cubans would rather relate to this country than to the Soviet Union. Among other reasons, we're hemispheric partners. I think we make a mistake in not opening up trade with Cuba.

[Q] Playboy: What about Nicaragua and the Sandinistas?

[A] Jackson: I cannot separate the Nicaraguan revolution from the tyranny of [former dictator] Somoza and our investment in his tyranny. We should recognize Nicaragua, we should open up dialog with its leaders, we should stop supporting the rebels militarily, because we're losing the war and losing prestige. We are losing that war and losing credibility throughout the Third World because we're engaging in that war. We ought to be more patient with Third World nations in their transitions for development. After all, there was a ten- or 12-year difference between General George Washington and President George Washington. We ourselves had to evolve into a more mature democracy. A substantial number of people got the right to vote 100 years after that. So for us to try to make them do in three years what we didn't do in 12 years is unfair. And we ought to help stabilize that government, help correct through diplomacy and trade the wrongs that are there and not disrupt the people of that government with an attempted military overthrow.

[Q] Playboy: When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., first criticized U.S. foreign policy--i.e., the Vietnam war--he encountered more controversy than he'd known as a civil rights leader. Did his experience make it easier for you to speak out?

[A] Jackson: Oh, I'm convinced of that. I remember very well the adverse reaction to Dr. King's decision to come out against the Vietnam war in 1967. I read his remarks in the Hilton Hotel for the first time the morning he made his speech--all the reasons we should get out of Vietnam. I remember that after the speech, we went on an 11-city tour we'd planned with Aretha Franklin and Harry Belafonte to raise money for civil rights causes. Well, we broke even in only one city, because Lyndon Johnson put so much pressure on both black and white Democratic Party structures. We hit the stage in Oakland--imagine, with both Aretha Franklin and Harry Belafonte--and, unbelievably, the place was only one fourth full. We went on to Houston. We stepped onto the stage. All of a sudden, there was gas in the air-supply system and we had to evacuate the auditorium. It was a very violent atmosphere, and it continued that way until King was assassinated.

[A] Many blacks, some of them his classmates, publicly disavowed him, because he really was breaking new ground. He moved us from the civil rights struggle to a global outlook on the human-rights struggle. Prior to that time, it was considered a kind of treason to challenge the country's war policies. King opened up that window for everybody.

[Q] Playboy: Which black leaders told him not to criticize the Vietnam war?

[A] Jackson: I remember Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, Whitney Young of the Urban League and many other civil rights leaders who castigated King for dividing the civil rights movement. But King's point was, you couldn't separate the two--money that had been designated for the War on Poverty was going to the war in Vietnam.

[Q] Playboy: Now that there's a national holiday for King, do you think we tend to remember him for his more acceptable achievements rather than for his more controversial positions?

[A] Jackson: All societies emasculate their martyrs in time. If those martyrs had been as socially acceptable in life as they are in death, they wouldn't have died the way they did. They were really on the cutting edge of change; they were engaging in social change, not just in social service. They were victims of a character assassination that preceded their physical assassination. The big issue, of course, in the case of King, is that the U.S. Government was involved in it. One of J. Edgar Hoover's memos said the Government's purpose was to destroy the black movement and to stop the rise of the black messiah. Hoover called King a liar and a Communist. Given the FBI's role in trying to discredit him, it's not difficult to believe that it was also involved in destroying him.

[Q] Playboy: How?

[A] Jackson: Well, given Hoover's personal hatred of him, there is no limit to what role the FBI may have had in his assassination. James Earl Ray was able to get out of Memphis, and then out of the country, very easily. I believe he was the fall guy in a much bigger scheme. King was seen not only by paranoid FBI agents but by hawks of that day as a threat to national security. It was absurd, but that's how they perceived him.

[Q] Playboy: After King's death, you became very bitter about whites. You said in your first Playboy Interview, less than two years after King's death, that white students didn't have to worry about poverty, because their fathers sent them to school and they could avoid the draft; that they weren't really serious about civil rights; they didn't support Operation Breadbasket and projects of that sort.

[A] Jackson: Well, many whites in the South did, temporarily, what blacks must do eternally--fight for rights, fight for equality. I see a lot of them today who say, "I went to Selma; I was in such and such a march." Yes, that was an experience to write home about. But some of us had to stay when the march was over.

[Q] Playboy: Some whites died.

[A] Jackson: Indeed, some whites died. Some blacks died and some whites died. As to how I felt after King's death, I'm not sure I was as bitter as I was hurt. I mean, I saw our leadership wasted, and I also saw the Government turn its back on us. The Johnson Administration, which blacks had voted for and had high hopes for, turned its back on us. That caused a great deal of pain. Many of the members of our civil rights alliance who had helped became very unkind as we sought to move up. As long as everything was horizontal, it was fine, but they fought vertical movement. They wanted to remove the shame of apartheid, but they did not want to share the power. The Bakke reverse-discrimination suit was a major turning point for relations in the coalition that made the civil rights gains of the Sixties possible.

[Q] Playboy: Would you use a word such as betrayal about former civil rights allies?

[A] Jackson: I don't choose to use that word, only because it would not serve a good end. Our friends simply went so far but did not go far enough. Ultimately, the poor do not just want friends, they want to be empowered. And when you start speaking of empowering the poor, then you have to redistribute the power of those who already have it. And some of those who already had it may have been our close allies.

[A] Maybe we had to go through a period of adjustment, moving from liberalism to liberation. We had to break the dependency syndrome. I remember in Gary, Indiana, we had a white guy who was basically a liberal as the mayor. But Richard Hatcher said our time has come, so what you had was a struggle between liberals and blacks for the mayor's office--conservatives had already fled town. And as blacks began to win, it changed the fundamental relationship. We moved from one born of paternalism to one of power. But for the most part, blacks in city government and in Congress replaced liberals, not conservatives.

[Q] Playboy: All right, but didn't black extremists make some pretty large mistakes along the way? Wasn't there a costly, unnecessary alienation?

[A] Jackson: When you have a new life, like a baby coming into the world, you're going to have some pain. After so many years of swelling up, as we had, the water breaks and the blood flies and the mother sighs (continued on page 132)Jesse Jackson(continued from page 77) and the baby cries. But then you clean up the afterbirth material; you accept new life as the reality. I remember when there was so much tension about my running in the Democratic primaries--it would traumatize the party, traumatize every candidate, including blacks, they said. It would divide the country, they said. But now they see the positive effects. The progressive wing of the party is alive again, and the only chance the Democratic Party has of winning is with the margin of new voters I bring to the banquet tables. The party's expanding, not dividing. There's creative tension; issues are being raised that otherwise would not be raised. We've brought an excitement to the campaign and a style of campaigning that mobilizes people. So, you know, sometimes our worst fears are never realized, and we grow up and we move on.

[Q] Playboy: Let us move on to your well-publicized dealings with Syria. Although its release of Lieutenant Goodman helped your campaign, would you agree it's an extremely repressive country?

[A] Jackson: Oh, it certainly is. Absolutely, you should apply the same standards everywhere, anywhere.

[Q] Playboy: You don't disagree, then, that Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia all have repressive regimes?

[A] Jackson: Well, to the extent to which they have them, they must be challenged. It doesn't serve any good end, it seems to me, just to call them repressive. We must make our position clear and link our relationship and our support to the enforcement of human rights. If Reagan's constructive engagement with South Africa meant that it would be used to change conditions there, that would be all right. I think that as a superpower, we ought to relate to all these countries. But we should then use our leverage to bring about change, because we will end up on one side of history or the other--either with those who are denying human rights or with those who are supporting them.

[Q] Playboy: All right, but when you accept money from the Arab League, some people feel you can't claim you're merely supporting human rights for Arabs; you are actually doing business with some very repressive Arab regimes, including Syria's. It's a contradiction for someone who's concerned about human rights to be accepting that sort of support.

[A] Jackson: Well, the fact is, the Israelis are holding people under occupation and annexing territory and engaging in expansion, building settlements in violation of the law. At some point, that has to give way to a more democratic relationship with neighbors.

[Q] Playboy: We'll get back to the Middle East, but the heart of your campaign has been a call for more Federal programs rather than fewer. Yet one thing we've heard from other Democratic candidates this year is that the social programs of the Sixties that you favored simply didn't work.

[A] Jackson: Well, the fact is that the War on Poverty really never had a chance! The money that was to be directed to rebuild America was spent on Vietnam! That brought in this new era of inflation, which hurt the economy. So lunch counters were closing as we were getting the right to sit at them; a cutback in funds for education came generally about the time we were getting the chance to get into schools in the first place. Social progress was taking place at the same time as the collapse in the auto, steel, electronics, rubber and textile industries. So we got the right to vote at about the time we lost our jobs. We got the right to vote for politicians, but we don't have the right to vote on whether or not the plants will close.

[Q] Playboy: You once were a strong advocate of putting pressure on private business. Have you put that aside for now?

[A] Jackson: This is a political movement, and we're fighting for our share of participation in the public economy. But that does not mean that we can let private America off the hook. After all, the private economy is a three-trillion-dollar economy, and it has been crueler to women, Hispanics, blacks and Asians than the Government has. These corporations have denied entry, they have denied promotions, they refuse to share in contracts for trade. They've gotten Government subsidies in taxes, Government contracts without obligation. If I were to list a series of priorities for black and poor people, they would be, first, to own a private business; second, to have a private job; third, to have a public job; fourth, to have public aid.

[Q] Playboy: Do you favor Government planning to direct corporate activities?

[A] Jackson: We must exert more influence over corporate behavior in this country--at least commensurate with our investment in those corporations. If we give a corporation a tax subsidy, we must then demand some return on our investment. If you put $1000 in the bank, you expect to make X amount of interest. A bank can open in your community, take your money and then reserve the right to not reinvest in that community. There should be a greater sense of economic planning in this country--or a more fundamental covenant among labor, business and Government.

[A] Now, planning does not always mean controlling something; it means directing. When Reagan talks about establishing enterprise zones to end urban blight, which is his plan, he does not attach a budget to it, so he is not serious about it. But it is a plan. Reagan planned to use unemployment to fight inflation; that's why unemployment went up to almost 11 percent. His plan reduced inflation, but unemployment cost the country 30 billion dollars for every percentage point it went up. There are plans every day; the question is, What are we planning? Right now, we are not planning to feed the hungry--there are 3,000,000 more children not nourished; there are 5,000,000 more people in poverty.

[Q] Playboy: Do you identify with the European social-democratic tradition?

[A] Jackson: I don't know enough about it to say I identify with it; I know that I tend to identify with people who are maximizing a commitment to children and women and poor people, people who are fighting for peace, for justice, people who are fighting for the collective good--that appeals to me. But that comes under different labels everywhere, and the label is not as important to me as the essence of it is.

[Q] Playboy: You've mentioned women as participants in your Rainbow Coalition. What do women, as a group, have at stake in the struggle of poor blacks?

[A] Jackson: It is clear that the E.R.A. will not become a reality so long as it remains narrowly defined and dominated by white women. White women, black women, Hispanic women, underprivileged women must see their common interest in the E.R.A. as an economic-rights amendment that protects their adulthood as well as their need to have adequate wages and opportunities to protect their children, because most poor children are in a house headed by a woman without a man. In the past ten years, we've proved that we can survive without one another, but we've not proved we can win without one another.

[Q] Playboy: What is your position on abortion?

[A] Jackson: I do not favor a legal ban on abortion, but it's a complex issue. There is a place to be between being completely pro-choice and completely pro-life. Part of my problem with it is my sensitivity about just how precious children are who are born in the lower economic strata. If my mother had had to make a case for her (continued on page 186)Jesse Jackson(continued from page 132) economic stability before having a baby, I wouldn't have been born--or if she'd had to prove there was a father in the home, which she couldn't. I'm sensitive to what that represents. On the other hand, my daughter was born six months after my wife and I were married. I understand the tensions and dynamics in these questions, so I think that to demand that people have unequivocal stands on the issue just polarizes things.

[A] It's strange: One group says, "We love babies so much, we insist that people take no measures to prevent their being born." Another group says, "We love babies so much, they must be born under any circumstances." Yet another group says, "We love babies so much, they should arrive only under certain circumstances--certainly not without parents' having proper housing and job and so forth." So which group loves babies the most?

[A] One solution is to begin serious education in the formative years on the power of your body. The controversy over abortion is a little like the question of nuclear war--do you react the day after or do you take measures the day before? Educate the kids the day before and you'll reduce the chances of a day after. On the other hand--it gets so strange!--what does it mean to be pro-life, to say you love life so much, and then vote against prenatal care, health care, food stamps? So it's easy to play one crowd off against another. It's ringing people's bells. Our job is to find the true common ground between pro-choice and pro-life.

[Q] Playboy: You've tried to enlist gays in your coalition. But you are a Baptist minister, and many Baptists regard homosexuality as a sin. Isn't that right?

[A] Jackson: Well, there's a growing maturity among clergymen and a belief that we should allow God to be the ultimate judge. We must support freedom of choice, but we must remind people that they must live with the consequences of their choices. God gives us freedom of choice--that's why you have so many different denominations--and people have the right to be religious or not religious.

[Q] Playboy: Well, we do and we don't. You know, we had Jimmy Carter, who told us he prayed 20 or 40 times a day; Reagan is talking again about making kids pray in school; and here you are, a Baptist minister. Do we ever get enough of you guys?

[A] Jackson: One can have a commitment to modern imperatives without imposing one's religious persuasion upon other people. I've found in religion, whether I'm with Hindus or Buddhists or Jews or Christians or Moslems, that I try to search for the common ground, the ecumenical spirit. Prayer is a form of discipline that I engage in and it works for me, but this is a secular nation. We have a sacred obligation to welcome the outcast, to feed the hungry and to help the needy--that is a sacred obligation--but our nation lives by the Constitution, not by the Bible.

[Q] Playboy: Do you have any fears that this injection of religion into politics will get out of hand?

[A] Jackson: No, my fear is that secularism and indifference will get out of hand. We cannot become too obsessed with caring for the poor and the disabled and the needy and the rejected, but we can become obsessed with making money and measuring strength by military might.

[Q] Playboy: How do you feel about Reagan's invoking religious appeals all the time? You're a Baptist minister, yet he's the one calling for prayer in the schools.

[A] Jackson: But it's hypocritical. Reagan's call is to prayer without moral obligation. We are taught in the Bible when anyone says, "Lord, Lord, am I getting to the kingdom?" that a tree shall be known by the fruit that it bears, not by the bark it wears. So Reagan, on the one hand, is for prayer in the schools, while on the other hand, he cuts the school-lunch program. He's for prayer in the schools but not for providing food for children who are poor and malnourished. The religious mandate is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and liberate the captive and to be judged by how you treat the least of those. And my impression is that Reagan exploits people's high regard for prayer. He also exploits our sense of patriotism. When he calls upon us to be patriotic, he knows Americans are patriotic and have good reason to be. Being patriotic and dying in Lebanon should not be seen as one and the same. You can be patriotic without being foolish.

[Q] Playboy: Incidentally, as a Baptist minister, do you have any qualms about appearing in Playboy? Some in your faith feel somewhat puritanical.

[A] Jackson: This puritanical age is also a very punitive age. And it has gone to the logical conclusion. It has chosen superstition over science. But I think our country's strength has always relied on certain kinds of equal combinations--the secular and the spiritual. I think that in some sense, Playboy has had this strange combination of the universal appeal of sex on the one hand and its challenging intellectual appeal--these classic Interviews--on the other; it attracts an interesting, an unusual mix of people. It's similar to this country's strength: Many people who take pride in the freedom of our secular society reject the fact that this is a secular state. To find a balance--that's the challenge of the miracle of the American experience.

[Q] Playboy: Back to more mundane matters. You've expressed some bitterness about how the press has treated you----

[A] Jackson: I'm not sure I'm bitter about it. People generally are distrustful of the American press, because each night, for the most part, a handful of journalists impose their will on the American public. Most places you go, if you make any kind of joke or crack about the press, people start laughing or hissing or booing, because it's as if they don't have a way to strike back.

[Q] Playboy: Do you feel your ties to the Arab world have been unfairly picked on? When the issue of payments by the Arab League to Push came up on the front page of The New York Times, some people around you felt that it was done deliberately. They claim The New York Times was out to get you. How do you assess that?

[A] Jackson: I don't know. Many people at The New York Times itself feel it was vindictive and overkill. After all, when I went to Syria, The New York Times was scathing about me in its editorials. And when I brought Goodman back, it was ungracious. It still found something wrong with my going to Syria. Even though it was within the law, the Times was less gracious than President Reagan was--far less gracious. As I recall, it did not put the photograph of Goodman on the front page, as most other papers in the world did. It has taken a definite attitude toward my campaign and what I stand for. [The New York Times did, in fact, run the picture of Goodman on its front page.]

[Q] Playboy: Why do you think the Times has done that?

[A] Jackson: I think it's self-evident what the Times is doing. I just hope that the warfare will end and there will be more congenial relations.

[Q] Playboy: Yet your adversaries on the question of your Arab ties will say you fired the first shot by embracing Yasir Arafat and adopting a strong pro-Arab stance during your Middle East trips.

[A] Jackson: When I went to the Middle East, I went to meet with Prime Minister Begin; he refused to meet with me. I wanted to meet with Arafat as well, and I went to see him to appeal to both sides for mutual recognition of the P.L.O. and Israel. The price that both sides are paying for their refusal to recognize each other is just expanded brutality--murder. No one would have thought that Begin and Sadat could sit around a table and end up with their arms outstretched to each other, all because of a personal relationship. That happened only because a leader took an aggressive position and saw more advantages in peace than in fighting.

[Q] Playboy: Columnist George Will wrote a column that accused you of ignoring Syrian repression and of apologizing for President Assad----

[A] Jackson: I didn't apologize for Assad! That's not true! George Will was so visibly shook up by the success of the Goodman rescue mission that he was incoherent. He's not a good source. Will was hoping that we would fail, which meant he hoped Goodman would remain in jail; if he had remained in jail, he would have been war bait. That meant he could very well have been a stimulus to expand conflict between America and Syria. So Will's reaction was wholly irrational. It reminds me of people's criticizing the successful mission of Jesus when he healed a blind man one Sabbath; they complained because of the upset--they were not accustomed to reporting such news. Except for the blind man: He could see. When all of the dust clears away, you can always say that Goodman was once in jail and now he is free. As a result, Reagan sent Assad a letter to express his thanks, and then Ambassador Donald Rumsfeld met with Assad for the first time. So our mission was to relieve the pressure--to try to open up a dialog--and we were successful.

[Q] Playboy: Ever since your Syrian mission, you've had a pretty large press contingent following you. But we notice that there's a high percentage of black reporters; do you find it easier to relate to them?

[A] Jackson: Not necessarily. I have nothing to do with it, because I don't assign the reporters. But the black reporters do understand the nuances in the black community much better than white reporters do, for the most part. The white reporters have much to learn from black reporters on certain beats--and vice versa.

[Q] Playboy: Do you think black reporters try to prove themselves by showing that they are tough and independent--and then cut you down? It was a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman, who broke the news about your calling Jews Hymies, wasn't it?

[A] Jackson: Yes, and it was unfortunate, because it was a private, colloquial talk. That's why it wasn't even reported directly in the first story. There were a couple of other words he may have heard, too. Why didn't he report them?

[Q] Playboy: Such as?

[A] Jackson: In that conversation and others, I heard people laughingly refer to "Ay-rabs" and niggers--not in a derogatory sense, almost affectionately.

[Q] Playboy: But you're not saying that if we heard Gary Hart use the word nigger that we shouldn't report it, are you?

[A] Jackson: No, if you heard any number of words like that you should report them all. But it's a matter of context. All I'm saying is that I want people to play by one set of rules.

[Q] Playboy: We don't understand what you're saying. You agree we should report it if Hart were to say Ay-rab or nigger, right?

[A] Jackson: Sure.

[Q] Playboy: So shouldn't we report your using the word Hymie?

[A] Jackson: My point is, you should report all of what is said, so if you report private, colloquial use of language about Jewish people, you should also report your own use of language about black people and Arabs.

[Q] Playboy: You mean the reporter used those terms.

[A] Jackson: Sure. Except one term is more insulting than the other.

[Q] Playboy: Not to belabor this, but where did you first hear the word Hymie?

[A] Jackson: In South Carolina. I grew up all my life using words like Hymie, Stymie, Buckwheat--all those characters.

[Q] Playboy: Buckwheat was black; Hymie was Jewish, what was Stymie?

[A] Jackson: I don't know. The point is, there was nothing particularly offensive about Hymie when it was used. There's a friend we have called Hymie Johnson. Since this whole thing happened, a number of Jewish people have called me to tell me that their children and cousins are named Hymie. People have to stretch to make it offensive. As literate as you are, you had to ask me what it means. Which is the point.

[Q] Playboy: You clearly are the black American with the greatest recognition right now. Even though you stress that you are just a vehicle for the aspirations of your coalition, isn't it a fact that one result of this campaign will be that you will be the acknowledged national black leader?

[A] Jackson: No.

[Q] Playboy: It's not even something you can accept or reject; isn't it just a matter of name recognition?

[A] Jackson: No. I'm leading the Rainbow Coalition. This is not an ethnic march; this is a political movement to pull together the strength of rejected groups so they may be able to serve more effectively and be served better by their Government. That's what the real point is.

[Q] Playboy: When you were in the civil rights movement, did you think you would have to go around to young blacks one day to get them to say, "I am somebody," or did you feel that simply ending legal discrimination would solve the problem?

[A] Jackson: One day, James Meredith came to meet with Dr. King, Ralph Abernathy and some of the rest of us and announced he was going to lead a march in Mississippi against fear. They thought he was crazy--a march against fear? Who can see fear, who can touch fear? But he led the march down the road and got shot. Remember that? He was trying to affirm something.

[A] I was standing on the back of a truck one day in Resurrection City during the Poor People's March in 1968, and on that particular morning, it was raining, Dr. King was dead, Robert Kennedy was dead, we were really in despair. I looked down from that truck and saw black women, white women, Indian women, most of them with their babies, very few men--one boy died--some of them catching hepatitis, the Government had turned its back on us; just us, nobodies! And I told those people, "Don't let them break your spirit! Repeat after me: 'I am somebody!' Say, 'I may be poor, but I am somebody. I may be on welfare, I may be unskilled, I am somebody. Respect me!' Say, 'I am more than what you see. The me that makes me me, my essence, is important; I am God's child, I am somebody!' " And it became a battle cry. People began to gain strength. Now, around the world, people have chanted that battle cry.

[Q] Playboy: If this Presidential race is hopeless in practical terms, will you feel personally bitter?

[A] Jackson: I don't have any hatred, I don't have any bitterness, and I have participated in enough victories in my life to feel good. If we were still in the back of the bus, I might be bitter. Who won that fight? We had big opposition--the Wool-worth Company and its lunch counter--but we won that fight. Who won the fight against the Greyhound and Trailways bus policies? Vietnam? Open housing? Who won those fights? George Wallace stood in the door and said, "Segregation now, tomorrow and forever." We won that fight. In Little Rock, we won that fight. So, really, there are a series of victories that are so inspirational they should remove any bitterness. Our main hope is that we can keep winning.

[Q] Playboy: Even if you don't win conventionally? Because if there's one thing that's said about you, it's that you don't play politics in the standard way, that you're a wild card. Anything to that?

[A] Jackson: I don't know. But wild cards usually beat aces, don't they?

"Ultimately, the poor do not just want liberal friends, they want to be empowered."

"There is a place to be between being completely pro-choice and completely pro-life."

"Reagan exploits our high regard for prayer. He also exploits our sense of patriotism."