Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
148843
label
Campaign - Miscellaneous, 6/76-10/76
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
148843
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Campaign - Miscellaneous, 6/76-10/76
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Staff Secretary
1976 Campaign Transition File
subjects
Political campaign strategies
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
148843
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-06-01
month
6
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
16816ad0257a4074
ocrText
Campaign-Miscellaneous, 6/76-10/76
Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: 1976 Campaign Transition File;
Folder: Campaign-Miscellaneous, 6/76-10/76; Container 1
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf
Ros- Read
JC
INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date June 28, 1976
From: De Jongh Franklin
To R
To:
Hamilton Jordan
Re:
Robert E. Kintner
Mr. Kintner is in his late sixties and resides in Washington
(we almost worked out the use of his house for Frank Moore) ;
was a Washington col Tumnist and the only person to have been
President of two major networks (ABC and NBC)
Frank Moore and I had a nice visit with him several weeks
ago and he is completely sold on Jimmy Carter.
The enclosed letter dated June 24th appears to be a reasonable
offer and I would like to know how to respond.
De Jongh Franklin
DF:rs
CC: Honorable Jimmy Carter
Mr. Frank Moore
Mr. R. J. Lipshutz
Mr. Jody Powell
Dear 7/27/74 Han menod #2 Here after Hamilton -#1 the had O.Jan d copy of then
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
PAGE ONE
MEMORANDUM FOR AN INTERESTED PERSON
No.1
7/9/76
PRIVATE
The following stark, undefined conclusions are based on my
judgment which, in turn, is supplemented by knowledge of the
thinking of owners of top media, columnists and commentators,
business and financial leaders and political satraps. Any
part of the memorandum may be used but none of it can be
attributed to me in accordance with our discussion.
The conclusions I want to suggest, for deep thinking now, are
based on the belief that the Gallup Poll will be wrong as of
November and the presidential race will be high competitive,
quite close and extremely bitter.
Governor Carter has, either publicly expressed or privately
held, a deep segment of opinion which has serious doubts as
to his ability, experience and background to be President.
These doubts focus as follows:
A. While little discussed, I feel the "religious
issue" is the most important issue in the cam-
paign. Unfortunately, it is not clear cut like
the opposition Jack Kennedy had as a Catholic.
Unfortunately, it cannot be fought as easily.
Jack Kennedy's critics talked of the Pope "con-
trolling the United States", simple argument to
combat. Governor Carter's doubters express
concern over separation of church and state and
the imposition of an unwanted morality on
individuals.
The solution is obviously similar to Kennedy's
appearance in Houston but it should take a dif-
ferent form. The Bill Moyers interview was
cogent but was read by few people. I actually
literally almost know of no one who understands
a Southern Baptist, a moral re-birth and the
meanings and objectives. These are vague doubts
PAGE TWO
PRIVATE
7/9/76
but they will have a real effect in the voting
booth. Governor Carter should have a well
planned campaign to explain his religion - un-
known in the North; to explain his personal
position and to guarantee separation of state
and religion.
B. For some reason, I find that the average
Catholic thinks the Southern Baptist is anti-
Catholic. I also find that many persons of
Jewish faith are nervous about the Baptist
religion. No one can get elected President with-
out the bulk of the Catholics in the suburb and
the bulk of the Jews in the big cities. They need
reassurance from their leadership even though the
Catholics have broken away, in part, from their
hierarchy. There should be a well organized
campaign for support from the Cardinals of the
various dioceses and from the leaders of the many
militant pro-Isreal Jewish organizations in the
clergy. President Roosevelt was the past-master
of this with Cardinal Spellman of St. Patrick's
in New York City.
C. While Pennsylvania showed that Governor Carter can
win without militant support from either labor
leadership or Democratic organization leadership,
it will not quite be the same when he is fielding
President Ford or Governor Reagan. While individual
unions such as the UAW will will work hard alone,
I learned first hand at the White House what whole-
hearted support of George Meany really means.
Meany likes to be "on the inside"; he likes to
know about events ahead of time. President Johnson,
before 1964 and for a couple of years after, saw
him two or three times a week, alone, in his bedroom
early in the morning. To Meany, Johnson could do no
wrong - war or no war, etc.
PAGE THREE
PRIVATE
7/9/76
Governor Carter already has Mayor Daly. Where he
is weakest is in New York where he does not really
have Governor Carey; in Massachusetts where he
does not have an all-out from Senator Kennedy; in
California where Governor Brown's organization is
anti-Carter and in Pennsylvania where, unfortunately,
there is only a remnant of Democratic politics left.
To be certain to carry New York and Massachusetts,
you certainly need both the New York City leaders
and Governor Carey and you need Ted Kennedy who is
probably the best campaigner in America and a
Catholic, no matter what his morality. In
Pennsylvania, you have to, in effect, build your own
organization, particularly in Philadelphia and in
California, in my opinion, Brown will never be for
Carter and you have to turn to the "financial fat
cats" to create a parallel organization to Brown's
in that state. All of you know more about this
field than I do but on the basis that Governor
Carter will carry the South and Southwest, all he
needs are several industrial states to be elected.
D. To return briefly to the religious field, besides
an unspoken uncertainty about Governor Carter's
religious zeal, the various Northern Protestant de-
nominations, such as my church, the Northern
Presbyterians, etc., all have unspoken doubts on
fundamentalist religion, as I will call it for lack
of a better word. While the Catholic population
has grown tremendously, and in my judgment, the
suburbs are controlled by $15,000 - $25,000
Catholics, this is still a Protestant country but
what goes as a Protestant in the South is not quite
the same as a Protestant in the North, vis a vis
Roosevelt's Episcopalian and Johnson's Church of
Christ. Since neither President Ford nor Governor
Reagan are religious - at least outwardly, Governor
Carter has a tremendous advantage here among clergy,
many of whom, both black and white, can have real
PAGE FOUR
PRIVATE
7/9/76
effects on the electorate. Protestant clergy has
never really counted except to the degree that
Jack Kennedy could do it as a Catholic and Harry
Truman automatically got their support as a mid-
West Baptist. This is the year, I believe, they
should be brought into political circles just as
politicians always bring in Catholic and Jewish
leaders.
E. This paragraph is hard to write. There is an un-
easy feeling among important opinion makers that
I talk to that Governor Carter tells listeners
what they want to hear. I think the opposite is
true, and I think his political record shows it.
However, his opponents have sold a good segment
of the voters that the Governor takes no stands
and constantly alters positions. This can only
be changed by the speeches of the candidate him-
self, his personal conduct and his actions.
F. Finally, Governor Carter, strange as it sounds, is
getting too much national exposure, for too pica-
yune reasons. I realize better than most that the
demands of newspapers and TV must be met for good-
will purposes. Governor Carter's first success in
the primaries came as a "new face". He is now an
"old face". Part of Governor Brown's success came
as a "new face". Reagan controls his exposure
carefully and Ford, of course, has exposure doing
Presidential duties. As the campaign starts, I
believe that an attempt to make exposure of
Governor Carter "more important" in relation to the
public seeing him on TV which is the guts of ex-
posure is highly important. I also believe Governor
Carter should be associated more with "significant
policy" and less with details of planning the upcoming
campaign. In other words, the public knows that
PAGE FIVE
PRIVATE
7/9/76
Governor Carter is tough, bright and able but to
put it nastily, people are asking "is he ready
for the big league?" which depends on associating
him publicly with important and significant events.
His selection of vice president - which I would
hope would be a Northern Catholic from the Senate -
will have an effect on his public image but I think
he should be very careful not to play a game as
Johnson did in 1964 in Atlantic City with Hubert.
Humphrey.
There is no doubt that if the election were held today, Governor
Carter would win. Hanging over his campaign is the memory of
Harry Truman beating Tom Dewey. I believe there is too much
expression of confidence that "I am going to be elected. I
do not think the average voter likes to be taken for granted
and I would cut down the optimism and make it more reasonable
and realistic
RobetE Kutu
Robert E. Kintner
P.S: This memorandum was dictated before Governor Cater's
appearance at the Democratic National Convention activities.
He did a tremendously effective job - showing experience,
ability to express himself and appropriate responses - on
"Meet The Press" and on the CBS and NBC programs. He has
conducted himself, as of this writing, with dignity and
has given an image of a well-informed, thoughtful,
purposeful activist which is an excellent public-relations
image.
As of this writing, Governor Carter has not selected a
vice presidential candidate. Jack Kennedy would not be
President if Johnson had not enabled him to carry Texas
and hold part of the South. Even more this year, I be-
lieve the vice presidential candidate will be a plus or a
minus and if Mr. Ford is nominated and selects Governor
Reagan, you will have a more united party; an excellent
campaign but the Republicans will loose to the moderates.
PAGE Six
PRIVATE
7/4/21
If he selects John Connelly, I doubt if he can carry
Texas and while John will be an excellent campaigner
and an excellent strategist, I think he will be a very
weak candidate because of his indictment. Muskey's
big advantage is being a Catholic, from the North,
with great experience, reliability and well informed.
Glenn's attributes are his astronaut training, his
following in Ohio and a "hero worship" like Eisenhower
had. I do not think Mondale will add much to the
ticket and great fun will be made of his presidential
withdrawal. If the Governor wants a liberal, perhaps
he will be better off with a Church, or if he wants a
right-moderate, with Jackson but Jackson has no
political appeal. Finally, I believe I am going to be
proven wrong in that the Governor has communicated his
search for a vice presidential candidate with dignity,
fairness, reliability and has yet to reach any impression
of a public device which was present with Johnson in
1964.
Robert E. Kintner
PPS. a deliberately declared the has the conents.
the anoth lest 4, of comes, it Gaum's establishmat They
of leadership & the degree of hidde opportun. V.P.
hill establed the compayn enage, phs the
Actection. is designed fn Green carters' "enner and in
This a mins people - altern the no prent, and t
few moth then effort n more. of nont you get t
nt us Green carta + amounts take then buf rest.
Let me lear.
Bah
Pag one
7/20/10
MEMORANDUM FOR AN INTERESTED PERSON
PRIVATE
F1-A
In my memorandum on reactions to Governor Carter's campaign
for the Presidency, I ended it, with the weekend before the
Democratic National Convention; ending it before a vice
presidential candidate had been selected but emphasized the
importance of a Catholic from the north and questioned the
reaction to the procedure being used by Governor Carter to
select a running mate.
The conclusions I have given concerning the Democratic
National Convention, the procedure of vice presidential selec-
tion, the mood of the convention and the selection of Senator
Mondale, in brief, follow:
1. Governor Carter emerged as an experienced leader; an
astute administrator; a more warm person, particularly
with his family, and the convention delegates showed that
they were looking to him for leadership; accepted him as
their leader and he carried out that role well, partic-
ularly in his acceptance speech; his administration and
ability was shown in the remarkable organization of the
convention - the best that I have ever seen and I have
been to or seen all conventions since 1936, except when
I was in World War II. Governor Carter showed compassion,
depth, understanding and emotion about his country which
characters were obviously real and effective to both the
audience there and the TV audience.
2. Governor Carter was correct in the care, the precaution
and the study that he gave in choosing Senator Mondale
instead of the "farce" of President Johnson in 1964 in
choosing Mr. Humphrey. Governor Carter showed a con-
science concerning a possible successor as president, a
desire to have a man with a good reputation and one who
is compatible with him. All of these are pluses. To
my mind, it was unfortunate that there was not available -
PAGETWO
7/80/76
PRIVATE
#i-A
there was not - a northern Catholic senator, from a
genuinely industrial state. By selecting Senator Mondale,
politically, Governor Carter moved the label of himself
from a moderate-right to a moderate-liberal figure and,
in effect, brought into the Democratic Party "new" New
Dealers such as the Humphreyites, the Udalites, etc. In
effect, he recreated, at least publicly, a form of of
the coalition that re-elected Roosevelt for four terms.
He also brought in segments of organized labor who had
been cool to him; so-called intellectual opinion makers
on the liberal side who had been unable to analyze his
position. Although it was not possible to do, his selec-
tion of Senator Mondale made no dent in Catholic and
Jewish opposition nor is Mondale really identified with
truly industrial states such as Kennedy and Brown are,
whom, obviously, Governor Carter could not select.
There are doubts as to the effectiveness of Senator
Mondale as a day-to-day campaigner in industrial centers
but he handled himself extremely well at the convention.
3. Not only did Governor Carter establish that he was the
leader of the Democratic Party, and was determined to be
the leader of the country, but the TV pictures of him
with his family - with his wife, his mother and his
children, etc., showed him more intimately than he has
been furturate before. This was a definite plus, par-
ticularly because of the attractiveness and effective-
ness of Mrs. Carter and Miss Lillian and the rest of the
family. He portrayed a type of American family that
most Americans like to see.
4. While Governor Carter is obviously in control of the
Democratic Party, as an excellent administrator sur-
rounded by loyal and able people, the convention also
showed two weaknesses that remain in his campaign -
apathy and too much self-confidence. The convention was
possibly the greatest Democratic Convention in history
as far as disputes but it lacked the exuberant enthusiasm
for the candidate except in the case of Mayor Daly that
you might expect. The major problem of campaigning is
to arouse the type of enthusiasm, to be frank, that
Page three
7/20/76
PRIVATE
1-A
Governor Brown had when he visited Maryland and Oregon
and the type of enthusiasm that was commonplace during
all of the Roosevelt campaigns except in 1944. How
you get rid of the influence of a one-sided Gallup Poll;
how you convince the rank-and-file Democrats that neither
Ford or Reagan is a push-over will take all the ingenuity
of Governor Carter's press and advertising staff. Union
members can be aroused, in part, by their chapter leader-
ship and national leadership. Political organizations
can be aroused by political leaders such as Mayor Daly
of which there are now very few but to get a spontaneity
of support when Governor Carter visits and campaigns
will be, in my judgment, one of the tests of the success
of his campaign.
5. Finally, the Democratic National Convention must be con-
sidered a great success and a great tribute to Governor
Carter and his organization. It was mechanically the
best organization I have ever seen; Governor Carter
stood out as a compassionate, experienced and able leader;
he brought back into the Party the liberal forces that
were very unenthusiastic; he reunited the Democratic Party
as it has never been reunited and he set proper goals and
proper objectives for achieving the national interest
without sacrificing his desire to make the federal govern-
ment more effective. But on only one occasion - the
closing when the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr. spoke -
did you have the old-time enthusiasm and spirit that I
think so necessary to national political success. Whether
or not, in previous conventions, the enthusiasm was arti-
ficial, as in Nixon's case, it plays a large part in the
psychology of a campaign.
There are vital weak spots, politically, in the north.
One is the attitude of Senator Kennedy, the leader of the
most Democratic state, Massachusetts; the other is the
lack of enthusiasm of Governor Brown, in the largest state
of the Union; the third is the lack of proper leadership
and organization in New York State and in Pennsylvania.
Page tour
7/80/74
PRIVATE
1-A
I also repeat, not withstanding Governor. Carter's moving
words at Sunday School last Sunday, that his campaign is
faced with a "religious problem" relating principally to
the Catholics but partially to the Jews but I think the
right overall conclusion is the Democratic National Con-
vention was a great tribute to Governor Carter, a great
success for him and for his family and proved once again
the skill of his organization but that a vague concept
called "hero worship" is now needed - the type of support
that Roosevelt had; that Willkie had in the beginning of
his campaign; that Truman had ten years after he left
office; that Ike had as a military hero; that John Kennedy
had as an articulate, handsome young man and that neither
Johnson or Nixon had and they wanted because in one case,
the Republican Party beat itself and in the other case,
the Democratic Party beat itself.
Rilate Kenter
Robert E. Kintner
ROBERT E. KINTNER
C
2727 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20007
August 17, 1976
Dejongh Franklin, Esq.
2400 First National Bank Tower
PRIVATE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Dejongh:
I have been in the Sheboygan, Wisconsin area,
one of the most prosperous manufacturing/diary
regions in the country, basically Republican in
leadership and Democratic among the workers. I had
eight dinner parties given for me by such people as
Kohler, owner of a large plumbing company; Reiss,
owner of huge coal and shipping interests;
Testwuide, owner of banks, holding companies, etc.
Most of these people were Republican (two of the
Kohlers were, of course, governors of Wisconsin)
and found among 100 guests of varying occupations,
two principle questions:
1. What kind of a person is Governor Carter -
is he a moderate or an extreme liberal - will he in-
crease or decrease government activities, or, in
brief, what makes him tick?
2. Everyone should believe in loving one's
neighbor, as the Bible says, but what does a Southern
Baptist feel about such minority religions and ethnic
groups such as the Catholics (Sheboygan is 40%
Catholic) and about the Jews (Sheboygan aided Israel
substantially) While this opinion came from rich
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
-2-
professional and outstanding local leaders, from many
indications, I am sure both sets of questions are wide-
spread. Obviously, there are no single answers, nor is
there any magic formula to convince doubters that
Governor Carter is sincere and a moderate-liberal, and
that his religion will not interfere with the separa-
tion of religion and government. All the questions can
only be answered by speeches, press conferences, TV
appearances - with the public making its own judgment.
But, I have two suggestions that may ease the re-
lationship between Governor Carter and those of the
Jewish faith and Governor Carter and those of the
Catholic faith, just as a stone thrown into a lake
causes ripples.
I suggest that Governor Carter see, in confidence,
the Israeli ambassador to the United States. President
Nixon used the Israeli embassy effectively to rally
Jewish support to him in 1972. I think if the
Have done
Governor could take the time and effort, to report
So. twice
personally to the ambassador what he said so ably in
his speech during the primaries, the ambassador, in
turn, could have great influence among Zionists and
sheady The year
non-Zionists in this country. Ford has a record of
strong support for Israel not withstanding Secretary
J.C.
Kissinger's leaning toward the Arabs and aid is at
its top point. Kissinger will be very silent on pro-
Arab moves during the campaign. Governor Carter
should not, and could not, change his basic position
of an overall peace, with Israel withdrawing from
conquered territory and with the Palestinians having
a place in the middle East. But personal contact is
extremely valuable with a state that has no real ally
except the United States.
Secondly, the trouble with the "Catholic problem"
is that is is now all mixed up with the abortion issue.
At first it was a question of the Southern Baptist's
attitude towards Catholicism and ethnic races. Now,
FOR
-3-
as Cardinal Cook says, it is a matter of whether the
Governor is for a constitutional amendment prohibiting
abortions. Onviously, Governor Carter cannot and
should not change his position on abortion but he, I
believe, should transfer the dialogue to his acceptance
of Catholicism as a religion and no one in this country,
since Cardinal Cook seems out of the picture, could be
more effective than the Vatican representative in
Washington, perhaps buttressed by one or two more
reasonable cardinals than Cardinal Cook.
I believe you will think I am placing too much em-
phasis on the religion issue. There are no questions
in my mind that the country is becoming more and more
religious; that it is becoming less and less material-
istic and that the public is looking for a Christian
leadership of honesty, frankness and determination but,
unfortunately, a denominational religion is doomed HIGH in
the north, the northeast and the mid-west - and it is
basically of a different type of expression, procedure
and terms than that of a Southern Baptist even though
all come almost to the same end. It is not like the
problem of Jack Kennedy on Catholicism and the threat
of control of the United States by the Pope. It is, I
believe, a lack of understanding - "a mysterious pro-
cedure" which many Northern Catholics, Protestants and
Jews do not understand - of the Southern Baptist.
I have one other suggestion. Governor Carter
speaks frequently at his church in Plains, Georgia. He
has talked many times of the meaning of love, of his
religion and of its meaning to him. I think he might
consider a talk, in the church, on what Southern
Baptists represent, in contrast to Catholics, Jews and
other Protestants, in simple terms, easily understood
by a layman, because people do not fear facts basically,
they fear lack of facts.
-4-
The sentiment in Milwaukee, Sheboygan and the sur-
rounding territory is that Governor Carter is sure to
be elected - an over-confidence I do not like. There
is the beginning of a feeling that the Republicans are
the under-dogs just as there was for Truman against
Dewey. Unfortunately, Senator Mondale does not have a
real following, in my opinion, in the mid-West. His
appointment, there, has signified that Governor Carter
has moved toward the left, more toward the new deal
and becoming less of a moderate. This helped Governor
Carter among union members, workers and, in many cases,
the farmers who were quite discontented due to the
trials and tribulations of the weather. But I do not
believe the mid-West farming/industrial states look on
the vice presidential candidate as a national leader
and, therefore, the election, as usual, will be de-
termined completely by their opinion of Governor Carter.
Unfortunately, since people have impressions, not
knowledge, in politics, the Republican campaign and the
campaign of Governor Carter's primary opponent, while THAT
he does not take positions on issues, is being
accepted quite generally among the various types of
people I talked to. This is not true, if you read his
speeches carefully, but the public gets the impression
basically from the short summaries of TV. While no
candidate can commit himself too much, I believe it
important, psychologically, that the Governor and his
staff create a clear campaign, to the effect that he
is taking positions but really are the positions of
Mr. Ford?
what
Finally, in my visit to Wisconsin there was an
indication that there is a great upsurge of "patriot-
ism" in the country - a flying of flags; a defense of
the country; an attack on the Russians and Chinese;
and a conclusion that we have been taken by being too
pliable in foreign policies a la Kissinger. I think
-5-
the country now is looking mostly for a strong America
and is not as interested in aid to underdeveloped
countries, alliance with the Russians and Chinese as
they were after World War II.
I also believe that continuous, steady but
reasonable attacks on "Watergate", including Mr. Nixon
and naming by name the associates who went to jail, will
pay off politically which may well be a job Senator
Mondale could do effectively. No one I have ever met
tries to defend Watergate except to say "that is a way
all politicians are". It is highly important that the
Nixon administration be singled out as an exception,
not as a rule of government. It is the biggest and best
issue, I believe, that Governor Carter and the Democratic
party has - no matter what the editorial writers, etc.,
say about reviving the subject.
Every good wish.
Sincerely,
Bot Kintner
Robert E. Kintner
for
There is a sash of
"fresadvise" on the
debates. This is is
among the best. Barry
& Jody are assimilating
the rest & will send
a summary (with
the original attached)
to you shortly.
69
ROBERT E. KINTNER
2727 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
August 23, 1976
Dejongh Franklin, Esquire
2400 First National Bank Tower
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
PRIVATE
Dear Dejongh:
Since President Ford and Governor Carter have
decided to debate, perhaps it will be helpful to
Governor Carter to give him certain conclusions I
learned since I was one of the two or three network
executives who arranged the Kennedy-Nixon debates
of 1960. I know I need not emphasize the importance
of these debates; the unbelievable audience they will
get and the necessity of certain precautions by
Governor Carter or his representatives. My conclu-
sions from 1960 follow:
1. Surprisingly enough, the most important
factor is the studio itself, and its camera and
sound equipment. As I understand it, which I think
is wrong but I think is required by law, you will
not use a television studio. One of the reasons
that Jack Kennedy won so decisively the first de-
bate was that the Chicago studio was perfect for
his position, as to camera angles, sound, etc. He
also had professional make-up, while Nixon used
amateur make-up. I urge you to have a skilled tech-
nical television expert--a producer or director--the
night before, or the day of the broadcast, to inspect
the hall in relation to Governor Carter's position,
the location of the cameras, the backdrop, the acous-
tics from where he speaks, and his ability to hear
the questions. I urge also that you use a profes-
sional make-up expert, borrowed from one of the net-
works or from a large independent company.
TRUSES
ACTION MADE FOR
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
-2-
2. The debate will get out-of-hand; the questions
will be inappropriate and there will be a lack of
orderliness unless the moderator is a television pro-
fessional such as the moderators on "Meet the Press,"
"Face the Nation" and "Issues and Answers.' If, as
in the old Town Meetings of the air, the League of
Women Voters permits questions from the rank-and-file,
they will be rambling, in effect, speeches, and are
sure to reflect the political feelings of the ques-
tioner. This can be very serious in creating an atmos-
phere of antagonism toward either debater.
After hour and hour of discussion, we decided
only to use skilled reporters who had their reputations
at stake, who knew the subjects involved and who were
used to presidential conference procedures. Even so,
the Kennedy forces fought tooth-and-nail to avoid pro-
Nixon reporters and scrutinized the moderator and the
questioners very carefully. They were changed with
each debate. There is danger of a"plant" by the
opposition with any questioner and there is danger
of planted embarrassing questions. These, the Carter
forces should be alerted to.
3. The word in Washington is that Ford accepted
the debates because of his convention performance--
most of all, because he felt the questioners or he
could make Governor Carter lose his calm. Kennedy won
all three debates because he never was flustered as
was Nixon. Governor Carter must give an impression
of a well-informed, emotionally-controlled, careful
leader.
4. Jack Kennedy was briefed by his staff for
hour after hour on the night and morning before the
debate. They asked him every conceivable question
in every dirty way, and through this questioning he
not only was alerted to pitfalls but he learned a
great deal of background. No holes were barred;
no interruptions of Kennedy were permitted during
the questioning, and President Kennedy told me (since
I was with him on the first debate) after it was over,
that this "skull practice" saved him. During the
afternoon of the debate, he rested.
-3-
5. Psychology is important in the debates.
Nixon always arrived ahead of time. Kennedy arrived
five minutes before the broadcast, thus keeping Nixon
on edge. President Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy had re-
viewed the set (where Kennedy was to sit, where every-
one would be located, where the cameras would be, etc.)
the night before, in a very late visit by the two of
them. I doubt if this could any longer be done with-
out undue publicity, but it could be done by a Carter
technical expert and spelled out on paper, duplicated
in a room before the broadcast.
6. The greatest secret of winning a television
debate is to convince the viewer that you know more
than your opponent; that you act non-hastily and that
you keep your temper and talk to him or her as though
you were in their living room. The second secret is
to slightly alter the questions to fit the facts you
want to portray without giving the impression you're
not responding.
7. I would suggest a format that permits each
participant to make a short five-minute summary of
his presidential objectives at the start (Ford is
too loquacious to hold to only five minutes). I
would suggest that the questions be alternated be-
tween the two men, that two minutes be allocated for
the original answer, with one minute being the limit
for a rebuttal. I would also suggest that ten minutes
be allocated at the end for each participant to sum
up his views.
8. As you know, better than I, the Republicans
have been fairly successful in a propaganda campaign
that says Governor Carter takes no stand on major
issues, or alters his stand depending on the audience.
The fact is that that is exactly what Ford does. His
stand on abortion is a good example. His acceptance
of the Reagan platform additions is a good example.
I would, if I were Governor Carter, try to use the
words, "What is your position?" on various key issues,
and try to turn the tables on this propaganda.
-4-
9. Finally, the dress of the participant is
important. It is no longer necessary to wear a blue
shirt, but the candidate should be dressed in a very
dark suit, very dignified style, and should look like
a President, because the 60-90 million who will see
parts of this broadcast like their leader to look
like a President. I would arrange for one of Governor
Carter's trusted staff members who knows him well to
work closely with a television expert to be sure that
the arrangements are fair to him.
The gist of the campaign against Governor Carter
personally by the Republicans, from people who know,
is to portray him as an untrained foreign expert, a
man without experience in national affairs who intends
to regiment the economy and the lives of the people
in a way never done before--in other words, to "out-
New Deal" the New Deal. Republicans are going to try
to portray him as a man who will do anything to get
added political support and that he has changed his
primary position, with Mondale being used to get the
liberals, the left wing, the welfare recipients and
the less fortunate, as well as the farmers, who are
unhappy with their incomes.
While Senator Mondale speaks well, the task of
invective for the Republicans. falls to Mr. Dole who,
in this respect, has no superior in the Senate. There
is some danger in the Mondale-Dole debates unless
Mondale directs his fire at the lack of leadership of
Ford and is not seduced by Dole to defend Governor
Carter. Dole is much quicker than Mondale; he is
much more used to this type of personal attack. Per-
haps Mondale should seek an image of a well-informed,
experienced senator who knows his subject and is
critical of the President's leadership (or lack of),
but does not stoop to the invective that is sure to
come from Dole.
The Democrats' greatest chance for added votes,
if you watched the convention carefully, and if you
know Ronald Reagan the way I do, is to work to get
the Reagan forces, which are at least half of the
-5-
Republicans and very conservative Democrats, to sit
this one out, or to vote for Governor Carter in order
to show the Republican moderates that they do not
represent the Republican Party. At least 800 delegates
sat on their hands when Ford was nominated. These
Reagan delegates know that Ford is not the "nice guy"
he is generally made out to be, but is an orthodox
Republican politician whose career is based on favors,
not principles. My friends in California tell me that
Reagan's nose is really out-of-joint. Certainly no
Democrat should debate him. He can make the difference
between carrying California or not. He should not be
the subject of prime Democratic attack. Ford has 100%
of conservative support now, but it is not the support
of Reagan and Helms. Their forces can put Ford behind
the eight ball, and I think most of them, at least tem-
porarily, are looking to a third party in 1980, rather
than Ford in 1976. In fact, the Republicans are getting
away with murder on the general analysis of "unity" at
their convention.
Every good wish,
Sincerely,
BA Kimber
Robert E. Kintner
P.S. I am seeing Ted Kennedy either this week or
next week, at his request.
BIS
MEMORANDUM
September 22, 1976
maintile
TO:
Governor Jimmy Carter
Governor Dolph Briscoe
FROM:
Jess Hay
Since the New York Democratic National Convention, the strong base
of moderate to conservative support in Texas for Governor Carter has eroded,
principally through our own actions and only secondarily through the advent
of John Connally as President Ford's Texas Campaign Chairman.
The problem -- which today threatens (i) our capacity to carry Texas
and, in my opinion, (ii) Jimmy Carter's ability to win the election in November --
is that in total public perception Carter's image gradually but discernibly is
being transformed from that of an intelligent, anti-big government, fiscally
responsible, highly moral and socially conscious candidate (in whom the
American people justifiably might place their trust and confidence) to that
of an extremely liberal, big spending, pro-Washington, activist (from whom
we might expect more of the same -- more complex government, more
intrusive government, more costly government, and more restraints on
individual liberties and incentives).
Although I do not believe the emerging image is a correct reflection
of Jimmy Carter, many thousands are beginning to believe it: and as more
and more perceive Jimmy Carter in this manner, the more certain it be-
comes that by election day he will be feared by some, distrusted by many
and rejected by most of our Texas electorate.
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
The Source of the Problem
The public's imaging of a presidential candidate is a very complex
matter and derives from a myraid of factors, many of which undoubtedly
are ill-defined and perhaps unfair. Accordingly, I do not purport to know,
in total, the reasons for Governor Carter's changing image among the voters;
however, based on telephone calls this week to approximately 125 of our
friends (principally from the business and "evangelical" communities of
Texas), I believe the following have been among the significant factors:
Page 2.
1)
Issues
a)
Right to Work, In recent weeks the Republicans in
Texas have given broad circulation to a report
quoting Governor Carter as having said: "Section
14-b should be repealed. If elected I will encourage
that repeal and will be pleased to sign such legisla-
tion into law. 11 This is significantly different from
the position stated by Governor Carter in Houston
and Dallas.
b)
Consumerism. All of us are consumers, but a
growing number of Americans are disenchanted
with Ralph Nader's arrogance and with the growing
tendency of Federal Bureaus to nurture and encourage
litigious quarrels among our people. This disenchant-
ment is not constricted to businessmen who are
plagued daily by strike lawyers. It extends as well
to scores of thousands and probably millions who
believe themselves to be capable of making their
own decision as to whether or not to wear seat belts
as they move their cars from the driveway into the
garage. Governor Carter's visit with Nader and,
more significantly, his statement (if he was correctly
quoted) that "the Carter administration intends to
out-Nader Nader" resulted in the impression that
government under Carter would be more intrusive,
more paternalistic and more activist than ever.
c)
Tax Reform. Most Americans respond favorably to
the ideal of tax reform, but they intuitively reject the
use of taxation to constrict personal economic growth.
Soaking the rich sounds politically safe, unless your
definition of "rich" results in too broad a class. In
a society where plumbers earn $20,000 per year and
hope someday to earn $25, 000, where bricklayers
earn $50 to $100 per day, where accountants directly
out of college earn $14,000 per year, and where
upward mobility still is a formidable force which
fuels our economy and sustains our drive as people,
it is dangerous to design tax reform in terms of
class warfare.
Page 3.
d)
Energy. Contrary to what I understand Governor
Carter's position to be, the business community
in Texas -- assisted by active dissemination of
allegations by the Republican Party -- widely
believes that Governor Carter favors (i) continued
regulation of oil and gas prices and (ii) horizontal
and vertical divestiture by the major oil companies.
There also is a vague and general feeling that the
industry will have little meaningful participation in
the evolution of Governor Carter's energy policy,
if he is elected.
e)
Humphrey-Hawkins, medical care and related issues
concern the more conservative members of the
Democratic Party of Texas; and, in combination,
are perceived as envisioning ultimately a "womb-
to-tomb" welfare system in this country.
2)
Administration Access. Repeatedly I was told this week that
Governor Carter was encircled by a closely-knit "palace
guard, 11 and that his administration would be closed to any
general and meaningful input by representatives of either
the business community or moderate members of the
Democratic Party.
3)
The Playboy Interview --although reflective of Governor
Carter's very sound theological posture -- has created
substantial unrest among the evangelical communities of
Texas, until this week the source of his most dependable
strength in the State. In addition, the remarks concerning
President Johnson have resulted in resentment bordering
on anger among many Texas Democrats.
Corrective Measures
From the point of view of carrying Texas in November, the following
would be positive steps designed to reverse the current trend:
Page 4.
1)
I believe Governor Carter would contribute immeasurably
to the desired end if, in the future and to the extent con-
sistent with his personal convictions, he would emphasize,
as he did during the primary campaigns:
a)
His belief in the people of the United Stat es, in their
creativity, in their resiliency, in their character,
in their industry and in their strength.
--
If he so believes, he should state that Americans
in general are a self-sufficient people; and
although they also are a compassionate people
(willing, able and anxious to help those in need)
the American people do not need and do not
want to be cared for from womb-to-tomb by
a patronizing government.
b)
His belief that government is too big, too complex,
too arrogant, too expensive and too restrictive; and
his commitment:
i)
to reorganizing that government into a more
efficient and constructive force; and
ii)
to reducing the imposition of governmental
barriers to creative participation by private
and local sectors in seeking solutions to
our varied and complex problems.
c)
His record of fiscal responsibility as Governor of
Georgia, his zero-based budgeting concept, and his
transcendent commitment to achieving a balanced
Federal Budget by 1979.
d)
His commitment to relieving unemployment and
broadening participation in the affluence of the
United States principally through an expanding
economy and not through an oppressive taxation
system or inflationary federal programs.
page 5.
e)
His recognition that inflation indeed is
one of the primary threats to our economic
well-being and, in final analysis, is the
most regressive and debilitating form of
taxation.
f)
His commitment to meaningful welfare
reform, designed ultimately to resurrect
the recipients to a full participating life
as economically productive members of
our society.
2)
In Texas, we need a more coherent direction in the campaign.
In my opinion, the basic strategy should derive principally
from Governor Briscoe and a few advisors (including Calvin
Guest, Bob Armstrong, John White, Harry Hubbard and
Bob Strauss). Chuck Parrish is an able young man and
should be given more authority by Atlanta. He works
well with all divisions of the party and relates well with
Governor Briscoe.
3)
Not to satisfy anyone's ego but rather with a view to reclaiming
the broad middle section of Texas voters, conservative and
moderate participants in the campaign should be given the
highest possible profile, in press releases, committee
assignments, etc.
4)
If possible, Governor Carter should provide us with a means
by which:
a)
we can state, with absolute confidence,
his positions on section 14 (b) of the Taft
Hartley Act and on divestiture of the oil
industry;
b)
we can assure the business community and
moderates generally that, when Governor
Carter is elected, they will be viewed as an
important part of his constituency and that
opportunity will be afforded for general and
direct in-put, perhaps through Governor
Briscoe, Frank Moore or some other source
-- but not through the liberal wing of the
Texas Democratic Party.
page 6.
5)
Prior to the end of the campaign, perhaps during
Governor Carter's next visit to Texas, we should
design a means by which the massive support from
the evangelical communities of Texas might be reclaimed.
6)
To the extent possible, Governor Carter should retract
his statement regarding President Johnson's character
and, in the process, should praise the former President
to the extent he deems appropriate, consistent with his
own broader national evaluation of the total matter.
---000---
I hope neither of you will deem these remarks as presumptuous. I
make them because I want Jimmy Carter to win and to carry Texas in the
process. I am committed to that end, and of course will be responsive
to your leadership as to any action which might be desired after you have
considered my suggestions.
Destlay
Columbia University in the City of New York
I
New York, N.Y. 10027
C
SCHOOL OF LAW
435 West 116th Street
To:
Governor Jimmy Carter
Ruc
From:
Richard N. Gardner
October 14, 1976
Re:
Four Themes for the Home Stretch
Tax
Health
Engloyment
As we enter the last weeks of the campaign, I
Secreey
have been thinking of basic themes that could make an impact
Housing
Budget
on the large number of voters who are still undecided. I
Inflation
believe the following could be "winners" for you in the key
Rung
Defense
industrial states -- particularly New York, Pennsylvania,
Illinois and California:
1. Are you satisfied?
Eight years of Nixon-Ford have given us 8% unemployment
and 8% inflation, a growing welfare mess, rising crime rates, an
increasing number of Americans below the poverty line, the decay
of our great cities, and the neglect of our urgent health and
education needs. If you are satisfied with this record, vote
for my opponent. If you are not, I think you should vote for me.
2. A time for justice.
MURROSES NOD
It's time for a President who will provide moral leadership
RTV ODUCTION MADE FOR
toward a more just society -- one in which all Americans, regardless
of race, creed or color -- are treated with respect and given an equal
opportunity to participate in the American dream. (A special effort
is still needed to motivate black voters, many of whom are still not
- 2 -
sufficiently interested to go to the polls. This theme will also
be helpful with Italian-Americans and other ethnic groups.)
3. National security is not just arms.
We must, of course, maintain a secure balance of military
power with the Soviet Union. But balance of power by itself is not
enough. Our national security is now gravely threatened by three
arms races which the Nixon-Ford Administration has allowed to get
out of control - the U.S.-Soviet arms race, the spread of nuclear
weapons around the world, and the explosive growth of trade in con-
ventional weapons. SALT I and Vladivostok placed altitudinous ceilings
on the numbers of delivery vehicles, but did almost nothing to control
the replacement of existing weapons by new and more destructive ones.
With the approach being followed by this Administration, we and the
together
Russians could spend half a trillion dollars
n
by the year 2000 and both wind up less
militarily secure. Moreover, we will have gravely undermined our
national security by diverting scarce resources from urgent problems
such as poverty, food production, new energy sources, family planning,
and environmental protection. Control of these three arms races will
be an absolutely top priority in a Carter Administration.
4. The renewal of America.
Four more years of a Ford Administration gives us no hope
for change. We will have the same old team committed to the same old
policies. We will still have Nixon holdovers in key posts. It's time
for a new team, representative of what is best in America, drawn from
all regions, races and walks of life, but united by two overriding
qualities professional excellence and moral integrity.
********
Columbia University in the City of New York
I
New York, N.Y. 10027
SCHOOL OF LAW
435 West 116th Street
C
October 20, 1976
Governor Jimmy Carter
Plains, Georgia 31780
Dear Jimmy:
Congratulations on your fine speech last night
at the New York Hilton.
As the enclosed letter to Stu Eizenstat makes
clear, I have added one or two things to the enclosed
speech at Stu's request which were not in the copy I
gave to Milt Gwertzman yesterday.
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
Dich
Richard N. Gardner
Henry L. Moses Professor of Law
and International Organization
RNG/pm
Enclosure:
Draft speech of October 19, 1976
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
ccs:
Mr. Stuart Eizenstat - - Atlanta
Mr. Richard Holbrooke - -
If
with enclosure
Columbia University in the City of New York
I
New York, N.Y. 10027
SCHOOL OF LAW
435 West 116th Street
October 20, 1976
Mr. Stuart Eizenstat
Carter/Mondale Headquarters
P. O. Box 1976
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Dear Stu:
Enclosed is the speech that I gave to
Milt Gwertzman yesterday and which I also sent
to Dick Holbrooke.
In accordance with your telephone call
this morning, I have inserted material on pages
12A and 12B and also on page 14 and 14A on the
World Bank and international development problems.
Should you wish to use still more material
on this subject, I am enclosing the relevant pages
from the earlier speech draft from which you can
take such additional material.
Let me emphasize that the new material included
with this letter is not contained in the draft sent to
Dick Holbrooke last night nor in the draft given to
Milt Gwertzman.
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
Der
Richard N. Gardner
Henry L. Moses Professor of Law
and International Organization
RNG/pm
Enclosure:
note the reference
Draft speech dated October 19, 1976
and additional material
on ag6 the " U N system",
a term ther includes
ccs:
Governor Jimmy Carter - Plains
the world Bank. This
Mr. Richard Holbrooke - Atlanta
gives de speed a broader
focus.
19,
(Richard N. Gardner draft, October 4,
1976)
not read JC
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
AND THE
POLITICS OF WORLD ORDER
In my campaign for the Presidency, I have called for a new
American foreign policy in which balance of power politics is supple-
mented by world order politics. Today, I want to tell you just what
I mean by world order politics -- and some of the ways my policies
would differ from the policies pursued by the Nixon-Ford Administration
during the last eight years.
Both President Ford and I agree on the absolute necessity of
maintaining the national security of the United States. Both of us
recognize that our national security requires the maintenance of a
clear balance of military power between the United States and the
Soviet Union.
Where we disagree is on Mr. Ford's narrow and short-sighted
definition of national security.
President Ford clearly does not agree with my call for new
policies to protect our national security against new kinds of threats
that are rapidly heading toward us in this increasingly interdependent
world.
I believe that his Administration's narrow concept of national
security, if it continues to determine our foreign policy, will reap a
bitter harvest for our generation and for future generations.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
In my campaign for the Presidency, I have shown how our
national security is being jeopardized by the Administration's
failure to act decisively to control three dangerous arms races --
the race in strategic weapons between ourselves and the Soviet Union,
the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and the escalating
trade in conventional arms.
The time has come for our country -- and all countries --
to ask whether national security can really be assured by an ever
increasing arms race. President Ford claims to have put a cap on
the arms race with SALT I and the Vladivostok accords, but this is
not the case. The SALT Agreement of 1972 included a useful limitation
on anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) but neither it nor the Vladivostok
Agreement did nearly enough to stop the race in offensive weapons.
Under Vladivostok, both sides are allowed 2, 400 strategic delivery
vehicles (bombers, land-based missiles and sea-based missiles) of which
1,320 can be MIRVed.
I have already pointed out on several occasions that we need
to go further and achieve actual reductions in force levels, but the
point I want to stress today is a different one. It is that these
quantitative ceilings do not limit the qualitative arms race -- the
competition to substitute new and more deadly and more expensive
weapons for existing ones.
- 3
Let me give an example of how the failure to limit the
qualitative arms race can undermine our national security.
Multiple war heads for land and sea-based missiles were first
developed by the United States, with the original purpose of
penetrating a comprehensive Soviet ABM system. Even when it became
clear that the Soviets were not deploying such a system, the Nixon
Administration went ahead with MIRV anyway, rejecting the advice of
scientists and other experts, including the President's own arms
control advisory committee under the Chairmanship of John J. McCloy,
who advocated a reciprocal MIRV ban by both sides.
The Russians, who have shown that they can match all of our
weapons developments after an interval of a few years, then proceeded
to develop their own multiple war heads and are now busy placing them
on their missiles. As a result, the Pentagon is now concerned about
the survivability of our existing land-based missiles and is considering
a new missile system -- called Missile X -- whose eventual cost has been
estimated at $30 billion.
Unless we break this futile and dangerous action-reaction
cycle of new weapons development, we and the Russians could together
spend an additional half a trillion dollars on new weapons by the year
2000 and both wind up less militarily secure. Moreover, we will gravely
undermine our national security by diverting scarce resources from urgent
problems such as poverty, our decaying cities, food production, new energy
sources, family planning and environmental protection.
- 4
I want to raise explicitly in this campaign a question which
this Administration has consistently failed to address. What is
national security in today's world? Can it really be protected by
an unending arms race? Obviously, we must maintain a secure military
balance with the Soviet Union, but the question is -- at what level?
Do we not enhance our security through reciprocal arms control measures
which limit new and more threatening weapons being developed by the
Russians in return for similar restraints by ourselves? And if we fail
to limit the arms race in this way, how will we and they and other
nations find the resources to deal with other threats to our security --
from urban decay, from poverty, from over-population, from inadequate
food and energy supplies, and from a deteriorating environment?
I intend to be a President who protects the national security
of our country not only by maintaining an adequate national defense
but also by protecting against other threats. One of the first things
I would do in my Administration would be to seek meaningful arms
control agreements with the Soviet Union that would not only limit
the total number of strategic weapons but also restrain the introduc-
tion of new weapons systems which in the long run can only undermine
the national security of both sides.
Today, however, I will not talk to you mainly of the arms race.
I want to tell you how the Nixon-Ford Administration has jeopardized
our national security by its neglect of our interests in building a
just and peaceful world order through effective international institutions.
5-
Let me begin by recalling what our country's policy used to be
on the vital issue of world order.
From the earliest days of our nation, our greatest leaders have
understood that there could not be a secure America in an insecure world.
In a spirit of practical idealism, they sought ways of promoting the rule
of law and justice among nations.
This was true of great Democratic leaders like Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. It was true
also of great Republican leaders like Wendell Willkie and Dwight D.
Eisenhower.
At the end of the Second World War, with the overwhelming support
of both political parties, our country joined the United Nations. We
took the leadership in establishing many UN specialized agencies and
programs as well as institutions for regional cooperation among the
non-Communist industrial nations and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
6
Today, more than ever, it is clear that the national security
of our country requires stronger international agencies to perform vital
functions that no nation can perform alone -- conducting international
peacemaking and peacekeeping missions, promoting international trade
and investment programs, protecting the global environment, implementing
world-wide human rights standards and combatting international terrorism.
In none of these areas has the United Nations lived up to all
our expectations, and in some of them it has performed poorly. But in
many cases it has clearly helped to make our world a better place. And
let us remember that the UN can only do what its members want it to do --
its frustrations mirror the frustrations of a badly divided world.
Some of the UN's accomplishments have been very important to
our national interest as well as to the interest of other countries.
I have in mind its peacekeeping operations in Kashmir, Cyprus, the Congo
and the Middle East. Our efforts to secure a disengagement after the
1973 Middle East war could not have succeeded if UN forces had not been
available to occupy and patrol buffer zones between Israel, Syria and Egypt.
Nearly nine-tenths of the resources of the UN system are now
devoted to economic and social cooperation. There is no question that
all nations, including our own, have been helped by the UN's programs
to combat malaria and smallpox, to establish acceptable rules for air
and ocean transport, to promote the international exchange of weather
information, and to allocate radio frequencies for global communications.
In recent years UN conferences have stimulated world-wide efforts
to increase food production, protect the world environment, control popu-
lation growth, and promote women's rights.
- 7-
All these UN efforts are extremely important to our nation.
But the United Nations has also begun to do a number of things that
we do not like. Votes have gone against us on trade and development
questions, on Korea, and on many issues concerning Israel. The
American people were rightly shocked by the General Assembly resolu-
tion equating Zionism with racism.
The fact is that Zionism was a response to racism
against the Jewish people. The concept of the State of Israel
was born out of centuries of persecution of human beings because
they practised a different religion. So when the UN equated
Zionism with racism it badly tarnished its moral authority.
In the last two years, I have visited virtually every
one of our fifty states. I have found our people deeply troubled
by recent developments at the United Nations. But they do not want
to abandon the UN -- they want us to work harder to make it what it
was created to be -- not a cockpit for controversy but an instru-
ment for reconciling differences and resolving common problems.
And they want UN agencies to demonstrate the same commit-
ment to excellence, impartiality and efficiency they are demanding
of their own government.
8-
Obviously, no nation can get its way in an international agency
one hundred percent of the time. The challenge to our foreign policy is
to enlarge to the fullest the benefits of our UN membership while
minimizing the disadvantages.
The Nixon-Ford Administration has badly failed to meet this
challenge.
In fact, the policy of this Administration in the UN is in
"disarray," according to a recent report issued by former U.S. repre-
sentatives to the UN and UN experts.
Of course, I do not say that all our difficulties in the UN
are the fault of the Administration. The vast increase of membership
has created an automatic majority of new nations. The unsettled Middle
East conflict has contributed to poisoning the UN atmosphere.
But the Nixon-Ford Administration has certainly made things far
worse by such actions as the following:
Alienating the new majority. The Nixon-Ford Administration has
shown massive insensitivity to the interests and concerns of the majority
of UN members -- the majority, that is, of the countries of the world.
To begin with, it approved a notorious National Security Memorandum
tilting our Southern Africa policy in favor of Portuguese colonialism,
the white minority regime in Rhodesia and the status quo in South Africa.
- 9
By a continuing failure of leadership with the Congress, it
paved the way for the importation of chrome from Rhodesia in clear
violation of a legally binding embargo for which we voted in the
Security Council.
In order to assure the success of its campaign to reduce our
assessed share of the UN budget, it promised increases in our voluntary
contributions to UN programs -- a promise it subsequently dishonored.
Our contributions to the UN Development program last year were less
than that of the Scandinavian countries, whose combined GNP is one-tenth
of ours. Moreover, for years the Administration ignored even reasonable
demands of the developing countries for a better international economic
order. These and other short-sighted policies were not only a departure
from traditional American values, they alienated moderate elements in
the developing world and helped fertilize an anti-U.S. mood in the UN
forums that continues to plague us today. We have failed to be true to
ourselves and thus seemed false to others.
Massive diplomatic failure. The Nixon-Ford Administration has
failed in the UN largely because it has not backed our multilateral
diplomacy with strong bilateral diplomacy -- with timely and effective
representations in the capitals of key UN members by our Ambassadors and,
where necessary, by the Secretary of State and the President himself.
For example, the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism
was first adopted at the end of June 1975 at the International Women's
Year Conference, it was introduced again in the UN General Assembly in
early October, and it was adopted by the UN's Third Committee in mid-
October -- but the Ford Administration made no diplomatic effort to stop
-10- -
it through our Embassies until November 1. At no time did the
President or Secretary Kissinger communicate with their foreign
counterparts to defeat a resolution which our UN Ambassador was
saying would gravely jeopardize U.S. support for the UN and seriously
set back Middle East peace efforts.
Neither the President nor Secretary Kissinger called the
Russians to account for their mischievous behind-the-scenes support
of this resolution, nor was any serious effort made after its passage
to let the 72 countries who voted for it know the depth of our dis-
pleasure. A few months later, indeed, Dr. Kissinger went to Brazil,
one of the key countries whose adverse vote on the motion to postpone
the matter helped assure the resolution's passage, to celebrate a new
and special Brazilian-U.S. relationship, without a word of protest to
the Brazilian leadership about their UN behavior. This is but one of
many instances where the Administration has been saying one thing to
the American people and another to foreign countries.
Costly one-man diplomacy. Henry Kissinger's lone-ranger tactics
have repeatedly caused setbacks in UN forums by making it impossible to
concert U.S. positions adequately with allies or neutral countries.
His desire to gain a personal publicity coup was responsible for lack
of advance consultation with other countries which led to the ignominious
defeat of the U.S. proposal for an International Resources Bank at the
UN Conference on Trade and Development in Nairobi last May.
Uneven appointments for multilateral diplomacy. Too often the
Nixon-Ford Administration has used delegations to the UN General Assembly
and other international meetings to reward the politically deserving
rather than to appoint the highly qualified. With few exceptions, there
has been a general decline in the quality of staff in our permanent
UN delegations in New York and Geneva and a drastic lack of support
from Washington for their efforts. No wonder that in the complex
business of parliamentary diplomacy, our delegations are so often
outpointed in debate or outmaneuvered in negotiation.
Failure to work for UN reform. In eight years of the
Ford-Nixon Administration there has not been a single meaningful
initiative of the United States to strengthen the UN's capacity for
peacekeeping or peacemaking. Nor has the Administration shown much
interest in improving the UN's effectiveness in any other area. In
the spring of 1975, a group of 25 UN experts brought forth a unanimous
report on the restructuring of the UN's economic and social work.
Most of the recommendations served the U.S. as well as the general
interest -- greater efficiency in UN programming and budgetting, more
emphasis on excellence in the Secretariat, and streamlining the
administration of UN aid programs.
The most important recommendation of the group of experts
was to establish new procedures to improve the UN's decision-making
system -- to insure an adequate voice in UN decisions for the countries
who have special responsibilities for implementing them.
The proposal is to establish small committees to negotiate
solutions on contentious matters. The committees would be composed
of the countries principally interested in the subject under consider-
ation and would have a balanced representation of large, middle and
small powers. The committees would work under an expert chairman
to seek a general consensus which could then be approved by the
General Assembly.
- 12 -
This system of structured decision-making would not require
amendment of the United Nations Charter, only a change in the rules
of procedure. It does not change the principle of one-nation
one-vote, which the existing UN majority is determined to maintain.
It is, therefore, a more practical way to improve the UN at this time
than weighted voting, which is unacceptable to the two-thirds of the
membership whose approval is required for a Charter amendment.
This was but one of many recommendations in the experts
report that would serve the interests of the United States -- and
of all nations -- in a more efficient and responsible United Nations.
Yet to this day our American embassies around the world have received
no instructions from President Ford or Secretary Kissinger to seek
the cooperation of other governments in implementing these important
UN reforms.
This record of inaction makes a mockery of the Administration's
claim that it is working to build a new structure of peace.
-12A- -
Default on our commitments to multilateral development
agencies. The Nixon-Ford Administration has failed to contribute
the U.S. share it promised to the concessional aid programs of the
Regional Development Banks in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It
has failed to secure legislation to enlarge the capital of the Asian
and Inter-American Development Banks in accordance with international
agreements to which it subscribed. It is currently opposing a
meritorious proposal to increase World Bank capital.
The excuse given by the Administration for these failures
is opposition in Congress, but the real reason is Treasury Department
obstruction and the failure of the President to use the full powers of
his office to seek support for these multilateral development programs.
Failure to supportthe multilateral development institutions
has poorly served our national interest. These institutions assure fair
burden-sharing by other developed countries and OPEC nations, have
demonstrated efficiency in the management of aid funds, are committed
to meeting the basic needs of the poorest people in the poorest countries,
and have a comparative advantage over bilateral programs in inducing
meaningful reforms within developing countries.
Failure to target development on basic human needs. In
recent years Congress has rewritten our foreign assistance legislation
to focus aid on meeting basic needs in food and agriculture, health
and family planning, education and the development of human resources.
But the Administration has dragged its feet in implementing this
- -12B- 12
Congressional mandate to help the poorest people in the poorest
countries. Due partly to weak U.S. leadership, middle-income
developing countries are now receiving 50% more aid per capita
than the poorest developing countries -- and the poor in all countries
are still not seeing sufficient benefits from aid.
At the World Employment Conference last June, the head of
the U.S. delegation went so far as to announce our country's opposition
to basic human needs as a focal point for international development
efforts. It is clear that an Administration ideologically hostile to
helping poor people at home is equally incapable of helping poor
people abroad.
-13-
Lack of Presidential leadership. This is the most serious failure
of all. Secretary Kissinger has given fine speeches on issues of global
order. But his fine words are seldom translated into effective action. In
some cases, as in the Law of the Sea, Mr. Kissinger is simply too busy to
take charge of these subjects -- and refuses to delegate the necessary
authority to others. In other cases, as in commodity policy and food
reserves, he is opposed by Treasury, Agriculture or other departments
and Mr. Ford is unable or unwilling to resolve the differences. So our
country is without leadership in the vitally important search for world order.
I have focused these criticisms on the failures of our
diplomacy in the United Nations. But some of the same points could
be made about our failure to strengthen regional organizations like
the Organization of American States and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, which should be the focal point for economic
cooperation between Europe, North America, and Japan.
It is time to end this consistent pattern of neglect of our
historic interest in the rule of law among nations. It is time to make
- 14 -
the strengthening of efficient and responsible international organiza-
tions a central purpose of American foreign policy. If I am President,
I promise you the following:
-- I will work to end the current diplomatic isolation of the
United States in international bodies by cooperating closely with our
allies and with the many governments in the developing world that would
like to be our friends.
-- I will assure that our bilateral diplomacy is closely
related to our multilateral diplomacy so that other countries will know
the importance the United States attaches to their behavior in the UN
and other international agencies.
-- I will replace lone-ranger diplomacy with a diplomacy that
permits participation in diplomatic initiatives by many individuals and
many governments.
-- I will put the best brains in our nation to work in the
search for peace and appoint our UN and other delegations on a merit
basis.
-- I will work closely with the Congress to see that
the United States once more does its fair share in supporting
multilateral development institutions.
-- I will seek to focus international development
assistance on meeting the basic human needs of the poorest people
in the poorest countries for adequate nutrition, education, jobs,
health and family planning services.
- 74 A -
-- I will launch a major effort for the reform and restruc-
turing of the United Nations system, seeking the same excellence,
impartiality and efficiency in international agencies that I have
pledged in our own government. In view of the political obstacles
to constructive Charter amendment at this time, I will put initial
emphasis on reforming the UN through other means, such as those recom-
mended by the Group of Experts to which I have referred. Where best
efforts fail to achieve needed reforms in the UN, I will work with other
countries to build supplementary structures.
-15-
I will, in short, maximize the international system's
capacity to serve as a catalyst for constructive change.
I challenge President Ford to defend his record on the
specific points I have raised with you today. And I challenge him
to stop misleading the American people by suggesting that there is
no difference between us on these world order issues.
For there is a profound difference between us in our approach
to the urgent global problems that now demand attention in our nation's
foreign policy. His is a policy of business as usual, politics as
usual, diplomacy as usual. That is not my recipe for leadership.
I believe that an alliance for survival is needed --
transcending regions and ideologies -- if we are to assure
mankind a safe passage to the twanty-first century.
The political leaders of all nations, whether they
work within four year election cycles or five year plans, are
under enormous temptations to promise short-term benefits to
their people while passing on the costs to future generations.
Children do not vote -- and unborn generations have no political
franchise. But short-sighted policies today will lead to insuperable
problems tomorrow.
The time has come for our political leaders to take a
larger view of their obligations. They must show a decent respect
for posterity as well as today's electorate. A good President must
see himself as trustee for the future -- for the hopes and dreams of
our children and grandchildren.
I believe the American people want this larger kind of
leadership and I intend to provide it.
16
I want to build an American foreign policy of which our
people can once again be proud. It will be a foreign policy in the
spirit of Woodrow Wilson, of Franklin Roosevelt, of Harry Truman, and
of John F. Kennedy.
It will be a foreign policy that seeks genuine answers to
world problems through long-term plans rather than short-term expedients.
It will be a foreign policy of a country that is just and com-
passionate as well as strong, true to its commitment to human rights and
to democracy, and committed to working with others instead of trying to
go it alone.
Through such a foreign policy, we can offer a practical vision
of a better world that can inspire our people and other peoples to work
together to insure a decent future for the human race.
When President Kennedy died, he was mourned from the villages
of Asia to the barrios of Latin America because he reminded all people
that we were still a young and compassionate nation, full of energy and
high ideals both abroad and at home. I want us to be that kind of country
again. With your help, I believe we will.
Columbia University in the City of New York
I
New York, N.Y. 10027
SCHOOL OF LAW
435 West 116th Street
October 25, 1976
C
Governor Jimmy Carter
P. O. Box Z
Plains, Georgia 32780
Dear Jimmy:
Enclosed please find the statement I suggested to you
on the telephone yesterday.
With warm regards,
Sincerely,
Ii
Richard N. Gardner
RNG: lh
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
Richard N. Gardner
October 25, 1976
Suggested Statement for Governor Jimmy Carter
An American President holds the future of the country in trust.
Children do not vote and unborn generations have no political franchise.
But as trustee for the future, a President has an obligation to them
as well as to today's voters. This obligation can only be discharged
by intelligent planning that looks beyond the four year election cycle.
Most of our current problems were caused by political leaders
who sought to stay in office by pushing these problems under the rug
until after the next election. But there is no room left under the rug.
We are paying the price today for the errors and omissions of yesterday.
And our children will pay the price tomorrow for the lack of vision
we show today.
This is true whether the problem is energy, the environment,
racial discrimination, the decay of our cities, the neglect of our health
and education needs, the nuclear arms race, or the spread of nuclear
weapons.
The year 2000 is only 24 years away. If present trends continue,
that year could be a frightening time for the majority of the American
people now alive who will still be living then. If we are to correct
these trends, we will have to do so in the next four to eight years.
For the lead times between action and result are long -- and getting
longer.
(over)
-2-
I intend to be a President who shows a decent respect for
the future as well as for the present. And I will ask this same
larger vision of the Congress and the American people.
Mr. Kirbo's copy of the "headhunting" letter
Go: Jack Watson
ROBERT E. KINTNER
2727 Que Street, N.W.
Kandon
Washington, D.C. 20007
October 27, 1976
PRIVATE
Dejongh Franklin, Esq.
CC: P.O. Box 1976
2400 First National Bank Tower
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Dejongh:
When I took the job of suggesting ideas for Govenor
Carter, I thought at the end on Election Day, when I hoped
and now believe, that he would be elected President.
You will remember I took the job on the condition that
my advice be kept confidential and I stipulated that I
wanted no job on the Carter Administration and would, in
fact, take none and I was completely uninterested in power,
either political or social resulting from any type of connec-
tion with the President.
I feel this very strongly, because to be completely
frank, as a reporter covering the White House, as a Washington
columnist, as an army intelligence officer, as President of
ABC, as President of NBC, as Secretary to the Cabinet, and
Administrative Assistant to the President, I have had all
these "things" and know how relatively unimportant they
are and I prefer to lead my own life in my own way, primarily
because I have enough money to do so. As you know, I have
a house here and one in Haiti and I like to go to Haiti
where I have a very beautiful house in rural Haiti on the
Atlantic Ocean without telephone, television, newspapers
or any communication except very complicated ones, and daily
BBC and Voice of America Broadcasts. Although Haiti is a
dictatorship, it is without real regulations and I do what
I please, have as guests whom I want, and probably have one
of the better houses on the island.
I do enjoy giving through you, my ideas to Govenor
Carter and I hope, in a small way, I helped in the compli-
cated, difficult and intricate Presidential campaign. I
received and wanted no compensation and I want none now.
Whatever money I spent was my own and spent because I
like doing what work I did.
There is one field left, however, in which I have an
interest, but my feelings will not be hurt if Govenor Carter
has already made ample provision for what I think is the
first difficult job of all Presidents, mainly, "head-hunting".
As I remember it, there are about 1000 jobs that the Presi-
dent can appoint of which about 200 are key jobs, in the
various departments, various regulatory agencies, embassys
and the like. When I was President of NBC, because Sargent
Schriever headed up the recruitment staff for President
Kennedy, I was familiar with how difficult it is to get
good people in the right job who really understand enough
about the government to operate well. I did quite a bit
of work for Johnson in this area as he made a large number
of replacements due partly to his desires and partly to
attrition. I realize that Govenor Carter has a key man
for his handling of "headhunting", at least as I gather
from the New York Times, I certainly do not want to upset
any organization that he may have created with which he
has confidence, which is working well. But I did want to
say that if you want explored in a primitive fashion,
candidates for important jobs, I can do this and would like
to do this and still keep up my Washington/Haiti routine.
I think I have two advantages.
1) As head of two corporations I have selected hundreds
for executives, most of whom turned out very well. From
being in the newspaper business, from being in the Army,
and from working within the White House, I do know how the
Federal Government operates and I believe I know how the
bureaucracy stymies the facts to redo personnel and proceedure.
In other words, I have a background on both sides and in
addition I have kept up my acquaintances with businessmen
such as Henry Ford; with a great many professeurs; with a
host of editors; with writers and creative people; with liberal
leaders and union members; and with, of course, a great
many people in the entertainment business, both on the East
and West Coast. I also know the three networks backwards and
forewards as well as many newspaper and magazine publishers.
In other words, I have more than the usual acquaintanceship
with the leaders in the private enterprise field. In addition
I am extremely familiar with persons who have served in the
government since 1960. Therefore, if Govenor Carter should
3
need some special work, not in selecting individuals, but in
getting his or her background, an appraisal of how they would
fit in a government job, and their real interest in doing
government work, I believe I have the proper qualifications
in a useable form for Govenor Carter and his closest associates.
I obviously would only be interested in important and sig-
nificant jobs in government, not in run of the mind appoint-
ments, particularly in the financial, broadcasting and college
fields. I have no special interest%
My financial affairs are handled by Lazard Freres, an
international banking house, and particularly by Andre Meyer.
As far as they know I own no broadcasting stock, but I do
own stock in financial institutions such as banks, utility
companies, and a general list of corporate, municipal and
federal bonds. When I was at the White House, only Bob
MacNamara and I had "Blind Trusts". Mine was operated by
Mr. Meyer. I did not know at the time what securities were
bought or sold or what securities I held. I received an
income each month from Lazard Freres and Company which did
not designate from what companies it came. When I retired
from the White House, my portfolio was returned to me and
was managed jointly by Lazard Freres and myself.
In any event, this is an idea for trying to help; it
is not that important to me to be of great signifigance.
It is offered only on the basis that if I can help, and Gov-
enor Carter wants this help, I would be willing. Let me
repeat, I do not want nor do I expect a job in the Federal
Government. Nor do I want to be known as having power with
the Administration. Nor am I interested in the Social
aspects of the White House. It seems strange, I know, but
I have had all of these things and I know what they mean or
don't mean.
Every good wish,
Sincerely,
Bet Kintner
Robert E. Kintner