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.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Kehrli to Buchanan RE: an attached document with Haldeman's comments. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/20/1971
From Buchanan to RN RE: planning for presidential television appearances in 1971. Handwritten notes added by Haldeman. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/17/1971
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing the 1972 campaign around RN's accomplishments. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/30/1971
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing the 1972 campaign around RN's accomplishments. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/30/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144231
label
WHSF: Contested, 1-19
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144231
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 1-19
description
This file contains:
From Kehrli to Buchanan RE: an attached document with Haldeman's comments. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/20/1971
From Buchanan to RN RE: planning for presidential television appearances in 1971. Handwritten notes added by Haldeman. 2 pgs. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/17/1971
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing the 1972 campaign around RN's accomplishments. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/30/1971
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing the 1972 campaign around RN's accomplishments. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/30/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144231
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dcbd9351faa7c43c
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
1
19
9/20/1971
White House Staff
Memo
From Kehrli to Buchanan RE: an attached
document with Haldeman's comments. 1 pg.
1
19
9/17/1971
White House Staff
Memo
From Buchanan to RN RE: planning for
presidential television appearances in 1971.
Handwritten notes added by Haldeman. 2 pgs.
1
19
11/30/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing
the 1972 campaign around RN's
accomplishments. 4 pgs.
1
19
11/30/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Buchanan to Haldeman RE: organizing
the 1972 campaign around RN's
accomplishments. 4 pgs.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
EYES ONLY
Date 9/20/71
TO:
PAT BUCHANAN
BRUCE KEHRLI
FROM:
The attached is forwarded FYI
with Bob's comments.
[Item N-6]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17, 1971
TELEVISION
MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Patrick J. Buchanan
Understand thought is being given to televising nationally the RN
appearance before the Detroit Economic Club. Don't think we should
do that for the following reasons:
1. An hour's show with Richard Nixon answering the concerns
Face
of some Detroit Fat Cats does not seem to me particularly
evaluation
good television; it will lack the adversary setting of a press
conference, and the sharpness of questions, RN can expect
from editors and writers. Beloney?
that Hards covered
news?
Let's
see
2. An hour is simply too long -- to sustain the interest of Middle
America.
But the world 3.
We have nothing really new to say, from my knowledge; the
will have
President has already covered the "news" in Thursday's
turned by next 7 Times Thing 4.
conference. -doym really believe nothing will happen
The President's greatest political asset is the Presidency
part of the power of that asset adheres in the distance between
the Presidency and the people. Harry Truman as Harry Truman
How aloof
is a clown as President, he fills the shoes of Lincoln, Wilson,
etc. The more we show of RN the individual in front of a camera,
the more in my judgment we diminish some of the mystery,
aloofness that surrounds the office. We make the President too
can
"familiar" a figure and not in the best sense of that word.
5. What makes China such an interesting, important country and
De Gaulle such an interesting man is the aloofness, the
distance, from the hoi polloi. Every time we put the President
on the camera in a conventional setting -- answering I and A
we tend, I think, to bring him down closer to the average man
and I don't believe that is to our political advantage -- partly
for the next reason.
Evey time we do This we show him
doing what he does lest - and better
than virtually anyone ebe,
-2-
7
who
6. have never been convinced that Richar d Nixon, Good Guy, is
trying
our long suit; to me we are simply not going to charm the
American people; we are not going to win it on "style" and we
phony hypothesis ?
ought to forget playing ball in the Kennedy's Court.
This new emphasis of running the President on the tube at more
and more opportunities is a corollary of the theorem that the
hardly
more people who see the President, the more who will become
enthusiastic about him. We are selling personality; but we know
now
from our experience with television shows, how even the most
attractive and energetic and charming personalities don't last
very long.
But RN
7. As I wrote the President long ago, in 1967, we watched Rocky
rise twenty points in the national polls in a year in which he
int Rocky
was probably not once on national television. When Rocky took
who
to the airwaves in 1968, running around the country -- he dropped
in the polls as he did in 1964. In short, what is said and written
will
tow press
the accomplishments of others -- is invariably better received
than the presence of Rocky himself in a competitive situation. write Day it
around Nelson Rockefeller's accomplishments -- compared with
&
isnt Rochy's
press
8. The President is going to be on with Phase II in October, and
?
No he
with the Vietnam announcements in November. My judgment is
isn't
that we ought not to put him on the air, without serious thought,
and usually only in context with some significant pronouncement.
9. Finally, am not at all against some of the more imaginative ideas
for presenting the President -- but they should come out of a
Media Strategy, which I don't know we have right now or I
don't see how this fits into it.
Buchanan
HRH
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 30, 1971
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Within the Campaign Strategy sessions, we have begun the discussion of
theme andform, media and approach. One has a sense of deja vu, as the
old dichotomy is there again between those of us who would emphasize
the achievement of President Nixon and those who would focus upon the
personality traits.
In the 1972 campaign, an d for 1972, it seems to me imperative that the
Achievement School win out over the Personality School in terms of
advertising and campaign emphasis.
These are the reasons, simply:
a) Our likely opposition -- McCloskey and Muskie -- will make the
personality of the President, the need for a new kind of leader their
battleground. And why not? If one is asked which is the more attractive
personality, Pete McCloskey or Richard Nixon, McCloskey will come off
infinitely better than if one posed the question -- which of these two men
is best qualified to be President of the United States in 1972. The area
of statesmanship, competence, ability, these are the long suits for the
President as they have been throughout the career.
b) Secondly, in times of domestic calm and international peace, the
argument for the election of Richard Nixon is simply not to me a convincing
one to the majority of the American people. In such times, millions will
want to "dare" a little bit, to take a flyer with a 'New Frontier," to turn
to a fresh, exciting new face. Though some of the finest political minds
in the nation have labored thousands of hours in the process, they have not
succeeded, in candor, in making Richard Nixon a stylistic exciting "figure"
in the Kennedy sense of the word.
However, what are the President's truly strong suits. As source material
I give you the confidential report on the Democratic National Committee --
based on in-depth research and polls provided by Louis Harris, via
Charles Colson.
-2-
Eighty-five percent of the American people, and eighty percent of the
Democratic Party believe that:
"There is no doubt that sympathy works to the President's
advantage. Seventeen out of twenty people (85%) believe he
(the President) is doing his best in a difficult situation. As
shown in this table, there is not too great a difference of
opinion along partisan lines. Four out of five Democrats
(80%) agreed with the statement.
As long as the President can maintain this posture he rests
upon a springboard that could quickly enhance his popularity."
The specific question asked which got this incredible response was:
"HE INHERITED A LOT OF TOUGH PROBLEMS AND IS TRYING
TO SOLVE THEM THE BEST HE CAN." Agree or Disagree?
Thus, any political argument which begins with this as its premise
already has eighty-five percent of the American people in agreement,
and four of every five Democrats agreeing -- for openers.
How much better to begin our Political Argument for RN's re-election
with this wholly credible, nationally believed argument, than with an
argument that deals with the President's personality which starts
according to the same analysis, with only one-half the American people
in agreement.
Simply stated then, what I propose is thus -- that the campaign be seen
as re-electing the President to continue to take America out of the storm
the nightmares, which we were in when he assumed the helm. This
means the point of reference for 1972, is not just peace and prosperity n.
but the living hell of 1968.
There in the spring, five hundred Americans were dying a week, we live
in a time of assassinations, when cities were burning, and campuses
being destroyed by mobs of, radical students. If we can create in the
public mind 'That Wonderful Year, 1968" and then point to today -- the
contrast is vivid, the contrast is something that tens of millions of
Americans will agree with. The idea is to portray the President as hav
assumed the helm of the Ship of State, when it appeared that the America
we knew was collapsing around us; then to move him through the times
turmoil, de-escalation, demonstration to today, where the seas are
choppy, but beyond the storm. And then to point to the port that lies
ahead over the horizon.
-3-
Film of the horrors of 1968, with the President campaigning in the
midst of those terrible days, with something like, "He was the Man
for Those Times; He is the Man for These Times. He pulled America
back from the brink of disaster; he is the man to lead it now upward into
brighter days."
This has roughly stated the idea. As an attack issue against Muskie, for
use by others, and in footage -- we can tie him and HH H and Harriman
and Clifford, and the whole gang as those responsible. The Democratic
candidate is brought to you by the same people who gave you the Vietnam
War, etc. etc.
an emotionally compelling argument, this seems to me infinitely more
appealing than, say, running on Revenue Sharing and Reorganization and
the Welfare Reform.
can use peace in Vietnam and prosperity -- but let us be sure to
juxtapose them with 1968. Otherwise, it will be us saying we need a little
more time in Vietnam and Muskie saying, Bring the Boys Home Now.
One imagines that the kind of footage you can draw on would be outstanding.
1.000 the Deomicratic analysis, the Country believes RN inherited
difficult problems and is doing his best. Let's show them graphically
just how incredible those problems were -- and the present by juxtaposition
will seem like Happy Times are Here Again.
Which brings me to the STATE OF THE UNION:
From indirect information, one gathers that the Domestic Council is
pregnant and in January plans to give birth to a bouncing New American
Revolution -- in terms of programs, to be the basis for the State of the
Union. I do not argue against "targeted" political appeals -- which hits
groups like the aged, but let us not waste the State of the Union on "Six
New Goals," when the six old ones are languishing in the nether regions
of the Committee.
Rather, let the State of the Union Address be an address by the President
on the State of the Union. In delivering that address, he can deftly turn
the clock back three years , and talk a bit about the cooling of America,
no more burning cities or destroyed campuses, the boys who have come
home, the tasks of peace to which we are turning our minds, the era of
confrontation which we are bringing to an end, the possible, hopeful days
that lie ahead. "Though three years is short, we have come a long way,
you and I." We have come from a time when Americans were calling one
-4-
another traitors or warmongers, to a time when our differences are over
the proper ways to save our environment. I see the State of the Union in
the terms the President saw the Acceptance Speech, his first best chance
tomake his case to the whole American people.
The domestic proposals can go by message; they are things that come off
better in the reading than the saying anyhow.
A comment in Ken Khachigian's memo to me on the SOTU is appropriate:
"If there are policy decisions or programs of political importance, I
suggest a simple message to the Hill a day or two after the SOTU address.
As for the SOTU itself, I recommend a speech that discusses the "state"
of the Union in almost a literal sense -- a thoughtful analysis of where we
stand as a Nation at this point in history. To an extent, this includes an
examination of the American culture, morale, and future.
RN could lay the stage for the campaign - - against the chronic carpers
who look for the worst in America. On the contrary, RN ought to stake
out a position not only for a belief in the richness of the national patrimony
but also a belief that the future is challenging not fearsome.
This
is
a
to
DN
=
bachful
protector
of
the
skeptic of the potential in the last third of the century. Articulation of
some key benchmarks of the last three years might be included: a potential
for world peace; domestic calm; social problems on the way to recovery
(e. praise for white and black in South for handling their social transition
peacefully.
In that strategy session, it was interesting. When it got to specific
achievements (someone raised the point that the President had increased
spending for civil rights enforcement by a factor of five) there is
disagreement as to whether that is something to boast about. When you
talk about welfare reform, people divide. When you talk about domestic
legislation, my friends start up the South Wall. When you talk about
turning the Court around, my friends applaud, and the other fellows are
climbing the North Wall.
But when you talk about the terrible times in 1968, and how we as a
people have pulled through them, how the residue of bitterness has been
diminished, how much better the new times are than those old times of
rancor, and bitterness and hatred then you have almost the whole nation
saying, "Yeah, things are a hell of a lot better today than those days, and
maybe, Nixon does deserve a hell of a lot of credit; maybe he is the right
guy in these times after all. 11
Buchanan
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 30, 1971
MEMORANDUM TO:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
Within the Campaign Strategy sessions, we have begun the discussion of
theme andform, media and approach. One has a sense of deja vu, as the
old dichotomy is there again between those of us who would emphasize
the achievement of President Nixon and those who would focus upon the
personality traits.
In the 1972 campaign, an d for 1972, it seems to me imperative that the
Achievement School win out over the Personality School -- in terms of
advertising and campaign emphasis.
These are the reasons, simply:
a) Our likely opposition -- McCloskey and Muskie will make the
personality of the President, the need for a new kind of leader their
battleground. And why not? If one is asked which is the more attractive
personality, Pete McCloskey or Richard Nixon, McCloskey will come off
infinitely better than if one posed the question which of these two men
is best qualified to be President of the United States in 1972. The area
of statesmanship, competence, ability, these are the long suits for the
President as they have been throughout the career.
b) Secondly, in times of domestic calm and international peace, the
argument for the election of Richard Nixon is simply not to me a convincing
one to the majority of the American people. In such times, millions will
want to "darc" a little bit, to take a flyer with a "New Frontier," to turn
to a fresh, exciting new face. Though some of the finest political minds
in the nation have labored thousands of hours in the process, they have not
succeeded, in candor, in making Richard Nixon a stylistic exciting "figure"
in the Kennedy sense of the word.
However, what are the President's truly strong suits. As source material
I give you the confidential report on the Democratic National Committee --
based on in-depth research and polls provided by Louis Harris, via
Charles Colson.
-2--
Eighty-five percent of the American people, and eighty percent of the
Democratic Party believe that:
There is no doubt that sympathy works to the President's
advantage. Seventeen out of twenty people (85%) believe he
(the President) is doing his best in a difficult situation. As
shown in this table, there is not too great a difference of
opinion along partisan lines. Four out of five Democrats
(80%) agreed with the statement.
As long as the President can maintain this posture he rests
upon a springboard that could quickly enhance his popularity."
The specific question asked which got this incredible response was:
"HE INHERITED A LOT OF TOUGH PROBLEMS AND IS TRYING
TO SOLVE THEM THE BEST HE CAN." Agree or Disagree?
Thus, any political argument which begins with this as its premise
already has eighty-five percent of the American people in agreement,
and four of every five Democrats agreeing -- for openers.
How much better to begin our Political Argument for RN's re-election
with this wholly credible, nationally believed argument, than with an
argument that deals with the President's personality which starts - -
according to the same analysis, with only one-half the American people
in agreement.
Simply stated then, what I propose is thus -- that the campaign be seen
as re-electing the President to continue to take America out of the stor
the nightmares, which we were in -- when he assumed the helm. This
means the point of reference for 1972, is not just peace and prosperity r.
but the living hell of 1968.
There in the spring, five hundred Americans were dying a week, we live
in a time of assassinations, when cities were burning, and campuses
being destroyed by mobs of radical students. If we can create in the
public mind That Wonderful Year, 1968" and then point to today -- the
contrast is vivid, the contrast is something that tens of millions of
Americans will agree with. The idea is to portray the President as hav
assumed the helm of the Ship of State, when it appeared that the America
we knew was collapsing around us; then to move him through the times
turmoil, de-escalation, demonstration to today, where the seas are
choppy, but beyond the storm. And then to point to the port that lies
ahead over the horizon.
-3.
Film of the horrors of 1968, with the President campaigning in the
midst of those terrible days, with something like, "He was the Man
fc_ Those Times; He is the Man for These Times. He pulled America
back from the brink of disaster; he is the man to lead it now upward into
brighter days."
This has roughly stated the idea. As an attack issue against Muskie, for
use by others, and in footage -- we can tie him and HH H and Harriman
and Clifford, and the whole gang as those responsible. The Democratic
candidate is brought to you by the same people who gave you the Vietnam
etc. etc.
an emotionally compelling argument, this seems to me infinitely more
appealing than, say, running on Revenue Sharing and Reorganization and
the Welfare Reform.
can use peace in Vietnam and prosperity -- but let us be sure to
juxtapose them with 1968. Otherwise, it will be us saying we need a little
more time in Vietnam and Muskie saying, Bring the Boys Home Now.
One imagines that the kind of footage vou can draw on would be outstanding.
from the Deomoratic analysis, the Country believes RN inherited
ficult problems and is doing his best. Let's show them graphically
st how incredible those problems were -- and the present by juxtaposition
will seem like Happy Times are Here Again.
Which brings me to the STATE OF THE UNION:
From indirect information, one gathers that the Domestic Council is
pregnant and in January plans to give birth to a bouncing New American
Revolution -- in terms of programs, to be the basis for the State of the
Union. I do not argue against "targeted" political appeals -- which hits
groups like the aged, but let us not waste the State of the Union on "Six
New Goals, 11 when the six old ones are languishing in the nether regions
of the Committee.
Rather, let the State of the Union Address be an address by the President
on the State of the Union. In delivering that address, he can deftly turn
the clock back three years , and talk a bit about the cooling of America,
no more burning cities or destroyed campuses, the boys who have come
home, the tasks of peace to which we are turning our minds, the era of
confrontation which we are bringing to an end, the possible, hopeful days
that lie ahead. "Though three years is short, we have come a long way,
you and I." We have come from a time when Americans were calling one
-4-
another traitors or warmongers, to a time when our differences are over
the proper ways to save our environment. I see the State of the Union in
the terms the President saw the Acceptance Speech, his first best chance
tomake his case to the whole American people.
The domestic proposals can go by message; they are things that come off
better in the reading than the saying anyhow.
A comment in Ken Khachigian's memo to me on the SOTU is appropriate:
"If there are policy decisions or programs of political importance, I
suggest a simple message to the Hill a day or two after the SOTU address.
As for the SOTU itself, I recommend a speech that discusses the "state"
of the Union in almost a literal sense a thoughtful analysis of where we
stand as a Nation at this point in history. To an extent, this includes an
examination of the American culture, morale, and future.
RN could lay the stage for the campaign -- against the chronic carpers
who look for the worst in America. On the contrary, RN ought to stake
out a position not only for a belief in the richness of the national patrimony
but also a belief that the future is challenging not fearsome.
This is a time to Lay bare DN as no bachful protector of the Nation
skeptic of the potential in the last third of the century. Articulation of
some key benchmarks of the last three years might be included: a potential
for world peace; domestic calm; social problems on the way to recovery
(e. praise for white and black in South for handling their social transition
peacefully.
In that strategy session, it was interesting. When it got to specific
achievements (someone raised the point that the President had increased
spending for civil rights enforcement by a factor of five) there is
disagreement as to whether that is something to boast about. When you
talk about welfare reform, people divide. When you talk about domestic
legislation, my friends start up the South Wall. When you talk about
turning the Court around, my friends applaud, and the other fellows are
climbing the North Wall.
But when you talk about the terrible times in 1968, and how we as a
people have pulled through them, how the residue of bitterness has been
diminished, how much better the new times are than those old times of
rancor, and bitterness and hatred then you have almost the whole nation
saying, "Yeah, things are a hell of a lot better today than those days, and
maybe, Nixon does deserve a hell of a lot of credit; maybe he is the right
guy in these times after all. 11
Buchanan