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 Colson to Chotiner re: third party in Vermont, Meyer, Hoff. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/7/1970
Copy of memo from Colson to Nofzinger, Huston, Buchanan, Chotiner, Dent (cc: to Higby, Waldron) introducing quotes and associations of '70, '72 opponents compiled for campaign attacks. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/6/1970
From Colson to Haldeman re: $25,000 donation to Bush campaign from Jake Hammon and Monty Moncrief. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/2/1970
From Colson to unknown recipient(s) summarizing subsequent memo to RN re: Broder series. Includes summary analysis, response strategy, conclusion. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/26/1970
From Colson to RN re: analysis of Broder series. Includes critique, point-bypoint analysis, political strategy, conclusion. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/26/1970
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144673
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-19
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144673
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-19
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Chotiner re: third party in Vermont, Meyer, Hoff. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/7/1970
Copy of memo from Colson to Nofzinger, Huston, Buchanan, Chotiner, Dent (cc: to Higby, Waldron) introducing quotes and associations of '70, '72 opponents compiled for campaign attacks. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/6/1970
From Colson to Haldeman re: $25,000 donation to Bush campaign from Jake Hammon and Monty Moncrief. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/2/1970
From Colson to unknown recipient(s) summarizing subsequent memo to RN re: Broder series. Includes summary analysis, response strategy, conclusion. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/26/1970
From Colson to RN re: analysis of Broder series. Includes critique, point-bypoint analysis, political strategy, conclusion. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/26/1970
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144673
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4d0f23d400b5cc06
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
19
10/7/1970
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Colson to Chotiner re: third
party in Vermont, Meyer, Hoff. 1 pg.
4
19
10/6/1970
Campaign
Memo
Copy of memo from Colson to Nofzinger,
Huston, Buchanan, Chotiner, Dent (cc: to
Higby, Waldron) introducing quotes and
associations of '70, '72 opponents compiled
for campaign attacks. 2 pgs.
4
19
10/2/1970
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Colson to Haldeman re: $25,000
donation to Bush campaign from Jake
Hammon and Monty Moncrief. 1 pg.
4
19
10/26/1970
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Colson to unknown recipient(s)
summarizing subsequent memo to RN re:
Broder series. Includes summary analysis,
response strategy, conclusion. 1 pg.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
19
10/26/1970
Campaign
Memo
Memo from Colson to RN re: analysis of
Broder series. Includes critique, point-by-
point analysis, political strategy, conclusion.
6 pgs.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Page 2 of 2
October 7, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR MURRAY CHOTINER
As you will see from the attached, we have created quite a
stir in Vermont by getting a third party on the ballot. Also,
Mr. Meyer, the third party Senate candidate is raising a
fair amount of hell with Hoff.
Charles W. Colson
:
chron
October 6, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR LYN NOFZIGER
TOM HUSTON
PAT BUCHANAN
MURRAY CHOTINER
HARRY DENT
Enclosed is a compilation of the most usable quotes
we have at this time on each of our 1970 target
Senators and potential national contenders for 1972.
You will notice that we have thrown out a lot of the
junk and have tried to cull down to just the good,
tough usable material. We have also knocked out any
inconsistent material, i.e., conflicting statements
on Vietnam, because we will not give anyone credit
for changing positions. We are only seeking extreme
statements whenever they were made and without regard
to any recent change of heart.
As part of the distillation process, we have ended up
with very little material on certain Senators -- take
Burdick for example. What we will do, therefore, in
composing the Burdick ad is to use his statement prais-
ing Ramsey Clark and then bring in all of Ramsey Clark's
extreme statements.
We have also included campaign financing from extreme
groups. In each state where McGovern has put a pot of
money, we can of course drag out the best quotes of
George McGovern.
What this therefore boils down to is that each Senator
will have to be treated differently depending on how
much we have him on record and how much we can attribute
from others who can be related to his campaign.
-2-
What I would very much appreciate today would be
your comments as to anything in the enclosed that
is: (1) unusable or inappropriate, (2) any general
suggestions on material which should be tied
together, and (3) any glaring omissions that you
might see, i.e., where we have missed a choice quote
on a particular Senator.
We are dealing here only with statements which will
make up the body of the ads. Lyn Nofziger has
independently the radical lib voting record and the
big spending material which will of course be woven
into the final product.
Please let me have your comments as soon as possible.
Charles W. Colson
CC: Larry Higby - FYI
Agnes Waldron
NOTE: Agnes, could you skim through this and see
if we have left anything out that you might
know about.
October 2, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN
The President might like to know that as a result of his meeting
with Jake Hammon and Monty Moncrief, they put $25, 000 in cash
into Bush's campaign in Texas and I suspect will do considerably
more.
I will keep the pressure on them through Swearingen.
Charles W. Colson
October 26, 1970
SUMMARY OF MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Broder argues that there is wide spread fear and apprehension over
the future -- the economy, youth, lawlessness. Many people have
lost confidence in Government. There is a vacuum of leadership,
great indecision about 1972, party loyalties are deteriorating and
people are disenchanted with our national leaders.
Broder's conclusions tend to be supported by the feelings of many poll-
sters that there is a large undecided, probably apathetic, group in this
year's elections.
Broder's conclusion, in my opinion, apply only to a segment of the
voting population, mainly middle class, Wallace oriented, dissatisfied
and troubled people who are especially apprehensive about the economy.
His conclusions cannot be generalized.
What we should do:
1. Not only attack permissivism in society but prove how much we are
doing about it on a positive basis. Demonstrate that we can effectively
solve problems: that we are cutting crime, curbing drugs and restoring
order to our campuses.
2. If possible, accelerate our economic game plan and develop a positive
psychology about the future of the economy.
3. Emphasize reform, revenue sharing and restoration of power to state
and local governments. We must prove that Government can function.
4. Maintain the President's image as a tough, courageous, masculine
leader.
Conclusion: Broder has provided an exaggerated diagnosis of the disen-
chanted alienated segment of the population. It, nonetheless, may be the
swing vote in the next ellection. Thus, it is politically imperative that we
attempt to allay their fears and build confidence.
Charles W. Colson
October 26, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Analysis of Broder Series
Broder's basic points are:
1. People are fearful and apprehensive over the future. They are
mostly concerned (a) about what the future holds for their children,
(b) the future of the economy, and (c) drugs, violence and lawless-
ness.
2. Many people have concluded that Government is incapable of handling
the nation's problems; the feeling that no one can solve the great
problems of the day creates frustration and, hence, disdain for
Government and politicians.
3. There is a vacuum of leadership and a "negative, tentative" approval
of you. You are doing as well as you can and people have concluded
there is no better alternative; none of the national Democrate do any
better in inspiring confidence. This accounts for what Broder calls
a "Nobody for President" attitude.
4. There is great indecision about 1972. There is not yet an "emerging
new majority." There is no clear cut pattern developing along ideolog-
ical or party lines. Party loyalties are deteriorating.
5. Agnew, Wallace and Kennedy are too controversial to be President
(for different reasons). People do not want a leader who scares them.
6. The people want leadership -- someone who will speak for and unify
the whole country.
In analyzing Broder's conclusions, it is important to note that he inter-
viewed only 200 people. All pollsters agree that in-depth interviews
with any small sampling permits the interviewer to reinforce his own
preconceived notions. Broder was undoubtedly trying to be objective
but I believe that he has greatly exaggerated a number of points.
-6-
In preparing the series Broder worked closely with Dick Seammon
(the social issue) and would naturally tend to be influenced by the
Seammon thesis. Broder also concentrated on that portion of the
population which he believes to represent the independent swing vote.
He acknowledged that he spent little time with black or Jewish voters
(who would tend to take a clearly liberal position) or with businessmen
(who would tend to be with us). One in five of those interviewed were
Wallace voters in 1968; they would tend to be the most disturbed, dis-
satisfied and negative. In short, therefore, I think that some of
Broder's conclusions may be valid as to a segment of the voting
population but his conclusions cannot be generalised or applied
across the board. There is a disturbed element in society but the
whole country is not racked with fear as Broder would suggest.
Every pollster in the country reports an unusually large undecided
vote in next week's election -- in many cases a quarter of the popu-
lation. The prevailing thesis is that this quarter of the population is
apathetic, disinterested in the election, sees no choice between the
parties, and is generally frustrated, having lost faith in Government's
ability to solve their problems. In studying the comments of Broder's
interviewees it is my opinion that hb is talking mostly with people in
this category, hereafter referred to, for lack of a better term, as
the "alienated voter."
The following is my point by point analysis:
1. Fear and concern about the future. Broder is correct -- there is
a politically volatile segment of the population that is very appre-
hensive about the future. The alienated voter is concerned about
all of the things that we reflect concern about -- drugs, pornography,
lawlessness, student unrest -- but he doesn't believe anything can
be done about it. We are clearly on the right side of the issue but,
as to this voter at least, we have not gained his confidence that we
can solve the problem.
In the first two years by emphasizing the law and order issue, we
have kept people aroused about student militants, drugs, pornography,
etc. We have also effectively associated the liberals with all that is
bad about permissiveness in society. As a result, we have succeeded
in splitting voters away from the Liberal Democrats.
-3-
To win them over, we must do more. We cannot simply continue
to decry permissivism and social evils; in the second two years
we are very likely to inherit the responsibility for their continu-
ation. Proving that we can do something about the evils that we
and the alienated voter are against must be our highest priority
political objective. We must start to build and advertise a posi-
tive record of (a) restoring order on campus, (b) cutting crime,
(c) curbing drugs and (d) generally rebuilding the moral foundation
of our society. People want to believe that the future is safe, that
we can do something about the ills in society; witness the reaction
you get whenever you say that the vast majority of our children are
good and that the rock throwers are a small majority.
Perhaps an even more socially unsettling factor than law and order
is concern over the future of the economy unemployment and the
cost of living. This concern permeates all of Broder's interviews
and is high on every pollster's issue list. People have always
equated "good times" with prosperity. Fear of recession or
depression greatly affects the national mood and aggravates other
fears, like the social issue. Many of the people Broder inter-
viewed are old enough to remember the "Great Depression."
As Broder points out, the economic issue draws the alienated
voter to the Democrats even though at the same time the same
voter agrees with us on the law and order issue. Not only the
fact of economic health but restoring confidence in the economic
future is vital if we are to win the political allegiance of this
group. The early success of our economic game plan is critical.
2. Government is incapable of handling nation's problems. This may be
the most serious point in the Broder articles. The latest Harris
Poll shows that 27% of the people interviewed say that you are
"doing the best job you can." Harris says that further in-depth
questioning reveals that this answer most often reflects a belief
that no President can solve the country's problems and that Govern-
ment is no longer workable or manageable. It is an answer which
reflects frustration. Significantly, this percentage was also high
during the Johnson Administration (hitting a top figure of 35% in
1968).
This may also be the source of much of this year's apathy, i.e., it
really doesn't matter who wins. This attitude creates what Broder
calls "the leadership vacuum", i.e., the job is too tough for anyone
to handle.
1
-4-
The alienated voter is the most politically volatile, the most
negative and, hence, the most likely to vote against the "ins"
or not vote at all. These are not the radical students who believe
that our society is degenerate and our system of Government
unresponsive; these are middle Americans who simply feel that
Government cannot do anything about the problems of our society.
We must, therefore, restore people's faith in our ability to manage
Government and Government's ability to solve problems. We
should emphasise over and over the "reform" theme, dramatize
how we have gotten Government and the bureaucracy under control,
and push very hard for revenue sharing and return of power to the
states and communities. We have a better record in this area
than any of our predecessors but we need to do a better job of
selling it. We also must do more to tighten up management (getting
rid of programs that people know are ineffective and wasteful.)
3. Leadership vacuum. The so-called leadership vacuum or the
"tentative, negative approval" of you issimply a consequence of the
alienated voter's frustration, and his fear over the economy and
lawlessness. My point is that this attitude prevails only in this
particular group. The proof of this is that in his interviews Broder
discovers that this same group, which is indifferent to you, is
equally indifferent towards any other national leader. Therefore,
it is not your leadership that they reject; their frustration causes
them to lose faith in anyone's leadership. It is perfectly obvious
from the crowds you have turned out across the country and their
reaction that there is real enthusiasm for you and your Presidency.
I believe that the majority of the people do identify you as a strong,
forceful leader, one who doesn't promise things that can't be done,
one who has calmly and quietly tried to cope with the very serious
problems our nation faces.
In a meeting with Pete Brennan last week, he explained the reason
for the "hard hat" support of you more perceptively than I think we
have analyzed it. He said that the "hard hats" wave the flag and
cheer the President but that, in and of itself, does not translate
into votes. Moreover, most of the "hard hats" don't like our
economic policies and feel that we are pushing them too hard in
the civil rights area. What is winning their political loyalty is
their admiration for your masculinity. The "hard hats", who are
a tough breed, have come to respect you as a tough, courageous
man's man. Brennan's thesis is that this image of you will win
their votes more than the patriotism theme. The image of being
!
-3-
strong, forceful and decisive will have a powerful personal appeal
with the alienated voter.
4. Indecision about 1972; diminishing party loyalties. The alienated
voter, by definition, has lost his party loyalty. Ideologically he
is pulled towards us on the law and order issue and away from us
on the economic issue. By definition, he is disenchanted with
Government; therefore, disenchanted with politicians and political
parties. To the extent that traditional party loyalties have been
broken, we have an opportunity to win over large blocks of voters
(like Wallace Democrats). We should not be trying to make them
Republicans, rather we should be trying to win their confidence
and allay their fears.
5. Agnew, Kennedy and Wallace are too controversial to be President.
This is also a logical extension of Broder's other points. People
who are frustrated and concerned and who have lost faith are least
likely to turn to a leader who frightens them. It is significant that
Kennedy's Chappaquidie incident is still very much in the public
mind, at least in this group (this reinforces Brennan's point that
people want a firm leader with strong character.) The Agnew
point is important. People identify with Agnew because he says
the things they are thinking but they are afraid that a man who
speaks out and says the things they are thinking is not responsible
enough to be a good President. It is a paradox that because they
identify with him, they believe that their own faults and weaknesses
are reflected in him.
The most significant point is the erosion of the Wallace strength.
The alientabel voter can express his frustrations by voting for
Wallace -- and did in 1968. Broder points out, however, that
significant numbers of former Wallace voters have now concluded
either that he is too dangerous to be President or that a vote for
Wallace is a wasted one. This should be an opportunity for us.
6. People want leadership and a unifying influence. This is really
another restatement of the frustrations of this segment of the
population. Restoring their confidence in the future in the ways
described above is the key.
I
Conclusion: The Broder series must be read in context. His con-
clusions cannot be generalized for the whole country. In my opinion,
the restless, frustrated and fearful voter group is no larger than 15%
to 20% of the country. This may well, however, be the swing vote in
1972.
Our target is obviously to win their confidence and allay their fears by
proving that we can do something about what they worry about most --
the economy, the lack of future for their children, drugs and crime.
If we do, this group plus the solid constituency we now have will be an
unbeatable majority: if we do not succeed, at best they will be non-voters;
at the worst, they will vote against the "ins" merely as an expression of
protest.
Most importantly, these people need an up-lift. The theme of the Jaycees'
speech is one which should be hit over and over in the next two years.
We need to do the things and say the things that will restore the confi-
dence of the alienated voter.
Charles W. Colson