Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26144673",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 4-19",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26144673"
}

{
    "id": "26144673",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26144673",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 4-19",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom Colson to Chotiner re: third party in Vermont, Meyer, Hoff. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/7/1970\n\nCopy 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\n\nFrom Colson to Haldeman re: $25,000 donation to Bush campaign from Jake Hammon and Monty Moncrief. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/2/1970\n\nFrom 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\n\nFrom 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": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26144673",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/73/1446/26144673/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-4/Contested-04-19.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/73/1446/26144673/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-4/Contested-04-19.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/73/1446/26144673/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-4/Contested-04-19.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26144673",
    "naId": 26144673,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/73/1446/26144673/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-4/Contested-04-19.pdf",
    "mediaId": "4d0f23d400b5cc06",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n4\n19\n10/7/1970\nCampaign\nMemo\nMemo from Colson to Chotiner re: third\nparty in Vermont, Meyer, Hoff. 1 pg.\n4\n19\n10/6/1970\nCampaign\nMemo\nCopy of memo from Colson to Nofzinger,\nHuston, Buchanan, Chotiner, Dent (cc: to\nHigby, Waldron) introducing quotes and\nassociations of '70, '72 opponents compiled\nfor campaign attacks. 2 pgs.\n4\n19\n10/2/1970\nCampaign\nMemo\nMemo from Colson to Haldeman re: $25,000\ndonation to Bush campaign from Jake\nHammon and Monty Moncrief. 1 pg.\n4\n19\n10/26/1970\nCampaign\nMemo\nMemo from Colson to unknown recipient(s)\nsummarizing subsequent memo to RN re:\nBroder series. Includes summary analysis,\nresponse strategy, conclusion. 1 pg.\nWednesday, August 18, 2010\nPage 1 of 2\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n4\n19\n10/26/1970\nCampaign\nMemo\nMemo from Colson to RN re: analysis of\nBroder series. Includes critique, point-by-\npoint analysis, political strategy, conclusion.\n6 pgs.\nWednesday, August 18, 2010\nPage 2 of 2\nOctober 7, 1970\nMEMORANDUM FOR MURRAY CHOTINER\nAs you will see from the attached, we have created quite a\nstir in Vermont by getting a third party on the ballot. Also,\nMr. Meyer, the third party Senate candidate is raising a\nfair amount of hell with Hoff.\nCharles W. Colson\n:\nchron\nOctober 6, 1970\nMEMORANDUM FOR LYN NOFZIGER\nTOM HUSTON\nPAT BUCHANAN\nMURRAY CHOTINER\nHARRY DENT\nEnclosed is a compilation of the most usable quotes\nwe have at this time on each of our 1970 target\nSenators and potential national contenders for 1972.\nYou will notice that we have thrown out a lot of the\njunk and have tried to cull down to just the good,\ntough usable material. We have also knocked out any\ninconsistent material, i.e., conflicting statements\non Vietnam, because we will not give anyone credit\nfor changing positions. We are only seeking extreme\nstatements whenever they were made and without regard\nto any recent change of heart.\nAs part of the distillation process, we have ended up\nwith very little material on certain Senators -- take\nBurdick for example. What we will do, therefore, in\ncomposing the Burdick ad is to use his statement prais-\ning Ramsey Clark and then bring in all of Ramsey Clark's\nextreme statements.\nWe have also included campaign financing from extreme\ngroups. In each state where McGovern has put a pot of\nmoney, we can of course drag out the best quotes of\nGeorge McGovern.\nWhat this therefore boils down to is that each Senator\nwill have to be treated differently depending on how\nmuch we have him on record and how much we can attribute\nfrom others who can be related to his campaign.\n-2-\nWhat I would very much appreciate today would be\nyour comments as to anything in the enclosed that\nis: (1) unusable or inappropriate, (2) any general\nsuggestions on material which should be tied\ntogether, and (3) any glaring omissions that you\nmight see, i.e., where we have missed a choice quote\non a particular Senator.\nWe are dealing here only with statements which will\nmake up the body of the ads. Lyn Nofziger has\nindependently the radical lib voting record and the\nbig spending material which will of course be woven\ninto the final product.\nPlease let me have your comments as soon as possible.\nCharles W. Colson\nCC: Larry Higby - FYI\nAgnes Waldron\nNOTE: Agnes, could you skim through this and see\nif we have left anything out that you might\nknow about.\nOctober 2, 1970\nMEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN\nThe President might like to know that as a result of his meeting\nwith Jake Hammon and Monty Moncrief, they put $25, 000 in cash\ninto Bush's campaign in Texas and I suspect will do considerably\nmore.\nI will keep the pressure on them through Swearingen.\nCharles W. Colson\nOctober 26, 1970\nSUMMARY OF MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nBroder argues that there is wide spread fear and apprehension over\nthe future -- the economy, youth, lawlessness. Many people have\nlost confidence in Government. There is a vacuum of leadership,\ngreat indecision about 1972, party loyalties are deteriorating and\npeople are disenchanted with our national leaders.\nBroder's conclusions tend to be supported by the feelings of many poll-\nsters that there is a large undecided, probably apathetic, group in this\nyear's elections.\nBroder's conclusion, in my opinion, apply only to a segment of the\nvoting population, mainly middle class, Wallace oriented, dissatisfied\nand troubled people who are especially apprehensive about the economy.\nHis conclusions cannot be generalized.\nWhat we should do:\n1. Not only attack permissivism in society but prove how much we are\ndoing about it on a positive basis. Demonstrate that we can effectively\nsolve problems: that we are cutting crime, curbing drugs and restoring\norder to our campuses.\n2. If possible, accelerate our economic game plan and develop a positive\npsychology about the future of the economy.\n3. Emphasize reform, revenue sharing and restoration of power to state\nand local governments. We must prove that Government can function.\n4. Maintain the President's image as a tough, courageous, masculine\nleader.\nConclusion: Broder has provided an exaggerated diagnosis of the disen-\nchanted alienated segment of the population. It, nonetheless, may be the\nswing vote in the next ellection. Thus, it is politically imperative that we\nattempt to allay their fears and build confidence.\nCharles W. Colson\nOctober 26, 1970\nMEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT:\nAnalysis of Broder Series\nBroder's basic points are:\n1. People are fearful and apprehensive over the future. They are\nmostly concerned (a) about what the future holds for their children,\n(b) the future of the economy, and (c) drugs, violence and lawless-\nness.\n2. Many people have concluded that Government is incapable of handling\nthe nation's problems; the feeling that no one can solve the great\nproblems of the day creates frustration and, hence, disdain for\nGovernment and politicians.\n3. There is a vacuum of leadership and a \"negative, tentative\" approval\nof you. You are doing as well as you can and people have concluded\nthere is no better alternative; none of the national Democrate do any\nbetter in inspiring confidence. This accounts for what Broder calls\na \"Nobody for President\" attitude.\n4. There is great indecision about 1972. There is not yet an \"emerging\nnew majority.\" There is no clear cut pattern developing along ideolog-\nical or party lines. Party loyalties are deteriorating.\n5. Agnew, Wallace and Kennedy are too controversial to be President\n(for different reasons). People do not want a leader who scares them.\n6. The people want leadership -- someone who will speak for and unify\nthe whole country.\nIn analyzing Broder's conclusions, it is important to note that he inter-\nviewed only 200 people. All pollsters agree that in-depth interviews\nwith any small sampling permits the interviewer to reinforce his own\npreconceived notions. Broder was undoubtedly trying to be objective\nbut I believe that he has greatly exaggerated a number of points.\n-6-\nIn preparing the series Broder worked closely with Dick Seammon\n(the social issue) and would naturally tend to be influenced by the\nSeammon thesis. Broder also concentrated on that portion of the\npopulation which he believes to represent the independent swing vote.\nHe acknowledged that he spent little time with black or Jewish voters\n(who would tend to take a clearly liberal position) or with businessmen\n(who would tend to be with us). One in five of those interviewed were\nWallace voters in 1968; they would tend to be the most disturbed, dis-\nsatisfied and negative. In short, therefore, I think that some of\nBroder's conclusions may be valid as to a segment of the voting\npopulation but his conclusions cannot be generalised or applied\nacross the board. There is a disturbed element in society but the\nwhole country is not racked with fear as Broder would suggest.\nEvery pollster in the country reports an unusually large undecided\nvote in next week's election -- in many cases a quarter of the popu-\nlation. The prevailing thesis is that this quarter of the population is\napathetic, disinterested in the election, sees no choice between the\nparties, and is generally frustrated, having lost faith in Government's\nability to solve their problems. In studying the comments of Broder's\ninterviewees it is my opinion that hb is talking mostly with people in\nthis category, hereafter referred to, for lack of a better term, as\nthe \"alienated voter.\"\nThe following is my point by point analysis:\n1. Fear and concern about the future. Broder is correct -- there is\na politically volatile segment of the population that is very appre-\nhensive about the future. The alienated voter is concerned about\nall of the things that we reflect concern about -- drugs, pornography,\nlawlessness, student unrest -- but he doesn't believe anything can\nbe done about it. We are clearly on the right side of the issue but,\nas to this voter at least, we have not gained his confidence that we\ncan solve the problem.\nIn the first two years by emphasizing the law and order issue, we\nhave kept people aroused about student militants, drugs, pornography,\netc. We have also effectively associated the liberals with all that is\nbad about permissiveness in society. As a result, we have succeeded\nin splitting voters away from the Liberal Democrats.\n-3-\nTo win them over, we must do more. We cannot simply continue\nto decry permissivism and social evils; in the second two years\nwe are very likely to inherit the responsibility for their continu-\nation. Proving that we can do something about the evils that we\nand the alienated voter are against must be our highest priority\npolitical objective. We must start to build and advertise a posi-\ntive record of (a) restoring order on campus, (b) cutting crime,\n(c) curbing drugs and (d) generally rebuilding the moral foundation\nof our society. People want to believe that the future is safe, that\nwe can do something about the ills in society; witness the reaction\nyou get whenever you say that the vast majority of our children are\ngood and that the rock throwers are a small majority.\nPerhaps an even more socially unsettling factor than law and order\nis concern over the future of the economy unemployment and the\ncost of living. This concern permeates all of Broder's interviews\nand is high on every pollster's issue list. People have always\nequated \"good times\" with prosperity. Fear of recession or\ndepression greatly affects the national mood and aggravates other\nfears, like the social issue. Many of the people Broder inter-\nviewed are old enough to remember the \"Great Depression.\"\nAs Broder points out, the economic issue draws the alienated\nvoter to the Democrats even though at the same time the same\nvoter agrees with us on the law and order issue. Not only the\nfact of economic health but restoring confidence in the economic\nfuture is vital if we are to win the political allegiance of this\ngroup. The early success of our economic game plan is critical.\n2. Government is incapable of handling nation's problems. This may be\nthe most serious point in the Broder articles. The latest Harris\nPoll shows that 27% of the people interviewed say that you are\n\"doing the best job you can.\" Harris says that further in-depth\nquestioning reveals that this answer most often reflects a belief\nthat no President can solve the country's problems and that Govern-\nment is no longer workable or manageable. It is an answer which\nreflects frustration. Significantly, this percentage was also high\nduring the Johnson Administration (hitting a top figure of 35% in\n1968).\nThis may also be the source of much of this year's apathy, i.e., it\nreally doesn't matter who wins. This attitude creates what Broder\ncalls \"the leadership vacuum\", i.e., the job is too tough for anyone\nto handle.\n1\n-4-\nThe alienated voter is the most politically volatile, the most\nnegative and, hence, the most likely to vote against the \"ins\"\nor not vote at all. These are not the radical students who believe\nthat our society is degenerate and our system of Government\nunresponsive; these are middle Americans who simply feel that\nGovernment cannot do anything about the problems of our society.\nWe must, therefore, restore people's faith in our ability to manage\nGovernment and Government's ability to solve problems. We\nshould emphasise over and over the \"reform\" theme, dramatize\nhow we have gotten Government and the bureaucracy under control,\nand push very hard for revenue sharing and return of power to the\nstates and communities. We have a better record in this area\nthan any of our predecessors but we need to do a better job of\nselling it. We also must do more to tighten up management (getting\nrid of programs that people know are ineffective and wasteful.)\n3. Leadership vacuum. The so-called leadership vacuum or the\n\"tentative, negative approval\" of you issimply a consequence of the\nalienated voter's frustration, and his fear over the economy and\nlawlessness. My point is that this attitude prevails only in this\nparticular group. The proof of this is that in his interviews Broder\ndiscovers that this same group, which is indifferent to you, is\nequally indifferent towards any other national leader. Therefore,\nit is not your leadership that they reject; their frustration causes\nthem to lose faith in anyone's leadership. It is perfectly obvious\nfrom the crowds you have turned out across the country and their\nreaction that there is real enthusiasm for you and your Presidency.\nI believe that the majority of the people do identify you as a strong,\nforceful leader, one who doesn't promise things that can't be done,\none who has calmly and quietly tried to cope with the very serious\nproblems our nation faces.\nIn a meeting with Pete Brennan last week, he explained the reason\nfor the \"hard hat\" support of you more perceptively than I think we\nhave analyzed it. He said that the \"hard hats\" wave the flag and\ncheer the President but that, in and of itself, does not translate\ninto votes. Moreover, most of the \"hard hats\" don't like our\neconomic policies and feel that we are pushing them too hard in\nthe civil rights area. What is winning their political loyalty is\ntheir admiration for your masculinity. The \"hard hats\", who are\na tough breed, have come to respect you as a tough, courageous\nman's man. Brennan's thesis is that this image of you will win\ntheir votes more than the patriotism theme. The image of being\n!\n-3-\nstrong, forceful and decisive will have a powerful personal appeal\nwith the alienated voter.\n4. Indecision about 1972; diminishing party loyalties. The alienated\nvoter, by definition, has lost his party loyalty. Ideologically he\nis pulled towards us on the law and order issue and away from us\non the economic issue. By definition, he is disenchanted with\nGovernment; therefore, disenchanted with politicians and political\nparties. To the extent that traditional party loyalties have been\nbroken, we have an opportunity to win over large blocks of voters\n(like Wallace Democrats). We should not be trying to make them\nRepublicans, rather we should be trying to win their confidence\nand allay their fears.\n5. Agnew, Kennedy and Wallace are too controversial to be President.\nThis is also a logical extension of Broder's other points. People\nwho are frustrated and concerned and who have lost faith are least\nlikely to turn to a leader who frightens them. It is significant that\nKennedy's Chappaquidie incident is still very much in the public\nmind, at least in this group (this reinforces Brennan's point that\npeople want a firm leader with strong character.) The Agnew\npoint is important. People identify with Agnew because he says\nthe things they are thinking but they are afraid that a man who\nspeaks out and says the things they are thinking is not responsible\nenough to be a good President. It is a paradox that because they\nidentify with him, they believe that their own faults and weaknesses\nare reflected in him.\nThe most significant point is the erosion of the Wallace strength.\nThe alientabel voter can express his frustrations by voting for\nWallace -- and did in 1968. Broder points out, however, that\nsignificant numbers of former Wallace voters have now concluded\neither that he is too dangerous to be President or that a vote for\nWallace is a wasted one. This should be an opportunity for us.\n6. People want leadership and a unifying influence. This is really\nanother restatement of the frustrations of this segment of the\npopulation. Restoring their confidence in the future in the ways\ndescribed above is the key.\nI\nConclusion: The Broder series must be read in context. His con-\nclusions cannot be generalized for the whole country. In my opinion,\nthe restless, frustrated and fearful voter group is no larger than 15%\nto 20% of the country. This may well, however, be the swing vote in\n1972.\nOur target is obviously to win their confidence and allay their fears by\nproving that we can do something about what they worry about most --\nthe economy, the lack of future for their children, drugs and crime.\nIf we do, this group plus the solid constituency we now have will be an\nunbeatable majority: if we do not succeed, at best they will be non-voters;\nat the worst, they will vote against the \"ins\" merely as an expression of\nprotest.\nMost importantly, these people need an up-lift. The theme of the Jaycees'\nspeech is one which should be hit over and over in the next two years.\nWe need to do the things and say the things that will restore the confi-\ndence of the alienated voter.\nCharles W. Colson"
}