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 Ehrlichman to RN RE: The election and the near future. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/18/1970
From Walker to Ehrlichman RE: Committee to Re-elect and RNC relationship. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/28/1972
From Hullin to Ehrlichman RE: Impressions of Committee to Re-elect (1701). 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/11/1972
From Ehrlichman to Mitchell RE: Committee for the re-election and White House Staff. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/23/1972
From Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Reelection Campaign. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/6/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144825
label
WHSF: Contested, 5-51
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144825
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 5-51
description
This file contains:
From Ehrlichman to RN RE: The election and the near future. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/18/1970
From Walker to Ehrlichman RE: Committee to Re-elect and RNC relationship. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/28/1972
From Hullin to Ehrlichman RE: Impressions of Committee to Re-elect (1701). 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/11/1972
From Ehrlichman to Mitchell RE: Committee for the re-election and White House Staff. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/23/1972
From Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Reelection Campaign. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/6/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144825
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9089f73e89151446
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
5
51
11/18/1970
Campaign
Memo
From Ehrlichman to RN RE: The election
and the near future. 6 pgs.
5
51
8/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Walker to Ehrlichman RE: Committee
to Re-elect and RNC relationship. 1 pg.
5
51
8/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Hullin to Ehrlichman RE: Impressions
of Committee to Re-elect (1701). 2 pgs.
5
51
2/23/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Ehrlichman to Mitchell RE: Committee
for the re-election and White House Staff. 2
pgs.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
5
51
11/6/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Re-
election Campaign. 9 pgs.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
NUMBER
TYPE
NI
memo
Rouald H. Walker to Enrlichman
2-23-72
c(nixon)
[DOC 13]
N2
Jusi Hullin to Enrlichman
8-11-42
c(vixon)
MEMO
[DOC 14]
N3
Eberlichman to President
11-18-72
memo
[DOC 15]
N4
Memo
Eurlichman to Witchell (3copies)
2-23-72
c(Viron)
[DOC 16]
N5
memo
Ehrichman to Haldernan
11-C-72
c(vixon)
[DOC 17]
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
Enrlichman
16
FOLDER TITLE
1401 [Committee to the Re-election of the President ]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. Nat onal security classified information.
financial information.
C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy
G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.
or a libel of a living person.
H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection:
John D. Ehrlichman
Box Number:
16
Folder:
1701 [Committee for the Re-Election of the President]
Document
Disposition
13
Return Private/Political
14
Return
Private/Political
15
Return Private/Political
16
Return Private/Political
17
Return Private/Political
November 18, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
RE
THE ELECTION AND THE NEAR FUTURE
1.
Analysis of the President's election efforts
We have a ball which must be played from where it lies. Or,
rather, from where the media has ma de it appear to be.
The weekend TV and press and last weeks newsmagasines
establish a common theme: The Vice President's efforts were
fruitless and, in fact, turned off many undecided veters.
The President discovered from pello that Republicans were in
danger of serious defeat and decided to campaign all-out. The
Senate victories were the President's. Lack of further victory
was, say the media, because the line adopted by the Republicans
was negative, founded on fear, divisive, etc.
Many contrasts between your Phoenix speech and Muskie's rebuttal
are being featured.
The comparison pute you on the political path and Muskie on
statesman street,
The net result: A gain in the Senate for two years and a short-run
p.r. less for the Administration. The concerned media criticism
probably won't be very sustained. The election is net the public's
favorite subject at this point.
-2-
II.
Posture the President should maintain
A. November and December 1970
During the next 60 days everyting possible should be done to
re-establish the public attitude toward the President and
counter the media's negative barrage.
We should pre-empt the statesmen's high read image from
Muskie, et al.
For instance, such devices as a Thanksgiving service at the
White House, a visit to West Point for a Saturday parade, a
visit with нин and wife to welcome them back (builds him,
shows magnanimity, appeals to the independent), a TV special
on a state visit, allowing film of the whole thing, the schedule
should be constructed to hit this theme,
A press conference is past due, will permit you to occupy the
high ground on questions of interest and has maximum visibility.
You can dispel the false media image, direct to the people
The image being developed for the Democrate as being "resurgent"
should be demolished. For example, they owe $9 million. We
should cause them to be sued by dosens of creditors. Byrd should
be encouraged indirectly to oppose EMK for Whip.
B. Year 1971 Tactics
1.
Fireside chats
1972 will be a political year. 1971 is, therefore, the mest credible
time for a series of talks, low key, on Lesues of the day. The
expressed purpose will be to help people understand better the
Nation's defense requirements, the problems of the economy,
tax and budget problems, etc.
There is, I fael, a strong national demand for this kind of
"leadership" by the President. A pall on this question might
be a good idea.
-3-
2.
Speeches on the issues
Accept invitations providing a forum for speeches which are
actually position papers on central domestic issues.
3.
Take government to the people
Held Cabinet or Council meetings around the country but permit
them to be televised live. This will require some entraordinary
preparation but should pay real dividends.
4.
The National Parks tour
1971 is the fight year for this.
5. Am image of probity, open-mindedness, interest
in people and their individual problems (e. E., we are concerned
about the man and his family who are out of work vs. "the problem
of unemployment"), the foreign policy and defense expert, the
statesman, the family man, the man who has brought down crime
in the District of Columbia: interpreter of the issues, expert
in management of government.
But, primarily, The President in all aspects. Never the
individual, the party leader or any other narrow role. Never
an action, an event or a comment that is nen-Presidential. Yet,
at the same time, Presidential by presumption, indirection
and inference, never by self-serving statement or action.
To be avoided are first-party references to the power of the
Presidency. These are widely misisterpreted as self-serving,
regardless of context.
III.
Relationship to the Media
It should be morely correct. Continue to never let them use you;
never let them create a useful issue needlessly.
Force their coverage to be favorable by careful planning.
Be subtle in rewarding friends and cutting enemies among the press.
Be Presidential about it, never petty or partisan.
Do press conferences about once a month. It's your very best
platform. It's highly Presidential.
IV.
Use of the Vice President and Cabinet
The Vice President is "used merchandise" just now and needs
a few victories in agreeable areas. Some might be:
Veterans' health care
Reading
Water pollution
Mexican-Americans and Indians
Customs and immigration procedures
Labor
Relations with Canada
National Parks
Better use of Federal land
Signs along highways
Cancer/Heart research
He tells me his strong suit is polities, not the issues. I strengly
disagree. If he sticks to the merely partisan he will quickly
lose all credibility and will end up with a marrow, vocal following
of small influence.
The Cabinet should continue to be treated as "the family" and
- a speaker's bureen.
As said above, a televised Cabinet meeting or two, out of town,
where an issue is thoroughly discussed live and in color would
be effective and would focus on Presidential landership.
V.
Relationship with Congress
Presidential, Constitutional, as non-political as is possible.
Your effective power over Congress is your ability to unleash
public opinion. You have this power because you are everyone's
President, and for only that reason.
Thus, to be effective, you must build that particular capacity.
You should "go to the people" as frequently as there are key
Congressional issues on which you must act.
Generally, either sign or vete (net let a bill become law
without signature).
Consider the use of a sign-board tally of Congressional over-
spending.
Entertain Congressional families rather than just the Members.
It precludes much business talk and makes a most lasting
favorable impression on the Congressman.
Organise task forces of the younger Congressmen to give them
intensive schooling on some key issues:
-- taxation
-- revenue sharing
-- wage and price controls
-- environment
so they can speak, write and fight for our position in these areas.
George Shults and I will give you a schedule of our dinners we
are going to have with Senaters and Representatives this Fall.
You might pick an early one to drep-by (here in the West Wing).
This word will get around and give them greater significance
without your actually being at any others.
SUMMARY
For the entire two years (November 1970 - November 1972), you
must always be the President, never a politician, never a
candidate, never anything clse.
It is the high ground, and we must never let anyone else get
close to it.
All of your instincts and predispositions will impel you to
become a candidate or, at least, a manager of the campaign.
I think that would be daggerous, indeed fatal. It would move
you from a position of strength and broad appeal to one of
relative weakness,
When Misson opportunions in the states are formed and
are discover by the press you should never comment on
them have personal contact with them. Others may do
political things but you are President of everyone --
specially the non-political, non-partisen citizen (who is
more inclined to vote for a man than a party or political
organization).
Only at the 11th hour in 1972 will you move to partican campaigning
and then as President, asking for a personal mandate in re-election.
****
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
ADMINISTRATIVELY
CONFIDENTIAL
WASHINGTON
August 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
RONALD H. WALKER
Per your request, we have tried to pull together as much as possible
an overall feeling for the relationship between the Committee for the
Re-election (1701) and the Republican National Committee.
The RNC feels that 1701 is running the President's campaign in toto and
that the RNC's role is strictly one of running the various State campaigns.
Our relationship between the RNC and 1701 recently centered in Miami
and here are some general comments:
1.
We found remarkably little friction between 1701 and the RNC.
There were problems but these were for the most part personality
problems instead of institutional problems. For example, Dick
Herman, a strong-headed individual, gave all of us problems but
Bill Timmons managed the situation very well.
2.
There was an effort made by the White House staff to include 1701
and the RNC in all planning sessions. This reduced friction. A
strong effort was made to let the RNC front all committees.
3.
The RNC working-level people generally faced each problem in
Miami with apathy and a lack of can-do spirit. There was no
initiative -- and no follow-through. It was very noticeable that
the RNC ranks lacked young aggressive, action-oriented men.
They had no nitty-gritty workers.
CC:
Mr. Haldeman
Mr. Chapin
August 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM
SUZI HULLIN
SUBJECT
IMPRESSIONS OF 1701 OPERATION
I.
Physical Aspects
A.
Third Floor
1.
Security seemed a little casual. Constant
flow of people moving in and out. A "sign-
in" book that wasn't enforced.
2.
Small cramped reception area. Stark.
3.
People who can be seen by the public should
be dressed in a more business-like manner.
B.
Fourth Floor
1.
More impressive and business -like.
2.
Not the "zoo" of the third floor
II. Ann Dore
A.
I was very impressed with her poise, her ability
to get to the point and her concept of the program.
B.
I wasn't certain of her control of her part of
the press area (total press staff about 25 people).
C.
She was most impressed with her call from
John Ehrlichman. "If I didn't have an opening for
you, I would have made one. 11
-2-
III. Bart Porter
A.
I was not as impressed with Bart.
B.
He's enthusiastic about his work, but he didn't
listen to me. I had the feeling he was waiting to
pounce on any moment of silence or any pause to
continue his stream of conversation.
IV. Overall impressions
A.
The fourth floor seemed much more orderly
and business-like.
B.
The third floor was a "zoo", in Kathy O'Melia's
words or "just unbelieveable" - Ann Dore.
C.
There was no communication between the two floors
on this project; i.e., Bart and Jeb had written a
proposal for Clark Thursday morning (without
consulting Ann Dore) -- "very neat": 12 teams of
3 each making 6 trips hitting 72 cities.
1.
Appointee talks about her job
2.
Cabinet wife about her husband
3.
White House wife about personal relationship
with the President
When I said that Ann and I had discussed a different
program - more low key and not teamwork per se,
I was told that this proposal (Bart) was already
in rough draft.
D.
I could not define the structure of the organization.
The media group and the scheduling group both work
on different facets of the same project, but how
well they coordinate, communicate and assume
final responsibility or "sign off", I couldn't determine.
E.
My interview with Ann was enjoyable and informative,
a feeling for the job. My interview with Bart was a
little frustrating. I didn't feel I was communicating and
he took me into Jeb's office where there were two men
meeting with Jeb to repeat my declining the position.
It was awkward, not to mention a little embarrassing.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR
Honorable John Mitchell
Attorney General
Department of Justice
I continue to see evidence that the Committee for the Re-election
staff and the White House staff are meshing very badly on matters
of substantive policy and how to use it politically.
As I said the other day, to those who have been long in this vine-
yard, it's as if, suddenly for the first time, what the Administration
favors, opposes, advocates and stands for is to receive some
political wisdom.
It is important that all Jeb's people know and understand what policy
is, why it is as it is, where our strengths and weaknesses are and,
for what it is worth, what our three years of experience has taught
us about presenting this material -- to veterans, the aged, youth,
minorities, etc.
They should bear in mind that our people really do know something
about this problem of presenting policy positions --
--
the issue
--
past performance
--
proposals
--
pay-out for the voter.
We have recently seen some CFTROTP (how's that for an acronym?)
copy on issues. To be very generous about it, it was very terrible.
Committee staff can't seem to stay away from calling everyone in the
government (plus Pete Rozelle) to ask for information on substantive
programs and policy. Departments, agencies, OMB, my staff all are
Page Two
getting calls from new people, just on the scene, determined to re-
invent the wheels which long ago have been thoroughly invented.
Moreover, they tactlessly seek to exploit "non-political" efforts in
the clumsiest kind of way. The call to Rozelle (about which Jeb
knows) is a classic example.
May I ask that all of the Committee people be thoroughly indoctrin-
ated and instructed as to --
1.
The existing policies and programs, and
their rationale (both substantive and political).
2.
How to make contact with government and non-
government people for information or help on
these subjects.
3.
What resources are already available to them,
and how to use them.
I am still uncertain as to the role Fred Malek will play. Will it be
limited to coordinating activities related to cultivating political
interest groups, or will his role be a broader one? How his efforts
relate to Jeb's? Perhaps you would be good enough to send me a
copy of his job description so we know where he fits.
John D. Ehrlichman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR
Honorable John Mitchell
Attorney General
Department of Justice
I continue to see evidence that the Committee for the Re-election
staff and the White House staff are meshing very badly on matters
of substantive policy and how to use it politically.
As I said the other day, to those who have been long in this vine-
yard, it's as if, suddenly for the first time, what the Administration
favors, opposes, advocates and stands for is to receive some
political wisdom.
It is important that all Jeb's people know and understand what policy
is, why it is as it is, where our strengths and weaknesses are and,
for what it is worth, what our three years of experience has taught
us about presenting this material -- to veterans, the aged, youth,
minorities, etc.
They should bear in mind that our people really do know something
about this problem of presenting policy positions --
the issue
--
past performance
--
proposals
--
pay-out for the voter.
We have recently seen some CFTROTP (how's that for an acronym?)
copy on issues. To be very generous about it, it was very terrible.
Committee staff can't seem to stay away from calling everyone in the
government (plus Pete Rozelle) to ask for information on substantive
programs and policy. Departments, agencies, OMB, my staff all are
Page Two
getting calls from new people, just on the scene, determined to re-
invent the wheels which long ago have been thoroughly invented.
Moreover, they tactlessly seek to exploit "non-political" efforts in
the clumsiest kind of way. The call to Rozelle (about which Jeb
knows) is a classic example.
May I ask that all of the Committee people be thoroughly indoctrin-
ated and instructed as to --
1.
The existing policies and programs, and
their rationale (both substantive and political).
2.
How to make contact with government and non-
government people for information or help on
these subjects.
3.
What resources are already available to them,
and how to use them.
I am still uncertain as to the role Fred Malek will play. Will it be
limited to coordinating activities related to cultivating political
interest groups, or will his role be a broader one? How his efforts
relate to Jeb's? Perhaps you would be good enough to send me a
copy of his job description so we know where he fits.
John D. Ehrlichman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR
Honorable John Mitchell
Attorney General
Department of Justice
I continue to see evidence that the Committee for the Re-election
staff and the White House staff are meshing very badly on matters
of substantive policy and how to use it politically.
As I said the other day, to those who have been long in this vine-
yard, it's as if, suddenly for the first time, what the Administration
favors, opposes, advocates and stands for is to receive some
political wisdom.
It is important that all Jeb's people know and understand what policy
is, why it is as it is, where our strengths and weaknesses are and,
for what it is worth, what our three years of experience has taught
us about presenting this material -- to veterans, the aged, youth,
minorities, etc.
They should bear in mind that our people really do know something
about this problem of presenting policy positions --
--
the issue
--
past performance
--
proposals
--
pay-out for the voter.
We have recently seen some CFTROTP (how's that for an acronym?)
copy on issues. To be very generous about it, it was very terrible.
Committee staff can't seem to stay away from calling everyone in the
government (plus Pete Rozelle) to ask for information on substantive
programs and policy. Departments, agencies, OMB, my staff all are
Page Two
getting calls from new people, just on the scene, determined to re-
invent the wheels which long ago have been thoroughly invented.
Moreover, they tactlessly seek to exploit "non-political" efforts in
the clumsiest kind of way. The call to Rozelle (about which Jeb
knows) is a classic example.
May I ask that all of the Committee people be thoroughly indoctrin-
ated and instructed as to --
1.
The existing policies and programs, and
their rationale (both substantive and political).
2.
How to make contact with government and non-
government people for information or help on
these subjects.
3.
What resources are already available to them,
and how to use them.
I am still uncertain as to the role Fred Malek will play. Will it be
limited to coordinating activities related to cultivating political
interest groups, or will his role be a broader one? How his efforts
relate to Jeb's? Perhaps you would be good enough to send me a
copy of his job description so we know where he fits.
John D. Ehrlichman
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR
BOB HALDEMAN
RE:
REELECTION CAMPAIGN
The tone or theme:
In spite of all the talk about this being an age of one-term
Presidents, I believe it is very hard for the American people
to turn out a sitting President. Therefore, obviously, the
tone or theme of the campaign must be keyed to the fact that
the President is the President, that he has done a professional
and competent job, that he has made significant accomplishments
and that there is, therefore, no reason to change.
I think people tend to vote against a candidate perhaps more
frequently than they vote for him; and certainly a Presidential
race always weighs a candidate against his opponent. An incumbent
President has an obvious advantage and President Nixon has a very
clear advantage in view of his international initiatives on the question
of "compared to what?"
At the same time, the President is the national father figure, the
exemplar, the leader, and the nation's champion against other
nations. This is what the American people believe a President is
and they want him to act out these parts. They want him to evidence
compassion for the poor, even though individually they may say
and do things showing callous disregard for the poor. It is alright
for Mr. Voter to be indifferent to the poor but it is not alright, in
his eyes and mine, for his President to be indifferent to the poor. In
fact, I suspect he gets a certain amount of psychic relieve from the
knowledge that his President is being concerned about the less fortunate
even at the time that he himself is not.
-2-
I think it is indispensable for the President to act out these
roles in the course of the next year, with feeling and sincerity,
to fulfill these expectations. To the extent that he does not we
will find vague discontents and negative reactions expressed as
"the President has no compassion, he doesn't care, he is cold
and indifferent, he has no thought for the little people, he only
cares about big business, etc."
Since this is role-acting, let's approach it as such. The President
has a natural antipathy for doing the phony, the unnatural and the
not-felt. But we are now not talking about making him comfortable
in what he is doing; we are talking about getting him reelected and,
in looking at that project coldly, there are some things that are
going to have to be done to do the job properly that he may not totally
like. But I am sure he and we would like the alternative even less.
Because I think the alternative is to give exposure to an Achilles
heel to which the President may be attacked mercilessly and effectively
with unknown results.
And like a tennis game, as long as you can return the ball without
mistake every time it doesn't really matter how hard you hit it.
You keep playing for the other fe llow's mistake. We occupy the
high ground now since the President is the incumbent and all he
has to do is go on being the incumbent. The other fellow has to
figure out how to take the high ground. Therefore, we should avoid
giving him handholds, avoid making mistakes, avoid acting rashly
or without calculation or contemplation (e.g., the re-run of the
Phoenix speech) and close as many of the doors as possible through
which the enemy might enter.
In short, I would like to see the President put in situations which would
act out his compassion, his fairness, his true concern for his inferiors,
his leadership, etc. It does almost no good at all for those of us who
know him well to tell about these things. One acting-out session will
be worth ten thousand interviews with White House staffers or members
of the Cabinet.
-3-
The President's part in the campaign
We had a good session with the Cabinet yesterday in the
President's absence, and we told them all the things that they
had to do in order to get the President reelected. But I
suspect you know, and I strongly feel, that in the last analysis
it isn't going to make much difference what the Cabinet says or
does. The President himself is going to have to do much more
than he is inclined to do, much more than he would want to do
and probably much more than his responsibilities in fact permit
him safely to do. But nevertheless I think he will have to do them.
Television and Radio
I know there is a concern that the President is over-exposing himself
on television. And yet the singular criticism which I hear as I go
around the country talking the issues to people is that the President
is not talking to them about the issues. The Cabinet is talking to them,
the staff is talking to them, Bob Dole is talking to them but they want
the President to talk to them. They want fireside chats. Over and over
again I receive the suggestion that the President sit down and talk to
the country about the issues of the time on a periodic basis, so that
they may count regularly on hearing from him not just at times of
crisis but under circumstances that will permit them to pull their
chairs up to the television and listen to him explain to them about the
problems of our aged, health problems, the problems of our youth
and our cities in terms which they can understand and react to.
We have discussed the fireside chat format in the past and I gather
that the ten o'clock meeting or the five o'clock meeting or the Saturday
morning group or somebody doesn't think it's a very good idea. All
I know is that there is considerable consumer demand out there in the
field for this kind of thing.
As a variation on this, let me suggest that we think about this hunger
or market demand in terms of regions. As Ed Harper pointed out to
us in his analysis, the issue of support to parochial schools is a hot
issue in limited areas. The issue of the problems of the aged is almost
completely confined to 8 or 9 states. The farm problem is obviously
localized. Perhaps there is a regional approach to this fireside chat
idea that would prevent the President from becoming over-exposed
nationwide and would avoid whatever disadvantages are inherent in such
over-exposure.
-4-
Something like this would have to be started before campaigning
begins in earnest and I know the equal time problem exists, but
I also know there is a very strong pull for this among people who
are thinking about the Presidency and about the nation's problems.
Personal Appearances
Aside from the fact that it prevents the press from writing that the
President is ducking the people, I don't know that there's a great
deal of advantage in personal appearances during the campaign.
We've always been very big for rallies, crowd shots, motorcades
and balloons but I really seriously question whether they are in any
way important for an incumbent President. It may be that we need
some bandwagon psychology but I wouldn't think SO. There are
obvious tolerance maximums in terms of the use of television, but
I think those limitations are perhaps limitations on campaigning
generally then, since I think the idea of the President getting out
and whistle stopping or stumping the nation is doubtful.
New Hampshire
I think I would stay completely away from New Hampshire under the
circumstances. McCloskey may do better than anyone thinks at this
time simply because he is effective up close and can be expected to
make substantial inroads in the meager population of that state by
an intensive hand-shaking and coffee hour campaign. I would think
it's safer simply to take the position that New Hampshire has little or
no significance in terms of the Republican nomination. It happens
to be the first primary but somebody had to be first and it doesn't
stand for anything. We might even play up McCloskey's obvious
advantage in being able to devote unlimited time to hand-shaking in
New Hampshire while the President is busy saving the world.
McCloskey's absentee record might be emphasized and our chairman
up there might make the point that it's more important for the President
to be hard at work in the White House than up in New Hampshire trying
to tilt for delegates with some unknown Congressman. If we write it
off now, we don't have to apologize for any results later,
assuming we can bring it off.
-5-
Trips into the Country
I would subscribe to John Whitaker's proposal for more issue-
oriented trips and fewer rallies. I don't think I would go quite as
far as he in degree but I think he has the right idea. He forgets
to make the point that most of these issues are regional in character
and we can pretty well localize our attack on an issue with some
intelligent analysis. But he is certainly right that trips should be
taken to discuss problems.
Running as an out
I think John Connally is right that the President has to run as an out,
against the status quo, rather than as a defender of the status quo.
There are simply too many unfulfilled proposals, too many unsolved
problems, too many unsatisfied needs and wants as demonstrated by
the Harris poll. People don't like the way the country is going and
the only way to respond to that discontent is to run against the conditions
which they identify. You have to advocate change under such
circumstances, rather than to run on a platform of accomplishment.
If it's skillfully done, the President can attack his Senator opponent on
the ground that he, the member of Congress, is the defender of the
status quo since the Congress wouldn't change things even though the
President wanted them to. The Senator perpetuated pollution, he
perpetuated poverty, he perpetuated the conditions in the cities which
might have been solved by revenue sharing, etc.
The Catholic Vote
We are operating under a set of assumptions about the Catholic vote
that I suspect are totally invalid. You have seen Roy Morey's
preliminary analysis and Pat Buchanan's seat-of-the-pants emotional
response. I took the position with Buchanan that Morey had made the
prima facie case and it was up to Buchanan to sustain his burden of
proof and I am afraid Pat has not done SO. He has told us with great
fervor what he, Buchanan, believes but he has no answers for the
statistics and polls which indicate the contrary. Because a strongly
pro-Catholic position on some issues costs us votes (as shown by
the polls) in the border states and the South, and we are relying on
those areas as part of our base of support, we had better be very
sure of the validity of our assumptions on this subject before we
go much farther.
-6-
The Environment
A somewhat kindred subject is that of the electoral effect of the
environmental issue. There is an instinctive distrust of this
issue by the President. Yet the polls tell us very clearly that it
is a highly important issue and everything that we can develop on
an objective basis tells us over and over again that it is motivating
and significant. If I read the Harris poll correctly (and it would
seem inescapable to me on the basis of this poll) people don't want
"balance" between the environment and the economy. We know that
balance is right, makes good sense from the standpoint of the future
of the country, has to be an important consideration in the things we
do around here, but it will turn off the environmentally oriented voter.
And here we are talking about broadening our base. It's the young,
the women, the middle bracket wage earner who is concerned about
pollution in overwhelming numbers.
Now, whether we like it or not, and whether the President agrees
emotionally with the evidence or mt, I think we have to be realistic
about this issue and begin to act more politically about it.
On both these points, what I wish to argue is that we are making
emotional responses to these two issues. Rather, we have to be
cold, calculating and thoroughly political in our analysis of the
issues and how to treat them.
Labor
I'm of two minds on this issue and I don't quite know what to suggest.
We need to know a lot more about the situation than we do. We would
like to think that we can make inroads into the labor vote; we would
like to think we can even pick up some labor leaders at the margin wh o
will help us. But we are under heavy attack by our friends at the
moment for being soft on labor, for having sold out to labor on Phase II,
for having tolerated wage increases and strikes to the serious damage
of business and the nation and, in effect, for being "dupes" who have
been taken into camp by labor, largely on a bluff.
-7-
In a minute I am going to mention credibility. We are telling
people not to worry about the China trip and the Russia trip
because the President is tough, he's able to handle them, he
won't be taken in by them and they can't bluff him. It is being
argued that our labor record makes these assertions incredible.
The President or the politician?
To be reelected the President must attract the support of people
who are not party Republicans. The campaign must be inclusive
rather than exclusive. It must bring to him people who are attracted
by that extra ingredient rather than by the forme r Senator from
California. In other words, everyone knows that the President is
a consummate politician and frequently does things for political
reasons. They often assign political reasons to things done for non-
political reasons. There's a sort of rebuttable presumption that
everything the President does is done for political reasons.
My thesis is that he will attract additional support if his campaign is
essentially Presidential and not political. The closerwe get to election
day the harder it will be not to be political; not to say and do the purely
political thing, to drop the Presidential mantle and wade into the fray
at the level of the lowest common denominator. Yet I think that
the strategy can be that of the front runner which was so successfully
employed in the weeks just before the 1968 convention.
Credibility
In thinking about vulnerability, this has to be an avenue that we should
be concerned about. McCloskey is already playing this tune in New
Hampshire, to what effect I don't know. I think many people want to
believe that their government officials are trying to pull a fast one,
trying to slide one by them, trying to get away with something, etc.
I think each time Chuck Colson is caught at one of his escapades or
the Defense Department is nailed on a North Vietnamese pipeline
exhibit or we attempt to excuse some indefensible mistake by a
subordinate we lose some people that we otherwise could have won.
There's no doubt that we're going to be attacked as dishonest and
incredible and I think we have to lean over backward to avoid
creating grounds or even the appearance of grounds for these attacks.
-8-
I think the Bureau of Labor Statistics effort, while right, is going
to cost us in the long run on this score. We're going to have the
same trouble in punishing or firing those guilty of leaking.
Suppression of the truth comes under the general heading of
incredibility. This is a problem we're going to have to deal with
on an almost daily basis, making the best judgment calls we
can but always keeping in mind the overall problem.
Perhaps under this general heading comes the Justice Department
and some of its activities lately.
The Law and Order Issue
The nationwide crime statistics for the las three years have not
been very good. On the other hand, Washington, D. C. 's record
has been excellent, given all the problems of this place. In truth,
the difference is that we have poured an unbelieveable amount of
money into law enforcement in the District and it is governed by a
dictatorship rather than an elected Mayor and City Council. We've
been able to do a lot of things in the management of the city
government that the electorate would never have stood for if they
had had any say in it. And it's gotten results.
I'm not sure how this issue can be handled in the coming campaign.
I suppose one approach would be to point with pride at the city we
have responsibility for and say that big city Democrat Mayors could
do the same thing if they were as good as we are. And we can say
that we've been trying to send more money to the cities in the form
of revenue sharing but the Congress wouldn't let us. But all in all
it is not a good national record and we're going to be on the defensive
in this area and we'd better start laying some plans right now for
meeting the political onslaught. There is no sign that the statistics
are going to get any better in the coming year.
-9-
Civil Rights
There is going to be a major political offensive against us in
the civil rights area and we will have a separate report coming
to the President within a couple of weeks as to the dimension
of this problem and the directions that the attacks probably will
take.
This memorandum started out to be general and ended up being
specific on certain issues. Going back to the general, I think
that the President should "declare peace" at the start of his campaign,
say that the Vietnam war is at an end as he promised it would be,
that the country is emerging into an era of peace and prosperity
and that we have come through the dark night (please, not nightmare)
with the President's firm hand on the helm. Many, many problems
remain to be solved but now we're in a position to attack them with
the same leadership, vision and courage that has been displayed in
bringing us through the problems of war and recession.
To earn a generation of peace many international problems are yet
to be tackled and it's a very bad time to be thinking about changing
Administrations, particularly when such a good start has been made
by the incumbent President.
We don't try and defend the domestic status qua; we urge that it be
changed and we run against the failures of the Congress (the Democratic
nominee almost surely coming from that body).
I apologize for the rambling nature of the memorandum but we 'll try
and organize this subject matter better for you in succeeding notes.
John D. Ehrlichman