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:
Copy of a memo from Buchanan to Haldeman and the Attorney General RE: the Manhattan Twelve. Handwritten notes on original added by unknown. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 12/13/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145085
label
WHSF: Contested, 7-25
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145085
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 7-25
description
This file contains:
Copy of a memo from Buchanan to Haldeman and the Attorney General RE: the Manhattan Twelve. Handwritten notes on original added by unknown. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 12/13/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145085
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
747ced26e5376847
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
7
25
12/13/1971
Domestic Policy
Memo
Copy of a memo from Buchanan to
Haldeman and the Attorney General RE: the
Manhattan Twelve. Handwritten notes on
original added by unknown. 3 pgs.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGION
Eyes Only
December 13, 1971
fegi.
MEMORANDUM TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
VH. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
PAT BUCHANAN
SUBJECT:
THE MANHATTAN TWELVE
Sunday, for five hours at the Watergate Apartment, Chuck Colson,
Dave Keene, Max Friedersdorf and I met with five members of the
Manhattan Dozen; they included Jeff Bell and John Jones of ACU,
Wayne Thorburn, one of the two leaders of YAF, and both Tom Winter
and Allan Ryskind of Human Events. In our judgment the meeting WHS a
success. Of the conservative "planks" which had been set down, Chuck
Colson answered the majority of domestic questions to their satisfaction;
and indicated that the "thrust" of the Defense Budget coming up would be
clearly in the direction that many of us inside, as well as the Conservatives
outside, would like to see.
The President's veto of Child Development, the nature of that veto, clearly
established our credibility with the conservatives, and set a positive
framework for discussions.
As a consequence of those five hours, the following:
1. The conservatives agreed to talk to Ashbrook and to try to convince
the rest of the Twelve that this week Ashbrook - -when he makes his
promised statement should state that he needs far more time to think
over the requirements and complexities of a primary run, and will make
a final decision at a press conference "before the First of January."
2. The conservatives agreed, after considerable debate, that Ashbrook --
in light of the day care veto -- would not "move his candidacy forward" this
week if the five conservatives could prevail on the others. They agreed
that the best approach would be not to give a "go signal" at this point. They
agreed further that Ashbrook's New Hampshire effort should take no public
forward steps -- and that the conservatives themselves should make no
subrosa efforts, except those currently essential to Ashbrook's running --
should that decision come before the First of January.
Eyes Only
-2-
3. What the conservatives are looking for is a) Signals of intention to
move in the domestic direction, which we indicated the President was
moving and most specifically b) Solid evidence that the new Defense Budget
will be what we indicated it would be i.e., "thrusting" in the direction
of stronger defense posture for U. S., especially in the strategic sector
which is their most immediate and direct concern.
4. They will get back to me to indicate whether or not the objective
conditions in New Hampshire (i.e., time needed for petitions and lining
up delegates) permits them to hold back any public action until the last
minute, which as of now we agreed should be as close as possible to the
first of the year.
My reading of them is this:
There is a disposition among most of them there (especially the Human
Events people) not to run anyone against the President if they can possibly
do that. What they are interested in is some policy direction changes
not in a primary challenge. If we can come through on the Defense side,
and can send some public signals, then my view is that Colson, Buchanan
and Keene have convinced this group that not to run is the best possible
course for the future effectiveness of the conservative movement.
We indicated that the leverage of conservatives within the White House and
the Administration would not be enhanced by an Ashbrook candidacy; it could
well nigh be terminated; further that any open public moves right now toward
candidacy would not lead toward the objectives they want within the Adminis-
tration. Rather, such a course would induce a "To hell with the Kooks"
attitude in the White House, which would militate against the very objectives
they pursue. In my judgment, again, we persuaded the majority of those
present of the wisdom of this course and they will attempt to so persuade
the balance of their delegation.
However, if we cannot deliver anything of substance on the Defense Budget
despite the doubts of some of them about this course of action -- they will
gear up a campaign against the President in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Whether or not they want to go against the President, and many of them like
Bartleby's Scrivener 11 would prefer not to, 11 they will have to; indeed they
have to go to vindicate their threat, if nothing is forthcoming.
What's To Be Done?
In my judgment we should immediately send out a signal or two to them.
-3-
Specific examples would be:
1.
Appointment of a strong security man like John Foster to the empty
Packard post as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
2. Public announcement by a high Administration official, that, given some
of the abuses to which the Legal Services Corporation in legislation
was being opened we intend now to "ask for a Governor's veto" of all legal
services programs. We could argue this on the grounds: a) majority of
Governors are Democratic; and for Congress to be against this provision
implies a lack of trust in their own state leaders b) the possibility of abuses
which could injure the program's effectiveness and diminish its support
are so rife, that a veto now seems essential.
Finally that, considering the principle of accountability we believe that any
such controversial program as Legal Services should win the support of a
Governor of a State, as, after all he is the highest elective official of that
state, and the one who must necessarily be responsive to the people. This
is democratic principle; this is the essence of majority rule.
Last point: Methinks the groundwork, at this point in time, has been ploughed
to abort the Ashbrook candidacy. There are "hawks" among the conservatives
William Rusher, Stan Evans, Mr. Loeb, and others, who would like to "go"
under any conditions. But if we can produce something tangible in the
Defense Budget (reportedly Goldwater has already been given such assurances)
then we can abort this candidacy before it is born. In my view that is surely
in the President's long-term interest. If the Far Right of our party goes
charging off in New Hampshire, and is humiliated and routed, a good many
people will be embittered; wounds will have been opened within the party which
may not have healed in time for November when we need everyom
On the other hand, if we can provide these assurances on defense, I think
perhaps we can program Ashbrook in the end of December to give a ringing
endorsement the President, and to call on all conservatives everywhere
to maintain his principles, build for the future, and work out their problems
within the framework of a Nixon Presidency, which is the most effective
vehicle for the kind of changes we want. If Ashbrook used the occasion for
a "let's get aboard speech" instead of an announced candidacy, it would truly
help us in resolving our difficulties with the Right and unite the party for
an election where we are going to have to be united.
Buchanan
CC:
Colson
Keene
Goodearle