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 Lloyd Free to Cliff Miller RE: projected election outcome. 14 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26145207
label
WHSF: Contested, 7-86
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26145207
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 7-86
description
This file contains:
From Lloyd Free to Cliff Miller RE: projected election outcome. 14 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/3/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26145207
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bec19a61dd2d3326
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
7
86
4/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Lloyd Free to Cliff Miller RE:
projected election outcome. 14 pgs.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Page 1 of 1
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
5703 Warwick Place
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
TO:
Clifford Miller
DATE: April 3, 1972
FROM: Lloyd Free
You have asked for my views about the President's prospects; I shall give
them to you with complete frankness. Despite the current Harris poll which shows
Nixon comfortably ahead of Muskie, I would still estimate the President's chances
of reelection in November as being no better than 50-50, as things now look. And
Arch Crossley (of Crossley Ratings and Crossley Poll fame) who, although a loyal
Republican, is one of the shrewdest, most objective political observers I have
ever come across, thinks the odds are even more adverse than that.
As in the case of almost everyone but a fanatic who evaluates any President,
there are a number of things the President has said and done that I, personally,
do not like. But, on balance, I firmly believe that his substantive record is
extraordinarily good; or perhaps I should say that it will be if only Congress can
be forced or cajoled into passing some of the really fundamental legislation he
has proposed (e.g., the family assistance, or minimum income plan, which is truly
revolutionary in getting at some of the basics of the poverty problem; his reve-
nue sharing proposal which digs down to the very roots of a cluster of current
misalignments; his programs in the field of education; etc.) And, on the inter-
national front, he has, indeed, been a blazer in marking out the trail the United
States must follow in the changed world it now must operate in.
Why, then, isn't the President an overwhelming favorite at the present time,
enjoying as he does the advantages of incumbency (which can also be an enormous
disadvantage if the incumbent has done unpopular things, which isn't the case with
Nixon), and having made repeated, dramatic moves in recent months which would have
driven the popularity ratings of almost any other President in history up sky-high
(e.g., even Truman's approval figure rose from a low of 35% in January of 1947 to
60% in March, following his announcement of the program of aid to Greece and Turkey).
In part, the reasons, I believe, lie in certain personality characteristics and
behavioral patterns of the President, which I shall discuss later on; but also, in
certain of the psychological symptoms prevalent in the times we live in.
Ideological Conservatism VS. Operational Liberalism
As a first step toward getting at this psychological dimension, I must refer,
somewhat egotistically, to a book of mine called "The Political Beliefs of Americans."
[Incidentally, whether rightly or not, Evans and Novak in one of their columns
published in February of 1968, on the eve of the President's victorious campaign,
reported that "considerable attention at Nixon headquarters has been devoted to (this)
obscure new book.
The central thesis of this book is an idea which had never really been system-
atically developed before. It is that, when you question Americans about their
abstract notions regarding the proper role and sphere of government, and especially
about the nature and functioning of our economic system -- when you question them,
that is, at the ideological level, the majority prove to be ideological conservatives,
opposed in theory to the utilization of governmental power and resources for
accomplishing social ends. But, at the same time, when you question these same
people at the operational level of government programs (e.g., of the New Deal to
Great Society types), it turns out that a large majority are operational liberals,
who strongly support, in practice, appropriate governmental actions to promote
social objectives.
Thus what every American politician has to cope with is a bunch of mixed-up
schizoids who are -- or think they are -- ideologically conservative, but who,
- 2 -
practically speaking, are operationally liberal. It is for this reason that my
advice to any candidate or President is this: talk like an ideological conserva-
tive; but act like an operational liberal.
In a very real sense, this is exactly what the President has been doing for
the most part (e.g., stressing the work incentive angle in connection with his
truly liberal family assistance plan.) But there has not been quite enough consist-
ency or persistent follow through on either of these scores to give an impression
of deeply held sincerity. (This aspect of the matter will be discussed more in de-
tail below.)
The Deeper Psychological Dimension
At this stage, I feel I must become quite philosophical because I believe an
approach at the most basic level is necessary for any real understanding of the
psychological predicament, that we, as a people, a society, a nation, find our-
selves in at the present time. Please bear with me for a page or two of what may
at first seem vaporings; I promise that some practical suggestions will emerge at
the end.
Putting our present situation into historical perspective, it has been my be-
lief for a long time that, ever since the end of World War I, this country (and,
indeed, much of the rest of the developed world) has been in a period of gradual
breakdown of cultural mores in the broadest sense of the term. (Why major wars so
often serve as catalysts along these lines, I do not pretend to understand; but
the fact of the matter is that they usually do. And we have obviously had a suc-
cession of such catalysts: World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and now
Vietnam, all in my lifetime.)
By "cultural mores" I am not alluding alone to matters of morals or ethics,
although these too are clearly included; but to the whole system of fixed, morally
- 3 -
binding customs and folkways of central importance which are accepted without
question in any given society.
I believe and hope that we are in the final stages of this breakdown, which
reflects itself as well in a loss of confidence in all, or almost all, of the
major institutions of our culture: government, business, labor, the church, even
in a very real sense the family as we have known it (hence these experiments with
such things as communal living).
Americans as a whole, in short, are frustrated to the very teeth with things
as they are - with the status quo, in other words. And unfortunately the Presi-
dent of the United States, whoever he may be from time to time, almost inevitably
becomes the chief symbol of the politico-economic-social status quo, which is one
of Mr. Nixon's main problems at this moment. (Parenthetically, a stance of opera-
tional liberalism can help in this connection because it clearly implies that the
President is not resting on the status quo, but is trying to change things.)
Populism
Americans generally are so frustrated, in fact, that I feel relatively con-
fident that they will soon prove receptive to some new kind of individual and
social philosophy of life, not yet visible on the horizon. Whether this new
philosophy will take on a predominately religious cast (e.g., as with Christianity),
or a predominately politico-socio-economic cast (as with communism and fascism),
I cannot foretell. But what I have been saying for some years is that, either way,
I feel reasonably sure that the new philosophy that finally takes hold will in-
volve large elements of populism (a term which, suddenly, is being increasingly
bandied about in recent weeks). The fundamentals of this populist movement will
almost surely include a lashing out at big government, big business, big unions,
big what-have-you -- anything and everything big -- in favor of smallness on al-
- 4 -
most every front, so as to permit at least the illusion of more meaningful involve-
ment and participation by individuals in the workings of the society in which they
live and have their beings.
While populism, as a philosophy, has not yet been given a coherent, convincing
formulation in our times (as it received in the days of William Jennings Bryan),
the latent feelings which will eventually reinforce a populist movement in this
country are already with us in the way of growing distrust and disillusionment with
bigness. And it is of vital importance, even at this stage that the President and
the members of his Administration not touch the public's sensitive nerve ends which
a little later are going to generate and reinforce a real populist movement be-
cause, whenever they do, they will get incipient, if not pronounced, knee-jerk re-
actions.
The record of the Administration on the "big government" side is excellent,
taking into account its proposals for governmental decentralization, revenue
sharing, "returning power to the people", etc. And, when it comes to "big labor",
things couldn't possibly be better, thanks in large part to George Meany.
The "Tilt" toward Big Business
But (and forgive me for putting it so bluntly), the record in terms of com-
placency, if not permissiveness toward the wealthy and coziness with "big business"
could hardly be worse: tax breaks for business, viewed as being at the expense of
individual taxpayers; tax loopholes which allow men with enormous incomes to get
off scot-free of taxes; a wage-price control system which large numbers of people
are beginning to say controls the wages of the little man, all right, but not the
prices charged by business; regulatory agencies that are suspected of acting not
to control business but to give business what it wants; the Smith-Alessio San Diego
mess (whatever the facts); and, finally, the really crowning blow, the ITT affair,
- 5 -
involving more especially Kleindienst (who, at best, is undoubtedly looked upon
by now, in general, as being too business-oriented to act even-handedly as
Attorney General) and Peter Flanigan (who has become far too conspicuous as a
symbol of the "wheeling and dealing" that must inevitably go on between govern-
ment and big business, but which should never be allowed to show on the surface).
The impact of such things is heightened because the Republican Party, in
the public's view, has traditionally been looked upon as more business-oriented
than people-oriented. Thus many are ready to believe almost any charges having to
do with collaboration, collusion, conspiracy, and/or corruption as between
Republican officials and businessmen. Against this background, I suspect that by
now the Nixon Administration is considered by many to be the most business-
oriented since literally the days of Warren G. Harding (of Teapot Dome fame),
Cal Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover - a posture which is basically inconsistent, of
course, with the platform of operational liberalism (cloaked in conservative
terminology) which I personally feel it is necessary for Mr. Nixon to stand on if
he is to be reelected.
Correcting the "Tilt"
In my view, the situation has become so serious in this respect that it may
demand that the Administration take some or all of the following drastic actions
in the very near future:
(1) Advocate a new tax bill eliminating some of the tax breaks
presently afforded business (meaning, in practice, big business);
(2) Tighten up on tax loopholes for the wealthy so apparently
drastically that it will seem that a "soak the rich" measure is
being proposed;
- 6 -
(3) Institute, immediately and vigorously, several anti-trust actions
against some of the huge conglomerates (perhaps ITT included);
(4) Clamp down - really clamp down - on price increases;
(5) Straighten up some of the regulatory agencies in their currently
obvious "tilt" toward big business.
Such steps as these would, of course, reinforce the image of the President as
an operational liberal. And, oddly enough, they would also be entirely consistent
with the better elements of American conservative credos and the finest traditions
of the Republican Party, both of which historically (before they become somewhat
more sophisticated and thus contaminated) put great stress upon individualism,
anti-bigness, and anti-trust-ism. (After all, Teddy Roosevelt was a good Republi-
can, too, in one of the most glorious hours of the Party).
Talking Unlike an Ideological Conservative
Earlier in this memorandum I expressed the opinion that the President, in
playing the role of an ideological conservative, had not been entirely consistent.
Let me illustrate by citing the way he has handled, verbally, certain aspects of
the Federal Government's financial plight. Obviously, under present circumstances,
he has had no choice but to follow essentially Keynesian policies. But why did he
fall into the trap of talking like a Keynesian, defending his deficit spending on
such grounds as a "full employment budget?"
Instead, for example, he might have likened the present situation the nation
finds itself in to that of the average family. When times get a little bad, and
there isn't enough readily available cash to pay the bills, what do they do to
maintain a decent standard of living? Why borrow, of course, from a bank or
credit company; and then pay back the money when times get better. This is the
kind of simple, indeed simplistic metaphor that people, the common people, under-
stand and appreciate, not a bunch of Keynesian-type gibberish which may, it is
true, appeal to John Kenneth Galbraith and his ilk; but they're bound to vote
against Mr. Nixon anyway.
- 7 -
Sustaining the Role of an Operational Liberal
The President has also, in my opinion, not been sufficiently consistent or
convincing in playing the role of an operational liberal, despite the many ex-
cellent proposals along these lines he has made to Congress. In almost every
case, he has introduced his ideas with great fanfare (indeed, sometimes fanfare
too full-blown) and then given the impression of forgetting all about them,
leaving them to languish largely undisturbed in the bowels of a Congress too
somnolent to pass the President's programs, and too constipated to produce its
own.
Instead, as he did recently in his most welcome message to Congress about
welfare, etc., he ought to be pushing these things almost daily between now and
the election, wheedling, cajoling, threatening, exhorting.
Along these lines, he has a built-in issue of the sort that won Truman the
election in 1948, if he will only start playing his cards, not only skillfully,
but quickly. It is that, when it comes to acting on the President's programs,
this has been a "do-nothing" Congress; and when it comes to what our Democratic
legislators have attempted on their own, it has been an irresponsible Congress,
talking, talking, talking, about spending, spending, spending billions and
billions and billions of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. This is a made-to-
order issue for the obvious reason that, assuming as I do that neither Lindsay
nor Wallace has a chance, every single likely Democratic opponent of the
President's is a member of this "do-nothing", irresponsible Congress, and hence
vulnerable to this particular charge.
Domestic VS. International Concerns
The President's failure in the past to push hard and consistently for his
domestic proposals, while at the same time repeatedly exhibiting his obviously
greater interest in, and preoccupation with international affairs, has no doubt
- 8 -
lead to the unfortunate impression in much of the country that he is not really
concerned about the domestic front. Yet this front is where the chief worries
and fears of the people are clustered. (Public opinion studies conducted
originally by my Institute and repeated not long ago by Potomac Associates show,
for example, that the proportion of Americans agreeing with the statement that
"we shouldn't think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems here at home" rose from 55% in 1964; to 60% in 1968; to 77%
in the spring of 1971; and this figure would, in my opinion, be even higher if
the question were posed again today.)
"Nixon Dosen't Care!"
Against this background, it is obvious that the President has opened himself
up to the charge carried on placards in the recent protest march, here in
Washington, against the Administration's welfare plan: "Nixon dosen't care!"
(The misspelling itself made the slogan all the more poignant in my view.)
Along these lines, the most damaging side effects that can flow from a
business-oriented move is illustrated by the appointment of Earl Butz as Secretary
of Agriculture - Butz the very personification of big agri-business. And now,
of course, just because of that background, he is predictably trying to maintain
his unsteady, defensive stance vis-a-vis the dirt farmers by supporting recent
rises in food prices . even going so far as to say that "the price of steak is
just right." I can well imagine what the reaction to this has been on the part
of housewives throughout the country, one of whose primary worries has been over
the cost of living, and particularly the cost of food: i.e., the Nixon Adminis-
tration just doesn't care.
- 9 -
Nixon's Weaknesses
There are such weaknesses as the types described above in the Nixon drive
for reelection. And then there are certain vulnerabilities which derive from
personal traits or tendencies on the part of the President himself, which by now
are probably so ingrained as to be incurable. But, if we are going to have an
objective picture of the difficulties as a whole, they had better be mentioned
briefly (there is no use dwelling over them) because of the impact they have had
on his public image, as I understand it.
He has given the impression through the years of being without constant
principles or convictions; of having no basic philosophy to guide himself by; of
being the opportunist compleat. (Please do not misunderstand me. I am only
saying that this is how a large segment of the public views him. My own personal
evaluation is that, par excellence, he is a "problem solver", which obviously
requires a flexible, pragmatic, non-doctrinaire approach. On this score, I,
myself, would give the President high marks, just as I do Nelson Rockefeller.)
To make matters worse, the President has reinforced this image of philosoph-
ical instability in recent months by dramatic, sudden, shocking turn-abouts in
areas in regard to which the public thought they had a fix on his positions
(e.g., wage and price controls, rapproachment with China, anti-busing). The
merits or demerits of these latter-day stands (all of which I personally endorse
in varying degrees) are not the issue here; it is rather that these turn-abouts
have made him seem a turn-coat, from whom you don't know what to expect next,
since there appear to be no constancies conditioning his behavior.
While I'm on this subject, I might as well add one more dimension. Taking
the President's record as a whole, he has said and done things in one problem
area which are philosophically inconsistent (or seem philosophically inconsistent)
with things he has said and done in other problem areas. No consistent pattern
- 10 -
clearly and visibly permeates the plexus as a whole, and this has left the public
doubtful, distressed, and distrustful. (One of the most naive beliefs of Americans
is that political actions should somehow spring from a consistent system of
sincere beliefs in enduring principles, permeated with some kind of humanitarian
schmaltz.)
Then, to further confound this impression of insincerity, the President has
repeatedly handled things in such a way as to give the false appearance of being
a contriver and conniver, preoccupied largely with his own self-interests. (Why,
a good many of the public are asking, did he wait until after the Wallace vote
had been counted in Florida before announcing his anti-busing stand? Why did he
seem to delay his visits to Peking and Moscow so that they would occur at the
most opportunistic time: early in an election year? Etc., etc. The public's naive
questions along these line seem to go on and on.)
My advice in this connection is, of course, obvious: for Mr. Nixon, if he
can do so, to play things in a more sincere, consistent, sophisticated, and subtle
fashion from now until the election, without any more dramatic spectacles, let
alone turn-abouts. Let's let the impression seep in that this man is what no doubt
he actually is: a solid, responsible, even staid citizen leader, who puts the good
of the country ahead of his own self-interest any and every day of any and every
week.
My Final Message
The fundamental message of this memorandum is that the way (in my view, the
only way) that might remedy the present weaknesses the President must overcome if
he is to be reelected is for him to get it all together for a change: to talk
consistently like an ideological conservative; to act consistently and vigorously,
with constant follow through, as an operational liberal.
- 11 -
By opting for operational liberalism (cloaked in conservative terminology)
he may gain a distinct advantage over his Democratic opponent, unless that
opponent be either Scoop Jackson or George Wallace on the Democratic ticket, both
of which alternatives seem unlikely as of now.
The name of the game this time, as I see it, is for Mr. Nixon to force the
Democrat as far over to the left as possible, aided and abetted, of course, by the
non-too-subtle pressures of the left-wing of the Democratic Party: to push him so
far over to the left, in fact, that the bulk of routine Democrats will not and
cannot follow him.
This is one election which Richard Nixon, the man and the incumbent, cannot
win, all on his own; he's got to see to it that the Democrat loses.
Keeping the Conservatives in Line
But how can the President keep both the right-wing of his own party and as
many potential Wallace supporters as possible in line while he is operating
liberally? Apart from a few nuts like Bill Buckley, who really stand for little
in the overall national picture but their own brilliance, I believe this might be
possible through the President taking the following steps:
(1) By talking consistently and loudly like an ideological conserva-
tive, and rationalizing his liberal programs in these terms;
(2) By continuing to stress such issues as anti-busing, anti-big-
government-ism, decentralization, revenue sharing, and more
local control and "power to the people";
(3) Probably by keeping Agnew on the ticket (although before a final
decision is made on this matter some serious, in-depth national
polling should be conducted, if it has not been done already);
(4) By allowing the running feud with most of the leaders of the big
unions to continue unabated, stirring it up again if necessary;
- 12 -
(5) And, finally, by adopting measures which will ostentatiously
correct the present "tilt" toward big business, as suggested
above.
This last point may seem an odd way to appeal to right-wingers, as we usually
conceive of them; but I believe it is well taken. The true conservatives (the
genuine philosophical conservatives, as distinguished from the opportunistic con-
servatives who run most big businesses) share one credo in common with the
"populists" among Wallace's potential followers: opposition to big-ness, whether
it be a matter of government, of labor unions, or of business. (For example, the
surveys underlying my book, "The Political Beliefs of Americans", showed that con-
servatives were far more anti-big-business not only than middle-of-the-roaders but
even than liberals! Unlike the liberals, solid majorities felt that large corpora-
tions should have less, not more influence on governmental and political matters).
These conservatives believe, thoroughly and fervently, in the private enter-
prise system, of course; but the image they hold of private enterprise is one of
small businesses, not big business. Moves especially to crush the monopolies, to
smash the cartels, to break up the conglomerates would, I feel sure, have particular
appeal to most of them.
Nor do I think we need fear any great backlash from the business side, itself.
After all, where is business going to turn? To Wallace, that thoroughgoing
populist? To those antithetical, outspoken liberals (who don't talk conservative
ideology) McGovern, Muskie, or even Humphrey? Perhaps to Scoop Jackson, but I
would give him only about one chance in ten of winning the nomination at this point;
and even his overall domestic record is dangerously liberal from the business
point of view, or could be made to appear SO.
- 13
So what have we got to fear but fear itself -- or such an ingrained, entrenched
anti-social bias on the part of the President and his cohorts that the people will
feel they cannot be trusted to govern this democracy?
If the President will only do what the situation requires, on the other hand,
I feel sure he can move on to victory.
- 14 -