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 Chapin, via Strachan, to Haldeman responding to a campaign memorandum generated by Bill Gavin. Duplicates attached. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/1/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146332
label
WHSF: Contested, 46-27
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146332
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 46-27
description
This file contains:
From Chapin, via Strachan, to Haldeman responding to a campaign memorandum generated by Bill Gavin. Duplicates attached. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/1/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146332
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1ebf5863418ec5f7
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
46
27
7/1/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Chapin, via Strachan, to Haldeman
responding to a campaign memorandum
generated by Bill Gavin. Duplicates
attached. 6 pgs.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Page 1 of 1
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
July 1, 1971
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By Ennic
NARS, Date 7-21-80
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. H. R. HALDEMAN
VIA:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
Gordon Strachan asked that I put together my thoughts for you on Bill Gavin's
memorandum of June 14. I think that Gavin has put together an interesting,
intellectual piece on some of the ramifications of Administration activity to date
and the prospects for the 1972 election. However, I sense that he is a little
paranoid over Agnew. I do not know how hard his reasoning is on all of this;
however, I think that the assumptions are, perhaps, a little simplistic.
I do not question that we have the President in a relatively good position in terms
of the criteria of his being "reasonable". The quality of reason is at least a point
where we can always build a very good case for President Nixon.
Regarding passion, I am not sure that the Administration does out-passion everyone.
I think the passion of the Peace Movement or of the new left - let alone of the
right - has the zeal that an Agnew does. Perhaps we have been wrong (I would
imagine Gavin would agree) in letting Agnew out so far front and getting so
controversial and diluting the passion which he could hold in constructive areas.
On the other hand, who is to say that Agnew has not served his purpose. Gavin
states that Agnew cannot be replaced since his replacement would probably
harm our chances for a victory. I am not sure that this is true. To say that
Agnew's pluses and minuses have already been engraved in the public's mind is
a problem, but on the other hand, in the age of quick imagery, Agnew can be
tempered quite a lot in the next several months - or at least we can alter those
causes on which he goes out front. This may be necessary, anyway, if Gavin's
statement is true, when he says, "I am not saying the public disagrees with his
content; I am saying it has completely forgotten his content". I think we can
get around the problem of Agnew's becoming a big cliche rather than being
effective on key issues. He just needs to be programmed against the big
issues, as do others here - - as well as the President.
2.
In terms of imagination, I would have to concur with a lot of what Gavin says. We
have done a poor job of illustrating how imaginative the President has been even on
those occasions when he has either shown by action or through policy a sense of
imagination. I think that we are starting into 1972 with a lack of being able to
communicate imagination but not necessarily an absolute lack of imaginative appeal.
In other words, we have it if we can figure out how to exploit it without doing so in
a gimmicky way.
I do agree that Teddy has the imaginative appeal and that if he runs, that will be a
problem. However, I also believe that Kennedy can be beat. (I do not think that
we should assume that we can beat all others since Teddy is the only Democrat with
imagination and the other contenders lack it.)
I tend to agree with the conclusion offered by #Gavin in terms of how we try to
illustrate imagination. It can be done in a documentary sense and it can be done -
a lot of it - by film. We can also use the forthcoming State of the Union and the
other natural forms which will be coming along. We can remain solid and present
ourselves as a solid Party perpetuating a solid country. It doesn't have to be
gimmacky. We can hook into a transfer from a wartime to a peace time situation
and make that exciting. We can talk about how the dollars that were spent on defense
are going to be spent domestically. We can do it as a sound, reasoned and exciting way.
All in all, what I am saying is Gavin has sounded an alarm which we should be
cognizant of if we are not already and those people determining positions and working
on the selling of our programs should give some thought to what he says but not
necessarily over-react.
July 1, 1971
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. H. R. HALDEMAN
VIA:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:-
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
Gordon Strachan asked that I put together my thoughts for you on Bill Gavin's
memorandum of June 14. I think that Gavin has put together an interesting,
intellectual piece on some of the ramifications of Administration activity to date
and the prospects for the 1972 election. However, I sense that he is a little
paranoid over Agnew. I do not know how hard his reasoning is on all of this;
however, 1 think that the assumptions are, perhaps, a little simplistic.
I do not question that we have the President in a relatively good position in terms
of the criteria of his being "reasonable". The quality of reason is at least a point
where we can always build a very good case for President Nixon.
Regarding passion, I am not sure that the Administration does out-passion everyone.
I think the passion of the Peace Movement or of the new left - let alone of the
right - has the zeal that an Agnew does. Perhaps we have been wrong (I would
imagine Gavin would agree) in letting Agnew out so far front and getting so
controversial and diluting the passion which he could hold in constructive areas.
On the other hand, who is to say that Agnew has not served his purpose. Gavin
states that Agnew cannot be replaced since his replacement would probably
harm our chances for a victory. I am not sure that this is true. To say that
Agnew's pluses and minuses have already been engraved in the public's mind is
a problem, but on the other hand, in the age of quick imagery, Agnew can be
tempered quite a lot in the next several months - or at least we can alter those
causes on which he goes out front. This may be necessary, anyway, if Gavin's
statement is true, when he says, "I am not saying the public disagrees with his
content; I am saying it has completely forgotten his content". I think we can
get around the problem of Agnew's becoming a big cliche rather than being
effective on key issues. He just needs to be programmed against the big
issues, as do others here - as well as the President.
2.
In terms of imagination, I would have to concur with a lot of what Gavin says. We
have done a poor job of illustrating how imaginative the President has been even on
those occasions when he has either shown by action or through policy a sense of
imagination. I think that we are starting into 1972 with a lack of being able to
communicate imagination but not necessarily an absolute lack of imaginative appeal.
In other words, we have it if we can figure out how to exploit it without doing so in
a gimmicky way.
I do agree that Teddy has the imaginative appeal and that if he runs, that will be a
problem. However, I also believe that Kennedy can be beat. (I do not think that
we should assume that we can beat all others since Teddy is the only Democrat with
imagination and the other contenders lack it.)
I tend to agree with the conclusion offered by #Gavin in terms of how we try to
illustrate imagination. It can be done in a documentary sense and it can be done --
a lot of it - by film. We can also use the forthcoming State of the Union and the
other natural forms which will be coming along. We can remain solid and present
ourselves as a solid Party perpetuating a solid country. It doesn't have to be
gimmacky. We can hook into a transfer from a wartime to a peace time situation
and make that exciting. We can talk about how the dollars that were spent on defense
are going to be spent domestically. We can do it as a sound, reasoned and exciting way.
All in all, what I am saying is Gavin has sounded an alarm which we should be
cognizant of if we are not already and those people determining positions and working
on the selling of our programs should give some thought to what he says but not
necessarily over-react.
[S-1-U-moFI]
July 1, 1971
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. H. R. HALDEMAN
VIA:
MR. GORDON STRACHAN
FROM:
DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
Gordon Strachan asked that I put together my thoughts for you on Bill Gavin's
memorandum of June 14. I think that Gavin has put together an interesting,
intellectual piece on some of the ramifications of Administration activity to date
and the prospects for the 1972 election. However, I sense that he is a little
paranoid over Agnew. I do not know how hard his reasoning is on all of this;
however,¹ think that the assumptions are, perhaps, a little simplistic.
I do not question that we have the President in a relatively good position in terms
of the criteria of his being "reasonable". The quality of reason is at least a point
where we can always build a very good case for President Nixon.
Regarding passion, I am not sure that the Administration does out-passion everyone.
I think the passion of the Peace Movement or of the new left - let alone of the
right - has the zeal that an Agnew does. Perhaps we have been wrong (I would
imagine Gavin would agree) in letting Agnew out so far front and getting so
controversial and diluting the passion which he could hold in constructive areas.
On the other hand, who is to say that Agnew has not served his purpose. Gavin
states that Agnew cannot be replaced since his replacement would probably
harm our chances for a victory. I am not sure that this is true. To say that
Agnew's pluses and minuses have already been engraved in the public's mind is
a problem, but on the other hand, in the age of quick imagery, Agnew can be
tempered quite a lot in the next several months - or at least we can alter those
causes on which he goes out front. This may be necessary, anyway, if Gavin's
statement is true, when he says, "I am not saying the public disagrees with his
content; I am saying it has completely forgotten his content". I think we can
get around the problem of Agnew's becoming a big cliche rather than being
effective on key issues. He just needs to be programmed against the big
issues, as do others here - as well as the President.
2.
In terms of imagination, I would have to concur with a lot of what Gavin says. We
have done a poor job of illustrating how imaginative the President has been even on
those occasions when he has either shown by action or through policy a sense of
imagination. I think that we are starting into 1972 with a lack of being able to
communicate imagination but not necessarily an absolute lack of imaginative appeal.
In other words, we have it if we can figure out how to exploit it without doing so in
a gimmicky way.
I do agree that Teddy has the imaginative appeal and that if he runs, that will be a
problem. However, I also believe that Kennedy can be beat. (I do not think that
we should assume that we can beat all others since Teddy is the only Democrat with
imagination and the other contenders lack it.)
I tend to agree with the conclusion offered by #Gavin in terms of how we try to
illustrate imagination. It can be done in a documentary sense and it can be done --
a lot of it - by film. We can also use the forthcoming State of the Union and the
other natural forms which will be coming along. We can remain solid and present
ourselves as a solid Party perpetuating a solid country. It doesn't have to be
gimmacky. We can hook into a transfer from a wartime to a peace time situation
and make that exciting. We can talk about how the dollars that were spent on defense
are going to be spent domestically. We can do it as a sound, reasoned and exciting way.
All in all, what I am saying is Gavin has sounded an alarm which we should be
cognizant of if we are not already and those people determining positions and working
on the selling of our programs should give some thought to what he says but not
necessarily over-react.