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 Khachigian to Haldeman RE: Presidential Campaigning. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/4/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146510
label
WHSF: Contested, 48-19
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146510
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 48-19
description
This file contains:
From Khachigian to Haldeman RE: Presidential Campaigning. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 10/4/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146510
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
93a96639d3497c45
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
48
19
10/4/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Khachigian to Haldeman RE:
Presidential Campaigning. 6 pgs.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Page 1 of 1
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 4, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MR. HALDEMAN
On
FROM:
KEN KHACHIGIAN
SUBJECT:
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNING
From the vantage point of having tracked the opposition activities
more closely than most observers, I am submitting these thoughts
as to what's ahead for us when the President takes to the hustings.
I am convinced that the extent of the victory on November 7 --
or even whether that victory will be of historic landslide proportions --
will be determined almost solely by the Presidential tone in the last
three weeks of the campaign. If the returns coming in from the
New York/California swing mean anything, it is that the anti-McGovern
line, coming from the President, may be counterproductive.
We all know that there exists in the media a great deal more
tolerance for the rhetorical excesses coming out of the Democrats.
There is nothing approaching a groundswell of editorial comment and
subtle television reportage which attaches the labels "divisive" or
"polarizing" on the opposition ticket. It comes out more like "hard-
hitting" and "spirited."
I regret to say that we must live with this double standard for the
remainder of the campaign. I do not think there is anything we can
do to prevent it. The question is how to deal with it in terms of
Presidential tone.
The wonder of television is that it can belie any editorial comment
or criticism. For example, if, on the tube, the President is lofty,
spirited, and uplifting, it is difficult for the commentators to make
the public think differently. If Dan Rather says RN was "harsh" or
"strident" and the television image is objectively not harsh, then
Rather has been effectively rebutted. The voters are not damn fools
in this respect.
Page 2
What will hurt is when the President takes to the attack say,
per the Cassie Mackin report of last week -- and gets a label hung
around him by the Rathers and Jarriels. If the image confirms the
commentary, I fear we lose points.
Consequently, if the label is effectively pinned on RN that he is
divisive and polarizing, we will have handed George McGovern one
of his most potent campaign issues. I believe this will be as central
an issue as anything else in the campaign. The fact that McGovern has
picked up his personal attacks more decisively this week is proof positive
that the Democrats think they have the right combination.
The one thing that we cannot afford to do in the last three weeks of
the campaign is to allow McGovern to make RN the campaign issue.
He is desperately trying to do this and will probe for an opening. One
of the basic components of the landslide margin in the current polls
is, of course, the overwhelming support from Democrats. About a
third of this is "soft" support, and many of these Democrats will be
searching for a reason not to vote for RN. McGovern will try to
give them as many reasons as possible -- the basic one which will be
"you cannot trust him; he is tricky, political, " etc. Let's not give
them the opening.
It is interesting that we have come full circle from the time of the
primaries. McGovern was the white Knight, anti-politician. RN was
the quintessential politician. Now, according to all polls, McGovern
skidded because he turns out to be just another politician while RN is
perceived as statesmanlike and Presidential a man you could trust.
But it is important to remember that if the public was volatile enough
to switch quickly from McGovern to RN on the "politician" issue, it
can just as quickly switch back in a pendulum swing.
That will be McGovern's secret weapon -- try to rehabilitate him-
self as an anti-politician (he began that Monday) and when RN comes out
on the stump, put the politician label on him as rapidly as possible.
With the media's help, that could be done in a matter of days.
We are not inevitably locked into this scenario. Again, it is my
opinion that the public will not buy the politician label for RN if, in
fact, there is little in his image and tone which projects "politics. 11
We can frustrate the media on this account. And let us remember,
too, that once RN is out campaigning, the press may complain about
his lack of discussion of the issues, but that charge is one which won't
make a damn bit of difference. If RN is talking about what we perceive
to be important to the voting public, then we should not be bound by what
the gurus of the press think should be said.
Page 3
This brings me to the more crucial part of the analysis. If
there are certain things the President should not do, what, in fact,
should be the tone and content of his campaign effort?
First, I don't believe that the President should move out any of
the attack material, and if so, only by strong, positive RN counter-
positions. If we are doing our job right on the staff level, we can
get the attack stuff out. So far, I think, without a doubt, we have
succeeded in hanging some uncomfortable labels on McGovern. His
efforts to wiggle off the fishhook are proof that we have hit a nerve.
Moreover, the polls confirm that McGovern is tarred with the radical
label. The job from the Vice-Presidential level on down is to keep
that record of radicalism out front. I don't doubt our ability to do that.
But the Presidential level should be altogether different. I
frankly think the President need not even concern himself with pointing
out the radicalsim in the opposition camp. I say this, not because I
think it is unfair for a President to do this, but because RN gets unfair
treatment when he does it. If RN did so, the focus then comes back to
RN's tactics" rather than to the record we want to surface to the public.
Instead, there are a number of things the President can do as he
campaigns to keep Republican spirits high, prevent too much Democra-
tic party slippage, and, in general, go into election eve with the
feeling that a posture has been presented to the American public which
maintains its confidence in the stewardship of RN.
(1) In my judgment, one of the central issues of this campaign is
the "good" America of RN versus the "corrupt" America of McGovern.
I think McGovern has been absolutely stupid in the way he has been seen
to side with those who tear America down. The best way to exploit
this is from the positive side of RN's belief in a good country. I know
this has been a thematic favorite of the President's, but I think it needs
to be developed as a more comprehensive slice of the pie we are
presenting this year.
You saw the Yankelovich results in TIME which said that McGovern's
biggest miscalculation was on the depth of bitterness and dissatisfaction
among the voters. And 75% of those sampled said that they were sick
and tired of hearing people attack American values. I don't mean here
simply a few paragraphs on America being a good country, but a full
speech should be developed on this subject, and I would think that it be
one of the first delivered.
Page 4
The best contrast of the campaign will be the bitchy George
McGovern with his whining, whimpering, crybaby attitude matched
against the strong confidence of RN. The people of America are not
basically mean-minded and sour, but are, instead, people who respond
to lift and optimism. McGovern erred in trying to harvest the bitter
fruit when in fact there is, as the polls universally show, an almost
serene satisfaction with the way things are. The desire is for change,
sure, but, damn-it-all, change which plays on the goodness of America,
not that which craps all over its institutions.
(2) The President should develop, or ask to have developed for
him, some basic lines which respond with calculated indignation to some
of the pure bull that McGovern is throwing around. This is a chance
for RN to take the extremely important underdog role an effective
role I believe. I am referring to such things as the Hitler quotes, the
"barbarism" in Vietnam, the charge that he's lied about POWs, etc.
A healthy dose of modulated anger would be good for the electorate
and good for RN. For example, he might say: "My friends, I have
served as your President for nearly four years, and I am not about to
sit back and be compared to Adolph Hitler. It is a tribute to free speech
that candidates can make such charges, but it is not a tribute to the
political process to have the world watch the President of the United
States equated with the most hated dictator of our time. " A number of
lines roughly like that would be effective, I believe.
Note: if any more anti-war hecklers become a visible problem
and can be seen and heard on television, the President might effectively
say: "I think the American people are tired of being called murderous
and war-mongers. You have the right to question our policy, but don't
you for one minute try to impugn the motives or the morality of the
citizens of our country. " Here, RN defends the public.
(3) One effective point is to rebut the moralism of George McGovern.
This should be done by pointing out that no one has a monopoly on
morality, and that it doesn't help the political process for the opposition
candidate to suggest that only what he thinks is right and what everybody
else thinks is wrong. RN might say that he may not agree with some-
one, but that he doesn't try to act morally superior or hide behind a
shield of rectitude.
Page 5
This point has turned up in a number of columns -- namely,
reporters confessing chagrin at McGovern's pious morality. RN
needs to make the point as well.
(4) It may sound incongruous, but I believe that RN must address
an all-black audience during the campaign. Charles Bartlett had an
excellent column pointing out that McGovern has taken the blacks for
granted in a subtle attempt to get white working class Democrats
back into the fold. RN addressing a black audience will have several
effects. It will get excellent play and emphasize he is the President
of all the people. If tuned to the black middle class -- rather than the
"We Shall Overcome" overblown rhetoric of LBJ -- it can get votes,
especially if RN goes right to the heart of the matter of those who
denigrate blacks by lumping them together as all poor, ignorant, etc.
It would also probably send McGovern scurrying to patch up things with
the blacks and cause him, perhaps, to overreact and line himself up
with a political posture which won't help him. Finally, it would
exploit the frustration in the bl ack leadership at being taken for
granted by the Democrats and promote the emphasis that RN has done
more for minority advancement than any other President.
(5) One of the things that keeps turning up in voter surveys in terms
of dissatisfaction with McGovern is the fact that he is changing his tune
on everything and promising something for everybody. It looks like --
and is -- crass expediency. It also confirms that McGovern is not anti-
politician, but pure politician RN can advance his cause by making a
virtue of the fact that promises have not been wildly bandied about in
his administration, and the reason for the turbulent 60's (a subtle
reminder of what we had in those years) was the overblown rhetoric
which could not be delivered in programs. This will posture RN as
the one who is not the expedient politician who promises all things to
all men. "We did not make promises we could not keep. 11 In the
Haynes Johnson survey, here is what an ethnic Democrat, who retired
early because he was unemployed, and voted for McGovern in the primary,
said: "Now I think he's (McG) more two-faced, like trying to tell people
he's going to help them get jobs. They all like to do the promises, but
he's gone beyond most of them, whereas Nixon knows what we've got
to do. "
(6) Hold the hands of Democrat defectors by telling audiences that
what we have done in foreign policy is the same thing JFK et al. would
have done.
Page 6
(7) Emphasize domestic stability and the sense of pride and
respect America now has for itself. McGoo is on the wrong side
of the issue if he continues to think Americans hate themselves.
(8) When emphasizing the international turnaround -- cite things
like: who would think that not only America, but Japan would be
talking to China; East Germany with West Germany; North Korea with
South Korea. The great sense of quietude and stability is like calamine
lotion on chickenpox. Who was ever ashamed of serenity and goodwill?
(9) Do not underestimate how McGovern so effectively uses
attacks on himself. It's not for nothing he gets elected in South
Dakota. Here is what one of his close friends says: "There's
nothing George likes better than to have them attack him as disloyal.
Then he can get out his American Legion cap and dust off his Distin-
guished Flying Cross and really take them on." George has already
done this, and you can be sure he's lusting for RN to even hint at his
loyalty. This is why I believe RN must leave the attack to others.
(10) For God sake, let the word go out to all staff that the smallest
mistake of judgment could foul everything. In 1968 the media played
the innocuous mutual fund letter to a fair-thee-well. Let's not get
nervous about things. Our opponents will desperately search for
anything by which they can pin all the cliched labels on us -- for
once, let's protect RN from his friends. Let's also maintain our
cool about McGovern's crowds. Goldwater had much better crowds
than LBJ, and in 1960, JFK was mobbed in Ohio and RN was mobbed
in Atlanta -- neither carried the state in which he was mobbed. Crowds
are not determinative of momentum.