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 Kenneth L. Khachigian to John Whitaker RE: Farm Option. 5pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 11/22/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26147335
label
WHSF: Contested, 55-18
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26147335
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 55-18
description
This file contains:
From Kenneth L. Khachigian to John Whitaker RE: Farm Option. 5pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 11/22/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26147335
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
677514234b8a5a5f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
55
18
11/22/1971
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Kenneth L. Khachigian to John
Whitaker RE: Farm Option. 5pgs.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
memo
whitaker to Macbregor re appointment
11/15/71
C(Nixon)
[51]
for Page Belcher w/ President
N-2
Memo
Khachigian to Whitaker re form opinion
11/22/71
C(Nixon)
[52]
N-3
memo
Whitakee Belcher to President re mtg w/ Page
1/25/72
C(Nixon)
[53]
N-4
letter
Belcher to President re his feelings
1/18/72
C(Nixon)
[54]
N-5
schedule
from Belcher Parker via Chapin re call to
1/17/72
C(Nixon)
[55]
propose
N-6
memo
whitakee to Parker re Presidential call
1/17/82
C(Nixon)
[56]
to Cong. Belcher
N-7
memo
Whitakee to Mac Gegor re appointment
1/6/71
C(Nixon)
[57]
w/ President for Belcher
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
WHSF WHCF: SUBJECT FILES CONFIDENTIAL FILES
/
FOLDER TITLE
[CF] AG AGRICULTURE [1971-74]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. National 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:
WHSF : WHCF: SubF: [CF]
Box Number:
1
Folder:
[CF] AG - Agriculture [1971-74]
Document
Disposition
51
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
52
Return
Private/Political
53
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
54
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
55
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
56
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
57
Retain
Close
Invasion of Privacy
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 22, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN WHITAKER
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN then
SUBJECT: FARM OPINION
Based on the available data (which is unfortunately slim), I am
optimistic about the President's standing among farmers vis 'a vis
:
his potential Democratic opponents in 1972.
Here's how some of the statistics look. Compare them to the
President's showing in 1968 when he got 51% of the farm vote to HHH's
29% to Wallace's 20% while the national breakdown was approximately
44% - 43% - 13%.
NIXON V. MUSKIE
RN
Muskie
Wallace
Und.
January 9-10
National
44%
44%
9%
3%
Farmers
54
33
6
7
March 12-14
National
43
39
12
6
Farmers
54
20
11
15
May 7-10
National
39
41
12
8
Farmers 49
31
16
4
August 16-20
National
42
36
11
11
Farmers 43
30
16
11
October 8-11
National
43
35
13
9
Farmer
55
22
13
10
NIXON V. KENNEDY
RN
EMK
Wallace
Und.
January 9-10
National 48
38
9
5
Farmers 48
37
9
6
March 12-14
National
46
38
11
5
Farmers 49
28
11
12
Page 2
KENNEDY cont'd
RN
EMK
Wallace
Und.
May 7-10
National
42%
41%
12%
8%
Farmers
40
41
6
13
August 16-20
National
43
38
10
9
Farmers
41
30
16
13
NIXON V. HUMPHREY
RN
HHH
Wallace
Und.
January 9-10
National
48
38
10
4
Farmers
53
31
9
7
March 12-14
National
50
36
12
6
Farmers
57
26
9
8
May 7-10
National
42
39
12
7
Farmers
45
29
14
12
August 16-20
National
43
37.
11
9
Farmers 46
28
17
9
Since these are extracted from Gallup trial heats and because the
farmers sampled therein are not always statistically adequate, there is
a good deal of variation in these figures. However, some trend can be
seen. That is, against Muskie, the President does enormously well
among farmers. Against Humphrey the President does very well but is
not getting a majority of the vote -- as he did in 1968.
Kennedy however seems to do better than the others among the
farmers, and as I have said in earlier memos, I don't know how to explain.
this. In any event, it would seem that if Teddy is the President's opponent,
he will hurt us more in the farm belt than would Muskie or Humphrey.
A substantial farmer vote for the President will be necessary to carry
certain states, and if Teddy cuts into that, it will hurt, if not in absolute
terms, at least in electoral vote terms.
We have two other polls which give us additional information in
Iowa and Illinois.
Page 3
In Iowa, the Des Moines Register's "Iowa Poll" has the President
tying Kennedy 42-42 among farm voters and leading Muskic 46-40.
He has comfortable leads of 51-31 against HHH, 44-31 against McGovern,
and 46-32 against Lindsay. Wallace gets from one to 5% among farmers.
With the exception of Kennedy, these closely parallel the President's
statewide matchups with these opponents. Kennedy is doing better
among farmers (a tie) than he is statewide (RN leads 47-38).
In Illinois, there is a Prairie Farmer magazine poll using a
representative sample taken in October. The results show that the
President is doing extremely well in Illinois. He leads Muskie 49-24;
Humphrey 57-19; and Kennedy 57-24. This one contradicts the Kennedy
strength in Iowa, yet it may be a reflection of low corn prices and the
greater number of corn Jawa,
I hate to make any hard conclusions based on the data we have. It
is simply too sketchy. But looking at what we have, I am not panicky
about our chances among farm voters. I don't think that raising prices
is going to win us all that many votes. Chances are we wouldn't be able
to raise prices as high as they would like anyway, and a token raise
might have the reverse effect (plus the accusation of "playing politics").
I've often said that the best way to gain rapport with farmers is to con-
stantly show them that you understand and sympathize with their problems.
Telling them that they have it "good" won't work.
One last point. Everybody keeps saying we are in trouble with
the farmers, and that we are scrambling to get on their good side before
1972. This just isn't supported by the polls. Yet this has received such
a currency among the political commentators that it has become conven-
tional wisdom.
What we need to do is get out the word that we have good farm
support, and we have it because the President is doing a good job. On
the contrary, if Butz' appointment and other Administration actions
appear to be attempts by us to shore up the farm vote, it makes all our
moves seem overtly political. Let's make it appear that we do things
for farmers not because we are in trouble with them but because we
are doing well with them and that our actions are but a series of ongoing
Administration initiatives that farmers approve of.
Finally, let me put in another request for a poll. We can't keep
whistling in the wind without knowing exactly where RN stands with
farmers. We need at least one good, comprehensive poll which tells us
about farmer in 1972. Unless get this, we are going to continue
to consider actions we may not need, or fail to take actions we do need.
Some General Opinion Indices Which Reflect on the Mood of the
Farmer - - Gallup Polls
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nixon is handling his
job as President? (October S-11, 1971)
Approve
Disapprove
No Opinion
National
54%
35%
11%
Farmers
65
23
12
GALLUP -- SATISFACTION INDEX
September, 1971
Would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your housing
situation?
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Don't Know
National
73%
23%
4%
Farmers
73
21
6
Would you'say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your children's
education?
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Don't Know
National
63%
26%
11%
Farmers
73
19
8
Would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of life
in your community?
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Don't Know
National
75%
21%
4%
Farmers
80
15
5
Page 2
Would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your family
income?
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Don't Know
National
62%
35%
3%
Farmers
60
38
2
This shows by and large that farmers are not the sulking, grumbling,
brooding lot that they are often portrayed to be. Even on the question of
family income, they are only a fraction under the national average and
even then the majority still expresses satisfaction.
What these indices tell us is that the farmer is at peace with himself,
in general, and that there is good reason for his high approval rating of
the President. There are other things besides farm policy which colors
the farmer's thinking of the President. And on those factors we are
scoring well. This ought to be kept in mind while we worry ourselves
on how the farmer is going to vot e in 1972. Let's not play on his dis-
enchantments as much as we speak to his belief that things are still
pretty good in this country.