Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26147335",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 55-18",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26147335"
}

{
    "id": "26147335",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26147335",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 55-18",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom Kenneth L. Khachigian to John Whitaker RE: Farm Option. 5pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 11/22/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26147335",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/35/1473/26147335/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-55/Contested-55-18.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/35/1473/26147335/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-55/Contested-55-18.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/35/1473/26147335/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-55/Contested-55-18.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26147335",
    "naId": 26147335,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/35/1473/26147335/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-55/Contested-55-18.pdf",
    "mediaId": "677514234b8a5a5f",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n55\n18\n11/22/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Kenneth L. Khachigian to John\nWhitaker RE: Farm Option. 5pgs.\nMonday, June 25, 2012\nPage 1 of 1\nDOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]\nDOCUMENT\nDOCUMENT\nNUMBER\nTYPE\nSUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nN-1\nmemo\nwhitaker to Macbregor re appointment\n11/15/71\nC(Nixon)\n[51]\nfor Page Belcher w/ President\nN-2\nMemo\nKhachigian to Whitaker re form opinion\n11/22/71\nC(Nixon)\n[52]\nN-3\nmemo\nWhitakee Belcher to President re mtg w/ Page\n1/25/72\nC(Nixon)\n[53]\nN-4\nletter\nBelcher to President re his feelings\n1/18/72\nC(Nixon)\n[54]\nN-5\nschedule\nfrom Belcher Parker via Chapin re call to\n1/17/72\nC(Nixon)\n[55]\npropose\nN-6\nmemo\nwhitakee to Parker re Presidential call\n1/17/82\nC(Nixon)\n[56]\nto Cong. Belcher\nN-7\nmemo\nWhitakee to Mac Gegor re appointment\n1/6/71\nC(Nixon)\n[57]\nw/ President for Belcher\nFILE GROUP TITLE\nBOX NUMBER\nWHSF WHCF: SUBJECT FILES CONFIDENTIAL FILES\n/\nFOLDER TITLE\n[CF] AG AGRICULTURE [1971-74]\nRESTRICTION CODES\nA. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.\nE. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nB. National security classified information.\nfinancial information.\nC. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's\nF. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law\nrights.\nenforcement purposes.\nD. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy\nG. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.\nor a libel of a living person.\nH. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nNA FORM 1421 (4-85)\nPresidential Materials Review Board\nReview on Contested Documents\nCollection:\nWHSF : WHCF: SubF: [CF]\nBox Number:\n1\nFolder:\n[CF] AG - Agriculture [1971-74]\nDocument\nDisposition\n51\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\n52\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n53\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\n54\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\n55\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\n56\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\n57\nRetain\nClose\nInvasion of Privacy\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nNovember 22, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR JOHN WHITAKER\nFROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN then\nSUBJECT: FARM OPINION\nBased on the available data (which is unfortunately slim), I am\noptimistic about the President's standing among farmers vis 'a vis\n:\nhis potential Democratic opponents in 1972.\nHere's how some of the statistics look. Compare them to the\nPresident's showing in 1968 when he got 51% of the farm vote to HHH's\n29% to Wallace's 20% while the national breakdown was approximately\n44% - 43% - 13%.\nNIXON V. MUSKIE\nRN\nMuskie\nWallace\nUnd.\nJanuary 9-10\nNational\n44%\n44%\n9%\n3%\nFarmers\n54\n33\n6\n7\nMarch 12-14\nNational\n43\n39\n12\n6\nFarmers\n54\n20\n11\n15\nMay 7-10\nNational\n39\n41\n12\n8\nFarmers 49\n31\n16\n4\nAugust 16-20\nNational\n42\n36\n11\n11\nFarmers 43\n30\n16\n11\nOctober 8-11\nNational\n43\n35\n13\n9\nFarmer\n55\n22\n13\n10\nNIXON V. KENNEDY\nRN\nEMK\nWallace\nUnd.\nJanuary 9-10\nNational 48\n38\n9\n5\nFarmers 48\n37\n9\n6\nMarch 12-14\nNational\n46\n38\n11\n5\nFarmers 49\n28\n11\n12\nPage 2\nKENNEDY cont'd\nRN\nEMK\nWallace\nUnd.\nMay 7-10\nNational\n42%\n41%\n12%\n8%\nFarmers\n40\n41\n6\n13\nAugust 16-20\nNational\n43\n38\n10\n9\nFarmers\n41\n30\n16\n13\nNIXON V. HUMPHREY\nRN\nHHH\nWallace\nUnd.\nJanuary 9-10\nNational\n48\n38\n10\n4\nFarmers\n53\n31\n9\n7\nMarch 12-14\nNational\n50\n36\n12\n6\nFarmers\n57\n26\n9\n8\nMay 7-10\nNational\n42\n39\n12\n7\nFarmers\n45\n29\n14\n12\nAugust 16-20\nNational\n43\n37.\n11\n9\nFarmers 46\n28\n17\n9\nSince these are extracted from Gallup trial heats and because the\nfarmers sampled therein are not always statistically adequate, there is\na good deal of variation in these figures. However, some trend can be\nseen. That is, against Muskie, the President does enormously well\namong farmers. Against Humphrey the President does very well but is\nnot getting a majority of the vote -- as he did in 1968.\nKennedy however seems to do better than the others among the\nfarmers, and as I have said in earlier memos, I don't know how to explain.\nthis. In any event, it would seem that if Teddy is the President's opponent,\nhe will hurt us more in the farm belt than would Muskie or Humphrey.\nA substantial farmer vote for the President will be necessary to carry\ncertain states, and if Teddy cuts into that, it will hurt, if not in absolute\nterms, at least in electoral vote terms.\nWe have two other polls which give us additional information in\nIowa and Illinois.\nPage 3\nIn Iowa, the Des Moines Register's \"Iowa Poll\" has the President\ntying Kennedy 42-42 among farm voters and leading Muskic 46-40.\nHe has comfortable leads of 51-31 against HHH, 44-31 against McGovern,\nand 46-32 against Lindsay. Wallace gets from one to 5% among farmers.\nWith the exception of Kennedy, these closely parallel the President's\nstatewide matchups with these opponents. Kennedy is doing better\namong farmers (a tie) than he is statewide (RN leads 47-38).\nIn Illinois, there is a Prairie Farmer magazine poll using a\nrepresentative sample taken in October. The results show that the\nPresident is doing extremely well in Illinois. He leads Muskie 49-24;\nHumphrey 57-19; and Kennedy 57-24. This one contradicts the Kennedy\nstrength in Iowa, yet it may be a reflection of low corn prices and the\ngreater number of corn Jawa,\nI hate to make any hard conclusions based on the data we have. It\nis simply too sketchy. But looking at what we have, I am not panicky\nabout our chances among farm voters. I don't think that raising prices\nis going to win us all that many votes. Chances are we wouldn't be able\nto raise prices as high as they would like anyway, and a token raise\nmight have the reverse effect (plus the accusation of \"playing politics\").\nI've often said that the best way to gain rapport with farmers is to con-\nstantly show them that you understand and sympathize with their problems.\nTelling them that they have it \"good\" won't work.\nOne last point. Everybody keeps saying we are in trouble with\nthe farmers, and that we are scrambling to get on their good side before\n1972. This just isn't supported by the polls. Yet this has received such\na currency among the political commentators that it has become conven-\ntional wisdom.\nWhat we need to do is get out the word that we have good farm\nsupport, and we have it because the President is doing a good job. On\nthe contrary, if Butz' appointment and other Administration actions\nappear to be attempts by us to shore up the farm vote, it makes all our\nmoves seem overtly political. Let's make it appear that we do things\nfor farmers not because we are in trouble with them but because we\nare doing well with them and that our actions are but a series of ongoing\nAdministration initiatives that farmers approve of.\nFinally, let me put in another request for a poll. We can't keep\nwhistling in the wind without knowing exactly where RN stands with\nfarmers. We need at least one good, comprehensive poll which tells us\nabout farmer in 1972. Unless get this, we are going to continue\nto consider actions we may not need, or fail to take actions we do need.\nSome General Opinion Indices Which Reflect on the Mood of the\nFarmer - - Gallup Polls\nDo you approve or disapprove of the way Nixon is handling his\njob as President? (October S-11, 1971)\nApprove\nDisapprove\nNo Opinion\nNational\n54%\n35%\n11%\nFarmers\n65\n23\n12\nGALLUP -- SATISFACTION INDEX\nSeptember, 1971\nWould you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your housing\nsituation?\nSatisfied\nDissatisfied\nDon't Know\nNational\n73%\n23%\n4%\nFarmers\n73\n21\n6\nWould you'say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your children's\neducation?\nSatisfied\nDissatisfied\nDon't Know\nNational\n63%\n26%\n11%\nFarmers\n73\n19\n8\nWould you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of life\nin your community?\nSatisfied\nDissatisfied\nDon't Know\nNational\n75%\n21%\n4%\nFarmers\n80\n15\n5\nPage 2\nWould you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your family\nincome?\nSatisfied\nDissatisfied\nDon't Know\nNational\n62%\n35%\n3%\nFarmers\n60\n38\n2\nThis shows by and large that farmers are not the sulking, grumbling,\nbrooding lot that they are often portrayed to be. Even on the question of\nfamily income, they are only a fraction under the national average and\neven then the majority still expresses satisfaction.\nWhat these indices tell us is that the farmer is at peace with himself,\nin general, and that there is good reason for his high approval rating of\nthe President. There are other things besides farm policy which colors\nthe farmer's thinking of the President. And on those factors we are\nscoring well. This ought to be kept in mind while we worry ourselves\non how the farmer is going to vot e in 1972. Let's not play on his dis-\nenchantments as much as we speak to his belief that things are still\npretty good in this country."
}