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 Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Reelection Campaign. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/6/1971
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144841
label
WHSF: Contested, 5-59
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144841
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 5-59
description
This file contains:
From Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Reelection Campaign. 9 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 11/6/1971
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144841
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9dba5f88aad74a31
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
5
59
11/6/1971
Campaign
Memo
From Ehrlichman to Haldeman RE: Re-
election Campaign. 9 pgs.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT)
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
Notes
Beginning "Edgar, as you can [11/2/71
n.d.
[DOC#169]
C (Nixon)
dictation ]
N-2
Memo
Ehrlichman to Haldeman Re: Reelection
11/6/71
((Nixon)
[Dociti70]
campaign
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
WHSF: Ehrlichman
58
FOLDER TITLE
Chron. Files
1 November 1971 19 December 1971
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G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.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H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.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)
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT)
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
memo
Hullin to Ehrlichman, ve:
12/2/71
C(Nixon)
[DOC#17]]
"BIA Personnel Changes"
Ehrlichman to RN, re: Memo to Muskie's
"
N-2
memo
14/1/21
[DOC#172]
Campaign Manager"
N-3
memo
Anna Navarro DanLouis to
George Nitchell, Elliot Cutler
11
[006# # 172)
I
lattached to"tbove)
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
Ehrlichman Chron.
58
FOLDER TITLE
\ November 1971- 19 December 1971
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
3. National security classified information.
financial information.
:. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
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.
ATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection:
John D. Ehrlichman
Box Number:
58
Folder:
1 November 1971-19 December 1971 [2 of 3]
Document
Disposition
169
Retain Open
170
Return Private/Political
171
Retain Close Invasion of Privacy
172
Retain
Open
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 6, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR
BOB HALDEMAN
RE:
REELECTION CAMPAIGN
The tone or theme:
In spite of all the talk about this being an age of one-term
Presidents, I believe it is very hard for the American people
to turn out a sitting President. Therefore, obviously, the
tone or theme of the campaign must be keyed to the fact that
the President is the President, that he has done a professional
and competent job, that he has made significant accomplishments
and that there is, therefore, no reason to change.
I think people tend to vote against a candidate perhaps more
frequently than they vote for him; and certainly a Presidential
race always weighs a candidate against his opponent. An incumbent
President has an obvious advantage and President Nixon has a very
clear advantage in view of his international initiatives on the question
of "compared to what?".
At the same time, the President is the national father figure, the
exemplar, the leader, and the nation's champion against other
nations. This is what the American people believe a President is
and they want him to act out these parts. They want him to evidence
compassion for the poor, even though individually they may say
and do things showing callous disregard for the poor. It is alright
for Mr. Voter to be indifferent to the poor but it is not alright, in
his eyes and mine, for his President to be indifferent to the poor. In
fact, I suspect he gets a certain amount of psychic relieve from the
knowledge that his President is being concerned about the less fortunate
even at the time that he himself is not.
-2-
I think it is indispensable for the President to act out these
roles in the course of the next year, with feeling and sincerity,
to fulfill these expectations. To the extent that he does not we
will find vague discontents and negative reactions expressed as
"the President has no compassion, he doesn't care, he is cold
and indifferent, he has no thought for the little people, he only
cares about big business, etc."
Since this is role-acting, let's approach it as such. The President
has a natural antipathy for doing the phony, the unnatural and the
not-felt. But we are now not talking about making him comfortable
in what he is doing; we are talking about getting him reelected and,
in looking at that project coldly, there are some things that are
going to have to be done to do the job properly that he may not totally
like. But I am sure he and we would like the alternative even less.
Because I think the alternative is to give exposure to an Achilles
heel to which the President may be attacked mercilessly and effectively
with unknown results.
And like a tennis game, as long as you can return the ball without
mistake every time it doesn't really matter how hard you hit it.
You keep playing for the other fe llow's mistake. We occupy the
high ground now since the President is the incumbent and all he
has to do is go on being the incumbent. The other fellow has to
figure out how to take the high ground. Therefore, we should avoid
giving him handholds, avoid making mistakes, avoid acting rashly
or without calculation or contemplation (e.g., the re-run of the
Phoenix speech) and close as many of the doors as possible through
which the enemy might enter.
In short, I would like to see the President put in situations which would
act out his compassion, his fairness, his true concern for his inferiors,
his leadership, etc. It does almost no good at all for those of us who
know him well to tell about these things. One acting-out session will
be worth ten thousand interviews with White House staffers or members
of the Cabinet.
-3-
The President's part in the campaign
We had a good session with the Cabinet yesterday in the
President's absence, and we told them all the things that they
had to do in order to get the President reelected. But I
suspect you know, and I strongly feel, that in the last analysis
it isn't going to make much difference what the Cabinet says or
does. The President himself is going to have to do much more
than he is inclined to do, much more than he would want to do
and probably much more than his responsibilities in fact permit
him safely to do. But nevertheless I think he will have to do them.
Television and Radio
I know there is a concern that the President is over-exposing himself
on television. And yet the singular criticism which I hear as I go
around the country talking the issues to people is that the President
is not talking to them about the issues. The Cabinet is talking to them,
the staff is talking to them, Bob Dole is talking to them but they want
the President to talk to them. They want fireside chats. Over and over
again I receive the suggestion that the President sit down and talk to
the country about the issues of the time on a periodic basis, so that
they may count regularly on hearing from him not just at times of
crisis but under circumstances that will permit them to pull their
chairs up to the television and listen to him explain to them about the
problems of our aged, health problems, the problems of our youth
and our cities in terms which they can understand and react to.
We have discussed the fireside chat format in the past and I gather
that the ten o'clock meeting or the five o'clock meeting or the Saturday
morning group or somebody doesn't think it's a very good idea. All
I know is that there is considerable consumer demand out there in the
field for this kind of thing.
As a variation on this, let me suggest that we think about this hunger
or market demand in terms of regions. As Ed Harper pointed out to
us in his analysis, the issue of support to parochial schools is a hot
issue in limited areas. The issue of the problems of the aged is almost
completely confined to 8 or 9 states. The farm problem is obviously
localized. Perhaps there is a regional approach to this fireside chat
idea that would prevent the President from becoming over-exposed
nationwide and would avoid whatever disadvantages are inherent in such
over-exposure.
-4-
Something like this would have to be started before campaigning
begins in earnest and I know the equal time problem exists, but
I also know there is a very strong pull for this among people who
are thinking about the Presidency and about the nation's problems.
Personal Appearances
Aside from the fact that it prevents the press from writing that the
President is ducking the people, I don't know that there's a great
deal of advantage in personal appearances during the campaign.
We've always been very big for rallies, crowd shots, motorcades
and balloons but I really seriously question whether they are in any
way important for an incumbent President. It may be that we need
some bandwagon psychology but I wouldn't think SO. There are
obvious tolerance maximums in terms of the use of television, but
I think those limitations are perhaps limitations on campaigning
generally then, since I think the idea of the President getting out
and whistle stopping or stumping the nation is doubtful.
New Hampshire
I think I would stay completely away from New Hampshire under the
circumstances. McCloskey may do better than anyone thinks at this
time simply because he is effective up close and can be expected to
make substantial inroads in the meager population of that state by
an intensive hand-shaking and coffee hour campaign. I would think
it's safer simply to take the position that New Hampshire has little or
no significance in terms of the Republican nomination. It happens
to be the first primary but somebody had to be first and it doesn't
stand for anything. We might even play up McCloskey's obvious
advantage in being able to devote unlimited time to hand-shaking in
New Hampshire while the President is busy saving the world.
McCloskey's absentee record might be emphasized and our chairman
up there might make the point that it's more important for the President
to be hard at work in the White House than up in New Hampshire trying
to tilt for delegates with some unknown Congressman. If we write it
off now, we don't have to apologize for any results later,
assuming we can bring it off.
-5-
Trips into the Country
I would subscribe to John Whitaker's proposal for more issue-
oriented trips and fewer rallies. I don't think I would go quite as
far as he in degree but I think he has the right idea. He forgets
to make the point that most of these issues are regional in character
and we can pretty well localize our attack on an issue with some
intelligent analysis. But he is certainly right that trips should be
taken to discuss problems.
Running as an out
I think John Connally is right that the President has to run as an out,
against the status quo, rather than as a defender of the status quo.
There are simply too many unfulfilled proposals, too many unsolved
problems, too many unsatisfied needs and wants as demonstrated by
the Harris poll. People don't like the way the country is going and
the only way to respond to that discontent is to run against the conditions
which they identify. You have to advocate change under such
circumstances, rather than to run on a platform of accomplishment.
If it's skillfully done, the President can attack his Senator opponent on
the ground that he, the member of Congress, is the defender of the
status quo since the Congress wouldn't change things even though the
President wanted them to. The Senator perpetuated pollution, he
perpetuated poverty, he perpetuated the conditions in the cities which
might have been solved by revenue sharing, etc.
The Catholic Vote
We are operating under a set of assumptions about the Catholic vote
that I suspect are totally invalid. You have seen Roy Morey's
preliminary analysis and Pat Buchanan's seat-of-the-pants emotional
response. I took the position with Buchanan that Morey had made the
prima facie case and it was up to Buchanan to sustain his burden of
proof and I am afraid Pat has not done SO. He has told us with great
fervor what he, Buchanan, believes but he has no answers for the
statistics and polls which indicate the contrary. Because a strongly
pro-Catholic position on some issues costs us votes (as shown by
the polls) in the border states and the South, and we are relying on
those areas as part of our base of support, we had better be very
sure of the validity of our assumptions on this subject before we
go much farther.
-6-
The Environment
A somewhat kindred subject is that of the electoral effect of the
environmental issue. There is an instinctive distrust of this
issue by the President. Yet the polls tell us very clearly that it
is a highly important issue and everything that we can develop on
an objective basis tells us over and over again that it is motivating
and significant. If I read the Harris poll correctly (and it would
seem inescapable to me on the basis of this poll) people don't want
"balance" between the environment and the economy. We know that
balance is right, makes good sense from the standpoint of the future
of the country, has to be an important consideration in the things we
do around here, but it will turn off the environmentally oriented voter.
And here we are talking about broadening our base. It's the young,
the women, the middle bracket wage earner who is concerned about
pollution in overwhelming numbers.
Now, whether we like it or not, and whether the President agrees
emotionally with the evidence or mt, I think we have to be realistic
about this issue and begin to act more politically about it.
On both these points, what I wish to argue is that we are making
emotional responses to these two issues. Rather, we have to be
cold, calculating and thoroughly political in our analysis of the
issues and how to treat them.
Labor
I'm of two minds on this issue and I don't quite know what to suggest.
We need to know a lot more about the situation than we do. We would
like to think that we can make inroads into the labor vote; we would
like to think we can even pick up some labor leaders at the margin wh O
will help us. But we are under heavy attack by our friends at the
moment for being soft on labor, for having sold out to labor on Phase II,
for having tolerated wage increases and strikes to the serious damage
of business and the nation and, in effect, for being "dupes" who have
been taken into camp by labor, largely on a bluff.
-7-
In a minute I am going to mention credibility. We are telling
people not to worry about the China trip and the Russia trip
because the President is tough, he's able to handle them, he
won't be taken in by them and they can't bluff him. It is being
argued that our labor record makes these assertions incredible.
The President or the politician?
To be reelected the President must attract the support of people
who are not party Republicans. The campaign must be inclusive
rather than exclusive. It must bring to him people who are attracted
by that extra ingredient rather than by the forme r Senator from
California. In other words, everyone knows that the President is
a consummate politician and frequently does things for political
reasons. They often assign political reasons to things done for non-
political reasons. There's a sort of rebuttable presumption that
everything the President does is done for political reasons.
My thesis is that he will attract additional support if his campaign is
essentially Presidential and not political. The closerwe get to election
day the harder it will be not to be political; not to say and do the purely
political thing, to drop the Presidential mantle and wade into the fray
at the level of the lowest common denominator. Yet I think that
the strategy can be that of the front runner which was so successfully
employed in the weeks just before the 1968 convention.
Credibility
In thinking about vulnerability, this has to be an avenue that we should
be concerned about. McCloskey is already playing this tune in New
Hampshire, to what effect I don't know. I think many people want to
believe that their government officials are trying to pull a fast one,
trying to slide one by them, trying to get away with something, etc.
I think each time Chuck Colson is caught at one of his escapades or
the Defense Department is nailed on a North Vietnamese pipeline
exhibit or we attempt to excuse some indefensible mistake by a
subordinate we lose some people that we otherwise could have won.
There's no doubt that we re going to be attacked as dishonest and
incredible and I think we have to lean over backward to avoid
creating grounds or even the appearance of grounds for these attacks.
-8-
I think the Bureau of Labor Statistics effort, while right, is going
to cost us in the long run on this score. We're going to have the
same trouble in punishing or firing those guilty of leaking.
Suppression of the truth comes under the general heading of
incredibility. This is a problem we're going to have to deal with
on an almost daily basis, making the best judgment calls we
can but always keeping in mind the overall problem.
Perhaps under this general heading comes the Justice Department
and some of its activities lately.
The Law and Order Issue
The nationwide crime statistics for the last three years have not
been very good. On the other hand, Washington, D. C.'s record
has been excellent, given all the problems of this place. In truth,
the difference is that we have poured an unbelieveable amount of
money into law enforcement in the District and it is governed by a
dictatorship rather than an elected Mayor and City Council. We've
been able to do a lot of things in the management of the city
government that the electorate would never have stood for if they
had had any say in it. And it's gotten results.
I'm not sure how this issue can be handled in the coming campaign.
I suppose one approach would be to point with pride at the city we
have responsibility for and say that big city Democrat Mayors could
do the same thing if they were as good as we are. And we can say
that we've been trying to send more money to the cities in the form
of revenue sharing but the Congress wouldn't let us. But all in all
it is not a good national record and we're going to be on the defensive
in this area and we'd better start laying some plans right now for
meeting the political onslaught. There is no sign that the statistics
are going to get any better in the coming year.
-9-
Civil Rights
There is going to be a major political offensive against us in
the civil rights area and we will have a separate report coming
to the President within a couple of weeks as to the dimension
of this problem and the directions that the attacks probably will
take.
This memorandum started out to be general and ended up being
specific on certain issues. Going back to the general, I think
that the President should "declare peace" at the start of his campaign,
say that the Vietnam war is at an end as he promised it would be,
that the country is emerging into an era of peace and prosperity
and that we have come through the dark night (please, not nightmare)
with the President's firm hand on the helm. Many, many problems
remain to be solved but now we're in a position to attack them with
the same leadership, vision and courage that has been displayed in
bringing us through the problems of war and recession.
To earn a generation of peace many international problems are yet
to be tackled and it's a very bad time to be thinking about changing
Administrations, particularly when such a good start has been made
by the incumbent President.
We don't try and defend the domestic status quo; we urge that it be
changed and we run against the failures of the Congress (the Democratic
nominee almost surely coming from that body).
I apologize for the rambling nature of the memorandum but we'll try
and organize this subject matter better for you in succeeding notes.
John D. Ehrlichman