Ronald Reagan - the hope of American conservatives.
The Republican National Convention in Kansas City loomed near, yet the uncertainty was stronger than at any point in the campaign. Unlike the Democratic Party’s primary, which was swept by Jimmy Carter after his emergence from obscurity, the Republican Party’s primary battle was a much more divisive and fractious affair. President Ford, having overcome the lingering legacy of Watergate which had scuttled the previous administration, two separate assassination attempts, the final whimpering conclusion of the war in Vietnam, and rapidly worsening inflation, could not seem to keep down the discontent broiling on the right. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan became the champion of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, eliciting an impassioned variety of support and enthusiasm that had not been witnessed since Goldwater. Announcing his candidacy for the Presidency at the climax of 1975, the actor turned politician was a strong and credible challenger to the incumbent Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, Reagan was perhaps even more serious primary challenger to a sitting President since Eugene McCarthy’s candidacy in 1968.
Like McCarthy (who, coincidentally, was seeking the Presidency again, this time quixotically as an independent), Reagan’s challenge saw stumbles early on. Ford defeated Reagan narrowly in Iowa and New Hampshire before a string of wider defeats in states such as Massachusetts, Florida, and Illinois. But with the help of the arch-conservative Jesse Helms, Reagan won a stunning comeback in North Carolina that breathed new life into an otherwise dying candidacy. Crisscrossing the country, Reagan was able to survive what commentators predicted would be fatal defeats in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and went on to win a crucial victory in Texas which propelled his campaign all the way through to the convention. The primaries wrapping up in the south and west fattened Reagan’s delegate count, and it became increasingly apparent that neither candidate had a clear majority of the votes that would soon be cast in Kansas City.
The two opposing camps in the Republican Party meanwhile found themselves locked in a new battle as part of a post-primary cold war of sorts; with neither Ford nor Reagan certain to win a majority on the first ballot, their supporters entered into a game of cat and mouse as the convention approached. As warring groups of delegates prepared to stall their rivals at platform hearings and credentialing committees, the two campaigns found themselves in the awkward position of having to carefully balance their ticket. In the wake of Watergate, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller was the only potential candidate for the then vacant Vice Presidency who would clearly clear Congress. Now, only two years later, he had gone from asset to liability. The conservative discontent with Ford had grown so rapidly that Rockefeller took himself out of the running in the fall of the previous year, giving the President ample time to name a new Vice Presidential candidate. Now, with the primaries over, it appeared that the time had finally come. Yet no announcement was made, even with the convention just days away.
Reagan considered forcing Ford, who was typically cautious to a reasonable degree, to name a running mate early. But in order to do so, he’d first have to name a running mate himself. This was not initially a problem for the Gipper; though most of the party establishment rallied around Ford, he knew that finding a moderate to balance the ticket was still well within the realm of possibility. His ideal choice was Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a reliably pro-labor vote in the body who had a reputation as a liberal Republican maverick. Though Schweiker was surprised to be approached by Reagan, as the two had not personally known one another before, he none the less agreed to join the ticket after a personal meeting between the two. Reagan was ready to announce the decision as early as possible, and even asked his top campaign aides to call a press conference for the following day. Though campaign manager John Sears was in favor, Reagan’s longtime aides Mike Deaver, Ed Meese, and Lynn Nofzinger pushed back at the idea and urged restraint. After consulting with leading Senate conservatives including James Buckley and Jesse Helms as well as commentator and former Nixon speechwriter Patrick Buchanan, the former Governor reluctantly agreed to pick a different Vice Presidential candidate. Though disappointed and feeling somewhat betrayed by his conservative Senate colleagues, Schweiker understood and withdrew from the vetting process. Reagan, in respect to Schweiker, decided to hold off on naming a Vice Presidential selection until after the nomination was settled. Both Ford and Reagan would enter the convention without having formed a ticket as a result.
The convention opened on Monday, August 16th, with delegates flooding into Kemper Arena for the first day of proceedings. Reagan supporters were able to rally enough Ford delegates under their banner to pass a platform plank in opposition to Roe vs. Wade and also instituted a call for a “moral foreign policy,” which while not implicitly a dig at the President’s policy of detente, none the less called for a much firmer approach to the Soviet Union in other areas related to trade and defense. These early defeats in the platform hearings were a worrying sign for Ford, and the President’s campaign manager Stu Spencer became alarmed that Reagan’s convention floor operation was more advanced than expected. Some elements of the Texas delegation known as “Reagan’s Raiders,” led by Galveston Congressman Ron Paul, Odessa Mayor Jim Reese, and Midland Mayor Ernest Angelo, were aggressively courting delegates. The Mississippi delegation, which adhered to a block voting rule, saw just two delegates switch from Ford to Reagan, which was enough to give the state's entire 40 person delegation into Reagan's column. Though not panicked, Ford decided that dramatic action was needed to shore up his delegation. It would prove to be a fateful decision politically.
After a series of meetings with several state delegations throughout the evening, President Ford emerged from the arena to an avalanche of media to announce he had asked Senator Robert Dole to join the Republican ticket. It was entirely truthful – he had asked Dole to run for the Vice Presidency, but the Senator had not given an affirmative answer and asked to be given a night to sleep on it. Having gone to bed early in his hotel suite with his wife Elizabeth after a long day on the convention floor, Senator Dole was stunned when reporters began to pound at his door in the early morning hours. Dole confirmed he had been approached, and unaware of the President’s announcement, claimed only that he was “thinking about it” before closing the door. The following morning, he awoke to headlines which had already thrown the Ford campaign into chaos.
While the media meanwhile squared their attention on the Ford-Dole debacle (which was cleared by noon, when Dole announced that he would, in fact, join the ticket) Reagan’s top henchmen set to work winning over delegates. Tensions ran high on the convention floor as they courted wavering Ford supporters, many of whom were troubled by the botched Vice Presidential role out. States like Kentucky and Illinois, both of whom had large swathes of undecided delegates between them, were magnets for prominent supporters of both candidates. The atmosphere was so rife with tension that the Vice President himself found himself in a standoff with opposing delegates after a Reagan supporter ripped out a telephone used by the New York delegation from the wall. Only the intervention of the Secret Service kept Rockefeller from physically attacking the perpetrator, and CBS cameras captured the entire exchange on camera that night. With the first ballot approaching in less than twenty four hours, the convention was shaping up to be the most acrimonious Republican Convention in recent memory.
With Ford and Dole having made their intentions clear about the ticket, it was now time for Reagan. The pickings were slim for the former Governor. Of all the Republicans in the Senate, only two had sided with the Governor over Ford. But both Senators Buckley (C-NY) and Laxalt (R-NV) were considered too conservative for the role of Reagan’s Vice President, which made them unattractive candidates for the job. Others, like CIA Director George Bush (R-TX) and Senator Howard Baker (R-TN), were simply written off as being too unlikely to side against the President so late in the campaign. Sears even floated naming incumbent Vice President Rockefeller, but this idea was immediately shot down by Deaver, Meese, and Nofzinger – the men who would become known within Reagan’s orbit as “the troika.” Another New Yorker’s name was then raised – that of Jack Kemp. A former NFL football player turned three term Congressman, Kemp quickly earned a national reputation for his fiscally conservative ideals and social liberalism. Somewhat of a libertarian in some people’s eyes, Kemp was someone who could fit in comfortably with both the moderate and conservative wings of the party. With just three hours to the first ballot, and with pressure mounting, the Governor reached out to Kemp in his hotel room via telephone. After a short conversation, the two agreed to meet immediately. It took the charismatic former screen star only forty five minutes to win the Congressman over. President Ford and Senator Dole were informed through the grape vine only moments ahead of Reagan taking to the cameras alongside Congressman Kemp to announce the formation of their ticket. The battle lines had been drawn; it was now the hour of decision.
The last minute announcement of a Reagan-Kemp ticket immediately threw the convention into chaos; the lateness of the decision ensured that many delegates only heard of Reagan’s announcement as they returned to the convention hall for the first ballot. The Governor had thrust the ball into their court, and they as a result had no time to think. They’d have to go with their gut; as the President watched on, he couldn’t help but admire the ruthlessness of it. The roll call began, and chaos seemed to follow. The convention hall was largely silent, though bursts of noise occasionally broke out through the muted chatter as tensions boiled over. In one instance, a delegate angrily threw himself through a throng of Ford delegates from New York to snatch a telephone out of the hand of Vice President Rockefeller resulting in a physical altercation between the two men that was only broken up by the intervention of a dozen Secret Service agents.
Vice President Rockefeller on the convention floor.
As the roll continued, and state after state delegations rattled off their votes for the Presidential nomination, it became increasingly possible to both camps that the result would likely be inconclusive. Both the Fords and Reagans watched from opposite sides of the arena as the vote proceeded; by both their estimations, the fight wasn’t over. The final tally, read aloud to the convention hall and to millions of live viewers in homes across the country, reflected this.
A second ballot was scheduled, and the two campaigns went into overdrive to rally undecided delegates. Ford attempted to charm delegates with the grandeur of his office, promising personal White House tours and Oval Office visits, playing the good cop to his Deputy Chief of Staff Dick Cheney’s bad cop. While Cheney went about threatening various delegates and party functionaries to keep wavering delegates in line. All the while, Reagan and Kemp projected the promise of a great Republican revival in the face of a resurgent Democratic Party enthused by Watergate. Indeed, Nixon’s shadow hung over the race, and Reagan masterfully disassociated himself from the former President he had once so strongly supported. Ford meanwhile faced a second battle should he win the nomination – one which force him to reconcile his controversial pardon for President Nixon in the face of a seemingly incorruptible Democratic challenger. A sense of apprehension filled the hall, with the reality sinking in that the party could fracture apart if a third or fourth round of balloting beca,e necessary. When the second roll call ballot began within a short amount of time, Ford was convinced he had done his best to demonstrate the benefits of continuity. But it turned out the delegates were not impressed.
Watching in shock and horror as delegation after delegation reported their results, Ford counted the number of broken promises of support play out before him. In total, the President’s team managed to bring in only eleven uncommitted delegates to their cause. Ronald Reagan, the former Governor of California, had defeated an incumbent President for renomination for the first time since Chester Arthur had been upended by James Blaine in 1884. The hall erupted into thunderous applause and angry jeers as a beaming Governor, accompanied by his beloved wife Nancy, walked upon the convention floor. Hailed by conservative delegates as their champion, the President watched shocked and stone-faced as he grappled with the reality of his defeat. A brass band struck up an upbeat tune as the Republican Party reconciled the fact that the grassroots had dealt a serious defeat to the establishment, and seeing no other choice, President Ford worked his way down to the floor where he personally went with the First Lady to offer his congratulations to the new nominee. After a hearty handshake with the Governor watched by millions of television viewers, the two men went onstage to publicly display their newfound unity in an effort to bring together the party. After brief remarks in which he thanked his family and defended his tenure as President, Ford did the unexpected and urged voters to come together in support of the Reagan-Kemp ticket. Afterwards Dole graciously withdrew his name from consideration, and Kemp was placed on the ticket by acclamation. The bleeding had stopped, the wounds had been bandaged, but only time would tell if they would heal.
Reagan delivers his acceptance speech in the presence of his former rival, President Ford.
Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Vice President-to-be, the distinguished guests here, you ladies and gentlemen. I was going to say fellow Republicans here but those who are watching from a distance, all those millions of Democrats and independents, who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them. Mr. President, before you arrived tonight, these wonderful people, here, when we came in, gave Nancy and myself a welcome. That, plus your kindness and generosity throughout this campaign, will live in our hearts forever.
I want to begin by accepting this party's nomination for President of the United States. Together, we can unite this party and then unite this country. Our shared journey begins here and now, and I humbly ask for your prayers, your support, and your vote as we undertake this endeavor through its final stage.
This hasn't been an entirely smooth endeavor for either of us, and of course, every campaign will bring differing candidates with differing visions. There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and is doesn't very often amount to much. Whether it is different this time than is has ever been before, I believe the Republican party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades. We have just heard a call to arms, based on that platform. And a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a rerunning of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.
If I could just take a moment, I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial, in the year 2076. It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write about the problems and issues of the day. And I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.
And then as I tried to write, well, let your own minds turn to that task. Imagine, for one moment, if you had been asked to write for people a hundred years from now. Think about it for a second. They will know all about us. Yet today, we know nothing about them. We don't know what kind of world they'll be living in. And suddenly I thought to myself: if I write of the problems, they'll be the domestic problems of which the President earlier spoke about here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are the challenges that we must meet and then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have aimed and poised at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each others country and destroy virtually the civilized world we live in. And suddenly it dawned on me; those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge.
Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here. Will they look back with appreciation and say, Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom? Who kept us now a hundred years later free? Who kept our world from nuclear destruction? And if we fail they probably wont get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it.
This is our challenge and this is why were here in this hall tonight. Better than we've ever done before, we've got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we've ever been but we carry the message they're waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory!
Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp - the 1976 Republican ticket.
Limping out of Kansas City, the Republican Party was scarred and fractured; though Ford had endorsed Reagan and encouraged his supporters to rally around the nominee, tensions remained hot. Many moderate Republicans, such as Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) thumbed their nose on the conservative candidate, warning that the party risked repeating the destructive defeat that Barry Goldwater had endured twelve years earlier in 1964. Though both President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller (reluctantly) urged Republicans to support the nominee, neither actively campaigned for Reagan and would dodge questions from reporters for the duration of the general election campaign. Whether the administration's half-hearted support for Reagan would be enough to sway alienated moderate and liberal voters was simply too close to call.
Nobody was more excited for this than Jimmy Carter, the Democratic nominee. The former Georgia Governor was not even included in the polling when he launched his campaign, and yet, he had managed to hold back such major household names such as George Wallace, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Jackson, Birch Bayh, and Jerry Brown to clinch the nomination for himself. Telephoning his mother back home in Plains, Georgia, Carter confidently declared into the phone line “mama, we’re heading towards a landslide.” It was easy to see why. Not only had the GOP fractured along ideological lines, but the perceived weaker candidate had prevailed. The Carter campaign’s confidence was mirrored by the anxiety felt in Washington by the Republican National Committee. And according to polling, they weren't wrong to despair. With a 33 point lead over Reagan, the Carter campaign was on track to an electoral victory not seen since the days of Franklin Roosevelt.
But the Democrats did not take into account the raw energy of the conservative base, with Reagan's campaign energizing Republicans in a way that Nixon and Ford could never have dreamed of. Despite his rough start as an underdog, the Governor seemed cool and calm, convinced of the eventuality of their victory. Nancy Reagan was more realistic and was deeply concerned about the direction of the campaign. Though John Sears had scraped together the nomination at the last minute, Nancy saw no room for error in the general election campaign.
Just days after Reagan’s nomination, the top Reagan insiders – Peter Hannaford, Lynn Nofzinger, Mike Deaver, and Charles Z. Wick - met with William Casey, the recently retired head of the Export-Import Bank and a fierce anti-communist who had steered countless donors to the Reagan campaign. Casey was willing to take on the role of campaign manager, though the removal of Sears would be a tough sell to the press after the triumph at the convention. They’d need someone who could coldly and calmly inform Sears, a job that Reagan simply could not do. This is where Nancy Reagan entered the picture; the following morning, Sears was terminated and informed of the decision by Mrs. Reagan personally. Within hours, word spread to the press of the Reagan campaign's staff shakeup.
The Reagan inner circle seemed fluid, often expanding and then contracting depending on the political climate. While it became clear after the firing of John Sears that the Nancy Reagan led “troika” had the final say, new voices were not excluded. Thomas Ellis, a longtime aide and ally of Jesse Helms who helped Reagan win the crucial North Carolina primary was brought on board to conduct the campaign in the “border states” of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina, where Reagan hoped to capitalize on suburban voters who were amiable to his vision and rhetoric.
In early September, Reagan began a blitz through the south with the intention of flexing his muscles among conservatives and putting Carter on the defensive. The strategy quickly worked; Reagan launched his “Dixie pivot” in Mississippi, the state that had played such an influential role in his nomination victory. The state’s Republican Party’s executive director Haley Barbour had recently brought on a young South Carolinian named Lee Atwater, who had been hired on Strom Thurmond’s recommendation. Known for his gusto and take no prisoners approach to politics, Lee Atwater would come to redefine Nixon’s original “Southern Strategy.” While telling the (sometimes fatally) trusting Governor personally that welfare reform was a divisive issue in Mississippi, Atwater’s real goal was to mislead the Governor into dragging racial issues into the campaign. Working with former Nixon speechwriter and television commentator Pat Buchanan, Atwater managed to present the Governor with a number of speeches in which he once again invoked “welfare queens” to controversy. The growing divide led to the NAACP of Mississippi issuing a letter of condemnation, but it also successfully dented Carter’s appeal to white voters in the state. The Reagan campaign worked proactively to exploit the situation, with Barbour convincing former Governor John Bell Williams to run for Senate as an independent “anti-Washington conservative.” The gambit was risky, and Nancy Reagan was opposed to it as she feared it’d divert resources away from the campaign. In spite of this, Williams managed to snag ballot access at the last minute and began a blitzkrieg tour of Mississippi touting his “anti-Washington” candidacy and the merits of Governor Reagan. Making an issue of Senator Stennis’s longevity and age, William’s candidacy turned a sleep, one man race into a close two way contest. In doing so, Mississippi began to peel away from Carter’s firm grasp. William’s cry of “stop Washington, save the south!” soon became a rallying cry for conservative candidates across the region.
By the end of the first week of September, Governor Carter’s thirty plus point lead had been halved. A Gallup poll had Carter leading Reagan by a margin of 53-25%, with a remaining quarter of voters remaining undecided. The Reagan campaign would have to engineer any substantial gains for the Governor in only a matter of months. This turn around was largely attributed to a surge of support for the Governor in the south, where he began to come within ten points of Governor Carter in most southern states aside from Georgia. However, Carter retained his upper-hand among these voters by constantly invoking the legacy of Barry Goldwater and running on household issues that made Reagan’s free market message sound like a rollback of the Great Society. In any event, domestic concerns were matched by foreign volatility, and events on the other side of the world would soon however dominate the headlines.
While the presidential campaign captivated American voters, strange events were taking place behind the walls of the Forbidden City in Peking. Mao Zedong, the longtime leader of the People’s Republic of China and the ruling Communist Party, was in rapidly failing health. With his nearing demise increasingly apparent to the ruling cliques of the party, a power struggle began in Peking between the two dueling factions of the Communist Party. Following the death of his longtime Premier, the more reform minded Zhou Enlai, the most powerful opposition figure within the party was Deng Xiaoping, who favored market oriented economic policies. Deng was rigorously opposed by Mao’s widow Jiang Qiang, as well as Wang Dongxing, Wang Hongwen, and other Maoist figures within the party. Mao Yuanxin, the nephew of the ailing “Great Helmsman,” rose to prominence in this midst of this palace intrigue to become a critical ally of the leftist wing of the party. On September 9th, Mao finally succumbed to a heart attack following an extended period of declining health. Premier Hua Guofeng took the reins of governance in the interim, but his position was seriously eroded by a lack of respect from members of both factions. In fact, Mao had selected Hua as his successor in part because he believed the Premier would fail to hold onto power and could be easily swayed by more dominant revolutionary voices.
As Americans were distracted by the September phase of the presidential campaign, a quiet war raged among China’s elites. Mao’s funeral, conducted in Tienanmen Square, was followed by a propaganda campaign by the radical wing of the party led by Mao’s widely loathed widow. Calling on the masses to celebrate Mao’s legacy by reforming the Red Guards, which had legally been suppressed. Hua was helpless in the days after Mao’s funeral to stop a new generation of rampaging leftist students, egged on by Jiang Qing and Mao Yuanxin, from flexing their muscles. Realizing that the widow of the late dictator could throw the country into civil war, and sensing that Hua was simply too weak to hold off Deng, Wang Dongxing – Mao’s chief of security and of the secret police – cast his lot with Jiang Qiang and the radicals. With someone of Wang’s stature now among their ranks, the other radicals were more willing to sideline the notoriously erratic Jiang. In a meeting of the Central Committee weeks later, a power sharing agreement was reached. Jiang would take the (vacant) position of Chairwoman of the Presidium, making her the head of state, albeit only a figurehead. Mao Yuanxin would take over as General Secretary whereas Hua would continue as Premier. Lastly, Wang would succeed Mao Zedong as Chairman of the Central Military Commission. By balancing out power equally among the radical wing of the party, the more destructive impulses of Jiang were largely curbed while the reformist Hua-Zhou-Deng wing was effectively neutered. These developments were worriedly followed by the State Department, and Reagan’s rhetoric on the campaign trail echoed this.
The Chinese mourn "the Great Helmsman."
But while Reagan hammered away at the broader communist threat and the necessity of defending American values, it was Carter who was talking bread and butter issues. The Democratic nominee took advantage of Ford’s defeat to put Michigan into play, with Carter blitzing through union halls across the state as part of this effort. Reagan courted former Wallace voters in the deep south, undercutting Carter’s advantage as the “southern” candidate by portraying him as a considerably more liberal variety of Democrat than he actually was. But to the displeasure of the family values candidate, family squabbles soon were dragged into the race; though Governor Carter would bemoan the “nasty turn” of the race, his supporters and surrogates often made suggestions and innuendo about Governor Reagan’s complicated family life. While Reagan’s children would later confirm that many of the comments and rumors were indeed true, the promising attempt to contrast the cold and aloof Reagan’s to the warm and kindly Carter clan failed as the public reacted negatively. Though the Democratic nominee had hoped to show the sincerity of his faith, he had only come off as intolerant and holier-than-thou in the process.
Then came the Playboy interview.
The reaction was worse than anything Carter had remotely anticipated; his honesty had gone a step too far. Telling the interviewer that he had “lusted for other women” and had “committed adultery in my heart," Carter also drew controversy for using the slang term “screw” in a sexual context. The interview is published just days after Carter’s campaign was raising Reagan’s prior divorce, which had largely backfired. Though they maintained a solid lead over the Governor in the end, it became clear within the Carter campaign that a “reset” would be needed. The debates offered this opportunity. At the Walnut Theater in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the candidates met on stage for the first time since the conventions for a televised broadcast that would be watched by countless millions of Americans. Hosted by the League of Women Voters, the debate was the first of its kind since 1960, when Kennedy and Nixon famously went head to head. Millions of viewers tuned in on television on the night of Thursday, September 23rd, 1976, for the most anticipated political broadcast since Nixon’s resignation.
Edwin Newmans: Good evening. I’m Edwin Newman, moderator of this first debate of the 1976 campaign between Ronald Reagan, Republican candidate for president, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic candidate for president. We thank you, Governors Carter and Reagan, for being with us tonight. There are to be three debates between the presidential candidates and one between the vice-presidential candidates. All are being arranged by the League of Women Voters' Education Fund. Tonight’s debate, the first between presidential candidates in sixteen years, is taking place before an audience in the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia, just three blocks from Independence Hall. The television audience may reach a hundred million in the United States and many millions more overseas. Tonight’s debate focuses on domestic issues and economic policy. Questions will be put by Frank Reynolds of ABC News, James Gannon of the Wall Street Journal, and Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker magazine. Under the agreed rules the first question will go to Governor Carter. That was decided by the toss of a coin. He will have up to three minutes to answer. One follow-up question will be permitted with up to two minutes to reply. Governor Reagan will then have two minutes to respond. The next question will go to Governor Reagan with the same time arrangements, and questions will continue to be alternated between the candidates. Each man will make a three-minute statement at the end, Governor Carter to go first. Governor Reagan and Governor Carter do not have any notes or prepared remarks with them this evening. Mr. Reynolds, your question for Governor Carter.
Frank Reynolds: Governor Carter, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, you said you believed these debates would alleviate a lot of concern that some voters have about you. Well, one of those concerns, not an uncommon one about uh – candidates in any year, is that many voters say they don’t really know where you stand. Now, you have made jobs your number one priority and you have said you are committed to a drastic reduction in unemployment. Can you say now, Governor, in specific terms, what your first step would be next January, if you are elected, to achieve that?
Jimmy Carter: Yes. First of all is to recognize a tremendous economic strength in this country and to set the putting to....um....well, putting people back to work as a top priority. This is....this is, uh, this is an effort that ought to be done primarily by strong leadership in the White House, the inspiration of our people, the tapping of uh – business, agriculture, industry, labor and government at all levels to work on this uh project. We’ll never have an end to the inflationary spiral, and we’ll never have a balanced budget until we get our people back to work. There are several things that can be done specifically that are not now being done. First of all, to channel research and development funds into areas that will provide uh large numbers of jobs. Secondly, we need to have a commitment in the uh private sector to cooperate with government in matters like, uh, like housing. Here a very small investment of taxpayer’s money in the housing field can bring large numbers of extra jobs, and the guarantee of mortgage loans, and putting programs for housing for older people and so forth into place to cut down the roughly 205 unemployment that now exists in the construction industry.
Another thing is to deal with our – uh needs in the central cities, where the unemployment rate is extremely high. Particularly among minority groups, or those who don’t speak English, or who are black, or young people, or so on. Here a CCC type program would be appropriate to channel money into the economy into the sharing with the private sector and also local and state governments to employ young people who are now out of work. Another very important....um....another key aspect of our economy would be to increase production in every way possible, to hold down taxes on individuals, and to, um, to shift the tax burdens onto those who have avoided paying taxes in the past. These kinds of specific things, none of which are being done now, would be a great help in reducing unemployment. There is an additional factor that needs to be done and covered very succinctly, and that is, to make sure that we have a good relationship between management – business on the one hand, and labor, on the other.
But I believe that by the end of the first four years of the next term we could have the unemployment down to 3%, which is about 4% overall.........................well, w can balance growth of about 4% to about 6%, around 5% which would give us a balanced budget.
Frank Reynolds: But with unemployment that is likely to create additional pressure on prices, how willing are you to consider an incomes policy, in other words, wage and price controls?
Jimmy Carter: Well – we now have such um, we have such a low utilization of productive capacity....I think currently of about 73%; I know it’s about the lowest since the Great Depression years, and such a high unemployment rate now....7.9%.....basically 8%.....that, um, we have a long way to go in getting people to work before we have the inflationary pressures. And I think this would be easy to accomplish, to get jobs down, without having strong inflationary pressures that would be necessary. I would not favor the payment of a fixed income to people unless they are absolutely not able to work. But with tax incentives for the low-income groups we could build up their income levels above the poverty level and not uh make welfare more profitable than work.
Ed Newman: Governor Reagan, your response?
Ronald Reagan: Governor Carter’s answer wasn’t any more specific tonight than anything we’ve already heard out of him. The truth is, Governor Carter, government isn’t the solution – government is the problem! The Governor’s proposals are actually not all that original, and most of them have been covered by the proposed Humphrey-Hawkins Bill, which I noticed he did not mention tonight. That legislation, which is a part of the Democratic Party’s platform, would add ten to thirty billion each year in additional government expenditures and would put large portions of our economy under government control.
I might also add that it would create export controls on agricultural output, hurting small farmers across the country including farms like the one owned by Governor Carter.
The best way to create jobs is by allowing the private sector to generate them; we can do this by cutting taxes across the board on all Americans, from the top rate of 70% all the way down to 30%. That is a 40% tax cut, and that is money that will go directly back into our economy. We can create further tax incentives to attract businesses to blighted areas, where they can create steady employment in communities battling joblessness.
Ed Newman: Thank you, Governor Reagan. Mr. Gannon, your question for Governor Reagan?
James Gannon: Governor Reagan, I would like to continue for a moment on this uh question of taxes which you have just raised. You have said on the campaign trail that you favor more tax cuts for middle-income Americans – even those earning up to $30 thousand a year. That presumably would cost the Treasury quite a bit of money in lost revenue. In view of the very large budget deficits that you have accumulated and that are still in prospect, how is it possible to promise further tax cuts and to reach your goal of balancing the budget?
Ronald Reagan: Well, first of all, I think this idea that has been spawned here in our country that inflation somehow came upon us like a plague and therefore it’s uncontrollable and no one can do anything about it, is entirely spurious and it’s dangerous to say this to the people. Governor Carter's economic plan calls for increasing the taxes to the point that we finally take so much money away from the people that we can balance the budget in that way. But we will have a very poor nation and a very unsound economy if we follow that path. Now take into account the many programs that Governor Carter wants to implement, such as public-private projects in areas relating to Housing. While American families individual savings are decimated by inflation, a hypothetical President Carter would take more and more in pursuit of this hair brained proposal from Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins.
Ed Newman: Mrs. Drew, your question for Governor Carter?
Elizabeth Drew: Governor Carter, you proposed a number of new or enlarged programs, including jobs, health, welfare reform, child care, aid to education, aid to cities, changes in social security and housing subsidies. You’ve also said that you wanna balance the budget by the end of your first term. Now you haven’t put a price tag on those programs, but even if we price them conservatively and we count for full employment by the end of your first term, and we count for the economic growth that would occur during that period, there still isn’t enough money to pay for those programs and balance the budget by any – any estimates that I’ve been able to see. So, in that case what would give?
Jimmy Carter: Well, as a matter of fact there is. If we assume the old rate of growth of our economy, equivalent to what it was during President Johnson, President Kennedy, even before the war in Southeast Asia. If we assume that at the end of the four-year period we can cut our unemployment rate down to 4% to 4.5% percent....well, under those circumstances, even assuming no elimination of unnecessary programs and assuming an increase in the allotment of money to finance programs, increasing as the inflation rate does, then by my economic projections, I think confirmed by the House and the....on the, um...the Senate committees have been with the $60 billion extra amount of money that can be spent in fiscal year ’81 which will be the last year of this next term. Within that sixty-billion dollars increase there would be fit the programs that I promised the American people. I might say too, that if we see that these goals cannot be reached – and I believe they’re reasonable goals – then I would cut back on the rate of implementation of new programs in order to accommodate a balanced budget by fiscal year ’81. I believe that we ought to have a balanced budget during normal economic circumstances. And um, these projections....they have been very carefully made. I stand behind them. And if they should be in error slightly on the down side, then I’ll phase in the programs that we’ve uh – advocated, more slowly.
Elizabeth Drew: But Governor, according to the budget committees of the Congress that you referred to, if we get to full employment – what they project at a 4% unemployment – and, as you say, even allowing for the inflation in the programs, there would not be anything more than a surplus of $5 billion by the end of 1981?
Jimmy Carter: Well, the uh....the assumption that.....that you uh....that you have described as different is in the rate of growth of our economy.
Elizabeth Drew: No, that was taken into account.
Jimmy Carter: I believe that it’s accurate to say that, uh, that the committees to whom you refer with the the employment that you just stated, and with the 5% to 5.5% growth rate in our economy, that the projections would be a $60 billion increase in the amount of money that we’d have to spend in l981 compared to now. And with that....well, in that framework would befit the improvements in the programs. Now this does not include any extra control over unnecessary spending, the weeding out of obsolete or obsolescent programs. We’ll have....we'll have a safety version built in with complete reorganization of the executive branch of government which I am pledged to do. The present bureaucratic structure of the federal government is a mess. And if I’m elected president that’s gonna be a top priority of mine to completely revise the structure of the federal government, to make it economical, efficient, purposeful and manageable for a change. And also, I’m going to institute zero-based budgeting which I used four years in Georgia, which assesses every program every year, and eliminates those programs that are obsolete or obsolescent. But with these projections, we will have a balanced budget by fiscal year 1981, if I’m elected president. And I will keep my promises to the American people. And it’s just predicated on very modest, but I think accurate, projections of employment increases and a growth in our national economy equal to what was experienced under Kennedy and Johnson before the Vietnam War.
Ed Newman: Governor Reagan?
Ronald Reagan: Well, most people, when they think about cutting Government spending, they think in terms of eliminating necessary programs or wiping out something, some service that Government is supposed to perform. I believe that there is enough extravagance and fat in government. I have a program for a gradual reduction of government spending based on these facts, and I have a task force now that has been working on where those cuts could be made. I’m confident that it can be done and that it will reduce inflation because I did it in California. And inflation went down below the national average in California when we returned the money to the people and reduced government spending -
Ed Newman: Hold it, Governor, we....we believe we have had a broadcasting failure....are we....we're off the air? Ok. Bare with us, Governor....
*****
Ed Newman: We are back, 27 minutes later, after our broadcast connection failed here in the Walnut Theater. We do have just enough time left for opening statements. By luck of the draw, Governor Reagan has the first chance to make a closing statement.
Ronald Reagan: We came from a hundred different corners of the Earth. We spoke a multitude of tongues. We landed on this Eastern shore and then went out over the mountains and the prairies and the deserts and the far western mountains to the Pacific, building cities and towns and farms, and schools and churches. If wind, water or fire destroyed them, we built them again. And in so doing, at the same time, we built a new breed of human called an American - a proud, an independent, and a most compassionate individual.
The living Americans today have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, and done more to advance the dignity of man than any people who ever lived on this earth. For 200 years, we've lived in the future, believing that tomorrow would be better than today, and today would be better than yesterday. I still believe that. I'm not running for the Presidency because I believe that I can solve the problems we've discussed tonight. I believe the people of this country can, and together, we can begin the world over again. We can meet our destiny - and that destiny to build a land here that will be, for all mankind, a shining city on a hill. I think we ought to get at it.
Edwin Newman: Governor Carter?
Jimmy Carter: Well, tonight we've had a chance to talk a lot about the past. But I think it's time to talk about the future. Our nation in the last eight years has been divided as never before. It's a time for unity. It's a time to draw ourselves together: to have a president and a Congress that can work together with mutual respect for a change, cooperating for a change, in the open for a change, so the people can understand their own government. It's time for government, industry, labor, manufacturing, agriculture, education, other entities in our society to cooperate. And it's a time for government to understand and to cooperate with our people. For a long time our American citizens have been excluded, sometimes misled, sometimes have been lied to. This is uh - not compatible with the purpose of our nation.
I believe in our country. It needs to be competent. The government needs to be well-managed, efficient, economical, We need to have a government that's sensitive to our people's needs - to those who are poor, who don't have adequate health care, who have been cheated too long with our tax programs, who've been out of jobs, whose families have been torn apart. We need to restore the faith and the trust of the American people in their own government. In addition to that, we've suffered because we haven't had leadership in this administration. We've got a government of stalemate. We've lost the vision of what our country can and ought to be. This is not the America that we've known in the past. It's not the America that we have to have in the future. I don't claim to know all the answers. But I've got confidence in my country. Our economic strength is still there. Our system of government - in spite of Vietnam, Cambodia, the CIA, Watergate - is still the best system of government on earth.
The greatest resource of all are the two hundred and fifteen million Americans who have within us the strength, the character, the intelligence, the experience, the patriotism, the idealism, the compassion, the sense of brotherhood on which we can rely in the future to restore the greatness to our country We ought not to be excluded from our government anymore. We need a president who can go in - who derives his strength from the people. I owe the special interests nothing. I owe everything to you, the people of this country. And I believe that we can bind our wounds. I believe that we can work together. And I believe that if we can tap the tremendous untapped reservoir of innate strength in this country, that we can once again have a government as good as our people, and let the world know what we still know and hope for - that we still live in the greatest and the strongest and the best country on earth.
Edwin Newman: And that wraps up our debate tonight. We hope you join us again in San Francisco on October 6th for a second presidential debate, focusing on foreign affairs and defense. Thanks for joining us tonight. Thank you, Governors, for being here. I want to thank my colleagues as well. Thanks for watching, and from Philadelphia’s historic Walnut Theater, good night.
Governor Carter campaigns after the debate.
The debate was a disaster for Governor Carter, who saw his double digit lead in the polls practically halved as a result. The former Georgia Governors inability to explain how he'd pay for a number of programs while balancing the budget and nervous stuttering contrasted poorly to Reagan, a former star of the silver screen. Projecting confidence, Reagan's less detailed responses were largely ignored as the strength of his personality dominated the conversation. In conjunction with the Playboy debacle, Governor Carter was increasingly seen as weak, nervous, and at times even insincere. Though he still held a lead in the polls, his numbers declined dramatically to the point that his campaign manager Hamilton Jordan demanded the Governor participate in more preparation ahead of the second one. The media hailed Reagan as the winner of the debate, and the conservative former California Governor had at last proved to the media that he was still in the ring, ready to fight to the bitter end.
, While the presidential election played out, events overseas were watched by the Ford administration with worrying eyes. In Saudi Arabia, a wave of protests broke out after the Saudi government detained radical cleric and dissenting critic Juhayman al-Otaybi, who was arrested in the city of Medina. Otaybi’s seizure comes after he published and circulated a series of pamphlets criticizing the Royal Family for putting the King’s picture on the currency, which Otaybi believes is un-Islamic. A member of “the Salafi group,” a shadowy Islamist organization that has been critical of the King, Otaybi’s past membership in the Saudi military gave him a large following within the country’s National Guard. A follower of Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, a religious scholar who had become increasingly critical of the Saudi government, al-Otaybi's activities in the country earns him the attention of George Bush and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Saudi Arabia's troubles were minor compared to events in Red China; in the weeks since Mao Zedong's demise, the fragile collective leadership of the People's Republic organizes an internal party coup, with Jiang Qiang - Mao's widow - being arrested midway through a meeting of the Politburo. The following day, Jiang was removed as head of state by the rubber stamp legislature and declared an "anti-party interlooper." Soong Ching-ling, the widow of Sun Yet-sen, was named as the figurehead President of China while power was shared by Hua, Mao Yuanxin, and Wang Dongxing. Though Jiang's downfall was designed to curb the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, it was hardly a rebuke of the radical Maoist wing of the ruling Communist Party, and Deng Xiaoping was purged once more, this time for good. Both Deng and Jiang would disappear into China's vast network of reeducation and labor camps, never to be heard from again.
As September ended, the race had seemingly tightened. Carter led Reagan by a margin of 50-43%, with 7% of voters undecided. Carter's disastrous debate performance put his campaign into a frenzied scramble to prepare the Governor for another round against his telegenic challenger. A Vice Presidential debate was also scheduled, in which the relatively boring Walter Mondale would be pitted against former football player and Congressman Jack Kemp. Though Mondale overall was a net positive force for the Democratic ticket due to his experience and liberal record, Hamilton Jordan knew ahead of the Vice Presidential debate that Mondale would struggle against Kemp. As a result, the Carter campaign deployed Mondale more vigorously in order to make a preemptive introduction of the potential future Vice President to the public. The strategy paid off to a degree, and the voters began to view Mondale as a boring if also experienced Vice Presidential contender. As October loomed, the presidential election entered it's final stage.
Pauline Frederick: Good evening. I'm Pauline Frederick of NPR, moderator of this second of the historic debates of the 1976 campaign between the Republican candidate, Governor Ronald Reagan of California, and Governor James Carter of Georgia, the Democratic candidate. Thank you both for being with us tonight. This debate takes place before an audience in the Palace of Fine Arts Theater in San Francisco. An estimated one hundred million Americans are watching on television as well. San Francisco was the site of the signing of the United Nations Charter, thirty one years ago. Thus, it is an appropriate place to hold this debate, the subject of which is foreign and defense issues.
The questioners tonight are Max Frankel, associate editor of the New York Times, Henry L. Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, and Richard Valeriani, diplomatic correspondent of NBC News. The ground rules are basically the same as they were for the first debate two weeks ago. The questions will be alternated between candidates. By the toss of a coin, Governor Carter will take the first question. Each question sequence will be as follows: The question will be asked and the candidate will have up to three minutes to answer. His opponent will have up to two minutes to respond. And prior to the response, the questioner may ask a follow-up question to clarify the candidate's answer when necessary with up to two minutes to reply. Each candidate will have three minutes for a closing statement at the end. President Ford and Governor Carter do not have notes or prepared remarks with them this evening, but they may take notes during the debate and refer to them. Mr. Frankel, you have the first question for Governor Carter.
Max Frankel: Governor, since the Democrats last ran our foreign policy, including many of the men who are advising you, country has been relieved of the Vietnam agony and the military draft, we’ve started arms control negotiations with the Russians, we’ve opened relations with China, we’ve arranged the disengagement in the Middle East, we’ve regained influence with the Arabs without deserting Israel, now, maybe we’ve even begun a process of peaceful change in Africa. Now you’ve objected in this campaign to the style with which much of this was done, and you’ve mentioned some other things that – that you think ought to have been done. But do you really have a quarrel with this Republican record? Would you not have done any of those things?
Jimmy Carter: Well I think this Republican administration has been almost all style, and spectacular, and not substance. We’ve uh, we got a chance tonight to talk about, first of all, leadership, the character of our country, and a vision of the future. In every one of these instances, the administration has failed, and I have little hope that Governor Reagan would improve the situation. To be frank, our country is not strong anymore; we’re not respected anymore. We can only be strong overseas if we’re strong at home; and when I became president we’ll not only be strong in those areas but also in defense – a defense capability second to none. We’ve lost in our foreign policy, the character of the American people. We’ve uh – ignored or excluded the American people and the Congress from participation in the shaping of our foreign policy. It’s been one of secrecy and exclusion. In addition to that we’ve had a chance to became now, contrary to our long-standing beliefs and principles, the arms merchant of the whole world. We’ve tried to buy success from our enemies, and at the same time we’ve excluded from the process the normal friendship of our allies. In addition to that we’ve become fearful to compete with the Soviet Union on an equal basis. We talk about detente. The Soviet Union knows what they want in detente, and they’ve been getting it. We have not known what we’ve wanted and we’ve been out-traded in almost every instance.
But the fact is that Governor Reagan wants to compound the administration's international, uh, international indiscretions. President Ford lost the nomination of his own party due to his unwillingness to embracing the increasingly hawkish and frankly outright reckless foreign policy. Governor Reagan wants to do a u-turn with detente and resume the failed doctrine of containment. This means more Vietnam, this means another generation must grow up under "duck and cover drills," and this means an arms race with the USSR which could only heighten the stakes here. I do not believe that at this period of respectful coexistence that it is worth our while to dial back to tenser times, such as 1962, which my opponents foreign policy could lead too.
Pauline Frederick: Governor Reagan, your response?
Ronald Reagan: There he goes again! Governor Carter once more is talking in broad generalities. Let me take just one question that he raises about the military strength and capability of the United States. Remember, Governor Carter in November of 1975 indicated that he wanted to cut the defense budget by $15 billion. A few months later, he said he wanted to cut the defense budget by eight or nine billion dollars. And more recently, he talks about cutting the defense budget by five to seven billion dollars. There is no way you can be strong militarily and have those kind of reductions in our military appropriations. It seems that Carter wants to spend more and more on defense as this election has gone by, while increasing spending for a whole host of other programs. Carter's agenda is to weaken America and strengthen the national debt. The American people have been offered this choice before when George McGovern and his platform of lawlessness, isolationism, and tax and spend liberalism were roundly rejected by President Nixon. I am confident that they will reject this once and for all.
Pauline Frederick: Now, a question for Governor Reagan from Mr. Trewhitt.
Henry Trewhitt: Governor, my question really is the other side of the coin from Mr. Frankel’s. For a generation the United States has had a foreign policy based on containment of Communism. Yet we have lost the first war in Vietnam; we lost a shoving match in Angola. The Communists threatened to come to power by peaceful means in Italy and relations generally have cooled with the Soviet Union in the last few months. So let me ask you first, what do you do about such cases as Italy? And secondly, does this general drift mean that we’re moving back toward something like an old cold – cold-war relationship with the Soviet Union?
Ronald Reagan: Well, first of all, I believe that the cause of freedom isn't exclusively an American cause. Freedom is yearned for in the hearts of people on every continent and under every regime. And while it is the duty of America to support those who wish to live in freedom, we are not alone. Take for example Portugal, which a year ago was in danger of falling under Soviet hegemony as the communist party was expected to win their elections....they didn't. They were rejected by the Portuguese people. I have faith that the people of Italy, a nation which like Portugal has been scarred by fascism, will reject the communists as well.
Now currently, we have seen Soviet influence in the Middle East abate to a large degree. Both Egypt and Syria have rejected the Soviet Union's attempt to increase their military presence in those countries. The Russians are basically on the run in the region, and I agree with Prime Minister Rabin's assessment that the Soviet presence in the Middle East is on the defensive as their former Arab clients. I think this is an opportune moment to redefine the dynamic in the region and to pursue a lasting peace between the Arabs and the Israelis.
Pauline Frederick: How do you respond to Governor Reagan's response, Governor Carter?
Jimmy Carter: Well, I think Governor Reagan is right to have faith in the people of Europe. I do not see communism rising in Western Europe. But I take issue with Governor Reagan's claim that I seek to cut the defense budget by $15 billion. That is patently false. I believe the Governor is making these claims to distract the voters from the fact that the massive spending hikes he's proposing for the Pentagon aren't going to balance budget. My opponent has advocated for an expanded doctrine that is vastly more aggressive than the policies of the Nixon and Ford administrations. There can be no more Vietnams. We can't afford, financially, but more importantly, the human cost of another Vietnam-like war. This message is lost to Governor Reagan, who would no doubt endanger our national security, weaken our moral leadership in NATO, and breed anti-American resentment across the continent. My opponent tonight has voiced his support for involving America into the South African conflicts taking place in Angola, Mozambique, and Rhodesia.
Ronald Reagan: My opponent is purposefully distorting my foreign policy vision. I do not and never have supported the introduction of American troops to conflicts in Africa or other global hot-spots such as Nicaragua. Though I am not afraid to standing up to the red tide, I do not believe introducing American combat troops would be the solution to the problems in Southern Africa.
Pauline Frederick: I believe Mr. Richard Valeriani has a question for Governor Reagan.
Richard Valeriani: Governor Reagan, the last two administrations have pursued successfully the opening up of Red China. Do you intend to continue fostering diplomatic ties with Peking? And will America still guarantee the independence of the Republic of China or as it’s commonly known, Taiwan?
Ronald Reagan: The uncharted waters of China make it impossible to decipher exactly who is in charge in Peking, and I think it’ll be some time before it is clear what direction China will be taking. Now is no time for weakness. We must be prepared for any eventuality, and we can begin preparing for the new reality in Asia by continuing to build a sphere of American influence in the Pacific. This means more military cooperation with friends in countries like the Philippines, South Korea, and Indonesia. We can - we mustn’t have another Saigon. This is our opportunity to rebuild trust where it has been shattered, which will not only have a major security but also a considerable and positive economic impact.
Pauline Frederick: Governor Carter?
Jimmy Carter: It’s, um, its hard to say in recent weeks whether or not our relationship with the People’s Republic will outlast Mao Zedong. Though there have been some positive developments – mainly the sidelining of Madame Mao – the future leader of China has yet to be determined. My message to the elites in Peking tonight is that the United States is monitoring the situation, and that our resolve towards maintaining the status of Taiwan remains unchanged.
Pauline Frederick: Mr. Frankel?
Max Frankel: Governor Carter, I'd like to explore a little more deeply our relationship with the Russians. They used to brag back in Khrushchev's day that because of their greater patience and because of our greed for - for business deals that they would sooner or later get the better of us. Is it possible that despite some setbacks in the Middle East, they've proved their point? Our allies in France and Italy are now flirting with Communism. We've recognized the permanent Communist regime in East Germany. We've virtually signed, in Helsinki, an agreement that the Russians have dominance in Eastern Europe. We've bailed out Soviet agriculture with our huge grain sales. We've given them large loans, access to our best technology and if the Senate hadn't interfered with the Jackson Amendment. Will you continue the two way street in Europe?
Jimmy Carter: It’s clear the current administration has no commitment to human rights, and I suspect neither would a Reagan administration. They have refused to enforce the “backseat” of Helsinki, which guarantees Soviet Jews the right to emigrate, which guarantees the right of dissidents to speak out, which guarantees that families can be kept together. On top of that now, the Soviets are jamming Radio Free Europe. The 1972 grain deal has been keeping the USSR afloat economically for some time, and Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Republican Party have responded with three embargoes, one of which has been placed on our ally Japan. Hypothetically speaking, a Reagan administration would result....
The Reagans campaign with Strom Thurmond in Columbia, SC.
The final month of the campaign began with the quiet Vice Presidential debate between Congressman Kemp and Senator Mondale; though not widely watched, Kemp is hailed by the press as the winner of the debate. Called "the Texas two-snooze," Kemp's performance resulted in the Reagan campaign deploying him more frequently on the campaign trail. It did not take long for the former NFL player to start drawing crowds of his own, though his verbose speaking style made it hard for him to succinctly outline the Reagan campaign's plan to combat rising inflation. Fortunately for the Republican Party, Reagan had enough charisma to cover them both. The campaign by October was dramatically different from the preceding election, in which the ideological clash of the candidates was clearly visible to all. By 1976, however, it had seemed that both parties had shifted to the right. The Republicans, having embraced Reagan over the incumbent President, were clearly evolving in an increasingly conservative direction. Though he identified himself as a moderate to liberal leaning Democrat, Governor Carter like the Republican nominee campaigned on cutting red tape, regulation, and inefficiency in government. Carter was also an outspoken opponent of school busing and forced integration proposals, despite having an otherwise reliably strong relationship with several civil rights leaders. The only third party of note was formed Senator Eugene McCarthy, who was seeking the White House as an independent on a somewhat libertarian leaning populist platform. As a result, liberal enthusiasm began to wane for the Democratic ticket. despite Walter Mondale's presence on the ticket.
This was reflected in polling conducted by Gallup during the first week of October. Carter's one time 33 point lead over Reagan had been whittled down to just three points. Events in Southeast Asia returned to the forefront of the campaign once more when the Thai military opened fire on student demonstrators in Bangkok. The massacre came just one day after Governor Reagan, speaking to a convention of Asian American voters in San Jose, California where he vowed to continue military aid and financial support for the Thai army as a bulwark against the spread of communism. Carter latched on to this poorly timed coincidence, casting himself as a defender of human rights and an outsider who would stand up to the CIA and other rogue elements of the intelligence agencies. Another concern in Asia was the continuing infighting among the top brass of the ruling Communist Party in the aftermath of Mao's demise. After the dispatching of Mao's widow after just a month in her position as head of state, Premier Hua Guofeng cowered before Mao Yuanxin and Wang Dongxing as the radicals ran rampant on the streets. The party and military became increasingly intertwined, and Wang Hongwen's appointment as Vice Premier only further eroded Hua's influence. As a result of the growing radical wing of the Communist Party seizing power, many of Zhou' Enlai's initiatives - including opening diplomatic relations with the United States - were at risk of being undone.
The chasm in the Communist world between the Maoists and Marxists which Nixon had exploited would continue to exist, and the added threat of China along with the United States only heightened the paranoia within the Kremlin. Under General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet Union had hit the apex of it's international influence, supporting and funding liberation and revolutionary movements across the globe. With the goal of toppling the white minority regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa, the Soviet Union and their Cuban allies began arming Marxist regimes which had taken control of Angola and Mozambique following the Carnation Revolution in Portugal. The final demise of the Portuguese Empire opened up yet another theater of conflict in the Cold War.
As the election drew near, there were increasing instances of racial strife. In Jimmy Carter's home town of Plains, Georgia, the Governor's church came under fire for it's discriminatory practices. Despite calls from African American pastors across the country, Carter refused to leave the church which he had been a member of for the entirety of his life, vowing to work to change it's practices within. Reagan attempted to capitalize on Carter's church trials. But Reagan also came under fire just days later when he said during a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi that he "believes in states' rights." What Reagan was unaware of was the fact that Philadelphia, Mississippi had an notorious history due to the murder of civil rights activists by the Ku Klux Klan years earlier. This controversy alienated many black voters, whom polling indicated overwhelmingly favored Governor Carter. This only heightened the stakes and added even more pressure on Governor Carter to denounce his church's segregation policy, which he again refused. The waffling on the issue resulted in several leading figures in the civil rights movement withholding or withdrawing their support. Despite Hamilton Jordan's concerns that Carter was jeopardizing the enthusiasm cultivated by the Carter campaign among black Democrats, a turn of events swung the spotlight back to Reagan.
Reagan, like Carter, had blemishes on his record in regards to civil rights, and was in the midst of criticism from civil rights activists over his use of "dog whistles," particularly for his remarks in Philadelphia, Mississippi and his use of the phrase "welfare queen" on the campaign trail. But the biggest blunder was yet to come; while campaigning in Kansas and addressing a convention of farmers, Governor Reagan praised Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz as "a man of great character", before quoting the controversial Secretary's motto "get big or get out." Just days later, a reporter from Rolling Stone magazine, it was revealed that the Secretary had told former White House Counsel John Dean, and entertainers Pat Boone and Sonny Bono an obscenely profane and crass joke about black Americans, whom Butz referred to as "coloreds," on a flight back to Washington from the GOP convention in Kansas City. Seeing a chance to put Reagan on the defensive in the west, Carter began campaigning in Kansas. The gambit worked; focusing his rhetoric around his faith and bread and butter issues, Carter tapped into a base of evangelical farmers that Reagan had once had solidified behind him. Expressing concern over Reagan's support for large agribusinesses and rolling back New Deal era policies such the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
As October concluded and autumn kicked into full gear, polling taken by Gallup showed Reagan and Carter tied at 48% of the vote, with the remaining 4% were undecided. Only time could tell what was to come.
