The Spirit of '76

Chapter I: No Substitute for Victory
Experimenting with a new format, hope you enjoy! The story is told through the perspective of the historical figures in a narrative form. Details are initially vague but will be filled out more as the timeline progressives. All pics are 450x450 in size.

Chapter I: Reagan.
1622933073399.png

Governor Reagan & President Ford onstage after the first ballot.

The Mississippi delegation’s decision to throw their support behind Ronald Reagan sealed the deal for the former California Governor, who clinched the Republican presidential nomination over incumbent President Gerald Ford by the narrowest of margins. The final vote of 1,134 (50.22%) to 1,124 (49.78%) was the keystone moment that ended, once and for all, a divisive primary cycle that tore a beleaguered Republican Party apart. As the President watched in stunned silence, his thoughts were drowned out by the raw noise that consumed the convention hall; air horns tooted and delegates roared in approval or disapproval of the result, a stampede of sound that vibrated throughout the arena. He watched as Governor Reagan made his way from the stands to the convention’s stage, his beloved Nancy beside him as he strolled with stride towards the podium. A brass band struck up an upbeat Dixieland tune as the Reagans took in the moment, waving to the crowd of delegates, activists, and journalists as Americans across the country watched the stunning upset transpire before their eyes on television.

The Governor motioned upwards at the presidential balcony, motioning for President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller to join the candidate onstage for a moment of reconciliation. Though Ford had little appetite to participate in the former actor’s theatrics, he knew he had to do so in the name of party unity. After an exchange of handshakes and pleasantries before the cameras, Vice President Rockefeller, Second Lady Happy Rockefeller, President Ford, First Lady Betty Ford, and Senator Dole all stepped back as a pensive silence fell over the convention hall for the first time since the conclusion of the first and only ballot. The newly crowned Republican nominee cleared his throat and began an address that would electrify the Republican Party, dazzle the media, and reset the race:

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 include 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, the kindness and generosity you have shown Nancy and I on the campaign trail and the determined leadership you have shown in the White House as President have inspired us and the nation, and we owe an incalculable debt to you as a nation because of your selfless actions and honorable conduct in office. History will judge Gerald Ford as the President who restored America’s sense of purpose in a time when cynicism threatened to our belief in our national destiny.

We as Republicans offer something that the people of this country are crying out for: they are crying out for leadership. Leadership that will restore our economy. Leadership that will restore the soundness of our currency. Leadership that will restore honor and integrity to government. Leadership that will say to all nations of the world that “yes, we want peace, but we will maintain the strength required that we have peace.” Leadership that will stand up for liberty and freedom around the globe. Leadership that will stand toe to toe with the red menace that enslaves people across Eurasia. But most importantly, we offer leadership to restore hope in America.

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 be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our nation’s Tricentennial. 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-let your own minds turn to that task. You’re going to write for people a hundred years from now who know all about us, 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 campaign has largely been centered around; 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 the world we live in. 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 other’s country and destroy virtually the entire civilized world we live in. We have a duty-for our children and our grandchildren and our grandchildren’s grandchildren-to stop these missiles from ever being launched. One hundred years from now, somewhere in the United States, perhaps even this convention center in this city, our party will be scheduled to convene again to select a presidential nominee. And they shall know whether those missiles were fired.

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 won’t get to read or hear of this speech 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 we’re 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 past each other go out and start communicating 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.”

Thank you my friends, thank you! God Bless you, God bless President Ford, and God bless America!”


1622933434946.png

Governor Reagan addresses voters at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, MS.

The Reagan/Schweiker ticket had left the Republican Convention at a disadvantage; half the party was skeptical of the Governor as their presidential nominee, while the other half was skeptical of Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as their vice presidential nominee. The “unity ticket” of the conservative Reagan and liberal Schweiker did little to alleviate the divide within the party, with tensions running high even in the aftermath of the convention. With a tall order ahead of them, the Reagan campaign faced the daunting challenge of having to both unite the party as well as having to take on Governor Carter and Senator Mondale. Worse yet was the looming shadow of Watergate, which hovered over the campaign like a dark cloud. Though the former California Governor was far removed from the controversy, he had aligned himself loyally behind the President, and that allegiance had come back to haunt him as Americans sought to move beyond the Nixon years. Polling showed that Carter held a 33 point lead over Governor Reagan, a massive advantage that seemingly could not be overtaken.

It was clear at this juncture of the campaign that the Reagan team would need to reorient their strategy and reset the race. Inside Reagan’s campaign, there was a growing lack of confidence in campaign manager John Sears. Reagan, a man famous for his telegenic exterior and cold, introverted interior, relied primarily on his network of aides and allies from California. These included Mike Deaver, Lynn Nofzinger, and Charlez Z. Wick, all of whom argued that Reagan should dump Sears as campaign manager and replace him with William Casey. The recently retired head of the Export-Import Bank, Casey was a committed anti-communist who steered donors towards the Reagan campaign throughout his candidacy. But the nominee was skeptical of his core staff’s desire for a shakeup, warning them that it was not wise to “change horses in midstream.“ Thus “the Californians,” as they had become known at Reagan’s campaign headquarters enlisted the help of the one person whom the Governor could not refuse: his wife.

As this staff plot to oust John Sears commenced in a series of late night hotel room meetings and quiet conversations on airplane flights, the Governor was immersed in the grueling rigors of political life. Each day was a whirlwind of speeches, meet and greets, fundraisers, photo-ops, interviews, and handshakes. In order to put Governor Carter on the defensive, Reagan immediately travelled to the deep south after winning the Republican nomination in order to undercut his rival’s solid support in the region. Reagan ran well to the right of Carter, but his rhetoric would get him into trouble. The first instance of this would take place in Philadelphia, Mississippi.


“Governor Reagan” said Haley Barbour as he grasped the nominee’s hand when he emerged from his car, “it’s good to have you down here in these parts.” Reagan was not a particularly cynical man, but he could see through Barbour’s phony smile; after all, as Chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party, Barbour had tried and failed to martial the state’s delegation for President Ford. But Reagan understood politics well after eight years as Governor of California, and had a background in acting that made it almost naturally easy for him to smile and shake Barbour's hand. "I'm glad to be here" answered Reagan, who glanced nervously around looking for Nancy as a small crowd of onlookers and local political power players surrounded him. She appeared behind him, busily engaged in conversation with a group of local Republican women active in the county's chapter of the GOP. Relieved, he felt more at ease as he prepared himself for the first major speech of his campaign. Though the audience was relatively small in person, the Governor knew that the entire south would be listening as he laid out his vision for America's future under continued Republican leadership. There was immense pressure on the Republican nominee, but he felt at ease. The Presidency was to be the role of a lifetime, and the Governor was eager to play the part.

Barbour walked with Governor Reagan behind a stage, hidden from the audience that was awaiting his arrival by a large plywood wall. Like a stage actor ready to emerge from behind the curtain, Reagan watched as a small smattering of local dignitaries took their seats on the dais behind the podium. After a brief introductory speech by Congressman Trent Lott, the Governor was introduced. He had never been to Philadelphia, Mississippi, in fact had never heard of it. But in this small corner of the rural deep south, Reagan was about to deliver a speech would electrify some and angered others. 15,000 potential voters awaited him, greeting him with immense applause. It wasn't an infrequent occurrence for an American presidential candidate to find himself at the Neshoba County Fair, but it wasn't often that one with Reagan's charisma and celebrity appeared in town.

"I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in states' rights" affirmed Reagan, who continued by expressing his belief that the
"people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level" was superior to federal intervention. "I believe we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the Constitution to that federal establishment" Reagan concluded, believing the speech to have successfully outlined his libertarian leaning brand of conservatism. The use of the phrase "states rights" was sure to drag along some controversy - Reagan knew this from the moment he finished reading the initial draft for the speech. He had faced backlash before and had been criticized by the usual suspects for employing racially charged language when he had used the phrase "welfare queens" earlier in the year in a speech in Asheville, North Carolina, but had weathered the storm.

He did not expect or anticipate the torrent of backlash that followed his speech as he departed the fairgrounds later that night; while his address was successful in wooing rural white voters in Mississippi, it had a more negative reception. He would learn this the next morning as he and Nancy rode through the streets of Jackson, Mississippi in an anonymous black car, being chauffeured to the airport where a flight awaited to take him to the next round of campaign stops in neighboring Alabama. "They're calling me a racist?" said the former Governor, genuinely perplexed by the allegations. There were many things to be said about Ronald Reagan, but he was not - in his estimation at least, a racist. "They think you're the new George Wallace!" answered Nancy, vocalizing her indignant discuss at the press's coverage of her husband.

"Go figure" Reagan sighed, "it was Mississippi that won me the nomination, it isn't going to be Mississippi that 'loses me damn the election."

"It's still too far early on for this controversy to stick"
replied Nancy, "if you want to call this a controversy at all."

"They think I'm the new George Wallace"
muttered the nominee, "Jesus, give me a break.....have they forgotten the old George Wallace? He's still alive -"

"Half alive, at least"
cracked Nancy. Reagan laughed, but continued:

"How are we going to get anywhere with the voters if the media is going to distort such a simple message?"

"Well, Ronnie"
said Nancy soothingly, "think of this way - you put the ball in Jimmy's court now. He has to come out today and either distance himself from the issue, which isn't going to go well back home for him, or he'll have to agree with you. And you know the press is in his corner. They've always been. He'll either throw water on this fire or burst into flames himself."

The Governor truly admired his wife's political acumen, which she had displayed many times throughout the campaign. While his Californian aides often found themselves in over their heads, and while his Washington insiders like John Sears often advised him against his intuition, Nancy was so seemingly unfailingly correct in her analysis of most every issue. The Reagans were truly reliant on one another in a way that made them a political power couple, even if only one of the duo was actually in public life.

It was John Sears who became the focus of their conversation.

"We barely made it through Kansas City" sighed Nancy, "I think we need someone who sees the bigger picture at the top."

"Are you suggesting we fire John?"
asked Reagan, who sensed where the conversation was heading.

"Well, we can't fire you" laughed Nancy, who then got serious as her tone shifted. "A lot of people are, Ronnie" answered Nancy, "not just Mike. Not just Lynn. Not just Ed. A lot of people think he needs to go."

"So are you one of them, Nancy?"

"Well.....I'm not content with the direction of the campaign at the moment. I think we can't keep alternating between defense and offense like this. It's a rocky start."

"I'm pretty optimistic"
answered Reagan, but Nancy cut him off.

"You're too optimistic Ronnie, that's the issue here. Once in a while you're going to have to give some people some bad news, and once in a while you're going to have to receive bad news."

"We won the nomination under him - "

"We barely won the nomination"
interjected Nancy, "and we're barely going to win this election if we put our full trust in him."

"Bill Casey is a Nixon guy"
noted Reagan, "a Nixon appointee. Is that the image we want to have? The California connection between us is bad enough."

"And John worked for John Mitchell. You were a staunch Nixon defender. So was I. So was the President. So was everybody in this party. Nobody will care, Ronnie. Just trust me."


1622950161014.png

BRIAN LAMB: So how did you get involved with the Reagan campaign? You were a Nixon man, after all -

PAT BUCHANAN: So were you, Brian! (laughs)

BRIAN LAMB: We're we all? (chuckles)

PAT BUCHANAN: Look, the party was at a low point. The Californians took over after the convention, and the Washington crew was canned. Sears was gone, Casey was in. When Casey came on board, there were a lot of new, exotic hires. One of them was Richard Viguerie, who had pioneered the use of direct mail, and had worked for George Wallace and was trying to revive the American Independence Party. Another was me. But not everyone was happy. Dick Schweiker raised all sorts of hell over Richard's hiring. He didn't have so much of a beef with me as he did with Richard, whom he felt was entirely too far to the right.


BRIAN LAMB: There has been much talk in the 42 years since the 1976 election about how the Reagan campaign managed to use the Nixon playbook while trying to distance the GOP from Nixon. Do you see any parallels between the two? Can you elaborate and maybe contrast your experiences on the Nixon campaign in 1968 compared to the Reagan campaign in 1976?

Up next: the Carter campaign's perspective.
 
Last edited:
Chapter II: Lust In My Heart
Part two, this time from Carter's perspective. Next update will cover Schweiker and Mondale before the debates.

Chapter II: Carter.
1623184784760.png
The Carter campaign was off to a great start.

With a thirty point or so lead over Governor Reagan, the Governor found himself confidently boasting to his mother about his electoral prospects.
"Mama" he said, "we're on our way to a landslide." His confidence was not misplaced. The Governor's Republican rival had only narrowly won the Republican nomination, had switched campaign managers, had made a number of gaffes, and was lagging far behind in the polls. In Plains, Georgia, where the Carter campaign operated out of a rinky-dink office, Hamilton Jordan and Patrick Caddell, two of Carter's most trusted aides, watched on as the Governor regaled his elderly mother, "Mrs. Lillian," with the latest developments in his political career. The Governor was generally a humble man, mild-mannered in his temperament. But the tides were turning dramatically in the peanut farmer's favor, and it was easy to get swept away in the currents of good fortune that had seemingly befallen upon them.

The long discourse between mother and son had isolated Caddell and Jordan, who found themselves quietly engaged in their own conversation as they awaited to brief their candidate.

"I don't know why he's so damn confident" whispered Caddell to Jordan, "George Wallace was always the stronger foe than Jerry Ford.....and that's basically who we're running against now."

"So what if Reagan peels away Mississippi or Alabama?"
asked Jordan, perplexed to the typically calm Caddell's cautious words.

"The numbers I've seen last week aren't living up to the Gallup numbers at all" warned Caddell, his voice kept low as he glanced over to eye the Governor still busily locked in conversation with his mother. "Does she know we're supposed to be briefing him right now about our internals?" he asked in quiet frustration.

"I'm more worried about Jimmy" said Jordan, who struck up a cigarette and dramatically shook his match to put out the flame. "He isn't expecting this."

"His thirty point lead over Reagan is now a fifteen point lead"
Caddell noted, "I know I wasn't really expecting it....turns out states rights are still popular 'round these parts" he added sarcastically. Jordan laughed quietly in agreement. All three men were southerners by birth, and all three were skeptical of the northern liberal wing of the Democratic Party's support for increased federal bureaucracy. Governor Carter was a scion of the "New South" and was a genuine progressive on racial issues who didn't have a bigoted bone in his body, and was aware and in agreement with many of his liberal counterparts such as Ted Kennedy and Birch Bayh about the ugly truth behind the "states rights" rhetoric employed often by Dixiecrats. But Governor Carter also knew it was irrational to throw the baby out with the bath water, and that the federal bureaucracy was inefficient and corrupted. Thus a delicate balance was needed to weave rhetorically between the two opposing camps, a type of triangulation that did not come naturally to the Governor.

"We are running an anti-Washington campaign, Pat" answered Jordan, "I think that speaks for itself at this point....do we even need to assert ourselves in this controversy? Or should we just let Reagan tie his own noose?"

"He can't be the anti-Washington candidate if he's always bending the knee for Washington politicians"
countered Cadell, "I mean, come on, Hamilton, do you really think that we should be aligning ourselves with Humphrey and Bayh and Ted fucking Kennedy right now? Reagan's eating away at our underbelly right here in the south -"

"Watch your language"
interjected Jordan quietly but firmly, "Mrs. Lillian is standing right over there."

"I'm telling you, man, Reagan is a stronger candidate than he's giving him credit for."
Caddell glanced over at Carter as he said that while Hamilton Jordan pondered the new numbers and the growing support for Governor Reagan in the south. He focused his thoughts on the upcoming debate, and weighed the pros and cons of dealing with the issue of race and the role of the federal government in civil rights in general. Perhaps, he thought, it'd be better to let the controversy die. The Governor hugged his mother, who waved politely at the two men as she departed.

"So" asked Governor Carter, "how are my numbers looking?"


1623178918921.png

The biographical details are all too familiar by now and, indeed, may seem a little pointless this month. If Jimmy Carter is elected President of the United Slates a few weeks from now, the facts about where he spent his youth, how he was educated and the way he came out of nowhere to capture the Democratic nomination will soon enough be available in history books and on cereal boxes.

When Carter agreed to do a Playboy Interview we decided we’d try our best not to add to all the hype that always gushes forth during a Presidential campaign. We wanted to pit him against an interviewer who would prod him and challenge him and not be afraid to ask irreverent questions. Our choice of interviewer was natural: Robert Scheer, the Bronx-born Berkeley-based journalist who in the past year has done interviews with California governor Jerry Brown for Playboy (which was widely regarded as the earliest and most thorough exposure of Brown’s curious politics and beliefs) and both William and Emily Harris for New Times (which provided crucial evidence in the trial of Patty Hearst).

For three months, Scheer dogged the footsteps of the peanut farmer who would be President, scrambling aboard press planes, sleeping in motels, hanging out with the pack of journalists that grew in size as the campaign gathered momentum. With the support of Carter’s young aides—notably, press secretary Jody Powell and campaign manager Hamilton Jordan—Scheer and Playboy managed to log more hours of recorded conversations with the candidate than any other publication or news medium— a fact Carter joked about at the final session. After writing the accompanying article about his experiences and about Carter, a very exhausted Scheer filed this report:

"It was the day after the Democratic Convention in New York City Jody Powell was harried.

“Jody keeps his sense of humor even when lies harried. I had already logged hours of tape with Carter under conditions that were never less than chaotic. Our conversations had started when his chances were shakier and his time slightly more available. But, as Jody had said, once he became the nominee, it was going to be even tougher. “Some of our sessions were as short as half an hour on board the campaign plane, with the roar of engines and the pilot’s announcements adding to the frenzy. Playboy and I both hung in there through the months, taking (and paying for) flights halfway across the country on the tentative promise of yet one more hurried chat. After all the baggage searches by the Secret Service and the many times I’d had to lurch up an airplane aisle, fumbling with my tape recorder, I was looking forward to a leisurely conversation with Carter at his home after the nomination. “Earlier this year, when I was working on the interview with Governor Jerry Brown, my Playboy editor, Barry Golson, had joined me for the final sessions at the governor’s office in Sacramento. It had produced interesting results—I, the aggressive Berkeley radical, Golson the Eastern diplomatic Yalie. We felt the Mutt and Jeff technique would he valuable with Carter as well, so Golson and I traveled to Plains for the final session. “Down in Plains, everything was normal. Brother Billy Carter was in his blue overalls, leaning against a storefront, drawling about this and that to one of the locals who hadn’t been up to New York City for the big show. We drove past the Secret Service barricades, past daughter Amy’s lemonade stand, and parked in front of the Carter home. As we entered the front door, the candidate, dressed in rumpled work clothes and dusty clodhoppers, was ushering out an impeccably dressed six-man contingent from Reader’s Digest. “As we said hello and sat down in his living room to adjust our tape recorders, I remarked to Carter that he must be in a puckish mood, talking to both the Digest and Playboy on the same afternoon. Carter flashed us every one of his teeth: ‘Yeah, but you guys must have some kind of blackmail leverage on Jody. I’ve spent more time with you than with Time, Newsweek and all the others combined.’ “It was a flattering opening shot, but probably more canny and less casual than it sounded. A week earlier, during the Democratic Convention, Golson had bumped into Jordan at a party in New York. Neither of them was entirely sober, and they discussed the interview. Golson said something about all the time Carter had spent with me. Jordan replied, ‘We wouldn’t do it if it weren’t in our interest. It’s your readers who are probably predisposed toward Jimmy—but they may not vote at all if they feel uneasy about him.’

”For me, the purpose of the questioning was not to get people to vote for or against the man but to push Carter on some of the vagueness he’s wrapped himself in. We tried to get beyond the campaigner to some of the personal doubts and confusions—as well as the strengths—of the man himself. Throughout my months on the campaign trail, I found Carter impatient with social chitchat and eager for challenging questions. He is thin-skinned, as others have reported, and he’ll glare at you if he doesn’t like something you’ve asked. But he can take it as well as dish it out and, unlike many other politicians I’ve interviewed, he’ll eventually respond directly to a question if you press him hard enough. The best evidence of this is contained in the final portion of the interview, an open and revealing monolog that occurred because we happened to ask him one last question on a topic about which he’d become impatient and frustrated.

”Oh, just incidentally, there’s one bit of folklore about Jimmy Carter whose authenticity I can vouch for. When I’ve had a rough day, I’ve been known to toss down a drink or four, and I wondered what Carter did when he needed replenishment. I got my answer during one short session as I slipped into the plane seat next to him after he’d had a miserable day on the hustings. Between answers, he would gobble down handfuls of peanuts at about the same rate at which I drink. Different strokes, I thought."

PLAYBOY: After nearly two years on the campaign trail, don’t you feel a little numbed by the routine—for instance, having to give the same speech over and over?


CARTER: Sometimes. Once, when I was campaigning in the Florida primary, I made 12 speeches in one day. It was the worst day I ever had. But I generally have tried to change the order of the speech and emphasize different things. Sometimes I abbreviate and sometimes I elaborate. Of 20 different parts in a speech, I might take seven or eight and change them around. It depends on the audience—black people, Jewish people, Chicanos—and that gives me the ability to make speeches that aren’t boring to myself.

PLAYBOY: Every politician probably emphasizes different things to different audiences, but in your case, there’s been a common criticism that you seem to have several faces, that you try to be all things to all people. How do you respond to that?

CARTER: I can’t make myself believe these are contrivances and subterfuges I’ve adopted to get votes. It may be, and I can’t get myself to admit it, but what I want to do is to let people know how I stand on the issues as honestly as I can.

PLAYBOY: If you feel you’ve been fully honest, why has the charge persisted that you’re “fuzzy” on the issues?

CARTER: It started during the primaries, when most of my opponents were members of Congress. When any question on an issue came up, they would say, “I’m for the Kennedy-Corman bill on health care, period, no matter what’s in it.” If the question was on employment, they would say, “I’m for the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, no matter what’s in it.” But those bills were constantly being amended! I’m just not able to do that. I have to understand what I’m talking about, and simplistic answers identifying my position with such-and-such a House bill are something I can’t put forward. That’s one reason I’ve been seen as fuzzy. Another is that I’m not an ideolog and my positions are not predictable. Without any criticism of McGovern, if the question had ever come up on abortion, you could pretty well anticipate what he was going to say. If it were amnesty, you could predict what McGovern was going to say about that. But I’ve tried to analyze each question individually; I’ve taken positions that to me are fair and rational, and sometimes my answers are complicated.

PLAYBOY: Still, not everybody’s sure whether you’re a conservative in liberal clothing or vice versa. F.D.R., for instance, turned out to be something of a surprise to people who’d voted for him, because he hadn’t seemed as progressive before he was elected as he turned out to be. Could you be a surprise that way?

CARTER: I don’t believe that’s going to be the case. If you analyze the Democratic Party platform, you’ll see that it’s a very progressive, very liberal, very socially motivated platform. What sometimes surprises people is that I carry out my promises. People ask how a peanut farmer from the South who believes in balanced budgets and tough management of Government can possibly give the country tax and welfare reform, or a national health program, or insist on equal rights for blacks and women. Well, I’m going to do those things. I’ve promised them during the campaign, so I don’t think there will be many people disappointed—or surprised—when I carry out those commitments as President.

PLAYBOY: But isn’t it true that you turned out to be more liberal as governor of Georgia than people who voted for you had any reason to suspect?

CARTER: I don’t really think so. No, The Atlanta Constitution, which was the source of all information about me, categorized me during the gubernatorial campaign as an ignorant, racist, backward, ultraconservative, rednecked South Georgia peanut farmer. Its candidate, Carl Sanders, the former governor, was characterized as an enlightened, progressive, well-educated, urbane, forceful, competent public official. I never agreed with the categorization that was made of me during the campaign. I was the same person before and after I became governor. I remember keeping a check list and every time I made a promise during the campaign, I wrote it down in a notebook. I believe I carried out every promise I made. I told several people during the campaign that one of the phrases I was going to use in my inaugural speech was that the time for racial discrimination was over. I wrote and made that speech.
The ultraconservatives in Georgia—who aren’t supporting me now, by the way—voted for me because of their animosity toward Carl Sanders. I was the alternative to him. They never asked me, “Are you a racist or have you been a member of the Ku Klux Klan?” because they knew I wasn’t and hadn’t been. And yet, despite predictions early this year by The Atlanta Constitution that I couldn’t get a majority of the primary vote in Georgia against Wallace, I received about 85 percent of the votes. So I don’t think the Georgia people have the feeling I betrayed them.

PLAYBOY: One crazy statement you were supposed to have made was reported by Robert Shrum after he quit as your speechwriter earlier this year. He said he’d been in conversations with you when you made some slighting references to Jewish voters. What’s your version of what happened?

CARTER: Shrum dreamed up eight or ten conversations that never took place and nobody in the press ever asked me if they had occurred. The press just assumed that they had. I never talked to Shrum in private except for maybe a couple of minutes. If he had told the truth, if I had said all the things he claimed I had said, I wouldn’t vote for myself. When a poll came out early in the primaries that said I had a small proportion of the Jewish vote, I said, “Well, this is really a disappointment to me—we’ve worked so hard with the Jewish voters. But my pro-Israel stand won’t change, even if I don’t get a single Jewish vote; I guess we’ll have to depend on non-Jews to put me in office.” But Shrum treated it as if it were some kind of racist disavowal of Jews. Well, that’s a kind of sleazy twisting of a conversation.

PLAYBOY: We heard that you pray 25 times a day. Is that true?

CARTER: I don't know where you've heard that, but I don't keep count. So yeah, sure, on an eventful day I can find myself in prayer several times. I wouldn't know how many, though.

PLAYBOY: When you say an eventful day, do you mean you pray as a kind of pause, to control your blood pressure and relax?

CARTER: Well, yes. If something happens to me that is a little disconcerting, if I feel a trepidation, if a thought comes into my head of animosity or hatred toward someone, then I just kind of say a brief silent prayer. I don’t ask for myself but just to let me understand what another’s feelings might be. Going through a crowd, quite often people bring me a problem, and I pray that their needs might be met. A lot of times, I’ll be in the back seat of a car and not know what kind of audience I’m going to face. I don’t mean I’m terror-stricken, just that I don’t know what to expect next. I’ll pray then, but it’s not something that’s conscious or formal. It’s just a part of my life.

PLAYBOY: One reason some people might be quizzical is that you have a sister, Ruth, who is a faith healer. The association of politics with faith healing is an idea many find disconcerting.

CARTER: I don’t even know what political ideas Ruth has had, and for people to suggest I’m under the hold of a sister—or any other person—is a complete distortion of fact. I don’t have any idea whether Ruth has supported Democrats or not, whereas the political views of my other sister, Gloria, are remarkably harmonious with mine.

PLAYBOY: So you’re closer to Gloria, who has described herself as a McGovern Democrat and rides motorcycles as a hobby?

CARTER: I love them both. But in the past 20 or 25 years, I’ve been much closer to Gloria, because she lives next door to me and Ruth lives in North Carolina. We hardly saw Ruth more than once a year at family get-togethers. What political attitudes Ruth has had, I have not the slightest idea. But my mother and Gloria and I have been very compatible. We supported Lyndon Johnson openly during the 1964 campaign and my mother worked at the Johnson county headquarters, which was courageous, not an easy thing to do politically. She would come out of the Johnson headquarters and find her car smeared with soap and the antenna tied in a knot and ugly messages left on the front seat. When my young boys went to school, they were beaten. So Mother and Gloria and I. along with my Rosalynn, have had the same attitudes even when we were in a minority in Plains. But Ruth lives in a different world in North Carolina.

PLAYBOY: Granting that you’re not as close to your religious sister as is assumed, we still wonder how your religious beliefs would translate into political action. For instance, would you appoint judges who would be harsh or lenient toward victimless crimes—offenses such as drug use, adultery, sodomy and homosexuality?

CARTER:
Committing adultery, according to the Bible—which I believe in—is a sin. For us to hate one another, for us to have sexual intercourse outside marriage, for us to engage in homosexual activities, for us to steal, for us to lie—all these are sins. But Jesus teaches us not to judge other people. We don’t assume the role of judge and say to another human being, “You’re condemned because you commit sins.” All Christians, all of us, acknowledge that we are sinful and the judgment comes from God, not from another human being.

As governor of Georgia, I tried to shift the emphasis of law enforcement away from victimless crimes. We lessened the penalties on the use of marijuana. We removed alcoholism as a crime, and so forth. Victimless crimes, in my opinion, should have a very low priority in terms of enforcing the laws on the books. But as to appointing judges, that would not be the basis on which I’d appoint them. I would choose people who were competent, whose judgment and integrity were sound. I think it would be inappropriate to ask them how they were going to rule on a particular question before I appointed them.

PLAYBOY: What about those laws on the books that govern personal behavior? Should they be enforced?

CARTER: Almost every state in the Union has laws against adultery and many of them have laws against homosexuality and sodomy. But they’re often considered by police officers as not worthy of enforcing to the extent of disturbing consenting adults or breaking into a person’s private home.

PLAYBOY: But, of course, that gives the police a lot of leeway to enforce them selectively. Do you think such laws should be on the books at all?

CARTER: That’s a judgment for the individual states to make. I think the laws are on the books quite often because of their relationship to the Bible. Early in the nation’s development, the Judaeo-Christian moral standards were accepted as a basis for civil law. But I don’t think it hurts to have this kind of standard maintained as a goal. I also think it’s an area that’s been interpreted by the Supreme Court as one that can rightfully be retained by the individual states.

PLAYBOY: Do you think liberalization of the laws over the past decade by factors as diverse as the pill and Playboy—an effect some people would term permissiveness—has been a harmful development?

CARTER: Liberalization of some of the laws has been good. You can’t legislate morality. We tried to outlaw consumption of alcoholic beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger crimes and bred disrespect for the law.

PLAYBOY: We’re confused. You say morality can’t be legislated, yet you support certain laws because they preserve old moral standards. How do you reconcile the two positions?

CARTER: I believe people should honor civil laws. If there is a conflict between God’s law and civil law, we should honor God’s law. But we should be willing to accept civil punishment. Most of Christ’s original followers were killed because of their belief in Christ; they violated the civil law in following God’s law. Reinhold Niebuhr, a theologian who has dealt with this problem at length, says that the framework of law is a balancing of forces in a society; the law itself tends to alleviate tensions brought about by these forces. But the laws on the books are not a measure of this balance nearly as much as the degree to which the laws are enforced. So when a law is anachronistic and is carried over from a previous age, it’s just not observed.

PLAYBOY: What we’re getting at is how much you’d tolerate behavior that your religion considers wrong. For instance, in San Francisco, you said you considered homosexuality a sin. What does that mean in political terms?

CARTER: The issue of homosexuality always makes me nervous. It’s obviously one of the major issues in San Francisco. I don’t have any, you know, personal knowledge about homosexuality and I guess being a Baptist, that would contribute to a sense of being uneasy.

PLAYBOY: It makes you uneasy to discuss it purely in political terms?

CARTER: No, it’s more complicated than that. It’s political, it’s moral and it’s strange territory for me. At home in Plains, we’ve had homosexuals in our community, our church. There’s never been any sort of discrimination—some embarrassment but no animosity, no harassment. But to inject it into a public discussion on politics and how it conflicts with morality is a new experience for me. I’ve thought about it a lot, but I don’t see how to handle it differently from the way I look on other sexual acts outside marriage.

PLAYBOY: We’d like to ask you a blunt question: Isn’t it just these views about what’s “sinful” and what’s “immoral” that contribute to the feeling that you might get a call from God, or get inspired and push the wrong button? More realistically, wouldn’t we expect a puritanical tone to be set in the White House if you were elected?

CARTER: Harry Truman was a Baptist. Some people get very abusive about the Baptist faith. If people want to know about it, they can read the New Testament. The main thing is that we don’t think we’re better than anyone else. We are taught not to judge other people. But as to some of the behavior you’ve mentioned, I can’t change the teachings of Christ. I can’t change the teachings of Christ! I believe in them, and a lot of people in this country do as well. Jews believe in the Bible. They have the same commandments.

PLAYBOY: You talked earlier about your lower than expected share of the Jewish vote. But there’s been a lot of publicity about one Jewish supporter of yours, a lot of chatter and interest in your relationship with Bob Dylan, whom you quoted in your acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. How did that come about?

CARTER: A number of years ago, my second son, Chip, who was working full time in our farming business, took a week off during Christmas. He and a couple of his friends drove all the way to New York—just to see Bob Dylan. There had been a heavy snowstorm and the boys had to park several miles from Dylan’s home. It was after Dylan was injured, when he was in seclusion. Apparently, Dylan came to the door with two of his kids and shook hands with Chip. By the time Chip got to the nearest phone, a couple of miles away, and called us at home, he was nearly incoherent. Rosalynn couldn’t understand what Chip was talking about, so she screamed, “Jimmy, come here quick! Something’s happened to Chip!” We finally deciphered that he had shaken Dylan’s hand and was just, you know, very carried away with it. So when I read that Dylan was going on tour again, I wrote him a little personal note and asked him to come visit me at the governor’s mansion. I think he checked with Phil Walden of Capricorn Records and Bill Graham to find out what kind of guy is this, and he was assured I didn’t want to use him, I was just interested in his music. The night he came, we had a chance to talk about his music and about changing times and pent-up emotions in young people. He said he didn’t have any inclination to change the world, that he wasn’t crusading and that his personal feelings were apparently compatible with the yearnings of an entire generation. We also discussed Israel, which he had a strong interest in. But that’s my only contact with Bob Dylan, that night.


PLAYBOY: What kind of music do you think Governor Reagan listens to?

CARTER: Ha! Now that's a question I never expected! I want to know the answer myself.

PLAYBOY: Do you ever think you'd come under fire for listening to Bob Dylan or appearing in Playboy?

CARTER: On the former, no, on the latter, I don't expect any as well.

PLAYBOY: Do you feel you’ve reassured people with this interview, people who are uneasy about your religious beliefs, who wonder if you’re going to make a rigid, unbending President?

CARTER: I don’t know if you’ve been to Sunday school here yet; some of the press has attended. I teach there about every three or four weeks. It’s getting to be a real problem because we don’t have room to put everybody now when I teach. I don’t know if we’re going to have to issue passes or what. It almost destroys the worship aspect of it. But we had a good class last Sunday. It’s a good way to learn what I believe and what the Baptists believe. One thing the Baptists believe in is complete autonomy. I don’t accept any domination of my life by the Baptist Church, none. Every Baptist church is individual and autonomous. We don’t accept domination of our church from the Southern Baptist Convention. The reason the Baptist Church was formed in this country was because of our belief in absolute and total separation of church and state. These basic tenets make us almost unique. We don’t believe in any hierarchy in church. We don’t have bishops. Any officers chosen by the church are defined as servants, not bosses. They’re supposed to do the dirty work, make sure the church is clean and painted and that sort of thing. So it’s a very good, democratic structure. When my sons were small, we went to church and they went, too. But when they got old enough to make their own decisions, they decided when to go and they varied in their devoutness. Amy really looks forward to going to church, because she gets to see all her cousins at Sunday school. I never knew anything except going to church. My wife and I were born and raised in innocent times. The normal thing to do was to go to church.

What Christ taught about most was pride, that one person should never think he was any better than anybody else. One of the most vivid stories Christ told in one of his parables was about two people who went into a church. One was an official of the church, a Pharisee, and he said, “Lord, I thank you that I’m not like all those other people. I keep all your commandments, I give a tenth of everything I own. I’m here to give thanks for making me more acceptable in your sight.” The other guy was despised by the nation, and he went in, prostrated himself on the floor and said, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. I’m not worthy to lift my eyes to heaven.” Christ asked the disciples which of the two had justified his life. The answer was obviously the one who was humble. The thing that’s drummed into us all the time is not to be proud, not to be better than anyone else, not to look down on people but to make ourselves acceptable in God’s eyes through our own actions and recognize the simple truth that we’re saved by grace. It’s just a free gift through faith in Christ. This gives us a mechanism by which we can relate permanently to God. I’m not speaking for other people, but it gives me a sense of peace and equanimity and assurance. I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I’m going to do it anyhow, because I’m human and I’m tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, “I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.” I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do—and I have done it—and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock.

Christ says, Don’t consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who’s loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness. One thing that Paul Tillich said was that religion is a search for the truth about man’s existence and his relationship with God and his fellow man; and that once you stop searching and think you’ve got it made—at that point, you lose your religion. Constant reassessment, searching in one’s heart—it gives me a feeling of confidence.

I don’t inject these beliefs in my answers to your secular questions.


The above is entirely the work of the writers of Playboy; I have amended the interview to fit the context of the timeline.
 
Last edited:
Chapter III: Ready for Primetime
Chapter III: Schweiker.
1623284343530.png

Richard Schweiker's journey to the Vice Presidential nomination was rocky enough; from the moment the Pennsylvania Senator was selected by Reagan, conservatives buckled. After all, Schweiker had a voting record that was to the left of Senator Mondale, much less Senator Humphrey, on labor issues according to the AFL-CIO. Perhaps the liberalist of the liberal Republicans in the Senate, Schweiker's surprise nomination was met with a cascade of opposition from the likes of Senators Jim Buckley and Helms. But Reagan prevailed, putting his full support behind Schweiker and insisting that the Pennsylvania Senator should remain on the ticket. After Reagan bested Ford narrowly on the first ballot, Schweiker was successfully nominated for the Vice President virtually unanimously, but lingering opposition to the Senator's presence on the ticket remained. The Vice Presidential nominee soon found in the days after the convention that he had few allies in the party, and even fewer in the campaign. The firing of John Sears and the subsequent hiring of William Casey had galvanized the campaign, but had also isolated Schweiker from the top reaches of the Reagan inner-circle. He soon felt the fear that he'd be the next do-nothing Vice President, a political pawn in a game he was desperate to play in. Compared to Senator Mondale, his Democratic counterpart, Schweiker was receiving far less media attention, and his various concerns fell upon deaf ears at Reagan headquarters. He was determined to change this.

The opportunity presented itself in mid-September, as the first presidential debate neared, when the Senator was booked on NBC's Meet the Press. Hosted by William Monroe, the show had become a television staple by the mid-1970s and was an anchor broadcast for NBC's weekly schedule. The show was widely watched, and NBC's stature among the three main television broadcasters had seemingly peaked as the "Peacock Network" dominated the airwaves. The broadcast of Meet the Press would introduce a solo Schweiker to a national audience for the first time without Governor Reagan by his side, and he was eager to take up the challenge.

He arrived at the Washington bureau of NBC on the morning of Sunday, September, striding into the studio with confidence. The large red logo of the show, which read "Meet the Press" in white letters, hung over the set which placed panelists directly in front of the guest of the week. A producer ushered the Senator to the set to run through the basic plan for the broadcast, which Senator Schweiker had done time and time again. Yet this time was truly different; before, he had been one of a hundred, a progressive minded backbencher who wielded little real power outside of Washington and Pennsylvania. Now, he was on the path to the nation's second most important position, and the prospect of the Presidency at some point in the not so distant 1980s seemed more realistic than ever. But the Senator had little time to daydream.

He was ushered into a sideroom, where makeup was applied as the technicians worked on preparing for the live broadcast. Monroe took his seat at his desk, shuffling a stack of papers that Schweiker only could presume contained notes and questions for the upcoming interview. The Senator sat down, nodding at Monroe, who nodded back with a smile. Another technician attached a small microphone to the interior of his jacket while he straightened his tie and watched as an electronic clock mounted on the wall opposite the set counted down to the start of the broadcast.

Within a matter of minutes, they were already to go to the air. The Senator sat across from the panelists who'd surely interrogate him within thirty minutes time, the moderator positioned facing away from both, looking directly into the center camera. The clock counted down the last twenty seconds or so, and the studio fell silent as Monroe gave the usual introduction to the broadcast and immediately launched the widely anticipated interview.

MONROE: Senator Schweiker, what do you say to those who have been....offended, or perhaps...perhaps "put off" by some of the rhetoric that your party's nominee has used on the campaign trails? The use of the phrase "Welfare Queen," his defense of state's rights, and so on? A lot of it has been perceived to be racially charged.

SCHWEIKER: Well, I think people hear what they want to hear because some things are hard to hear. The truth is, however necessary our welfare system may be, there will always be fraud. To dismiss the seriousness of fraud and welfare dependency as being just a dogwhistle for outright abolition of these programs is a big, big mistake. A lot of people take even the slightest criticism of these programs to be some kind of full scale attack on them, and that just isn't what Governor Reagan's candidacy or vision is about. Reforming and restructuring these programs does not mean that there will be automatic cuts or rollbacks. We can and we will find new ways to give struggling Americans a hand up in a manner that will help America prosper.

MONROE: Governor Reagan as you know has embraced a very libertarian vision, one which favors reducing the role of government in many, many ways. Don't you feel that your record, one which placed you as among the more liberal members of the Senator, clashes with Governor Reagans?

SCHWEIKER: Not at all. If it were so, I wouldn't have agreed to join the ticket. I spoke at length about my beliefs with the Governor in the leadup to my nomination, and we tackled each perceived disagreement head on. What we both concluded was that we were entirely compatible both as people and as public servants. We both desire a government that works for the American people, not against them. We both want a fair playing field and we both want the American Dream to become a reality for everybody. We both believe in this country, our values, our history, our heritage, our exceptionalism. Now I confess, because of the media narrative, that I didn't know what to expect out of the Governor - I had never met him until this summer. What I found was an articulate, intelligent, thoughtful, visionary - the type of man that America desperately needs after the last fifteen years or so.

MONROE: You have been a reliably staunch voice in favor of civil rights legislation. Did Governor Reagan's remarks about states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town where activists were murdered, trouble you at all?

SCHWEIKER: No, because I know what he actually meant, and so did almost everyone there or listening at home or in their car or wherever. The narrative coming out of the Carter campaign that the Governor was parroting George Wallace was not true. Everything he said is in line with his vision for more efficient government that is more responsible to the needs and concerns of the American people.

MONROE: But the NAACP and other organizations didn't see it that way -

SCHWEIKER: I have immense respect for the NAACP and their mission. But they're being arm twisted by the Carter campaign here. I know that the Governor has no interest, either political or personal, in stirring up racial resentment. Ronald Reagan is a man who lives up to Doctor King's creed, that we must judge not by color but by character.

Watching from across town at the Washington Hilton was Governor Reagan, who was joined in his campaign suite by his top Californian aides - Mike Deaver, Ed Meese, and Lynn Nofzinger - all of whom were immensely impressed by Schweiker's performance and loyal defense of the ticket.
"He's nailing it" whispered Nancy to Deaver, who nodded in agreement. The Governor himself, while not always the most attentive listener to such broadcasts, was also transfixed by his running mate's calm and reasonable demeanor. The interview proved to all, even Bill Casey, that Richard Schweiker was ready for primetime.

1623258474459.png

China mourns the loss of "The Great Helmsman."
Across the Pacific in Red China, the regime of the ailing Chairman Mao Zedong was preparing for a transition of their own. The "Great Helmsman" as he was known was in rapidly failing health, is heart slowly giving out as his life drew to a close. There were rumors trickling out from Peking of a worsening power struggle between the reformist wing of the Communist Party, led by the late Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, and the radical wing, led by Mao's wife Jiang Qiang and her associates. Even as the Chairman laid dying, a flurry of behind the scenes activity led to a great increase in speculation about exactly who would succeed him as leader of the Communist Party and the People's Republic of China. Since the visit of President Nixon, the ailing totalitarian dictator had become increasingly open to diplomatic guests, hosting President Ford, the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Pakistan, and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung in his final year of life among others. Though he could barely speak above a whisper and was increasingly weak, Mao remained the undisputed leader of China and the ideological father of the nation to the bitter end.

And the end was indeed bitter.

A final heart attack in early September led to a sudden decline in his health, with his organs beginning to fail over the course of the first week of the month. Supported by a ventilator, Mao's body finally gave in after years of heavy smoking and unhealthy dietary habits, his life ending at exactly ten minutes past midnight on the morning of September 9th. It took nearly eighteen hours before an official announcement was given over state radio, in which a weeping broadcaster emotionally appealed for unity and continued devotion to the Chinese revolution. Hundreds of thousands of mourners flocked to Tiananmen Square, the site of a previous demonstration when Zhou Enlai died, this time to demonstrate their continued loyalty to the life of the departed Chairman. Behind the walls of the Forbidden City, a knife fight for power was about to commence, with Jiang Qiang making it known to all whom could hear that she believed she should succeed her husband as Chairwoman of the Communist Party. But there were obstacles in the way; one was Hua Guofeng, the Premier of China and a moderate who straddled the line between traditional Maoist and reformist.

There were other more unpredictable elements in the mix; some, like Wang Hongwen, had been staunch radicals who emerged out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. The third most important member of the Communist Party, Wang's organizing of the Shanghai Commune brought Mao's attention and patronage, resulting in the young Chinese radical's rapid rise within the ranks of the party. Others, like Wang Dongxing, represented the People's Liberation Army establishment, a rather conservative element of the Communist Party. Ultimately, the loyalty of the PLA would be necessary for either faction to seize power, and Wang Dongxing emerged as an early kingmaker even if Premier Hua Guofeng was officially the most powerful man in the country. Another possibility was that the erratic Jiang Qiang could make good on her threats to seize power, though her abrasive nature alienated her from most of her ideological allies outside of the "Gang of Four" by the time of Mao's demise'; another relative of Mao in the mix way Mao Yuanxin, the young and sadistic nephew of the Chairman who had been a loyal supporter of his aunt Jiang's ambitions.

As this power struggle quietly commenced, the foreground was dominated by Mao's funeral. A band played The Internationale as Mao's coffin, fastened atop of a bus, was driven through Tiananmen Square before a crowd of upwards to a million people. Eulogized first by Premier Hua and then by Wang Hongwen, Mao's body was subsequently taken to be embalmed as plans for a mausoleum where his body could be embalmed and displayed permanently were immediately drawn up. Foreign observers noted the relative order in the days following Mao's death, putting concerns about a potential civil war within Red China to rest. But the relative lack of uncertainty did not stop either Governors Carter or Reagan from highlighting the new dangers that could arise in the coming years, each questioning the other's ability to sit down with the Chinese leadership as Nixon and Ford did. Reagan charged that a Carter Presidency would surrender Taiwan to the will of Madame Mao, while Carter warned that Reagan's hardline policies would alienate China and roll back the diplomatic progress made between the two nations.
 
Last edited:
Top