In my post today on Jerry Voorhis' The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon
(copyright 1972, 1973), my main topic will be Voorhis' comments on the
1972 Presidential election. I'll use as my starting-point something
that Voorhis says on page 284:
"Thus, once again, the good
political fortune of Richard Milhous Nixon held. The murders of the
Kennedy brothers had removed his two most formidable Democratic
opponents. The murder of Martin Luther King removed an eloquent
anti-Nixon voice. And the crippling of Governor Wallace smoothed
measurably Mr. Nixon's re-election path."
Earlier, Voorhis says
that polls indicated that Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie would be a
formidable opponent against President Nixon in the 1972 Presidential
election. But a variety of factors converged to undermine Muskie's
candidacy, leading to the nomination of the well-meaning but politically
inept George McGovern. (That seems to me to be Voorhis'
characterization of McGovern.) One factor that torpedoed Muskie's
candidacy was a letter on Muskie's stationary that alleged that fellow
Democratic candidate for President Scoop Jackson had engaged in
homosexual conduct, and that Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey had a
hooker in an automobile. On page 283, Voorhis says: "Again, Muskie
denied authorship of any such letter. But the damage had been done. By
whom?" On page 290, Voorhis identifies Donald H. Segretti (who was
paid by the Committee to Re-Elect the President) as the culprit, and he
says that "The actual forging was reported to have been done in the
White House itself." Nixon in his memoirs acknowledges that Segretti
went too far in this case (see here).
And yet, according to Voorhis, Nixon's Justice Department was taking
its sweet time in terms of taking action on judicially correcting this
matter, to Scoop Jackson's chagrin!
Even after McGovern won the
nomination, the dirty tricks continued, Voorhis narrates. According to
Voorhis on page 291, "[T]here were no denials of Time Magazine
reports that White House counsel Charles Colson had recruited young men
to pose as homosexuals and to appear prominently at the Democratic
Convention wearing huge McGovern buttons." Nixon doesn't address this
accusation in his memoirs. But Nixon does treat certain dirty-tricks as
mere pranks. I doubt that he liked being on the receiving end of those
pranks when they were done by his political opponents, however!
But
back to what Voorhis says on page 284----about potentially formidable
adversaries against Nixon falling out of Nixon's path. Voorhis never
says that Nixon or workers for Nixon had a role in the assassination of
Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as the wounding of
George Wallace. Still, I wonder if Voorhis thought this, on some
level. Voorhis may have wondered: Is anybody that lucky? Or
maybe Voorhis thought something else: that things turned out so well for
Nixon because he was on the side of powerful interests----wealthy
corporations, a Silent Majority that did not want to hear about the
problems in America, etc. Perhaps Voorhis thought that King and Kennedy
were victims of people holding the sentiments that Nixon fed upon for
his own political advancement, even if Nixon played no role in their
deaths. But I am only speculating about Voorhis' thoughts here.
Voorhis
appears to have issues with the Silent Majority. He portrays them as
concerned for their own safety, even as they close their eyes to Nixon's
assaults on the press and consolidation of Presidential power, along
with the very real problems that are inspiring the protests that they
dislike. Voorhis seems to understand their concern for their personal
safety from crime, and he notes that Democrats have proposed ideas that
would expedite the criminal justice system, even as he argues that
Nixon's claim that crime has slowed down under his Administration is
misleading. (According to Voorhis, Nixon in making that claim is
focusing on some crimes to the exclusion of others.)
Another point
that Voorhis makes is that, while Nixon won big in 1972, the
cash-strapped Republican Party did not do so well in that year, and
Nixon didn't help it that much. That coincides with an American
Experience documentary on Nixon, in which some claimed that Nixon's
victory in 1972 was a "selfish victory", and with Voorhis' overall
portrayal of Nixon as a selfish politician who was out for himself. I'm
not sure about the extent to which Nixon helped out Republican
candidates for the House, the Senate, etc. in 1972, but he was active in
campaigning for Republicans throughout his political career. That's
how he made a lot of Republican friends, while further alienating
Democratic enemies.