Thirty Minutes With…; Mankewiez

People from Washington across the nation and abroad, people of consequence are questioned on the issues of our time by Elizabeth Drew on 30 minutes with tonight Frank Mankowicz national political coordinator for the McGovern campaign. Clark McGregor the director of the committee to re-elect the president was unable to make tonight's show because of a schedule conflict. Next week's guest Frank Mankowicz is here instead and next week Clark McGregor will be here. Mr. Mankowicz it's now only three weeks until the election. The polls at least are still showing a great distance between Senator McGovern and President Nixon.

What's the problem? Problem I suppose is that more people who tell the pollsters they're supporting President Nixon than tell them they're supporting Senator McGovern. But it depends which poll you read and how you read it. In addition, as you know, us McGovern folks haven't paid very much attention to polls all year and we've done all right. Do you think they are not correct at least as of now? I think they are correct in the sense that they are reporting what the people said who answered the question on the date that the question was asked. But I don't think they're correct in predicting the election and I don't think they pretend to predict the election. I think that's the problem with polls. They're snapshots. They tell you what a certain group of people thought at a given moment but by the time they get into print they're already out of date. Gallup's poll the other day, for example, was taken over a ten-day period from the end of September. It's clearly not the picture today. But things haven't really changed all that much have they since the beginning of September. How do you think they have?

How do you see them changing that much proportionately more over the next three weeks? Well, our own soundings, I don't call them polls because we're not really taking straw votes. But Cambridge Survey Research, which does our work, which has been astonishingly accurate right through the primary season, tells us that people's perceptions of the candidates are changing very rapidly in terms of who they think is strong and who they think is weak in terms of who they think is honest and who is dishonest in terms of who is capable and who is incapable. All of these factors, trustworthiness, untrustworthiness, Senator McGovern moving very sharply over to the left-hand side of the scale where the good guys are and President Nixon moving slightly the other way, whereas those figures tended to be reversed six, eight weeks ago. In other words, Democrats are coming home. People are beginning to see that this is an election after all involving Richard Nixon. They don't trust Richard Nixon. They're getting additional evidence every day as to why that lack of judgment and lack

of trust is confirmed, and they'll come back to the Democratic Party. And you think that there are some ways in which this gap could be closed by the election or what could possibly make that, what could make that happen? Well, the movement is going on every day in the states with the electoral votes that count. Our own figures show us ahead in some of those states and no more than ten points behind in any of them. We're moving all the time. We had a report today, not one of our polls, but a poll that I think is rather respected in North Carolina that shows Senator McGovern within easy striking distance and moving very fast. We get the same figures from Michigan, from Pennsylvania, from Illinois, and of course from places like California, New York, where we think we're probably almost ahead now. Showing them very close? Getting closer. Right. That's different from being very close. Well, some are very close and some are a pointer to ahead and some we're perhaps eight or nine points behind, which isn't very close, but can easily be made up in three weeks.

How can these be so different from the samples which we're reading in the paper? Because you're not reading state samples, you're reading national samples. And as I say, you're reading samples that are ten and twenty days old, but you're also reading national figures, which aren't taking into account what's going on in particular states. And also I suspect they're not paying too careful attention to who is most likely to vote. I'd like to ask you some of the specific observations that have been made about what happened to Senator McGovern in the course of the, since the really, since he was nominated, what has caused these gaps and how you see them changing. One would be that you had, and the Senator had conveyed the impression that this man was different. He was not a politician. And then it turned out that through some events, the Eagleton affair, some changes in positions, he's now perceived as a politician and people think that all politicians are alike.

Do you see any way of repairing that? Well, I'm not sure it's accurate. I think people thought that he was non-political. I mean, obviously he's a politician. He's been elected five times as a Democrat in a very tough Republican state, but they saw him as not making the same compromises that other politicians make on issues they saw him as not sort of doing the kinds of things that they think politicians do. And I think that perception largely remains. He's had the task, of course, of trying, after all, he's the nominee of the Democratic Party. And he has rallied behind him now almost all of the traditional elements in the Democratic Party. And that's political work. And I suppose a lot of people sing and do that, so well, he's really just a politician. But now as they begin to look at the two of them, and they see that one candidate is a politician who's campaign hires burglars, who has an organized campaign of sabotage and espionage, a record of corruption, I think, second to none, they'll begin to draw that contrast

again. And nowhere is it more evident, for example, in this question that's increasingly coming up, which is campaign finance. One thing that made Senator McGover non-political right from the start was that he told the country where every dollar he got came from. Now turns out there may have been as many as $20 million that President Nixon not only hasn't told us where it's coming from, but will not tell us where it's coming from. Where did you get that figure? I thought it was 10. Well, we thought it was 10. We thought always that it was more because the law, the campaign spending law, required only that you say on the 7th of April this year, how much money you have on hand. And the Republicans reported $10 million. Now turns out, according to what I saw yesterday in some payouts from that that are reported in other Republican campaign organizations, that they may have paid as much as $5 million ahead of that April 7th date to the November group, which is their wholly owned television

subsidiary. In other words, they may have raised much more than 10, but had 10 left in the bank on April 7th. So it's probably a good deal more than 10 million. I saw a story yesterday the day before indicated it might be somewhere between 15 and 20. It's not important. It's a large sum of money and it's secret. The, you've made here and you've made earlier, some fairly serious charges about corruption, the extent of it, how fair do you think it is to, or how extensive do you think the responsibility can be laid to the president, which is after all who is after all who you're running against. The White House has said that no one there was involved in the Watergate episode, that no one there directed a campaign of espionage. So specifically, how much money do you attribute to the president? Well, I attribute it all to him because it's his campaign and it's being done with his money and in his name.

Those were two very cany denials over at the White House. One of them was the presidents in which he said no one presently employed at the White House was involved in the Watergate affair. Well, it turned out that two people, at least two, previously employed at the White House, were very much involved and that indeed money from the Nixon campaign was in the pockets of everyone who was involved. Now a couple of days ago, we have Ron Ziegler saying no one at the White House is directing the campaign of espionage and sabotage. Well, that's not been the client. The evidence that has been brought out from the FBI and Justice Department sources isn't that Dwight Chape and the president's appointment secretary is directing it, but only that he's involved in it. The direction, I would think, comes from elsewhere. Where? Well, the evidence is that former Attorney General John Mitchell and former Commerce secretary Marie Stans and former White House aide Jeb McGruder, and somebody else whose

name I can't recall at the moment over at the committee to re-elect Mr. Nixon, were running that fund. None of them is presently employed in the White House, so Ziegler is technically correct when he says nobody in the White House is directing the sabotage operation, but there was a sabotage operation, it was run by apparently two cabinet officers, at least they were signing the checks, and if Nixon or Nixon didn't know about it, then he's hopelessly in that president, and if he didn't know about it, then he ought to tell us about it. I mean, when he had an $18,000 secret fund president Eisenhower made him tell the country about it. Senator, Mr. McGruder, excuse me, has referred to what he calls proven evidence that efforts on part of Senator McGovern's forces to disrupt their campaign. Have you examined any possible involvement by your own people in this sort of thing and made sure that there is nothing like that going on in your campaign?

I have. I have. He's talking about a demonstration that was organized in California to have some counter-picketers when President Nixon made one of his rare appearances outside of the White House or an air base at the Century Plaza Hotel. And apparently the people who ran that counter-demonstration asked somebody in one of our campaign headquarters in California if they could use some phones to help get some people to come to it, and some people in our headquarters were in advisedly told them they could, and for part of one day they used some of our telephones. And when we found out about it, we stopped it. That's the extent of it. It was a demonstration of about 500-1,000 people that stood at a considerable distance from the Century Plaza Hotel, and if other telephones were responsible for more than 70 or 80 of those people being there, I'd be very much surprised. But Mr. McGregor in the tradition of Murray Chotner is attacking now that his group is under attack, and I suspect we'll hear more of these charges.

But none of them have been substantiated and unwell. There are charges and counter-charges, and it all gets fairly confusing, I believe, too. Only if you want it, so. To everyone. What do you think we can do about this? Do you think that perhaps there ought to be some independent group that can monitor these things, or do you think it's just hopeless, and we're going to go on? I think that as Richard Nixon, when he was a senator, proposed an earlier date when there was evidence of corruption in the administration and the executive branch that an independent prosecutor should be appointed. Larry O'Brien has been calling for that for some time ever since the Watergate story broke. Now that it appears that the Watergate burglary is only a small portion of the larger pattern. Well, there's been no charges made against the McGovern campaign. Clark McGregor has had some things to say about disruption of meetings, but he's offered no proof of any kind.

We're talking here about a $750,000 secret fund that the GAO first pointed to, and that FBI and Justice Department sources have now said was administered for a year by two Republican cabinet officers. That's not charges on both sides. We're not balancing anything here. Let them explain that. Mr. Nixon has an obligation to the country to explain it, and I think the more he refuses, the more he hides, the more people are going to assume that indeed the story is true or perhaps worse. Why do you think it is, at least is reported, that if these things are so terrible, it doesn't somehow evidence itself in public outrage or transfer of support from Mr. Nixon to send over the government? I think it will. I think it will. I think around the country, the leading edge of this issue is beginning to be felt. I think people are beginning to be aware of the fact that we're not talking about isolated examples here, but we're talking about, first of all, this sabotage operation. And secondly, the systematic use of campaign funds to secure special favors, whether it's grain, whether it's ITT, whether it's the carpet manufacturers who apparently made

a campaign contribution in order to have easier safety standards. I mean, that's not just money. People are beginning to see that's a consistent pattern. I think the problem is that over the years, too many people in the country have come to believe that that's what politics is. What do you expect? Sure, they're selling parts of the government. And in addition, I think there's a feeling that even if it's true, there's nothing I can do about it. Now, those are both rather dangerous viewpoints, if, indeed, a majority of the American people hold them. I don't think they do. I don't think the government doesn't think they do. He thinks that underlying sense of moral outrage is still there. I suppose we may have to await the election results to see if that's correct. But I think there are an awful lot of people who think, well, that's what politicians do. Or worse, it's wrong, but there isn't anything I can do about it. That sense of helplessness will, very bad for the democratic system in either case,

I think. I was going to say not as a McGovern supporter if you can divorce yourself from that for the moment. Just as someone who has been a journalist and watched these things, what do you think are the long range implications of this point of view? If, in fact, it is as widely held, is it now appears to be? Well, you know there's some interesting statistical studies on it. The Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan does annual testing of how much people trust their government. And since 1964, they have found a precipitous decline to the point where it used to be that 70% of the people generally trusted and believed what they heard from government. And now it's around 30%. They think, and they are certainly the best public opinion analysts in the country, that it's because of the war, that we've been systematically lied to about the war almost since it began. But what do you think this might lead to? You said it has-

Well, I don't think you can maintain a democratic system for very long if people don't believe the government, at least minimally, 70% may be about right. You get a little higher than that and you begin to worry. You know, it's only in places like Moscow or Saigon where you get a higher number. But 70% is about right. 30% can be catastrophic. If- what it means is that 70% of the people in this country have an automatic instinct when they're told something by government, which is- it's not true. I wonder what is true. And it isn't just the president anymore. It centers congressmen, mayors, county clerks, boards of supervisors. People don't believe the tax rate anymore. I think the democratic experiment we have in the country depends upon at least a minimum of public trust. How is that reputable? I don't know. I really don't know. I've asked myself that question. I've asked others that question. If a government has lied to its people for X years, for how many years must it tell the truth in order to work its passage home?

Or how is it to convince people it's telling the truth? It may be geometric. Maybe for every year you lie, you have to tell the truth for 10 years. I don't know. I don't know. But I think it's probably the most destructive element of our president- of our president's status. Getting back to where we started, which was the campaign and Senator McGovern's president position, and at least the polls that we read, another observation that is often made and does actually relate to what we've just been talking about is that somehow people can't transfer what may be their concerns to support for him because he doesn't come off as presidential, unquote. What do you think of that view of him? And how do you think you can convince people that he is presidential? I don't know. Anybody who's seen presidential until after he got to be president, and then suddenly they were very presidential. I mean, who would have ever thought Richard Nixon would appear presidential? The office tends to close the man.

But I think it is a problem when you're running against an incumbent president. And Humphrey, four years ago, we didn't really have that problem. But I think that elections in which a president is a candidate tend ultimately to be referendum on the president himself. That is, I don't think a lot of people voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 because they thought he was presidential. The voter farm president didn't like Herbert Hoover. I think people tended to vote for General Eisenhower because they were fed up with the previous administration. I think people, they very well have voted for John Kennedy in 1960, many of them, because they wanted to change. In other words, it's the question of change, I think, that's dominant. I think the half-hour television addresses that Senator McGovern has been giving. You see, I think it was presidential.

You better. Our presidential in appearance, I think, people will come to realize, particularly as they begin to compare him with his opponent, that he is a solid, substantial, serious man who will deal with problems in a solid, substantial, and serious way. That leads to something else I've been wondering. And you've now been bouncing around on the planes and whether the president who can run as the president in the White House and the opponent, short of these addresses, is running around the country and planes in and out of supermarkets and rallies. What do you now think of that as a campaign technique? Does it give you any pause as something that suggests unprecedentedness or use of energy? Yeah. It's a hard choice to make always. I think you have to have a balance of the candidate as candidate and the candidate as president. People want to see the candidate, they want to watch him, they want to touch him, they want to shake hands with him, they want to see him in a public surrounding.

But they also want to see him as dignified and aloof. I think people like to look up to the president so that I think too much sort of supermarket shopping center, public rally campaigning can tend to be self-defeating, which is probably why we're mixing it up now. Senator McGovern gives speeches on foreign policy to foreign policy groups. He spoke the other day on the economy to the Detroit Economic Club, he's giving these half-hour television addresses to the nation and yet he's also continuing to appear before thousands of people at public meetings. It's a mix and I don't know how you come out. I think you concluded at the end of a campaign that has the things you did were wrong and the only problem is trying to figure out which half. Speaking of foreign policy in the economy, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about the speeches he has made or positions he has taken.

The Vietnam speech which he gave has been criticized even by critics of the president's position as suggesting too abrupt, too thorough an abandonment of a commitment and perhaps immoral in itself and there's been quite a bit of criticism along those lines. How do you respond to that? With contempt. I don't understand that I think it's, I've seen some of that, I think it's scrambling to scrambling to stay with the establishment. People who see Vietnam and who see it clearly know that whatever commitment we may have had to general to as long since been fulfilled. If we pull out totally and leave and Senator McGovern has proposed, we will leave them with the fifth largest standing army in the world with an Air Force second to none in Southeast Asia. And as President Nixon has said many times, they can hack it on their own. Of course, they can't hack it on their own.

What the lie that everyone has been telling us for all these years is that there is a country there and an army. When everyone knows and will not admit that without United States ground forces and now without United States air power, the army will not support General too because the people don't support him. If people really believe that that army could hack it on its own or that General too as President Nixon says is one of the great political leaders or that South Vietnam is fighting for its independence behind General too, then they wouldn't say that George McGovern's proposal was immoral and an abandonment would lead to a blood bath because you think a million South Vietnamese soldiers equipped with $65 billion of American equipment over the last four years would be able to defend itself against the North Vietnamese. Everyone knows they can't because we've been living a lie out there too does not have the support of these people in the minute we leave. Of course, he'll leave. That's all Senator McGovern is saying. He's having the honesty to say what everyone knows. Senator McGovern also said that he would leave troops in Thailand to stay there until the

prisoners are released. If all of the troops in South Vietnam, offshore in Thailand and all of the bombing now, don't secure the release of the prisoners. What good would those troops in Thailand do? Well, the prisoners are not being released because the war is going on. But what difference does that make that there were troops in Thailand? Oh, I suppose not much really. There's a certain showing the flag there. What Senator McGovern is saying is that the North Vietnamese have agreed that they would release the prisoners when the war ends. He assumes they will live up to that commitment. There'll be no reason for them not to. It's certainly not in their interest, not to. They would shift at once from having world opinion on their side to having world opinion unanimously against them. And the fact that we had some air bases in Thailand and some troops offshore might possibly be an inducement to them to live up to that commitment, but that's all he's talking about.

And it might not be also. Well, I suppose they could be mad. They could be the first people in the history of the world not to return prisoners when a war is over, but there's no reason to think so. One thing we do know is that they will never return the prisoners until the war is over. That's clear. The Senator also said that if it were up to him after the war, if he had refused to serve, he would volunteer for two years of service. But is that a change of position, or is he now advocating that, or is he? No. No, he has said from the beginning that he would declare a general amnesty for the men who went to Canada or went to jail rather than serve. He will not require alternate service, but he has said, and he said again the other night, that if it were up to him, that is, if he were in that situation, he would offer two years of voluntary service, and I assume he would encourage those young men to do so, but he will not require it. On the other issue, the economy, the Senator returned from the campaign trail to the Senate to vote against President Nixon's spending ceiling.

President Nixon has said that makes it clear that people who vote against the spending ceiling are for hire taxes, and he, the President, would not invoke taxes if he had this spending ceiling. Why did Senator McGovern vote that way? Well, he said that that spending ceiling authorization to President Nixon to decide how he would spend the entire budget was a domestic Gulf of Tonkin resolution. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the President that authority. It's up to the Congress to determine what the appropriations are. If the President doesn't want that high a budget, he can submit a lower one. It's after all President Nixon who has added $5 billion this year to the defense budget. He's added to other budgets as well. The Congress has cut $16 billion from his appropriations. It's political trickery with which we're familiar. He wants to load his budget deficits off on the Congress, but he doesn't have to propose those budgets. He doesn't even have to spend the money. What Congress refused to do and what Senator McGovern joined with the overwhelming majority

in the Senate and refusing to do was to give President Nixon a blank check to spend whatever he wanted, to cut social security, if he wished, to cut the food stamp program, if he wished, to cut aid to dependent children, to cut our housing programs and keep our defense budget intact. Actually, it would have been in Senator McGovern's interest to have voted for the ceiling, because then when he was inaugurated on January 20th, he could have cut the defense budget with a stroke of the pen, but he voted against it because he doesn't believe in giving a President that authority. Back to Vietnam for just a moment, I had intended to ask you whether from all that we're reading, do you expect a ceasefire before the election? I think it becomes more likely as the polls get closer. I think the President wants a ceasefire as an election device. I think he is unwilling to sacrifice President to, unless the election gets very close and he feels that is even more necessary, because it would then be clear that the ceasefire

he had agreed to was when he could have had four years ago when 20,000 American soldiers were alive, who was since died in Vietnam, and when we had 500 fewer prisoners, I think that's his dilemma. I don't know whether we'll have a ceasefire before the election, but I think as the election gets closer, it will be more and more clear if we do have it, that it's done for election purposes and the President could have had it four years and 20,000 lives ago. I believe they're going to have a ceasefire, not when they send Henry Kissinger to Saigon, but when they send Frederick Malik to Saigon. You better explain who Frederick Malik is, or just to follow the administration's uses when they really want to fire somebody. He's the guy that went over to the Department of Interior and cleaned Secretary Hickel and his aides out in six hours. If he goes to Saigon and tells General Thieu he's through, he's through. We're through, too. We're out of time. Thank you very much for coming. 30 minutes with Frank Mankowicz, National Political Coordinator for the McGovern Campaign, an unedited, unrehearsed interview with Elizabeth Drew, recorded October 19, 1972.

This has been a production of End Packed, the National Public Affairs Center for Television.