University of Virginia Library

Nixon Pledges Dynamic Domestic Reform

The following is the second of a
two-part series prepared by John
Kwapisz to defend his candidate
from various criticism he inevitably
receives (as do all candidates). We
do not agree with Mr. Kwapisz's
assertions, but we feel that our
obligation to the pursuit of the
truth, whatever form it may take,
requires us to present them here for
our readers. -ed.

Domestically, Humphrey in his
thirty years of politics has pursued
a policy of thorough-going statism.
At a time when intellectually and
emotionally Americans are
beginning to turn away from this
centralist doctrine, Humphrey
offers more of the same brew of
collectivist Liberalism. His
approach to our growing domestic
problems is to preach noble,
evangelistic rhetoric, throw more
Federally controlled money at
them, and hope that they will go
away. His response to the crying
needs of the spirit in the ghettos is
simply a policy of more
paternalistic materialism.

His philosophy rests on the idea
of a strong, manipulative and
interventionist federal government
which turns the state governments
into district offices of Washington.
The federal government presumes
to direct and mold the people "in
their best interests" as the
Washington elite sees them.

The doctrine of corporate
Liberalism relies on an alliance of
Big Government, Big Labor, and
Big Business, within which the
individual is lost. Its distinguishing
characteristics are a burgeoning
bureaucracy, suffocating
paternalism, lack of diversity, news
management, and a
y approach to
problems of the human spirit.

We need only one criticism of
this philosophy: it isn't working. It
isn't working, and Americans young
and old, liberal and conservative,
are realizing it more and more. It
has even been repudiated by such
well known Liberals as Daniel
Moynihan, Adam Wollinsky, and
Richard Goodwin, all advisors to
JFK and RFK. As America's
domestic problems multiply and
increase in complexity, it becomes
increasingly apparent that the
centralized Federal approach
doesn't work; waste, inefficiency,
and ineffectiveness skyrocket; and
America's problems are becoming
too complex to be solved by
Hubert Humphrey's Washington.

America is crying out for a
change from the policies of
frustration, waste and futility at
home and the policies of indecision,
weakness, and failure abroad.
Hubert Humphrey cannot offer the
changes demanded and required; he
is far too wedded to the ways and
ideas of the past, too mired in the
policies of the past to provide those
changes. And if by an electoral
loophole he should become
President, he will find himself
against by nearly two-thirds of the
electorate and repudiated by the
vast majority of the younger
generation.

America needs new ideas and
new leadership; the only candidate
who offers both is Richard M.
Nixon. "I do not promise the
millennium in the morning. I don't
promise that we can eradicate
poverty and end discrimination and
eliminate all dangers of wars in the
space of four, or even eight years.
But I do promise action and
initiative. A new policy for peace
abroad, a new policy for peace and
progress and justice at home."
Since early 1968 and in the 194
pages of Nixon On The Issues, he
spells out these new policies.

Nixon's new and dynamic
domestic approach may be called
"innovative decentralization" or
"creative federalism," a phrase
often bandied about but seldom
before given substance. It means
that rather than acting as a coercer
and director, the federal
government acts primarily as a
catalyst spurring, encouraging, and
inducing activity by state
governments through block grants,
activity by business and other
groups through tax incentives, and
self-help by individuals through tax
credits and loans. Nixon is
especially interested in helping the
Negro community achieve full
partnership in American society
through Black ownership and Black
Capitalism.

All this signifies a fundamental
new turn for the nature and
direction of the federal
government, a turn in harmony
with the growing force of reality. It
involves a reorganization and to
some extent a dismantling of the
federal bureaucracy. And in
recognition of the growth in the
capacity and importance of state
and local governments, it involves a
return of government closer to the
people, and their greater
involvement in political
decision-making. It means the
mobilization of the interest,
generosity, and action of the
American people. As Nixon put in
his acceptance speech, "The time
when one man or a few leaders
could save America is gone. We
need nothing less than the total
commitment and the total
mobilization of the American
people if we are to succeed. What I
ask of you is to help me make that
(American) dream come true for
millions to whom it's an impossible
dream today."

It means, finally, an end to the
ossification and futility of
the programs of the past, and end to
politics as usual, and the beginning
of a wholly new spirit and plan of
action.

To the field of foreign affairs
Mr. Nixon brings an experience and
wisdom attained by few men. In
contrast to Humphrey's effusive
and impassioned bellowing about
peace, Nixon offers a pragmatic,
realistic knowledge of the ways of
peace. Simply to be for "peace"
and to advocate the Peace Corps,
Disarmament, and other appealing
concepts is not enough, for as
Nixon points out, "the art of
preserving peace is more difficult
than the art of waging war." It
takes additionally the shrewdness,
the down-to-earth political realism,
and the diplomatic skill which Mr.
Nixon possess and which both
Humphrey and contemporary
Liberalism so painfully lack.

Nixon understands that today
negotiations are the only way to
prevent a holocaust and preserve
peace. But he adds the caution that
when faced with powerful,
militarily growing and expansive
opponents, we must be able to
negotiate from a bargaining
position of strength, and not from a
dangerous position of weakness.

By any objective criteria the
qualitative and quantitative growth
of American military strength and
security has nearly ground to a halt
during the last five years. During
the same time Soviet military
strength has grown at an almost
unbelievable rate, equalling and in
some areas surpassing the United
States. As a consequence the Soviet
Union is dangerously expanding its
international influence and
intervention.

Nixon pledges to restore
qualitatively superior American
military power in order that we
may negotiate from strength and
discourage international
adventurism, especially on the part
of Russia and China.

But beyond this, Nixon says
that America can no longer
continue to carry the burden of
"world policeman" alone; a
concerted diplomatic and economic
effort must be made to encourage
our allies to assume their fair share
of the burden of international
security. New regional security
organizations must be formed, for
example, in Asia, and old ones like
NATO, which has been allowed to
disintegrate, must be rejuvenated.
Eternal vigilance is not only the
price of liberty, but of peace as
well.

This year there is a presidential
candidate better prepared for and
capable of the presidency than
perhaps any other challenger in
history. No candidate has been or
ever will be perfect, but in the
context of this critical and chaotic
election year of 1968 there can be
no doubt: Nixon's The One.