Nixon phone call with Rockefeller on New Federalism and John V. Lindsay

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) · JSON data

Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

Hello.

Governor Rockefeller, Mr. President.

Hello, Mr. President.

Well, I just wanted you to know that I was very interested to read the New York Times this morning and note your state of the state and the reaction of our mutual friend.

Well, I want to tell you, I really let him have it.

You really took the gloves off, didn't you?

That's right.

But you just decided it was time, huh?

Well, it fits in.

You see, I was trying to make this picture of the whole federal system, how it's evolved, and I was talking about your new federalism.

Right.

And then I come down to the fact that if we sort these things out because we run out of money, you end up, if the federal government takes certain things the states do, then the cities could be restored to...

the basic services of keeping the streets clean and safe, you know, station police, fire, and so forth, which is what they really ought to be.

Sure, sure.

And then we've got to break up this city.

And I use New York as an illustration of what wasn't being done.

Your idea of the five boroughs, I thought, was very good.

Well, I didn't even go back to five boroughs.

I said the city had to be broken up to, now London has 32 boroughs.

About 250,000 people elect a local council.

They are responsible for picking up the garbage and keeping the streets with no holes in them.

And they do pretty well.

That's someone to go to.

The mistake, I think, of centralizing all power in the mayor.

Right, right.

And he's incompetent to run it.

And the old Tammany organization, which was the tie with the people, is gone.

Yep.

Yep, and you just can't have one man do it all if he doesn't have an organization.

No, and I just think it's too big, and that even if he was efficient, which he is, I don't think you could make it so that it would be.

I really think we're coming to a point for major change, and of course this is what the Times is sore about, because they are very afraid that the city is going to pieces too, but they don't want to admit it.

They've got to be afraid of it, Nelson.

My God, you can't go through the city without knowing it.

I mean, something's got to be done, and it's going to have to be a revolutionary change.

Also, Mr. President, I felt that this was a very good counterattack to John going around the country saying he's the god of the city.

God, yes.

I thought it was terrific.

But I thought I might be a little partisan, so I wanted to check to see what you thought.

And I think there's a paragraph in there that the Democrats will use in full-page ads around the country in the primaries, which should be devastating.

Well, you were very kind in what you said about me, and I appreciate it.

But beyond that, I think it was time that really this fellow be exposed for what he is.

He's a charlatan.

I mean, you know, all that business of, you know,

charisma and all this, and he's the Mr. Clean, and everybody else is sort of a dirty politician.

My God, it's been a lousy job he's done.

Yes, and the people in New York City know it.

The Daily News, I don't know whether you saw them.

They were great.

Oh, I'll pick it up now.

I don't get it in the morning.

They quoted this paragraph in their editorial.

Ha ha ha!

and said they agreed with us.

Oh, no, I think I feel now he's left our party and that I might as well just, you know, tell it like it is.

That's right.

Well, we'll have some fun.

That's right.

I'm just working on a little State of the Union tomorrow.

I won't be rough on the...

I've decided for your information.

I think...

At this point, I'm going to naturally be conciliatory toward the Congress and say, let's get revenue sharing through and all the other things.

But if they just screw around, about the 1st of May, well, about the 15th of May, we've got to really go after them because...

As you noted, Teddy and some of the others are getting awful partisan.

Pretty rough.

Yes, I noticed he is.

Yeah.

So if that's the way it's going to be.

But I think that my posture ought to be conciliatory at the moment.

Don't you agree?

I really do.

Well, that's what I'm doing.

You're in a very strong position.

And I kept quoting you on these high-level things and your initiatives and so forth.

And I think he comes from the New York Times.

We're going to put a very... See, we got... As I told you, I know we're going to get something on revenue sharing.

I just know Mills is going to get that.

We'll get something on some of the other things.

But I don't want to do anything to break it off with them so that they have an excuse for saying we made it partisan.

So it'll be quite conciliatory.

It won't make them cheer.

It won't make the Republicans cheer, but it also will not make the Democrats cheer.

Well, there's one little thing that I'm concerned politically about, and that is in relation to mass transportation, which is a big issue in all of us.

And the Congress gave you $900 million, and your guys have frozen it at $600 million.

Well, it's $300 million.

Nobody can spend it this year, I mean, this coming year anyhow.

I have just a strange feeling that

it would be worth making forward commitments on that.

Because you can't spend it.

It's not going to hit your budget for two years because nobody can prove that for you.

But they'll really lay into you in the campaign for on that $300 million.

All right, I'll make a note.

I'll just make a little thing.

Yeah, it might be.

Good, good.

I'll check it out with Schultz.

I know.

I don't blame him.

He's got to hold down every cent.

No, I know.

I know, I know.

And we're going to have, as you note, oh, incidentally,

We're going to have a big budget deficit, but as you well know, when a deficit occurs, when an economy is not at full employment, it is not inflationary.

It's when the Johnson deficit were all at the end.

But on the deficit thing, if we were to cut this budget back, we're having a hell of a time keeping it where it is.

I can understand that.

We really have.

Oh, yes.

And I thought you did the right thing on this food stamp thing.

There was another one there.

Oh, goodness, yes.

Well, we would have died.

They'd have killed us with that.

They'd have killed us.

So you covered that one.

We had to do it.

We just reversed them.

And this other one will be spent on them for two years.

But they'll use it against you, I think, in the campaign.

I get it.

I got the word.

You're great.

Mark, I'll be listening to you.

Don't bother.

Go down there to the Virgin Islands.

I'm going next week.

Good.

Okay.

I can't wait to see yours.

Great.

Thanks for calling.

Bye-bye.

Nixon phone call with Rockefeller on New Federalism and John V. Lindsay

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on January 19, 1972

Cite this conversation

Nixon phone call with Rockefeller on New Federalism and John V. Lindsay

AI Summary

Audio

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Transcript (AI-generated)

Also recorded on January 19, 1972

Related conversations

Cite this conversation