On my recent visit to your encampment I was impressed with the attitudes you expressed concerning law and order and the nature of your legislative program. However, this is not what is quoted in the press nor is this how your people sometimes act when away from the camp.
These forays into the public schools, the demonstrations on Capitol Hill and the incident yesterday in the Department of Agriculture cafeteria28 are inexcusable. On our visit to your camp, one of my colleagues asked a lieutenant what would happen if your camping permit was not renewed past June 15. He replied that you would stay anyway in violation of the permit. Yet this is a direct contradiction to your desire to obey the law. I was surprised when one leader was quoted in the press as being critical of my visit to the camp. Concerned Members of Congress should see what is going on.
I went to the camp with an open mind, but regretfully I am much more concerned now than before my visit. These incidents and pronouncements are alienating people of good will who want to help poor people. I am most disturbed by the powder keg atmosphere of the whole march. And I can’t get over the feeling that there are those on your side now who want to see you fail—both inside and outside of your camp.
You told me that your fundamental concern was jobs. I continue to be troubled by the fact that you are widely quoted as advocating legislative goals in direct conflict with this objective. You are asking for a $2.50 minimum wage, one million federal make-work jobs, and a guaranteed annual income. These goals are counter-productive to permanent employment. Statistics indicate that every time the minimum wage is increased the unemployment rate of teen-agers, particularly non-white teen-agers, rises substantially. As to make-work jobs, I would prefer to see legislation which will put people to work in permanent private industry jobs.
The Human Investment Act would give the private sector tax credits for more efficient job training. Moreover, your people would be guaranteed a job at the end of training.
The Percy-Widnall Home Ownership Act can help people own decent homes.
The Rural Job Development Act of 1968 would encourage private industry to locate outside the ghettoes, to help the poverty stricken in rural areas find jobs, and to reverse the flow of poor people to the cities.
A National Skill Survey would match up existing jobs with available able-bodied workers.
Technological Education for the Future is a clean new look at vocational education.
I could go on and on down the list. There are so many exciting new ideas which can work if given the chance, but they will never have the chance unless we realize that the present programs are not working.
I urge you to set and publicize a termination date for this march, to repudiate those who preach or practice breaking of the law, and to exclude the possibility of violence as a weapon.
I further urge you to appoint from your Committee of One Hundred a top level committee to work for new legislative answers. Explore the alternatives I have suggested. The people who have authored this legislation would be delighted to discuss it with you and would welcome any constructive criticism and support.
Do not let the honest poor people who have come all this way be used by the special interest seekers within your camp. Accept the challenge of changing the system within the law by shifting the emphasis of this crusade, after your forthcoming major meeting, from camping and demonstration to seeking new answers. Put all the brain power you have available towards seeking workable programs.
This Congress will not buy threats. It will not condone violence. It will not accept legislative goals which are financially impossible and which lack inventiveness and stifle the initiative of the individual.
On the other hand, it will consider new approaches. It will protect a citizen’s right to peacefully and lawfully petition. And, contrary to some of the statements coming from those around you, the Members of Congress are for the most part vitally interested in the welfare of those honest poor people you represent.
I hope you will consider these suggestions and will favor me with an immediate reply.
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.
[He never answered my letter.]
I wrote a weekly newspaper column for the constituents back home. I felt that this one, dated July 8, 1968, summed up very well the principles that guided me throughout my political career.
The more I contemplate the problems of fair play and opportunity in this country, the more convinced I become that in the independent sector associations, such as LULAC,29 Planned Parenthood30 and the American Heart Association, we have real hope for the future. They appear so much more effective than the government programs in helping our underprivileged and alienated citizens.
The people of this country want a part in molding their own future. And the more I talk with constituents in the 7th District and the more I read the thousands of letters that come into my office a week, the more this truth becomes apparent.
The people I talk with, the people who write all are a part of a new wave that is sweeping the country—Dick Nixon called it the “quiet revolution.” “Let us have a role in solving our problems.” “Let us be a part.” “The Government is too big.” They are not saying that we should turn our backs on the underprivileged and not face our problems.
The answer that I have always favored—the answer that is so eloquently being espoused by Dick Nixon and other progressive leaders of the Republican Party—is that we must seek new ways to transfer functions from government to private enterprise and to the private sector—those voluntary organizations which have been so successful. In the case of Planned Parenthood in Houston, we find the interesting situation of an organization that did its job so well that the demands for their services become more than they could provide. This is where the federal government can participate for it is the most efficient tax collector in the country. But it is NOT the most efficient dispenser of services.
This is why it is so important that we enlist the energies of those millions of Americans who stand ready and eager to serve and to help in the best traditions of this country. . . .
The centralized philosophy of government tends to drive private charity and private philanthropy out of the market. We need a change of philosophy in Washington which recognizes this basic fact and, at the same time, encourages the independent sector.
Richard Nixon won the GOP nomination for President in 1968, and there was a great deal of speculation at the GOP convention in Miami about whom his running mate might be. My name started popping up on some of the “short” lists. I was both surprised and flattered.
August 20, 1968
Mr. Bob Connery31
Denver, Colorado 80202
Dear Bob:
. . . We did have a little somewhat abortive run for the vice presidency. When I saw Nixon in San Diego last week he confirmed that he gave it very serious consideration, but decided against it because of my short service in the House. I hope the ticket does well and I feel that Agnew, off to a shaky start, has only one way to go and that’s up. I will say that in visiting with him in person he comes across a lot better than the public image to date. I think we have to keep in focus that the race is going to be between Humphrey and Nixon, and I can’t see the American people turning to Humphrey right now—though maybe this is wishful thinking.
I do hope our paths cross soon. I have found my service in the House frustrating but tremendously interesting and if I had to do it all over again I’d take the same course of action I have taken to date. Call me if you ever get near Houston or Washington. I really did appreciate your wonderful letter.
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.
September 10, 1968
Mrs. Nancy Palm, County Chairman
Harris County Republican Party
Houston, Texas 77006
Dear Nancy,
I was pleased when someone suggested that the first issue of the new BANNER32 be dedicated to me, and then I read the paper and I could hardly
believe my eyes when I saw on Page 8 the article titled “The Scene at Miami Beach.”
I was so shocked and so terribly hurt that a contributing editor would print such an ethnic-prejudiced article. In this day and age when the times cry out for justice, fair play and a renewal of trust, it was a real crusher to see Marjorie Shepherd’s comments.33
I doubt that there is any remedial action that can be taken, but I just would not feel right if I didn’t express to you in the strongest possible terms my total revulsion at the anti-Jewish references in this article. They are not fair, they are not accurate. They are just plain vicious.
I express myself in this manner so that there can be no misunderstanding as to how I personally feel and how, I am sure, a majority of Republicans feel about this kind of journalism.
I know that many there at County Headquarters view me as a meddling critic, but, Nancy, I simply can’t remain silent in the face of this obnoxious prejudice. I do hope you understand.
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.
[This letter was printed in the Banner, which brought on more hate mail. One constituent wrote in and said I was “doing too much stupid popping off about social and ethnic subjects which you have no control over and which show you is some kind of jackass.”]
January 8, 1969
Mr. Jack Steel34
Office of George Bush, M.C.
Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Jack:
Knowing that you will have tons of room in your luggage (I always love people who make this type of request), would you please bring Neil’s binoculars when you come? I was so pleased that Neil wanted the binoculars I gave him for Christmas but, lo, it turns out he stashed some cash away in the case. If you could bring them, it would be great but there is no crisis since I will be down there in February.
Yours very truly,
George
The following letter, written to one of my staff people, Allie Page Matthews, is undated. It had to have been written sometime between November 1968 and November 1969, the time when George W. was flying fighter jets for the Texas Air National Guard.
Friday
En route to Houston
Dear Allie,
. . . My brief case is filled with official looking papers. . . .
Tucked away, devilishly and fiendishly (for all good representatives should be serious and well briefed so they can talk about taxes and wars and ghettoes and governments) were your selected Marshall35 quotes. . . .
Last weekend our son came home leaving his frightening “jet” behind in Georgia. And he had lots of college friends there, for a wedding weekend. Some had the long hair and the bell bottoms, all seemed close and concerned.
Yesterday we got a letter from George and it thanked us for having his friends—and then it went on to say “Someday Jeb, and Neil, Marvin, and Doro will know how lucky they are—someday they’ll know what it is to be surrounded by love”—and we thought back to Yale and turmoil as we watched George try to figure which way to go—how far to reach—and we wiped back our tears and we said, “We are very lucky to have a boy today who understands.” (and I put aside that growing concern I often feel as I think of his flying those awful planes and quietly I realized that he’d be fine.)
And now tonight I reread some of Peter Marshall—his tenderness, his deep commitment.
But the thought I have now is not of his words, but of the fact that you plucked them out and sent them on.
And suddenly in a world congested, in a life cluttered, in a day without a moment to stop—it has come to me that I am surrounded by values that somehow in the press of the country’s problems I am oft inclined to feel have fled the scene.
I don’t know why I am writing this except to say thank you. For through your choice of quotes, you let me stop—and reach for that butterfly.
You let me escape not from the real life but to it—
Thanks, Allie—don’t change.
GB
May 1, 1969
Mr. Mickey Herskowitz
Houston Post
Houston, Texas
Dear Mickey:
Through my uncle, Herbie Walker, one of the minority owners of the Mets, I met Commissioner Bowie Kuhn in Washington—in fact, I gave a little luncheon for him here at the Capitol with ten baseball oriented Congressmen and Senators. I found him delightful.
. . . When the Republicans play the Democrats on June 17th I hope the Commissioner will be on hand. The game is always held just before the Senators36 game.
I know this will seem hard for you to believe and I hope you will not interpret it as lacking in propriety or modesty but last year I “wuz” robbed in the game. A tremendous blast, definitely destined for the left field stands, was hauled down by Lee Hamilton, a Congressman from Indiana, who theretofore I had always respected in a kind of quiet way. This year, though, with “Vinegar Bend” Mizell37 on the mound, and with renewed determination burning inside of me, things should go better. Last year we won 19 to 1. Somehow in these critical times that’s just not enough.
Warmest regards,
George Bush, M.C.
As I mentioned in an earlier letter, I did find my House experience frustrating because as a junior member of the minority party, it was difficult to get much of anything accomplished. After owning and running my own business, I found it hard not to be able to make decisions, then immediately execute them. That’s not how government works, especially in the large House of Representatives. That is one reason why I started thinking again about running for the Senate in 1970, assuming that my opponent would be the same as in 1964, Ralph Yarborough.
May 8, 1969
The Honorable Richard M. Nixon
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Re: 1970 Senate Race in Texas
Dear Mr. President,
In June or early July, I would like a 15-minute appointment with you to discuss briefly the forthcoming Senate race. . . .
The purpose of this meeting, to which I would like to bring one person, would be to ask your candid advice on this race and to inquire as to what support the Administration might be free to give in such a battle.
I remember our brief conversation in San Diego about a possible Senate race. I am reluctant to give up my seat on Ways and Means to gamble excessively, but a key to the whole ball game could be, depending on events, the Administration’s role.
More than all of this, I have always valued your advice.
I recognize the limits on your time, but I am hopeful this meeting can be arranged.
Respectfully,
George Bush, M.C.
[Nixon did invite me to the White House and encouraged me to run.]
When sportswriter Mickey Herskowitz went on vacation that summer, he invited various people to write guest columns for the Houston Post. Here was my draft column:
On Tuesday evening June 17th the place to be in D.C. was at Kennedy Stadium. That’s where the action was at.
If President Kennedy were living he could have found a few more examples for “Profiles in Courage”.
It took guts for those 5 Democratic Congressmen that had to face Vinegar Bend Mizell to even walk to the plate. But walking up there wasn’t the bad part. In fact it wasn’t the fact that all of them struck out that was bad.
It was the fact they had to be told by Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, the plate umpire, that they had struck out. “Go back to the dugout—you just struck out”. . . .
The Republicans won the 5 inning game 7-2. Rep. Bob Michel of Illinois started for the GOP and chalked up his 7th straight victory.
Rep Henry B. Gonzalez [Texas] went the route for the Democrats—Really Henry B. didn’t have too much but he worked his heart out—and wow! did his infield plummer things for Henry B. In a way, Gonzalez was the game’s real star. He ripped a crisp double down the left field line. In the 4th, wary of the support he had received in the 1st three innings, he charged almost to the dugout to backhand a
pop fly. . . .
Who starred—well let’s see
Senator Birch Bayh [Indiana] hit a long clean double to center field. He handled a lot of chances at short with real pizzazz. He booted one—but who can blame him, he had just returned from Houston . . . Bayh was still a little dazed after his exposure to Texas politics.
The Republican infield was great—superlative—the Republican first baseman George Bush went 2 for 2 (would you believe 1 for 2) against Gonzalez. He batted 4th.
Rep Pete McClosky [California], the guy who in the GOP primary crushed Shirley Temple like a boycotted grape hit a long blast to deep left field, but was robbed by Rep. Mo Udall a one-eyed Mormon from Arizona. Udall pitched last year but after his 10—1 defeat decided to play centerfield and also to run against John McCormack for Speaker.
He lost to McCormack but he made that catch and he got two fouls off Mizell. That’s not a bad year so far. Bowie Kuhn umpired. . . .
Rep. Jim Symington [Missouri] asked me why we took Mizell out after 5 hitters—“We were just beginning to get to him” suggested Pres. Johnson’s former protocol chief—“After all I clearly fouled one off and Udall got 2 foul tips.”
Ted Williams38 suggested next year’s game be played on a Sunday afternoon “After seeing you guys out there, I think we’ll pack the place”. This remark was the subject of much partisan debate.
In the locker room winners and losers alike seemed happy and relieved. Vinegar hadn’t stuck a fast one in a Democrat’s ear.
No one got really hurt.
. . . I wondered where is the justice of it all—We Republicans can always beat these guys in America’s greatest sport—baseball.
But they can usually beat us in the worlds second greatest sport—bull throwing!
Mr. Russell U. Smith
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
Dear Russell:
Because of your thoughtfulness in offering your support should I decide to enter the race for the U. S. Senate, I wanted to write you before the public announcement on my decision is made.
There is a possibility that Republicans can win control of the Senate in 1970—a condition that is vital to the Administration and to the country.
All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings Page 13