Today is the forty-second anniversary of a vitally important but mostly unheralded milestone on RN’s road to the presidency in 1968: his Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove. He later wrote: "If I were to choose the speech that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction in my political career, it would be my Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove in July 1967."
Today, the Bohemian Grove hardly needs an introduction. The Wikipedia description is basic and barebones:
Bohemian Grove is a 2,700-acre (1,100 ha) campground located at 20601 Bohemian Avenue, in Monte Rio, California, belonging to a private San Francisco-based men’s art club known as the Bohemian Grove. In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a three-week encampment of some of the most powerful men in the world.
It has now become, in many predictable circles, a cliche for capitalist privilege and plutocratic indulgence; in other, and no less predictable circles, for flat out new world order conspiracy. In 1967 it was still a largely unknown holiday retreat —combining a modicum of roughing it with silver flatware and a bottomless supply of alcoholic stimulation for those who wanted it— for rich and powerful men.
It was at the Bohemian Grove that RN first met General Eisenhower — in the summer of 1950 — when they were both guests of former POTUS Herbert Hoover at Hoover’s "Cave Man Camp." Hoover’s annual Lakeside Speech had been a highlight for many years.
As RN wrote in RN: "The setting is possibly the most dramatic and beautiful I have ever seen. A natural amphitheatre has been built up around a platform on the shore of a small lake. Redwoods tower above the scene, and the weather in July is usually warm and clear."
Et in Bohemia ego: RN attends breakfast at the Bohemian Grove’s Owls Nest Camp, on Sunday, 23 July 1967. He made the Lakeside Speech on the following Saturday afternoon. Seated at the far left is Preston Hotchkis (a civic and business leader who had played an important part in California water issues); next to him is Governor Ronald Reagan; the standing speaker in front of the redwood is Harvey Hancock (an aviation executive and journalist whose association with RN went back to his 1950 Senate campaign); next to him is RN; and next to RN is Glenn Seaborg, the 1951 Nobel laureate in Chemistry. The man in the lower left with his back to the camera is Ed Pauley (a California oilman, Democratic fundraiser, and confidante of Harry Truman).
Herbert Hoover had died in 1964; in 1967, RN was invited to deliver the year’s last Lakeside Speech in his honor.
Although the audience would only number several hundred and the speech would be off-the-record and receive no publicity, RN knew that this was an event that could either launch his White House campaign or relegate him to remain one among the ranks of contenders. Another Lakeside speaker that week would be one of his main rivals for the nomination: the newly-elected California Governor Ronald Reagan, who was already famous for his extraordinary communications abilities and who would be enjoying a home court advantage.
The memory of RN’s 1960 defeat and the 1962 "last press conference" —which had taken place four hundred miles down the coast— had been blunted by his stalwart support for Goldwater in 1964 and his yeoman service for congressional candidates in 1966. But it didn’t require much stirring-up by George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller or Ronald Reagan to surface the idea that RN, while eminently qualified, just wasn’t electable.
The Lakeside Speech could provide an opportunity to dispel that canard and unveil to a highly concentrated audience of movers and shakers and bankrollers —dare one say it— a new Nixon who could clearly win the White House.
RN, typically, hunkered down and prepared to do battle. He cleared his schedule for the week in advance; he rented a motel room and lived on Kentucky Friend Chicken dinners delivered each evening by a volunteer aide. Many yellow pads —in the manufacture of which no redwoods were harmed— were used. And, by the time all the writing and revising were finished, the hour-long text had been committed to memory.
The speech, which was delivered without any notes, took the form of a tour d’horizon. RN’s delivery turned it into a tour de force. The brilliance of his thinking was manifest; his range of knowledge and acquaintance were impressive; and the clarity of his expression and the confidence of his delivery were compelling. He received a cheering standing ovation from what might have been expected, even in the best case scenario, only to have been a blase crowd. (The knowledge that Ronald Reagan’s Lakeside remarks earlier in the week had been considered underwhelming —slick but superficial was the consensus— can only have added to RN’s satisfaction with the outcome.)
RN began casually with some pleasantries:
My fellow Bohemians and our guests: In my years of making speeches, I have never appeared on an occasion where more of the audience was behind me!
After four months of travel to four continents, I can’t tell you how good it is to be back at Bohemia. It is dangerous to be dogmatic about any issue in the world today. But of this one thing I am sure — it’s much more pleasant to get stoned in Bohemia than in Caracas.
He said that it had been President Hoover’s custom to put some of the major issues of the day in perspective, and he proposed to follow in that tradition.
Rather than do what might have been expected by recyclying his current speeches into a discussion of current events, he adopted a tone that was both statesmanlike and visionary:
I do not intend to dwell on current issues like Vietnam and the Mid-East which are the subject of such constant attention in the daily press. Rather, I suggest we do what we Americans seldom have the time and patience to do. Let us take the long view. Let us evaluate the great forces at work in the world and see what America’s role should be if we are to realize our destiny of preserving peace and freedom in the world in this last third of the twentieth century.
One striking impression stands out after months of travel to major countries: We live in a new world. Never in human history have more changes taken place in the world in one generation.
It is a world of new leaders. True, De Gaulle, Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek are still with us; but Churchill, Adenauer, Stalin, Khrushchev, Nehru, Sukarno — the other giants of the post-war period have all left the world stage.
It is a world of new people. One-half of the people now living in the world were born since World War II. This presents at once a problem and an opportunity for peace. Because, as one Asian Prime Minister puts it, the new generation has neither the old fears nor the old guilts of the old generation.
It is a world of new ideas. Communism, Marxism, Socialism, anti-colonialism, — the great ideas which stirred men to revolution after World War II have lost their pulling power. As the Shah of Iran says — “the new generation is not imprisoned by any ism.” The young people in all countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain are groping for a new cause – a new religion. If any idea “turns them on” it is a new sense of pragmatism — “what will work.”
Without saying so by dropping a collection of names, RN made it clear that he was the person to whom many foreign leaders had confided their thoughts and concerns. He made his listeners his intimates with skillful asides like "Krieger of Argentina, probably the ablest of Latin America’s economic ministers, puts the case this way…"
A contemporary reader of the Lakeside Speech will receive a concise education regarding the state of the world, and the state of play, in 1967.
At the end, he turned his eyes homeward and addressed the unrest that was roiling America. On 23 July —the same day RN arrived in Bohemia— the 12th Street riot had broken out in Detroit. Over the next five days, forty-three people died; several thousand were arrested; and twenty-five hundred stores were looted or burned.
There is only one area where there is any question — that is whether America has the national character and moral stamina to see us through this long and difficult struggle.
In this context, the tragic events in Detroit take on new meaning. This was more than just another Negro riot. The looters were white as well as black. We are reaping the whirlwind for a decade of growing disrespect for law, decency and principle in America.
Without sanctimonious moralizing, let’s look at some hard facts. Our judges have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country. Our opinion-makers have gone too far in promoting the doctrine that when a law is broken – blame society, not the criminal. Our teachers, preachers and politicians have gone too far in advocating the idea that each individual should determine what laws are good and what laws are bad and that he then should obey the law he likes and disobey the law he dislikes.
In the aftermath of these tragic events everyone will have a solution. Some will say we need more laws. Others will say we need more law enforcement. Others will say we need more money for cities, housing, education and welfare. Each of these approaches deserves consideration and some should be adopted.
But in the final analysis there could be no progress without respect for law. There will be no respect for law in a nation whose people lack character. We need a national crusade to build American character in home, church and school. Above all, we need examples of character from our great men.
This brought him full circle to Herbert Hoover, and his final words were moving and heartfelt:
We in Bohemia were privileged to know such a man.
I could describe Herbert Hoover as a great statesman. I could describe him as a great businessman. I could describe him as a great humanitarian. But, above all, he will be remembered as a man of great character.
No leader in his history was more viciously vilified. Deserbed [sic] by his friends, maligned by his enemies, he triumphed over adversity. In the twilight of his life he stood tall above his detractors. His triumph was a triumph of character. We can be thankful that we was one of those rare men who lived to hear the overwhelmingly favorable verdict of history on his career.
Two thousand years ago when these great trees were saplings — the poet Sophocles wrote, “one must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.”
Herbert Hoover’s life was eloquent proof of those words.
Here is the complete text of RN’s Lakeside Speech, transcribed following the delivery, for the office’s record from RN’s yellow pad notes, by Rose Mary Woods.
Off-the-Record
Not for Publication
Lakeside Talk
Richard Nixon
Bohemian GroveSaturday, July 29, 1967
My fellow Bohemians and our guests: In my years of making speeches, I have never appeared on an occasion where more of the audience was behind me!
After four months of travel to four continents, I can’t tell you how good it is to be back at Bohemia. It is dangerous to be dogmatic about any issue in the world today. But of this one thing I am sure — it’s much more pleasant to get stoned in Bohemia than in Caracas.
It was Mr. Hoover’s custom on this occasion to put into perspective some of the great issues of the day. In that tradition, I would like to discuss American foreign policy.
I do not intend to dwell on current issues like Vietnam and the Mid-East which are the subject of such constant attention in the daily press. Rather, I suggest we do what we Americans seldom have the time and patience to do. Let us take the long view. Let us evaluate the great forces at work in the world and see what America’s role should be if we are to realize our destiny of preserving peace and freedom in the world in this last third of the twentieth century.
One striking impression stands out after months of travel to major countries: We live in a new world. Never in human history have more changes taken place in the world in one generation.
It is a world of new leaders. True, De Gaulle, Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek are still with us; but Churchill, Adenauer, Stalin, Khrushchev, Nehru, Sukarno — the other giants of the post-war period have all left the world stage.
It is a world of new people. One-half of the people now living in the world were born since World War II. This presents at once a problem and an opportunity for peace. Because, as one Asian Prime Minister puts it, the new generation has neither the old fears nor the old guilts of the old generation.
It is a world of new ideas. Communism, Marxism, Socialism, anti-0colonialism, — the great ideas which stirred men to revolution after World War II have lost their pulling power. As the Shah of Iran says — “the new generation is not imprisoned by any ism.” The young people in all countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain are groping for a new cause – a new religion. If any idea “turns them on” it is a new sense of pragmatism — “what will work.”
Because we live in a new world, many of the old institutions are obsolete and inadequate. The UN, NATO, foreign aid, USIA were set up to deal with the world of twenty years ago. A quick trip around the world will show how different the problems are today.
Twenty years ago Western Europe was weak economically and dependent on the United States. It was united by a common fear of the threat of Communist aggression. Today Western Europe is strong economically and economic independence has inevitably led to more political independence. The winds of detente have blown so strongly from East to West that except for Germany most Europeans no longer fear the threat from the East. The consequences of this change are enormous as far as NATO is concerned. As Harold MacMillan puts it, “Alliances are kept together by fear, no by love.” Even without De Gaulle, the European Alliance would be in deep trouble.
Let us look at the Communist world. Twenty years ago the Soviet Union dominated a monolithic Communist empire. Today, the Soviet Union and Communist China are in a bitter struggle for leadership of the Communist world. Eastern Europe turns West, though we must recognize that the differences in Eastern Europe still cause less trouble to the Soviet Union than the differences in Western Europe cause to the United States. The Soviet economic system is turning away from the enforced equality of Marxism to the incentives of capitalism.
Let us look at Latin America:
Twenty years ago Castro was a nobody. Cuba and all the other Latin republics were considered to be solidly, permanently, and docilely on the side of the United States. Today Castro has the strongest military force in the Western hemisphere next to the United States and he is exporting revolution all over the continent. But even if Castro did not exist, Latin America would have to be considered a major trouble spot. Despite the Alliance for Progress, Latin America is barely holding its own in the race between production and population., As it continues to fall further behind the rest of the world, it becomes a tinder box for revolution.
Let us turn to Africa:
Just ten years ago Ethiopia and Liberia were the only independent countries in Black Africa. Today there are thirty independent countries in Black Africa. Fifteen of these countries have populations less than the State of Maryland, and each has a vote in the UN Assembly equal to that of the United States. There were twelve coups in Black Africa in the last year. No one of the thirty countries has a representative government by our standards and the prospects that any will have such a government in a generation or even a half-century are remote.
Ironically, non-Communist Asia, except for Vietnam, is the area which has experienced the most hopeful change. Japan has recovered from the devastation of World War II to the point that its [sic] one one [sic] hundred million people produce as much as Communist China’s seven hundred million. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand are all dramatic economic success stories.
There are grey areas:
As General Romulo might put it, the Philippines suffer from too much American-style democracy. Indonesia is recovering from too much Sukarno. India suffers from too many people and a host of other problems too numerous to enumerate. But over-all, it can be said without fear of contradiction that the prospects for progress in non-Communist Asia area better than those in Communist Asia.
Let us look at the balance of power in the world:
Twenty years ago the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and our military superiority was unquestioned. Even five years ago our advantage was still decisive. Today the Soviet Union may be ahead of us in megaton capacity and will have missile parity with the United States by 1970. Communist China within five years will have a significant deliverable nuclear capability.
Finally, let us look at American prestige:
Twenty years ago, after our great World War II victory, we were respected throughout the world. Today, hardly a day goes by when our flag is not spit upon, a library burned, an embassy stoned some place in the world. In fact, you don’t have to leave the United States to find examples.
This is a gloomy picture; but there is a much brighter side as well.
Communism is losing the ideological battle with freedom in Asia, Africa, Latin America as well as in Europe. In Africa, the Communist appeal was against colonialism. Now that the colonialists are gone, they must base their case on being for Communism. But African tribalism and rebellious individualism are simply incompatible with the rigid discipline a Communist system imposes.
In Latin America, the utter failure of Communism in Cuba has drastically weakened the appeal of the Communist ideology in the rest of Latin America.
In Asia, the remarkable success of private enterprise-oriented economies in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand, as contrasted to the failure of Communism in China and the failure of socialism in Burma and Indonesia, makes it possible to state unequivocally that the only way for the Communists to win in Vietnam, or anywhere else in Asia, is by force and terror; they will never win by persuasion.
All over the world, whether from East Germany to West, from Communist China to free China, from Communist Cuba to the free American republics, the traffic is all one way — from Communism to freedom.
Let us reappraise U.S. policy in the light of the new world in which we live.
In Western Europe we must recognize that clearly apart from De Gaulle’s actions the new economic independence of European countries and the lack of fear of Soviet aggression have contributed to a situation where it is not possible to keep the old alliance together on its former basis.
Yet, whatever changes may have occurred as far as the Soviet threat is concerned, one factor has not changed: A major political and economic home for the most powerful people in Europe — the Germans. If the alliance is allowed to continue to disintegrate, Germany, denied the right to develop nuclear weapons, will be left defenseless in the heart of Europe and the Soviet Union, holding the pawn of East Germany, will have a tempting diplomatic target.
The highest priority American foreign policy objective must be to set up a new alliance, multilateral, if possible, bilateral, if necessary, which will keep Germany solidly on the Western side.
Let us look at the third world – Africa, Asia, Latin America. We reach one inescapable conclusion – foreign aid needs a complete overhaul.
More money alone is not the answer. Latin America is a case in point. Nine billion dollars has been spent on the Alliance for Progress in the last six years with these results: The growth rate in Latin America was less than in the previous five years. The growth rate in Latin America was less than that of non-Communist Asia and of Communist Eastern Europe. Latin America will become a permanent international depressed area unless revolutionary changes are made in its economic, educational and governmental institutions.
Krieger of Argentina, probably the ablest of Latin America’s economic ministers, puts the case this way: “You Americans should be more blunt in attaching conditions to your aid programs. Of course, the recipients aren’t going to like it. But the United States does us n o favor when you aid an unsound economic and social institution. All you do is perpetuate a system that should be changed.”
In that spirit, let us use our aid programs to work toward such objectives as the following:
The Latin American educational system is the most obsolete and inadequate in the world in terms of preparing students for contributions to a modern industrial state. It must be modernized and brought into the twentieth century.
In Latin America, Africa, as well as in countries like India, there should be more emphasis on agriculture, less on Indus rationalization.
In every area of the world private, rather than government enterprise, should be encouraged, not because we are trying to impose our ideas but because one works and the other doesn’t.
The United States should use its aid programs to reward our friends and discourage our enemies. Before the recent Mid-East crisis, the fact that the U.S. had continued its aid programs to countries like the U.A.R., Algeria and Guinea when their leaders never missed a chance to condemn the United States in world forums had the effect of discouraging our friends, confusing the neutrals and bringing contempt from our enemies.
I would like to illustrate my last point with an example. Four of the most dramatic economic success stories are Thailand, Iran, Taiwan and Mexico.
Thailand has a limited monarchy.
Iran has a strong monarchy.
Taiwan has a strong President with an oligarchy.
Mexico has one-party government.
None of these countries has a representative democracy by Western standards. But it happens that in each case their system has worked for them.
It is time for us to recognize that much as we like our own political system, American style democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for people in Asia, Africa and Latin America with entirely different backgrounds.
Let us turn now to the most fundamental question – why continue foreign aid to all? We must recognize that frustration over Vietnam, disillusionment with our European allies who, despite our immense post-World War Ii aid to them, more often than not refused to cooperate with us in our foreign policy objectives, and the shocking mismanagement and waste in many of the aid programs have all combined to create a new spirit of isolationism in the United States which is becoming stronger in both political parties.
But, let us take a longer view. With the advance of transportation and communications so vividly described by other Lakeside speakers, the world by the end of this century will be a great city. As the world becomes smaller, the differences between rich and poor will appear much larger. The three billion people living in the less advanced areas of the world will not tolerate permanent second class economic status. For example, t that time the people of the United Sates will have a per capita income ten times as large as that of our closest friends and neighbors in Latin America. The time to defuse this potentially explosive situation is now.
Let us turn now to subject A, the Soviet Union.
This Spring a great debate raged in the chanceries of Europe and among foreign policy experts in the United States as to how much Soviet policy had changed under its new leaders. Some Soviet experts on both sides of the Atlantic saw the new Soviet leaders turning 180 degrees from past policies and seeking permanent peace with the United States and Europe as well as using their influence to end the war in Vietnam.
The record of the Soviets in the Middle East war has caused a sober reassessment of this point of view. At a time that they were talking peace and détente in Europe, the Soviet leaders were spending 4 billion dollars arming Nasser and his colleagues. They encouraged the Arab leaders in their aggressive actions. They blocked diplomatic moves to avoid the war. They supported a cease-fire only when it became necessary for them to do so to save their Arab clients from further losses.
Then came the Glassboro conference. Kosygin was a gentleman. He did not bang his shoe on the table at the United Nations. Many hoped that the Soviet leaders had learned their lessons and the spirit of Hollybush swept over the land. But it soon became apparent that, while the music was different, the words were the same.
More revealing have been the actions of the Soviet leaders since Glassboro. Kosygin stopped to see Castro on his way back to Moscow. The Soviet Union is sending millions of dollars in arms to build the shattered Arab armies. The Soviet Union is still providing 100 per cent of the oil and 85 per cent of all sophisticated military equipment for the armies of North Vietnam. The Soviet line against West Germany has perceptively hardened. The Soviet continues to build both offensive and defensive missiles.
This does not mean that the Soviet leaders have not changed. But what we must recognize is that the change is one of the head and not of the heart – of necessity, not choice.’
As we enter this last third of the twentieth century the hopes of the world rest with America. Whether peace and freedom survive in the world depends on American leadership.
Never has a nation had more advantages to lead. Our economic superiority is enormous; our military superiority can be whatever we choose to make it. Most important, it happens that we are on the right side — the side of freedom and peace and progress against the forces of totalitarianism, reaction and war.
There is only one area where there is any question — that is whether America has the national character and moral stamina to see us through this long and difficult struggle.
In this context, the tragic events in Detroit take on new meaning. This was more than just another Negro riot. The looters were white as well as black. We are reaping the whirlwind for a decade of growing disrespect for law, decency and principle in America.
Without sanctimonious moralizing, let’s look at some hard facts. Our judges have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country. Our opinion-makers have gone too far in promoting the doctrine that when a law is broken – blame society, not the criminal. Our teachers, preachers and politicians have gone too far in advocating the idea that each individual should determine what laws are good and what laws are bad and that he then should obey the law he likes and disobey the law he dislikes.
In the aftermath of these tragic events everyone will have a solution. Some will say we need more laws. Others will say we need more law enforcement. Others will say we need more money for cities, housing, education and welfare. Each of these approaches deserves consideration and some should be adopted.
But in the final analysis there could be no progress without respect for law. There will be no respect for law in a nation whose people lack character. We need a national crusade to build American character in home, church and school. Above all, we need examples of character from our great men.
We in Bohemia were privileged to know such a man.
I could describe Herbert Hoover as a great statesman. I could describe him as a great businessman. I could describe him as a great humanitarian. But, above all, he will be remembered as a man of great character.
No leader in his history was more viciously vilified. Deserbed [sic] by his friends, maligned by his enemies, he triumphed over adversity. In the twilight of his life he stood tall above his detractors. His triumph was a triumph of character. We can be thankful that we was one of those rare men who lived to hear the overwhelmingly favorable verdict of history on his career.
Two thousand years ago when these great trees were saplings — the poet Sophocles wrote, “one must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.”
Herbert Hoovers’ [sic] life was eloquent proof of those words.
And as we near the evening of another Bohemian Encampment, we, too, can look back and say, “How splendid the day has been.”