

### Two for the Cabinet

### Culture and Character  
in the Public's Service

### Arthur Craig Bustard

Two for the Cabinet: Culture and Character in the Public's Service

Published by Arthur Craig Bustard at Smashwords  
Copyright 2012 Arthur Craig Bustard

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever including Internet usage, without written permission of the author.

_Smashwords Edition, License Notes:  
_ This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

For my wife Barbara

" _An excellent wife who can find?  
She is far more precious than jewels.  
The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain."_  
Proverbs 31:10-11

I have been blessed beyond my dreams.

### Table of Contents

Preface

Chapter One: The Pennsylvania Dutch

Chapter Two: Growing up in Worcester

Chapter Three: American Olean Tile

Chapter Four: Drew Lewis

Chapter Five: Running for Congress

Chapter Six: The Amish Legislation

Chapter Seven: Lewis and Schweiker in the '60s and '70s

Chapter Eight: The Seventy-four Election

Chapter Nine: The Seventy-six Convention

Chapter Ten: Reagan is a disaster at the top of the ticket

Chapter Eleven: Cultural Differences

Chapter Twelve: 1977 to election 1980

Conclusion: Character and Culture in the Public Service

Notes

Preface

Near the southeastern corner of Pennsylvania, in the northwestern shadow of the city of Philadelphia, sits a small, relatively rural township of 16 square miles. The Township produced two cabinet members in the first term of President Ronald Reagan. The story of those two cabinet members: Richard Schweiker of Health and Human Services, and Andrew L. Lewis Jr. of Transportation, was intertwined even before they agreed to serve in the cabinet. Educated, smart, and aggressive, both brought to their respective positions a wealth of experience and knowledge that Reagan recognized and valued. Their remarkable lives and efforts, from the time they grew up, through business careers, to government service, brought the two into contact, friendship, and conflict.

President Reagan swept into office in 1981 looking to rejuvenate America. He sought to emphasize the positive values that America represented, to bring conservative control to a budget that had become severely out of balance in terms of conservative priorities and to reassert traditional American ideals in the foreign policy arena _. "President Reagan came to Washington with the most ambitious program for America since the New Deal. In his inaugural address, Reagan called for deep, across-the-board tax cuts and limits on domestic spending."_  In filling his cabinet Reagan approached Schweiker and Lewis to fill two positions that appeared to compliment the skills and experiences of both.

In looking at the careers of these two remarkable men, the lens through which they are viewed needs to examined. The church historian Philip Schaff stated _"The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself"_ 2 However, the presuppositions of the reader will tailor the perception of the best evidence in many cases, and lend itself to the preconceived notions of a lifetimes experience. Let the facts speak for themselves, not through the colored lenses of the ideological and philosophical prejudices that are endemic in today's America.

Reagan's first term started in 1981 and the ideological rigidity on left and right that is seen as normal today was in its infancy, or perhaps, was just less strident. We can see the split between the moderates and the conservative on the right, between the liberals and the radicals on the left, and a culture that was under severe stress following the 1960's and the Vietnam War, in Reagan's Presidency. Much of the cultural baggage of the past was being jettisoned and a new correctness was forming; demanding tolerance in everything, except politics.

Within this cultural and political cauldron of change and dissention the froth of ideological battles surfaced from the day-to-day decisions of people who worked to move the country forward. Appointment to Reagan's cabinet is a testament to the qualities that Richard Schweiker and Andrew Lewis brought to their positions. It is also a testament to the insight of Ronald Reagan and his staff in looking below the froth, to see deeply into the character of the person; to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the individual, the ability to work with a team, and manage a department. The fortitude to manage decisions in a politically tumultuous time and the tenacity to push through the bureaucracy policies that are resisted by an entrenched rank and file necessitates strength of character and firmness of purpose that draws on the inner courage of the individual. The turnover rate for cabinet positions, even today, correlates with the stress created by this conflict. Both Schweiker and Lewis left the government before the end of Reagan's first term, within months of each other, yet they were selected by Reagan when he moved to Washington to shake up the "business as usual" status in the nation's capital.

Both these men had come to Reagan's attention before he became President. Reagan became acquainted with Pennsylvania's Senator Schweiker when Reagan tried to unseat President Ford in the 1976 primary. Reagan announced that if he won the nomination Schweiker would be his Vice Presidential running mate. The surprising and controversial move was orchestrated by campaign chairman John Sears. Designed to pull the Pennsylvania delegation to Reagan and away from Ford, the gamble was stopped by Lewis as head of the Pennsylvania delegation.

This high stakes gamble didn't gain Reagan the nomination; but it brought him into contact with the two individuals who subsequently became cabinet officials in his first administration. "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven" and the history of our world would have been dramatically different had Reagan won in 1976. He didn't. He won in 1980 and changed the direction of the country; Richard Schweiker and Andrew Lewis had a hand in that change.

Thirty years later we need to ask: How did these individuals come to have such a profound impact on Reagan in order to be named to his cabinet and change the direction of the country with him? What did he find in these individuals that gained them cabinet rank? Neither Schweiker nor Lewis appeared to have a philosophy of government that remotely mirrored Reagan's.

Presenting Senator Schweiker to the Republican delegates as his running mate at the 1976 nominating convention in Kansas City was so shocking precisely because Reagan's philosophy of government appeared to be so different. Senator Schweiker was known as a liberal Republican, a member of the "Wednesday Club" in Washington: members included Hugh Scott, Lowell Weicker, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, and Margaret Chase Smith. Reagan was viewed by many as the standard bearer of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, probably from the time of his famous speech for Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. To most individuals the two did not appear to be compatible or even on the same team.

Drew Lewis, a moderate Republican, had canvassed Pennsylvania for years in working for the party. He was an unsuccessful candidate for governor in 1974, who guided the decisions of the Pennsylvania delegates to the national convention in 1976. A committed Ford man, Drew was able to prevent the defection of most members of the Pennsylvania delegation after the Reagan/Schweiker ticket was announced. This stand by Lewis effectively denied Reagan the nomination, preventing a ground swell of support that might have overwhelmed Ford at a critical juncture in the convention.

What could have induced Reagan, who hated to lose, to offer a cabinet seat to one of the individuals who had stopped months of hard work and effort four years before? "Few people understood just how much Reagan hated to lose. He simply concealed it better than other politicians. Mike Deaver, Reagan's long time aide and friend said,

"He was the most competitive son of a b---- who ever lived'." Someone who could be creditably cited as extremely influential in preventing Reagan from being the Republican nominee in 1976 is generally not going to be considered a viable candidate for a cabinet position in 1980: a visible reminder of his failure at every meeting. Yet, Drew Lewis was not only named to be Secretary of Transportation, he was one of the stars in the early Reagan cabinet.

Ronald Reagan changed the complexion of the world. He is credited with bringing America out of the stagflation facilitated by Carter's economic policies, revamping and modernizing the American Military, winning the Cold War, and making Americans proud of their country again. In examining the story of how two individuals, from a small rural township in eastern Pennsylvania, came to be members of Reagan's first cabinet we, perhaps, can see how a former actor from California came to be one of the greatest Presidents of Twentieth Century America. It is the little decisions, the ones that are made every day when people are not looking, in which we can tell the true character of an individual. "Character makes the man, not circumstances." Reagan, in deciding to offer cabinet positions to these two individuals, found something in them that he thought was important in his effort to lead the nation.

Chapter One

### The Pennsylvania Dutch

It is important to understand the culture of the area within which Richard Schweiker grew up in order to understand the man. The old adage that the child is father of the man, has a kernel of truth that helps to allow an understanding of the values that an adult possesses. The small Township of Worcester (pronounced War sester by the Pennsylvania Dutch inhabitants at the time) where Richard grew up is located northwest of Philadelphia, about 8 miles north of Valley Forge where General Washington received a very bitter and cold welcome to the area during the winter of 1777.

The area was relatively culturally homogenous in the time period when Richard grew up, composed mostly of people of German extraction, known by the local name of Pennsylvania Dutch. A rural farming community, the Township had fourteen hundred and eighty-seven people according to the census of 1930, a decrease of one hundred people from the census of 1870. The stability of the population is evident even in the 1940 census when they counted sixteen hundred and nine people. The coming of the Second World War and its immediate aftermath fomented a fundamental change in the culture in Worcester. Population began to increase dramatically so that by the census of 1960 the Township had thirty-two hundred and fifty people.

The township of 16 square miles had several churches in it during the 1930's, including German Reformed, Mennonite, Methodist, and a relatively small German Protestant sect called the Schwenkfelders.

The Schwenkfelders were the descendents of a group of Protestants, who had followed the teachings of Casper Schwenkfeld von Ossig of Silesia in part of what is today Poland, just north of the present Czech Republic. The years after the Reformation continued to be years of persecution, and eventually they were forced from their homes when they declined to follow the lead of the local government leaders and convert. _"In 1726, for example, in southeastern Germany, Melchior Schultz advised his sons that choice could no longer be postponed. Either they remained in Silesia and converted to the Catholic faith, or they held to their Schwenkfelder principles and moved out. Remaining in Silesia, while retaining a dissident faith had by then become absolutely untenable as a solution."_ 6 They spent several years as refugees in Saxony, where they were sheltered by Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf, supporter of the Moravians. On Tuesday, April 20, 1734, 176 persons left Saxony and sailed down the Elbe River. They found refuge in Holland where Dutch Mennonites helped them. The Mennonites paid for their passage to the New World on the ship "St. Andrew". Nine died on the voyage, but the balance arrived in the port of Philadelphia on September 22, 1734.

The small group of religious pilgrims settled themselves primarily in the area of Southeastern Pennsylvania that would become the townships of Worcester, Towamencin, Lower and Upper Salford, continuing up to the town of Pennsburg. The land settled tended to be defined by the Perkiomen Creek Valley and its tributaries. The area forms a small arc twenty to thirty-five miles northwest of Philadelphia including what would become the geographical center of Montgomery County when the county split off from Philadelphia in 1784.

This fortuitous choice of residence would eventually provide both Schweiker and Lewis with a political base in the most populated Republican bastion of the five suburban counties of Philadelphia. The Schwenkfelders represented a significant number of the Pennsylvania Dutch residents in Worcester and focused on farming and preserving their teachings. They eventually expanded their small protestant denomination to five congregations throughout southeastern PA in the early twentieth century.

The Pennsylvania Dutch, as a whole, are an independent people, clinging to traditions and values that originated hundreds of years ago. They continued to speak their German dialect for years, even when the area around them became increasingly English-speaking. The First World War generated a cultural shock to the Pennsylvania Dutch, forcing many to adapt to the culture around them especially in terms of their language. In discussing the anti-German tone of the war years, William T. Parsons comments: " _Vast numbers of Pennsylvania Germans resorted to the same solution they had used in the past: they simply retreated into their shell. Society was content to regard them as "dumb Dutch". There was profound internal and personal conflict. That they were loyal Americans, not bound by German origins, should have been obvious to all. Faced with the reality that it was not, many Pennsylvania Dutch felt the need to apologize. The apologies took numerous, varied form. Without realizing all the implications, and without rationalizing his actions, the Dutchman found himself profoundly affected by his second-class status. Many resolved that the old ways and culture were not worth the social ostracism. They determined that their children, seventh and eighth generation Americans as they were, should not be similarly handicapped by accent or educational limitations. Thousands of young parents who had heard no language but Pennsylvania Dutch a derivative of German ed.] in their own childhood, forbade their children to learn the dialect, and punished them when they did._[ 7

The people called Pennsylvania Dutch represented numerous groups who had fled the religious wars and demands for conformity in the "Old Country", mainly Germany, but also Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland. Anabaptists, such as the Mennonites, Dunkers or Brethren, and the Amish, sailed to the colony of Pennsylvania in search of the freedom to worship their God without harassment. " _...The Schwenkfelders acquired their identification from Caspar Schwenkfeld von Ossig, the Mennonites from Menno Simons, the Amish from Jost Amman, and the Herrities from Chrisitan Herr. The latter was a branch of the church of the Brethren. The Amish were a splinter group of Mennonites who emphasized ostracism or "shunning" (Meidung) both of members who broke rules, and of outsiders."_ 8 The "dutch" first settled in an area called Germantown, a settlement north and west of Philadelphia, planned by Francis Daniel Pastorius who encouraged the emigration of the Germans to Pennsylvania. They rapidly expanded to the north and west in search of productive land and a place where they could be surrounded by their fellow Germans.

A peace-loving clannish people, they worked the land, valuing hard work, refusing to swear and understanding that their word was their bond. Their religion was, and is, important to them. It is not something that means going to Church one day a week and forgetting about it until the next week. It is their way of life. They tended to distain academic learning as impractical and unnecessary to living a Christian life. Instead, they tried to follow the teaching of St. Paul: being in the world, but not of the world. The Pennsylvania Dutch are not a monolithic religious block. While they have similarities there is a relatively wide spectrum of variation in their Christian beliefs. The Amish resolutely reject compromises with society that would require them to incorporate modern conveniences such as electricity, motor vehicles, and telephones to name a few. Lancaster County has created a large tourist industry in the past 50 years promoting the black, horse-drawn buggies and life style that the Amish present to our modern world. Mennonites are not quite as strident, but they still frown on brightly colored cars and clothing, playing card games, and gambling, among other sins. At the other end of the spectrum we have the mainline Protestant denominations of Lutherans and the liberal United Church of Christ (the result of the merger of the Congregationalist church and the German Reformed in the 1950's). In the early 1900's even the mainline Protestant denominations were more conservative in approach and closely followed the traditions of the early refugees who escaped Europe looking for religious freedom in Penn's noble experiment.

Within this assembly of religious refugees the Schwenkfelders formed a tight-knit sub-group. Unlike the Anabaptists, they did not distain extensive book learning and many were, and are, well-educated. The Schwenkfelders were not rigidly pacifist like the Amish and Mennonites. They did have members of the denomination fight in our country's wars, a point that had significant implications for Richard Schweiker and his family. The original 44 families that came aboard the St. Andrew settled into the area of Central Montgomery County surrounded by fellow German speakers and prospered amid the freedom of religion that first the colony and then the State of Pennsylvania afforded them. They kept their values and identity in the same ways as the other Pennsylvania German sects. " _One means of reinforcing the values of the particular religious sect was an insistence upon marriage within the denomination. In a Quaker province where Friends were read out of the Society for marrying outside its limits, this did not seem a particularly exceptional requirement. In fact, some of the small sects exerted considerable pressure upon the young people, virtually forcing them to marry within the bounds so set. It was both socially and economically disastrous to contemplate marriage_ _outside the religious circle. As a result, among Amish, Mennonite, Dunker, or Schwenkfelder groups ten or a dozen family names become almost identifying labels, showing the sect to which a person or family belonged."_ 9

In addition to frowning on intermarriage with those outside the sect, a common feature of the Pennsylvania Dutch was their approach to interaction with the wider culture. Having been refugees who fled Europe in search of religious freedom they tended to turn a wary eye on the established power structure in Pennsylvania. Some refused to vote or participate in elections, but others voted as a bloc to protect their values. Most tended to keep to themselves, interacting with the "English" when necessary, but not wanting to do more than that. By clinging to their German dialect they limited communication with others and when they did speak English it tended to be with a strong accent. One result of these decisions was the development of a caricature of the "dumb Dutchman" by the non German residents of Pennsylvania. Stories abounded of the strange customs and the unwillingness of the Dutchmen to speak or understand what was being asked of them. Over the years this caricature has been used by many of the Pennsylvania Dutch to their advantage, playing dumb as they deal with overbearing and arrogant customers, businessmen, and public officials. This is not to say they obtained something that they didn't pay for or deserve. Instead the thrifty Germans drove a very hard bargain when they had to interact with outsiders. This caricature of the "dumb Dutchman" was reinforced by their religious convictions. Much has been made of the difference between the "Plain" and the "Fancy" Dutch but it can probably be said that it is simply a matter of degree in how rigorously they defined what it meant to follow their faith. Most appear to try to deny the pursuit of worldly achievement as they strive to live a life of faith. They tend to exhibit a manner toward outsiders that is calm and reserved; perhaps even placid.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato introduced the concept of the cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Temperance can be used to describe the lifestyle that the Pennsylvania Dutch seek to achieve. Temperance not defined in the common usage of modern times as a person who does not imbibe alcohol or carouse around the neighborhood, but as defined by the Greek word " _sophrosyne_ ". The self-control, fortitude to endure and prudence that the definition of the word tries to convey gives a picture of the attributes cultivated by many of the Pennsylvania Dutch. This growth in character is not the result of self will or effort in the mind of the Dutch, but the result of the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit as their Christian faith promises to all who seek him. It is this critical difference in giving the Holy Spirit the place of honor in their life that helps define the Pennsylvania Dutch character. It enables them to endure and persevere in the world and maintain their lifestyle in the face of modern encroachment on that lifestyle.

Numerous migrations from Europe occurred following the founding of Pennsylvania by William Penn. A large number of the "dutch" settled to the west of Germantown and Philadelphia in what are today the Townships of Franconia, Upper and Lower Salford, Towamencin and other areas further west or north, including the Lehigh Valley. Migrations occurred to the even more fertile farm land of Lancaster County, close to the frontier of the Susquehanna River. The Pennsylvania Dutch tended to settle areas beyond the inner ring of English and Welsh Quakers, but within the frontiers that were established by the Scotch-Irish pioneers. The migration of the German Anabaptist refugees to the western reaches of what are today Montgomery and Bucks County took them to the limits of practical market-garden agriculture in the early eighteenth and nineteenth century.

The western limits of these counties represented a trip of 25-35 miles to the city over the old Skippack Pike, Sumneytown Pike, Germantown Pike and further to the south, Ridge Pike. The old roads were barely roads in the beginning. At most they were well worn paths that were increasingly maintained by the use of tolls. The old term "pike", which is still used by residents in the area, refers to the metal stake and pole which pivoted across the road. The metal pike held the pole up from the ground about three feet when it was let down, effectively barring the way past, enabling the toll taker to exact his fee.

Most farmers could get to market in the city if they started very early in the day, but they occasionally had to spend a night at a tavern or inn along the way. Stopping at the inn, either going or coming back from the city if they lived in the western reaches of the counties was frequent. Without refrigeration technology, other than packing in ice, or covering the barrels in wet canvas, the products needed to be of limited perishability. Going further to the west, such as Lancaster County, farmers needed to focus on grain crops such as wheat, or they needed to bring their meats to the market on the hoof. One main road in Hatfield Township to the north (settled by the German Rosenberger family) is still called "Cowpath" to this day in recognition of its use in colonial times. The economics of bringing vegetables and freshly butchered meat to market from longer than the thirty-five miles was adverse and rarely done. Access to rivers such as the Schuylkill and the Delaware allowed some bulk traffic to Philadelphia, but it was insufficient to change the prevailing agricultural patterns, and was used primarily for bulk goods. The smaller local "creeks", such as the Perkiomen and Skippack, were insufficiently deep to allow for boating most of the year and as such had no utility beyond being a source for water-powered mills.

The adventure of going to market at the time was not like driving today on these same roads. The roads followed the contours of the land, down the hills and across the valleys, usually crossing the numerous streams at ninety degree angles. Many times when a wagon approached the stream it would have to turn to cross, either by fording in the eighteenth century, or over a wooden, or later a stone bridge as we get closer to the twentieth century and populations increased in the area. By the time Richard was born, macadamized roads had started to reach into the area. For example, it was only in the late 1940's that the Skippack Pike was leveled out, filling in the dips and valleys and cutting through some of the hills, straightening the bridges to align with the roads and making it easier to commute.

During the late 1800's and early 1900's the area still supported large numbers of farmers who focused on a form of Market-Garden agriculture that catered to the needs of citizens in Philadelphia. Numerous farmers took produce, butter, eggs, fresh and processed meats to the city where they stood in market, or developed delivery routes to sell their products. The Worcester History includes the following example in referring to Township farmer Isaac Schultz: " _Each Thursday morning, with few exceptions, he drove to the city with his market wagon, later with his truck, loaded with butter, eggs, chickens, pork in season, sausage, scrapple and other farm products. He returned to his farm in Worcester on Friday evening. These trips to the city in 1896, by wagon, meant rising at 3:30 A.M. in order that the horses be fed, the wagon loaded, all ready for a 6 A.M. start."_ 10 Small food processing operations were developed by the entrepreneurial members of the hard working "Dutch". In the description of the market run to Philadelphia mentioned above you see the statement "Pork in Season", pointing to a major problem in the days before mechanical refrigeration. Pork was a key food for the Pennsylvania Dutch, but it spoiled quickly. It was normally not butchered until the fall or winter, when due to lower average temperatures, it lasted longer. Numerous attempts across the centuries to prolong the "shelf life" of pork resulted in various smoked and processed meats. These came to be considered ethnic German foods such as scrapple, sausages, knockwurst, Lebanon Bologna and many others. These foods, such as "Pork and Sauerkraut" for New Years day (said to ward off worms in the coming year), became a tradition for many Philadelphia homes as a result.

By processing the meats into sausages, smoked hams, and bolognas, the farmers were able to have a longer period to sell product to the city dwellers, increasing the productivity of the farms and offering a much greater return on their investment of both time and labor. A local favorite of the "Dutch" was a breakfast meat called scrapple, a ground up pork puree that solidified in a rectangular form and was then sliced and fried. The name adequately describes the dish, coming from the root word "scrap", and which contained everything but the oink, according to Dutch lore. Many loved to eat it smothered with ketchup, which also covered the eggs on the plate. "Waste not want not", as the Germans say. Some of the small processing operations have survived to this day, growing to become major east coast food processing companies. One is Hatfield Quality Meats, maker of Phillies Franks, which was started by John C. Clemens in 1895.

One of the advantages the "Dutch" culture provided for their economic well being was the position of the women in the farm community. While the culture was definitely patriarchic, the women were expected to help work the fields, especially at harvest time. Such was not the case with the English and the Irish of the area. This provided extra hands that increased the productivity of the farm, enabling critical time-sensitive harvesting to be done as completely and quickly as possible. The industrious nature of the "Dutch", combined with the frugal nature of their lifestyles, enabled many of the rural farmers to attain a standard of living that was significantly better than many of the "English" who lived in the area.

Agriculture was central to the lifestyle of the Dutch and those industries that eventually sprang up in the central Montgomery County area in the late 1800's tended to service the agricultural field. The importance of the agricultural base, combined with the ethnic German demographics and the religious separatist nature of the Anabaptist and Schwenkfelder culture cannot be overstated when you look at the area in which Richard Schweiker grew to adulthood. The culture of the German religious refugees involved the passing down of the traditions and stories of previous generations. The traditional culture imbued the members with an appreciation of the hardships their ancestors had faced in trying to live their faith. The persecution in Europe was not forgotten and many could name members of their family, generations back, that had experienced persecution. Richard Schweiker's roots run deep in this culture. He would have been intimately familiar with the story of his ancestor Christopher Schultz who came over on the St. Andrew in the Schwenkfelder migration of 1734, and with the formation of the Society of the Schwenkfelders in 1786. Blanche and Malcolm Schweiker made sure their children were schooled in those traditions and teachings. The Pennsylvania Dutch were, and are, a plain people who frown on ostentatious displays of wealth, value their religious freedom and recognize the need for the Christian community to help those less fortunate. This cultural platform was taught to all children as they grew up, both at home, and in Sunday School.

Although primarily agricultural the area around Worcester did have several small towns where manufacturing firms grew in the mid to late 1800's. The Heebner Agricultural manufacturing works of Lansdale was a major industrial employer to the north of Worcester, while to the southeast the county seat of Norristown, where famed Civil War General Winfield Scott Hancock was buried, was one of the largest towns in the county.

The town of Lansdale was a growing town that resulted from the introduction of the North Penn Railroad. The railroad connected to Philadelphia and pushed on to Doylestown, the county seat of neighboring Bucks County to the north. Access to the city enabled many to live in the rural areas and commute to work in Philadelphia, or use the train to take produce to market. Lansdale, named after the chief surveyor of the North Penn Railroad, was to become the location of the future American Olean Tile Co. The ceramic tile manufacturing company was the result of the hard work of Richard Schweiker's father, Malcolm, and Malcolm's brother Roy. Originally started as the Franklin Tile Co in 1923 with six employees, the firm was able to survive the economic tumult of the great depression of the 1930's and grow through the 40 and 50's. Eventually it provided employment to Malcolm's son Richard before his entry into politics.

Chapter Two

### Growing up in Worcester

Richard Schultz Schweiker was born June 1, 1926 to Malcolm A. and Blanche Schultz Schweiker. Malcolm, Richard's father, was born on Feb. 27, 1895, in Skippack Township, which is immediately to the west of Worcester Township. Blanche Schultz was three months older than her husband, and was raised in Worcester Township. The family never moved far from her roots after she married Malcolm. Their first home was carved from the Schultz family farm on Skippack Pike. Later in life Malcolm built another home for her on the farm property. The Schultz's were an old and relatively prosperous farm family in the Township and Blanches' father was an important man in the community. Amos Schultz was active with the local school, serving as a member of the Worcester School Directors. The Genealogical Record of the Schwenkfelder Families gives us a bit more information: _"As Secretary of the Worcester School Board, Mr. Schultz was instrumental in raising the Public Schools of Worcester to their present high standard, and succeeded in having the present fine high school building erected."_ 13 Amos had followed much the same pattern as his father William A. Schultz who also was a member of the Worcester School Board, having served over 30 years. William was a director of the Lansdale National Bank and his son Amos served in that capacity as well. Interestingly, the vice president and a fellow director of the Bank was William Heebner, owner of the Heebner Agricultural Machine Company, the largest employer in Lansdale in the 1890's. The Heebner families were also descendents of the Schwenkfelder refugees who had settled in Worcester. William Heebner's father, David S. was an entrepreneurial farmer who set up a machine shop in Worcester to make agricultural machinery: threshers, reapers and horse power equipment. He moved the operation to Lansdale in 1870. David, a Whig and later a Republican, was appointed Lansdale's Postmaster in 1891 by President Harrison. In 1871, when Lansdale was incorporated into a borough he was elected the first Chief Burgess. It can be seen that Richard Schweiker's maternal grandfather and great-grandfather were of some prominence in the area and knew leading men of the region.

Richard was the second of three children. He had an older brother, Malcolm Jr. who was born in February of 1922, and a younger sister, Sylvia. The Schweiker's were a very close knit family, given to hugs and other signs of affection at home. Malcolm Sr. was always met with a hug by the whole family when he returned from work. The affection between the members of the family was evident to friends and neighbors. Growing up in the pre-World War II era was significantly different in many ways from the generations both immediately before them and those who grew up after the war. The Great Depression had an effect on the worldview of many of these individuals, no matter what economic bracket they found themselves in. Those families where the bread winner had a secure job, and were lucky enough to have money in a bank that was solid, were able to find tremendous opportunities as deflation enabled them to get more value for their dollar. But the majority of people where not so lucky, indeed many were just scraping by, going from day-to-day worried about how to feed the family during the week, how to cloth them and making sure they had a roof over their heads.

The pressures on the people of Worcester were typical of most Americans in the period. Everyone knew of families that were experiencing economic difficulties, farms were being foreclosed for back taxes and failure to pay the mortgage. Stories were told of barns that were mysteriously struck by lightning, and insurance companies reluctant to pay the resulting claims, usually this was mentioned as happening in some "neighboring area". Cash was a difficult thing to find during the depression, and those people who had a job made sure they showed effort and interest in it. There was always a line of people angling to get it for themselves. Everyone in the family was expected to chip in and help, including the children.

Much of the school year revolved around the agricultural schedule, so when harvesting season came around some of the schools declared a short holiday so everyone could help, or the farmers simply pulled the kids from school. Many of the "Dutch" failed to see the value of schooling beyond the eighth grade, as late as early in the twentieth century. By the time of the depression, most children in the area were going to the tenth grade and a significant number continued on to graduate high school.

In a traditional "Dutch" farming area, such as Worcester, the idea of children chipping in was nothing new or unique. But during the depression it took on added significance. Children had chores. Richard was expected to haul wood every day to his grandmother's house next door, for the kitchen stove. Richard Schweiker was born into a relatively prosperous family and did not live on a farm. He lived next to his mother's family farm, and was familiar with the daily life of a farm. Living on the farm in this period the children not only helped sow the grain crops, they milked the cows, fed the chickens, and slopped the hogs. In addition, they cared for the small orchard of apple and cherry trees. Walnut trees were favored for the nuts, and the shade they provided.

Behind the farm house, you usually had the vegetable and herb garden and it was in this garden that the younger children were introduced to the joys of weeding. Next to the vegetable garden, or sometimes in it, was the grape arbor, and around the edges of the fields you could find the brambles such as blackberries, raspberries, and if lucky, elderberries which were all used for jelly and jam. Raising sweet corn was a cash crop for the area farm families. The farmers would take it to market, and the young boys would also do their part. Don Benner, Richard's boyhood friend, remembers taking loads of sweet corn to Lansdale and going door-to-door, selling 14 ears for a quarter.

The vegetable patches helped to feed the family throughout the year. The art of canning beets and beans, making jelly and jam, apple butter, pressing apples for cider, butchering the hogs and many other operations took place in the rural area of Worcester every fall. Freezing food was not a viable option for most, as the commercial freezers people had access to were located in Lansdale or Forty Foot Road about four miles to the northwest and cost cash money for space to store your items. In addition, electricity and indoor plumbing was just starting to become popular. Well-to-do farmers might have both, but the use of the outhouse was still common on many farms.

While the farm families had access to fresh foods, they still needed to be part of the market economy, purchasing canning jars, salt, spices, and equipment as well as clothing, shoes and all the other items needed for daily life. The idea of a self sufficient farm is a fantasy, but everyone tried to minimize the need to purchase: they tried to make due. This was a definite cultural characteristic of the Pennsylvania Dutch. " _The Pennsylvania Dutch were legendary for their frugality and extremely modern in their ecology, and the two were intimately related. They had refined to an art the technique of not spending money. Products of land-poor overpopulated Europe, they had spent their lives wringing every ounce of value from the materials they had, for they could not afford to waste"._ 16 With the advent of the depression, these cultural characteristics helped sustain many of the families during the difficult years of the 1930's.

The struggle to acquire the cash needed for purchases proved difficult in an economy in which numerous banks failed and access to credit was practically non-existent. It was a familiar complaint that the only way to get a loan from the bank was if you didn't need it. Many of the local stores, like Allebach's in the main crossroads village of Center Point or Sacks' in the little hamlet of Cedars two miles to the west, gave credit to those families who desperately needed it during the year, hoping to be paid at harvest time. Families had to pull together, and in many cases the extended family lived in close quarters as younger members tended to delay starting their own families. People who lived through this period on the farm tended to be savers of anything that they might need in the future, like empty cans, newspapers, boxes, nails, string, etc. They exhibited a strong sense of responsibility, and a strong work ethic.

Richard and Don Benner used to run a trap line for muskrats along the Zacharius Creek behind the Schweiker house. Malcolm had built the house on property he had purchased from his father-in-law in 1926, right next to the Schultz homestead. The house stood about 100 feet back from the Skippack Pike. Behind the house stood a grain field that sloped down to the creek bed about a quarter mile to the south. The Zacharius was not a large stream, perhaps twenty feet across and only a foot or two deep, which flowed westward towards the Skippack Creek. On the far side of the stream from the Schweiker house the ground rose abruptly. This ground was tree covered; shading the stream in the afternoon. One area at the base of the hill on the far side had a small floodplain where the Boy Scouts pitched their tents. Getting up in the early morning to check the traps before school in November through February became second nature and was not an unusual occurrence for any of the farm boys in the area who did the same thing on streams near their homes. Don Benner remembers the time when the Zacharius was dammed, creating a small lake where their trap line ran, and where the Boy Scouts had traditionally camped; " _Malcolm came up to us and said you boys better get your traps, they called and said they were going to close the dam tonight, we said no we'll get them in the morning it won't fill that fast. Next morning the traps were in three to four feet of water and we had a heck of a time getting them_ ". Trapping for muskrats was a means to get a little cash as the pelts sold for between three and four dollars depending on size and quality.

Richard didn't have to walk to school. There was an old bus that picked him up in front of the Wentz's German Reformed Church only about 200 yards to the west. Richard was lucky in this regard; other kids that lived on the rural farm roads that accessed Skippack Pike had to walk to the church, or somewhere else on the Pike to be picked up. The dirt farm roads were so poorly maintained that the old bus would have incurred significant wear and tear in going back to find the children in the few farms on each road. Better for the kids to walk, exercise being good for growing children, and the bus saved on gas as well. Mr. Heilman began driving the bus in 1917 and earned the princely sum of $27 dollars a month.

The public school Richard attended was only about ½ mile away to the east, in the little crossroads of Center Point, so named because it was the geographical center of Montgomery County. Both Malcolm and Blanche had gone to public school in Worcester, graduating from the eighth grade in 1908, in a one room school house. The Farmers Union Hall in Center Point, the current historical society museum, was converted to a one room high school in 1908 educating up to and including the 10th grade. The building Richard attended was built in 1912, at the instigation of his maternal grandfather, and had four rooms each on two floors. Later two more rooms per floor were added for a total of six per floor with one more in the basement for "manual training" (gym). By the time Richard arrived at the school the basement room had been subdivided to include a shop room where the boys learned the rudiments of woodworking and other trades. One of the new rooms on the upper floors was also converted into a home economics room for the girls. This impressive brick building, the pride of the community, was grandly called the Worcester High School, although it didn't go past 10th grade.

Each of the original rooms in the high school was designed to hold fifty-five students. This is an interesting fact in light of the continuous arguments we hear today about the need for small classes, because "studies prove" that limiting the number of students in a classroom improves the educational experience and result. It is apparent that the "studies" have failed to control for other variables that are affecting this result. The graduates of the Worcester school were well-educated. " _The influence of Worcester school was tremendous for me and for Richard too. In little Worcester school I had three teachers, of which Harold Kerper was one, and two others that were as good as any I had_ _in high school and college. Everyone who went from Worcester to Norristown High School did well. I attribute that to the caliber of the teaching at the school."_ 20 Harold Kerper was the math teacher. The school offered many other subjects, including Latin. The quality of the education offered in the small school with its crowded classrooms of rural farm boys and girls was excellent.

The township had numerous schools at the turn of the twentieth century reduced to just two larger ones, the one in Center Point and the other in Fairview Village, about three miles to the southwest by the time Richard was born. In 1930 the township had a referendum to float a bond to enlarge Center Point's Worcester High School. This was also the first year the township had two voting districts, one in Center Point and one in Fairview Village at the southern end of the township. The referendum won by one vote, with the Fairview Village poll voting against it by about a two-to-one margin. In 1946 the Township closed the Fairview School which consolidated into the Center Point School. School issues were hard fought and contentious, even then. Politics would not have been unfamiliar to Richard growing up in the Schultz clan.

While times were hard during the depression and many struggled with the demand of making a living in difficult circumstances, it was not all stress and hard work. The boys growing up in Worcester had an organized group that many joined: the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts had a strong troop in Worcester and it was supported by the community. The town of Skippack, several miles to the west didn't have a troop so the Worcester troop organized a patrol there. Malcolm Schweiker and, later, Andrew Lewis Sr. were active in the scouts, primarily in the organizational aspects, not only with the boys but with the funding. Richard's older brother, Malcolm Jr., was a leader in the troop and became an Eagle Scout in 1938. Richard and his friend Don Benner were both active in the troop. They did the things that are regarded as typical of Boy Scouts: camping, hikes, outdoor cooking, and earning merit badges as they learned the crafts and ideals that the Boy Scouts promoted. Camping out was always an experience for the boys, but it was one that they had been doing since they were young. Richard remembers sleeping over at the neighbors across from Wentz's Church: " _They had an old chicken coop and we used to go over and sleep out in the summer"_ 22 City folk have a difficult time understanding the ambience of that type of experience for a young boy.

Most of the scouts got to their meeting by bicycle. In fact, the bicycle was the method of transportation for just about all the kids in the township, even those who were old enough to get a license. A new bicycle with balloon tires could be had for $27.95 from Blocks in Norristown, which had an installment plan, $1.00 a week, which the Blocks' salesman arrived to collect. When they were allowed, Richard and his friend Don used to ride their bikes to the Lansdale movie theater on Saturday afternoon.

The movie theater was an important form of entertainment in the period of the depression, and many of the films impacted the youth of the period. The year 1939 provided many memorable films for the youth of the country. Classics such as, **Gone with the Wind, Stagecoach, Beau Geste, Drums along the Mohawk, The Wizard of OZ, and Wuthering Heights,** among others, appeared from Hollywood. The star system of the production studios was in full development and actors and actresses such as, Clark Gable, Laurence Olivier, James Stewart, Greta Garbo, Vivian Leigh, Olivia DeHavilland, Greer Garson and many others were household names to members of the more-worldly Pennsylvania Dutch. One movie that really impressed Richard was **Mr. Smith Goes to Washington** with Jimmy Stewart, which also was produced in 1939. _"Donald Benner and I rode our bikes over to the Lansdale Theater to see it and I was so impressed. The interesting thing about it was it got me really watching politics. When I did get involved in politics I got a chance to go to the White House and meet Jimmy Stewart. So I shook hands with him and said: 'You got me started in this"_ 23 It is possible to see how Richard would be impressed with the story; Jimmy Stewart plays a naïve Boy Ranger leader who is appointed to the Senate to fill an opening and discovers corruption there. Richard's older brother was an Eagle Scout and Richard was working hard on his merit badges, such as citizenship, at the same time. The parallels are interesting. **Mr. Smith Goes to Washington** promoted the notion of service to the country and it emphasized the need to do the right thing, even when those in power opposed you. The Boy Scout oath was not empty words to Richard and the Boy Scouts of the Worcester troop. It was a creed that they recognized and believed in.

The area of the old trap line on the Zacharius, at the foot of the Schultz farm property, became an overnight camping ground. The scout master for the Worcester Troop was Clifford Brunt who worshipped at Wentz's German Reformed Church where the troop originally met. All Cliff's young male relatives were involved and when Cliff got married to Wilda (who became Wentz's church organist for more than 40 years) all the boys said scouting just wasn't the same. After some time it was decided that they meet in a non-religious setting, so as not to favor one church over another and the Farmers Union Hall in Center Point became the meeting hall for the scouts. Richard's father Malcolm was instrumental in getting the scouts the use of the hall and paid for the renovations necessary to enable the scouts to meet there. Richard's experiences in Boy Scouting had a profound effect on his life.

Growing up in the tiny community of Worcester, Pa., Richard Schultz Schweiker seized on one of the few available outlets for his youthful steam: Scouting.

" _Back in those days, in a rural area, there was nothing else," said Schweiker, a former senator and congressman and former secretary of health and human services._

" _Attaining Eagle rank was really an achievement in my time. It meant a lot in the community."_

Collecting tin cans and newspapers for the war effort instilled in Schweiker a lasting commitment to his community and country.

" _It gave me a dedication to others and to my community. I clearly remember feeling a great sense of patriotism. That helped shape my life."_

It's not surprising that Schweiker derived the most pleasure from earning the Scout merit badge titled "Citizenship in the Community."

" _It meant going around meeting local government officials and getting quizzed on that," said Schweiker, president of the American Council of Life Insurance. "That's what got me started leaning toward government."_ 25

The three local township supervisors that Richard would have talked to during the 1940s included Jacob Kriebel, Allan A. Myers, and Russell Place (who would serve for more than 40 years). Allan A. Myers founded Allan A. Myers and Son in 1939. Today it is a division of American Infrastructure Corporation (a heavy civil construction company) whose chairman is A. Ross Myers, grandson of Allan. The firm employed over 2000 people in 2007, and is the largest heavy civil construction company in the mid-Atlantic region. Richard would have talked with his local Republican committee woman, Mayme Rothenberger. Mayme would have a significant impact on his subsequent career in politics. Having earned his requisite merit badges, Richard received his Eagle Scout rank in 1943, the year before he graduated high school. Richard understood that the community valued the institution of the Boy Scouts and earning the Eagle Scout rank was an achievement that the township prized. Today there are a series of plaques in the township meeting hall in Fairview Village that lists all the Eagle Scouts from Worcester's troop, including Malcolm A. Schweiker Jr. and Richard Schultz Schweiker.

The boy scouts were only one of the important elements in Richard's life growing up in Worcester. Another was his church. Richard was raised in the Schwenkfelder Church which at this time utilized two small buildings for the local congregants to worship in. The Worcester building was about two miles southeast of Center Point, on a sloping piece of property in the corner of the township. The small congregation held services on alternating weeks with the Towamencin Schwenkfelder church, located just to the north of Worcester in Towamencin Township. The small church building in Towamencin would be demolished eventually by the northeast extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The two congregations were small and shared a pastor, necessitating the alternate week plan.

" _There was never an excuse not to go to Sunday school and Church! Mother was head of the primary department, which went up to high school, I think for forty years, it probably wasn't that long, but it seemed like it"_ 27 While the Pastor would alternate church buildings for worship services, the individual church members would still attend Sunday School at their respective churches, and then travel to the other building, if it was not their Sunday.

It was a dream of Richard's grandfather, Amos Schultz, to build a building somewhere in between the two so that all members could worship together every Sunday. Implementing this dream of a church building large enough to hold all the congregants fell to Malcolm Schweiker Sr. Malcolm had a scale model of the future church building placed in the basement of the house, and was head of the building committee. Action on the church was not taken during the war years, but in1948 the committee started again. This became a particularly important project for both Malcolm and Blanche, who had been devastated by the death of their oldest son, Malcolm Jr., in combat on Okinawa. Eventually the dream was realized when the impressive Central Schwenkfelder Church was finished in 1951, about ½ mile to the north of Center Point on the Valley Forge Road. Malcolm made the decision that the entire building campus needed to be built at one time to preserve the integrity of the architect's design.

The church obtained pledges and held a series of turkey suppers as fund raisers. The suppers were run like a military operation with Malcolm Schweiker Sr. and Mayme Rothenberger in charge. When the fund raising efforts, including the turkey suppers, were insufficient to build both the church and the multipurpose room, the Schweiker family pledged the additional $250,000.00 necessary for its completion. The room was dedicated in memory of Malcolm Schweiker Jr. Malcolm Sr. had the pleasure of having his daughter, Sylvia, be the third person married in the new church in 1951. The church continued having the turkey suppers for years to help pay off the costs of the Church Sanctuary.

Christianity was extremely important to the family, as it was for most of the Pennsylvania Dutch. The Dutch culture expected certain traits to be demonstrated by its members, including humility, charity, strength of character, and being people on which you could depend on in times of trouble. The Schwenkfelder Church helped their own when members got into difficulties. Missionary work was supported by the congregations. Sunday was a day of rest and for visiting relatives and friends. Many young families headed to the house of the family patriarch for supper and the children played with the extended family members of their age or were relegated to supervising the younger ones so the adults could talk and reminisce. This day with the family had an important function that was more cultural than familial. It was here that the traditions of the culture were passed on without being deliberately taught or imposed. The reminiscing and stories that were told, the anecdotes related, and figures of speech used, all functioned as a means of passing on the wisdom of the senior members of the family to the younger ones. When the children became older and reached the young adult stage they were gradually admitted into the discussions. In addition, when the children reached the age of about 13, many decided to formally join the church into which they had been baptized as an infant. This rite of passage helped to develop a sense of belonging in the young adults, and encouraged the older members of the extended family to converse and help mold them into mature adults that the family and the community would take pride in, as they became the leaders in the coming decades. The "Blue Laws" in the state of Pennsylvania kept most commercial activity closed on Sunday. The Pennsylvania Dutch culture expected you to not only understand why, it expected agreement.

Malcolm Sr. was an extremely religious man and devoted a significant amount of time to his church and his charitable endeavors. In 1958, M.A. (as he was known) was honored by the local Lansdale Chamber of Commerce as "Man of the Year": _"... Mr. Schweiker was being honored because of his participation in many civic and community projects, along with his personal support of many youth projects and scholarships. At the present time M.A. is active in the affairs of the Central Schwenkfelder Church of Worcester, Valley Forge Boy Scout Council, Perkiomen School, Girl Scouts, Schwenkfelder Library and others"_ 29 _._ The achievements of his father and his older brother gave Richard a lot to emulate.

In 1942 Richard attended Norristown High School in Norristown, PA, about six miles to the southeast of his home. Since Worcester did not provide transportation it was the responsibility of the student to arrive at the school on time by his own means. Many of the students went to Norristown, several went to Lansdale and a few went to Collegeville for their last two years of high school. Richard's friend Don Benner went to Lansdale as he had relatives in the town where he could stay if the weather got bad or he had a transportation problem. Don says they still remained close friends and did some double-dating on Saturday nights. But he _"found out that a lot of the girls I was dating were going because we were double-dating with Richard"_.30 Richard was a handsome young man, from a well-to-do family in a small rural area. The girls knew he was a "catch". The change from rural Worcester High School to Norristown High School was significant in terms of the number of students in the same grade, as well as the sporting teams. Richard had played baseball at Worcester, and in his best game " _I had a home run, a triple and a double. I was a better batter than fielder. I played right field. Then I went to Norristown and was on the JV Team, and Tommy Lasorda was on the JV team with me. We went to school together. We both went out for the senior team and neither one of us made it. Now because my father had built a tennis court between our two houses (Malcolm's and Blanches' parents) I grew up playing tennis. So I switched to tennis and Carl Earner and I became the undefeated doubles champions of the Philadelphia suburban high schools, including Lower Merion and Abington."_ 31

Richard was an excellent student and graduated as the valedictorian of his class in 1944. The Second World War proved to be a major influence on the students at this time. Many students had relatives in the armed services, and all citizens were involved in helping the war effort or were experiencing life-style changes caused by shortages and rationing. Richard made mention of the impact the war was having in his valedictory address to the class at graduation day in May1944 _: "Today, like the youth of other years, we stand at the cross road and survey the far horizons where at some time we hope to find or to build a world where our dreams will come true. However the grim realities of a country at war and our future part in it cause us to be more concerned with the immediate present than with the dreams of the future."_

It is apparent that Richard had been doing some deep thinking about service to our country and the need to sacrifice, if needed. As he pointed out in later years there was a great felling of patriotism in the early 1940's, both before the war and during it: _"Collecting tin cans and newspapers for the war effort instilled in Schweiker a lasting commitment to his community and country._ _"It gave me a dedication to others and to my community. I clearly remember feeling a great sense of patriotism. That helped shape my life."_ .

In addition to pointing out in his comments as valedictorian that the youth who were asked to sacrifice for the country did so willingly, Richard stated that they should also be given the chance to have a say in the peace that followed.

" _We hear another challenge to youth asking, 'Are you willing to help rebuild the world, to bring forth a new organization out of this chaos, for the uplift and benefit of man?' Yes, we are willing! But more than this we demand the right to establish the kind of world we want to live in. We are of the generation that gave some of the best years of our lives, and after this war we will give a large part of the rest of our lives in paying for this war which we helped to fight. We demand a fair and just peace, not only for the benefit of ourselves, but for all mankind...._

_We want our country to take an active part in avoiding future wars. We want our country to use the talents of its people, its resources, its amazing technical and productive ability, not for waging wars and for the destruction of mankind, but for the preservation of broad liberties and freedom of all peoples, for the provision of healthful environments and ample educational facilities for the underprivileged, for the development of a greater willingness to seek spiritual guidance, and for the establishment of a lasting peace worthy of the dignity of man and the blessings of God"._ 34

In the years to come, Richard decided to act on that thought by becoming more involved in the politics of the local area and then by seeking elected office.

It was impossible for anyone to remove themselves from the reports and effects of the war. All families were praying for its speedy conclusion. Richard's family was no different than millions of others in the country. His older brother Malcolm had graduated from Worcester, Norristown High, and attended Valley Forge Military Academy in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania nine miles to the south. On graduation from Valley Forge in 1939, Malcolm Jr. had the opportunity to be appointed to West Point or Annapolis, but instead chose to go to Rutgers University in New Jersey, where he earned a degree in Ceramic Engineering in 1943. At Rutgers, Malcolm Jr. was a cadet colonel and regimental commander of the cadets, editor in chief for three years of "The Scarlet Letter", captain of the lacrosse and soccer teams, vice president of student council and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Malcolm Jr. was an inspirational leader, smart, dedicated, and the pride of his parents. The eldest son of Malcolm and Blanche Schweiker was headed for a very rewarding career at his fathers' company: The Franklin Tile Company in Lansdale, PA.

It was not to be. Following graduation from Rutgers, Richard's elder brother joined the army and attended officer's candidate training school at Fort Benning, Georgia. He was retained there as an instructor for fourteen months until early 1945, when he was assigned to a replacement unit and shipped to the Pacific. Lieutenant Malcolm A. Schweiker Jr. of the U.S. Army was killed during the battle for Okinawa on April 12, 1945.

The shock of receiving that telegram from the war department was intense for the close knit family. It was a blow that in many ways Malcolm and Blanche never recovered from, although their strong Christian faith helped them. The oldest son was gone and their surviving son was also in the armed forces. Richard had put off his continuing education and signed up for the Navy prior to graduation from high school. After graduation from High School the Navy sent him to train in communications technology in a Chicago school and then assigned him to the newly commissioned aircraft carrier Tarawa, as a second class radio technician.

Following his service in the Navy, Richard attended Pennsylvania State University, but his first year was spent at what was then Shippensburg State Teacher's College. With the vast influx of veterans from the war the capacity of Penn State to house the rapidly growing number of students was strained and the university farmed out its freshman class to many of the state colleges in Pennsylvania. Richard was sent to Shippensburg and lived in a small room on the 2nd floor of a house on the main street. By farming the veterans out, Penn State was able to increase its student body by a significant number.

It had always been expected that Malcolm Jr. and Richard would lead the family business or at least that was the hope of the founders. With the death of Malcolm Jr., Richard had the opportunity to rapidly move up in a growing business with his father and uncle. As he puts it _: "I thought my brother would head it and when he died I figured I'll have to be the next one to serve."_ 35 Richard had received a strong background in electrical engineering from his Navy training, and could have gotten two years of college credit in electrical engineering, but with the family business being in ceramics he started off as a ceramic engineering major. After a period in this major he switched to business psychology, which gave him more of a perspective on business management than the production emphasis of ceramic engineering. It was also in this period that Richard became involved in campus politics. He was admitted to Lion's Paw in his senior year and was President of his fraternity. As a member of Lion's Paw, Richard was recognized for his leadership at the University. " _Membership in Lion's Paw is the highest honor accorded an undergraduate student at The Pennsylvania State University. Every year, no more than fifteen students are selected by the unanimous vote of the previous year's class._ _With a longstanding tradition of service and excellence to the Penn State community, members of Lion's Paw Senior Society seek to promote the welfare of the Penn State community and perpetuate the traditions of the University."_ 36

It was here at Penn State that he started to learn how to operate politically, taking business courses that tied into testing public opinion surveys and statistics. In addition Richard was captain of the debate team at Penn State, training which helped him immensely in his subsequent political career. Following graduation, Phi Beta Kappa, from Penn State, however, the tile business was his next step.

Richard had to conduct himself the same as any other employee, something he had realized while growing up and seeing how his father and uncle ran the business. Even as a youngster he knew what was expected of an employee. Don Benner remembers asking him as a kid when they were playing with their toy trucks on their "ceramic tile" roads in the basement if he was going to be the boss of the business some day: _"Richard said, 'one thing I know; I'll have to prove myself first'"_ 37

Richard moved back to Worcester after college and developed a political connection almost immediately. Richard approached a fellow member of the Schwenkfelder church with a request that he be endorsed for a run as Republican committeeman in Worcester's East district. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this member was the Republican Committeewoman in the district. Mrs. Mayme Rothenberger had first been elected as committeewoman in 1932 and actually held the post until 1960. Mayme was in the process of becoming a powerhouse of political influence for Worcester in Montgomery County. In 1951 she was elected Register of Wills in the county, a post she served in until 1967. Perhaps more importantly for Richard's subsequent political career, she was a Republican state committeewoman for Montgomery County in 1958-1960, when Richard decided to run for Congress. Richard ran for Committeeman in 1950 and not surprisingly he won. It was a position he held until 1955, when he moved to Lansdale after getting married. Being a committeeman at Richard's age was uncommon and he joined with other young committee people and those interested in the party as a founding member of the Young Republicans of Montgomery County. He rapidly moved up in the organization and was President from 1952-1954.

The post of committeeman is the entry level elected position within the party and provides the individual the opportunity to have a say in endorsements and selection of candidates to run for elected office. The primary responsibility is knowing the voters in the district and getting them to accept the party candidates, while providing the officials of the party with an understanding of what the voters desire in that selection process. The position brings the committee person into contact with the power brokers in the party. The more active you are the more attention you can attract to yourself, if you are interested in a larger political career. The committeemen and women in the period, as today, were expected to know their constituents, to be known by them, and to develop a level of trust with them such that the voters accepted the committee person recommendations. The job involved walking the district, talking with the residents, bringing them information on the endorsements, and handing out the list of recommended candidates on a green ballot, showing their position on the actual ballot on Election Day.

The Election Day effort was a grueling and yet enjoyable time, starting about ½ hour before the polls opened up at 7:00 A.M. The committeeman and woman started by putting up posters, signs, and getting the sample ballot displayed. They focused on getting the green ballot of recommended candidates into the voter's hands until the polls closed at 8:00 PM. Usually the committeeman and committee woman would cover for each other so they could head home for lunch or dinner, but during the hours of heavy traffic both would work the polls. In addition they would keep track of who had voted during the day, and by 5:00 at night one of them would be getting on the telephone to call those who hadn't shown up, urging the voters to come and support the party candidates. After the close of the polls at 8:00 PM, the signs, posters and other items had to come down and they would listen to the tally of the votes for their polls. When they had the tally, they needed to report to the party headquarters where they were busy counting the totals to determine if the endorsed candidates had won. Twice a year the Committee people got to see all their neighbors and catch up on the local news that their neighbors wanted to know about, or were willing to provide information on.

During this period Montgomery County was a solidly pro-business Republican area, so the local endorsed candidates usually won. The Montgomery County Republican organization had a party on election night to celebrate and calculate the margins, and the committee people were expected to attend. It was a chance to mingle with the county chairman, the elected officials of the party and generally relax after the strains of the long day. By getting to know the state committee people, municipal and area leaders, county chairman and elected officials, they advanced their political career.

If you were a hard worker, expressed an interest, and solicited the County Chairman, you might be elected at the primary (in the spring) as delegate to a national convention in a presidential election year, or you could simply go and enjoy the festivities of a convention without being a delegate, if you had both the time and the funds. Richard was able to attend the 1952 Republican convention as an alternate delegate when Dwight Eisenhower was nominated for President. He was also an alternate delegate to the 1956 convention. Alternate delegates got to enjoy all the events, but could not vote unless a voting delegate withdrew.

This was an exciting time for Richard as President of the young Republicans in Montgomery County. He was beginning the journey into a political career, but he was still relatively unknown. Richard gladly accepted the offer of alternate delegate in 1952. His fellow alternate delegate was Frank Binswanger of Philadelphia, who was a large donor to the party. 1952 was an exciting year for the Republican Party as two well known men were competing to represent the party in the November election as the Presidential candidate: Dwight David Eisenhower and Robert A. Taft (Son of former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft).

This was a bitter and difficult fight between the conservative Taft and the eastern establishment under Dewey who convinced Eisenhower to run. Pennsylvania Governor Fine was attempting to play kingmaker with the delegation from Pennsylvania and arranged for the delegation to meet separately with Eisenhower and Taft. Eisenhower had just purchased his farm in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and invited the delegation to meet with him there. Taft invited the delegation to meet with him at the Hotel Hershey in Hershey Pennsylvania. The delegation met first with Eisenhower _. "The farm had just been bought, it hadn't been refurbished and all they had for the delegation was old wooden picnic tables on his lawn. It was just a typical Pennsylvania Dutch farm, like the kind I grew up with. Frank Binswanger and I got to know each other, being alternates. But we didn't know anyone else. All the media circled around Eisenhower, Governor Fine, Senator Duff and Senator Martin. We were totally isolated, so we decided to sit on one of the wooden benches at an empty picnic table. Eisenhower gets done talking to the delegates and the press, so lo and behold he decides to come and sit at our table, with the two guys who can't vote. He sat right down across from me, the World War II general. I didn't really know what to say, it was a hot sunny day and he was balding; so he said excuse me and pulls out a bottle of sun tan lotion and rubs it on his head. That made us feel at home and we started talking. His slogan for the campaign was "I like Ike". He said to us: I want to show you a pin I just got; someone just gave it to me. It said "Mamie likes Ike too". That was the first time he wore it. After seeing his actions and later seeing a similar meeting with Taft, there was no comparison, I knew the Pennsylvania delegation was going to go for Eisenhower"_ 38 It was quite an introduction to national politics for the twenty-six year old, who was the youngest member of the delegation. In 1956 Richard served on the Montgomery County Campaign Committee and became its chairman in 1958.

Richard discovered he had a passion for politics, for helping people, and for public service. _"It came from his roots, and what you do as a young person is indicative of what you are going to do as a senior. And that will never leave you, if you can keep your roots. Richard had those roots"_ 40 The moral codes of the Boy Scouts, the religious training of the Schwenkfelders, the closeness of the family, all contributed to making sure Richard was firmly grounded and that his roots in the culture were strong. The contacts developed in this decade, together with Mayme's support would help Richard immensely in 1960 in his run for United States Congressman. As Richard pondered his role in politics he kept thinking about a quote from Plato that impressed him with its wisdom: _The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by people worse than themselves._ It was becoming increasingly apparent: Mr. Schweiker wanted to go to Washington.

Chapter Three

### American Olean Tile Co.

Richard S. Schweiker grew up knowing his predecessors at the American Olean Tile Company of Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Richard's father and uncle started The Franklin Tile Company in 1923. The "tile" as it was known in the community of Lansdale was an important employer: for a time the largest employer in the town. For years the tile provided summer jobs at a very good wage for Worcester youth going to college, enabling many working class and farm families for the first time to educate their sons and daughters beyond the high school level. Malcolm A Schweiker and his younger brother Roy W. had both graduated from the Williamson Trade school in Media, PA and were trained as bricklayer (Malcolm) and carpenter (Roy). The full name of the school is the Williamson Free School of Mechanical Trades, and it was founded in 1888 by the philanthropic gift of Isaiah Williamson, a wealthy Philadelphia merchant. " _The founding of The Williamson Free School with a two million dollar endowment was one of his last charitable acts before he died in 1889. Upon founding the School, he directed through a deed of trust that the Quaker ideals of hard work, honesty, religious faith, and modest lifestyle be instilled in the students. In his own words, he said that "in this country every able-bodied, healthy young man who has learned a good mechanical trade, and is truthful, honest, frugal, temperate, and industrious, is certain to succeed in life, and to become a useful and respected member of society."_ 41

Opening in 1891 the school offered three-year programs in bricklaying, carpentry, machine shop, and pattern-making. The school, designed for youth of high school age, was free of charge to the students. To quote the school's current web page: " _His purpose in founding the School was to provide financially disadvantaged young men with the opportunity to become productive and respected members of society"._ 42 In both Malcolm and Roy Schweiker Isaiah had found both his ideal students and affirmation of his concept of making "productive and respected members of society". Malcolm and Roy Schweiker embodied the ideals of hard work, honesty, religious faith, and modest lifestyle that Isaiah wanted instilled in his students. Isaiah claimed that they were Quaker ideals. They were, but they were also the ideals of the Pennsylvania Dutch culture from which Malcolm and Roy had emerged. The Schweiker family had insufficient means to send either son to college, but Williamson offered them an opportunity to improve their living status. " _People think: 'Oh trade school'; they had to wear white shirts and ties. They had to go to church services every morning and they also learned Latin. They loved that school and both helped it out over the years. It taught him (Malcolm) at lot. There were a lot of other Williamson people who ended up at the tile as well"_ 43 In 1959 Richard's uncle Roy was honored by Williamson with the Isaiah Vansant Williamson Award, and in 1972 he received the Williamson Alumni of the Year award.

As bricklayer and carpenter, the brothers were called on to set ceramic tiles in their construction work. In the early 1920s Malcolm and Roy were working for themselves in the construction trade and experiencing difficulty in getting tile to finish their jobs. At the time ceramic tile production had not changed significantly in thousands of years. They were purchasing their tile from a tile company near Pittsburgh. Malcolm visited the plant to discover what the problem was in getting product. Malcolm did not have a degree in mechanical engineering, but he was quite smart when it came to the subject. " _He walked through the plant out there and he saw a number of things that could be speeded up and changed and he kept telling the owner of the plant: If you do this you can make more tile and if you do that it will help. By the end of the weekend the owner of the company said: "Would you like a job?", so they hired him to be the superintendent of that plant. He left Uncle Roy with the construction business and for a couple of years he supervised that plant, producing more tile. After a year or so he realized it was foolish to stay out there, he needed to go back east and build his own tile works. That's the real reason they started the tile company, because they weren't getting enough tile for their jobs."_ 45

The brothers recognized the need for a quality ceramic tile product at a reasonable price, and the economic potential of such an operation, and in October of 1923 they opened their new tile company. The two brothers set-up shop in an abandoned cannery building in Lansdale. _"When Franklin Tile was founded, the capital investment was $55,000 and the total number of personnel, from top to bottom, was eight. It was a shirt-sleeve operation, with Malcolm personally designing the kiln and other equipment and managing the business end of things. Roy was primarily responsible for production and the marketing of the company's products. It was a successful melding of talents, and within four years the company's capitalization had increased to $1,500,000 and the employment rose to 350."_ 46 The two brothers worked together extremely well. The name Franklin Tile was chosen because of Roy's admiration for Benjamin Franklin. The company trademark was a picture of Franklin walking with a cane.

The brothers focused on manufacturing a quality product and watched every penny to make sure they eked out a profit every year. Richard's father Malcolm was instrumental in designing machinery and processes to create tile to exacting tolerances, helping to insure a uniform sized (4 ¼" x 4 ¼") finished tile. This improved the productivity of the tile setter as he did not have to hand select pieces in a tile box to fit together in a straight line. All the pieces fit. _"In the beginning Malcolm Schweiker personally designed the kiln, and would remain in the evening to fire the square kiln and take care of business management-often times sleeping in the office at night."_  The dedication to providing a quality product was combined with the willingness to work hard to achieve success. The laboratory experimented with the ingredients of the tile, to make sure the shrinkage of the tile during the firing process was uniform, again giving a boost to the productivity of the plant by making sure that all products leaving the plant would be the same size as that which was ordered.

The well-earned reputation for attention to quality became synonymous with Franklin Tile, and the care the Schweiker brothers took of their operation paid dividends. Most ceramic wall tile is glazed so that it resists stains and water absorption. At the time the Franklin Tile Company was founded this process took five days and two firings of the tile to make the piece. The end result was durable, but problems developed with the coating of glaze that was fired on the tile. Since the glaze cured at a different temperature than the ceramic and it expanded or contracted at a different temperature, it resulted in a finish that went by the name of "crazing" or "cobwebs". The glaze developed fine lines or cracks in the finish that were very noticeable, hence the name cobwebs. The industry and every tile manufacturer in the country had the same problem. It was expected, and considered the nature of tile and not a defect.

During its early years the Franklin Tile Company spent many hours experimenting and working on materials and processes that addressed these problems. The problem of "crazing" in the tile was a result of the variations in shrinkage caused by the firing of the tile and the glaze. The company discovered that if you added a mineral called pyropylite to the ceramic mix the tile did not shrink significantly. This addition enabled the company to mold tile to the desired size and stop the problem of crazing, resulting in a uniform and smooth finish to the tile. Pyropylite is similar to talc. The company purchased a small company, in Glendon North Carolina, called Carolina Prophylite, to ensure their supply of the material.

The uniformity of their tile dimensions and the finished color of their tile greatly increased the productivity of the tile contractor as the tile setters could simply grab the tile out of the box and be assured it was to size and the shade of the color was the same as the others in the box. In addition to the uniform size of the tile the brothers developed what they called "self spacers" that helped to dramatically increase the productivity of the tile layer and make it substantially easier to lay the tile correctly. Tile laying at the time was a laborious task that called for precision and training if the finished wall was to be sharp and acceptable to the client. The process had previously entailed placing string on the wall in a cross hatch pattern so the tile could be placed straight on the wall between the string. The string was later removed and grout was placed where the string had originally been. This enabled the tiles to line up in a straight fashion and be geometrically precise. Franklin Tile recognized this problem and designed a way to line it all up with the one piece of tile, the "self spacer". A tile was created that had two nubs, or tips, on each side, located below the gout line when placed on the wall. When the tile was cemented to the wall the nubs would match up and allow the tile to be exactly spaced so the strings were not needed. This had the result of cutting the time to create a tile wall significantly. It also allowed contractors to create a beautiful tile wall without having to be master technicians in tile.

By helping the contractors lower their costs, the company was able to build its brands' reputation. In a distantly related industry Thomas Edison was experimenting with longer kilns for the production of Portland cement, and in 1909 was granted a patent on a 150 ft kiln which eventually had implications for the brothers in ceramic production.

In 1929 the brothers were ready to introduce a new procedure to cut the time of production by over one half: the one fire tunnel kiln. Rather than a five-day process, the one fire Kiln created tiles in just two days. This achievement, combined with a "cushion edge" rounding of the edge of the tile, revolutionized ceramic tile manufacturing, just in time for the Great Depression. The cushion edge that Franklin tile created was simply rounding off the edges of the 4 ¼" x 4 ¼" tile. By doing this they enhanced the beauty of the tile wall, as grouting became less of a problem. Now the tiler could grout the seams between the tile and the appearance was more uniform than when the tile had square edges and the grout had to line up exactly so there was no overlap on the face of the tile. The company history describes the achievement this way: " _a handful of proper tile-body material shaped to its finished size on a tile press, then coated with a glaze, sent into a kiln, baked at over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit-where the glaze lay on the soft tile like melted honey-then brought down in temperature, the tile and the glaze shrinking at the same rate and hardening into a compact mass that would shrink or expand under varying conditions as a single, compatible, non-cobwebbing unit"._ 48 In the summer of 1982 Roy Schweiker remembered it this way: " _Another mixing, making, and baking accomplishment occurred in 1929 when Franklin Tile Company, a small inexperienced company in an industry dominated by large companies, developed and introduced one-fire, no shrinkage, cushion-edged tile. That explosion really shook up the industry. Tile contractors and the public liked it"_ 49 _._

In 1929 the company broke ground for a brand new facility on a 30 acre parcel of land just outside of Lansdale. The facility was based around the concept of the one fire kiln and represented the core building which would be added onto for decades to come. The brothers designed it to be added onto; they were always thinking ahead, planning for expansion. When they began to expand dramatically, in the boom after the Second World War, the space and layout allowed them to add new tunnel kilns at a rapid pace, with little disruption to current production. They created the plant much like Henry Ford had done for the automotive industry and Andrew Carnegie did for the steel industry. The raw materials would arrive at one end of the plant and the finished goods would leave at the other end. The plant was positioned so the additions would parallel the original kiln, allowing additional kilns without having to redesign the raw material and finished goods sections. With the radical new one-fire tunnel kiln technology, the cushion edge, and the pyrophylite non shrink tile, the Franklin Tile Company had vaulted past its competitors to produce a uniform sized tile that did not have the crazed or cobweb feature of its competitors. Instead it had a smooth even finish that enhanced the natural attractiveness of the ceramic product. The one-fire tunnel kiln eventually was adopted by all tile manufacturers, but in 1929 Franklin had stolen a march on its competitors. Utilizing some of the technology Thomas Edison pioneered to produce his large cement kilns, the Schweiker's were able to go from the square kiln to the tunnel kiln of 280 ft. While the kiln was different in that the tile passed through it on a cart on rails, much like a train goes through a tunnel, the heating and cooling process had similarities.

Expanding just at the outset of a recession, or in the case of 1929, the outset of the Great Depression is normally not a recipe for success. But the Schweiker's were able to persevere and grow their company. Times were tough and that placed strains on the company, but Franklin Tile never experienced a year in which they didn't make a profit. The profits might be very meager, but profits there were. What makes this truly impressive was the fact that during the Great Depression of the 1930's Franklin Tile did not lay off a single employee. Consider that fact, especially in light of management philosophy today, where companies lay people off to pump up quarterly earnings, to the delight of Wall Street and the pain of "main-street". " _From the very beginning, personnel were selected more from the standpoint of character and stability than experience and ability...'ability' being a vague term in the early days in regard to ceramic tile. What management wanted were people they could depend upon to take an interest in their job, learn their trade and progress up the ladder. In turn, management could be depended upon to provide the job and keep it secure. Every man employed by the company was responsible, the brothers figured, for feeding an average of three more people at home, and this, in turn, became Franklin Tile's responsibility. Many contracts were rejected by management because it would have meant adding people for a short term period and then laying them off. No expansion program was undertaken until it had been completely researched, assuring not only a fair return for the company's investment, but continued job stability for every Franklin employee. Every new product, every manufacturing innovation, every move made by management was related, at some point, to the welfare of the employees and the continuance of their jobs. During the Depression, expansion programs were activated to keep people at work. Hours were cut back, jobs were shifted, but not one person was discharged for economic reasons. Not one._ 50

The commitment of the Schweikers to provide for their employees is impressive. Anyone who worked for them understood they were expected to work for the pay they received. It goes back to the expectation of hard work in the Pennsylvania Dutch culture, a respect for the individual, and the belief that as a Christian we are our brother's keeper. Business in late 1929 was clearly having a difficult time, and Franklin Tile was no exception. Roy Schweiker remembers: _"During the depression period of 1929 things really got tough. The market price of glazed tile had been $.65 a square foot and finally bounced on the floor at $.17. More than half the industry failed. Problems everywhere... no business..."little meat left on the bone"... and remaining competition hungrier and greedier than ever."_ 51 In looking at that situation it is probable that Franklin tile was blessed by the ability to produce its new glazed tile in the one-kiln furnace in two days and not have to fire it twice and take five days to do it. The increase in productivity had to have enabled the company to weather the deflation in their selling price by significantly cutting their labor costs per tile. This manufacturing process, along with the ease of application for the cushion edged, self spacer tile allowed increased productivity and decreasing costs for contractors using Franklin Tile products. This combination was invaluable in surviving the period. The fortitude of the Schweiker brothers to persevere through the 1930s without laying off anyone tells a great deal about the values they embodied and the image they provided for the people around them, not only in business, but in the community.

Both Malcolm and Roy valued their employees not just for the work they produced, but for the individuals they were. The humility and temperate nature of both men was reflected in how they managed their company. The previous quote which mentioned that they didn't lay anyone off in the depression has another aspect that also shows their managerial abilities: " _From the very beginning, personnel were selected more from the standpoint of character and stability than experience and ability..."ability" being a vague term in the early days in regard to ceramic tile. What management wanted were people they could depend upon to take an interest in their job, learn their trade and progress up the ladder_ ." By looking for employees that exhibited much the same attitude as they did toward hard work and conscientiousness on the job, they created a culture at the tile that enabled the company to weather the bad times and prosper in the good times. The company built from within. Richard's friend Don Benner went to work for the company after the Second World War, and before Don retired he had worked in and managed every department in the plant. Don worked as plant manager for eighteen years, under National Gypsum and subsequent owners: a fact he attributes to Malcolm Schweiker training him, and insisting that he be held in the job when the company was sold by National Gypsum to Armstrong Industries in the 1980's. As a major stockholder and active participant in the company even in his later years Malcolm understood the need to have someone as plant manager who understood the entire manufacturing process; someone who would maintain the level of quality and customer care that he and Roy had brought to the business.

In 1950 Malcolm's son Richard entered the business after graduating from Penn State University. Richard moved steadily up the management ladder becoming Vice President of Sales by 1960, when he ran for the U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District, which included suburban Montgomery County. Richard was in management, but he was still expected to know the details of the manufacturing process and to "prove himself". The manufacturing process of ceramic tile demands that portions of the 280 foot long kilns reach temperatures of 2150 degrees Fahrenheit. Maintaining these temperatures is not something that can be done in an hour. It takes time to bring them up to temperature, which involves hours and days, not minutes. During the early 1950's when Richard was learning the business the plant had _"three tunnel kilns operating twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, 51 weeks a year... Barring unforeseen conditions the kilns are stopped once a year for repair and improvement..."_ 54 One result of this is that during short holiday periods the kilns needed to be kept running, so that tile could be fired immediately when the workers returned in a day or two, and tile in the kilns could be moved through it. A skeleton staff of two or three was employed during short holidays to make sure the kilns where kept at temperature, within 5 degrees in the various sections, which usually meant checking them every couple of hours. During the night time this tended to be drudgery of the highest degree, so grabbing a couple of hours sleep was accepted, as long as you checked the kilns periodically. A young employee in the early 1950's Cal Hunsberger, who worked in the instrumentation department, remembers being assigned to work one holiday with Richard. There was one cot in the infirmary and Richard said to Cal: "I'll flip you to see who gets the cot and who gets the floor." Cal won the toss and slept on the cot. The boss's son slept on the floor. Cal said: "I still wonder if I should have done that, but I retired from there 39 years later". Another time, Richard decided he wanted some Black Raspberry ice cream one night and Cal went down town to get a quart. They discovered they didn't have an ice cream scoop, didn't have a knife, or a spoon. Cal solved the problem by going back to the machine shop and wiping off a hacksaw to cut the ice cream and carton, in slices. Sometimes it's amazing what the ingenuity of a young American can accomplish.

Malcolm walked the plant every day (as did Roy), until he was physically unable to do so. His method of management was to make sure the employees knew he was there, they could talk with him if they needed to, and that he was thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the production process. He built many of the machines in the plant in the beginning and designed others as time passed. He was not a tall man, but his stature to those employees was immense.

With the death of Malcolm Jr. in Okinawa the future of the family leadership of the tile fell to Richard. Richard's sister didn't have any interest in managing at the tile and her husband was a successful journalist. While Roy had two daughters neither wanted to get actively involved. Eventually one of Roy's son-in-laws did join the management team. By the time Richard entered the family business the company had changed its name from Franklin Tile to American Encaustic Tiling Company. This reflected a merger between Franklin Tile and American Encaustic Tile Company that was finalized in 1948.

" _Franklin Tile's uncommon stability during the early years of the Depression, the quality of its products, its many innovations in manufacturing, the one-fire process, cushion edge tile, straight-line production... its ability to keep men at work, earn a good return for stockholders and manage its affairs properly... had earned the company a great deal of respect both within and outside of the tile industry. In 1934, representatives of the U.S. Reconstruction Finance Corporation asked Malcolm Schweiker if he would assume the presidency and management of the American Encaustic Tiling Company, the countries oldest and largest tile manufacturing company with five plants, a full range of products and a universally good reputation as a quality manufacturer. American Encaustic had not been able to cope with the Depression, now in its fifth year, and the company was perilously close to going out of business completely. Malcolm agreed, and in 1935 American Encaustic was re-organized and funded by a new stock issue and by the continuance of a $600,000 loan granted by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Roy then became President of Franklin and Malcolm remained as a Director."_ 56 Malcolm was able to turn around the struggling company, founded in 1878 and originally from Zanesville, Ohio. He sold off unused plants, and changed policies and production to resemble that used at Franklin. With the advent of the Second World War the American Encaustic plant in Perth Amboy, NJ was leased for the war effort and tile manufacturing ceased. In 1948 American Encaustic sold its plant in Perth Amboy, New Jersey and combined assets with Franklin Tile Company, with the resulting company taking American Encaustic's name.

Encaustic tile is a specialty tile that creates a beautiful effect and means "burned in _". "The word was first used during the time when different colored clays were set into hollow spaces in the tile face and then fired so the design fused with the body and really became burned in"_ 57

Franklin Tile had survived the war by converting much of its production to war time needs: building machinery. " _During World War II, of course, with civilian building construction completely halted and a market for the company's products estimated at about 20% of pre-war volume, the machine shop capability at Lansdale literally supported the company. A small amount of tile continued to be manufactured, but machinery was designed and built to produce large quantities of insulating blocks for marine boilers, precision parts for airplanes and a special type of nose-cone for high explosive shells. The change-over to war production was made with relatively few problems in comparison to those faced by many other companies normally producing products for the building industry. Many employees left for war duty, but as in the Depression, the company's basic stability was never threatened and not an employee was discharged during the war for economic reasons"_ 58

Malcolm and Roy never lost sight of the purpose of the company during the war years and made plans on how they would deal with a return to normalcy after the conflict. They correctly foresaw the expansion of demand that would result from the ending of the war and the lost years of the Depression. In 1944 they began making plans to expand tile manufacturing in Lansdale. In 1946 they expanded the plant in Lansdale, doubling pre-war production capacity. _In 1951 50% more capacity was added and five years latter another plant unit came into production. In 1958 still another unit was added which provided a further increase of 25% in tile-making capacity_ .

This period of growth coincided with the post war boom and the period in which Richard S. Schweiker became actively involved in the firm. Joining the firm in 1950 Richard proved himself by learning the operation from the floor up, _"spending time in varied jobs throughout the plant as a way of getting acquainted with factory work and its operations."_ 61 Both Malcolm and Roy worked with Richard in the management sector to familiarize him with the industry. They placed Richard in the sales arm of the company and in October of 1952 Malcolm, Roy, and Richard attended the annual meeting of the Tile Council of America in Pebble Beach, CA. The Tile Council was an industry organization comprised of 18 tile manufacturers. Roy Schweiker had been President of the organization in 1951.

One of the problems that the company experienced in the 1950's was handed to Richard to solve. The pyrophylite plant in North Carolina was running short on product as the mine was starting to play out. Richard was assigned to find an economical new source for the mineral. Richard had read that the mineral could be found in Newfoundland, Canada. So the chief engineer of the Tile, Les Townsend, and Richard headed to Canada. They flew up in different planes as the company would not allow them both to travel on the same plane. Both planes were forced to land at different airports by bad weather before getting to Newfoundland. Neither knew the other was forced down, both ended up on the same train crossing the Topsail Mountains in a snow storm to Newfoundland. They did find the pyrophylite in Newfoundland and were able to enlarge the mine to assure the supply needed. The port that shipped the pyrophylite from Newfoundland was only open for several months a year due to weather, so the tile built a large building in Lansdale to store the bulk ore, as well as a crushing plant to convert it to powder for mixing with the tile clay.

In June of 1955, Richard was named President of American Olean Tile Company, succeeding his father. At this time American Olean was a joint sales subsidiary of American Encaustic Tiling Company and the Olean Tile Company. The company had been set up around 1930 by the two firms to provide sales and distribution services for their respective brands of tile. Olean manufactured unglazed flooring tiles and American Encaustic manufactured the glazed wall tiles, so they were not competitors, but they sold to the same construction companies. Since Richard was focused on the sale of American Encaustic Tiles it made a natural step up for him, while he still held his position at American Encaustic. In addition, Richard was named a director of another American Encaustic subsidiary: Carolina Pyrophylite of Glendon, North Carolina

The year 1955 was becoming a momentous year for Richard. He was twenty nine years old, a WWII veteran, single, with a good job, excellent prospects, and steady income. Unfortunately, he was still living at home and his parents were giving him increasing signals that it was time to get married and move out. It appeared to be a "failure to launch" in today's parlance. He was dating, but had not found anyone that he was interested in. One day his mother was reading an article in the magazine section of the Philadelphia Inquirer about Miss Claire, of the "Romper Room" a children's Television show. _"Richard, that's the kind of girl you ought to marry. Mom was always trying to get me a date, so I said 'O Mother, forget it' and took the paper and shoved it in my desk drawer in the den and didn't read it. About two or three days later I needed a pencil and went into the drawer, saw the article and read it, it had a picture of Claire and I said that's not too bad. I noticed that it was written by a good friend of mine from the Lansdale Jaycees, Ted Williams, so I had an opening. I called Ted and said you've always kidded me about being a bachelor, get me a blind date with Miss Claire. He finally said he would, and he did."_ 62 The day of the blind date it snowed three or four inches and Blanche said "you shouldn't go, the weather is too bad". Richard wasn't about to let four inches of snow stop him and arrived to hear Claire's mother tell him the weather was too bad to go out so he should stay with the family for a while. _"so on a blind date I went to her living room with her father, her mother, her sister, and her dog, and spent a_ couple _of hours. Finally the snow stopped and they let us go out on our first date, to the Barn restaurant in Wyncote."_  Claire's memory of the situation provides some perspective _. "I had assumed they were not going to use the article, Ted interviewed me in November and it didn't come out in the magazine section until January. Ted called me and I really didn't want to go on a blind date. My father nudged me and said 'That was the best article you'll ever have written about you. The least you can do is go out with his friend. He can't be too bad.' We knew Ted from the train. He got on at Lansdale and saved us seats because we got on in North Hills. So the day of the date my mother says to me, 'give him a call and tell him the weather is too bad to go out'. I couldn't find Richard in the phone book, because I didn't know how to spell "Schweiker". He showed up and my mom said the weather was too bad to go out, I hadn't gotten dressed up and had my Romper Room outfit on; not what I would've worn on a date. That night after Dick left my father said, 'That's the boy you are going to marry'. I said; Daddy, he'll never come back after this"_ 64 So Richard had his mom's approval and Claire had her dad's approval. What more was needed? Six weeks later they were engaged.

In June 1955 the tile plant was informed that _, "Dick Schweiker, administrative assistant is receiving congratulations on his engagement. The bride to be is Claire Coleman, better known to youngsters as TV's Miss Claire, who presides over the "Romper Room" on Channel 6 at 10:00 AM weekdays."_ 65 The Lord moves in mysterious ways at times. For Richard and Claire (and their parents), this was meant to be. Richard was married in September of 1955 and moved a few miles from Worcester to Lansdale with his bride. So Richard met Claire in February, got engaged the end of March, and married in September. He may have waited until he was twenty-nine to find the right one, but when he found his girl he married her, and five children and over fifty years later he still considers it his best decision.

On March 28, 1956 Richard was elected vice president of American Encaustic Tiling Company at the annual meeting of the AE shareholders at the New York Office. On April 17, 1957 Richard was elected to the Board of Directors, making a total of eleven members on the board. In 1957 a new addition was also added to the Schweiker family when Dick welcomed his son Malcolm Coleman Schweiker into the world. It was apparent, however, that Richard was not satisfied with his role as a businessman. The amount of time and interest he was giving to politics was not decreasing. If anything it was increasing, and he felt called to public service.

In 1958 Malcolm and his brother Roy made a decision on the status of American Encaustic Tile that in many ways freed Richard to make the move to a political career. The American Encaustic Tile company was facing increased competition from foreign suppliers and needed to expand their capabilities. After considerable thought and discussion the founders made the decision to merge their company with National Gypsum Company. National Gypsum was a larger corporation that specialized in making wallboard. The Schweiker brothers were left to manage the tile business, which was augmented with the addition of two other tile companies and changed its official name to the American Olean Tile Company.

Chapter Four

### Drew Lewis

In the early 1940's Malcolm and Roy Schweiker were attempting to convert their businesses for war production and deal with the economic dislocations caused by the war. Malcolm's mother and father-in-law had passed away and his brother-in-law had moved out of the family farmhouse located next to his home. Malcolm rented the farmhouse to a businessman with three children, Andrew L. Lewis Sr., who was beginning a new career. Andrew's son would eventually become an important individual in the lives of many of the people in the area.

Andrew L. Lewis Jr. grew up as the son of a successful businessman. His father had worked as a salesman and General Manager for a large quarry in nearby Whitemarsh Township: G. & W. H. Corson Inc. Corson's Lime Quarry is called Highway Materials today and is the oldest continuously worked quarry in the nation. The lime deposits of this area were originally discovered during the time of William Penn who ordered a road built from the area to the port on the Delaware River. The road, called Limekiln Pike, is a major regional road today.

With the early industrialization of the area, numerous other roads were built, facilitating movement from the hinterlands of suburban Philadelphia into the city. Germantown Pike, which existed as early as 1687, Bethlehem Pike, which was developed to facilitate the hauling of lime in 1698, Ridge Pike, opened in 1706 to provide a connection between the Wissahickon and Perkiomen Creeks, and Skippack Pike, first used in 1713. These roads, which radiated out from Philadelphia like the spokes of a wheel, proved crucial to the development of the farms in Worcester. Two of the roads, Germantown Pike and Skippack Pike, transverse the Township.

Corson's Lime quarry also contributed to the rapid increase in railroad transportation in early America. " _According to Norman O. Mueller, a spokesman for the Reading Co. Technical and Historical Society, the Plymouth Railroad built a line from Conshohocken to the Corson quarry in Whitemarsh in the late 1830s and extended it to Oreland in the late 1860s. The Reading Railroad acquired the line in 1870_ ".

In 1943 Andrew Lewis Sr. left his position with Corson's to become a partner in the construction company run by a golfing partner of his, John Henkels, Jr. This company, founded in the early 1920's, had grown beyond the ability of the founder to manage. Starting out as a tree trimming and earth moving company, Henkels & McCoy had expanded during the depression to handle significant electrical line installation and other type of jobs to keep the company afloat. The founder, John B. Henkels Jr., had this to say about Andrew Lewis Sr.:

I offered Andy a partnership and full authority in operations and he was quite hesitant, because Corson was a solid outfit, we had only potentials. He went home, asked his wife, Lucile, who, while by no means an Amazon, was so coordinated an athlete that she could hit a golf ball further than any of us.

" _Accept it," said Lucile, "I know that Jack must have thoroughly considered this and would not make an offer unless he was reasonably sure it would be advantageous to you." Andy did accept, and so well did he organize us that we all made money; Andy three times the amount of his last year at Corson's_ 68 _._

Andy became a partner with the firm and owned 24% of it eventually.

In looking at the character and experience of Andrew Lewis, Sr., his partner had this to say about him:

_Andy brought in organizing and administration experience we had never had. To see the supervisors sit one by one at his desk as he hears confessions is reassuring. He keeps at it until the man solves his own problem. He is a superb salesman and a diplomat_ 69 _._

Lewis served as President of Henkels & McCoy from 1962 to 1972. In many ways his son was to inherit this capability to manage and motivate employees, enabling him to be effective and productive in his business career. During his tenure at Henkels & McCoy Andrew Lewis Sr. did construction work on some projects for Malcolm Schweiker that involved the Boy Scouts: _Malcolm Schweiker had given the Montgomery County Council of Boy Scouts a magnificent wild tract in the Perkiomen Valley, running from one hard road to another, and including a long stretch of the Unami Creek. The area is about 700 acres. We were asked to design and build a dam for a lake. Previous tests showed solid rock to be at least 70 feet down, through glacial moraine, euphemistically titled "occasional rock." These were granite boulders weighing up to 50 tons each."_ 70 In addition to building the dam, Lewis and the Henkels & McCoy firm built several buildings for the Boy Scouts in the camp. Schweiker had donated to the Boy Scouts in memory of his eldest son, Malcolm Jr. One of the buildings at Camp Delmont, in the Cradle of Liberty council's 1400 acre Musser Scout Reservation is the Schweiker Lodge with a capacity of 30 people. The stone lodge includes heat, bathroom facilities, kitchen, and a beautiful fireplace.

Andrew Lewis Sr. rented the Schultz family homestead in Worcester from Malcolm Schweiker in the early 1940's giving his growing family, which included daughters, Lucille and Floy, and his son Andrew, a large house to spread out in and plenty of property to roam around on. Lucille was a very good student, while Floy was the athlete and Drew was the mischievous little brother. Having moved from Norristown the family began attending the Worcester Schwenkfelder Church and became members of the congregation.

Oliver Smith, who lives next to the Central Schwenkfelder Church, sat next to Andrew Lewis Sr. in church for many years. Oliver had moved to Worcester in the late 1950's and was a gentlemen farmer, having a day job, but raising Black Angus cattle as well. When Henkels & McCoy erected the high tension electrical cables through Ollie's farm they inadvertently left the gate open one time and the cattle got out on a Saturday night. Ollie finally corralled them and went to church the next morning, sitting next to Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Andy asked him " _so how are things going"? I thought, I'm not going to let him off the hook after last night, so I said, well, I didn't have a very good night last night. "Oh really" Yea, your guys from Henkels & McCoy didn't close the gate yesterday, the cows got out and I spend all night rounding them up! "So, who do you think is going to win the World Series this week"? Just like he never even heard me! The next weekend we were invited to a party over in Paoli and we didn't know anyone, and I meet this guy, Bill Recide, I said I'm Ollie Smith, He said "Ollie Smith"? yea why? "I work for Henkels & McCoy and I got to work last Monday morning and I had a note to see Mr. Lewis right away. He said: Look Recide when I go to Church on Sunday morning I don't mind getting a sermon from the minister, but I don't want to hear about Ollie Smith's cows getting out any more." He heard every word I said, but just wouldn't acknowledge it_ It is apparent that while Andy might have been a diplomat and salesman according to his partner John Henkel, he also knew how to run an efficient operation and make sure mistakes were not repeated.

Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. was born Nov. 3, 1931. He started school in the Norristown School District and Drew has pleasant memories of his elementary school days in Norristown, going to Lincoln and Roosevelt Elementary, before moving to Worcester. In 1982 Drew reminisced for Spirit Week at Norristown High School: _"One of the great things about Public Education is the complete mixture of backgrounds and points of view. I feel my education at Norristown has proved invaluable to me. It was during these years that I developed many of the views which ultimately shaped the direction of my future. I had the opportunity to serve as president of my class, which gave me the chance to explore leadership possibilities and learn the basic essentials of working with people."_

In the early 1940's the family moved into Worcester Township from Norristown; becoming a neighbor to a well known local businessman, Malcolm Schweiker, who owned American Encaustic Tile Company (later called American Olean Tile Co.) in the nearby town of Lansdale.

Drew was the captain of the Worcester school baseball team in 10th grade. Drew's interest in baseball was something he had from a very early age. Don Benner, who was six years older than Drew, remembers dating Drew's oldest sister, Lucille, and dealing with the younger brother as he waited for Lucille, to go to the ball game (must have been an inexpensive date, as Don was playing). _"I was playing for Skippack at the time and he (Drew) knew I was a pitcher. He wanted to see how fast I could throw the ball_ . _Well, he was a kid and I didn't know if he could handle it. Drew put on a catchers mitt he had there and I threw light to him and saw he could handle it, so I threw harder each time. I decided to really let one go; the ball snapped into the mitt and cracked like a rifle shot. He dropped the glove and yelled as it stung so much. Drew used to tell people at political functions that I was the man who "hurt my hand" playing catch"_ 74 _._ Growing up in Worcester, in a rural area at the time, the outlets for growing boys were organizations like the boy scouts and sports: Drew was involved in both. He played on the Schwenkfelder church basketball team at the Worcester School court. Drew was an extremely competitive and emotional athlete, which proved good training for the business world in which he would compete.

The youth of the area also proved to be able workers to several of the farmers in the area. Both Drew and his future wife Marilyn used to pick potatoes for Ernie Heebner, who was also the school principal, and picked apples from the Sibel orchards on Bethel Hill Road a couple miles east, near the border with Whitpain Township. Actually it is a bit more complicated than that. The principal used to declare a school holiday, if the weather was nice, and have the kids help on the farm. Eventually a neighbor complained and the kids had to spend sunny days in the classroom from then on. Ernest Heebner was the school principal and also the geometry teacher and a math teacher in the school. Ernest was one of the teachers that really impressed Drew and had a significant impact on him as he was growing up.

The local school educated the children of the township, and some in surrounding townships as well, to the 10th grade. If you wanted to continue your education you had to decide if you wanted to go to Lansdale High school, Norristown High school, Schwenksville High School or Collegeville High School. The schools pulled from the various corners of the township and most students chose the school closest to their home. But many of those with an academic bent seemed to choose Norristown, home of the county courthouse, as it represented a more urban population. If you decided to pursue your education past the tenth grade, you had to furnish your own transportation to and from school. Many of those who were lucky enough to have use of the family car, or even a jalopy of their own, charged others on the way a weekly fee to take them to school to help with the gas. Marilyn remembers accompanying Dick Markley, son of the local banker, Earl Markley, and others to Norristown in Dick's car.

Drew graduated from Norristown High School and then went to Haverford College. In his freshman year (1950) he eloped to Elkton Maryland with his Worcester classmate, Marilyn Stoughton. Marilyn was going to nearby Harcum Junior College. She had gone to University of Miami for swimming, but didn't like it and transferred to Harcum. _"I was lonely, so I would go to see Drew_ . _Harcum was close to Haverford, and to make a long story short we ran off and got married_ " They were both eighteen. _"It was the day before Drew's math exam and he flunked,'' she said, ''but when he graduated four years later he was in the top 10 percent of his class, so see what I did for him?'' Mrs. Lewis never completed college and says she has no regrets. ''I felt I got my education through Drew,'' she said. ''I was the one who typed and read all his papers, and I fed everyone who came to our place to study_ .'" Feeding people was one of Marilyn's joys. She was a wonderful hostess who loved to have friends over. They always held a Fourth of July party at the home they purchased in 1958, northwest of Worcester, near Lederach, PA.

Marilyn had met Drew in the ninth grade at Worcester school and was immediately drawn to him: '' _... I knew I was going to marry him_ .''  Marilyn came from a well-to-do family who had a large house in Fairview Village on Germantown Pike in Worcester, about 3 miles to the southwest of Center Point. Her parents had purchased the house and property when Marilyn was entering the ninth grade. Prior to that she had lived and gone to the Upper Darby schools, much closer to Philadelphia. She went to the Worcester High School in Center Point on moving into the district, where Drew was already attending. It was a shock having gone through an urban school system where she was a cheerleader, to a relatively small and rural school that only went to tenth grade and had 13 kids in her class. She soon came to love the school and its people.

Life was not easy for the young married couple, but they worked together to pull through. The marriage was going to be a shock to their families, so they were not in a rush to tell them _. "I really disappointed my family as they wanted me to have a big wedding, so when I ran away and got married I didn't tell them right way. We told Drew's dad first. I didn't tell my mother for a long time and my father was the last one to know. He had a big business meeting set up that day and I fouled the whole thing up for him. But they did give us a reception at their house. Drew's grandmother came, my grandfather came. Drew's grandmother said to my grandfather 'Presi, what are you doing here? And he said; what are you doing here? Turns out that Drew's grandfather and my grandfather had once been partners. Strange world isn't it?"_ 78

The young couple lived at the Haverford Manor Apartments across from the college for the four years Drew was at Haverford. _"We mowed lawns in the afternoon because we didn't have any money. We were worried his father wouldn't pay for his tuition and Drew wouldn't be able to go to college. As it turned out my grandfather gave us some money after I had a baby: a thousand dollars."_ 79 Drew worked construction jobs in the summer, mowed lawns, and they both got up early in the morning to trap muskrats along the Zacharius creek when they came back to Worcester. It seems as if trapping was a rite of passage, as all the kids in the area appeared to have participated at one time or other. They did the trapping for a long time and while it wasn't fun getting up at 3:00 in the morning it was a time for the two to work together and Marilyn has fond memories of this period of their lives. _"We had to earn our money. We had a card table and a sofa and not much else in the apartment. When friends came over we had a piece of plywood we put on the table to make it bigger. We just seemed to skim through. We were never conscious of not having any money, but I remember one time I went to buy a bathing suit and I charged it to my parents and my father sent me the bill. My father wouldn't give you a nickel if you didn't need it, he believed in being self sufficient. But he loved Drew._ 80

After graduating from Haverford in 1953, Drew went on to Harvard Business School. Drew credits the chairman of the economics department at Haverford, Howard Teaf, for giving him the courage and confidence to go to Harvard. _"He said, you've got it and you can go to Harvard and do well there"_ 81 _,_ which Drew discovered was correct when he went through the curriculum and graduated in 1955. Howard was a professor at Haverford from 1932 until he retired in 1971. Drew felt he was one of about six individuals in his life (others included his father, Malcolm Schweiker, Ernest Heebner, Bill Ditter and Richard Schweiker) that truly had an impact on his career. In 1998 Haverford College founded The Howard Teaf Business Society in memory of Howard to promote and expose students to a greater understanding of the opportunities in the Business World.

Drew's family had grown with the birth of his daughter Karen in 1951, and they suffered through the crib death of their infant son Andrew L. Lewis III in January of 1954. Eventually the family would grow to include two more boys, Russell and Andrew IV. His first full time job after college was with the company his father worked for, Henkels & McCoy, and shortly thereafter as a job superintendent in the Azores. Drew had worked for them during the summer when attending college and naturally moved into a management position with them when he finished. This must have been an interesting and difficult first job for the Harvard Business graduate. John Henkels mentions in his company history: _"A large job was the installation of a central office and outside facilities for the U.S. air base on Terceira in the Azores. Our cable was furnished by the Standard Electric Company of London. When I stopped in their office to check up on cable delivery I was told it was being manufactured in Lisbon, and London had no records. As our schedule was tight, we saw Mr. Hall in Lisbon and arranged satisfactory delivery dates. Drew Lewis was in charge of the work in the Azores, together with Frank and Gene Henderson. The terrain was so difficult that trenchers were impossible, so we dug thirty-two miles of trench by hand, set the poles with pikes, and rebuilt the innumerable stone walls we destroyed in our cross-country operations. The inside work was simply additions to the frames and switching equipment. After installation exactly according to specifications, the inspector who had approved it thought we should raise the equipment six inches. With great difficulty this was done."_ 82

Drew, who would later become Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, already could see how working with inspectors and the Government was challenging. Dealing with inspectors and government regulations is always an experience and the Azores job was no exception. This compounded itself as Drew was a hard-charging young man who was not afraid to tell someone when they were wrong. John Henkels introduced Drew to the wonders of government work in that "little" job in the Azores. John related the following story that aptly details the problems good contractors have when working with the government: _"Our inspector, for one reason or another, was difficult to live with. All the thirty-two miles of trench were through volcanic ash. The Azores are completely volcanic. In fact, coming home from Europe in 1958, we saw one violent eruption in the sea off Pico. It had already built a small crater that was above water. Immense clouds, molten lava and bright flames made a display night and day. The inspector told us to dig up the entire thirty-two miles of trench to be sure no stones were touching the cable. We appealed, and his boss came in from the United States. Drew, the two inspectors and a laborer started out to dig test holes where designated. After five or six were done, the inspector general instructed that holes be dug where our troublesome man demanded. If no stones appeared, the inspector himself was to fill the holes. If any stones showed, Drew was to pick them out and backfill. A day of this ended the matter with complete approval of the job."_ 83 Henkels and McCoy is a contracting firm with a well deserved reputation for integrity. An inspector who has no knowledge of the firm that is awarded the bid on a government job has to make sure it is done correctly. When awards are given to the lowest bidder you can't be too careful if you want it done right. A reputation for integrity and quality work, for doing what you say you will, is invaluable in business, and in the individual.

Drew had moved Marilyn and his small family to the Azores for the duration of the project. When he returned after about a year, Mr. Henkels gave him a bonus of $6,500.00 which was 100% of his salary. Drew would leave his house at 5:00AM every morning, drive an hour into Philadelphia, and organize his work schedule with his father. Andy didn't mind what Drew did at night, but he expected him to get up at 5:00 AM and get to work. It became a habit that Drew never gave up throughout his career. Drew appeared to enjoy the experience. During his tenure with Henkels & McCoy he was a foreman, job superintendent, and production manager. He was to eventually become a director of the firm. He would go into work, and after consulting with his father, he would send the various crews out in the morning, run a crew himself, often laying or fixing gas mains and heavy pipelines through river crossings. He eventually became a bit frustrated with his future options and his father, being a minority partner in the business, felt that Drew's chances for advancement within the company would be limited; Mr. Henkels had two sons of his own. Having received an excellent education at Harvard Business School, Drew was aiming to not only be a corporate executive; he aimed to be a President and Chairman eventually. After spending a reasonable time with Henkels he began looking for another position with a possibility of advancement. When Drew left Henkels & McCoy it was an amicable parting and his father gave him a $50,000 interest in the firm, which was more money than he had ever had.

In 1960 Drew Lewis left Henkels & McCoy to take a position with National Gypsum. In 1958 National Gypsum Co., a large maker of wallboard had merged with the American Encaustic Tile Co. of Lansdale, PA. By the mid 1960's the renamed American Olean Tile company was the largest employer in Lansdale with over 1000 people working for them. Drew's older neighbor in the 1940's, Richard S. Schweiker, who had been Vice President of Sales for the tile company, had taken a leave of absence from his position to run for the Republican nomination to the United States Congress in February of 1960. Drew started with the tile division of National Gypsum on September 1, 1960 as its new Director of Marketing and was scheduled to spend the rest of that year in training.. Malcolm Sr. had become close to Drew, watching him grow up next door. With the death of his son Malcolm Jr., on Okinawa, Malcolm Sr. quietly threw himself into philanthropic endeavors such as the Boy Scouts, the Schwenkfelder church, and other charities. He did, however, still focus a significant amount of attention on his business, as it had experienced rapid growth during the 50's. His son Richard was being advanced in management of the company during the same time, but it was becoming obvious that Richard hungered to do something different.

With the decision to merge with National Gypsum in 1958 Malcolm and Roy became large stockholders of the resulting company, if not the largest single stockholders. Thus the opportunity for advancement for Richard in the larger resulting company was enhanced, if he wanted to avail himself of it. Richard made his decision in early 1960, opting for a life of public service. Malcolm and Roy were left with a hole in their sales force that needed to be filled, but if Richard lost the election the Vice President of Sales position that was his needed to be available. It was apparent that the young Harvard Business school educated Drew Lewis was an ideal solution. The position of Director of Marketing was created for him. " _Malcolm adored him and Drew adored Malcolm .They were close and he (Drew) was on the fast track. A lot of people felt that Malcolm looked on him as another son"_ 86 Between Malcolm Schweiker and his father, Drew had two strong male role models that helped to mold him in terms of his business career.

In 1960 before Drew left Henkels & McCoy for National Gypsum, he was introduced to political campaigns by Richard Schweiker who asked him to be his organizational campaign manager. This was Richard's first campaign for Congress and he was running against an incumbent Republican and the local party. Richard recognized he needed a manager to run the day-to-day office work, fund raising, planning, and organization: functions that the twenty eight year old Drew appeared more than qualified to handle. Drew accepted a position with Richard's father at National Gypsum's American Olean subsidiary and was being trained as the new Director of Marketing in the fall of 1960. Coinciding with the general election coming in November, this schedule enabled Drew to spend time on the campaign with an understanding boss.

Drew continued as Richard's campaign manager in subsequent campaigns: the four elections for congress and the first election for US Senator. With election as US Congressman in 1960 Richard Schweiker became the highest ranking elected Republican from Montgomery County. His position gave him tremendous influence in the county on political matters and he developed a good working relationship with the county Chairman James Staudinger of Abington. Richard further solidified this position when he won re-election in 1962 and 1964. While Richard was the public persona of the party during these years across the county, his campaign manager was the behind the scenes glue, working with both the county organization and other campaigns to make sure that everything was working smoothly and efficiently. Drew was developing a network of contacts for both volunteer workers in the party and donors that paid for the campaigns. Drew was considerably shorter than Schweiker, being 5'7" and all of 160 pounds, but his photogenic smile and personality proved marvelous assets. The most important asset that Drew possessed proved extremely valuable to the party and his status within it: the ability to raise funds. The network of business executives with which he developed relationships proved very lucrative to the party and Drew was never shy about telling executives that he expected $10,000 from them for the election effort. He became a member of the Republican state committee from 1964 through 1966 and from 1970 -73.

Chapter Five

### Running for Congress

In 1957 the 13th congressional seat of Pennsylvania became vacant when the incumbent, Samuel K. McConnell Jr., resigned to become executive director of the United Cerebral Palsy Association. McConnell had been a congressman since 1944 when he filled the balance of J. William Ditter's term. Ditter had been killed in a plane crash. He was the first congressman to represent Montgomery County solely in Pennsylvania, before his time the district had included Bucks County to the north. At the time of McConnell's resignation, the Pennsylvania law didn't provide for an election to fill an unexpired term, it provided for a caucus of the committee people in the party of the Congressman who had left office to replace the individual. Richard thought this might be an opportunity for him and he looked into the situation. He discovered the power of the party leadership at that time.

Montgomery County had been Republican-dominated for decades and the party had secured the loyalty of the committeemen and women with patronage in the county courthouse. Moderate paying jobs that were secure in the depression were prized, and that practice had continued into the 40's and 50's. So just about everyone who worked in jobs at the courthouse was a committeewoman or committeeman, and that numbered about 70-80% of the committee who voted in these special caucuses. Richard surveyed the situation, and realized that the party candidate, John LaFore, Jr., was from Lower Merion in the southeastern part of the county (better know as the Main Line, after the railroad tracks that connected it to center city Philadelphia. Think "The Philadelphia Story' movie with Jimmy Stewart and Katherine Hepburn). LaFore, as a former Chairman of the Lower Merion Committee, knew the players. Lower Merion had the money, and the votes. _"He was from the Mainline where all the money and the votes were. Actually the votes were in Abington and the Mainline. In Worcester we had the birds and the bees and the deer. I figured I didn't have a chance, so I didn't even run. He then came up in several months for the biannual election and won."_  So for three years at the end of the 1950's Richard watched and kept active in the party, picking up support, getting to know the committeemen and women, and getting known by them. His work kept him busy and his family was a center of attention. But the desire for service to the community, the need to give back and help others continued to push him toward elective office.

In evaluating his chances to get a congressional seat Richard recognized the deck was stacked against him. The Mainline had the money and a large number of committee votes. The other area that had significant votes, was in the northeast section of the county in Abington. Abington also happened to be the residence of County Republican Chairman James Staudinger. So it appeared that success was going to be problematic without a superior effort. In addition, the party traditionally didn't have primary contests. The endorsement usually settled the issue with a vote by the delegates. If you ran against the party and lost, your political career was over before it began, as you would never be appointed or endorsed if the leadership could stop it. And they usually could. Richard, however, had one ray of hope. A poll was published that said only 11% of the voters in Montgomery County knew their Congressman's name, after almost three years in office. In addition LaFore had taken several vacation cruises during congressional session and missed several votes, which gave Richard an issue, if he could force an open primary. _"Dick began to study the record Lafore was compiling in Congress. He took him vote by vote, issue by issue, showing his trend. We considered it an indifferent one, particularly in world problems and national defense."_ 88

After consideration and discussion with several confidants including Bill Ditter and Drew Lewis he decided to make the attempt. In July of 1959 Richard began the preliminary work of developing a campaign strategy and timeline. By December he had a timetable set up, showing what he needed to be doing each week between announcing his campaign and April 26, 1960: primary election day. The campaign decided to announce his candidacy on January 11, 1960 with a letter to the Republican committee people and the local newspapers. The letter to the committee pointed out that while the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket had won an overwhelming victory, the election of 1958 produced the worst congressional defeat in 24 years. The letter stated that the record of the current local congressman was not supportive of the Eisenhower record and that Dick felt compelled to seek the nomination of the party in the primary. " _... in 1958 our Party suffered its worst congressional defeat in 24 years. Present national surveys show on 43% of the people would vote for a Republican congressman. Obviously the people support our Presidential program, but not our congressional program. We must build a Republican Party that can win congressional elections!_

I have studied the voting record of our Montgomery County congressman. I was extremely disappointed to find that he has not supported the Eisenhower administration as he should have. This was particularly surprising because Montgomery County voters showed their support for Ike by the largest majority in the state.

My conviction for stronger support of the Eisenhower-Nixon program compels me to seek the congressional nomination. In this way the Republican Party can choose which political philosophy it prefers to represent the voters of Montgomery County.

In 1957 I withdrew as a candidate for Congress with the understanding and belief that my action would bring unity to our Party in Montgomery County and give Ike the support he needed. Unfortunately, neither of these objectives was achieved.

_In the forthcoming weeks I shall make crystal clear my views on important national issues and our Party's future..... May I have your support?"_ 89

When he set up his campaign Richard asked Bill Ditter to be chairman of his campaign, for the public relations impact. Bill was the well-known and respected son of the former congressman in the 13th district. Having served in the Navy in the Second World War and then being called back for two years in the early 50's, Ditter had met Schweiker when Bill had gotten out of law school. They had formed the Young Republican Club in Montgomery County at that time with Dick as its President.

Bill worked in the District Attorney's office for Benny DeJoseph. When the party refused to support DeJoseph again, Bill worked for his campaign against the party and they won. It was this background, the name recognition that Bill Ditter brought with him and the friendship that had developed during the 1950's, along with that winning campaign against the party, that suggested to Richard that he would be an excellent campaign chairman.

Richard also realized he needed a day-to-day organizational manager for the campaign and he got Drew Lewis involved. _"Drew really hadn't been involved in politics. His father and my father were friends, because they had worked together in construction. And then they(the Lewis's) rented our house (the Schultz family farmhouse next to Malcolm after the death of Blanche's parents and her brother moving away.) So we got to know each other. Then I asked Drew to be campaign manager and he did a lot of the organizing._ 90

Drew organized the volunteers for the campaign into what Richard called the workers' division. " _None of us knew anything about politics. I organized 1,500 volunteers for the campaign. I learned volunteers were the best prospects for getting things done."_ 91 Drew was using a bit of hyperbole when he said no one knew anything about politics, as Richard had been active for a decade. They were young, smart, and aggressive, which became a winning combination. With Bill Ditter to help with the strategy and Drew to do the organizing, Richard went on to be the face of the campaign and represented himself to the voters.

Richard knew he couldn't get the majority of the committee behind him, but he felt he could get a small number of them. The campaign decided that he should go around the committee with the idea that the Republican voters deserved the opportunity to decide who the candidate should be. Richard invited his friends from the various organizations he had worked with, from the Jaycees to the United Way, friends, etc. to his house and told them he was going to do something different. He was going to run as an independent Republican in the primary, offering a choice to the Republican voters and demanding debates with LaFore. He was going to put on kaffee klatsches, where he could speak for 20 minutes and then answer questions from the voters in someone's house and hoped that everyone would agree to hold them for him with their neighbors. The idea of the kaffee klatsch was just starting and it worked well: an early form of viral marketing. It enabled him to meet people without having to spend large amounts of money. It was expected to last about one hour. The campaign provided literature, bumper stickers, and buttons for distribution at the event. It was suggested that the hostess serve coffee and doughnuts or cookies, so that it was simple and not a burden on the hostess. _We started out with them scheduled for 10, 2, 4 and maybe 8. It became very popular and I had to add to it, I was doing them at 8, 10, 2, 4, 8 and10. Since it was all in Montgomery County and everything in the district was within a 45 minute to hour ride, I could do 5 or 6 a day. At first I didn't do them on Sundays, but then I found out people wanted them after church. I was literally doing them 7 days a week. In fact I was getting so many that I almost had to stop people from setting them up. It was becoming so popular, mainly because it was giving people a chance to vote, and I made that an issue. It was their first chance to make a pick in a primary without being told what to do_ 92 _._ Each gathering was getting at least 15 people and some as many as 50, while the target was 25 to 30 voters. Richard's mother was a great supporter and helped to organize some of the Kaffee Klatsches. Malcolm, on the other hand, was disappointed that Richard was not going to be following his footsteps in the tile business and took a while to come around.

Richard positioned himself as a 34 year old with an extensive record of service to the party. The campaign literature highlighted his academic and service record, his years as President of the Montgomery County Young Republican Club, and his role as alternate delegate to the National Convention in 1952 and 1956 on one fold of a three fold brochure. On another panel of the brochure Richard listed where he stood on 4 positions of interest to the electorate, and he then used most of the rest of the brochure to attack the record of his opponent. He compared LaFore's positions and votes with what President Eisenhower had suggested. The brochure claimed that a vote for Richard would be a vote to support President Eisenhower's World Peace Program. This was an interesting use of President Eisenhower's prestige in a year in which President Eisenhower was retiring and Richard Nixon would be the Republican nominee for President.

The campaign began a series of weekly newsletters, in which Richard explained his positions and compared them with the record of the opposing candidate. The party ignored Richard until about half way into the primary season when they started to get a bit nervous. LaFore was placed on the Ways and Means committee in Washington and the party tried to use that against Schweiker telling the voters that they would lose that plum position if LaFore was not re-elected. Schweiker charged in his newsletter to voters that _"My opponent has based his campaign primarily on associating his name with important government leaders. If you will examine the leaflet he is sending out you will find not one word about what his platform is or what he believes in. It does not mention his voting record or his legislative achievements. The entire brochure is based on other people's names."_ 94

Schweiker was aggressively challenging his opponent's campaign strategy of associating with important government leaders. LaFore invited the Republican leader of the House in Washington, Representative Halleck of Indiana, to speak at a Republican meeting in Norristown on April 20th. Schweiker partisans spoke up and inundated Halleck with complaint letters about involving himself in local politics. Schweiker reported that Halleck replied by stating _"wishing to be eminently fair to all parties concerned, I have decided not to speak at the Republican meeting in Norristown on April 20_ th _, 1960."_ 95

The contest began to get coverage in the papers, where they said Schweiker didn't appear to have a chance, but it was the first time there had been a contest in memory. The Sunday Bulletin's Edward Tyburski reported on April 17th, 1960. _"The Montgomery County primary election campaign has stepped up to a brisk pace and promises to develop into a whirlwind finish before the polls close on April 26. The rapid pace can be attributed to the Republican congressional candidates. Incumbent John A. Lafore Jr. of Haverford generally has been conceded the nomination, but that was before an independent candidate threw his hat into the ring. The independent, Richard S. Schweiker of Lansdale, has been conducting as hard and as vigorous a campaign as veteran politicians have seen in the county. A long-time worker for the regular Republican organization, Schweiker has had to buck the organization in the race for the nomination. He has been working from 12 to 16 hours seven days a week. Many observers say he's making inroads into the ranks of the regular organization."_ 96

It appears that the county organization and Lafore initially discounted the upstart, but rapidly began to bring the power of incumbency to bear on the campaign.

" _Most of us down county were for Lafore. Lafore was the old guard and Dick was the young guy. He came along and we thought we were going to wipe him out. I went with the old guard as I have always been for the organization."_ 97 Richard was initially enthused because of the response to his kaffee klatches, but then the party started to respond and it tightened up dramatically, so he didn't have a good feel for how it would go. He was able to get Congressman Lafore to agree to two debates. These debates did not generate much heat, but they did give Schweiker visibility in his campaign.

Funding a campaign for Congress is extremely expensive today. Many campaigns at this level spend in excess of $3 million to buy air time and produce brochures. Even then the cost of a campaign was significant, but nowhere near today's level. Raising funds was something that did take time. Richard contributed $25,000.00 to his campaign and then asked for donations. The kaffee klatches enabled him to maximize his speaking ability while minimizing his cost, but he had to buy pins and bumper stickers, do the leaflets and signs, buy the gas for the transportation, etc., that are still a part of political campaigns today. In February Richard spend $400.00 for 5000 bumper stickers to hand out at the kaffee klatches. He got such a good response he ordered another 5000 in March. Bumper stickers provided an inexpensive way to get his name moving around the area and Richard started seeing them around the county. When the party started to recognize the threat that he presented, it began to get a little warm, figuratively speaking, in April and Richard's father Malcolm became incensed at some of the things being said. He offered to match Richard's $25,000.00. The extra funds helped, in more ways than one.

On April 21st a letter went out to the well-to-do members of the Union League in Philadelphia, a Republican club that included a large number of wealthy suburban Republicans, presenting Schweiker as young, inexperienced and spending unprecedented amounts of money, while soliciting support for Lafore. Schweiker responded with a letter from another Union League member, Andrew L. Lewis, Drew's father, decrying the use of the Union League to enter into Republican Primary Contests _._ He concluded his letter: _"I have known Richard S. Schweiker as a high school lad, college boy, business man, civic and church leader and Republican Party Worker. Each job has been well done. Whatever is entrusted to him in the future will be executed with the same diligence and judgment."_ 98

On election day Richard made sure he had one of his people at each poll, but the party had three to four workers at each poll against him: all the courthouse crowd, their cousins and relatives. Richard won that election, just the first of his upset election wins. " _Schweiker won 33, 953 to 28,339 in a campaign that stands as an example to all Republican candidates of how to gather votes. It also should serve as a lesson to the complacent county Republican organization and, it is hoped, will inspire it to gather strength for elections to come_ ." In looking at the returns from his initial run for Congress several things became evident; Richard had won the western part of the county with about 80% of the vote. Today it's known as the 202 effect (for Route 202 which bisects the county going north to south), and while it is less pronounced it still has some truth to it. The conservative PA Dutch area to the west of 202 came out for Richard. He lost in Lower Merion but with a relatively strong showing, and he won in Abington: the home of the county chairman. To this day if you need to win in Montgomery County and you are from the western part of the county, you have to do well west of 202 and split Abington and Lower Merion, winning at least one, _"In those days it was up-county and down-county. I became Chairman in 1978. There was a cultural divide in the county then, and the divide was lower in the county than many thought, it used to be north of 202 and south of 202._ 100 The cultural divide was not the only reason for Richard's victory. It was also a generational thing. 1960 was the year of President Kennedy's election and a new generation coming to power. Richard was able to benefit from this rising tide. " _Schweiker was from money, the same as the mainline. It was more an age difference"_ 101 More probably the voters were disenchanted with the existing power structure which ignored the western part of the county and the sense of entitlement that existed in the party.

Jim Staudinger, Montgomery County Republican Chairman must have been stunned by Schweiker winning, even in his own township. But he proved to be a true gentleman and called to congratulate Richard. _"He immediately called and said, 'Dick we will work together, you don't have to worry about the fall, we'll be with you'"_  Richard and his campaign staff decided to strike while the iron was hot. Immediately after the election they made an announcement that was picked up by The Pennsylvania Republican: _"As The Pennsylvania Republican was going to press we learned that Richard S. Schweiker plans to appoint a committee to make recommendations for revitalizing the party in the county. He said the committee would be made up of outstanding citizens not holding public office and that its report and recommendations would be made public after the November presidential elections. Schweiker said his program calls for "encouraging wide participation in all party activities, especially on the part of young voters, new residents and civic leaders." As for the immediate present, Schweiker said "we should now concentrate the energies and abilities of our party on electing a Republican president and Congress."_ 103

Dick faced a Democrat in the fall election: a professor from Penn who demanded debates just as Dick had in the primaries. Dick was able to prevail in the fall election, with an aggressive and spirited campaign. He had developed an excellent campaign organization and recognized the help he had received from it. On May 13th, shortly after the primary he wrote to Drew:

I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for the excellent job you did in organizing our Workers Division.

I know that you spent many long hours of hard work on the telephone and seeing people to build the outstanding organization that we had. Scoop Cuthbert said it was the best independent organization he had ever seen. I am certain that without your organizing efforts our campaign would not have been successful.

It is my hope that the next time we get into a primary fight that you will be willing to help again since there is no one else in the county that is better qualified for this type of organizational leadership than you.

Claire and I also wish to thank Marilyn for her willingness to give of your time and of her time during the campaign. I think giving up a Florida vacation is not an easy sacrifice, and I am grateful to the both of you for the wonderful job you did in the campaign.

Sincerely,

_Dick"_ 104

While the primary was not the general election it was in many ways a foregone conclusion that barring any major problems, the winner of the Republican primary was the odds-on favorite to be a winner in the fall.

Richard had intended to win and went for it, putting in full days and working hard. The hard work ethic of the Pennsylvania Dutch found a worthy adherent in Schweiker. Not only did he work hard, he fought for the position with a determination to succeed that would be a hallmark of his subsequent political career. " _I like to fight, fight for principles. I consider myself a hard fighter-not an angry one. Maybe I am a determined one."_ 105 Mr. Schweiker was going to Washington.

Washington was a bit of a change from Worcester. Richard was facing a new situation. He had not spent time in the Pennsylvania legislature, in fact this was his first elected post since running for Committeeman. He wasn't exactly sure what to expect, and he still had the Jimmy Stewart movie in his mind. The Republicans in the House helped Richard get accustomed to the position, even though he had defeated a sitting Republican Congressman. Going to Washington in 1961 was an exciting time. Kennedy had just been elected President and the media was touting the new generation that was taking over, with President Eisenhower representing the old generation. Congress was sworn in early in January, and there was a twenty day overlap while Eisenhower was still President, before Kennedy was sworn in. Eisenhower came to talk with the freshman class of legislators, marking the second time that Dick had met him. His previous meeting was before Ike became President when he was looking for the party endorsement. Eisenhower told them that if any of the freshman class was interested, he would take them on a tour of the battlefield of Gettysburg. Later that year most of the new legislators went to Gettysburg, and had a personal tour of the battlefield with commentary by President Eisenhower.

It was a difficult adjustment to being in the minority, having come from Montgomery County where Republicans were the majority. The partisanship in the House was significant; much more than in the Senate. But, as his wife Claire said _: Both of us were raised to believe we were here to be of service to God and our fellow man, and we felt at the time that this was the way we could serve._ 106 While in Congress, Dick became a member of a Congressional prayer group, while Claire was part of a Congressional wives prayer group. This was an important way in which the stress of dealing with national problems could be alleviated by individuals. Indeed, the Christian basis of the Pennsylvania Dutch culture in which Dick was raised mandates going to the Lord in prayer, in laying our burdens before the Lord and asking for his comfort and guidance. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides comfort in times of stress and uncertainty. The comfort that both found in these prayer groups continued when Dick moved to the Senate in 1968. Claire helped organize a Senate wives prayer group with Nancy Thurmond, wife of Senator Strom Thurmond. The group of wives met every week, and the Senate wives continue to meet today with the Senate Chaplain.

In the beginning of Dick's career in Washington the Schweiker family accommodated his needs to be in both Washington and Montgomery County by adjusting their schedules as much as possible. The children attended Worcester Elementary in the fall and then a Washington school when Congress was in session. This worked until the oldest, Malcolm Coleman, entered sixth grade and became involved in sports and boy scouts. They decided to send the kids to school in Washington, where they spent most of the school year. The strain of this type of life was considerable on a growing family, but both Richard and Claire took the responsibilities of parenthood seriously. The roots that both had in their faith, in the belief that this was how they could serve, proved that it is possible to successfully raise a family even in these circumstances. Claire commented on their life in Washington to the Pittsburgh Press in 1974: " _Religion is an important part of our life," she says. "Dick and I feel that Sunday is first for church and second for family....The most important thing we have tried to teach our children is that we are here to do for others .... Each of the children has responsibilities around the house. Sometimes I may be too lenient, but they always come through. And they know that one of us will always be here when they need us. It's hard to balance your life when you're in politics but you can't let it get you down. Sometimes we have trouble juggling the children's schedules, but we always try to put their activities first. Dick may have a dozen invitations in a single evening. We try to go only to the events that will affect Pennsylvania. Usually I drive downtown and meet him at the affair. That gives him an extra hour or two at the office, and it gives me time with the children....".... "There's never been a dull moment," says Claire. "It's a terrific marriage based on faith and trust."_ 107 In a worldly environment that is not conducive to happy marriages and faithful spouses, the Schweikers proved that mutual commitment based on a strong faith and trust can be successful.

Dick went on to successfully run for re-election in 1962 and was still active in Montgomery County political affairs. In 1963 Bill Ditter, his campaign chairman in 1960, decided to run for Judge in Montgomery County with the backing of the party. The current Judge was a Democrat who had been appointed by the Governor and needed to run for retention in the next election. He cross-filed, so Bill had to run an aggressive campaign to get his name known to the rank and file voters in the county. He asked both Drew Lewis and Richard Schweiker to be his co-chairmen. This time it was Bill doing the kaffee klatches and Drew and Richard helping him. Bob Butera's brother, Kenny, who had been a classmate of Drew's at Norristown, was instrumental in helping the campaign, as well as Kenny's sister Marjorie. Bill won and was a county Judge from 1964 until 1970 when he was appointed a federal judge. As a result of winning the race for Judge, Bill could no longer be involved in politics, but he would remember his friend Drew when in need of business and management experience.

Chapter Six

### The Amish Legislation

Congressman Schweiker had been in office only 6 ½ months when he introduced a bill on a subject that would consume many years of his time and effort. On July 20, 1961 Congressman Schweiker introduced H.R. 8290, to amend the Internal Revenue Code, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill planned " _To provide an exemption from participation in the Federal old-age and survivors insurance program for individuals who are members of a church whose doctrines forbid participation in such programs on grounds of religious belief."_ 108 The bill was aimed at exempting the Old Order Amish from participating in Social Security, as it conflicted with their religious beliefs concerning insurance, which they believed was a form of gambling.

One of the problems that the Pennsylvania Dutch, and more specifically the Amish, experienced in the mid-twentieth century was the increasing encroachment of government regulations and intrusions into their lifestyle and religious beliefs. Prior to the 1950's the intrusiveness of the government in their farming lifestyles had been minimal; primarily agricultural agents trying to survey and encourage different agricultural practices such as pasteurization, etc. With the increasing scope of Social Security legislation designed to help individuals, but seen as increasingly intrusive by the Amish and other traditional Anabaptist sects, the stage was set for mounting dissent.

The Amish perceived the government's heavy-handed attempts to help them as a form of religious persecution. Their unwillingness to compromise their religious beliefs had a long history. Hundreds of years before, their ancestors had fled Germany and other parts of Europe, in response to governments forcibly trying to change their beliefs; to impose on them the need to conform to the will of the majority of the community. For over two hundred years many had lived peaceably in Pennsylvania, producing agricultural goods of the finest quality on picturesque farms. Concentrated primarily in the central areas of Pennsylvania such as Lancaster County, the Amish harmed no one, bothered few and proved to be excellent farmers. The religious beliefs of the Amish caused them to draw away from the world, not participating in most activities involving the larger community.

Voting was not high on the activity list of the Amish and most didn't, with the result that they didn't get a lot of political attention with the possible exception of the Congressman from Lancaster County. So when the Federal Government attempted in 1961 to force Amish farmer Valentine Y. Byler of New Wilmington, Pa to participate in Social Security taxation by seizing and selling at public auction 3 of his work horses to pay the taxes, the Amish had limited options, other than the practice of peaceable civil disobedience, much as Gandhi had done years before in India. Incredibly, it made typical government sense to seize the work horses to sell, so Byler could have Social Security, when the work horses pulled the plow and other implements that Byler needed to work the farm. Actually it was the beginning of an era when ideas that didn't make much sense seemed on the lips of government and military leaders. "We had to destroy the village to save it".

Into this situation Congressman Schweiker stepped, and attempted to help with his bill. A sensible question to ask would be, "Why involve yourself in a thankless task for a people who couldn't and probably wouldn't vote for you, who didn't involve themselves in the community, who actually shunned contact with the larger world? Why fight the government policies that were just designed to help everyone"? As a Schwenkfelder, Richard instinctively understood the importance of religious liberty. He grew up hearing the stories of his ancestor Christopher Schultz and his voyage to William Penn's noble experiment in 1734, as they fled religious persecution. The idea that in this country, after two hundred years of religious freedom, the government of the people would begin to harass and subject a peaceful Christian religious sect demanding conformity at the expense of their beliefs, was abhorrent.

What was even more disheartening was the lack of action, the lack of enthusiasm for righting a wrong, the way the bill never seemed to be acted on, or moved out of committee. Obviously, there would not be a groundswell of support for a bill that had nothing to offer anyone besides a few religious dissidents. But simple justice would seem to compel the house to move. Richard commented in 1965 that he believed the present law _"impinges upon long-established religious beliefs of the Amish. Government must not ride roughshod over the religious rights of any group, no matter how small. It is difficult to understand why we have not been ready to permit religious groups to conscientiously object to economic regulation when we rightfully recognize their right to object to the military draft."_ 109 Religious freedom was one of the founding principles of the nation, but increasingly it was being squeezed by the cultural changes that were starting to bubble to the surface in the country.

1963 marked the landmark case by the Supreme Court in _Abington Township School District v. Schempp_ (consolidated with _Murray v. Curlett_ ), 374 U.S. 203 (1963), argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. Abington Township was in the eastern, more urban, part of Congressman Schweiker's district. It was the home township of Montgomery County Republican Chairman Jim Staudinger, and in this case the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Bible to be read in public schools. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that it was a state's rights issue, that it had been a staple of Pennsylvania classroom tradition since before the republic was founded, and that the reading of the Bible promoted the teaching of the noblest principles of virtue, morality, patriotism, and good order. Quaint ideas those: virtue, morality, patriotism; in this age of moral relativism and multiculturalism it seems like an argument from a different country. Nevertheless, at the time it shook up many Americans and conflicted with Schweiker's sense of right and wrong. Many people felt that the Supreme Court of the period appeared to have much in common with the one Chief Justice Roger Tanney oversaw one hundred years before. Increasingly the federal government was injecting itself in areas that had traditionally been viewed as the purview of the sovereign states in previous generations. In addition, it was trying to erect a wall of separation between many of its people and the expressions of their Christian religion in the public square.

On September 19, 1963 Congressman Schweiker introduced a Joint Resolution, H.J. Res. 746 calling for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SECTION 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit the offering, reading from, or listening to prayers or biblical scriptures, if participation therein is on a voluntary basis, in any governmental or public school, institution, or place.

SEC. 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to prohibit making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place, or upon any coinage, currency, or obligation of the United States.

SEC. 3. Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion."

The resolution went nowhere. Schweiker fruitlessly pushed for years to pass and send to the states a school prayer amendment. The school prayer issue proved to be something that resonated with the voters in Pennsylvania, primarily in the western counties of the state who were removed from the dominating influence of the eastern media. In 1968 when Richard was campaigning for Senate he was requested by his campaign to create a radio spot to play in the west of the state highlighting his stand on voluntary school prayer. The radio spot highlighted his opinions:

" _Our country was founded on a deep faith in God. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers mentioned God four times. One of our most precious rights has always been the right to worship God._

This is why I was troubled when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to read the Bible and say the Lord's Prayer in our public schools. For the last four years, in Congress, I have worked to put God back into the schools, by amending our Constitution to allow prayers and Bible reading.

_If I am elected your United States Senator on November 5, I will continue this fight to bring back Bible reading and prayers to our schools."_ 110 Schweiker was as good as his word. In October of 1969 he again urged the Senate to pass a School Prayer amendment,

" _President Nixon has officially proclaimed October 22 to be 'National Day of Prayer, 1969', and is commemorating this day by leading a prayer breakfast at the White House._

I commend the President for his leadership in calling on all Americans to observe the spirit of his proclamation, and urge all Americans, whatever their religion, and in whatever way they choose, to pray and meditate on behalf of peace and brotherhood for all people.

... _In line with the spirit of the day, I also want to urge the Congress to act on proposals to allow this same kind of non-denominational prayer and meditation in our public schools._

Supporters of school prayer lost an important and strong voice when the late Senator Dirksen passed away, but those of us who joined in introducing Senator Dirksen's bill, Senate Joint Resolution 6, will continue to press his work on.

... _In making this call for Senate Action, I know I speak on behalf of many Pennsylvanians in communities throughout the State who are deeply concerned with the moral education of their children, and are deeply disturbed by the arbitrary prohibition of this kind of expression in our schools._

_The bill is currently within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I fervently urge the members of this committee to act favorably on the resolution, and report it to the Senate floor for a vote."_ 111

Schweiker followed this the next year with another bill and statement coinciding with the National Day of Prayer for 1970. _"I would also like to reaffirm my support for legislative efforts to restore the right of our schools to allow the observance of non-denominational prayer and meditation. Senator Scott has thrown his influence behind this effort in the Senate, and I am continuing to push for speedy Senate action. Just last week, I joined Senator Baker in introducing and voting for the 'School Prayer Amendment" as an amendment to the Equal Rights Resolution, which won Senate approval, and I am hopeful the House will also vote approval of school prayer this year during the November post-election session."_ 112

January 1973 saw the same effort again, with another amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10 to permit voluntary nondenominational prayer or meditation in public schools and buildings. " _I introduce today on behalf of myself and Senator Scott a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary, nondenominational prayer or meditation in public schools and buildings. I introduce the 'School Prayer Amendment' because of my disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of the 1960's which held school prayer unconstitutional. I believe prayer has a rightful place in our public schools and I believe the great majority of Americans share my belief...._

Mr. President, as originally drafted and interpreted, the first amendment to the Constitution did not deny the right to voluntary, nondenominational prayer in schools. In fact, public prayer in this country is a well-established tradition. Congress opens each daily session with a prayer. Many government meetings and functions are begun with prayer. Chaplains and representatives of organized religions participate in many government activities. And in none of these instances is the First Amendment violated.

_However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment banning school prayer makes it necessary for Congress to specifically mandate by Constitutional Amendment the right of the people 'lawfully assembled...' to participate voluntarily in nondenominational prayer or meditation. As Citizens for Public Prayer, a national prayer organization, explains, 'This process of restoration is not an attack on the First Amendment but rather a defense and reaffirmation of it. It is by no means a matter of repealing or even tampering with the First Amendment. It is a question of clarifying the Amendment so that it is in accord with the clear will of the nation."_ 113

On March 10th Schweiker introduced Senate Resolution 84 which clarified some of his language to make it clearer and more palatable to some of his colleagues. In June both Senator Baker and Schweiker sent a Dear Colleague letter to their fellow Senators, calling attention to the 10th anniversary of the most recent Supreme Court Decision banning school prayer and urging them to bring the School Prayer Amendment to a vote in the Senate. This was followed by hearings before the Senate subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on July 27th. In his comments Schweiker responded to those who worried about the right of students not to pray and the idea of compulsion on those who were uncomfortable with the concept of prayer. But he raised an interesting point that is conveniently ignored today in our politically-correct and diversity-glorifying culture: _"I could not agree more that students should have an option not to participate in prayer. But just as we defend their right not to pray, so should we defend the right of those students who wish to pray. The sole intention of the resolutions I have sponsored, and the other resolutions you will review today, is to restore the rights of those students who wish only to acknowledge the presence of a force greater than themselves. I do not believe they are asking too much"_  It appears that the rights of the Christians to pray was not as important as the rights of the non Christians to deny them that right, in spite of the Senator's comment. Richard's patience and tenacity continued with both the school prayer issue and the Amish Social Security issue throughout his career.

Richard was not alone in his concern about pulling Bible reading and prayer out of the public school system. Twenty one years after Richard introduced his first constitutional amendment, and eleven years after this speech, President Reagan also began pressing for a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in Public schools. _"Can it really be true that the First Amendment can permit Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen to march on public property, advocate the extermination of people of Jewish faith and the subjugation of blacks, while the same amendment forbids our children from saying a prayer in School?" he wondered aloud in a February 1984 radio address"_

On November 6, 1963 Richard again introduced the Amish Social Security Bill, this time H.R.9043, during the 1st session of the 88th Congress. The language was almost identical to his first bill, but this time he added to the sentence four words that tightened the bill just a bit. Under Section 223, the sentence now contained the words, "without violating his faith". It now read " _Any individual who is a member of a church whose established doctrines are such that he cannot in good conscience without violating his faith participate in the benefits program under this title...."_ There were several other wording changes, but it was essentially the same bill, which was again referred to the Ways and Means committee. In a speech from 1970 then Senator Schweiker reflected on the tortuous history of the social security legislation from those years. _"In 1964, there was Social Security legislation in Congress. Since the House was operating under a closed rule, I was unable to introduce an amendment to the 1964 Social Security law. However, the Senate version of the bill contained such an amendment. The House-Senate Conference Committee then had to decide whether to use the House version of the bill which had no provision for the Amish exemption or the Senate version which included the Senate amendment. I wrote letters to all Congressmen and personally talked to the house members of the Conference Committee, urging them to accept the Senate version for the Amish. Fortunately the Treasury Department as well as the Justice Department rendered legal opinions saying the Old Order Amish exemption met all constitutional requirements and was strictly a matter of legislative policy. Finally, the conferees agreed to accept the Senate Amish Amendment for which I was very pleased. Unfortunately, the bill died in the Conference committee because of the dispute over Medicare._ 116

Richard was undeterred. Immediately following his re-election victory in November 1964 he planned his re-introduction of the bill. On January 6, 1965 in the 89th Congress he introduced H.R. 1735 for the same purpose of Social Security relief for the Amish. In his statement of January 7, 1965 Schweiker noted " _the 19,000 Old Order Amish live in some 270 communities in 19 states, many of them in Pennsylvania. Practically every detail of their way of living is related to their long-held religious beliefs."_ 117 This time Richard included a statement from the Treasury Department General Counsel who advised Schweiker that _"there would be no valid constitutional objection to the proposed exemption and the question of exemption is one of public policy for Congress to determine. The proposed exemption would in all probability be held a valid accommodation of the general law to permit religious liberty under the free exercise clause"_ 118

On July 30, 1965 Congress amended the Internal Revenue code allowing exemption to the self-employment tax for the Amish. A partial victory, self employment tax covered the Amish farmers, who at the time might have represented a significant number of the total, but increasingly the Amish were being forced to work outside the farm. The increasing prosperity of the post war era had dramatically increased the price of farm land. Many younger family members of the Pennsylvania Amish were forced to move to western states in search of reasonably priced farm land, others decided to work outside the farm, in small woodworking shops and in various other trades that conformed to their religious beliefs on power equipment. This then presented a problem. As an employee who objected to social security as insurance and utilized the Amish support system, they wanted to be exempt from the Social Security tax, just as their self employed brethren were.

The period between 1966 and 1970 were filled with effort and political changes for Congressman Schweiker. He was forced to run a difficult primary race in 1966 and in 1967 he made the decision to run for the Senate seat of Joseph Clark in 1968. Schweiker was, however, back on the Amish religious freedom trail by September of 1970. On September 25, 1970 Senator Schweiker introduced an amendment to H.R. 17550 to allow an exemption from social security tax on wages, not just from self-employment tax for those religiously opposed to insurance.

The new amendment did contain much of the same information as the previous ones he had introduced in the 1960s. He continued to insist that the religious exemption be for religious orders in existence since 1950, in effect eliminating the new age "religious cults" springing up in California and elsewhere. He also addressed a new issue. If you exempted the Amish from paying social security tax, wouldn't that make them preferred employees, since the employer would save on his share of the tax? " _In addition, the employer would continue to pay into the Social Security fund, thus, eliminating any chance that such an amendment would make one employee more desirable than another. The objective here obviously is not to make one group of people more desirable employees than another, but instead to assist those who object to social security coverage because it directly opposes the basic religious tenets of their faith. Since the employer would continue to pay into the Social Security fund, the exempted employee would offer no financial advantage over the non-exempted employee."_

The employer would not benefit more from employing the Amish than the non Amish. But in this case the government fund benefited from the tax collected on the employer's share, without a recipient that would eventually claim it. While a fine compromise on the immediate problem, the issue highlights the point that when government passes a law that gets involved in social engineering, even with programs such as Social Security, there are winners and losers and inevitably the government gets drawn into more detailed and complex social situations. Parsing the winners and losers, trying to write laws limiting the damage to collateral areas becomes increasingly difficult. If you can't have school prayer for Christians, how do you allow Moslems to pray five times a day in school? If you demand a tax to protect people in their old age by insurance how do you handle the people who object on religious principles, especially when you claim to have freedom of religion? If you don't believe in Social Security, because it involves insurance, how do you handle Medicare? This requires more laws and the cause of justice is harder to obtain, creating a vicious cycle of laws and lawsuits. Good work for the lawyers, but of questionable value to the majority of the people of the nation and their financial and spiritual health.

On May 15, 1972 Senator Schweiker again issued a press release, this time praising the Supreme Court decision allowing the Amish to pull their children out of public schools after the eighth grade. " _it is one of the basic tenets of the Amish faith that eight years of schooling is enough," Schweiker said. "I do not feel it is correct for compulsory education laws to outweigh the constitutional right of a freedom-loving people to live according to their religious beliefs. Rarely is their justification for over-riding the guarantees of religious freedom in the Constitution," he said. "And besides, the Amish were settled in this country and adhering to the tenets of their religious faith long before the Constitution was adopted"...."It is difficult for me to understand why we have not been ready to permit religious groups to conscientiously object to economic regulations when we rightfully recognize their right to object to military service. The Amish oppose all forms of social security because they regard it, on religious grounds, not as a tax, but as a policy premium in a national insurance program. Similarly" he said, "We must respect the right of the Amish to educate their children as they see fit. Today the United States Supreme Court has rightfully reaffirmed this right."_ 120 This is an interesting point focusing on the freedom of religion and education. Whether in this day of Madrassas, Senator Schweiker would continue to champion the right of the Amish to "educate their children as they see fit" is something he alone can answer. Of course it could be said that that the peaceful Amish don't condone or go around killing people of opposite religions. Likewise how can society afford people not educated to the high school level, when they will become a burden to the rest of us as they increasingly fall behind in economic buying power and inevitably become wards of the state, costing us in welfare payments and assistance? Again the self reliance of the Amish and their religious unwillingness to become wards of the state mitigate this possibility. Anyone who has watched the hordes of tourists who descend on Lancaster County, Pennsylvania to view the "quaint" Amish and their black horse drawn buggies, understands the contrast between the tourists and the quiet dignity of the Amish. The Amish refused to compromise in their faith for modern social ideals. Their fierce determination to resist the demands of others to tell them how to behave and their demand to be free, with the right to determine their own life, is admirable.

Chapter Seven

### Lewis and Schweiker in the 60's and 70's

Richard entered Congress in 1961 along with another young Republican from Pennsylvania, William W. Scranton. Scranton was from the family that founded the city in Pennsylvania that bears their family name. In 1961, when they took office in Washington, the state of Pennsylvania had gone Democrat in the race for Governor for two terms. Both the State Republican Committee and now former President Eisenhower were looking for young republicans that could revitalize the party and win the governorship in the 1962 elections. Eisenhower had appointed Scranton to a post in the State Department in 1959 and he served there for about a year before he resigned to run for Congress. Scranton was nine years older than Richard, but his career had been interrupted by the Second World War, and he entered politics only a few years before Richard. As a result they were both seen as young stars of the party with their Congressional victories in 1960.

In 1961 Richard met with former President Eisenhower at his farm in Gettysburg and had the tour of the battlefield there that the freshman Republicans had been offered in the early part of the year by then President Eisenhower. This was the second time Schweiker had met the President, following his lunch with him in 1952 as an alternate delegate to the National Convention. One result of the casual acquaintance between the two was a letter to Congressman Schweiker from Eisenhower on December 28, 1961. Eisenhower was wintering in Palm Desert California, but was keeping up with the political maneuvering back home in Pennsylvania as he mentioned in the letter:

" _Some of my friends greatly interested in the political scene in Pennsylvania have told me that you are at least considering making yourself available for nomination for governor by the Republican Party. This note is merely to express my personal hope that you will go forward with your plan. With your drive and dedication, I am sure you can command the support to win, and by winning I believe you will have an opportunity to make an even greater contribution to the people of our state and the country._

With best wishes to you and yours for a fine 1962, and warm regard,

Sincerely,

_Dwight Eisenhower"_ 121

Richard wasn't able to follow up the action asked for in the note, as the party coalesced behind the older and more politically connected Scranton in the nomination for Governor in 1962. Richard worked for Scranton in Montgomery County along with the county chairman and was noted for doing so by the county party itself; an indication of Richard's increasing influence with the local party since his election to Congress in 1960. The party issued a press release on April 18th 1962 touting a visit by candidate Scranton on the 26th.

" _Montgomery County's Congressman Richard S. Schweiker, and Republican Chairman James E. Staudinger, have completed preparations which will aid the people of Montgomery County to become more aware of the need for a change in the administration in Harrisburg._

_Pointing out that the basic issues confronting Pennsylvania must be dealt with realistically, Congressman Schweiker said: We are delighted to welcome Congressman Scranton to Montgomery County and to hear him detail why we need a change in administration in Harrisburg. Congressman Scranton is an impressive campaigner for the things in which he believes. He is among the growing number of Pennsylvanians who feel that we must realistically face up to the problems of unemployment and new industry"_ 122

Later in that same press release the party noted that Scranton had won his traditionally Democratic district by 17,000 votes in 1960 when Kennedy had won it by 30,000 votes against Nixon. This was an indication of the importance the party saw in pulling Democratic votes for a statewide election in Pennsylvania.

Both Schweiker and Scranton won their elections in 1962, with Scranton becoming a highly popular Governor in the state. The moderate Republican ideology of both politicians was a critical reason for their success in the state, and had an impact on the thinking of the Pennsylvania Republican Party for years. When the national Republican Party was looking for a Presidential candidate in 1964 the Pennsylvania Republican Party was vigorously promoting Governor Scranton as the man who would be able to step in and win the election. Montgomery County Republican Chairman Jim Staudinger was named as the executive committee Chairman of the Scranton for President club in March of 1964 as the club attempted to get Scranton into the national limelight. The campaign went nowhere and the national party settled on the senator from Arizona, conservative Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was not able to connect with Pennsylvania in the election of 1964, and Johnson took the state by a significant margin. In fact he took Montgomery County, Schweiker's home county, and bastion of Republicanism in southeastern Pennsylvania by 33,000 votes. Richard was able to win his third term in Congress in that election, primarily because his republican base split their ticket only for the Presidential race. Richard won his race by a 43,000 vote majority. On November 4, 1964 Richard and County Republican Chairman Jim Staudinger commented on the race and its aftermath:

" _The victory of our Congressional and state legislative candidates, in view of the Democratic national sweep, is a gratifying tribute by Republicans and Democrats alike to the outstanding ability and qualifications of our local candidates._

The victory margins of our local candidates are particularly impressive in light of the unexpected Johnson victory in Montgomery County.

_Now we must work harder than ever to rebuild our party. This is especially important for Pennsylvanians who have enjoyed two years of exemplary state administration under the leadership of Governor Scranton"_ 123

The lessons of the 1964 debacle were not lost on the Pennsylvania

Republican Party and they took from it an entirely different lesson than members of a small kitchen cabinet in California, who would convince a former actor to challenge Pat Brown two years later for Governor of California. Pennsylvania republicans became convinced that a moderate republican in the mold of William Scranton was the only way they could carry the state. It was a belief that increased in the coming years, proved by various elections, and was still going strong twelve years later. This was especially true in Montgomery County where the Johnson win had fallen like a thunder clap on the party, as evidenced by the joint declaration above.

Congressman Schweiker had been carving out a legislative record as a moderate Republican and had been re-elected two times, including 1964. Drew Lewis was his campaign manager in three elections and was becoming a well-known fund raiser for the party, as well as for Schweiker. Two significant allies of Richard and Drew came from the ranks of the elected legislature in Pennsylvania. State Representative, (1963-64) and later State Senator (1964-1978), Wilmot Fleming of Jenkintown brought support from the northeast section of the county. State Representative (1961-1966) and later State Senator Ed Holl (1966-2002) of Lansdale provided support in the central section of the county. Ed used to hold court in the Hotel Tremont in Lansdale, or the Cedars Tavern in Skippack on the border of Worcester, talking with constituents and business leaders over lunch. The support of these two, along with others, gave Richard and Drew a base which they could build on as they solidified their position with the county party. In addition, one of Drew's Norristown High School classmates had a younger brother who was elected to the PA House of Representatives: Bob Butera. At the 50th Anniversary celebration of the A.D. Eisenhower High School (now the middle school) in Norristown, Drew reminisced: _"Lewis, recalling his school days for an attentive audience that included the sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-graders of the middle school, said he and a friend used to pick on the friend's brother. The brother, Robert Butera, went on to become the state House Minority Leader and a candidate for governor."_

In 1965 republicans in Pennsylvania were discussing who they could nominate to replace Governor Scranton. At the time Pennsylvania's constitution only allowed a governor to serve for one four year term. Schweiker's name was bandied about, and he received a letter/petition from the Montgomery County delegation in the State General Assembly supporting his candidacy and pledging to support the Congressman in his bid for the Governorship. The list included traditional Schweiker supporters such as Edwin Holl of Lansdale, Wilmot Fleming of Jenkintown, Robert Butera of Norristown, G. Seiber Pancoast of western Montgomery County, and Representative Larry Caughlin of Lower Merion. Caughlin was a former Marine. He had been aide-de-camp to Lieutenant General Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller during the Korean conflict and represented an area of the county in which Schweiker was not popular, having defeated its favorite son, John LaFore, in 1960.

It became obvious by the end of the year that the majority of the state party was backing the lieutenant governor, Raymond Shafer from Meadville, located in the western part of the state. Congressman Schweiker was able to read the tea leaves and on January 11, 1966 issued a statement backing out of the race to succeed Governor Scranton: _"It has become increasingly clear in recent days that a large segment of the party's leadership and its workers wish to nominate Lt. Governor Shafer as the Republican candidate for Governor. In view of this support for Lt. Governor Shafer, I have this afternoon informed the Republican State Executive Committee that I have decided not to become a candidate for the gubernatorial nomination..... I have enjoyed serving the people of Montgomery County in the U. S. Congress since 1961, and I now intend to seek re-election to my 4_ th _term in Congress."_ 125

There followed an interesting and potentially disruptive 1966 primary re-election campaign, in which the Lower Merion wing of the County Republican Party attempted to unite with other county republicans, to replace Schweiker with his predecessor in Congress, John LaFore. The primary campaign was a hard fought campaign in which Richard prevailed at the ballot box, by a 3 to 1 margin, but it again brought out the divisions within the party both geographically and philosophically. LaFore attacked Schweiker as a liberal who had sold out the business interests in Montgomery County and the state by voting with the union position, and against a pro-open shop provision in a bill. The issue was more complex, but it always is when challengers are looking for an issue. The bitter fight that Congressman Schweiker had waged in the primary for his fourth term had draw commentary in Washington, from the political commentators Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. They opined about the tendency of the Republican Party to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory by internecine warfare over minor issues. Complaining that the party did not learn the lessons of the 1964 election, and demanding ideological purity at the expense of practical politics, they attacked the local Main Line paper, the Main Line Chronicle, and a prominent main line family in an attempt to demonize Schweiker's opponents.

_The energies and funds of suburban Montgomery County have been solely devoted to a right wing attempt to purge Rep. Richard Schweiker, a promising and attractive 39 year old Republican Congressman..... in expending such violent effort to nominate a mossback from this safe district, the party proves again the force of their old death wish that has been destroying it the last 35 years. That Dick Schweiker is the purge target perfectly illustrates the death wish...Nor is he a wild-eyed leftist. In Congress last year, he was in the middle of the road: rated 44 per cent conservative by the Americans for Constitutional Action (ADA). Before that, he was even less of a liberal. In the 88_ th _Congress (1963-64), he was rated 62 per cent by the ADA._

_Why then the attack on him? Because Schweiker cast one vote of total irrelevance to Montgomery County or Pennsylvania. The result has been a campaign of the kind seldom seen in Philadelphia's sedate suburbs. Families are divided, brother against brother._ 126

LaFore represented the eastern portion of the county where the Congressman had traditionally resided and the financial wealth in the area was substantial. To them Schweiker was an anomaly and was moving the party away from its traditional roots and their district. This meant Richard had to raise funds from alternative sources for his campaign, as the traditional financial backing dried up, and increased pressure on the party to come to an agreement on the role of Lower Merion in the party structure. Richard was going to face a problem in the future, being branded a liberal and not having ready access to campaign funding from the business community, while being wildly popular with the voting public. Obviously it is more important to be popular with the voters than the big money interests, but if the money is not there in a campaign it is impossible for a candidate to get the message out. Schweiker needed to rely on the County Republican Party to work for him, to continue to get his message out.

In many ways attempting to remove Schweiker and replace him with the former Congressman represented just what Novak and Evans had claimed; a coup by the old time establishment. There was however, also another component that they tried to gloss over, and that was Schweiker's willingness to accommodate organized labor and not fight for the rights of business. Caught in the cross fire of this battle was the small entrepreneur, who was unable to bring his new product to market, or successfully build a business in a high cost labor state. The large businesses in the state had been dealing with large labor contracts for years. The economic changes developing in the 60's had not yet driven Bethlehem Steel out of business, but increasing global competition was coming. The political power of the unions was sufficient to get even Republican politicians to pay attention in the 60's and Richard recognized that he needed to accommodate them if he wanted higher office.

Richard and his advisors, Drew, Ed Holl, others in the county delegation and state committee members, began looking at options for the coming years. Internecine warfare is always a killer in politics as it drains enthusiasm and weakens the structure of the party. Schweiker was able to fight the party and win in 1960. His people moved to strengthen their advantage in the next two elections and worked closely with Chairman Staudinger to solidify that position. In 1966 it became apparent that a geographic and demographic section of the party was not willing to go quietly into the night and was actively working to unravel that coalition. While Schweiker was a popular elected leader with the majority of the voters, he was a marked man to elements of the party. Richard was able to tell his supporters after the primary on Tuesday evening May 17, 1966:

" _To the many hundreds of people who have worked so hard to make this overwhelming victory possible---to each and every one of them--- I give my sincere thanks. Their dedication and tireless efforts were in the best traditions of the American political system and our Republican Party._

I am extremely grateful for the decisive demonstration of support provided by this election. The margin of victory far exceeded my fondest hopes.

The election results clearly justify my faith in the ability of Montgomery County voters to intelligently judge the issues and the candidates in a rational, calm and reasonable manner.

_Montgomery county republicans have shown at the polls that ours is a party that cares for people----all the people. They have shown that they reject negativism---that they want officeholders willing to recognize and solve 20_ th _Century problems---to accomplish the things that need to be done."_

_My one regret tonight is that our late Chairman and my close friend, Jim Staudinger, cannot be with us to see the results of his dedication and hard work_ 127

The last sentence was a note of mourning for Jim Staudinger, county chairman, who was killed in a plane crash along with the Pennsylvania Attorney General, earlier in the month. The loss of Staudinger was a blow to the party. County fund raiser and Richard's campaign chairman, Drew Lewis, was able to step in and win election as County chairman after the primary. Drew was to be County Chairman from 1966 through 1969 when he stepped aside for Andrew Michie III. In this period Drew not only was county chairman, he also continued to be Richard Schweiker's campaign manager for his last congressional campaign and his first senate campaign.

When Drew decided to run for the chairmanship of the Montgomery County Republican Committee he went to the chairman of the National Gypsum Corporation where he worked to ascertain that there was no problem or conflict of interest that would preclude his election. " _Before I became a candidate for the chairmanship, I had a long discussion with the President of the parent company-(National Gypsum Co.). I told him I wanted to try for the county political leadership, but that if it would interfere with my business career—politics would have to go. Happily, he saw no conflict, so long as I sought no row office, state office, or paid political appointment"_ 128 Drew was elected to the position on June 2, 1966 at the annual meeting of the party.

Most of the party recognized that Drew was the personal choice of Congressman Schweiker. The several weeks between the death of Chairman Staudinger, the primary election and the meeting had been an active time of securing support for Drew. The state party, recognizing the importance of Montgomery County to the state and the enormous loss suffered by the death of Chairman Jim Staudinger in the plane crash, was represented by state chairman Craig Truax, at the election meeting in June. Drew's name was placed in nomination by County Commissioner A. Russell Parkhouse, and seconded by the other Republican Commissioner William W. Vogel and by County Treasurer Joseph Cain. There being no other nominations the election was closed and Drew was elected. Drew in his acceptance speech hit several areas of concern for the party. Winning the fall election was number one on the list but second was party unity. _"The second concern of our county committee which is certainly part of the first objective is unity within the county organization itself. In my letter sent to all of you, I stated that I will represent the entire county, not any one segment in terms of individuals or geographical location. I mean just that. I will be concerned with the total party picture and the total county. My actions as chairman certainly will not please all of you all of the time; however, if you will take this pledge at face value and give my actions an opportunity to speak, I feel my concern for complete unity within the county party will be clear._ 129 The importance of this portion of the speech lies in the history of the party in the immediate past six years. Drew was recognized as part of a youth-oriented revolution engineered by Congressman Richard Schweiker, himself, Ed Holl and several others that shifted the center of political power from the eastern third of the county to a more central location and from an older generation to a younger one.

In the primary only about 3 weeks previous, this group had beaten back a strong challenge to Congressman Schweiker from the old guard in Lower Merion in the form of former Congressman John LaFore. The importance of uniting the party was recognized throughout the state Republican Party and the national scene.

During his first six months as Chairman, Drew would be actively involved in numerous races in the county, a federal Congressman, nine state representatives, three state senators, and a governor. The work was intensive. He was able to analyze races from a different perspective than as a single campaign manager. This experience led to some long range changes in Drew's life that would become apparent in the years to come. Drew was the youngest Montgomery County Republican chairman in its history, just 34 years old when elected to the post. His business acumen was a valuable asset that he brought to the post. His abilities in the areas of finance and organization were needed and utilized in the next two years. " _He is the original organized man, with a daily list of things to do and people to see. He plots and he plans and he does his homework"_ 130 In addition to organizing, Drew had developed a reputation for fund raising which was much needed in the county. In his acceptance speech Drew noted that the county came through the primary in debt, to the tune of $11,000, and had an expensive series of races to run for the general election that fall. His energy and enthusiasm would be necessary for the welfare of the party and the candidates.

Richard was able to increase his control of the local party apparatus, necessitated by the unfortunate accident to Jim Staudinger with Drew's elevation to county chairman. Richard's re-election in the November general election was by his biggest margin ever, 88,390 votes for 72.5% of the vote cast. However, the underlying discontent was still evident and needed to be soothed and controlled. During the next year discussions were held and actions considered that would alleviate some of the hard feelings that had festered for the past 7 years.

Since Drew Lewis was now the Montgomery County Republican Chairman his influence in the state had increased beyond his fund raising abilities and his role as Schweiker's campaign manager. Having had discussions with Schweiker and others during the early part of 1967 concerning Richard's political career, he sent a letter to Richard from his position as County Chairman on August 11, 1967 making a request.

Dear Dick:

We know that you have not yet decided whether to become a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1968. We sincerely hope you will decide to make the race because we are confident you can win and that you would be an outstanding Senator.

As Republicans of your home county we recognize that Montgomery County would achieve important recognition and leadership if you were the Senatorial nominee in 1968 and went on to win in November.

Therefore, we wish to initiate now activities to assist you in determining whether you should run for the Senate in 1968. We would like to set up a Montgomery County Republican Committee-Senate Account to receive contributions and disburse funds as needed for the projects to be undertaken. In addition to this account the committee may wish to incure future liabilities for these projects.

The Committee believes it is possible that, under state law, these expenses might be considered by some to be a candidate's "primary election expenses" should you eventually become a candidate in the primary. Since you have not made a final decision about your candidacy, we are doubtful that these are expenses on behalf of a candidate. All the Montgomery County Republican Committee intends to do at this stage is to study the feasibility of your candidacy and to influence you to become a candidate.

Nevertheless, the committee wants to be certain it complies with every conceivable interpretation of the legal requirement applicable to these funds. If these funds were deemed subsequently to be for your "primary election expenses" as a candidate, then the Committee would have been prohibited by law from receiving and disbursing them, and from incurring liabilities for such activities, unless it had obtained your written authorization.

Therefore, to eliminate any possible future legal question and to comply in every conceivable respect with the Pennsylvania Election Code, we request that you now authorize us to receive and disburse funds even though you are not now a candidate.

Sincerely,

Andrew L. Lewis, Jr.

_County Chairman"_ 131

Schweiker's response was dated four days later and has all the marks of a carefully choreographed dance for the record books. It is apparent that both Drew and Dick were following a formula designed to make sure the legal eagles had their bases covered when he decided to announce for the Senate seat then held by Democrat Joseph Clark of Philadelphia. Schweiker addressed his reply not only to Drew as County Chairman, but also to Frank Jenkins, Republican County Treasurer, making sure both understood his desire to press ahead, without committing at the time.

" _Dear Drew and Frank:_

Thank you very much for your letter of August 11, 1967. I deeply appreciate your warm encouragement that I run for the U.S. Senate in 1968.

You indicate a desire to initiate activities to assist me in determining whether I should become a candidate and mention your need to set up a Montgomery County Republican Committee account to receive contributions and disburse funds.

As you know, I have not yet made a final decision whether to become a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1968. However, after reading your letter I have no objection to your proposal as long as my present position is clearly understood.

Therefore, in accordance with your request, I hereby authorize the Montgomery County Republican Committee, Frank Jenkins, Treasurer, to receive contributions and disburse funds and incur liabilities to explore the feasibility and potential support of my running for the Senate in 1968. I give your Committee my authorization for such activities solely because you feel such authorization might be deemed necessary by some persons to comply in every conceivable respect with the Pennsylvania Election Code, not because I am becoming a "candidate" at this time.

Whether I decide in the future to run will depend on a number of factors. I am sure your Committee will prove useful to me in exploring these factors.

It is my understanding in providing this authorization at this time that, should I become a candidate in the future, your Committee will report its financial records of this new account as part of primary election receipts and expenditures.

Sincerely,

Richard S. Schweiker

_Member of Congress"_ 132

Actually this correspondence was part of a carefully thought out plan, designed because it was not entirely clear how the law handled campaign contributions for a candidate who had not declared his candidacy. On May 19, 1967 the Library of Congress replied to Congressman Schweiker's query on the issue of the legal reporting requirement. It takes ten pages of legalese to come to the conclusion that under Pennsylvania law: " _A committee cannot collect or disburse funds, etc., for a candidate prior to receiving authorization from him, whether or not he has announced his candidacy. It is presumed that a prospective candidate would probably announce his candidacy prior to any such authorization, but it is not necessary. The authorization, however, is."_ 133

The Montgomery County Republican Committee then received another study that Schweiker had ordered, to determine if the local party could receive funds for the purpose and received essentially the same advice. Richard had to give them the authorization to make it legal.

Richard may have been saying for publication that he hadn't made up his mind, but all during the summer of 1967 and through the fall of the year he was making speeches to various Republican county organizations throughout Pennsylvania. In those speeches he would attack Democrat Senator Clark, or President Johnson's policies. Actually, his plans may have started in 1966, when he was running for his 4th term as Congressman. Facing a primary challenge in 1966 was a much greater problem than the November general election in Republican Montgomery County, and Schweiker did cruise to a large win in that election. In September of 1966 he was criticizing President Johnson's "Guns and Butter" budgeting to 2,400 Republicans in Barnesville, PA as the keynote speaker for the Tri-county GOP Campaign Kickoff Dinner.

Both Drew and Richard had begun making soundings for support throughout the state and in certain business circles about his possible candidacy by early 1967 at the latest. On April 17, 1967 Bob Wilder, President of Philadelphia advertising agency Lewis & Gilman wrote to Drew to offer his support: _"The other evening...I had occasion to chat with Dick Schweiker. I told him that I had intended to write him applauding your mutual decision to have him run for the Senate. I also told him that I was personally very pleased that he had decided to make the race and from where I sit the strategy you had worked out seemed to be very sound. This is simply to let you know that when the time comes, I am ready to put my money where my mouth is and help in any way we can. If we can be of service at any time in helping Dick in this area in arranging a special radio or TV appearance or the like, you need only call us. When you need dollars as you move forward into the program, also let me know that."_ 134

Drew responded the next day and admitted the decision, while thanking Wilder for his support. " _Thank you for very much for your note of April 17 and the good news contained therein. At the present time we are attempting to make County Chairman contacts and will likely be thinking about some type of organization later this summer. You may be certain we will be in touch with you at that time._ 135

During April of '67 a public opinion survey was being done to determine Clark's strength against several Republican candidates and how difficult it would be to unseat him. The two candidates mentioned in the survey were Congressman Schweiker and the Secretary of Internal Affairs, John Tabor, in the Shafer administration in Harrisburg. Neither did well against Clark. Schweiker lost to Clark by 65 to 35 percent and Tabor was even worse, 68.4 to 31.6 percent in the poll. Obviously, neither of the numbers was good for the Republicans. The survey indicated that neither was known by the electorate, while Clark's visibility after 11 years as a Senator gave him considerable name recognition. Clark had been a reform Mayor of Philadelphia before being U.S. Senator, and he was part of a weekly television show called "Your Senators Report" with Republican Senator Hugh Scott. The survey led to several recommendations to Congressman Schweiker in the middle of June:

1. Form a statewide organization to facilitate the campaign and include as many well known Republicans on it as possible

2. Insure statewide support among county and local Republican leaders. It was stated that this could be done by personal contacts with as many as time permitted.

3. The meetings with local Republicans should be advertised to the press in advance. This would also provide publicity from the local press who are always looking for the opportunity to talk with a Congressman.

4. He should associate himself with successful Republicans such as Hugh Scott and William Scranton. (Ray Shafer had been Governor for only a short time, and his tax increases had not poisoned the view of the state government to most tax payers yet, so he was an asset at this time and his support would be solicited as well.)

The strategy developed has all the earmarks of a Schweiker/Lewis campaign. Study the situation, develop the plan, work the plan, and win the election.

Drew had been studying the lay of the land in the election calendar ever since his election to County Chairman, and probably even before. He focused on Senator Clark as the most vulnerable Democrat in 1968 and maneuvered Congressman Schweiker into a position to run against him. Why did Drew think he could win this race against the sitting Senator, especially when the surveys told him that Clark had great name recognition? An article in the Washington Evening Star in April of 1967 provides some clues. _"Sen. Joseph S. Clark, the Philadelphia reformer who found it takes more than a white hat to reform Washington, is thinking of quitting the Senate._

The Pennsylvania Democrat has told intimates his decision on whether to run again in 1968 will rest on three main factors: the outlook for the war in Vietnam; the outcome of this year's municipal elections in Philadelphia; and the extent to which the breakup of his marriage may affect his chances.

Clark can hardly find encouragement in any of the three.

He is a dove on Vietnam and has taken sharp issue with President Johnson both privately and publicly. At a White House meeting last January, he is reported to have told the President: 'As things now stand, if we are not out of Vietnam by the summer of 1968 you and I are licked.'.... Clark bucked the organization in 1964 when he supported Genevieve Blatt in the Democratic Primary for Republican Hugh Scott's post. She narrowly won over Michael A. Musmanno but the fight left the party gasping and Scott won re-election in the face of the national Democratic sweep that year..... If Clark decides to retire, his decision will occasion little regret on Capitol Hill. Even his liberal colleagues in the Senate would be unlikely to mourn, for his reform crusades have palled on them almost as much as they have on the conservatives with whom he has done constant battle.

Clark has refused to work with the Senate 'establishment' and consequently has never been an insider there.

' _He's a lousy parliamentarian and a lousy strategist,' said one Capitol Hill liberal..."_ 136 Perhaps Drew had a reason to feel that Richard could "win this one big".

By the summer of 1967 it was becoming an open secret throughout state Republican circles that Schweiker was planning a run against Clark. It was also obvious to the reporters covering the Congressman. Lawrence O'Rourke announced in June 9, 1967 that _"Schweiker Opens Bid for Clark's Seat"_ 137 Schweiker was a speaker at the convention of the International Association of Machinists in Franklin, PA. He attacked Senator Clark's position on the Vietnam conflict from the right, which is interesting in light of his subsequent positions on that conflict. The other leading paper in Philadelphia followed a day later claiming "Schweiker All Set For His Rubicon" in an article by Jerome Cahill: _"Rep. Richard S. Schweiker took a couple of giant steps this week toward his personal Rubicon.... Schweiker's Rubicon is the decision he faces on whether to announce his candidacy next year for the U. S. Senate seat now held by Sen. Joseph Clark (D,Pa). Although his aspirations in this direction have been no secret, the Montgomery County Republican has been careful to avoid picking a fight with the incumbent Senator....This week the gloves came off. In two separate speeches to Pennsylvania audiences Schweiker unloaded sharp attacks on Clark foreign policy positions, where the Senator is believed to be most vulnerable politically"_ 138

The Scrantonian on July 9, 1967 reported in an article, "Schweiker Interested in Senate Seat", but he would step aside if former Governor William Scranton wanted to run. Schweiker told the paper in response to a question on running against Clark in '68, " _I have considered the possibility, but I will make no decision until after the November election"_ 139 On July 12th he was addressing Oil City Republicans at the annual Republican picnic and on July 15 1967 he was telling the Northern York County Republican Club that Senator Clark was a "naïve dreamer" whose support of Egypt's Nasser through our massive aid programs only made him readier for war. He castigated the Johnson Administration, claiming that "the administration has courted one disaster after another" in the Middle East. This was only weeks after the Six Day War in which Israel defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. On August 21st he was telling the Philipsburg Area Republican picnic goers that it was essential for the Republican Party to "stop being the party that opposes and start being a party that proposes" calling for "constructive Republican ideas". On August 22nd he was addressing the Butler County Council of Republican Women. All through the summer Schweiker was canvassing the state, gauging his chances and trying to discern if the state republicans would support his candidacy. Mason Denison, a syndicated columnist in 40 Pennsylvania newspapers, observed that even though Richard had not formally announced his candidacy for the Senate, he was doing all the things that a candidate would.

For the past several months the 41 year-old Congressman has been bustling about the state sentiment-testing local politicos, county chairmen, and on occasion in and out of Governor Shafer's sanctum.

_Aides say the response he has found among GOP brethren in the field has been good to excellent, an evaluation concurred in by many of Pennsylvania's Republican political bigwigs here on Capital Hill..... He (Schweiker) is generally regarded as having excellent liaison with Pennsylvania's other U.S. Senator, Hugh Scott, who is more of a behind-the-scenes power in Pennsylvania GOPolitics than most people realize. Until Mr. Scranton finally caved in back in 1962 and agreed to run for Governor, Mr. Scott was privately pushing the then comparatively young-in-office Congressman Schweiker for the post."_ 140

Schweiker continued his perambulations around the commonwealth during the fall of 1967. A Federal Congressman is a prized speaker at a fund raiser for county Republican functions, giving the county republicans an intimate update on federal happenings, without the gatekeeper function that the mass media had placed around it at this time. It allowed county committee people, and influential donors to the party, the opportunity to "measure the man" who might be seeking state-wide office at some time in the future. When Richard was making himself available to the various county functions he was also working the party officials soliciting their support and polling them on his opportunity in their region. It allowed the Congressman to point the following year at the local fund raising he had helped with the previous year, earning him some respect and attention when it came time to solicit endorsements. It followed the strategy that had been developed to make his primary election inevitable, and his chances to unseat Clark in the November election much better. Again this was a classic Schweiker and Lewis strategy; develop the plan and then work the plan.

On October 24, 1967 Richard was the key-note speaker at the Beaver County Republican Fund Raising Dinner. He told them 1968 would see a Republican victory in the Presidential election, but he again emphasized that Republicans needed to "stop being the party that opposes and start being the party that proposes". One example was his support for what was then called Tax-sharing, in which a portion of federal tax revenues would be sent to the state government with minimal federal control _. "Tax-sharing would let State governments do more for their own people's needs. And many of the present Federal grant programs could be planned and run better at the state level than from Washington"_ 141 He then turned to Senator Clark and attacked his positions as out-of-touch with Pennsylvania.

Obviously, the idea of moving up to senator was a plum that Schweiker was reaching for as he spoke at the various county functions. The prestige of being a Senator is significantly larger than a mere Congressman. The opportunity to have an impact is consequently greater. Being a senator had numerous qualities that made it attractive, not least being that it was a six year term, and not a two year term. The rigors of campaigning were not as frequent, but the geographical area of campaigning was correspondingly larger. Running for the Senate freed up the Congressional seat that he held for an individual from the south-eastern portion of the county where the financial strength of the GOP was strongest. In 1969 at a retirement "Appreciation Night" for Drew Lewis from his position as County Chairman (caused by his promotion to assistant to the President of National Gypsum and the move to Buffalo where corporate headquarters was located) Dick reminisced for the crowd about the effect that Drew had on his career: " _Drew came to me with another idea. What is it Drew, I asked him? 'Dick, I want you to run for the Senate'! Why, Why is that Drew? Because Larry Caughlin wants to become a Congressman! Clark's seat is the only other one open, unless you want to run against Hugh Scott in 1970. Obviously he didn't leave me much choice."_ 142 The line about Caughlin created a real moment of hilarity for the attendees. But there was a bit of truth in the line, as there always is in good comedy. Larry Caughlin did follow Richard as Congressman in the 13th District. He was a State Senator in 1967 and had been eying the Congressional post for a while. Dick went on to compliment Drew on his management of the senate campaign of 1968. " _His management on my senate campaign was masterful, just before I announced he came to me and said: 'Dick we're going to win this one big'. Two months later he came to me and said: 'Dick you're in trouble'. Now I won't go so far as to say that his confidence in my ability to get elected sometime wavered. But there was that time in Miami Beach, right after Nixon made his selection for Vice Presidential running mate, when he came back from convention hall; we're walking through the lobby of the Diplomat Hotel together and someone grabbed his arm and pointed to me and said: Who is that? 'That's former Congressman Schweiker from Pennsylvania'."_ 143 Dick in his remarks that night went on to remember the $50 bet with Drew, who said Dick was going to be swept into office on Nixon's coattails. Dick wasn't swept into office on Nixon's coattails', Schweiker won a very tight race in PA in 1968. Nixon didn't win Pennsylvania, even though he won the Presidency.

In late November 1967 Schweiker formally announced his intention to seek the Senate seat currently held by Joseph Clark of Philadelphia. This early announcement had its intended strong effect on the shape of the race. In December of 1967 the Scranton Tribune opined on the status of the race:

Pennsylvania counts few politicians more adroit than Wayne County's Lester F. Burlein.

That fact was underscored this week, when John K. Tabor, state secretary of internal affairs, announced he would not be a candidate next spring for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. In removing himself from the picture, the able and likeable Tabor said he would support the senatorial candidacy of Cong. Richard Schweiker, Montgomery County.

Secretary Tabor made his decision after taking soundings in key areas of the state-including Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. It can only be concluded that Tabor's probings convinced him that it would be most difficult-if not impossible- to best Schweiker, who before announcing his candidacy some weeks ago apparently had lined up considerable and influential support.

_Some of that support was represented in the person of Les Burlein, veteran Wayne County and 10_ th _Congressional District GOP leader and chairman of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission._

Burlein's identification with the Schweiker candidacy was enough to convince most observers of Pennsylvania politics that Schweiker, with his early lining up of support and quick announcement of candidacy, had outmaneuvered the field and probably could not be overtaken.

_No one doubts that Tabor, given reasonable guarantees of support, would have gone to the post, even if it meant a sharp primary battle. Obviously, Tabor did not receive the encouragement he needed. And being the type of man he is, he would be reluctant to enter a primary fight which, even should he be able to win it, would leave the party wounded and weakened for the important Presidential and U.S. Senate election next year."_ 144

The party coalesced around Richard's candidacy and endorsed him for the position. The plan was working almost exactly as planned and hoped. On February 7, 1968 Schweiker was speaking as the endorsed Republican candidate for Senate to the Snyder County Republican Women, telling them _"Mr. Clark has become the Senator of the Empty Chair, and I intend to expose his record completely during this campaign. Clark seldom attends executive sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, as part of a poor attendance record, has missed the most momentous foreign policy votes of the Senate in this decade. Where is Mr. Clark while his chair is empty in Washington? Certainly not tending to the needs of his constituents, because as you well know, vast sections of Pennsylvania never see or hear from him between elections. His empty chair record in Washington is all the more disgraceful when you remember that it was on this very issue that he campaigned against Senator James Duff back in 1956. Well, this year Mr. Clark is going to have to explain why he himself has kept that chair empty"_ 145 Richard went on to hit Clark on his positions on the Vietnam conflict in his speech.

The focus on Clark missing votes as a senator is similar to the charges against LaFore in 1960 during Richard's first campaign, where LaFore was on a cruise when Congress was in session. It is a political issue that resonates with taxpayers who want value from their representatives and the comfort of knowing they are working to protect their interests and advance their causes in Washington, instead of playing and partying on the taxpayer's dime. However, it appears to be a real issue in the mind of Schweiker, he had an excellent record of attendance in Congress and when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 1974 he will point to the fact that he has the second best attendance record in the Senate at 98%. It seems that the Pennsylvania Dutch sense of responsibility and the recognition that when you have a job you do it right, and work hard, resonated with Richard.

This sense of responsibility for our actions that Richard espoused appears to have been shocked by the rioting in the country's cities that year, following the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4th. In a speech on April 17th to the Tioga County Republican Committee and the Mansfield College Young Republicans, Schweiker declared that the "Federal Panacea" had failed and that it demonstrated the need for enlightened Republican officials and programs to lead the way for the nation. He told them that the devastation in the cities showed _"the root causes of poverty and slum living have scarcely been touched by avalanches of taxpayers' money dispersed for almost 40 years by the Federal Government"._ 146 Schweiker told them that he believed that the private sector of the economy must be encouraged to play an important role in trying to cure the social ills of the country. He contrasted his position in favor of private enterprise with Senator Clark who still looks to the " _tired and antiquated solutions of the 30's, that the answer to any problem is another federal bureau, another federal program and another federal handout"_ 147

On April 23rd the Republican voters selected him to represent the party in the general election and on May 1, 1968 Richard sent a letter to Drew and Frank Jenkins at the Montgomery County Republican Committee formally asking them to "receive contributions, disburse funds and incur liabilities" on behalf of his candidacy in the November 3rd election. The formalities all covered; the campaign would continue all summer and really step up activity during the late summer and fall as the voters began to focus on the election. Two weeks after the primary Drew Lewis was directing Howard Phillips, as the head of the "Citizens for Schweiker" campaign to get the campaign staff hired and new headquarters for the campaign set up in Harrisburg. On Friday May 10, 1968 they were meeting at Montgomery County Headquarters to plan the budget and begin the advertising program.

The campaign actually was utilizing three components to raise money and get the message out about Schweiker: the Dick Schweiker for U.S. Senator Committee, Citizens for Schweiker, and the Montgomery County Republican Committee-Senate Account. All were authorized to raise money for the campaign, each focused on a portion of the campaign, and all were based out of Norristown, PA home to the Montgomery County Republican Party.

By the late summer of 1968 the campaign was moving into full swing. Richard was crossing the state trying to get the party energized. Position papers were prepared for Schweiker and the campaign staff to study, so that all spoke from the same premise. Intensive study had been done on Senator Clark, his record, how he was positioning his campaign against Richard, and how best to counter his tactics.

The firm of Lewis and Gilman was preparing TV commercials attacking Clark and promoting Schweiker, designed to air in late summer and through the fall. By July, Citizens for Schweiker was aggressively promoting Richard and focusing its message to voters around two major themes: _Dick Schweiker tells it like it is_ , and _Joe Clark thinks he knows what's best for you, even if you disagree_ . It had become apparent that Clark was going to try to position Schweiker as a typical politician who based his politics on what was currently popular; the notorious "finger in the wind" that is a staple of democratic politicians. So many politicians try to find the parade and then get in front of it, that Clark thought he could claim that Schweiker was similar. Clark was also going to point to his own fortitude in taking an independent stand, when he believed it was needed. It can be seen from these two themes that Schweiker realized he could effectively oppose Clark and counter-thrust against the Democrat's arguments by pointing to his record in Congress and utilizing the campaign themes they had designed. The TV commercials hammered away at these themes in an indirect yet effective way. One pointed out how Washington changes people who have been there too long, culminating in the audio: _We need young, dynamic leaders like Dick Schweiker. Dick listens to what people say. Dick will represent all the people of Pennsylvania. Not just a very exclusive few._ Another 60 second commercial featured Richard's wife Claire pointing out how Dick was a family man who cared for what's best for the families of Pennsylvania. One attacked Clark for flip-flopping on Vietnam, and aiding Nasser of Egypt to the detriment of Israel. The next attacked Clark's tenure as a reformer who wouldn't listen to the people he's supposed to represent. It claimed he's still trying to solve the problems of the 1940's. And that's the reason why Pennsylvania needed a new generation of political leadership.

A poll was commissioned in July to determine just how formidable Senator Clark was going to be in the fall contest against the Congressman, after the events of the spring campaign. It did not have a very favorable result for the Republican. Initial indications were that Clark would still win the election very comfortably by a 61%- 39% margin. This discouraging result was even more worrisome when the campaign discovered that Richard was only getting about a 53% favorable rating from Republicans.

In looking at the Presidential election year of 1968 it is important to remember that Nixon was the Republican candidate and was not well-regarded in the state by a lot of the voters, as many viewed him as an old time cold warrior from the period before Kennedy and the new generation now running the country. It was hoped by many in the state party that Nixon would pick a moderate for his vice presidential candidate balancing the ticket. This would allow the Pennsylvania party to promote the ticket as a centrist pick, bringing the country back to the center from the social experiments of the Democratic Great Society. Hubert Humphrey, as the Democratic candidate, was tarred by his association with Johnson and the Vietnam War. In addition, the election this time featured the presence of a third party candidate, George Wallace of Alabama. Wallace ran on the American Independent Party ticket, and was the great unknown in the election. Nixon was afraid he would siphon off enough conservative votes to hand the election to Humphrey. Humphrey was worried he would take enough of the blue collar worker vote to give the election to Nixon.

Polls in the early summer had placed Wallace's strength in PA at about 12% of the electorate, but his support was coming from those who were nominally Republican to a greater extent than from the Democrats. Wallace was a Southern Democrat pointing out the wide geographic and philosophical variation in the Democratic Party and the more liberal nature of the northeastern Democratic Party. Both Nixon and Humphrey had reason to be worried about Wallace in Pennsylvania, as did the Republican senatorial candidate.

Schweiker realized by July that his hopes of riding Nixon's coattails to victory in November were not good. The polling pointed to the fact that in a three-way race for president in Pennsylvania, Nixon would not win an absolute majority. This meant that Schweiker had to pull ahead of Nixon in order to win. The poll indicated that Wallace voters were going to break for Clark by 53% to 37%, while Schweiker's hold on the Republican voters was not as strong as Clark's was from Democrat voters. Things did not look promising.

Schweiker needed to make sure the Republican voters voted the straight Party ticket, while pealing some Democrats from Clark. During July and August Schweiker worked on these issues. August was the month in which the Republican Party held its nominating convention in Miami Beach that year. Running from August 5-8th the convention produced the surprise Vice-Presidential nomination of Spiro T. Agnew from Maryland. Many of the Pennsylvania delegation, looking for a moderate Republican to balance the ticket had focused on John Lindsay, former Congressman and current Mayor of New York. His candidacy was still-born when Nixon indicated a preference for Agnew. The Nixon-Agnew ticket was going to prove a difficult sell in Pennsylvania and the delegation knew it. It is with this understanding we can more completely understand the amusement that Schweiker generated in his comments to the Drew Lewis appreciation night in 1969, when he said that Lewis introduced him as "former Congressman Schweiker of Pennsylvania".

In this situation Richard found a way to inadvertently make it worse. An AP article printed shortly after the convention annoyed the chairman of the Nixon for President Campaign in Pennsylvania. The AP article claimed that Schweiker felt the Nixon-Agnew ticket had a 50-50 chance of winning in PA, Schweiker would run an independent campaign, that he had wanted John Lindsay, but that Agnew was more moderate than most thought. However Richard was going to run on his own record. Obviously this could be a serious blow to the campaign if the national ticket took affront, which it appeared to do, and didn't work to have the entire ticket including senate candidate Schweiker elected. In a hurried letter dated August 28, 1968 Schweiker responded by clarifying his position:

First, let me say that the Associated Press report which you saw did not accurately reflect my position.

Second, let me make it abundantly clear that I intend to support for election the Nixon-Agnew team and the entire Republican ticket. I made that clear before and after the convention.

I personally flew several hundred miles last Tuesday for the sole purpose of being on hand to welcome Mr. Nixon when he arrived in Harrisburg.

I did say, and it is in this regard that some confusion apparently arose in the minds of one or two reporters, that I would emphasize my own record in my campaign to unseat Senator Clark. This is only appropriate in a Senate race in which I have an eight-year Congressional record at which to point. By the same token, I would assume that Mr. Nixon will point to his record and contrast it with that of Vice President Humphrey and President Johnson.

_I hope that this helps to clear up any misunderstanding which may have existed because of news reports which do not accurately reflect my position."_ 148

Having calmed the presidential campaign staff in Pennsylvania, Richard continued to pursue his campaign objectives. During the fall he would meet both Nixon and Agnew on their respective trips to Pennsylvania, campaigning together with each for the entire ticket.

Clarifying his positions to contrast them directly with his opponent became more prominent in his campaign. On September 9th, he positioned himself on the gun control debate in Pennsylvania, pointing out that he opposed the gun registration and licensing legislation being considered and, " _I favor and have voted for a federal ban on interstate mail order sales on guns. In a practical way, this cuts down on the possibility of guns falling into the hands of those who would use them unlawfully: the criminal, the mentally ill and the juvenile delinquent._

But registration and licensing legislation would produce only the registration and fingerprinting of our law abiding citizens, not the law breakers. It is unrealistic and wishful thinking to believe that a criminal, a mentally ill person or a juvenile delinquent is going to risk incriminating himself by registering.

Gun controls which realistically reduce the likelihood of crime such as the mail order ban serve an important purpose.

Gun controls which restrict only the law abiding citizen and can be ignored by the criminal are not the right way to decrease violent use of firearms.

_I favor and have voted and worked for increased mandatory penalties for anyone convicted of a crime in which he carried a gun. Let's concentrate our efforts against the criminals and the criminal users of guns."_ 149 This was an important position designed to appeal to the hunters in the state. Pennsylvania had a significant number of hunters and they were politically active, convinced that the elites in Philadelphia and Harrisburg were trying to take the guns out of their hands. This was particularly true of the conservative central part of the state, especially the northern tier of counties, which depended on tourism in the summer and hunters in the fall for a significant boost to the rural economy. Richard had always been a friend of the hunters, but had come under pressure to accommodate the anti-gun forces in the major cities who were concerned with the violence in their own back yard. Richard addressed both of these constituencies in his letter. It is probable that the anti-gun forces were not mollified by his support for a ban on mail order gun sales, while the hunters, who understood that a gun doesn't fire itself, rallied to his campaign. All throughout the fall Richard pounded away on this theme in the up-county market, telling the voters he had voted for and worked for, increased mandatory penalties for anyone convicted of a crime in which he carried a gun. He pledged to concentrate his efforts against criminals and the criminal use of guns, not law abiding gun owners. This helped to solidify the votes of a significant number of conservative Republicans, and swayed many rural Democrats in the Pennsylvania heartland. The loss of the anti-gun activist votes would have been minimal; they wouldn't have voted for a Republican in most cases anyway. The targeting of the rural and blue collar Democrats exposed a fault line in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania that Ronald Reagan would make use of in the election of 1980, creating the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrat.

In October the campaign was being pushed by Republicans in the western part of the state to have Richard enunciate and clarify his position on the subject of voluntary school prayer. Again the campaign was targeting a fault line between the rural Bible Belt and the secular city Democrats. The campaign went to their advertising agency of Lewis & Gilman in Philadelphia to create a short radio commercial that could be played in the western counties. The resulting commercial, which was discussed in a previous chapter, highlighted the record that Richard had created in his years in the Congress on this issue:

This is Congressman Dick Schweiker, your Republican candidate for United States Senator.

Our country was founded on a deep faith in God. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers mentioned God four times. One of our most precious rights has always been the right to worship God.

This is why I was troubled when the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to read the Bible and say the Lord's Prayer in our public schools. For the last five years, in Congress, I have worked to put God back into the schools, by amending our Constitution to allow prayers and Bible reading.

_If I am elected your United States Senator on November 5, I will continue this fight to bring back Bible reading and prayers to our schools. This is Dick Schweiker, your Republican candidate for United States Senator._ 150

The blue collar, church going voter had been objecting to the various Supreme Court decisions on prayer in the schools during the mid sixties, and were increasingly uncomfortable with the radical agenda and taxes that were becoming apparent in the Great Society legislation being advanced by the Johnson administration. By targeting this demographic, and combining it with the traditional Republican voters, it was hoped that Richard could create a winning majority of the vote.

Richard had always been interested in foreign affairs and particularly the problem of communist control of Eastern Europe. The control by the Soviet Union of the countries in Eastern Europe was the result of the Soviet offensive against Nazi Germany during World War II and the rollback of the military gains that Germany had won early in the war. The military gains against the German Wehrmacht as the Soviet Union moved west enabled them to impose their communist system on the countries that Germany had previously conquered when they moved east. The people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, known as the Baltic States, had been rolled over from both west and east during the Second World War and had not experienced the freedom to decide their own fate since 1941.

This became a campaign issue in 1968 as he highlighted his support of the people of the captive nations of Eastern Europe: nations such as the Baltic States, The Ukraine, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and others, even prior to the crushing of the liberal reform government of Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia on August 20, 1968 by Soviet tanks. Schweiker's support for the peoples of eastern Europe in their desire for freedom was unwavering for many years prior to his run for the senate. But the year of 1968 was particularly apropos as the people of Czechoslovakia attempted to gain a form of freedom from the iron rule of the communist overlords in Moscow.

Schweiker commented in the House of Representatives on January 23, 1968 _"We must extend to Ukrainians everywhere our expression of admiration for their nation's courage in the face of Communist domination and our wholehearted support of eventual liberty for their brave homeland"_ In a speech at the Lithuanian Independence Day rally in Philadelphia on February 11, 1968 he commented: _When we recall the fate of the Lithuanian state, we learn once more the lesson of how precious our own national freedom is. We learn once more that our own freedom cannot be merely taken for granted. The United States and all other freedom-loving nations can never forgive the Soviet Union for crushing the independence of a republic of 20 years standing"._ Fifteen days later in a speech to the House of Representatives he stated _"It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that today the Soviet Union poses before the underdeveloped countries as a great champion of the ideal that nations must be free from imperialism. If this is so, then I call upon the Soviet Union to let Estonia live once more as a free nation. The tragic plight of Estonia today is imperialism, Soviet style."_ On May 20, 1968 Richard spoke in the House praising the Slovak political leader, Alexander Dubcek, for the liberal reforms in Czechoslovakia that year. Again on July 21st he spoke to the Captive Nations Committee of Greater Philadelphia at Independence Hall, during their observance of Captive Nations week. _"The Dubcek government in Czechoslovakia represents a glimmer of light to the enslaved people of eastern Europe, and it is disturbing to see the current efforts of the Soviet Union to snuff this light out."_ The committee made Schweiker an honorary member on that date and cited him for _"his demonstration many times of his understanding of the eastern European problems and their effect on this country's national interest and security_ ."

While Schweiker was openly courting the eastern European vote in Pennsylvania, it was an interest that extended both before and after the election year.

The Schwenkfelder understood the importance of freedom. His ancestors came from Silesia in eastern Europe; he had grown up on stories of religious persecution, and the Soviets, while claiming to allow religious freedom, suppressed the expression of religion in their sphere of influence. The suppression of the people of eastern Europe resonated with his sense of right and wrong and contributed to his consistent demands for the freedom of the nations of Eastern Europe. This stand for freedom and against communism proved to be a common bond that Richard shared with another Republican he would get to know eight years later: Ronald Reagan.

By the end of the summer Richard had been campaigning for many months, hammering the incumbent senator and rallying the Republican Party in the state to support him with little obvious success. In September Drew Lewis, who had been his campaign manager for his four congressional campaigns, took the unprecedented step of taking a leave of absence from his position at National Gypsum's American Olean Tile Division to work full time on the senatorial campaign. " _Howard Phillips,....started out running the Schweiker campaign. But the campaign faltered and Phillips was replaced by Drew Lewis. Just in time."_ 152

Polling that had continued since the one in July had revealed that Schweiker was having only a minimal effect against Clark. After over two months of attacks, statements, and campaigning, Clark still held a commanding 57% to 43% lead, according to the polls. The polls told Lewis that his candidate was only holding on to 53% of the Republican voters and picking up only a quarter of the Democrats. Drew needed to start pushing the Republicans, through their leadership, to fall in with their candidate and move the campaign forward more effectively. The problem with the National ticket was impacting the state races. Polling in September called the Presidential race a toss-up in Pennsylvania. National polls had Nixon ahead of Humphrey, but in Pennsylvania the Republican ticket was considered in a tie with the Democratic ticket. Polling in early October predicted a gradual trend towards Nixon in Pennsylvania as the Republican voters appeared to be coming home to the party. By mid October internal polling predicted a Nixon win in the Keystone state by a margin of about 8%, 48-40, with the balance going to Wallace. However, that same poll predicted a Clark victory over Schweiker 57% - 43%. The poll claimed that Schweiker " _still is battling against great odds, despite Nixon's leading posture in the state"_

In the middle of October the campaign sent out letters to all Republican County Chairman thanking them for their "tremendous help" in the senatorial campaign and urging them to make sure that the Republicans got their voters to the polls in November. The letter was couched in terms of electing Dick Nixon and the entire Republican team, thanking them for their efforts, and letting them know that Drew Lewis was now devoting full time to the campaign along with his contact information.

In late summer the campaign had developed three priority projects to maximize the volunteer component. The first project involved a blitz designed to get bumper stickers placed on cars within a 3 week period from the end of July through mid August. The campaign asked each volunteer to place ten bumper stickers on ten cars, creating an impression of a mass movement within a short period. The campaign literature makes a point of telling the volunteers to put the stickers on the cars themselves, thus making sure the stickers were used, and not just taken to shut the volunteer up. Good idea! The next sentence tells them to make sure they have the owner's permission to put the sticker on the car. You perhaps can be excused if you think that they must have thought they were dealing with Democrat volunteers. The bumper stickers were available to the volunteers from both the campaign and the local county party headquarters.

The campaign then proceeded to their second priority project; the personal post card advertising piece that was sent in two waves late in the campaign. The original was designed to win the support of the indifferent voter, the one who rarely voted and did not follow politics, but was willing to listen to friends. In addition it harnessed the work of volunteers who were not able to work outside the home. The ability to have these volunteers work on their own time enabled then to participate in a meaningful way in the campaign and helped the campaign to a much greater extent than a monetary donation. The postcard was a personal appeal by the volunteer writer to friends or acquaintances, designed to get them to vote for Schweiker. The card would carry the message written and addressed by the volunteer and it would be mailed by the campaign. The campaign hoped that the volunteer would affix the five cent postage to the card, but they wanted to mail it at a specific time, thus controlling the roll out of the campaign. They coordinated this campaign through the local county Republican Party headquarters and this was one of the efforts that warranted the complement in the letter that announced Drew Lewis working full time on the campaign mentioned above. The original post card campaign was targeted for August 13th through September 9th, with about 300,000 post cards being the target for the entire state divided by county according to population.

The third priority project was another post card, printed in full color with a picture of Richard and Claire with their children. The postcard had an imprinted message on it and allowed space for a short personal comment by the volunteer who would be addressing the card. Designed to be mailed the last week of October, when they could be most effective, 100,000 of the cards were printed. By this time the campaign was running short of money and could not pay for the postage, it was expected that the volunteers would spring for the $.05 stamp needed.

A great deal of thought had gone into the picture for the postcard. One of the concepts that the Schweiker for Senate campaign had been working with was to contrast, in an implied way, the youthfulness of Schweiker with the older Clark. Clark in 1967 had just married for the third time; this time to Iris Richey, former manager of the Pennsylvania Manual, and twenty one years his junior. The Schweiker campaign was not making this marriage a verbal issue in the race. The contrast between the clean-cut Schweiker, his attractive wife, and the photogenic children seen on the post card, with the 66 year old Clark and his young wife #3, spoke volumes.

Drew Lewis's presence as a full time campaign Manager helped that fall with fundraising, as that was one of Drew's specialties. However, campaigns are always chronically short of money at the end of the campaign cycle. It doesn't make sense to hoard your money and lose the election because you didn't send the last mailing; likewise you have to plan the campaign meticulously, so that you have money at the end to print that mailing, when the people begin to really focus on the race. This is a primary job of the campaign manager; defining the overall strategy of the campaign with the candidate, and then making the tactical decisions on timing the advertisements and implementing the strategies that have been agreed on to carry the candidate across the finish line. Tension is inevitable late in the stages of a grueling campaign, as exhaustion begins to claim it toll on the candidate and the members of the staff. An article in the Pottstown Mercury on September 9, 1968 chronicles the strenuous nature of a day in the campaign by the candidate. " _Congressman Richard S. 'Dick' Schweiker, believed by many moderate Republicans to be the most outstanding and accomplished congressional representative ever to serve Montgomery County, is making the run of his life._

He must run hard because he must win, or fall by the wayside.... Aware of this, he's making the most difficult run of his career with a strenuous campaign schedule of public appearances, walking tours, speeches, television debates and whatever else might be done to secure the magical effect-membership in "the world's most exclusive club".

Dawn to after dusk campaign events have been scheduled for all but two of the 51 days remaining until Pennsylvania voters go to the polls Nov.4. There are several Sunday afternoons which aren't committed to the process of courting voters.

A typical day for the lawmaker may begin as early as 4 a.m. and end well after midnight when he and his aides hold the final evaluation on the day's progress.

Campaigning for public office is a test of a candidate's physical endurance and the wider the scope the stronger the test. In this case Schweiker has to cover the entire state....

While Clark has exhibited a remarkable distain for active campaigning among the populace, Schweiker seizes upon it as the perfect way to carry 'the word' to the people...

_Schweiker is making the run of his life, and it's an every day race with no time off for points already scored or to rest on laurels real or imagined. It's an endurance contest as well as a political campaign and perhaps it isn't too far wrong to say only the healthy survive."_ 154

By late September the tension was palpable in the campaign, especially as the polls were not favorable. Richard was not satisfied with how things were going in the campaign, especially the way money was being spent, and was demanding changes. He talked with Drew on September 26th. The next day Drew responded to Richard detailing the campaign expenditures going forward.

September 27, 1968

TO: Hon. Richard S. Schweiker

From: Andrew L. Lewis, Jr.

RE: Expenditure Campaign Funds

Confirming our conversation of last evening, we will proceed with the campaign expenditures on the following basis:

1. There will be no borrowing of campaign funds.

2. In view of your dissatisfaction with the approximately $20,000 expenditure for TV the week of October 1, these funds will be reinstated into the campaign coffers, thus there will be no loss to the campaign through this TV expenditure. In point of fact, we will have a plus, since we will have had at least some TV coverage.

3. I would like an immediate answer as to how the $20,000 should be spent. We presently have outstanding bills of approximately $21,000, a billboard expenditure of approximately $36,000 and the need to buy prime spots for the last two weeks of TV. All of these expenditures are overdue; therefore, we will have priorities.

4. The general campaign expenditures are being well controlled. It is virtually impossible to control telephoning and travel. All other expenditures must be approved by John Hunnicutt and me personally. In order to better control travel expenditures, we will insist that all road expenditures be submitted to John immediately when incurred; thus although we will not have the billings, we will know what bills to anticipate. I will also follow up to be certain that automobile rentals, etc. do not get out of line.

5. If we intend to end the campaign with no outstanding debt balance, we should take funds as they are coming in and pay our bills rather then to purchase new services.

Although I feel we are committing a major tactical error by not expending funds for TV at this time, I can appreciate and fully understand your reasoning. The opinion which I am expressing in terms of a major campaign error would also be shared by Jack Conmy, Doug Bailey, Dave Newhall, Howie Phillips, John Hunnicutt, the National and State campaign staffs, a well as both advertising agencies. Despite our views, I feel your judgment should prevail and, therefore, have accepted this decision.

Even though we are changing plans in mid-stream, you can count on my full efforts to raise funds, to control expenditures and do anything else possible to see that we win this Senate seat. I am sure your staff will support me in this view. We may be fortunate in having State funds forthcoming in sufficient volume that my concern could be academic. We have somehow reached this point without incurring major debts and with some step-up in State funds, we can continue. As you are aware, we have not borrowed money to date other than from suppliers on account. My intention has been and would have been to continue to operate in this way and defer any debt incurment as a last possible resort.

I would appreciate your advice on the above raised questions at your earliest convenience.

A. L. L. Jr.

_Drew"_ 155

Tensions like this are endemic to political campaigns and tiffs are an everyday occurrence as the staff and volunteers put their efforts and passions into the race. Both Drew and Richard had worked four campaigns before, and while this was the largest race, it was something that they could get beyond.

One of the strategies that had been decided between Drew Lewis and Richard Schweiker was to again concentrate on Richard's debating skills, as they had tried in his first congressional campaign. Richard challenged Senator Clark to a series of four debates, early in the campaign, which the confident Clark accepted; surprising the challenger. The first three debates, scheduled a month apart, had minimal impact. Schweiker would see a small gain after each debate, but nothing significant. The fourth however, proved to be one that appeared to help Richard significantly in the waning days of the campaign that October 1967. The major media markets in the state, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, Lancaster, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, had stations agree to carry the four debates free, in prime time, as a public service. Not something that you will see today. The fourth debate was held on October 20th after the final polling that Schweiker had done.

The senatorial debates of the time were nothing like the media circuses that we see in presidential debates today. The participants actually debated, with a moderator to announce the parameters of the debate and the time limits for each participant. Two members of the media were to ask questions and then one of the candidates would respond, with a counter-response by the other. The fourth debate followed this procedure. The debate was limited to domestic issues. It opened with a 3 minute statement by Congressman Schweiker, followed by a statement of the same length by Senator Clark. Both candidates were then asked a series of questions by the two media reporters present: Mark Forrest of KYW-TV in Philadelphia and Stuart Brown of KDKA in Pittsburgh. Answers to these questions were limited to one minute, with a 30-second rebuttal by the other candidate. The debate closed with a 2-minute statement by Senator Clark and then a 2-minute statement from Congressman Schweiker. The order of the candidate statements had been determined by a coin toss before the debate. In his opening statement Senator Clark mentioned that he had received 64 pens, from various presidents during his time in the senate, which represented the bills that he had helped to get through the senate and signed by the president. This was a theme he would try to emphasize throughout the debate, but he was unable to capitalize on the fact that he was able to get legislation passed because he focused on the pens, instead of the legislation they symbolized.

In the initial question on recent decisions by the Supreme Court, Clark hurt his election hopes by supporting the Warren Court's decisions that impinged on law and order. Schweiker, in his rebuttal focused on the idea of criminal rights as espoused by the court and pointed to the Miranda decision as an example of court decisions that had handcuffed police and made it more difficult to work in law enforcement. While the Miranda decision is settled, if still controversial law forty years latter, it was a novel and intensely disliked decision at the time by the law enforcement community. This response by Schweiker positioned him to the right of the liberal Clark and firmly in the middle of the average citizen's belief system.

The second question was directed to Schweiker and asked him why he felt he was more qualified on the basis of youth than Senator Clark on the basis of experience? Richard answered; _"Well, I think it is more a matter of who is going to be effective and who is not._.... Clark in his rebuttal brought out his pens again " _Here are 3 of the 64 pens that 3 presidents gave to me for effective legislative action. I have more than three times as many pens for effective legislative action, as Congressman Schweiker and Senator Scott put together. In fact, I will relinquish the rest of my 30 seconds to ask Congressman Schweiker how many presidential pens he has?_ Schweiker responded: _"Well Joe, I'm going to surprise you. I have six of my own and I have six because, in spite of the fact that you have a rule in the Senate that lets anybody sponsor a bill and we never did – and I know you didn't serve in the House so you don't understand that- But up until last year, only one person could author a bill and only one person was the sponsor. We changed that recently, but in the Senate you can put any number on the bill; so of course you have 60 pens. I have 6 or 8 of my own, but I don't think they mean anything. I'd be glad to give you mine if it helps your collection"_

The next question focused on Schweiker's legislative proposal to encourage a public-private partnership to handle the problems of the cities. Schweiker talked about the need to bring the private sector into the equation through tax incentives and tax credits so that businesses could hire people and create meaningful jobs in the cities. He followed with " _I think the old fashioned thinking of Mr. Clark, the old fashioned hand-out welfare system has failed"_ Senator Clark responded in rebuttal, _"Pens are not given by presidents for sponsoring legislation. Dick knows this. They're given for effective Congressional action in getting it passed. For leading the fight on the floor of the Senate, for helping in conferences, for all the rest of that. Sixty two pens divided by six means I have ten times as many pens as he has for effective legislative action. I have no objection to private capital helping out to the extent it can"._

Senator Clark was next asked what he viewed was the role of a senator. He responded with a jab at Schweiker saying that the doing of favors for constituents is for the congressmen, not on the senators; that it was his job to travel on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee to report back and that " _The job of a Senator breaks down into two functions, two main functions. First, legislation and second, oversight. Oversight is working with your committee to see that the laws are faithfully executed and that includes, of course, our foreign policy as well as our domestic policy."_

Schweiker responded _"Well, first of all, I don't agree here with Mr. Clark at all. I think the role of public servant is exactly what the name implies: servant. And Mr. Clark hasn't been very interested in doing that. He didn't even open a western Pennsylvania office for eleven years. Like Rip Van Winkle he woke up when I made an issue of it and made a pledge to do it. Now, belatedly, he's got the message about public service, but I don't think he has been a servant. I think he's been trying to be up on Cloud nine too much of the time and he hasn't been effective and gotten things done for Pennsylvania and that's what I pledged to do."_

The debate continued with questions on supporting the national ticket and various other items before coming up to the final 2 minute statement by both candidates. Since the coin toss indicated the order of the debate, Senator Clark went first. His statement pointed to the power and influence that Pennsylvania would lose if he was not re-elected. Unfortunately, he again brought up the pens " _I come back again as the effectiveness of my legislation to the 64 pens against his 6. Don't be fooled by this business of co-sponsorship in the Senate. It doesn't mean a thing. I got these pens because I helped put these bills through the Senate and brought them to the president's desk. I ask you to give me a chance during the next six years to continue to serve you as I've served you in the last 12 years...."_ Senator Schweiker in his final two minute statement was able to score significantly against Clark. _"Let me say that the object of my 6-year service to the State will not be to acquire pens. Somehow I think there ought to be a little bit bigger, more motivating forces than to simply accumulate a trophy case of pens. I want to solve problems and I want to help people, and I hope that's what I'll be able to say after six years in the Senate. In the next 16 days Pennsylvania will elect a senator for the next six years. What shape will your world be in when that senate term ends in 1974? Will the war still be going on? Will the cost of living be even higher? Will crime still be on the rise? Will the cities be in even greater trouble? Will your taxes have gone up again? Or will the next six years bring a return to peace in Vietnam and in our cities? A return to respect for law; a return to a stable economy; a return to reason in government spending. Your vote on November 5_ th _will provide most of the answer. You must make the judgment whether the men who've gotten us into this mess are the men to be trusted to get us out of this mess. I for one believe America and the Senate need a new generation of leadership..."_ 156

The debate was held in Pittsburgh that Sunday night and Schweiker had no idea if his comments had gone over well or if he had "laid an egg" as he put it. But the next morning at 6 AM he was at 69th street in Philadelphia shaking hands with the blue collar workers coming off the early morning trains; something he did on a frequent basis. _"As I was shaking hands, two or three people as they got off said 'here you are Congressman, you can have my pen,_ _and you got my vote_ _'. At that point I thought; I've won this election. Actually I only won by about 100,000 votes out of several million cast, but I won"_ 157

Running for the U.S. Senate is a team effort, and everything has to come more or less together for it to be a successful campaign. Even when you are doing everything correctly, when you are the challenger, you will have a difficult time overcoming the inertia created by the power of the incumbency. People are reluctant to change from an established figure to the relatively unknown challenger unless they are angry with the status quo, or it is a national movement away from a particular party. What many try to do is create enough "buzz" about themselves in a positive light, while hoping that the opponent does something wrong. By seizing on the opposition's mistakes in this case, Schweiker was able to solidify the impression he was trying to generate: of representing the common man, of being a hard working servant to the people and not an elite member of the upper crust. The voters were feeling increasingly uncomfortable in the mid 1960's with the problems in the cities, the Vietnam conflict, the increasing tax burden caused by the Great Society legislation of the Democrats, and the general social unrest of the period. Nixon and the Republicans were trying to position themselves as the natural answer to the chaos, but Nixon was burdened by his own past reputation, including his run for Governor of California, and his difficult relations with the media. Schweiker, on the other hand, was a relatively new and youthful politician, who had an attractive wife and family, had developed a reputation for hard work, constituent service, and in general maintained excellent relations with the press.

When Richard won the election that November, he became the first U. S. Senator from Montgomery County in Pennsylvania in over 150 years. Previously, only Revolutionary War General Peter Muhlenburg, and Jonathan Roberts had been from Montgomery County. On November 6, _1968 "Andrew L. Lewis expressed gratification early today, for all who aided in the upset victory of Congressman Richard S. Schweiker in his campaign for U.S. Senate."_

As Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Party, Drew issued a statement on the election results: _"The apparent victory of Dick Schweiker for the U.S. Senate is dimmed by the loss of our other state-wide candidates along with presidential candidate Dick Nixon. As other Republican officials did, I had looked for a complete Republican victory in the Commonwealth. With the results uncertain, it is difficult at this moment to assess the amazing course this election took in the last final weeks. Despite my disappointment with the general situation, I believe that Dick Schweiker's campaign provides an outstanding example of what a dedicated and progressive Republican can do. Should Dick move up to the U.S. Senate, as it appears he will, I know he will provide the kind of new and enlightened leadership Pennsylvania needs. I offer my congratulations, along with that of his many friends, on waging a magnificent campaign_ ."

An analysis of the 1968 election totals in Pennsylvania pointed to several interesting themes that would color the thoughts and actions of the political leaders of the Pennsylvania Republican Party for the next several decades. Humphrey won the presidential vote in Pennsylvania by 169,388 votes over the presumed conservative cold -warrior Richard Nixon. Third-party candidate George Wallace trailed the two major party candidates with only 7.97% of the vote. The number of votes that Wallace pulled from Nixon might have been the difference in denying him the Pennsylvania win, but a wider look at the vote totals and the entire slate of candidates state-wide tells a more complex tale. Party leaders study election results and try to "read the tea leaves" to determine trends and the desires expressed by the voters, so they have a better chance of winning in the upcoming elections. Candidates do the same, but the party leaders are looking to cultivate new party candidates in the districts that they have lost, or in which the district is considered a toss up. People mock the party after every lost election, saying "is that the best candidate they can come up with" and every year the leaders evaluate their mistakes and plan for the future. A post-battle review takes place, if you will. Several interesting and contradicting trends were revealed and had to be discussed in order to understand which way the state was trending. Politicians always are looking to get in front of the parade and a post election review enables them to decide what direction they want to focus their energies.

Richard was able to take a significant amount of comfort in his dramatic "come from behind" win. He actually received more votes in Pennsylvania than Humphrey did in winning the statewide presidential vote. Richard had won 309,745 more votes than did President Nixon in Pennsylvania. In only 5 counties across the entire state did Nixon receive more votes than Schweiker.In fact, only one other statewide candidate won more votes than did Schweiker: a Democratic pro-life state senator from Scranton who had lost the governor's primary in 1966 and was now running for Auditor General; Robert P. Casey. Casey garnered 2, 451789 votes as the top vote getter in Pennsylvania that year.

What could the Republican political pros deduce from the tea leaves of the '68 election? It appears that they became increasingly fearful of third party candidates drawing off more conservative voters, who they tended to assume would vote Republican because they had no place else to go. They looked at Nixon losing to Humphrey and assumed a conservative Republican couldn't win a statewide race in Pennsylvania. There was a noticeable short vote for Nixon across the state, especially in the more populated suburban counties, where the Republicans failed to hold their traditional margins. While not as bad as the dismal numbers that Goldwater had registered four years before, they were not what the party would have expected. It appeared that the highly populated suburban Philadelphia counties, along with the counties around Pittsburgh, rejected conservative candidates for the national ticket.

They saw that a moderate Republican like Schweiker, who was able to pick up conservative Democrats and Republicans, including the pro gun voters and those who were pro-life, had a good chance of winning a statewide election. Indeed, in Schweiker they had their winning candidate; a moderate in terms of government programs, and a strong national defense advocate. His record as an independent thinker, his unwillingness to toe the party line if he felt it was morally or ethically wrong, appealed to the independents and democrats who were disenchanted with the image of a business-friendly and union-unfriendly Republican Party.

Richard appeared to have cobbled together a new coalition of independents and moderates along with the traditional Republican base that enabled him to win across the state in a year that went Democratic in Pennsylvania. His support for gun rights, his pro-life position, his support for the embattled states of eastern Europe, all appealed to the ethnic eastern Europeans who had populated Pennsylvania coal country in the north-east. Schweiker's support in the Italian community was significant as a result of Clark's feud with state Supreme Court judge Musmanno, and his good union relations all combined to result in a narrow win. Richard was able to replicate on a state-wide scale just what he had done in Montgomery County: fight the entrenched power brokers and divide traditional Democrat voting ethnic groups in the densely populated areas of the state, and win significantly in the rural areas.

1968 and 1969 were very busy years for Drew Lewis. He was a delegate to the National Republican Convention for the first of what was to be many times and he was being moved forward in the corporate hierarchy at National Gypsum. National Gypsum promoted Drew to Vice President of Corporate Development in 1969, and moved him to Corporate headquarters in Buffalo NY. Drew was seeing success from his political ventures and it appeared that his meteoric rise in the business world was heading for the corporate CEO position. Yet there were some indications that problems in the corporate world were developing. His ability to take a leave of absence in 1968 from National Gypsum, to manage Dick Schweiker's campaign for Senate, gives an indication of his feeling for the position in which he found himself.

From 1960 to 1969, Drew was with National Gypsum, rapidly moving up to vice president for marketing of the American Olean Tile Company division, and then National Gypsum corporate Vice President and assistant to the Chairman. Drew, Marilyn and his family moved to National Gypsum headquarters in Buffalo NY, in December 1969, as he moved up the leadership in the firm. Drew was a hard-charging executive who aggressively pursued his ideas and plans which increasingly involved Republican politics in Montgomery County. Part of this focus on politics came from his increasing dissatisfaction with his corporate position at National Gypsum. Drew felt increasingly under-utilized at the firm. The chairman of the Board was in his late 70's and showed no signs of wanting to retire. The corporation sent Drew to MIT in late 1969 to the Sloan School for a thirteen-week "senior executive program". It was a computer-oriented program that Drew found extremely useful. Unfortunately Drew was not being given projects commensurate with his titles and frequently found he had a lot of free time on his hands. Politics filled the gap, in 1969 when he moved to Buffalo as corporate Vice President and assistant to the Chairman it rapidly became apparent that the heir apparent was in for a long wait to climb the final summit. Drew liked the area; " _I figured out I wasn't going to last in Buffalo, I liked Buffalo, I liked the city, I just didn't like my job."_ 160

Drew had three children who were affected by the move to one extent or another. The oldest, Karen was at Endicott Junior College. Rusty was in ninth grade and had been class president in his school in Pennsylvania when they left in December. Drew was worried about how long he was going to be with National Gypsum at the time of the move, being increasingly uncomfortable there. Marilyn and Drew decided to send Rusty to Deerfield Academy to minimize disruption if they had to move again. Andy, the youngest, was placed in the public school system and was the only child home on a daily basis.

Correctly assessing the difficulties with the leadership transition at National Gypsum, Drew in 1970 joined Harbill Associates, a venture capital firm that had been set up by William R. Stott in 1968. Stott was a former Vice President of Standard Oil of New Jersey. Harbill investors included figures such as Aristotle Onasis, Howard Butcher and many others. The firm was trying to buy troubled companies and turn them around. They asked Drew to become CEO of Simplex Wire and Cable in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Simplex was a maker of submarine cables _. "From 1953 until about 1976," Simplex Marketing Services Representative Ed Miles wrote in a company missive, "about 90 percent of Simplex business was the making of surveillance cables that linked hydrophones for the U.S. government. All around the U.S. coastline, a virtual spiderweb of Simplex cables connected hydrophones that could detect and disseminate the movements of ships and submarines. The hydrophones could pick up each ship's 'fingerprint' to determine whether or not it was a friendly ship."_ 161 Simplex was based in Boston and Drew commuted from Buffalo for about a year. He would fly to Boston every Monday morning and come back to Buffalo every Friday night. Drew however, still had political ambitions in Pennsylvania, and he was pining for Montgomery County, where his roots were and where his political and business contacts were centered.

The family had settled into Buffalo comfortably, living in the suburb of Orchard Park. Marilyn liked being close to the skiing, and loved the neighbors they had in their little development. Drew only spent the weekends there, living all week at Cambridge and running Simplex. During this period he was also approached by one of the investors in Harbill Associates, Howard Butcher (Howard was a principal in the large Philadelphia Stock Brokerage firm, Butcher and Singer), to become President and CEO of Snelling and Snelling employment agency of Paoli, PA.

Drew approached Henk Hartung to take the CEO position with Simplex, while he retained the Chairman position. He then spent about a year in which he held the two positions together, but most of his time was with Snelling & Snelling. He was able to move Marilyn and the family back to Pennsylvania and began his quest to become Governor. Having helped Simplex to grow, Drew turned around the troubled employment agency, creating the world's largest employment agency, and continued to develop a reputation for business acumen, management ability and as a turn-around specialist. He also was named a trustee of the bankrupt Reading Railroad late in 1971.

Becoming a trustee of the Reading Railroad was an important milestone in Drew's career. There was a series of fortuitous circumstances that contributed to his being named as a trustee. When the railroad filed for Bankruptcy the case went to federal court and a judge on the bench needed to be named to oversee the case. The judges on the bench decide who takes what case in a weekly meeting and the one meeting that Judge Ditter missed, because of the flu, happened to coincide with the naming of him to the case. Now Judge Ditter was familiar with politics in Pennsylvania, since he had worked on Schweiker's campaign, his father had been a Congressman, and he himself had run for election to the county bench. The Reading Railroad was a critical part of the transportation network in Philadelphia and surrounding counties. At the time it handled passenger traffic into the city, and vast amounts of coal from the coal regions. Recognizing the need for a politically savvy trustee he appointed former Philadelphia Mayor and attorney Richardson Dilworth as one of the trustees. It was hoped that this would influence democratic Governor Shapp to be a little more welcoming when the trustees went hat-in-hand to the state for some funding. In addition they needed to have a business executive handle the business affairs of the railroad. Judge Ditter was getting a large number of resumes from everyone under the sun looking to be appointed to the job when his wife, Verna, suggested that he consider his friend Drew Lewis who was working at Snelling & Snelling at the time.

Dilworth and Lewis made an excellent team as Trustees for the railroad; one a political operative and savvy lawyer, the other a smart businessman with political experience. Neither however knew much about railroading, and neither did the presiding judge, of which they were acutely aware. The trustees, the judge and the public can be thankful that they knew what they needed and were lucky enough to find just the right man, Charles Donovan, to help them. In February 1972 an acquaintance of a friend of Drew's from Pottstown, PA called on him at his house in Salford. " _He didn't know me and I didn't know him. We met in his living room and I just described briefly my background. He said "I suppose you want to come in here and do some feasibility studies for the railroad and find out what we can do and do some analysis of the traffic and that sort of thing?" I said "no, Mr. Lewis, that is not what I want to do. I want to come in here and protect Richardson Dilworth and you from the railroad." Lewis looked at me, and said that is what I want. He went directly from the couch in the living room to the kitchen telephone and he called Richardson Dilworth, he said I have found our man. He described briefly who I was and my references. Dilworth agreed. Drew called Judge Ditter and said I have this man and he is experienced and he can look at these things were are being hit with and I don't really understand any of them. He has the time to look at them and then give us an opinion on what we should do."_ 162

Lewis understood he didn't know the details of the railroading business, but he knew he needed someone who did. Railroading was a tough business, and the trustees were in a unique position. The bankruptcy procedure was relatively simple. Requests were made by the railroad to do something and the trustees approved or rejected it. If they approved it went to the court and the judge approved or rejected it. If he approved it the railroad could proceed. The Judge's order took precedence over creditors and other items of business. What the trustees needed was someone to tell them if the railroad was trying to "pull the wool" over their eyes. It was obvious that poor business practices had contributed to the Reading's demise, but exactly what those practices were needed to be figured out, and the trustees were just that, trustees; not operational managers.

When Charles Donovan was brought into the equation the railroaders had to clean up their act, as he got to review requests before the trustees did and in many cases the trustees agreed with his analysis. " _One time the railroad brought a lease into me. To renew a lease on some rail cars, 100 rail cars and these had been leased for two previous terms of three years each and the railroad was going to renew the lease for another three year term. The railroad said to me, Charlie you don't need to see the lease, this is just a renewal and the lessor needs about a 14% increase because his maintenance costs have gone up in this period and we think that is a reasonable request and we would just like to process it. You don't have to look at it. I said, "Oh yes, I want to look at it, that's why I am here." Reluctantly they gave me the lease and I looked at it and concluded it was a maintenance lease; the owner of the rail car was supposed to maintain the rail cars and so forth. So I called up the chief mechanical officer in Reading and asked him a simple question; tell me about the maintenance this shipper's carline does on this hopper car? I won't give his response as it was rather raw....for six years the railroad had been maintaining and repairing all these railcars and the owner had been accepting the revenue and had the guts to request a 14% increase because his cost had been going up... I think the Reading Company received after negotiations somewhere between eighty five and ninety five thousand dollars returned on that one question"_ 163

In looking at the situation it is apparent that Drew knew business management and finance. What he didn't know was the day-to-day operations. The small ways the management could hide and insulate practices that were not conducive to a healthy railroad, but helped old friends, appeared endemic in the company. He rapidly acquired the correct help, the mark of a good executive. Within several years of filing for bankruptcy the Reading was turning a profit and eventually was parceled out, with the railroad itself being conveyed to Conrail and the land holdings placed into the Reading Company. Richardson Dilworth had died in January of 1974 and had been replaced by Joe Cassel who also became a good friend of Drew's, eventually working in the same building in Plymouth Meeting, PA. When the bankruptcy was finally resolved, all creditors had been paid and the shareholders had made about twenty five million, so it was a very successful bankruptcy proceeding.

Long term this stint as a trustee on the Reading Railroad opened up a large career for Drew. If he hadn't had the experience in dealing with the railroad it is doubtful that he would have been considered for the position of Secretary of Transportation in the Reagan administration and his subsequent position as Chairman of the Board for Union Pacific.

During the late 1960's and into the first two years of the 1970's Drew was considering a run for political office himself. He had gone across Pennsylvania as a campaign manager for Dick Schweiker in 1968 and he had seen the problems with the state government. He had talked with the county Republican chairmen since he had been elected Montgomery County Republican chairman in 1966 and as finance director of the party he saw how the difficulties in the economy were effecting fund raising. He realized that his skills at rebuilding ailing companies could also be used in doing the same to government, and the connections he had developed could be a strong asset. By the end of 1968 Drew had begun considering a run for Pennsylvania Governor. Moving to Buffalo in 1969 had put that on hold, but it was still in the back of his mind, especially as he soon left National Gypsum and was working for Harbill Associates. Within about two years Drew was back in Pennsylvania and reactivating his ties with the party and planning his next move. In 1972 Drew was a delegate to the national convention in Miami and made it a family affair. His wife, Marilyn, and he had attended the 1968 convention when Nixon was nominated and they returned with Drew as delegate for the 5th district. This time their two sons also attended. Rusty, a senior at Deerfield Academy, was a Pennsylvania page, delivering messages and refreshments to the state delegates. Andy was the newly-elected president of the Pennsylvania teenage Republicans. Obviously, Drew was back in the game.

Chapter Eight

### The seventy-four election

The years between 1968 and 1974 had been eventful ones for the state and the nation. Richard had compiled an excellent record of attendance in the Senate: 98%, second only to Senator William Proxmire. He had also earned a place on the Nixon White House enemies list with his independent votes and comments. The Senator started out on the wrong foot with the new President almost immediately over the Anti-Ballistic missile system. Nixon wanted it deployed and Schweiker wasn't willing to give it his support. Schweiker and a group of other freshman Senators refused to agree to the deployment. On June 30th of 1969 he met with the President, _"Senator Richard S. Schweiker and four other freshmen GOP Senators today chatted with President Nixon for more than an hour at the White House. After the visit, Schweiker was not available to newsmen and his office said he would not have a statement this evening. 'It was a constructive effort on the part of the President to exchange ideas on a broad number of issues and get the views of the new Senators,' Schweiker stated through a press aide. Earlier there had been speculation that the visit of the freshmen to the White House had been part of the administration's effort to build support for its modified Anti-Ballistic Missile Proposal. Schweiker has said repeatedly that he opposes plans to set the missiles onto launch pads now, although he sees some value in proceeding with research and development of the ABM."_ 164 While Schweiker had traditionally been for a strong military, he also was a fierce opponent of waste. During his time in the Congress in 1965 he had submitted a bill that authorized a cost cutting suggestions program for the military which by 1974 had saved taxpayers over $800 million dollars. A significant sum even today! His home in Worcester Township was only about 2 miles from one of twelve Nike missile bases set up in 1955 to protect the city of Philadelphia. This one was soon decommissioned by the government and later turned into an army reserve base around 1975.

Schweiker was an opponent of the Vietnam Conflict, having been the first Republican Senator to question the conduct of the struggle. Nothing he had seen since his congressional days had changed his opinion of the situation there. He objected to massive overseas military aid and the excessive troop levels in Europe. It is apparent from reading his newsletters and statements that the Senator was becoming more liberal in terms of where he wanted the government to place its emphasis. His support for military spending was declining. He was increasingly looking to fund health-related research, and he was castigating the executive branch for wasteful government spending and programs. None of this served to endear him to the Republican administration in Washington. It was in 1970 that he learned he had been placed on the enemies list. " _(Senate Minority Leader) Sen. Hugh Scott told me back in 1970 that there was a list of Senate Republicans who were being discriminated against by the White House.... Whose phone calls weren't being returned and whose paperwork was being slowed down, Schweiker explains. 'My name was on that list.' That was the year Schweiker voted against the controversial Clement Haynsworth - G.Harold Carswell nominations to the Supreme Court – nominations for which, in the words of one Schweiker aide, 'the White House lobbied all over the Hill.' And all over Pennsylvania as well, Schweiker says, explaining that the White House also made frantic telephone calls to his big financial contributors in Pennsylvania, seeking their assistance in the arm-twisting effort. 'They really went all out on Carswell,' Schweiker says. 'After getting burned on Haynsworth, Nixon aides told me the next nominee would be a man of impeccable credentials...a strong civil rights advocate. I thought they meant what they said, but it didn't turn out that way.'"_ 165 Perhaps we can say that Nixon was a forerunner to the "Chicago style politics" we currently see from the White House?

Schweiker's positions on many of the issues facing the nation in the period of his first senate term are considered (perhaps rightly) to be liberal by most observers. His own terminology would be moderate. His concern for the individual was evidenced in the work he did to pass a coal miner health and safety act, where he added a rider that mandated a daily inspection of over 400 coal mines. He helped with getting the black lung benefit program included in the bill covering those suffering from the disease as a result of working in conditions conducive to its development in the mines. He helped the inner city neighborhoods by supporting Reverend Leon Sullivan's program called Opportunities Industrialization Centers, which tried to bring private sector job-training to inner city residents. Schweiker gained a reputation for supporting labor issues and was rated 100% in three of the previous 4 years by the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education. When questioned about his support for labor issues, Schweiker could point out that 40% of the union membership in Pennsylvania was Republican. Schweiker insisted that in a large labor state such as Pennsylvania, it didn't make sense to alienate a significant portion of its voters, especially when they formed a crucial part of your own base _. "...he insists that there is room in the Republican Party for his views. 'you have to remember,' he says, 'that 40 percent of the union membership in this state is registered Republican'."_ 166 The Maverick label was well earned by the Senator, and while it cost him the vote of some conservative Republicans, it won him the support of a significant number of the more conservative union members, ending up with a net gain.

The country experienced some economic dislocations during the 70's that helped to contribute to the unease among the union members and the common worker. During the sixties, Johnson had refused to look hard at the economic tea leaves and promoted a program of "Guns and Butter". Refusing to be held to a sound economic policy, Johnson wanted both. The stress on the economy increased as the years went on and Nixon was trying various ways to handle the resulting inflation and a rising number of unemployed workers. The balance of payments deficit was increasing and there was pressure on the dollar as a result of the increasing amount of dollars held in foreign hands. Nixon decided to handle the situation in two ways. The solutions he found were ones he was not entirely comfortable with, and both of which had long-term ramifications for the country, even if they did assist in the President's reelection in 1972. Niall Ferguson discusses the one solution, closing the convertibility of the dollar into Gold: " _In 1924 John Maynard Keynes famously dismissed the gold standard as a 'barbarous relic'. But the liberation of bank-created money from a precious metal anchor happened slowly. The gold standard had its advantages, no doubt. Exchange rate stability made for predictable pricing in trade and reduced transaction costs, while the long run stability of prices acted as an anchor for inflation expectations. Being on gold may also have reduced the cost of borrowing by committing governments to pursue prudent fiscal and monetary policies. The difficulty of pegging currencies to a single commodity-based standard, or indeed to one another, is that policymakers are then forced to choose between free capital movements and an independent national monetary policy. They cannot have both. A currency peg can mean higher volatility in short-term interest rates, as the central bank seeks to keep the price of its money steady in terms of the peg. It can mean deflation, if the supply of the peg is constrained (as the supply of gold was relative to the demand for it in the 1870s and 1880s). And it can transmit financial crises (as happened throughout the restored gold standard after 1929). By contrast, a system of money based primarily on bank deposits and floating exchange rates is freed from these constraints. The gold standard was a long time dying, but there were few mourners when the last meaningful vestige of it was removed on 15 August 1971, the day that President Nixon closed the so-called gold 'window' through which, under certain circumstances, dollars could still be exchanged for gold. From that day onward, the centuries-old link between money and precious metal was broken"_ 167 Initially this solved many problems for the President and the long term implications were not to be appreciated for years, and indeed it is not necessarily the change from the gold standard that was the problem. Instead, the problem might have been the psychological freedom from restraints that caused the increasing indebtedness and decreased capitalization that promotes the bankruptcy that we see today. In 1971 this wasn't entirely recognized.

The second problem was partially a result of the first; inflation. Nixon announced a 90 day program of wage and price controls. Designed to stop the "price gougers", the wage and price controls were initially a great hit with the public, but they did not solve the problem of unemployment, or the risk of inflation later. Indeed, the rate of inflation was knocked down from a high of 5.84% in 1970, a year before the controls, to 3.27 in 1972, when Nixon ran for re-election. However, by 1973 it was back over 6% and by 1974 it was up to just over 11%, as the renewed wage and price controls led to scarcity. In April of 1974 Nixon was forced to scrap the controls on everything except oil and natural gas.

The year 1974 dawned a dark gray for the Republican Party. The effects of Watergate and the energy crisis weighed like an anchor around the neck of the potential Republican candidates. A poll commissioned by the Pennsylvania Republican State committee with pollster Robert Teeter of Market Opinion Research in January 1974 highlights some of the factors that candidates in Pennsylvania statewide elections would need to address. While 40% named Watergate-related issues as an important problem, over 63% mentioned the energy crisis in the same survey. Contrary to conventional wisdom today, the most important single issue, as mentioned by 48% of the polls' respondents, was the energy crisis, with Watergate trailing badly at 24%. 40% of voters blamed the oil companies for the energy crisis, while President Nixon was blamed by 27% and Congress skated by with only 13%.

The poll is interesting when compared to polls taken in 1972 and 1973, primarily in determining what was losing importance to the voters and what was moving up. In the election of 1972 the voters were concerned with taxes and education. The perception of high taxes in Pennsylvania was no doubt exacerbated by the introduction of the state flat income tax by Democratic Governor Milton Shapp early in his administration. 58% of voters were concerned with state taxes in 1972, the second year of the Shapp administration. In 1973 it had dropped to 33% and in 1974 the shock had apparently worn off with only 19% mentioning the issue. Many voters were still unhappy with the tax; 40% felt the income tax was not necessary, but that had dropped from 47% in '73. The concern with the education system had also declined from 17% in 1973 to 4% in early '74. The decline in both numbers was good news to the Governor, who was running for re-election in '74 and facing the Republican political insider with no public name recognition: Drew Lewis. Shapp was still blamed for the tax by 51% of the voters, but even that number had dropped by 8 points from '73. Shapp had looked like a lame duck in 1972 and early '73, but by '74 his strengths had increased and his liabilities were becoming manageable. Drew was going to make the Shapp administrations record of problems with ethical questions a significant issue in his campaign, along with the efficiencies of working with the legislature to get the government moving forward.

The effect of Watergate was becoming more evident in the perception of the voters towards candidates and their party. While 12% of the voters were interested in throwing all the Republicans out, including 6% of Republican voters, the more interesting finding was what voters were looking for in their elected officials. _"By an overwhelming 92% to 5% margin the voters rate honesty and trustworthiness as more important than party in deciding how to vote. By a 57% to 33% margin, the voters rate these twin attributes as more important than even the issue records of the candidates."_ 168 It was in these two attributes that Senator Schweiker had excelled in the opinion of many Pennsylvanians. The poll found that " _By a wide margin, the voters approve of the way he is handling his job (54% to 7%) and favor his re-election as U.S. Senator (48% to 13%). Approval is three points higher compared to February, 1973 which marks the fourth successive increase in voter approval of Senator Schweiker dating back to May, 1970. Just as significantly, disapproval of Schweiker has not increased in the past year remaining at the very low level of 7%. A larger accumulation of negatives would normally be expected at this point in the Senator's tenure in office."_ 169

There were, however, warning signs for the Senator's re-election hopes. His popularity was waning in the southwest portion of the state, Pittsburgh and south, home to his eventual opponent Mayor Peter Flaherty. His lack of recognition was combined with a feeling among the Republicans in the area that he wasn't doing anything in the Senate. This contrasted dramatically with the rest of the state where his work on the flood disaster relief effort from Hurricane Agnes, which devastated the state and killed 48 people in 1972, was recognized and appreciated. His work on aid to the elderly and aid to education were cited by voters as important, and voters who had an opinion said the Senator "worked hard" on a majority of the issues they were concerned with. It was apparent to the Senator that he had to focus on the Southwest corner of the state where his work ethic and reputation was not recognized. This drop in approval also coincided with the increased visibility of Mayor Flaherty and the good press he was generating, pushing other elected officials into the outer darkness of media forgetfulness.

It is interesting that the poll pointed out that in the southwest there had been a twelve point drop in the number of people who could name Schweiker as one of the state's two senators, while in the rest of the state that number had increased by 5 points. The southwest part of the state had done well for Schweiker in the '68 race, and now it was his weakest area in the state. The intense dislike of Senator Clark, who had never paid much attention to the western part of the state, can explain some of the reason for Schweiker's numbers in '68, but the drop in name recognition appears to be an indication of out-of-news coverage, out-of-mind, for the voters.

His ability to eke out a win in the November election, when Republicans lost all across the country, proved that Schweiker understood the voting populace a lot better than many of the so-called party leaders. " _He has a theory that the future belongs to the issue candidate, not the old style party man. Ticket-splitting has become a way of life, he says, even in the big cities. People will vote for the man if they like his stands, no matter what the party leaders say."_ 170 Whether this has been a good thing for the republic can be debated. Its truthfulness can't. It does however tend to put a check on the party bosses when they espouse positions that are out of line with the voters in their party. Schweiker, perhaps, would think of Senator Jefferson Smith in the movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, as an example of party bosses interfering with the desires of voters and being set straight by the man of the people. _"Dick Schweiker was very good at understanding how issues effected people, he understood it, he knew how to go into the rural counties in Pennsylvania, with a liberal voting record, and stress prayer in the schools and stuff like that, that he believed in."_ 171

Having well-earned the reputation of a maverick within the GOP, he further alienated the party leadership in Pennsylvania with his call for President Nixon's resignation early in the spring. With the release of many of the Watergate tape transcripts earlier in 1974, Schweiker on May 10th, became the first Republican Senator to ask for the President's resignation: _"After reading the edited tape transcripts released by the White House last week, I am writing to ask that you resign your office._

The transcripts reveal a total disregard for the moral and ethical values upon which this nation was built. I am compelled to speak out. I cannot remain silent in the face of the now obvious moral corrosion destroying and debasing the Presidency.

I have not, and will not, pre-judge questions relevant to impeachment. But I believe that public review of the released transcripts will inevitably destroy your capacity to lead our nation effectively for the remainder of your term.

_I am convinced you can best serve your country and the Presidency by resigning now."_ 172

You can hear the echoes of a Cromwell to the Rump Parliament in the demand for resignation, pointing out the inability to lead the nation, along with the suffering of a Martin Luther in the anguish of not being able to stand silently any longer and being unwilling to do anything to stain his conscience. Most politicians are reluctant to get in front of a controversy, to take a position, until it is apparent what the political ramifications are for their careers. But notice the reasons that Schweiker gives for his call for resignation: _disregard for the moral and ethical values upon which this nation was built._ While conservatives can rightly point out that all during the mid to late sixties the moral and ethical values that built the country had been under siege, this letter represents a continuance of the themes that can be found throughout Schweiker's public career. The concern about forcing the Amish to take part in insurance against their religious beliefs, the call for bringing prayer back to school, the concern about forced busing, the worry about distorting the second amendment protections on the right to bear arms, the need to remember the civil rights of the individuals in the captive nations of Eastern Europe, all are issues that attack the moral and ethical cultural values within which Richard Schweiker had grown up.

The question many ask is: why did the Republicans support him, instead of someone else? Indeed, in 1966 the conservatives in the Montgomery County Party had tried to oust him from his Congressional post in the primary that year, but were unsuccessful. They did cause such a problem, however, that they drew the attention of the media in Washington who were appalled at the thought of a moderate like Schweiker being under attack by conservatives. So why would there be no opposition to Schweiker in the spring primary and why did he have the support of the party leaders in Pennsylvania in 1974? The answer lies in the pragmatic nature of the political leaders in the state party and the popularity of Senator Schweiker with the voters. The poll taken in January that year pointed out that the voters were looking for honesty and trustworthiness. Trustworthiness to whom, or to what, did the poll refer? Obviously the voters meant something different than trustworthiness to the party leaders.

President Nixon obviously didn't consider Schweiker reliable. Indeed it is probable that if Watergate hadn't intervened, the President would have insisted on the party finding a challenger for the senator in the primary. Watergate helped Schweiker in his re-election race because of his independence from Nixon. The party leaders were pragmatic enough to realize that Schweiker had a better chance of winning that year than would a newcomer to the position. In addition, they were willing to accept the Senator in the position because he would vote for the party position when it did not conflict with his sense of moral and ethical values. Pennsylvania party leaders used this rationale to explain their support over the years for running with Schweiker's successor in the Senate; Arlen Specter. They would rather have him voting for the party 65% of the time, than the democrat voting 5%. With the loss of party authority and the advent of the candidate who was not totally beholden to the party, as a result of the ticket-splitter mentality that Schweiker saw happening, the ability of the party to enforce its orthodoxy on the office -holder was diminished and the Party took what they could get. A problem in the long run; the support of candidates like Specter in 2004 helped to bring down his conservative fellow Senator Santorum two years latter, when that senator was unable to hold the right wing of the Party in retaliation for his own support of Specter two years before. The party leaders were right; the resulting Senator Casey votes against the small government and conservative principles that Senator Santorum espoused, a prime example of conservative voters putting the cart before the horse. Schweiker appeared different than Specter in that he was a maverick on moral and ethical principles. Specter appeared to be motivated by the need to remain in power, as his recent decision to turn Democrat (again) was caused by a realization that the party voters were rejecting his decisions going into an election year.

Whatever the reason, the party did not have a primary challenge for Senator, in 1974. Schweiker was the incumbent Senator and appeared to be very secure in the polls that were taken. In the race for Governor, Drew Lewis had out-maneuvered the various candidates to be the endorsed gubernatorial candidate. The close relations between these two men complicated and facilitated the races they would run in 1974. Schweiker as the sitting Senator was reluctant to commit on the Governor's race too early, candidates for governor were not sure if the endorsement from the moderate Republican Senator was a blessing or a curse, depending on the nature of the primary voter. In 1973, Schweiker said: " _I'm up for election next year and my position (regarding the Governor race) is one of no commitment, no endorsement," the senator says, "I don't want anyone to feel I've helped or hurt their efforts."_ 173 The Senator acknowledged his old friend would make a good candidate for Governor, and he had talked with him about the race, but that appears to be as far as it went.

Drew's strategy to gain the nomination was to cross the state talking with the county leaders and the influential business persons necessary to win over to his cause.

Drew had been absent from Pennsylvania politics for about two years, after he moved to Buffalo NY for his business career. When he returned as CEO of Snelling and Snelling he was able to devote a considerable amount of time in reanimating the contacts he had developed working for Richard Schweiker's campaign for Senator in 1968, and his years as Montgomery County Republican Chairman. This was not a difficult task for Drew; " _The thing that happens in politics is there is no bench. You can get on the field anytime you want to be on the field and I had been strong enough in 1968 to win the nomination for him Schweiker]. We won the election. I had been strong enough as finance chairman. So when I came back in 1970, [1972 ed.] nobody knew I had even been gone for two years...Marilyn went with me on a lot of these trips. We stopped at their houses and they said they would support me. Now, so many of these people had never seen a candidate for Governor. A lot of them supported me just for the fact that I took the interest to come to call on them. "_[ 174 While there is no bench in politics and a lot of the County Chairmen agreed to support Drew as the campaign progressed, it is also normal for potential opponents to make life difficult for their rivals. It is obvious from the quote above that going directly to the home area of the Chairmen was a novel and time consuming approach. Most candidates worked the circuit of dinners, picnics and fund raisers to gain face time, and depended on their own supporters in the ranks to drum up support with the leaders. When it became apparent that Drew was going to make a serious effort, he began to get opposition from the District Attorney in Philadelphia, Arlen Specter, who was worried that Drew's visibility as the Finance Chairman of the state party was a conflict of interest. At a state committee meeting in February 1973 Specter's executive assistant attempted to create a movement to remove Drew from that position, claiming that it gave him an unfair advantage over the other candidates as he had a list of the party's main contributors. _"House Speaker Kenneth B. Lee, R-Sullivan, said, "indications were that Specter wanted to force Lewis' resignation". No one has officially announced_ _candidacy for the 1974 Republican primary, but several persons have been jockeying for position. Among them are Specter and Lewis."_ 175 The state chairman brought the question up to clear the air at the meeting. Drew had taken the position of finance chairman in 1971 and found the party in debt to the tune of $600,000.00. By the time of this meeting the party had a balance of $82,000.00. Obviously the party was going to be supportive of an individual who could raise that amount of money in a bit over a year and a half. The question about knowing the donors was a stretch as Drew was not only hitting up the standard stable of individuals and groups, he was growing the list; and that told the party something as well. Every one of the leaders at the committee meeting understood what Specter was doing and it wasn't going to fly with them. Drew told the committee he would resign if and when he announced his candidacy. True to his word Drew did resign from the post in November of 1973.

Drew brought in an assistant, Rick Robb, on February 1, 1973, and formed an exploratory committee in his quest to obtain the endorsement for Governor. Rick had been a legislative assistant to Congressman Albert Johnson of the rural 23rd district located in northwest Pennsylvania. Johnson had given Rick a leave-of-absence to work for Drew, but " _I told him just because Rick is coming to work for you, I don't want you to consider this an endorsement"_ 176

Drew worked out an arrangement with Bob Snelling, owner of Snelling and Snelling to take a day and a half off a week to allow him to campaign. " _He got an invitation to speak at a Lincoln Day dinner in Somerset County, and wound up doing a whole series of Republican speeches. He basically would spend all the weekends out and around Pennsylvania, going to the various counties. He was very much looked upon as a long shot. In fact it became a good natured joke, Drew who?"_ 177 Being a long shot was a fact that Drew recognized, but he was not willing to come out with specific initiatives to gain support, he was working the plan he developed and did not deviate. _"But Lewis isn't concerned about broadcasting in-depth policy statements now. That will come later if fortune breaks his way. And that means if Rizzo abandons a bid on the GOP ticket because of mounting city problems; if Heinz foregoes a race for the statehouse to wait for Sen. Hugh Scott's seat in 1976; if Specter's already tarnished image fails to improve. So if the odds-on favorites decide to limp out of the race, Lewis will be there to dash for the winner's circle. "I recognize myself as a darkhorse but I'm going to hang in there," he said with brash confidence."_ 178

Drew kept plugging away at the endorsement, spending each long weekend on the road. Marilyn usually drove if they weren't flying, and Drew and Rick would plan and work during the trip. They would go to every county courthouse and introduce themselves to the Republican row officers, as well as talking with the county chairman. The row officers were important people in the county party, but were not usually courted by candidates for Governor. Indeed, unless they were members of the state committee they would never have seen the candidates, unless it was an official campaign appearance. By dint of his hard work and persistence, Drew was able to garner grass roots support in small counties all across the state. He expanded on his contacts from the 1968 Senatorial Campaign; digging even deeper into the party faithful in search of support.

Drew knew he did not have support from the Republican hierarchy in the southeastern part of the state; Billy Meehan in Philadelphia, Harry McNichol in Delaware County, Ted Rubino from Chester County, and Harry Fawkes from Bucks County but, _"he had a lot of friends in the Republican Hierarchy in Pennsylvania because he had been the state finance chairman for a couple of years and paid off the debt, got the Party out of debt. He had a state chairman, Cliff Jones, who was officially neutral but did everything he could to be helpful to Drew, particularly getting him speaking appearances"_ 179 _._ In May of 1973 Drew was still working the circuit across the state on his long weekends, his name becoming well known among the party faithful. Everyone was keeping their eyes open and their ears to the ground to see what was happening, whether John Heinz was going to run, how Arlen Specter was maneuvering, was Frank Rizzo going to switch parties, etc. The County Chairmen love this type of race, as the candidates all become eager to visit the local fund raisers and their names draw out the committee people and interested citizens who then donate to the local coffers, helping fund the less important races. _"The officials are playing a wait and see game. As Johnson noted, "I'm going to invite both Heinz and Lewis to my annual picnic"._ 180

In late May 1973 Drew received the official support of the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House: Kenneth Lee. Lee wrote a letter to 20,000 GOP leaders in Pennsylvania saying that Lewis had the ability to be an outstanding Governor. The letter went out on the stationary of the Speaker, but with the footnote that it was "Not Paid for at government expense." Instead it was paid for by a fund raising group called Friends of Drew Lewis, which consisted of one individual, the treasurer. Within a few days the Democrats in Harrisburg were urging that the Department of State in Harrisburg look at this "apparent violation" of the state election code. Lewis' attorney Richard Brown disputed that it was a violation in that Drew had not announced his intention to run, so there was no violation. By June 1st it was announced in the press that the Pennsylvania Department of State was investigating the fund raising activities of the "Friends of Drew Lewis". On June 4th Drew replied to the state that he had not received an inquiry from the state, but heard about it from the news media _. "Frankly, the fact that I first learned of this letter from the news service leads me to question the sincerity of this inquiry." Lewis said. "Moreover, your letter strikes me as possibly being an effort by Governor Shapp to use the power of government, through subordinates, to intimidate potential political opponents"._ 181 By the 8th of June the state and Drew had reached a compromise that resulted in dropping the investigation. " _A state Justice Department investigation of the legality of a committee raising funds for Andrew L. Lewis Jr. has been dropped, according to a spokesman for Attorney General Israel Packel. Peter H. Kostmayer, Packel's press secretary, said Friday he was informed that Lewis, mentioned as a candidate, has authorized the group's Work... Kostmayer said Lewis has instructed the treasurer of the fund committee to file with the Department of State, at the appropriate time, complete information on contributions and expenditures."_ 182

What is amazing is that this is precisely the type of problem that Drew and Richard Schweiker knew about in 1967 and developed the intricate dance of letter and response mentioned earlier, designed to allow Richard to collect funds while not announcing his candidacy before he was ready. While five years is a significant amount of time to remember all the intricate legalities with which it is necessary to conform when you plan a race, this was a rather important one.

In June 1973, thirteen county chairmen in northwestern Pennsylvania, the farthest point from his home county, came out in support of Drew. This was the area in which his assistant, Rick, had worked for several years as an administrative assistant to Congressman Albert Johnson, who represented the area. This was Drew's first major breakthrough. He began to pick up support in pockets around the state.

He was looking at the western part of the state, hoping that Congressman John Heinz, of H.J. Heinz company descent, would block any other candidate before dropping out of the race. It was generally recognized throughout the state that Heinz could have had the nomination for the asking, but it was also known that his wife was not in favor of moving to Harrisburg. Ultimately Heinz announced on October 19, 1973 that he was not interested in being Governor, but instead would be looking to go to the U.S. Senate. _"Lewis, a management specialist who heads the Snelling and Snelling employment agency, has been rapidly gaining Republican support in recent months and is expected to pick up much of Heinz' support. "I wouldn't have even begun to seek the nomination if I didn't believe he would eventually decide not to run," said Lewis. "He would have had the greatest chance of gathering support and I'm hopeful it's going to come towards me." Lewis said he would begin an immediate canvassing of Heinz backers in an attempt to win their support."_ 183

Drew was also working to block Arlen Specter, the ambitious District Attorney in Philadelphia, who had indicated he was going to run for Governor. He was also watching the new Democratic Mayor and former Police Commissioner, Frank Rizzo, who was considering running for Governor as a Republican. Drew got lucky with the defeat of Arlen in his re-election campaign in 1973 and Rizzo's humiliation in a lie detector test failure that ended any hope of his of winning the nod for Governor. Specter went into the November 1973 election with a huge lead. He lost his re-election bid for District Attorney on that Tuesday following the "Saturday night massacre" with Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox, and the reaction of the voters to that event. The Watergate problems of Nixon in this instance helped Drew eliminate one of his major opponents.

With the elimination of most of his major opponents Drew quickly began receiving support from formerly neutral county chairmen. The increasing support for Drew from the hinterlands of rural Pennsylvania threatened the control of the Philadelphia GOP. " _A Republican power struggle has emerged between some smaller counties and the powerful Philadelphia GOP organization. Philadelphians traditionally have played key roles in selecting party candidates, but smaller counties now demand a larger voice, according to several mid-state county chairmen. The split surfaced after the Philadelphia Republican chairman, William J. Devlin, addressed a GOP meeting in Harrisburg. He urged some 20 county chairmen, mostly from central and southeastern Pennsylvania, to exercise caution in picking a candidate. Several mid-state Republicans interpreted Devlin's remarks as an attempt to dictate GOP strategy from the states largest city... Devlin denies trying to control the party or wreck Lewis. One county chairman from central Pennsylvania, who declined to be identified, commented. "This isn't the first time Devlin has been in our midstate district to talk to us. But it's a funny thing: before he looked like the big white father, the big man from Philadelphia coming up. Now the little counties are saying 'we're being pushed around. We're in this game, too." Added Clark Spence, Adams County GOP Chairman: "We're county chairmen and it's time the rest of the state says to Philadelphia, 'We're here'. Smaller counties have decided they're going to be heard. "In the past, the only time they-the so-called heads of the organization- came to smaller counties was when they wanted votes or money. Now we want a piece of the action." Devlin said his remarks were made so that the Republicans wouldn't choose the wrong candidate by hasty action. "I'm not ready, nor are any of the large population counties in Pennsylvania ready to give an endorsement of anyone. We're going to talk to Republican officials, do polling,... and then make up our minds," he said. Devlin added, "They take this as an anti-Lewis position. I'm not against Drew Lewis. I've been one of his guiding lights, I've consulted with him on a weekly basis. But I'm telling him to slow down and not have his aides force his candidacy down people's throats." Rep. Daniel E. Beren, Montgomery County chairman and a strong Lewis backer, said he agreed with the theory that Devlin's remarks were anti-Lewis. Beren said Lewis refused to follow previous GOP candidates who sought out party power brokers before launching a campaign for party endorsement. Such brokers include Devlin and Philadelphia party boss William A. Meehan, U.S. Sen. Hugh Scott, and Public Utility Commissioner Chairman George I. Bloom_ 184 _._ Power brokers never give up their positions without a fight. Philadelphia leader Billy Meehan began an insurgency against Drew, with an "anybody but Lewis" campaign. _"they even went to Governor Scranton quietly and asked him to talk with Bob Casey about turning Republican, which Casey refused to do. We were not aware of it, and after Casey turned them down, Governor Scranton called Drew and said "Look you've earned this, you deserve to be our party's nominee, and I'm going to endorse you." And with that it was all over"_ 185

The support for Drew from the county chairmen in the hinterlands was a shock to the chairman of the southeast counties, including Philadelphia, which were used to throwing around the weight of voters they represented. When Meehan could claim to represent 100,000 voters it normally put the small county chairman, who might have 5-10,000 voters, in the pale. Meehan was noted for telling everyone to go out and see what you can do and then come back. In this case Drew did that, and effectively took Meehan out of the race. A coup had taken place under the radar, but the blood was there. A change had happened in state party control, and after being unable to win the Mayor of Philadelphia for years the power of the Philadelphia GOP was dramatically reduced.

On January 28, 1974 Drew announced his candidacy at the Marriott Hotel on City Line Avenue in Bala Cynwyd. In his announcement Drew recognized the issue of Watergate and tried to diffuse the problem, before it ruined his gubernatorial ambition.

" _Pennsylvanians are deeply concerned about another overriding issue: the honesty and integrity of their leaders. People just don't know who to believe anymore. From now on any political leader must be completely open with the people. Many of you and many Pennsylvanians probably want to know my position on Watergate. My position is clear: I deplore Watergate and everything that name has come to represent._

Those proven to be involved in breaking the law must be dealt with swiftly and fairly. Americans have been shaken and confidence must be restored.

I have two additional comments on the implications of Watergate. Specifically on the political and spiritual fallout it has caused.

First, as to political fall-out, I want to caution those who believe that only one party has vulnerability to the political impact resulting from scandal. That has never been the case nor is it the case today.

_Second, as to the spiritual fall-out, I want to urge people everywhere—and particularly young people, not to give up on the political process. This is not the time to walk away. This is the time to become involved in rebuilding not only the image but the reality of fundamental decency, integrity and honesty as basic to the political process."_ 186

It appears that Drew was focusing on some of the same values that Richard Schweiker had, that integrity, honesty and fundamental decency are critical to the political process in a republic. Drew would expand on this theme in this announcement and subsequent campaign. " _I've always felt effective executive leadership would provide more effective government. But for the past several years I've seen a wide gap between good intentions and execution._

_I would like to see a governor of Pennsylvania_ _with the desire and the ability to truly lead the state; a governor in whom the general assembly will have confidence; a governor who surrounds himself with people of the highest caliber, both in terms of morality and capability."_ 187

We can see that Drew was thinking in terms of an effective government that had people of high moral caliber. Indeed it is probable that one without the other is not possible. Drew promised to provide a detailed record of his finances, and would expect the same of those who served with him. He pointed out he was a new comer as a candidate, but with a deep understanding of the political process and how it could be used to help people. He promised to stand for integrity and honesty in Government and for a government which was open and open-minded. In the Watergate era he was saying all the right things. Unfortunately he didn't have a track record of public service that could be pointed at to exemplify the things he promised, as Schweiker could. He had instead, a business career that pointed up his efficiency as an administrator and effective leader. A career of planning the work and then working the plan and as he had done in his previous campaign for County Chairman, Drew lined up most of his support before even officially announcing his candidacy.

On February 16th Drew was endorsed by the Pennsylvania State Committee as its candidate for Governor. He thanked them for their support and promised to work to rebuild the party in Pennsylvania that had been hurt by the Watergate crisis in Washington, to open the party to the young people who had turned 18 since the last election for governor. All that remained was for the Republican voters to endorse in the primary, and win the election in November.

One potential problem and opportunity for the election was the youth vote, which was one of the great unknowns of the early 1970's. Richard Schweiker had supported the idea of lowering the voting age to 18 since he had introduced such legislation in 1967. The Vietnam conflict had promoted the justice of lowering the voting age, the charge being they were old enough to be killed in Vietnam, but not old enough to vote for the politicians who sent them there. In an address to the graduates of Edinboro State College in May of 1971 Schweiker had predicted that the 38 states necessary to amend the Constitution would ratify it and the 18 year old voting age would be law shortly. He urged the young people to participate in politics. _"Young people have complained to me that the system doesn't listen to them, and that they cannot affect the policies of the establishment. Well, suddenly 11.4 million young people will have a direct voice within the system, and believe me, that's a lot of votes." "Politics must involve inter-relationships within society and must serve to combine the best of differing points of view in public debate." He told them that the heart of good politics is effective compromise and that "Compromise can be an important positive force if it is used properly."_  Richard was very effective in the art of compromise, in finding the solution that enabled legislation to move forward. _"An aide describes as one of the senator's strongest assets his 'tremendous ability to bring the different parties together.' 'He's the supreme negotiator,' the aide says. 'On the health committee, for instance, Schweiker often represents the middle ground between Sen. Edward Kennedy (the committee Chairman) and the administration. In instance after instance the proposal finally agreed upon would be the one Schweiker has made'."_ 189

Compromise is a word that ideologues look at askance. But without compromise nothing gets done, unless forced on the weaker by the stronger, and that leads to injustice. Both Schweiker and Lewis, along with every other politician at the time, recognized the potential of the youth vote, if it could be mobilized, and it was important to make sure it wasn't mobilized by the opposition. Both realized that they were going to have to compromise to gain the votes of the youth, but what would be the nature of that compromise? In six years the advent of Ronald Reagan would point out that all ages of voters were more interested in a strong defense and respect around the world, than in trying to be loved by everyone and despised as weak and vacillating like the future President Carter. Compromise doesn't entail a retreat from core principles. It involves asserting your core principles by delaying other less important desires.

In the gubernatorial election in 1974 Drew Lewis would try to focus on the ethical lapses by the Shapp administration, while promoting his desires for a better and more efficient state government. He promised a positive campaign, but one that pointed out the shortcomings of the present administration. The five key objectives in his campaign for Governor were enunciated on May 6, 1974 in an address to the Derry Township Council of Republican Women:

I place the highest possible priority on the restoration of a positive climate for Pennsylvania's economic growth and development. That means jobs and my goal is that there will be a job for every Pennsylvanian.

Second, I intend to work to assure the principles and practice of justice are kept free of political influence and that the state's law enforcement agencies serve justice.

Third, I want to help restore a sense of community in Pennsylvania. I believe in strong, effective local government backstopped by a responsive state government which doesn't try to manipulate the lives of citizens in their own communities.

Fourth, I will work very hard to restore confidence and integrity in our state government. It must be completely open, and it must also be open-minded so that all Pennsylvanians have access to the government. They should be served, and they should be able to register their views.

_Finally--- and this is critical---I shall work in harmony with the members of the general assembly to make state government work to serve people, because I believe people are what government is all about."_ 190

The fifth key objective involved the function of working together with the legislature, of creating a harmony, expressing the willingness to compromise in order to move state government forward in service to the people. High ideals, interesting in concept, morally worthy, but difficult to achieve; and even more difficult to promote to a populace looking at government with an increasingly jaundiced and cynical eye! Indeed, Drew was going to have difficulty convincing a voting populace that state problems were centered in the executive branch. The poll of January 1974 pointed out that while 40% disapproved of the way the state government was going, a plurality of those (46% to 27%) felt that it was the legislature that was the problem. In addition Shapp's approval had risen 19 points in a year, from 30% to 52%. While it would not be impossible to beat Shapp at this time, it was infinitely more difficult than it would have been a year before.

Drew developed an excellent and organized campaign staff. Rick Robb was manager, and he lined up the heavy hitters for the various chairmen of the campaign organization, John S.D. Eisenhower as overall Chairman of Pennsylvanians for Lewis, Tom Gola as his Eastern Chairman, and Elsie Hillman for his Western Chairman. Truly a star studded example of Republican names in the state for a campaign. John was the son of the former president and well known in Republican circles in the state. Tom Gola, a former All-American at LaSalle University who became a pro basketball player for the Philadelphia Warriors. After playing pro basketball and then coaching at LaSalle, Gola had headed to the state legislature. His name as Eastern Chairman guaranteed attention to the campaign by the star struck media. Elsie Hillman was to be elected the National Committeewoman for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania in 1975 and was currently a county chairman and prominent figure in Western Pennsylvania politics. Married to the wealthiest man in Pittsburgh, Hillman was a noted philanthropist and a Republican fundraiser. Her willingness to serve as Western Chairman indicated her support of the party nominee, at the time. Drew also involved F. Eugene Dixon, heir to the Weidner fortune, as his chairman of the Lewis for Governor Committee.

The Republican governor nominee was paired with Lt. Governor nominee Kenneth Lee of Sullivan County, former Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Lee had resigned from the House in January of 1974 after an 18 year career in the legislature. " _The legislative process is a rewarding one, but a frustrating one, Lee said, principally because the process is so tied to the executive branch. If the executive branch is good, then the legislative process is a good one. But it has been pretty much of a shambles these past three years"_ 191 With his resignation Lee became available for the Lt. Governor position on the ticket, which he actively sought. The "Drew Who" campaign evolved and was now: "Lewis and Lee: A New Outlook for Pennsylvania".

Drew was able to secure a quote from former Governor Bill Scranton, a revered figure to Republicans in the state, for his campaign literature. " _Drew Lewis is honest, straightforward and dedicated. Best of all, he possesses important assets to be a good progressive governor. He is an experienced and very able administrator, and he cares far more about solving the problems of the Commonwealth and its people than about his own personal ambitions and desires..."_ 192

Lewis was the original organization man, he did his homework, he planned and he worked the plan. Drew had all his people in position; everything was in place to run a successful campaign. All that was needed was to execute the plan.

Unfortunately, as a military man can tell you, no plan survives contact with the enemy. The year Drew picked to run for Governor proved to be one of the most difficult for Republicans in memory; dammed by Watergate, and the resignation of a President. Drew had meticulously planned his campaign and caught a bad break even before he announced. Drew had been named a co-trustee for the bankrupt Reading Railroad in 1971, with former Mayor Richardson Dilworth of Philadelphia. Dilworth was a patrician Democrat who, along with Joe Clark, had wrestled the city of Philadelphia away from Republican control in the early 1950's. After losing the gubernatorial race to William Scranton in 1962 Dilworth had returned to his law practice, but remained a noted public figure. Working with Dilworth on the future of the Reading had earned Drew his respect. It was never reported, since Dilworth unexpectedly passed away in mid January 1974, but Dilworth was going to endorse Drew and they had planned the announcement to coincide with Drew's Campaign kick-off. " _I don't know if that would have changed the result (of the election-.ed) but it would have had some real impact in Philadelphia."_ 193

Drew recognized that he was starting down about a million votes, possibly more, as the Democrats were building on their registration advantage in the state. He worked his plan, steadily gaining support from the Republican voters who hadn't know him previous to his campaign. In developing the plan Drew and Rick Robb, his campaign manager, consulted with James Reichley a former legislative secretary to Governor Scranton and at that time an editor for Forbes magazine. Jim advised Drew that rather than sitting down with position papers and issue books to read, he bring in representatives of the various groups to tell him what their concerns are, what their interests are and what they want, and thus become very familiar with the issues. So Drew invited as many interest groups as possible to meet with him, including John Morris head of the local Teamsters. Morris, who eventually became good friends with both Drew and Rick, told them in no uncertain terms that he was not going to support a Republican, but that he wanted to shake Drew's hand, since he was the first politician running for high office who had ever invited him in to talk about what was important to him and his men and that he would never forget it.

By August he thought he was only down about 300,000 votes, when President Nixon resigned. The momentum stopped dead as the nation and the state absorbed the situation with the new President, who had not been elected. Taking several weeks to get beyond the resignation, Drew felt he was able to regain some push for the campaign by the end of the month, when President Ford issued his pardon of Nixon. Drew's campaign for Governor never recovered from that one.

One of the results of the Watergate scandal was the drying up of campaign contributions from the traditional sources. Even as strong a fund raiser as Drew Lewis experienced problems.

" _One of the results of Watergate is that Republican money has not been forthcoming in the amounts needed for Gubernatorial campaigns._

As early as September, Lewis' cash balance was down to $19,000 and the Ford succession to the presidency had not increased the flow of money very much.....

Lewis' last financial report, which he makes periodically although there is no law that requires him to do so, indicated that before former President Nixon's resignation he was receiving contributions at an average rate of about $1,500 a day. Immediately after the resignation the rate went up to about 1,650 a day.

_Lewis has said he will spend between $1.2 and $1.4 million on the campaign"_ 194

One of the results of the inability to raise funds easily was the need to borrow money from two large campaign donors, Richard Mellon Scaife and F. Eugene Dixon to pay for television advertising. To pay the loans back, the State Committee put on three dinners: in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. The one in Philadelphia was held on October 9th and had President Ford in attendance. The dinner brought out the GOP faithful and raised about $210,000 for the campaign, but it also tied the candidate more closely to the new President. While that was slightly better than former President Nixon, Ford had recently suggested a 5% tax surcharge on middle-income taxpayers and issued the Nixon pardon the month before. Both Drew Lewis as a candidate for Governor, and Senator Richard Schweiker, were forced to distance themselves from the tax proposal while also being forced to point out the need to cut down on inflation and support other parts of the new President's economic plan. The whole situation had elements of farce to it.

Drew worked his plan as best he could, issuing statements and news releases on his various positions and contrasting them with Governor Shapp's. Both Marilyn and Drew kept up a full schedule of campaign stops across the state, but had difficulty generating interest and enthusiasm for his campaign during the summer and early fall. Marilyn was an aggressive and energetic campaigner and brought a lot of verve to the campaign. The problems at the national level were causing severe problems for the Republican Gubernatorial race; continuing to tie the Republican Party at the state level with the Presidential issues from the Watergate scandal, the resignation of President Nixon in August, the pardon of the ex-President in September by President Ford, and then the tax surcharge in October. It seemed that Drew couldn't catch a break.

This national situation was not as great a problem for the re-election campaign of Senator Schweiker. He had been mature enough to follow his moral compass which placed him on the Nixon enemies list, and was helpful in the Watergate era, even if it didn't endear him to the party faithful. Schweiker also benefited from the primary fight on the Democratic side where Pittsburgh mayor Peter Flaherty prevailed by only 20,000 votes over Herbert Dennenberg, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner. Dennenberg would have probably been a stronger candidate statewide against Schweiker, as he was popular with Philadelphia voters in Schweiker's back yard. Flaherty was going to hit Schweiker from the right, an apparent change in the traditional Republican-Democratic philosophy. Schweiker, who was unopposed, won the most votes on the statewide Republican ticket by a wide margin on May 21st. This was only 11 days after he called for President Nixon's resignation. It is obvious that his call for the resignation did not hurt his standing with the voters, even if it did annoy the party leaders.

Schweiker ran his re-election campaign from a position of strength, with polls showing he had a significant lead everywhere in the state but Pittsburgh.

" _My polls show I have a good lead" says Schweiker, during a campaign swing last weekend through Pittsburgh, home court of his Democratic senatorial challenger, Pittsburgh Mayor Peter Flaherty._

" _It shows that there is only one area where I really have to work hard- the Pittsburgh area, and that's what I am doing. In the rest of the state, I have a healthy lead and am keeping it."_

_This wasn't supposed to happen to Republicans this year. But far from succumbing or even hurting from the predicted Watergate fallout, Sen. Schweiker believes he is stronger today because he was smart and honest and courageous enough to buck the Nixon administration- in a style characteristic of his early bouts with the county organization- on Watergate."_ 195

" _What I'm doing (in his bid for sixth term) is emphasizing my record, emphasizing the votes I've cast and types of programs I've supported.... Positively pointing out my record of accomplishments," Schweiker explains._

The voting record shows him to be a man of independent judgment, a man on whom neither liberal Democrats nor the administration can count on for every vote.

" _The Senator is his own man," is how one of his aides put it. "He votes the issues on their merits."_ 196

So Schweiker was running on his own record. He considered himself a moderate Republican, and he had annoyed the right wing of the party by his call for the President's resignation. That should have hurt his fund raising ability, especially as his former campaign manager and chief fund raiser was running for Governor. By the beginning of October, Schweiker had raised a bit less than the $670,000 dollars he had raised in 1968. The difference, however, was much more significant in the number of donors. In 1968 he had about 2000 separate donors, so the average amount per donor was significant. In the 1974 campaign Schweiker had 14,000 donors. Obviously he was getting smaller donations from a lot more individuals. Schweiker was able to develop a large donor base of small donors, while Lewis needed the big donors from the traditional Republican machine. That machine was loyal to Nixon and would not support Schweiker to the extent it had in 1968 while it would help Lewis. This problem limited how Lewis could campaign in the Watergate year of 1974: criticize Nixon and win the vote, but lose the money necessary to reach the voters with his message, or take the money and have trouble connecting with the voters.

Schweiker's form of campaigning had changed as well. In 1968 he was flying across the state, traveling the trains, meeting people at the train stations, and dragging himself to bed late at night, while getting up before dawn to start again. In 1974 his wife, Claire, had suggested a different approach. Two of his children were fans of a television program called "The Partridge Family" in which a musical family traveled by bus. Claire suggested a bus in which the family traveled as a unit to plant entrances, malls, and country fairs, during the weekends and through the summer. Not an air-conditioned luxury coach, but an old school bus painted up as a traveling billboard for the Senator's campaign. The flights and train travel were reserved for the week days during the fall when he didn't have the family with him. The family became a large part of his campaign that year. The children had grown into teenagers and were able to pass out literature and participate in the campaign to a much greater extent than before. He had billboards created that featured his entire family with him, placed all around the state. He still has one decorating a wall in the recreation room at his house today.

Looking at the polling numbers in January and then again in July, Schweiker could take some comfort in aspects of the responses that played to his strengths. The voters had told the pollsters that they wanted candidates they could trust, that were honest. The polls also told Schweiker that his reputation with the voters was extremely good: when asked if they felt that Senator Schweiker was honest 60% agreed; a hard worker: 59%; trustworthy: 56%; effective: 51%. Very high numbers, but what was interesting was that only 5% of the people said those words did not describe "the kind of Senator Richard Schweiker has been". Richard consistently had low disapproval numbers during his term in office. Many Democrats wouldn't vote for him, because he was a Republican, but they didn't dislike him as a person.

Teeter told the state committee in January that in his opinion, based on his polls, Republicans could expect to lose about 4 percentage points because of Watergate. In a state in which elections were always close, that was significant. Nixon was becoming an albatross around the neck of the party, his numbers were sinking significantly at the time, and slim majorities were in favor of his resignation, but not his impeachment. The state poll was taken before the January 16th disclosure that16 minutes of one of the infamous White House audio tapes had apparently been deliberately erased.

In addition, the same poll told the party that Watergate would severely hurt those Republican candidates that were perceived as equally qualified to the Democrats they were running against. The Republican had to be perceived as head and shoulders above the opposition, otherwise the Democrat would get the vote. This statement should have put to bed Drew Lewis' statement, when he announced his candidacy for Governor: _"First, as to political fall-out, I want to caution those who believe that only one party has vulnerability to the political impact resulting from scandal. That has never been the case nor is it the case today."_ Drew was entirely correct, both parties have had scandals and neither was immune. What was incorrect was Drew's understanding of the magnitude of reaction to a scandal at the Presidential level and the effect it would have throughout the year. Drew felt that the Shapp Administration had numerous scandals of their own that he could highlight. He never got traction on that hope. The media was not interested in little problems in Harrisburg. When there was a major problem in Washington. Whether Drew had access to the polling data is not known, although it seems likely. He might have underestimated the visceral reaction that voters were experiencing, the duration of the coverage or overestimated his ability to manage the direction of the news coverage.

By July, Senator Schweiker was looking at poll numbers that were extremely good. In fact the report was warning to expect an inevitable slippage in the numbers. He was polling well above normal in the city of Philadelphia and doing well in the East in general. He was not budging Flaherty's popularity in the southwest, in spite of focusing his campaign efforts there. Flaherty's vote was also coming from ticket splitters who were concerned about taxes to a much greater extent than the normal voting public. His popularity was personal rather than issue-oriented, but his soft vote, i.e. those that could be swayed, was greater than Schweiker's, so there was still potential to peel away more of his support than he could of Schweiker's. It was apparent that the bitter primary battle with Denenberg had engendered hard feelings and Schweiker was picking up a significant number of Denenberg's supporters. Schweiker was looking at a lead of 52-48% across the state, which in the Watergate year of 1974, was phenomenal for a Republican candidate in a toss-up state like Pennsylvania.

By the end of October it was becoming apparent that the advertising buys of September and October were not creating the push that Lewis needed to win the election. He was unable to generate enough enthusiasm or to differentiate himself from Shapp on the issues. All the warnings of Bob Teeter in the polls appeared correct. He was losing the fence-sitters to Shapp, because he couldn't get beyond the Republican "R" after his name. He couldn't get the electorate to become enthused over his platform issues, and it resulted in his loss. Drew had looked at his own polling and the race had tightened, he felt confident. He had worked his plan as well as possible, he had logged more than 200,000 miles of driving and flying in the two years he had unofficially and officially campaigned, and had dumped $150,000.00 of his own money into the campaign.

It was a bitter pill to swallow for the energetic and successful young businessman, Drew would never again run for elected office, and while he threatened to do so at times he never pulled the trigger on another race. Drew instead realized he needed to begin rebuilding the family fortunes which had been sadly depleted by the race. By the Thursday after the election he had started his new business: Lewis and Asssociates.

An analysis of the differences in the vote totals between Lewis and Schweiker provide an interesting window on the thinking that northeastern Republicans would exhibit two years later in the race for president. Drew Lewis received 1, 574,099 votes to Governor Shapp's 1,875,507, a loss of around 300,000 votes. Richard Schweiker received 1,838,907 to Pete Flaherty's 1,597,677. Obviously there was a tremendous amount of ticket-splitting going on in the voting booth, especially when a Democratic Governor and a Republican Senator can pull roughly equivalent votes. In looking at the county maps of where each candidate won, it become obvious that Lewis won the traditionally Republican counties and Shapp won the traditionally Democratic ones.

Lewis did as well as anyone could have expected, considering it was a year in which the public was moving Democratic after the Watergate scandal. Such was not the case with Schweiker who did significantly better than Lewis and almost as well as Shapp. Schweiker won most of the counties that Lewis did, with several exceptions. But he did significantly better in the Democratic counties than Lewis. Indeed he almost won the city of Philadelphia, losing by only 3717 votes, while Lewis lost it by 220,112. 216,395 voters split their tickets for Schweiker, and he won the four suburban Philadelphia counties by 177,697 votes.

Schweiker also took the three traditionally Democratic counties of Erie, Lackawanna and Luzerne with 56.3% of the vote. If you were to add Philadelphia and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) to those counties, the five largest Democratic strongholds in Pennsylvania gave almost 50% of their vote to Richard. Something was radically different in this voting pattern. Normally a Republican can't offer enough to outbid a Democrat for Democratic votes. And while Schweiker was a moderate to liberal Republican he was also a conservative on gun control, abortion, school prayer, and other areas that do not appeal to the traditional liberal Democrat found in the urban areas of the state. A closer look is needed to see exactly what happened, and some of the answer is found in Richard's victory speech the night of the election.

" _..Our close vote in Philadelphia was a modern day record for a Republican. But our campaign has been more than an urban phenomenon. Together we have worked for and received the overwhelming support of rural and more conservative areas, like Lancaster and Lebanon._

Together, we have won the support of the working men and women of Pennsylvania.

Together, we have won an unprecedented share of the black vote.

In short, we have forged a new coalition for responsible and responsive government----of urban, suburban and rural voters---- of blue collar and white collar---- of black and white---- of east and west.

It is a new coalition based not on the politics of personality, but on the politics of substance. For together, we have talked issues in this campaign, not slogans.

It is a new coalition based not on the big contributions of the few, but on the modest contributions of the many.

Ours is a new coalition where politics is less important than conscience....where a man who has the guts to take a stand finds an army of responsible men and women who have the courage to stand with him.

Together---our new coalition---HAS written political history. And it is up to us to encourage the leadership of our country, our state and our communities to read the history we have written.

Together, we can hope that responsible leadership everywhere will learn that the public's confidence is inseparable from the independent judgment of its Senators.

_You and I, together, celebrate not just an ordinary victory tonight---but proof that principle above politics is the best politics of all."_ 197

There are two concepts in this speech that deserve some explanation: the unprecedented share of the black vote, and that principle above politics is the best politics of all.

First, the claim to an unprecedented share of the black vote! It is true, and it had a significant effect on the total vote. Drew Lewis was able to garner about 10% of the black vote across the state, while Schweiker received about 34%. Schweiker had targeted this group and worked with the Reverend Leon Sullivan, founder of the Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC), a national manpower training center. Schweiker had supported OIC for years as a means for inner-city residents to learn trades and skills enabling them to work their way out of poverty and get off welfare. Reverend Leon Sullivan formed a committee called Independent Clergy for Schweiker, which consisted of 400 black Baptist ministers in 30 communities across the state. " _The results of the election clearly show that if a republican candidate supports the interest of the black community, he can get their vote," said Dr, Maurice A. Dawkins, an aide to Mr. Sullivan and a committee leader. "It also shows that the Democratic Party can no longer take the black vote for granted," he added."_ 198 Not only did the leaders tell their people to vote for Schweiker, it also distributed literature explaining how: _"The committee raised more than $7,000, which was used to pay for administrative costs and distributed more than 500,000 pieces of literature around the state. The literature gave instructions to black voters on how to split their vote. "We actually ran a voter education campaign while urging people to vote for Schweiker". Dawkins said."_ 199 The effort was successful and Schweiker did win many of the black wards in the city of Philadelphia, and came close enough in Mayor Flaherty's city of Pittsburgh to limit the Democratic totals in the west. While the black vote was not sufficient to give the election to Schweiker, it was extremely helpful and he would have had great trouble overcoming the black vote, if it had gone totally the other way.

Interestingly OIC, was not a typical governmental handout program. It operated under the philosophical idea of "Helping people to help themselves". They still provide the support necessary to turn people from welfare to work and from tax dependent to taxpayer. The 501(C) (3) not for profit corporation represents a private solution to a public problem. As a private solution to a public issue, it fit well with Schweiker's desire to help people but to emphasize the importance of the private sector in achieving that result. In 1968 Schweiker had lost Philadelphia by about 200,000 votes. Six years later he almost won the city. Help from black leaders like Rev. Sullivan, was one of the reasons he was so close.

The second thing in his victory speech that bears examination is his statement: _You and I, together, celebrate not just an ordinary victory tonight---but proof that principle above politics is the best politics of all_ . Principle above politics! An interesting choice of words designed to draw attention to Schweiker's independent stand against his own party during the Watergate scandal. His choice to make a moral stand for what he thought was right, even if it meant opposing the party and people who had helped him reach the Senate, was endorsed by the voters of the state in his victory. A victory endorsed not only by the liberals who despised President Nixon, but also by voters in the party that had supported the President throughout the long and bitter struggle that ended in his resignation. The people decided they wanted a man of principles as their representative in Washington, even if they didn't agree 100% with his decisions on their behalf. Think back to the poll in January of 1974 with the interesting point: _"the voters rate honesty and trustworthiness as more important than party in deciding how to vote. By a 57% to 33% margin, the voters rate these twin attributes as more important than even the issue records of the candidates."_

Schweiker had compounded the situation according to the political pundits by asking for Nixon's resignation on May 10th, the first Republican Senator to do so, yet he held most of the Republican voters in Pennsylvania and drew a significant number of Democrats to win the election with 53.5% of the vote, in a year when Republicans were "dropping like flies" across the country. Many prognosticators assumed that his victory was just the result of his liberal voting record. But that answer is inadequate, and probably irrelevant, as Richard was pointing out in his speech. The best politics, Richard was saying, is being a hard-working, honest, and trustworthy person who stands up for what is morally and ethically correct, even in the face of pressure from the various special interest groups, and factions that are your supporters. Many columnists looked at the Schweiker victory and tried to read the tea leaves to see what it meant. Most focused strictly on the economic and political, to the exclusion of the ethical. Character is something that appeared to be beyond their understanding. Some danced around it and perhaps the best summary would be from John Guinther in Philadelphia magazine; who did a significant analysis of the victory in January of 1975. " _Let's start with Philadelphia. The Republican candidate for governor, Drew Lewis, carried only two wards here, both of them conservative, the 21_ st _in Roxborough and the 26_ th _in South Philadelphia. In these, Schweiker ran about 2200 votes ahead of Lewis. In two other strong Republican wards in the far Northeast, both working class and both conservative, the 57_ th _and the 66_ th _, Schweiker outpolled Lewis by 3,000 votes._

Statewide, Schweiker's lead over Lewis was about a half million votes. Schweiker's vote pattern, however, is significantly different from that of the day's other victor, Governor Shapp. In Philadelphia, Shapp took 67% of the vote, which is almost exactly the same as the Democratic party's percentage of the registered vote. Across the state, Shapp's victory margin also came to within a decimal point of the Democratic party's state registration lead over Republicans. This means that throughout the Commonwealth, neither Shapp nor Lewis showed any ability to attract votes from members of the other party. By and large, Shapp took the Democratic counties, Lewis the Republican ones. If there had been more Republicans registered in Pennsylvania than Democrats, as was the case 4 years ago, Lewis, and not Shapp, would have won.

The Schweiker story is altogether different. Aside from the Pyrrhic victory he gained in Philadelphia, Schweiker's Democratic opponent Flaherty carried only the southwestern corner of the state where he is best known and where it appears that Schweiker's moneybag Republican enemies- the Mellons, Pitcairns, and Pews-made an effort to defeat him. Other than that one area, Schweiker swept the state. He carried urban areas and suburban areas, rural counties, liberal ones and conservative ones. He carried counties Lewis carried and he carried counties that Shapp carried.

_All of this, of course, is quite a tribute to Schweiker personally, and if that were all there was to it, then Schweiker would just be worth gaping at, a Republican biological sport who can somehow win in a big industrial state. Schweiker, however, is far from being unique. Rather the evidence is that Republicans like Schweiker are the only kind who can get elected statewide in the North these days."_ 200 It was the last sentence that would capture the attention of the political pundits and politicians in Pennsylvania. Republicans like Schweiker, in the minds of the pundits, meant liberal, big government politicians, who favored programs designed to transfer money to the poor, just like Democrats, but perhaps just not on the same scale. Schweiker was being compared to the liberal Republicans of the northeast, people like Clifford Case of New Jersey, Jacob Javits of New York, or Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. It was all part of the media mentality that the Republican party had to be a "Democrat light" party if they wanted to win an election. _"If, in the face of a centrist Democrat, the Republicans stick to Jerry Ford or a similar candidate, they will lose. As was the case in the Pennsylvania governorship election, the Republicans just don't have the votes to win a centrist, party-line campaign."_ 201

So the reason that Schweiker won across the state and came so close in Philadelphia was because he was a "liberal or progressive". The media extrapolated from that concept that in 1976 the Republicans, in order to win, had to understand that and adapt: _This brings us to the one strategy by which the Republicans might be able to retain the Presidency. Against a centrist or right wing Democrat, they should drop Ford, with his taint of Nixonism and bad economic policies, and replace him with a liberal Republican who can win the Northern industrial states with their big electoral votes. At the same time, this candidate has to be a Republican with a track record of hanging onto Republican votes while gathering in his Democratic liberal harvest."_ 202

But, was the reason Schweiker came so close in Philadelphia the result of a liberal voting record that pushed the big government social engineering policies that had been introduced by President Johnson? Was the black vote in Philadelphia the result of gratification for the government hand outs? Indeed, it had elements of appreciation for the government support of O.I.C., and the resulting push by Reverend Leon Sullivan to deliver the black vote for Schweiker. However, O.I.C. was designed primarily as a private sector response to the problems of blacks in the inner city, not as a government hand out program. It endeavored to change the individual into a productive taxpayer, to get them off the government dole, and foster a community spirit. A simple, yet fundamental difference from the objectives of the community organizers on the left, it advocated a hand up and not a hand out! Schweiker won 34% of the black vote, while Lewis got the 10% that Republicans traditionally received. Here was an example of how to cut into the traditional black Democratic vote.

Every American is entitled to be treated with dignity, whether he or she is black, white, Indian, Asian or any of the other demographic groups that academia likes to identify. Continually treating people as beneath the politician, as someone who is always there looking for a hand out, is self-defeating in the long run and dangerous to the life of the community. Politicians who have sufficient humility to treat everyone with respect find they get respect. Schweiker was known for the hard work he did in the Senate, the long hours, the attendance on the floor and the concern for the individual, and that record helped to humanize him to the electorate, made them willing to overlook some faults or disagreements, and proved him worthy of their votes. They trusted Richard. Drew Lewis also possessed these qualities, but was unable to communicate them sufficiently in the limited time of the campaign, beyond the party faithful. His willingness to traverse the state for a year, soliciting endorsements, talking with row officers, meeting committee people and making speeches to local party gatherings indicated his work ethic. His years of work in his church and the many philanthropic endeavors that he and Marilyn participated in behind the scenes, showed the character of the man. Drew was, however, a businessman, a behind-the-scenes organizer, and had not been in a position to create the public image that would have exposed this character to the entire electorate beyond what he could do in a ten-month campaign. It was a difficulty that was enormously compounded by a cynical electorate in a Watergate inspired miasma of contempt for Republicans as a party.

A politician that was able to connect with the American electorate on this level of trust with humility, would inevitably draw scorn from the academic and media elites, if they viewed him as a threat to their world view. Schweiker was not initially felt to be a threat, he voted for big government programs most of the time, even as he began to question their effectiveness. By 1980, when Ronald Reagan was the Republican candidate for President, the media needed to emphasize Schweiker's faults and how he had made a dramatic turn to the right in order to further his career, even after he had announced he would not run for re-election.

Richard Schweiker on the night of his 1974 Senate re-election victory pointed to the new coalition he thought he had developed. A coalition of black and white, of urban and rural, of white and blue collar workers who, Schweiker believed, felt it was more important to look at the moral implications of the issue than the economic or political. Where principle is more important than politics and is the best politics of all. Richard said in his victory speech that it was important to develop that coalition and to promote it to the country. " _Together...our new coalition...Has written political history. And it is up to us to encourage the leadership of our country, our state and our communities to read the history we have written."_ Richard would do his best during the next six years to put his coalition forward, a coalition of conscience. Within a few months the concept had been subsumed by the media's focus on the economic and political terminology of Liberal and Conservative.

Drew Lewis and the Republican Party in Pennsylvania certainly understood the victory of Schweiker, and Lewis's loss, primarily in terms of the liberal/conservative ideological spectrum. While Lewis had run his campaign in many ways on issues that Schweiker had espoused, such as ethics in government and working with others to develop an effective government, the issues didn't resonate with the voters for Lewis to the extent that Schweiker achieved. The moral and ethical components were not valued at anywhere near where Richard Schweiker's record had placed them.

Drew Lewis would claim in just about 20 months, that a Presidential candidate presented by the media as a right wing conservative ideologue, would be a "disaster" for Pennsylvania. Looking at the underlying message that Ronald Reagan was promoting and that a Republican like Schweiker could support Reagan, was simply rejected and ignored. Within a few months of the 1974 election it was back to business as usual. They couldn't look below the surface labels to see the potential underneath. It would take the loss of Ford and the disaster of the Carter Presidency, before the leadership would look at the substance of the message. The media never did see it.

With the beginning of the next Presidential election cycle for 1976, the bicentennial year, it quickly became apparent that the Republican Party was not united and there was definitely an ideological split. Ford, as the first unelected President, was in a unique position, which, coupled with his difficulties handling an economy going through significant change, made it increasingly hard to unify the various wings of the party. Governor Ronald Reagan began an insurgency against the President, offering his brand of conservative ideas as an option to the party faithful. The campaign was vigorously fought and the tight race was still nip and tuck through the late spring of 1976. Ford was in the lead, but was unable to pull away and Reagan's Campaign Manager John Sears was working every angle and situation he could to shake up the inertia in the party and change the status quo.

Chapter Nine

### The Seventy-Six Convention

As the campaign moved into late June and early July, the Ford campaign had begun to effectively use the power of the Presidency to woo the uncommitted delegates, with calls and visits to the oval office, resulting in a dribble of new delegates to the Ford camp. Reagan was unable to effectively combat this tactic and his campaign staff could see the writing on the wall becoming clearer every day. The question appeared to be, "What can we do to counter-act this drain and stay alive until the convention"? It had to be something dramatic, something that would shake up the status quo, and something that would bring uncommitted delegates to the Reagan camp. By the beginning of July, Reagan and his campaign staff realized they were not only losing momentum, they were dealing with rather small numbers of uncommitted candidates that were beginning to enjoy the attention from both candidates and refusing to commit. It looked like others who were already committed might be swayed.

Many of the officially uncommitted delegates came from the eastern machine states, including Pennsylvania. By state party rules the Pennsylvania delegation ran as uncommitted delegates. But in late May the majority of the delegates moved to Ford, adding 88 more votes for Ford. This is an interesting point in that it showed the power of the party officials in the delegation and the control that they could exert on the individual delegates, even when being personally approached by a presidential candidate. The elected voting delegates to the convention included elected officials, volunteers, local committee people, and large donors to the party. Many were selected (another word might be allowed) by the county party officials to be on the official green endorsement ballot in the spring primary, and owed their name on the ballot to their relations with the GOP county party leadership. Delegate Alma Jacobs, a former Republican Committeewoman from Blue Bell in Montgomery County's Whitpain Township (and PA Secretary of Aging under Governor Dick Thornburg) has attended seven conventions, including 1976. She remembers how she was selected for those conventions: _"It wasn't easy... I went to the area leader and got his approval then I went to the County Chairman. I didn't just come out of the blue, I always worked hard as a committeewoman; I always felt it was important to get people registered, to make one-on-one contact with them and to keep in touch through the entire campaign...In each instance I went to the County Chairman and got their blessing and got their endorsement. I never ran against the organization._ 203

Others could try to get elected to the national convention, but in a presidential primary election the power of the party apparatus to elect their candidates in the down ticket ballot is significant. Voters come out for the presidential contest, but many fail to even vote the lower ballot positions where the delegates for the national convention are positioned. Voters head into the booth and have a daunting list of people to chose from, most of whom they have never heard of, let alone know. Positioning on the ballot at the top of the list has some value, but when faced with a list of twenty or more people and having to vote for five, ten, or more, men and women, the typical voter looks for someone close to their home area or follows the recommendation of his committee person who just happens to hand out an endorsed list of candidates. When no great office, such as president, is listed, but instead you have numerous candidates for a position no one who is not connected to the party apparatus knows much about, many voters tend to follow the recommendations of the committee. The party makes these recommendations available to the voters in Montgomery County PA on a sheet that is handed out to the voter before they enter the polling place. This Official Republican Ballot is green in Montgomery County and contains the list of endorsed candidates. The ballot is listed by office and arranged by ballot position with the Presidential race at the top, then the other federal offices if appropriate, state wide races, county races, local municipalities and then political party races. In a county of over 600,000 people, such as Montgomery County, the chances of even the local committee person knowing all the candidates for the national convention is minimal. This problem is experienced across counties in Pennsylvania to a greater or lesser extent, depending on population.

The power of the party officials who control blocks of committee people and volunteers is enhanced by their ability to present the endorsements on the green ballot to the County nominating conventions. While the county party will hold an endorsement convention of its committee people to vote on who is placed on the green ballot, it is a rarity that the candidates selected by the county chairman, with advice from his local area leaders in the county, is not endorsed. This endorsement convention is usually held a month or so before the spring primary, so that the green ballots can be printed and the committee people can be prepared to answer questions from voters about the candidates endorsed by the party. The Green Ballot _"is extremely important. Those who are endorsed end up on that ballot, and particularly if there is a large group who are running, people go into the voting booth and they haven't a clue as to what they should do, and that's the reason I always took the word of the endorsement, even if I didn't exactly agree with it, as a committee person and worker we always supported it a 100%, we would never deviate from that... It's also important to get that green ballot out early so that people can look it over and ask questions"_ 204

This organizational process usually results in the party-selected candidates to the convention being elected. As long as the county party machine is in control, the delegates they select have a much greater chance of winning these elections. The delegate's loyalty to the party officials is a conditioned response. They would be ostracized in their local municipalities and counties without the support of the official party apparatus. This was the plum that many had worked so hard for years to obtain, the excitement of a national convention, the chance to discuss politics with counterparts that were every bit as knowledgeable and committed as they were. The parties and festive atmosphere are a chance to let off steam, to enjoy and meet with national figures. To obtain and enjoy this reward for months or years of often tedious and thankless work in the trenches of political campaigns is a significant inducement to work within the party structure. What makes this an even better plum from the point of view of the party officials is that it costs them nothing. The delegates pay their own way to the convention.

The 1960's and 70's were the heyday of Republican machine politics in Montgomery County PA, but also for much of the party in Pennsylvania. While the Republicans did not control the governor's office, they were a powerhouse in many local municipalities and the party structure was strong. The leaders of the party could speak with authority and could bring that authority to bear on its members and in the national arena. The party leadership had made the decision to support Ford in May of 1976 and the delegates dutifully followed.

The Republican Party in PA was not a homogeneous mass of moderate to liberal "Rockefeller" or "country club" Republicans at this time, but the label had some truth to it. Many of the delegates came from the ring of suburban Philadelphia counties that was home to many Republicans of this nature. Someone once characterized PA as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Appalachia in between. Again, the statement is an exaggeration, but one with a slight element of truth in it. The center section of the state, called the "T" because of the geographical resemblance to the letter, tends to be more conservative than either of the liberal cities that anchor each end of the state.

The "T" has also been referred to as the "Bible Belt" in PA. The more rural areas of Lancaster, Berks County, the Lehigh Valley, and many other counties in the northern tier of Pennsylvania that make up this "T", were populated with a more conservative voter, than in the urban sections of southeastern PA. These voters would have seemed a natural constituency for Reagan, and were to prove so during the Presidential election of 1980. In 1976 much of the leadership of the party came from the suburban Southeastern portion of the state, specifically in the figure of Andrew Lewis.

Drew Lewis had unsuccessfully run for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1974 and had been expected to win by his Republican supporters. However, the national revulsion with the Watergate situation tarnished anyone who had an "r" after their name on the ballot. During that campaign Drew and his wife Marilyn had crisscrossed the state talking before campaign crowds composed of the same committee men and women, municipal leaders, area leaders and county chairmen that would be involved in the Republican nominating convention in Kansas City two years later. Drew was an engaging, articulate businessman with hundreds of contacts in the business world, as well as the political arena. He had some difficulty in talking with large crowds, but shined in small gatherings. His wife Marilyn was a good speaker and so impressed the political leaders in Montgomery County that they ran her for a state representative position, which she won and held for two terms until after Drew became Secretary of Transportation in 1980.

The importance of Drew Lewis in controlling the party apparatus during the spring, summer and fall of 1976 can hardly be overstated. When the party delegates to the national convention in Kansas City where placed on the primary ballot in the spring of 1976 they didn't run as delegates who were committed to an individual candidate. They ran as uncommitted delegates. On the official green Republican primary ballots of endorsed candidates only the name and town of the delegates was listed. Voters in the party elected the delegates to represent them, allowing the delegates to use their best judgment on which candidate would offer the best hope of winning the election in the fall, and which would help the state of Pennsylvania and its residents. Some of the delegates were known to have said they would vote for one of the candidates, but the vast majority did not. In essence this allowed the party leadership to influence national politics with a relatively strong voice, in 1976 they had 102 delegates of which over 90 owed their position to the support of party leaders, and were officially uncommitted when they ran. Those delegates represented a strong bargaining chip in the upcoming race. But by May, Drew Lewis, as head of the Ford for President Committee in Pennsylvania, had nailed the leadership down into announcing that the delegates would be supporting Ford.

Lewis had become head of the Ford for President Committee in Pennsylvania earlier in the year when he had been approached by Bill Scranton, Senator Hugh Scott, and Senator Schweiker to take the position. Drew had withdrawn from political life after losing the election in 1974, focusing on his business career, and was initially reluctant to get back into that life style again. The group prevailed on him and he agreed, heading around the state just like he had done two years before. This was an advantage that Ford realized from having Drew as chairman; he had the personal contacts with the Republican county chairmen and other officials that no one else in Pennsylvania had at the time. Ford realized Drew was important to his campaign, but not just how important he was to become. Drew and Marilyn had planned a fishing trip to Canada for the eighth of July, before the convention in August, when they got an invitation from the White House to attend a State Dinner in honor of the visit of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to the country in honor of the Bicentennial. Unfortunately the date was July 7th and they would have to drag all the fishing gear and fancy clothes to Washington and head out for the fishing trip from Washington D.C. Marilyn wasn't particularly interested in going to the White House at the time. It was their first White House invitation, but she called Claire Schweiker, _"I said: Clair what do I do? We are leaving the next day for fishing and it is really not convenient to take all these extra clothes to Washington. She said you don't turn the White House down. When you get an invitation from the White House, you go. So we ended up going down. It happened to be a really lovely party."_ 205 The Lewis' sat at a table with Actor Telly Savalas and baseball great Willie Mays. It appears that the Queen was a fan of Telly's television show Kojak. Lewis made small talk with Mays and asked him what he thought of the Queen? Willie told him she probably couldn't hit it over second base. Marilyn and Drew took a cab to the airport and Drew changed from his tuxedo to his fishing clothes in the back seat on the way. An interesting interlude, that points up how Ford was utilizing the White House and the power of the Presidency to secure his hold on the nomination.

Reagan's campaign staff and friends realized something needed to be done to shake up the situation, otherwise his campaign would not last until the convention in August. The answer that Campaign chairman John Sears and Nevada Senator Paul Laxalt came up with involved a desperate gamble, that could sweep the nomination away from Ford at the last minute. Senator Schweiker relates: _"On the 4_ th _of July weekend in 1976 I had a call from Paul Laxalt, who was my seatmate in the Senate, (Paul had been Governor of Nevada when Reagan was Governor of California; they were friends). Paul said: "Dick I'd like to talk with you about something relating to the Presidential race. When are you coming back from your recess? John Sears and I want to talk with you". I told him Monday or Tuesday and he said "Fine, just come to my office". I went into his office and he said "We'd really like to show that the party is big enough to bring the parts of the country together, East and West, and we want to talk with you about coming to California to meet with Governor Reagan to see if you two could get together on a ticket with you as his Vice President." I was just totally floored; I didn't expect that, I didn't think that was what it was about (when he had called). But after thinking it over, and talking with Claire I decided, sure I could at least talk. I went out there and Dave Newhall, my AA went too. They didn't want us flying together. They wanted to split us up, so it didn't look like some big political event was about to happen. So we went on separate flights. We went to his house and Nancy was there and his kitchen cabinet."_ 206 Discussion went on for over six hours between the participants to see if they had enough areas of commonality that would allow them to work together as a team. Reagan finally agreed that it could work and the campaign decided to move forward with the gamble. " _They didn't want to tell anyone about it. They wanted to keep it a secret. They wanted to use it as a surprise to the Ford camp. I would please not talk to anybody, nobody not withstanding, until they announced it, regardless of what friends I had or didn't have, so I agreed to that, of course I told Claire but that was about it, until they announced it."_ 207

On July 26th 1976 the Reagan campaign made a dramatic announcement in their quest for the presidency. Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania would be Reagan's selection as vice president. The Reagan/Schweiker ticket was a major political gamble by John Sears, Reagan Campaign manager, Paul Laxalt and the Kitchen cabinet, with Reagan's approval. They hoped to wrest control of the many party delegates from President Ford. Ford had a majority of the delegates and the outlook for Reagan was becoming bleak. _"Concerning the East Coast delegates, the Washington Post wrote. 'Reagan has had tough sledding in these eastern delegations, where he feels his record is much misunderstood and where some people feel he is some kind of kook.'"_ 208 If Reagan could swing the Pennsylvania delegation by appealing to it's favorite son, Senator Schweiker, he would gain an additional 80 or so candidates, forestalling Ford's momentum until the convention, force it to the convention floor, or win it outright as a wave of defections started against Ford. Reagan's tremendous communication skills would at the very least show a dramatic difference between him and Ford at the convention and increase his chances of going over the top then. Reagan's ability as a communicator is now legendary and it was something talked about then. This ability was well known (and discounted) by the eastern elites. They attributed it to his acting career and the prepared texts he read. It was a gamble, a tremendous gamble, by Reagan and his campaign. It was also his last chance to secure the nomination from Ford.

The local Lansdale, Pennsylvania paper, The North Penn Reporter, gave dramatic coverage to the announcement in the following day's (Tuesday July 27, 1976) paper. Lewis, President Ford's committee chairman in Pennsylvania, was quoted at a press conference the next morning: _"Reagan is a disaster at the top of the ticket.... Schweiker cannot overcome the deficit Reagan brings to the ticket in Pennsylvania. Lewis said. Since he was notified yesterday by Schweiker, Lewis said he has contacted 92 of Pennsylvania's 102 delegates to the convention in Kansas City next month. There has been no slippage in Pennsylvania, Lewis said. Reagan continues to have 5 committed delegates and in my judgment the final tabulation will be in excess of 90 votes for President Ford"._ 209

An impressive performance by Lewis! In reality it was a tour de force by Lewis, showcasing his power in the Pennsylvania party and the amount of hard work he put into it. In less than 24 hours, Drew and his party lieutenants (County chairmen, area leaders, municipal leaders, and others), contacted 92 of the 102 delegates and contained any chance Reagan's gamble would pay off. Work like this implies an effective organization, strong party loyalty and, most importantly, a dedicated and decisive leader. Lewis showed himself to be a decisive and dedicated leader and the party organization proved capable of cohesive and coordinated action. There was, in addition to the party organization action, a reason that they were able to control the delegates. During the spring Drew and Rick Robb had been working to get their candidates approved as delegates, first by the county chairmen and then by the voters. They had selected many candidates that had formerly supported Goldwater in 1964, _"we went and got everybody in Pennsylvania that was for Barry Goldwater and tied them up for Ford, the idea being that if it came from the right, they would be the people that would break away for Reagan."_ 210 Since they had already committed to Ford they were trapped, unless the leadership gave them leave.

Drew didn't pull any punches in his quote to the press: "Reagan is a disaster at the top of the ticket". Rarely do you find political leaders willing to express themselves so vocally about other members of their party. In fact Reagan would make this his famous eleventh commandment: _Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican._ This was, however, one of Lewis's attributes that endeared him to his fellow Republicans: You always knew where Drew stood: _"The one thing about Drew was; he laid it out on the line. There were others who would pussyfoot around and not make statements like that because it would come back to haunt them. But for some reason or other he could get away with it, and then change his mind, give a smile and laugh about it and people would accept it._ 211

Reagan put the delegates from Pennsylvania under pressure after the decision to select Schweiker as his running mate, but most remained true to their leadership. " _None of us demonized Reagan, but we saw that he used a lot of pressure in Kansas City to try to sway us... it didn't work. Drew had given his word and we had given Drew our word."_ 212

There has been controversy over when Drew was contacted by Senator Schweiker and told the news of Reagan's offer to him (Schweiker) of the Vice Presidential nomination, with differing accounts from each. The problem created by the Reagan campaign insisting on holding the news within the campaign, and not allowing Schweiker to consult with his old friend Drew Lewis, probably crippled the entire gambit before it even got started.

On July 26th Drew claims that _"Dick Schweiker called me about 11:00 in the morning and he said, "Drew I am running for Vice President with Ronald Reagan and I would like to have your help"... I said Dick, this is a very difficult thing for me to do because you and Hugh Scott and Bill Scranton asked me to be chairman of Ford's campaign in Pennsylvania and I have committed to him. He said "well, I am going to announce it at 1:00 and I would like to be able to say that you are for me."_ 213 Drew talked with his business associate and former campaign manager, Rick Robb, before he headed over to a previously scheduled meeting at the Blue Bell Inn. Blue Bell Inn is a favorite restaurant for Republicans in neighboring Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. He thought about what had been thrust upon him with that phone call as he drove. He considered his situation and realized that he had committed himself to Ford when he had agreed to become the state chairman of the campaign.

What is significant about the offer timeline is the personal history between the two men, and the length of time in which a decision was made and implemented by Lewis to stop Reagan and Schweiker getting the nomination. _"Drew was very close to Dick, there was never any time or indications... that I knew about in which they were not close knit, they were always close knit"_ 214

Stressful does not begin to cover what happened. Schweiker has commented that Lewis: _"was in a state of shock. I asked him if he'd at least think about it and he promised me that he'd give it some thought_ " Consider how other individuals would react to the news that their neighbor, boyhood friend, business associate, and an individual you worked to move ahead in politics for over 16 years had the chance to be Vice President of the United States, with the path then open to the Presidency in the future. Then contemplate that he had cut you out of the entire plan, even if that was not by his choice. Realize that you have the power to stop that, that you can be a kingmaker or a spoiler, and that you have to decide immediately. Further, you are state campaign manager for the opposing candidate, and have given your word to that candidate who is the current sitting President. Drew made that decision and stood by it.

" _I called Ford from the Blue Bell Inn.... I said this is Drew Lewis calling from Pennsylvania. They said, 'I am sorry the President is in a very important meeting'. I said, I know what the meeting is about and you tell him it is Drew Lewis, the Chairman of Pennsylvania. I think he will leave the meeting and talk with me. I left the number of the Blue Bell Inn."_ 216 When Ford called back the Inn Maitre'd thought it was a prank call, telling Drew that someone who says he is the President of the United States was on the line. He answered it. _"I said' 'Mr. President I committed to you and I am going to stick. I will deliver Pennsylvania'. Ford never forgot it and had I not stayed with Ford, Ford would not have been the nominee in 1976"_ 217 _._

There is an old saw that says that politics makes strange bed fellows. And there are, perhaps, few that would have initially appeared as strange as Reagan/Schweiker in 1976. Obviously, personal ambition played a part for both men. Reagan knew he needed a dramatic change in delegate count to win the nomination. Schweiker was interested in moving up from the senate, something that appears endemic to all Senators. Something happened with both of these men in their conversations together, in the short days they worked together, enabling both of them to see something in the other that they admired and respected. Consider, for example, the statement attributed to Senator Schweiker the day after Ford won the nomination by Peter J. Rusthoven as quoted in Reagan's Revolution: _"Richard_ Schweiker _may well have been right in saying on the morning following Gerald Ford's nomination, that Americans had lost their chance to have the best leader ever presented to this generation_ "

In 1979 Reagan wrote a letter in which he defended his agreement to pick Schweiker: " _He is a deeply religious man with a fine family and great integrity_ " Indeed, Richard and Claire Schweiker read the Bible and prayed over their decision. Reagan knew he was going to have a difficult time with his conservative base in the selection of the liberal Republican from Pennsylvania. He gambled that the base would hold and that he could bring new delegates to his camp by broadening his appeal to the moderates in the party. He explained in the press conference where he presented Schweiker that Schweiker's " _basic beliefs were compatible with my own. Reagan said they agreed on basic values preserving a strong America...a compassionate America willing to care for those of its people unable to care for themselves...a moral and decent America...an America governed by the rule of law, not men..."_ 221

"A moral and decent America, governed by laws, not men, a compassionate America, he is a deeply religious man with a fine family and great integrity". Consider the accolades that Reagan applied here to Schweiker and notice he wasn't talking about liberal or conservative views per se, he is transcending the surface of political philosophy here. Reagan was discussing something even more important than liberal or conservative, he was talking moral authority and strength of character.

People in the township of Worcester were always proud of their Senator, even if his voting record was a bit more liberal than many of the old time residents were comfortable with. It was mentioned by many of those same residents that Dick was "solid" he took care of the people back home and didn't forget where he had come from. When Reagan's team originally began to track Schweiker down to talk with him, they [Paul Laxalt (ed.)] found him on vacation in Ocean City, NJ, with his family. Ocean City is one of Southeastern Pennsylvania's main NJ shore point destinations, about 2-3 hours from Worcester. It is considered a family resort, as it doesn't permit alcohol. Schweiker and his wife Claire didn't party in Washington, unlike so many legislators who come down with Potomac fever. He was a conscientious family man who had five children he deeply loved and cared for. He appeared to be a man who was sure in himself, whose values meshed with Reagan's at a much deeper level than political philosophy. His voting record as a Senator was in many ways similar to another Pa Senator, John Heinz, who joined Schweiker as a Senator following the retirement of Hugh Scott that year. This record had enabled Schweiker to win re-election in 1974 to his second term, in a year in which Republicans were going down to defeat in Pennsylvania, including his former campaign manager Drew Lewis who was running for Governor.

The election of 1974 had some serious ramifications and lessons for Schweiker and the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. The results of the election were studied by the party, as they are after every election. The party leaders examined the trends, the swings in voter turnout, which then were used to predict which type of candidate would win support from a majority of voters in coming elections. The election of 1974 was a disaster for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. The only state-wide Republican to win re-election was Richard Schweiker who was considered a liberal Republican. In examining Schweiker's campaign in 1974 it can be seen that he did not emphasize that he ran under the Republican banner. He ran on his record and kept his distance from the national party. Unfortunately, one of the Republicans running statewide was Drew Lewis; running for Governor. Schweiker did not run as the leading member of the Republican team, he essentially ran a separate race. Which means Schweiker was not actively supporting the rest of the republican ticket or lending his name and prestige to the other ticket members.

Coming from a strongly union state, and a state that was undergoing economic change in its heavy industrial base, Schweiker appeared to represent Pennsylvania in a way that the majority of its business, union and party officials approved. In today's culture Schweiker's positions are a contradiction in terms. Looked at from a liberal versus conservative ideology, they don't follow a clear path. He was pro-second amendment, he was anti-abortion, he opposed forced busing (a large issue at the time), he believed in school prayer, he was an anticommunist who was concerned with the captive Baltic nations in the then Soviet Union. Looking at this list everyone could assume he was a strident conservative. Then you looked at his voting record on social issues and pro-union legislation. In social and union legislation he was extremely liberal and received a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education. He was one of the first Republicans to publicly call on Nixon to resign, and was against the Vietnam War. While the national press viewed him as a liberal, and promoted this viewpoint to the exclusion of any other analysis, his actual voting record was a lot more complex than it appeared. Perhaps we can say he was a compassionate, religious man who believed in the American dream and wanted to use government as an instrument to facilitate, guarantee and protect that dream.

In 1974 Schweiker was able to eke out a narrow victory in his run for re-election. He had won a slim victory in 1968 and then again in 1974. The win in 1974 was notable in that he again won despite Republican reversals at the statewide level. This time the statewide mood against Republicans was stronger and more forceful than in 1968 because of the Watergate scandal. Schweiker's victory in 1974 was the one race the Republican Party in Pennsylvania could take satisfaction in, but it was tainted by the fact that Richard had not run as the standard bearer for the rest of the Republican ticket. He didn't lend much of his prestige and whole hearted support to the ticket, including the race for Governor. It is possible that this would have doomed his chance to win re-election considering the temper of the voters. It also didn't help the candidacy of Drew Lewis.

The majority of the Pennsylvania delegates to the national convention in Kansas City took their marching orders from their party leaders. The party leaders worked closely together with Drew Lewis. Richard Schweiker was counted as a Ford delegate, until approached by Sears and Reagan with the Vice Presidential offer. Schweiker jumped at the chance to be the Vice Presidential nominee, but simply to ascribe this as solely based on political ambition does a disservice to him. Reagan was able to say with confidence that Schweiker had the same basic values as he did, and again while there is an element of self serving political speech in the statement there is also an undercurrent that proves it correct.

The cultural vision that Reagan espoused in his understanding of America appears to have resonated with Schweiker in 1976 and with the country during the 1980's. Indeed, by the 1980 election the Republican leadership in Pennsylvania was strongly behind Reagan. In their case it may have simply been a case of wanting to support a winner, but for Schweiker, in 1976, it appears to have been a case of conversion. If Richard Schweiker, a moderate Republican could be converted to Reagan's camp, why couldn't his close friend Drew Lewis?

Everything centralized in these two individuals. Both understood the implications and on July 26, 1976 they had the opportunity to decide the fate of the Republican Party, and perhaps the Presidency. In the situation that ensued, the true character of both men surfaced and serves as a case study in friendship, loyalty, trust, and honor. It can almost be viewed as a Greek Tragedy.

When Drew Lewis turned down Richard Schweiker on July 26th, it appears that Richard recognized the main chance to be Vice President had passed him by. He continued to fight for the ticket, he worked the various functions, and tried to help corral delegates, but his best chance was gone. If the Pennsylvania delegates had switched, the momentum would have swung to Reagan. Richard's home county of Montgomery was in many ways key to his chances, western Pennsylvania wasn't going to go with Schweiker against their leaders if his home county wasn't willing to change. Schweiker's strength was the moderate Republicans of the southeastern part of the state.

If Richard could have swung a majority of the Montgomery County delegates to Reagan, the "T" would have been tempted to come out for the more conservative candidate and then you would have seen at least a split in the delegation, with perhaps enough votes to send the convention into multiple ballots with Reagan having the momentum. Unfortunately many of the delegates and county Republican leaders were still smarting from the statewide voter rejection of the home town candidate for Governor in 1974. Schweiker's strength in his home county was possibly weakened by the perception that he didn't help the ticket enough in 1974, and by their loyalty to Drew Lewis who had worked and raised funds to elect many of the local leaders over the years.

If Drew Lewis had told Richard that he would agree that the delegates can decide for themselves, that he wouldn't pressure them to stay with Ford; it is quite possible that Schweiker might have been able to pull off the coup that Sears intended. But Drew had given his word to Ford first, and he had gotten the word of the delegates that they would follow Ford, as he had requested. Alma Jacobs claims that Schweiker " _didn't put pressure on us, as I recall. He knew we were committed to Drew and he sort of accepted that. I think he thought he could work through Drew and it just didn't happen. I think he was stunned more than anything. Honestly we were surprised when Drew was named Secretary of Transportation in 1981, for that reason... If Schweiker couldn't get the people here, he certainly wouldn't get the Pittsburgh people and so forth.... We were all satisfied with Jerry Ford, we liked his wife; they were decent people. It was a tough decision to make, very tough"_ 223 Unfortunately for Ronald Reagan in 1976 he was dealing with men and women of character who were caught in a no win situation. If he had approached Schweiker before Drew had gotten the commitment of the delegates for Ford in May, it might have worked. He didn't think he would need Pennsylvania when it might have been split into moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans from the "T". It is also probable that he would have lost support from southern conservatives if he named Schweiker earlier. If he had allowed Schweiker to talk with Lewis the day before the announcement of the team, it is possible that the discussion might have produced fruit for both of them. Drew had been having difficulty dealing with the officials in the Ford Campaign and the stress between them was substantial. _"The ironic point is that we were having trouble with the Ford Campaign at that point; both of us were disgusted"._ 224 So the issue of him jumping ship to Reagan could have been something for discussion, but the timing was just not right. What we know is that Montgomery County held for Lewis and Drew held Pennsylvania for Ford; and as a result we almost experienced the problem that Schweiker alluded to: _"that Americans had lost their chance to have the best leader ever presented to this generation"._

Schweiker had worked to peel off some of the Pennsylvania delegates, without much success as the party closed ranks against him. The stakes were enormous and both sides pressured the delegates. Alma Jacobs might not remember Dick pressuring her, but the campaigns were pushing as hard as they could and both sides didn't hold back when it came to pressuring delegates they thought might switch. _"It was the toughest thing either of us had ever been in; there was so much at stake. There were people... Dave Christopher, a friend of Dick Schweiker's out in Pittsburgh was a managing partner of Price Waterhouse, he was a delegate, he was for Schweiker. Price Waterhouse's largest account in those days was U.S. Steel. The president of U.S. Steel called him in and said if you want to keep this work you're voting for Ford. To this day I admire Dave Christopher; he lost that work because he voted for Schweiker."_ 225

The ploy of naming Schweiker as Reagan's vice presidential candidate had another aspect that was designed to counter act the Ford momentum. Even if Schweiker didn't peel off large numbers of the Pennsylvania delegation, the ploy greatly increased the pressure on the President to respond with his selection for vice president. " _Ford had twelve people who thought they were going to be vice president, we figured if we could force him to name who his vice president was we would have eleven people who would be mad and pick up enough votes to swing the race."_ 226 Unfortunately the national committeeman from Mississippi, Clark Reed, would renege again on a commitment to the Reagan camp on a rules vote at the campaign, and the last gasp of the Reagan campaign was extinguished.

The convention was a time of tremendous stress and anguish for the combatants and their supporters. Drew was particularly offended with a little ditty that was going through the convention that Jesus had his Judas, Caesar had his Brutus and Schweiker had his Lewis. The relatives of Richard Schweiker were bitter at the turn of events and Malcolm Schweiker was so upset with Drew that he wouldn't speak with him. The wounds from the convention reverberated throughout the small Township of Worcester and the Schwenkfelder church where friends of each of the men tried to handle the animosity generated. Eventually emotions calmed down, but the wounds remain. " _In my heart, I believe Drew Lewis would have liked to have been for Dick Schweiker, if he had been in on it...if Dick had come up and talked with him..."_ 227 An eternal What if? Both men would move on, but something important in the lives of the two had been lost and would never be regained.

Chapter Ten

"Reagan is a disaster at the top of the ticket"

Drew Lewis was in a difficult situation when Richard Schweiker called to tell him about the offer extended to Schweiker by Ronald Reagan that July 26, 1976. He was a committed Ford delegate, manger of Ford's Pennsylvania campaign, and personal friend of Schweiker. He made his decision quickly; he had given his word to Ford, and was quoted the next day as saying "Reagan is a disaster at the top of the ticket. Schweiker cannot overcome the deficit Reagan brings to the ticket in Pennsylvania". Yet, five years later he accepted the position of Secretary of Transportation in Reagan's first cabinet.

Lewis reacted to Reagan in 1976 in much the same way that many, if not most, of the eastern establishment reacted. There was a general feeling that the populist was someone who didn't understand and threatened the establishment of the party, who had promised to change what they had worked years to accomplish. He was the classic outsider, the cowboy from Hollywood, who had only a slight grasp of the complexities of national government. We should not judge Lewis' comment too harshly. This was the opinion of most of the eastern establishment and party leaders. Dinesh D'Souza makes this point in discussing Reagan's future Presidency _: "Perhaps it is not surprising that the pundits and intellectuals were so critical of Reagan. They accused him of being outside the mainstream of enlightened thinking about issues-and they were right. Reagan represented a challenge to their entire worldview. Moreover, accustomed as they were to calling the shots, they had come to see their perspective not as one view among many but as an objective account of reality itself. Thus they considered Reagan's challenge to their orthodoxy to be not only wrong, but rude. Right when they were busy sorting out the world's problems, along came this corny Californian with no credentials or experience, armed with nothing but his own wacky ideas. He was able to oppose them successfully because he enjoyed a rapport with the American public that the elites never really understood"_  It is obvious that the Republican Party officials in Pennsylvania felt this way in 1976, otherwise a leader such as Lewis would not have made a statement that described Reagan as a disaster.

In the same interview Lewis was at pains to protect Schweiker from charges of "selling out" his principles for a chance at the Vice Presidency. In discussing the views of the 19 at-large delegates in the Pennsylvania delegation including Senator Hugh Scott, Ambassador (and former Governor) William Scranton, State House leader Robert Butera, and others, Lewis was quoted _"All these individuals share my enthusiasm for Sen. Schweiker", "Schweiker is not selling out for his ambition. He has the guts to stand up and be counted and he thinks he is doing the right thing". "This has been a most difficult decision for me, as I have had to separate my personal friendship and loyalties for what I feel is the best for the country", said Lewis, chairman for Schweiker's four congressional campaigns and first Senate race in 1968. "The right decision has been made and I will continue my efforts to make all Pennsylvanians realize the importance of continuing President Ford's leadership" Lewis said_ . Lewis was not alone in his appreciation of the situation. R. Lawrence (Larry) Coughlin, US Congressman in the 13th Congressional district (Schweiker's seat before he moved over to the Senate) took the same approach, _"Sen. Schweiker is, of course, from my home county, and I have great affection for him" he said. "However, I announced my support for President Ford on the basis of his efforts to achieve world peace, improve the economy and restore integrity in government, and I expect to continue my support for him. This is an opportunistic political move on the part of Gov. Reagan, and I don't think it will succeed."_  In the same article U.S. Representative Edward G. Beister R- 8th district mentioned that adding Schweiker to the Reagan ticket improved its "quality. But it would be several days before we can see if there is any practical effect."

We can see that the national figures in the Pennsylvania delegation felt that even with Schweiker on the ticket, Reagan was simply not acceptable to them. But was that the case with the local officials? Montgomery County Commissioner Frank W. Jenkins was asked about the situation. He thought, _"it's a good political move for Reagan", "I think it's an excellent opportunity for Dick, at least to get some notoriety," Jenkins said. The commissioner, who favors Ford, said he had doubts whether Reagan is acceptable to the American electorate, but "I'd be the last one to try to second guess Dick Schweiker_ ".

Ford appeared to be the man who was going to lead the country in the direction these delegates felt was not only the best one, but the direction that they thought their voters insisted on. The consensus was impressive. Even with the strength of the party apparatus it appears that the main concern with many of them was how to make sure Dick Schweiker's career didn't get tarred with Reagan's ideology and radicalism. It seems that they couldn't understand how Schweiker could support someone like Reagan and while they appeared to understand the lure of the Vice Presidency, that was about as far as they could go with the ticket. If it wasn't Ford/Schweiker, it was a non-starter.

In looking back at this time, it is difficult for those of us old enough to have lived through the Reagan Presidency to fathom how much antipathy Reagan engendered in the eastern establishment. They were familiar with his two terms as governor of California. They remembered "the speech" which he gave for Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964; when the conservative Arizona Senator had led the Republican ticket to defeat at the hands of President Lyndon Johnson. In 1976 the nation had just gone through the Watergate hearings. The first U.S. President to resign, and the first that had not been elected were Republicans. The nation was uneasy with Ford who was the butt of Chevy Chase's pratfalls on television's Saturday Night Live. The President's pardon of Richard Nixon hardened the Democratic opposition to all Republicans. The party was split between the growing conservative rebellion of the west at the grass roots, and the eastern establishment who wanted a secure environment to bind up the wounds the party had experienced under Nixon. It didn't help them that the character of Reagan's campaign was a challenge to the status quo, a demand for conservative change, when the eastern party leaders could feel the ground under their feet swaying from the discontent. His conservative agenda was pointed at these people. The theme of his campaign singled them out as examples of what conservatives needed to change. _"His theme: I'm an outsider, not part of the status quo, not a member of the Washington establishment."_  By extension, those party leaders in the eastern establishment were tied to the Washington establishment sufficiently to feel threatened by this theme. Before the North Carolina primary, _"Every living former chairman of the Republican National Committee except one- George Bush, Ford's CIA director (who could not take an active part in politics)-told Reagan to get out. The money men of the party told him to get out. The Los Angeles Times, his hometown paper, told him it was over. Seven Republican governors called on him to end his quest."_  Reagan had refused. Not only refused, but had gone on to decisively win the North Carolina primary. He represented a significant threat to the establishment.

They had him beat by the end of the primary season, a close race with the "officially undecided" delegates necessary to win being locked up against him. The party knew they could use the power of the presidential office to sway those undecided delegates, as did Reagan, which is why the Schweiker gambit was tried by Reagan Campaign Manager John Sears. Reagan was approached by Schweiker the Wednesday of the nomination vote with an offer to withdraw his name from vice presidential consideration if Reagan thought it would help him get the votes for a win that night. " _Without a pause, Reagan told the Senator, "Dick, we came to Kansas City together and were going to leave together._ " When the votes were finally counted, Ford had 1187 and Reagan had 1070. Ford had just 57 votes more than he needed to clinch the nomination: less than the Pennsylvania delegation total.

Sears had probably calculated correctly, if Pennsylvania had followed Schweiker, Reagan could have stopped Ford on the first vote and probably swung enough to win on the second or third. It is something we can never know for sure; an eternal what if? If Drew Lewis had decided to follow Schweiker again, to lead this campaign for him like the ones before, it is probable that a significant number of Pennsylvania delegates would have followed, even with their eastern antipathy to the actor. Instead, Lewis had delivered the Pennsylvania delegation for Ford. He had held true to his word to the President, even when it cost him a lifelong friendship. He did what he thought was best for the country, which was not how his friend Senator Schweiker perceived the rebuff of Reagan that night. Having worked with Reagan for a little over a month, having been offered, and accepted, the chance to become a Vice-Presidential candidate, Schweiker had taken it on himself to offer to withdraw his candidacy if it helped Reagan get the nomination.

Schweiker's career had taken a severe hit with his fellow eastern establishment moderates (or liberals as the conservatives claimed), which would mean nothing if Reagan won with him on the ticket. But if he dropped from the ticket and Reagan won the nomination, while Reagan would appreciate the gesture, his compatriots in the Senate and the party would never forget or forgive. No matter what they would say publicly about their regard for Schweiker, he had not played by the party rules this time. Unless Schweiker won that night, his career was under a cloud from which it probably would not recover. Yet, he still offered to withdraw. He had known it was a gamble when he had accepted the offer a month before, but now he was throwing away what little chance he had, in an effort to boost the chances of the man who caused the entire episode to occur. Dick Schweiker may have had a liberal voting record that enraged Reagan's conservative supporters, but he also had the character to stand up and do the right thing, to recognize what he thought was important to the country. That Wednesday afternoon, he thought Ronald Reagan's nomination was more important to the country than the career of the junior senator from Pennsylvania. Quite a statement from a senator who hadn't known the Governor until a month before! Indeed his comment the next morning to the effect that America had lost their chance to have the best leader ever presented to this generation, reveals the regard he held for Reagan.

In many ways it came down to that difference for Reagan in 1976. Richard Schweiker thought Reagan was the best leader for the country, after having talked and worked with him for only a month. Drew Lewis, who only knew Reagan from the media reports and discussions with politicians from the eastern establishment, felt Reagan would be a disaster for the country. Dick and Drew grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same church, had many of the same acquaintances, they worked together in the political arena for years, and had many of the same values. Dick, running for office, Drew, managing the campaigns, and helping raise the money, yet at this critical juncture they parted ways. The judgment of each man, based on their appreciation of the situation in the country and in the ideology of the party, diverged radically, a rare occurrence. Craig Shirley in _"Reagan's Revolution"_ describes the evening after the vote at the nominating convention in which Claire Schweiker talked with Reagan and quotes Reagan, _"Claire, you really shouldn't be upset with the outcome because it wasn't part of God's plan"_ 237 He follows that quote with one in the book, from Michael Reagan, who said Reagan told him: " _God chooses his own time"_ 238

The next morning Reagan talked with members of the California delegation, his campaign staff, and made his farewells. He gave a short speech that epitomized Ronald Reagan to all. Peggy Noonan captures that moment in her book _"When Character was King"_ , _"The cause goes on. It's just one battle in a long war, and it will go on as long as we all live. Nancy and I, we aren't going to go back and sit in a rocking chair on the front porch and say that's all for us. You stay in there, and you stay there with the same beliefs and the same faith that made you do what you're doing here. The individuals on this stage may change. The cause is there, and the cause will prevail because it is right. Don't give up your ideals. Don't compromise. Don't turn to expediency. And don't for Heaven's sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch, don't get cynical. No, don't get cynical. Don't get cynical because look at yourselves and what you were willing to do, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there who want what you want. Who want it to be that way – who want it to be a shining city on a hill..."_ 239

Reagan was fighting for a cause, one he felt would lead to "a Shining City on the Hill". The eastern Republican Party establishment was fighting as well, for the election of President Ford and the continued control of the government apparatus, to stabilize the country and allow them to continue their roles.

There comes a time in all organizations when the status quo is seriously challenged. Challenge to leadership and individuals, within an organization, is something that is continuous in the life of that organization. The standard day-to-day tumultuous froth of competition between individuals that allows companies, organizations and governments to move forward and resolve issues is not anything out of the ordinary. However, periodically, the entire organization is challenged on the process, on the assumptions on which that organization is based; its worldview is questioned. Usually this challenge is the result of decreased effectiveness, caused by external changes in its environment that the organization has not adapted to successfully. In most cases this is not something apparent to the insiders of the organization and they will vehemently protest the necessity of the change, or the wisdom of it. Insiders who have worked their way up the internal ladder of success in the organization are not going to be willing to give up the comfort of their positions, formal and informal, to welcome change that disrupts the code of the organization, business, or government affected. The process of change is always hard as a result of this resistance.

Within government, which has inherent in it the need to maintain the stability of the country, the resistance to change is extreme. The political parties which work within the democratic process that evolved from our early days as a nation, have a resistance to change that is comparable. People who have figured out how to work the process and have paid their dues in the structure are reluctant to give power to others who have not undergone that process. Thus, as Dinesh D'Sousa has pointed out above, they view challenges to that process as rude or outside the mainstream of enlightened thinking. This inability to respond to a changing situation which threatens an established worldview inevitably leads to confrontation. If the organization or government is lucky the challenge is peaceful and the result is beneficial. If not lucky, you have hostile takeovers, or revolutions that can descend to bloodshed. Thomas Jefferson alluded to the problem with his famous quote that "the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots"

Within the world of business this need for change, the necessity of business to adapt to radical new problems or changing technologies has been explored by the Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter. Schumpeter wrote extensively about the process that he called "Creative Destruction". He makes the point in his analysis of change that _"all human beings grow up having subconsciously developing a sense of how the world works"_  "Schumpeter says that all analysis begins with a distinct intuition that is almost inherently ideological. ' _It embodies the picture of things as we see them_ .' And usually our way of seeing them, ' _can hardly be distinguished from the way in which we wish to see them.'"_  Indeed, Schumpeter says that " _The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie"_  The ideology of the business world is tempered by the demands of the market place. The forces of capitalism, in a capitalist society, will ultimately win and compel change on the business entity. This is also true in our world of politics and government, but the time frames are vastly different. Businesses react to a changing environment in a time frame of days or months, government moves in terms of years and decades. The inertia inherent in government and its programs is quite large and the power needed to change this process continues to build and increase until the pressure is so great you have a complete overturn of the established order. It is relieved by partial acceptance of the change demanded, or until the conditions that propelled the need for change are themselves changed.

The 1970's was a period of increasing change in the business world as technology decreased the time frame demanded for responses in the marketplace. Increased speed of communication combined with improved transportation infrastructure and lowered tariffs increased the velocity and volume of global trade. The increased tempo of business can be contrasted with the inertia of the federal government which was essentially still running on the ideological model devised by Franklin Roosevelt to handle the needs of the economy in the midst of the depression of the 1930's. A disconnect was becoming increasingly evident to those outside the beltway; the need for government to adapt to a changing economic environment was building in the country.

Ronald Reagan had a cause he felt was right and he was willing to work to achieve its vindication and implementation in the government. To further that cause, he had to challenge the status quo; he had to overcome the inertia and the ideology of those people who had invested in that system. Reagan's ability to communicate with the people was impressive; to explain and tap into the psyche of the common people is something that few people can achieve. Reagan had this ability to communicate, but in 1976 he was not able to overcome the entrenched politicos of the Republican Party. The ideology of the eastern establishment was impervious to the appeals of Reagan. Their inability to understand the changing economic and cultural environment which they found themselves in 1976 led them to defeat at the hands of Jimmy Carter in the general election. Those people who listened to Reagan had a better understanding of the country, and its people than the entrenched eastern party establishment. Richard Schweiker, an icon of the eastern establishment, read the situation with greater clarity than the others in the establishment and paid the price of being slightly in front of the building wave of change. Frank Jenkins was right: second guessing Schweiker was self destructive to the party. Drew Lewis succeeded in diverting the wave of change for the Republican Party in 1976, but his inability to comprehend the changing landscape in the country helped lead the party into the opposition wilderness for four years.

The perspective of an eastern Republican in 1976 was in many ways constrained by the information to which they had access. The mass media was based in New York with major divisions in Washington, providing around the clock news. The major networks analyzed and dissected political stories, telling the nation what was important and what was not. The cultural revolution of the late 1960's had apparently petered out and the streets were not filled with rioters. The economy was going through a major technological upheaval and people were concerned with their jobs and decreasing buying power brought on by increasing inflation. President Ford was routinely ridiculed for his attempts to correct this problem. Especially targeted were his famous Whip Inflation Now (WIP) buttons. These economic problems would be capitalized on by the Democratic candidate of 1976, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, with his famous "Misery Index". With the access to information greatest on the eastern shores, with many prestigious universities, and with the massive business concentration there as well, it must be assumed that not knowing how the country worked and what the country desired was not a problem. However, one of the greatest certainties within intelligence gathering can be applied to this situation. It is not the quantity of information; it is the interpretation of it that is crucial.

In 1976 the assumptions that Drew Lewis and the eastern establishment relied on to make their political decisions were faulty. Their view of the world, and America in particular, was tainted by the ideology that tailored the information to the prevailing culture on the east coast, with its academics, mass media, government bureaucracy, and business elites. The subtle variations in emphasis that were added to the core data, whether intentionally or unintentionally, combined to create a world view that was at increasing odds with the world view of "Middle America". As the divide increased the attempts to ridicule, mock and belittle the views of Ronald Reagan increased, thus contributing to the impression that his ideas were "weird" and out of the mainstream. It is true that if you consider the mainstream to be the eastern elites they were not close to their understanding of the role of government.

But Drew Lewis was also right. Reagan at the top of the ticket would be a disaster; at least for the political establishment of the Republican Party, in 1976. So not only did Drew Lewis face a conundrum in his personal life, choosing between his friendship with Schweiker and his word to Ford, but also between his understanding of what the party establishment expected and what Reagan was proposing. A catch-22 in terms of a popular book at the time!

But beyond his understanding of what the party establishment wanted, was his understanding of the past sixteen years of political battles in Pennsylvania. The constant analysis of the elections won and lost by the party leaders; the examinations of which indicated that the people of Pennsylvania would not vote for a conservative candidate in numbers great enough to carry the state for a Republican. They understood the lessons of Governor Scranton winning as a moderate. They looked at the conservative Goldwater getting crushed in 1964, when even Montgomery County went Democrat. They looked at Nixon losing to Humphrey in 1968, when Schweiker was able to win a U.S. Senate seat as a moderate Republican.

Drew looked at the 4 congressional races that Schweiker won, including the 1966 primary against LaFore, in which the conservative wing of the party had thrown considerable financial resources against him and where Richard won a decisive victory with the voters. He had his own experiences in the recent election two years before, where the Democrats were able to beat him, a moderate Republican, with a Democratic governor that had serious problems with the electorate, because the taint of Watergate was still strong. A taint that was compounded by a liberal media demonizing the Republican Party as a group of conservative Neanderthals, A party that appeared to be moving even farther toward the cliff with an elderly former actor who epitomized everything that the media had railed against. Everything that the media found repulsive in the Republican party of their imagination was visible in the positions that Reagan was articulating. Contrasted with the stability that Ford represented, Reagan represented the triumph of hope over experience and the way to defeat again, which needed to be stopped. With Ford they had a chance to win the northeast, and with Reagan they assumed they didn't have a chance, much like the Goldwater race of 1964.

It can be convincingly argued that Drew was correct in 1976. Without the pitiful example of a Carter Presidency to wake the public, it is doubtful that Reagan could have won that November. Constantly pounded by the liberal worldview of the mass media, in an age in which they were the gate keepers of access to information, it is improbable the people would have access to the unvarnished words and arguments of the Republican candidate. Having been indoctrinated in the world view articulated for the previous decade, it is perhaps too much to ask that people would see beyond the surface to the underlying changes in the economy, the increase in communications, speed of transportation, and access to knowledge that was dramatically shifting the foundation beneath their feet.

It would not take more than a few months of the Carter Presidency for many of the Republicans to realize just how wrong they had been. The dramatic speech that Reagan had given on the stage of the nominating convention at the invitation of President Ford, a gesture that eventually transformed a nation, provided the first clue of his true character to many of the eastern Republican leaders. Within a year those leaders were working with Reagan to resurrect the Party and to present a new vision to America that would result in the Reagan Revolution of the 1980's.

That year was one in which Richard Schweiker tried to salvage his career and inspect the damage to his reputation, caused by his acceptance of the Vice Presidential offer. In November of 1976 he granted an interview to the LA Times in which he expressed some of his hopes and resentments. _"..Schweiker talks enthusiastically of wanting to continue the quest that he and Reagan attempted last summer- to unite the Republican Party's warring moderate and conservative wings into a harmonious coalition. Schweiker said he hoped to do this by drafting legislation that would appeal to both wings. "I believe this is an area that no one has really worked at in the Senate." He said."_ 243 The split in the party was significant, in the fall election campaign Schweiker had worked for Ford and the Pennsylvania party tried to bring out the voters for the President that November. It was not to be, Ford lost to Carter 2, 205, 604 to 2, 328, 677, or 47.73% to 50.40% in Pennsylvania. The Republican ticket took most of the rural counties in the state again, but they lost the main cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh: Philadelphia by over 255,000. If they had come near to the Schweiker totals in Philadelphia from 1974 they would have won the state for Ford.

Much has been written of the hit that Reagan took from conservatives when he selected Schweiker as his running mate in 1976. The howls of outrage were vociferous and loud, but it resulted in minimal loses to Reagan. Where were the conservatives going to go with their votes? Reagan was the only choice for a conservative, which he well recognized. What should be examined, and has not been, is the hit to Schweiker that came from the left. Too often in the media it is always the conservative right that is held up as ideologically intransient to apostates, while the left gets a pass. Schweiker had believed he would catch some flack from the conservatives. The attack from the left was, however, more virulent than expected. Schweiker would later be accused of bitterness towards the press and old liberal republican allies. " _Yet beneath Schweiker's display of optimism and enthusiasm, a strong residue of bitterness lingers. There is bitterness against the press, which he says portrayed him as a crass opportunist. There is bitterness against some old liberal Republican allies in Pennsylvania, who he believes let him down in his hour of need."_ 244 Schweiker was repeatedly hammered in the press for his willingness to support the Republican platform as a vice-presidential nominee. The press focused particularly on the fact that Schweiker, coming from a strong union state would have to temper the positions he took in representing that state, and follow the party platform, which was much less pro-labor. _"What other Vice President in history has ever opposed the party platform?" Schweiker demanded. "I think that was an unfair judgment that some people made.".... "What about the platform Jimmy Carter ran on as governor of his state and the platform Fritz Mondale ran on as senator from his state?" Schweiker said. "Why don't you ask the same guys the same question, how they reconcile their differences? Why the double standard?"_ 245 Indeed, why was (is) there a double standard? Perhaps it is because you so rarely have a liberal-moderate move toward the center-right? Try leaving the democratic plantation. A shocking and unacceptable situation which must be brought under control immediately; others might see the light and try it. _"Dick's big problem," a liberal Republican senator said privately, "is that he didn't seem to gain any credibility among the conservatives and he lost what he had with the moderates." An even harsher appraisal was expressed, again privately, by an associate of one of the Senate's senior conservatives. "I think Schweiker came out looking fairly ridiculous," he said. "Both sides took what he did with a big gulp of cynicism. You can beat almost anything in politics except ridicule, and I think that is the spot Dick Schweiker is in."_ 246 It was a harsh explanation that probably was an accurate summation of the place Schweiker was in, when viewed from the lens of the political and media model then in practice. It is however, typically shallow; lacking in understanding of motives and character. When all else fails, resort to character assassination to bring down an opponent. Ridicule the opponent, refuse to listen and think through the implications implicit in the situation, live in the 30 second sound bite and be one of the herd! Safety is in the numbers, refuse to stick your neck out or buck the prevailing wisdom and you will not be ostracized.

Schweiker was never one to ignore his moral compass, and he was paying the price now. He lost what credibility he had from the moderates and didn't seem to gain any from the conservatives. Yet the question begs to be answered: why did he lose the support of the moderates? Why was he being cast into the limbo of the outer darkness by those he had worked with in the senate for eight years? Schweiker had been acclaimed as a genius of compromise in the Senate, working to get legislation passed that would be signed by Nixon and Ford, while still appeasing the Democratic majority. The split in the country between the advocates of less government and the reality of the growing federal appetite for control was becoming a bitter divide that increasingly took no prisoners. An ideological battle that brooked no opposition, no tolerance for other viewpoints, a creed that demanded obedience on both sides; not just the right! Indeed, it was becoming apparent that the left was more ideologically rigid than the right. An apostate must be ridiculed and driven out as an example. Conformity was the rule.

Reagan needed to have a moderate from the east coast on his ticket to have a chance of winning not only the nomination, but also the election, especially after his defeat in the New Hampshire primary in early 1976. But not only did Reagan need a moderate from the east, he needed someone he could trust, someone who would keep his word. They needed a man of character, who lived what he believed and did what he said, a critical component in the team effort. With the increasing animosity between the two wings of the Republican Party, this was not an easy task. Distrust was evident on both sides and bridging that gap was going to be difficult. The fact that Senator Laxalt of Nevada was the seatmate of Schweiker in the Senate chambers is one, if not the, key ingredient in Reagan's overture to Schweiker to bridge that gap. _"What Laxalt told him about me was crucial. I suspect that if there hadn't been a Laxalt to tell Reagan about me, whether he could trust me, or how I fit in the pattern_ , _it might not have worked. So there were the two factor: they needed some way to unite, to show they could bring in an easterner, a moderate, but number two they needed someone they could trust and work with and I think Paul Laxalt vouched for that. I'm guessing now, because we were close, I think that is what he told Reagan."_ 247

Not only was Reagan looking for a moderate from the east, he was looking for a man he could trust, a man of character. He found one, perhaps the only one, in Schweiker, and Schweiker paid the price in the wilderness years of 1976-1980, of coming so very close but failing to finish with a win. Drew Lewis recognized in his old friend the quality that Reagan perceived; _"Schweiker is not selling out for his ambition. He has the guts to stand up and be counted and he thinks he is doing the right thing"._ Unfortunately, the media and the establishment in the East were not willing to understand that; perhaps because they judged others by their own moral values.

Chapter Eleven

### Cultural differences between Eastern Moderate Republicans and Western Conservative Republicans.

The cultural differences between eastern moderates and the conservatives that were led by Ronald Reagan were significant and in 1976 they had hardened in positions that did not result in amicable relations between them. Instead an intellectual duel was being fought for the hearts of the voters and the party rank and file. Indeed, the eastern republican establishment was viewed as closer to the democratic party of Scoop Jackson than the party of Lincoln by the western conservatives. The western conservatives were viewed as uneducated, uncultured and ill mannered by the eastern establishment.

What can explain some of this division? Could it be that the ideology of the Republican Party was carried to extreme by the conservative faction who represented a radicalized base? Or could it be that the eastern establishment had sold out the traditional Republican ideology in its quest to maintain its control of the government apparatus?

In all probability we have aspects of both of these situations, but even more than this, we have a profound difference in worldview that needs to be examined in light of the cultural changes that rocked the nation in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the academic upheaval of the sixties. Morally relativistic philosophies that exploded in the sixties resulted in an even more strident challenge of the status quo by academics in the elite universities.

An unexplored consequence of the Vietnam War was a direct result of policies created by the "draft" which supplied warm bodies to the armed forces in those days before the current all volunteer army. A famous photograph of the sixties shows a protestor burning his draft card. This was perhaps even more popular than the female burning of bras; perhaps an interesting statement on the values of each sex.

It was the job of the volunteer members of the local draft board (under the Selective Service Administration), who were appointed by the President, to evaluate the position of a draftee's claiming of conscientious objector status. Conscientious Objector status enabled a person whose religion opposed war, to be absolved from induction into combat positions within the armed forces. Some who were deferred were able to avoid serving entirely. Many who claimed religious exemption were placed in the military hospitals as orderlies. Those who think this was an easy duty have never dealt with emptying bed pans of combat wounded veterans, dressing amputated limbs, and handling the assorted psychoses of people who have gone through the hell of combat. Many of the prospective draftees in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, claiming conscientious objector status at the local Norristown draft boards during the Vietnam War were members of the Mennonite sect. Mennonites, followers of Menno Simon, an Anabaptist preacher in Holland during the Protestant Reformation, were confirmed pacifists. The tradition of service that their religious beliefs promoted caused many of them to accept government service in the hospitals, fulfilling their duty to the nation.

Art Bustard of Cedars Pennsylvania (father of the author) was a former Marine veteran of the Pacific in the Second World War. During the late fifties, sixties and early seventies, he was Chairman of Draft Board 108 in Norristown, PA. He interviewed and, with his fellow board members, made decisions on whether to grant the "Conscientious Objector" status to the applicants or another deferment. As a volunteer member of the board, he also had to deal with upset mothers calling him at home to vent their spleen at him when the answer was no. Trying to be understanding and even tempered in the situation was difficult as the mothers in many cases viewed rejection of this status as a death sentence for their sons in an increasingly unpopular war, and reacted accordingly.

However, conscientious objector status was not the only way to receive a deferment from the draft. An individual who was married, or was supporting a child was usually not inducted in 1965; " _No registrant described in section 1631.7 (a) (4), (5) or (6) and no registrant who is maintaining a bona fide family relationship with a wife or a child or children shall be ordered to report for induction, except those described in Parts 1630 and 1642, Selective Service Regulations"_ 248 The obvious drawbacks to this situation for a young man of 18 limited it's attractiveness, although some took advantage of it. The problems it caused to society in general (the divorce rate rapidly climbed in the 1960's and '70s), were not as immediately severe as the option that was more popular- an option that involved much less pain and commitment in the short term.

The favorite method to avoid the draft was to attend college, which postponed induction for a year or two, sometimes longer, depending on the draft board, leading in some cases to the phenomenon of 'permanent student".

The selective service had instituted a test for college bound students in order to determine how the deferments would be classified and awarded. This test was suspended in 1963, because of the limited number of draftees needed, but was reinstated in 1966 as the needs of the Vietnam War began to increase. The student deferment was a part of the selective service plan because the nation felt we needed to increase the numbers of people in the scientific and technical fields. America was surprised when the Soviets had orbited Sputnik; a result was the significant effort to increase people in the scientific and technical fields implemented in the early sixties, giving further impetus to the deferment argument. However, the hard sciences are called that for a reason and the number of people with the aptitude and, more importantly, the desire to enter those fields, was not what was hoped for or expected. It followed from this that we needed to get children excited about the physical sciences and government programs began promoting and glamorizing our new space program. A result of this was the need for teachers at the junior and senior high school level to handle the increasing enrollment in those areas. Working toward a teaching degree enabled an individual to plead for deferment to ease the crisis in the schools of a lack of teachers. A student who could prove he was attending college in order to obtain a teaching certificate would appear before the board with the documentation and point to the dire need the country had for teachers. This student deferment for teachers varied by local draft boards, but many created a policy of granting deferments to teaching candidates, including those who did not indicate a preference for teaching in the sciences, but in the arts. One of the interesting findings from the Selective Service tests administered by ETS, was that _"Agricultural and Education majors were among the lowest-scoring._  Another interesting finding was the geographical variations in education quality: " _candidates from New England and the Middle Atlantic states scored higher than examinees from other regions of the country_ . Whether this was a result of quality of education, or a cultural bias in the test questions has apparently not been studied.

Suddenly young men of the affluent class, and those willing to take large loans to finance college degrees recognized within themselves a burning desire to teach young minds. It is perhaps no coincidence that during the seventies and eighties the demands by teachers unions for a vastly increased salary were increasingly heard and obtained, enabling many to continue to enjoy their lifestyle and pay back the massive loans obtained. The spectacle of a massive influx of young men trying to get into teaching programs so that they could get what was then a low paying position shows the distortion of the teaching market caused by government actions. It was, however, realized by significant numbers of potential draftees that going to college for a teaching degree was considerably easier than going to become a chemist, engineer, physicist, etc.

Art, as a small businessman, was understandably disturbed at the sight of the antiwar youths of the period, known by many under the moniker "hippies", coming in to request/demand their deferment. He commented, " _God help our country when these kids begin to teach our grandkids. In twenty to thirty years we are going to be in real trouble_ ."

The draft boards of the period have been attacked by some as being white and middle class, and as a result unrepresentative of the country because of the lack of diversity within the boards. There is a certain amount of truth in that statement, but it also exemplifies the bitterness still held by many who had to submit to the system. The increasing need to categorize and break down the nation into the politically correct demographic groups that emerged in the seventies and eighties from within Academia is also represented in the charge; and indicates the ideological philosophy that is prevalent in this group. They overlook, or denigrate, the patriotism and service these individuals gave to the country. Meeting once a month, listening to requests for deferments, and conscientious objector status; balancing the individual's desires against the needs of the nation, the draft board service was more a duty than an honorary position of status. These draft board members were veterans themselves, so they knew what they were being asked to do and the effects it could have. It is a credit to the nation that so many fine individuals agree to serve on the boards.

Many of the youths who started in the teaching curriculum kept on with their college education and became the college professors and government employees of the late sixties and seventies. Robert Bork explains his understanding of the sixties decade thus: _"Unlike any previous decade in American experience, the sixties combined domestic disruption and violence with an explosion of drug use and sexual promiscuity; it was a decade of hedonism and narcissism; it was a decade in which popular culture reached new lows of vulgarity. The sixties generation combined moral relativism with political absolutism. And it was a decade in which the Establishment not only collapsed but began to endorse the most outrageous behavior and indictments of America by young radicals. It was the decade that saw victories for the civil rights movement, but it was also the decade in which much of America's best educated and most pampered youth refused to serve the country in war, disguising self-indulgence and hatred of the United States as idealism"_  Bork quotes Peter Collier and David Horowitz: _"I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in the universities they had failed to burn down so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover."_ 254

The radicalism of the 1960's was by no means a strictly American phenomenon. Europe also experienced the same self-indulgent narcissism and hedonism. Indeed, in Europe it had farther-reaching effects _. "The youthful rebellion against traditional authority that made "1968" a more long-lasting phenomenon in Europe than in the United States... continues today, in one form or another, with the graying veterans of 1968 now well established in European parliaments, cabinets, universities, literary salons and the media. Part of the rebellion of 1968 was its rebellion against Europe's traditional Christian identity and consciousness."_ 255

Only recently have these radicals in the United States begun to retire, but the ideological anti-war and liberal conformity that they introduced, and enforced in academia, has not yet begun to change. The culture of academia is by common consensus recognized as being left–wing liberal in ideology today, strongest in the prestigious universities from which many federal government employees are recruited. Conservative students in these colleges soon learn to close their mouths and parrot the answers they know will get them a passing grade. A conservative in the halls of academia who publicly announces his ideology is either a masochist or someone who loves fighting. Increasingly, if you are a Christian or Jew, you face the same persecution. It appears that many of these radical academics look to Europe for inspiration and hope that Europe is simply further along the same path they expect America to tread. The tradition of academia being a grove of debate in which logic and knowledge are used in a quest for truth, has been replaced with a hall in which indoctrination and conformity is the creed.

During the 1950's economist Joseph Schumpeter looked at the ideological battles within the realm of economics and had an observation on the field of economics that is pertinent to many other fields. It is also pertinent to our discussion of the seventies and today _. "The passage of time-history itself- will take care of ideological biases, eventually correcting all errors. So long as intellectual freedom reigns, one economist's skewed vision will be balanced by another's. In this way, history will save the day, despite historians' singular vulnerability to ideology. It will be another form of creative destruction"_.256 Obviously the key statement in the quote is "So long as intellectual freedom reigns".

It can be argued that during the 1960's intellectual freedom was under assault in most of our nation's centers of higher learning. Ideas that had been subsequently proven catastrophically wrong from the 1930s resurfaced in the 1960's. " _The 1960s and the Vietnam war brought a more general return to the intellectual and ideological climate that had reigned during the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, many of the very words and phrases of that earlier time reappeared in the 1960s, often put forth as if they were fresh new insights, instead of old notions already discredited by the course of history. For example, disarmament advocates once again called themselves "the peace movement" and called military deterrence and "arms race". Once again, the argument was made that "war solves nothing". Those who manufactured military equipment, who had been called "merchants of death" in the 1930s were now called "the military-industrial complex"_ _and were once again regarded as a threat to peace, rather than suppliers of the means of deterring aggressor nations. The Oxford Pledge by young Englishmen of the 1930s, to refuse to fight for their country in war, was echoed during the 1960s by young Americans of military draft age who said, "Hell no, I won't go"._

_Graphic depictions of the horrors of war were once again seen as ways to promote peace, ands a one-day-at-a-time rationalism was again considered to be the way to deal with issues that had the potential to escalate into war. Replacing the rhetoric of moral outrage with a more non-judgmental pragmatism and trying to see the other side's point of view were also part of this resurrected vision from the era between the two World Wars. Few who espoused these and other ideas from the 1930s recognized their antecedents, much less the disasters to which those antecedents had led."_ 257

Many of the students of these academic indoctrinations, diligently studying to become teachers during the period of the Vietnam War, when on to inculcate these ideas to junior and senior high school students, with consequences we are seeing now. _"Just as the French teachers' unions turned France's schools into indoctrination centers for pacifism in the 1920s and 1930s, with emphasis on the horrors of war, so in the United States during the Cold War American classrooms became places for indoctrination in the horrors of War....It should be noted that here, as in other contexts, the fatal misstep of teachers was in operating beyond their competence—teachers having no professional qualifications for understanding the dangers of manipulating children's emotions, nor any special qualifications for understanding international political complications or what factors make wars less likely or more likely, much less what factors are likely to lead to collapse and defeat, as in France in 1940._

_As in interwar France, the leading teachers' union—in America, the National Education Association—was a spearhead of pacifism and a fountainhead of ideas of the left in general."_ 258

In this cauldron of change and dissention the problems caused by the Vietnam War magnified the way society in America perceived the needs of our defense establishment. In looking at the draft from the perspective of a congressman from Pennsylvania, as Richard Schweiker did, it became apparent that Pennsylvania was providing more than its share of draftees. On October 21, 1965 Schweiker sent a letter to Lewis B. Hershey, Directory of the Selective Service System, requesting a copy of form #200: the Notice of Call on States, and a copy of the October 1965 Call Work Sheet, which identified the number of draftees each state would need to provide. After discussion with the Selective Service System, Schweiker was able to announce on November 10, 1965, a revised policy. _"Pennsylvania's share of the national draft calls will be reduced substantially this month under a new draft quota formula adopted by the Selective Service System._

If the revised quota formula had been used in October, Pennsylvania would have been asked to draft 24 percent fewer men to meet its share of the national draft call for 33,600 inductees.

Under the old formula used in October, Pennsylvania was told to draft 3, 459 men, more than twice as many inductees as Texas and California and almost twice as many as Ohio.

Use of the new draft quota formula was disclosed as a result of my request last month that Selective Service System officials explain why Pennsylvania had been asked to supply 10.3 percent f the nation's draftees in October even though the state has only 6.4 percent of the country's draft-age men.

The inquiry into Pennsylvania's role in the nation's draft also disclosed that Pennsylvania has a higher draft rate because it has comparatively fewer men rejected for physical, mental or moral reasons.

Only 5.8 percent of Pennsylvania registrants are classified unfit in Class 4-F although the national average is 7.9 percent. Only 4.6 percent of Pennsylvanians, contrasted with a national average of 6.4 percent, are classified 1-Y, unfit except in time of war.

Nine states in the nation, all of them in the South, have rejection rates more than twice as high as Pennsylvania's. South Carolina has the highest percentage with 22.1 percent of its registrants in Class 4-F. The others: Alabama, 15.2 percent; Arkansas, 13.1; Florida, 13.8; Georgia, 15.9; Mississippi, 13.1; North Carolina, 14.0; Tennessee 12.1; and Virginia, 13.7.

The draft inquiry also showed that Pennsylvania has only 4.6 percent of its registrants deferred because of college studies although the national average is 5.4 percent. The percentage of Pennsylvania registrants deferred to complete high school is less than one-third the national average......

Under the old Formula, used prior to this month's draft call, Selective Service officials subtracted from the 1-A "available" category (upon which each state's draft quota was based) a large number of men who had been ordered to report for a physical examination, even though the results of the examination had not been processed by local draft boards.

Because Pennsylvania has such a small percentage of its registrants in this category compared to most states---less than half the national average---a much larger proportion of Pennsylvania registrants remained in the available category upon which the state's draft call was based.

For example, Pennsylvania in October had only 9,146 men awaiting examination results. California had 38,102; Illinois had 20,285; Ohio had 11,955. California provided 1,703 October draftees; Illinois provided 2,306 and Ohio, 1,869.

Effective with the November call, Selective Service officials stopped subtracting from the "available" category a majority of the men who had been ordered to report for a physical but whose examination results had not been processed yet by their local boards.

_This will mean that California, Illinois, Ohio and other states will provide a larger share of draftees than before, thus reducing Pennsylvania's share."_ 260

Schweiker watched the actions of the Johnson administration and the Nixon administration closely on the Vietnam conflict and the resulting dislocations and chaos it was fomenting in the social fabric of the country. War had a very personal meaning to Richard, " _his brother's death in Okinawa would become the most influential factor in Schweiker's decision to enter politics."_ 261 One of the reasons he had entered into politics and became a Congressman was to have an impact on national policies; to make sure that young lives full of promise, like his brother Malcolm, would not be thrown away in war, if it could be prevented. " _I finally decided that (Congress) is where the action is.... Where decisions are made about war and peace... about human destiny... about the flow of history... That is where I decided I could accomplish the most"_ 262 . Originally elected on a platform that criticized a sitting congressman for not supporting President Eisenhower, Schweiker increasingly found himself in opposition to President Johnson over the Vietnam conflict. With the election of President Nixon in 1968, Schweiker's opposition to the war placed him in a precarious position within the Republican Party which now had governing responsibilities for its prosecution. Schweiker also had increased his influence on both the party and the country by his election victory over sitting Democratic Senator Joe Clark, becoming the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. Schweiker had pulled the upset victory off in a Pennsylvania that had rejected Nixon in the same election.

Schweiker had established a reputation by the middle 1960's of being an independent thinker; one who voted on the issues and was not regarded as a totally reliable foot soldier, especially if he felt the party was wrong. Richard recognized this fact and realized it was causing problems with the local party and the party hierarchy, but he voted his conscience. Every Congressman establishes a procedure, a checklist, in their own mind to determine how they will vote, whether it is as a party loyalist, as an ideological purist, or utilizing various other factors. Many simply parrot the party line, others take the path of least resistance, knowing that their voting record is a tool not only for their re-election, but also for their opponents' war chest. Richard responded to an October 30, 1973 letter from a U.S. Coast Guard cadet on November 8, 1973 asking him to explain how he made up his mind on votes. The letter is very telling, not only because it shows how important Richard felt constituent service was, but also for what it reveals about his thought process in determining his vote. _"I consider it my No.1 responsibility to be on the floor of the Senate to represent the people of Pennsylvania, and have maintained a 99% voting attendance record. In general, five factors enter into my decision making process, although the relative weight of each factor varies from vote to vote. The factors are:_

1. What does the committee recommend. The committee report on a particular bill offers a concise summary of the pros and cons of an issue.

2. What transpires during Senate debate. Sometimes information will be brought out during Senate debate which will influence my eventual decision.

3. What is best for Pennsylvania. Senator Scott and I are the only U.S. Senators from Pennsylvania. If we don't speak up for Pennsylvania's interest, nobody will.

4. What is best for the United States. I am a U.S Senator. Sometimes there is an overriding national interest which will affect my decision.

5. What my conscience tells me to do. On many occasions I decide a vote on the basis of my moral philosophy and beliefs.

_As a Republican of independent judgment, I make every attempt to call the shots as I see them. On occasion this causes me to differ with my party, but I believe the people of Pennsylvania elected me to weigh my votes with these factors as my primary considerations"_ .

In his stand on the draft Richard appears to have responded to number 5 in his letter; his moral philosophy and beliefs. He took a strong stand on reforming how the United States filled the ranks of the military, not with a knee jerk reaction against the draft, but with a reasoned and nuanced suggestion of reform and eventual movement towards an all volunteer military. In 1967 Richard, together with several colleagues in the House of Representatives, authored a book entitled: "How to End the Draft: The case for an all Volunteer Army". The small book contained a reasoned series of steps and reforms that would move the nation from dependence on the draft and towards the goal of an all volunteer Army. Vice President Humphrey rejected the idea out-of-hand, assuming the nation would not be able to attract the number of willing volunteers needed, and that the draft was the only way to achieve the nation's needs. The 31 reforms that Schweiker and his colleagues suggested in their book included making military pay levels closer to what individuals could make in the private sector. The costs for the conversion would be substantial, but the costs to maintain the draft were also considerable, even with volunteer boards. While at the time the idea of an all-volunteer military was viewed as a plan with no chance of becoming reality, it was a goal that Schweiker dedicated himself to move forward.

The issues with the draft and with the military escalation in Southeast Asia, was a constant factor in Richard's official duties. On November 25, 1963 Representative Schweiker was named to the House Armed Services Committee. Richard had been appointed to the Military Operations and Intergovernmental Relations subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee in February 1963. This new appointment to the Armed Service Committee meant that Richard now was one of 38 representatives that had significant jurisdiction over about 56% of the total government budget, a total of $55.4 billion in military expenditures in 1963. In a press release Schweiker commented that this appointment is " _consistent with his desire to 'play a role in the struggle for freedom around the world and in the cause of world peace. I have long felt that our nation, to effectively advance the important goal of world peace, must follow the advice of George Washington who stated that to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.' 'I lost my brother at Okinawa in 1945 and want to do my best to see that there are no future wars' our nation must tirelessly explore every possible avenue, consistent with our security, towards an easing of international tensions"_ 264

Richard took his responsibilities seriously. His ethical and moral values helped to sustain and guide him in his duties. In a November 3, 1965 letter to L. Mendel Rivers, representative from South Carolina and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Richard resigned from the Military Construction and Housing subcommittee because of a potential conflict of interest involving his family's stock ownership in National Gypsum. In his response Rivers accepted the resignation from the subcommittee: _"Although I too think the conflict is most remote, nevertheless, I can understand your feelings on this matter and will respect your request"_ 265

February 7, 1967 marked the introduction of a bill from Schweiker, which was referred to the Committee on Armed Service. The bill, H.R. 5017, was called the Draft Reform Act of 1967. The bill was designed to reduce the period of eligibility from age twenty-six to age twenty-two years and six months. In addition the period of eligibility would be a maximum of 4 years, unless the individual was deferred, and then he would be eligible for 4 years, after the deferment, or until he hit 35 years, which ever was first. Under the bill the draftees would be called with the youngest going first. Schweiker tried to achieve a national uniformity in the occupational and educational deferments that until then were at the discretion of the local draft boards. This would help to eliminate the inefficiencies and inequities that had become apparent in the previous years.

Under the heading "National Uniformity for Occupational and Educational Deferments", Schweiker inserted section "(B) _Any such rules and regulations which provide for deferment of persons pursuing full-time courses of instruction at a college, university, or similar institution shall set forth standards of performance in such courses of instruction, scores on tests conducted under the supervision of the Director, and other necessary criteria which must be complied with in order to qualify for such a deferment."_ Under section (C) (b) subsection (h) _" is amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end thereof the following: 'except that no person who has been deferred under the provisions of this subsection from induction for training and service under this Act on grounds of pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a college, university, or similar institution may thereafter be deferred under the provisions of this sentence on the grounds of a marriage contracted or a child conceived after the date of enactment of the Draft Reform Act of 1967.'"_ 266

Richard received some favorable press coverage on his bill from the Baltimore Sun editorial page. Charles Mathias of Maryland inserted remarks and the editorial from the Sun of February 13, 1967 in the February 21 Congressional Record.

Mr. Mathias of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as we await the report of the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service, many of us are proceeding with our own reviews of the present draft system and its obvious deficiencies. One of the constructive critics of the draft is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schweiker) who recently advanced a number of sensible proposals to reverse the present age priorities of the draft, make student deferments more rational, and greatly improve appeal procedures. I am glad to be associated with his efforts and hope that these recommendations will receive wide consideration.

In its lead editorial of February 13, the Baltimore Sun commended Congressman Schweiker for offering "excellent suggestions aimed at making the draft both dependable and fair." As the Sun concluded, "Congressmen interested in improving the new law ought to look into these proposals". The editorial follows:

Draft Deferments

_Debate on the draft always gets around to student deferments. The present system is unfair. Young men who can afford college and post-graduate studies use the system not just to delay induction, but to avert it. A series of deferments leads to marriage and fatherhood, a draft haven, or to arrival at a draft secure age. That's not what the system intended, but that's what it results in. According to "informed source" leaks in Washington, the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service is planning to recommend gradual abolition of student deferments. That would deal with the draft avoiders in schools, but it will not allow conscientious young men to get an education before service- an education that would be an asset to them and the military. A better idea is advanced by Representative Schweiker, a member of the Armed Services Committee. He suggests student deferments that are just that- deferments. A young man that is 1-A when he entered college would be 1-A when he got out, despite any new family status. Schweiker would have the draft take the youngest rather than the oldest 1-A's first. A 22 year-old college graduate who had been deferred since 18 would go into the 18-year-old pool at graduation, just where he was when he got his deferment. Schweiker has apparently given the whole problem of the draft much study. He makes several other excellent suggestions aimed at making the draft both dependable and fair. The basic draft law expires this June. Congressmen interested in improving the new law ought to look into these proposals."_ 267

On June 20th Schweiker and 38 of his fellow members of the House issued a statement on the Draft Law extension that was to be voted on that day. The Representatives were critical of the passed bill, but agreed to support it and then try to amend it to address their concerns, " _At Republican initiative, there was an effective provision for uniform national criteria for classification written into the bill passed by the house on May 25_ th _. Because of the adamance of Senate Conferees the provision was significantly watered down—although for the first time the principle is recognized in the law. It is not fair when there are two men of identical status in education, in skills, in family and in age—where one is drafted and the other is not because the policies followed by their draft boards are different. This is most rampant, obvious, blatant and unjustifiable inequity that exists in the administration of the draft. The law that will pass today represents a beginning in remedying the situation, but only a beginning.... Uniform national criteria for classification would not impair the appropriate powers of discretion of local draft boards to consider each individual case on its merits. They would, on the other hand, minimize the discrimination which affects every Selective Service registrant today when a young man's chance of being drafted is more a function of where he was born or registered than anything else.... We will immediately file legislation to amend the law that will be passed today to provide for uniform national criteria for Selective Service classification--- and to state explicitly the intent of Congress that the draft is a residual source of manpower to be used only when absolutely necessary to assure an adequate force for the nation's security... The draft should be significantly reformed. It will not be significantly reformed by today's action. We will continue to press for significant reform in the hope that the Congress will soon recognize its responsibility and meet it clearly._ 268

Schweiker and many of his same colleagues announced the Draft Reform Act they had promised, on June 30th, and on July 10th introduced a Bill to amend the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. He was joined this time by 12 other members of the House in presenting H.R. 11312 which amended two sections of the Act _: "That the last sentence of section 6(h) (2) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (50App. U.S.C. 456 (h) ) is amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, the President shall, in carrying out the provisions of this title, establish, whenever practicable, national criteria for the classification of persons subject to induction under this title, and, to the extent that such action is determined by the President to be consistent with the national interest, require such criteria to be administered uniformly throughout the United States." Sec. 2 Section 1 (c) of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 451 (c) is amended to read as follows" "'(c) The Congress further declares that in a free society the obligations of serving in the armed forces should be enforced through the provisions of this Act only when necessary to insure the security of this Nation, and the opportunities and privileges of serving in the Armed Forces and the reserve components thereof should be shared generally in accordance with a system of selection which is fair and just, and which is consistent with the maintenance of an effective national economy.'"_ 269 Although Schweiker was being tagged as a liberal Republican it appears that he was intent on making sure that the Selective Service was being administered justly, that inequities in enforcement and regional differences that contributed to inequality of calls were being addressed. Attempts to game the system were also being curbed by making sure that courses are substantial and not designed to provide a deferment without study. The stories of basket-weaving, pottery-making and other "educational" courses on the road to a teaching degree were becoming increasingly evident as the decade of the sixties progressed. Recognition of the marriage of convenience following graduation to avoid the draft was addressed in Richard's bill of February.

With the publishing of the book on "How to End the Draft" in late 1967, Richard had spend a full year focused on the problems that were inherent in a governmental program designed to force the will of the government on increasingly unwilling citizens. The inequalities, the gaming of the system, the regional differences that became more and more evident with the increasing public resistance to the draft, are a warning to any government that tries to enforce its will on a free and unwilling populace. When government makes rules that determine winners and losers, without the influence of the market, corruption and inefficiency becomes endemic, you get less than needed, and fail to achieve justice. Many of the volunteer draft boards tried to do their duty, but were stifled by regulations. Others played favorites to make sure influential people had preference, or delayed making decisions, with unjust results across the nation. Richard advocated a volunteer army and that the market be used via a comparable pay scale to solve many problems; problems he was struggling to patch with legislation during 1967. History has proved his market-based solution successful, but in 1967 it was too radical to be acted on immediately. Richard would continue to make draft reform a personal issue and supported President Nixon's efforts toward an all-volunteer army. His fortitude and perseverance eventually produced results that proved successful and got government out of the business of picking winners and losers in the role of inducting the military personnel who defend our country.

With the draft becoming such a divisive issue Richard Nixon made a campaign pledge in 1968 to end the peacetime draft. Senator Schweiker took notice of this pledge 4 years later in a speech that praised President Nixon for following through on the issue. " _U.S. Senator Richard S. Schweiker tonight praised President Nixon "for making good on his 1968 campaign pledge to end the peacetime draft". Schweiker, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made his remarks in a speech at the Montgomery Country Republican Dinner at Sunnybrook Ballroom. Schweiker said. "As a longtime advocate of the all-volunteer military force, I will be strongly supporting the President's efforts to have a zero draft call by June 30, 1973. I am confident my colleagues in Congress will join me in standing behind Mr. Nixon. In pledging to end the draft, the President said we should 'show our commitment to freedom by preparing to assure our young people theirs.' As of June next year the President will have met that commitment."_ 270

The decade of the 1960's focused not only on the ideological divide caused by the Vietnam War and the self-indulgent narcissism of the young college youths who stood against the traditional authority figures in the culture. The period also produced a "great leap forward" in the culture itself led by the actions of the federal government in what was called "the War on Poverty" by President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson rapidly expanded the tentative plans of President Kennedy following the assassination in Dallas. Basing much of the plan on the ideas of FDR during the great depression of the 1930's, but "doubling down" Johnson moved the federal government into a more active role in providing for the welfare of the poor in the country. This involved the creation and expansion of numerous programs designed to provide for the material well-being of those who were at the bottom rung of society. One effect of this was to change the cultural attitudes towards government money: _"Until the 1960's, the public dole was humiliation, but thereafter young men were told that shining shoes was demeaning, and that accepting government subsidy meant a person "could at least keep his dignity." This, then, was the key change in the 1960's – not so much new benefit programs as a change in consciousness concerning established ones, with government officials approving and even advocating not only larger payouts but a war on shame"._ 271

The War on Poverty programs were aided and abetted by a willing media and social scientists who kept up a drumbeat of support for the programs. Surprisingly they found willing allies among the religious denominations, _"The mainline theological message of the 1960's among both Christians and Jews which prevailed was that poverty was socially caused and could thus be socially eliminated"._ 272 New groups coalesced to get out the message that welfare was a right, as epitomized by the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). The NWRO employed what it called it's Boston Model to mobilize the poor: _"The Boston model emphasized "continuous personal contact" between organizers and women on welfare, with the goal of convincing welfare recipients that the fault lay in the stars ("systemic pathologies") rather than themselves"._  _"NWRO's single largest denominational contributor from 1970 to 1973 was the United Church of Christ, and in particular the church's Board for Homeland Ministries. The denomination's Welfare Priority Team (WPT) gave 65% ($142,500) of its operational budget to NWRO from 1970 through 1973 and employed NWRO representatives as Consultants"._  This combination of aggressive government actions and cultural warfare by community organizers represented an attack on the traditions of the culture within which Ronald Reagan believed he lived. Perhaps this was one of the reasons that Dinesh d'Souza could say of him: _"Although he was genuine and almost mystical in his religious beliefs, he didn't go to church and took a sardonic view of organized religion and clergy"_ 275

Looking at the attack on the theological traditions of the parishioners of the mainline Protestant church's and the willingness of church leadership to compromise those values to accommodate the demands of the political elites in the eastern establishment, it might be wise to examine how the Pennsylvania Dutch reacted. Since both Richard Schweiker and Drew Lewis grew up within this subculture of Americans, the reaction of the Pennsylvania Dutch may provide some clues in how each would perceive the situation. It appears that the traditions of religious freedom and the unwillingness to accommodate worldly change in a lifestyle that had been defended for hundreds of years by the Dutch provided a small buffer to the rapid radicalization of the sixties. While it is true that the Pennsylvania Dutch culture experienced change and conflict, it was slower and more controlled. The dominant Dutch characteristics of temperance, self-control, fortitude to endure, and prudence, ably came to their aid and enabled them to step back and review the cultural changes demanded. To a large extent they remained true to their Christian values and continued to support charities and provide for the poor. They tried to take care of their own, and tended to frown on the efforts of government to exert control in areas that they felt were not government's role.

An interesting example of this resistance to government interference was the Amish refusal to participate in Social Security, as mentioned before. " _The 1961 extension to cover self-employed individuals placed the issue squarely before them. Most refused to comply, not because of the tax factor, but because it was insurance. Any insurance was a gamble and was furthermore unnecessary because of their mutual assistance to members in need. For a time the Kennedy government forced compliance and, in western Pennsylvania, auctioned off their farm horses at sheriff's sales to extract the funds for needed Social Security coverage. Within a short time the Congress passed a bill introduced by Pennsylvania Representative Richard Schweiker, himself a Schwenkfelder, specifically exempting from participation religious groups with scruples against insurance, provided they cared for their own aged and unemployed. That ended the sheriff's sales"_ 276

In many ways this Pennsylvania Dutch culture encapsulated many of the traditions that Ronald Reagan had grown up with in the mid west of the early 1900's. The sturdy self-reliance, the need for neighbors to help each other, the centrality of the Christian faith in lifestyle, and the limited ability of government to interfere with that lifestyle, all should have resonated with Reagan. By 1980 Reagan's message on these issues was definitely resonating with the Pennsylvania Dutch of the "T" in the state.

We have discussed the resistance to change that is inherent in the political process. Buying into the process enables an individual to garner more power the longer they work the system, moving as high as their abilities will take them. Stakeholders fight to maintain their position and view the status quo as reality, subject to minor tweaking, but not radical change. Outsiders that threaten the status quo are not welcome. Ideology is not the driving force behind political parties; access to power is the driving force. Ideology usually provides the path to that power, and degrees of change within ideology are allowable if they increase access to power. The problem Reagan faced in 1976 is that power within the Republican Party revolved around control of the federal government, which was manipulated by the Democrats in the legislative arena to their benefit, and by moderate Republican Gerald Ford in the Executive branch. Republicans in Washington, as well as Democrats, had bought into the "Great Society" mantra of the War on Poverty; that it was Governments' job to alleviate poverty by direct monetary payments and housing, instead of providing the framework in which the economy would grow, thus allowing those who chose to work within it the ability to climb out of poverty.

This refusal to recognize the religious and cultural basis that many Americans saw as the foundation of their lives opened a chasm that enlarged as the years passed. Increasingly the common voter was alienated from both parties, seeing the elites marching in a direction they were uncomfortable with, and to an ideology they distrusted.

Harvard Business professor Clayton Christenson has studied the disintegration of large corporations by insignificant disruptive technologies, taking little bites of market share in the beginning, but soon completely overtaking the established order. The less costly, and perhaps slightly less effective technology, inevitably changes the cost value proposition that enables people to make effective decisions. The radicals of the sixties intuitively understood the idea of disruption, and blended into the academic and bureaucratic world during the seventies, chipping away at the traditional cultural fabric of the country. They were not as immediately successful in the United States as in Europe for a number of reasons, including the strength of the capitalist system and the limitations on government that are embedded in the U.S. constitution. Command and control economies are not something that most Americans take kindly too, and the path to power has been correspondingly slower, filled with more obstacles than in Europe, although the trend has been fairly consistent down the same path.

One huge obstacle on the path to the socialism advocated by the elites in academia and the bureaucracy was Ronald Reagan. He showed that there was another path; a path that provided opportunity for all, and did not entail a top-down, government-led income-redistributing model to increase prosperity. Reagan did not favor a command and control economy; he understood " _That in a competitive society most things can be had at a price- though it is often a cruelly high price we have to pay- is a fact the importance of which can hardly be overrated. The alternative is not, however, complete freedom of choice, but orders and prohibitions which must be obeyed and, in the last resort, the favor of the mighty._ 277 As the governmental and intellectual elites increasingly tried to determine winners and losers by planning and regulations the common citizen was becoming more a spectator than a participant; one who was informed what was best and who's viewpoint was increasingly disregarded. _"It is the price of democracy that the possibilities of conscious control are restricted to the fields where true agreement exists and that in some fields things must be left to chance. But in a society which for its functioning depends on central planning this control cannot be made dependent on a majority's being able to agree; it will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people, because this minority will be the largest group able to agree among themselves on the question at issue. Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion; and it's the great merit of the liberal creed that it reduced the range of subjects on which agreement was necessary to one on which it was likely to exist in a society of free men. It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate "capitalism". If "capitalism" means here a competitive system based on the free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself._ "

In many ways Reagan represented everything that the eastern intellectual establishment abhorred and they didn't hold back in letting everyone know just how unacceptable he was. _"When Reagan was first elected in 1980, the reaction from most intellectuals and elite media was one of disbelief. They didn't just consider him unqualified, or "nowhere near Presidential" as journalist Hedley Donovan wrote. They considered him a howling idiot, a reactionary kook, a dangerous warmonger."_  Who were these intellectuals and media elite that were so out of touch with mainstream America in 1980; the residue of 1960's radicalism, perhaps? _"Even many in the Republican Party viewed him with sneering condescension. During the 1980 Republican primaries, candidate George Bush called Reagan's supply-side ideas "voodoo economics". Another Republican contender, Congressman George Anderson, quipped that "smoke and mirrors" were required to make sense of Reagan's policies. This distain, which was far more harshly expressed in private, betrayed a broader sentiment within the GOP establishment that Reagan was a hopeless amateur among seasoned professionals, a witch doctor in a field of competent surgeons"._ 280

In looking at the depth of condescension which Reagan evoked, it plainly was not a result of his personality. He was a man who had a sunny disposition and was optimistic about the future of the country. Perhaps his value system helped to evoke the storm of contempt from the academic world and its ideological partners in the media? Reagan had a decidedly mixed appreciation for intellectual academic achievement. He has been quoted as saying his favorite subject in college was football. Now, this was during the depression, not during the 1960's and 70's when "animal house" antics were many males favorite activities in college. His lack of concern about his academic record contrasts with academic intellectuals who measure success by their academic achievements. _"Reagan's insouciance about his mediocre academic performance probably derived from his conviction that the most important truths are moral, not intellectual. They are part of our nature, and accessible through the experience of life."_  This attitude towards academic achievement blends into the mainstream of American cultural history with its distain for intellectualism and its romantic attachment to the garage mechanic and inventor, exemplified by Thomas Edison, or Steve Jobs. America has traditionally operated under the assumption that "those that can do, those that can't teach". Most Americans laugh when studying about the renaissance academic's disputations on agriculture, citing what Aristotle had to say as the answer, and suggest that instead of knowing agriculture by studying Aristotle it might be easier to study the actual situation and determine what was working and what wasn't.

Only with the cultural changes in the 1960's was the opinion of academic elites solicited, and valued, by the mass media composed of increasing numbers of formerly disaffected journalism students (deferred) of the Vietnam War era. _"While the kinds of ideas prevalent among today's intellectuals have a long pedigree that reaches back at least as far as the eighteenth century, the predominance of those ideas in both intellectual circles and in the society at large, through their influence in the educational system, the media, the courts, and in politics is a much more recent phenomenon." This is not to say that intellectuals had no influence at all in earlier eras, but in previous centuries there were fewer intellectuals and far fewer of their penumbra among the intelligentsia to carry their ideas into the schools, the media, the courts and the political arena. In earlier times, theirs was just one influence among many, and they had not acquired the ability to filter out what information and ideas reach the public through the media and through the educational system, or what ideas would become the touchstone of advanced thinking in the courts. For one thing, inherited traditional beliefs-both religious and secular-were more of a limitation on the influence of newly minted notions among the intellectuals._ 282

Whether these opinions were valued by the majority of Americans can be debated, but they were continually presented as experts. The qualifications of these reputed experts were never examined; the media expected you to accept them. No alternative to that expectation was available to the people during this time.

The media of the period rested on the laurels of the Edward R. Morrow era, after he had passed from the scene. The self-made man of the early part of the century gradually gave way to corporate America, and the importance of Einstein was placed on a par with Edison. _"The period from the 1960s to the 1980s was perhaps the high tide of the influence of the intelligentsia in the United States. Though the ideas of the intelligentsia still remain the prevailing ideas, their overwhelming dominance ideologically has been reduced somewhat by counter-attacks from various quarters-for example, by an alternative vision presented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economists, by the rise of small but significant numbers of conservatives and neo-conservative intellectuals in general, and by the rise of conservative to a minority, but no longer negligible, role in the media, especially talk radio and the Internet, which have reduced the ability of the intelligentsia with the vision of the anointed to block from the public information that might undermine their vision."_ 283

The academic elites have difficulty understanding that they are not the center of the universe and that everything does not revolve around their opinions. When they are ignored or even worse when they are relegated to unimportant status and their value system ridiculed as irrelevant, they respond with vitriol and personal attacks. Reagan never let it bother him. His years in Hollywood had brought him into contact with narcissism on a comparable scale and he knew how to handle it. _"The most important political lesson Reagan learned from his Hollywood years was the difference between the endorsement of the critics and success at the box office."_ 284 Businessmen approach the situation in much the same manner. It doesn't matter how much you sell, it's what the bottom line says that is important. It is only in academia and government where the role of the market in determining winners and losers is not important, or unrelated to reality. The market of ideas will eventually force equilibrium even in those two arenas. The response time, however, will just be much longer. As Joseph Schumpeter claims: creative destruction will force the change, as long as intellectual freedom reigns!

Even with the contempt that Reagan was held in by the elites, it was something more that created the unparalleled anger and hatred hurled at him by the eastern opinion makers. As Dinesh D/ Souza explains: _"So the incredulous reaction to Reagan was not primarily due to his origins. Indeed, that wasn't even the main factor. The main factor was his ideas."_ 285 He represented the opposite of their ideas on the role and function of government. Reagan's view of the world rejected the ideas of the intelligentsia; promoting deterrence instead of appeasement, of American exceptionalism instead of cultural relativity, of limited government of the people instead of government by the intellectuals. His years of working for GE, of meeting with the ordinary people in those plants and factories, the years as governor of California, fighting the entrenched interests that kept themselves at the top of the government hierarchy, all combined to further his philosophy of what government's role in society entailed. He threatened the cultural change the elites had espoused since the 1960's and appeared capable of changing the direction from the socialist model of government to the free market model.

Reagan responded to a question about the student demonstrations and destruction of the campuses in Berkeley and other California universities in his campaign to become governor by saying: _"I said I thought the students had no business being at the university if they weren't willing to abide by the rules; if they refused to obey them they should go somewhere else."_ 286 This is quite a contrast to what was happening in eastern universities in which the administration and the professors collapsed like a house of cards before the demands of the radicals, much like the French did in front of the Germans in 1940.

Reagan didn't give an inch, he insisted on the right of the majority of the students to have access to the education that would enable them to improve their quality of life in an America that was governed by all the people, not just those who felt academically superior. Allowing a small group of radicalized students to disrupt the universities like they did in Cornell and Yale on the east coast was an abrogation of responsibilities by the administration of the various universities and the government of the state in which they resided. You can perhaps argue that Ronald Reagan was more of a traditionalist in this sense than the eastern elite when he made his presidential run in 1976.

Ideology is not the function of the political party; it is a vehicle through which the party obtains and maintains power. Offering a significant ideological change is a move that threatens established practice and the entrenched power brokers will fight it. Only in response to dramatic changes in worldview can a change of magnitude be expected to succeed. What was not appreciated by the establishment of either political party was how much the world had changed in the late 60's and early 70's. The forces of increased speed of communication, improved transportation infrastructure, and access to information would combine to increase the velocity of change. The social upheaval of the 1960's had appeared to settle down, but the economic changes were accelerating and starting to have a pronounced affect on individual lives. Reagan was hearing about these changes in his contacts with the factory workers at the GE plants. He observed the changes in the industrial patterns of California during his tenure as Governor. The difficulties in the economy were still causing social unrest and both Democrats and establishment Republicans looked to government to solve it, to a greater or lesser degree. Reagan offered a completely different solution. His worldview was completely at odds with the elites and their accepted wisdom. The experts laughed at his solutions _. "All the Republican presidents of the postwar era-Eisenhower, Nixon-and Ford- criticized the excesses of the federal government and spoke of making it more efficient, but they did not question in principle the ability of the government to remedy the ills of society. In this sense Reagan's views were completely outside the mainstream of conventional thinking about the role of the state in the modern era."_ 287 Unfortunately none of these conventional thinkers examined the foundations of their own beliefs. Products of the universities and imbued with the economic theories of economists such as John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Gailbraith, who was mesmerized by the efficiencies of war production during the First and Second World Wars, they didn't recognize the feedback they were getting form the nation. Unwilling to examine the problems of central planning that were being exposed by unpopular economists such as Schumpeter and Hayek, they blithely continued to follow the path of socialism and government control of more and more of the economy, in the name of helping the people. Yet, as F.A.Hayek has pointed out: _"The modern movement for planning is a movement against competition"_ 288 _._ Not only is it a movement against competition but _"... the more the state "plans" the more difficult planning becomes for the individual."_ 289 Reagan realized as Hayek points out: _"Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopoly we are at his mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system would be the most powerful monopolist conceivable"_ ; and also the most inefficient system, as he saw in the Soviet Union.

Conventional wisdom lays itself open to correction only when it has no choice, and its analysis of events is not liable to be reflective of actual reality, but of its interpretation of reality. Joseph Schumpeter pointed this out in his writings on economic analysis _: "Schumpeter says that all analysis begins with a distinct intuition that is almost always inherently ideological. "It embodies the picture of things as we see them" and usually our way of seeing them "can hardly be distinguished from the way we want to see them"."_ 291

Reagan promoted a philosophy of government that was radically different than accepted wisdom. His insistence on looking outside the box of mainstream economic thought to find another answer to increasing government control of the economy complements Joseph Schumpeter's contention that in an arena of intellectual freedom economic philosophies will be balanced and that creative destruction will move the economy forward. Reagan expertly balanced the needs of the economy to implement these changes by minimizing, as much as was politically feasible, the efforts of government to obstruct and control change. Reagan harkened back to the period before Franklin Roosevelt brought his socialistic understanding of how to handle the economic depression of the 1930's into government. He saw the way government was impeding growth, hurting individual's ability to grow small businesses, and in general hampering the entrepreneurial skills of the American citizen to improve his quality of life. He understood the possibilities inherent in the American system of government, if it allowed the people to do what they deemed best, and didn't try to determine who was going to win and who was going to lose. The market is always incredibly efficient in determining this, as Joseph Schumpeter explained in his analysis of Creative Destruction in the marketplace, while government is marvelously inefficient. Government doesn't create wealth; it redistributes it, which is always a dangerous situation when not controlled by the people. " _We can rely on voluntary agreement to guide the actions of the state only so long as it is confined to spheres where agreement exists. But not only when the state undertakes direct control in fields where there is no such agreement is it bound to suppress individual freedom. We can unfortunately not indefinitely extend the sphere of common action and still leave the individual free in his own sphere. Once the communal sector, in which the state controls all the means, exceeds a certain proportion of the whole, the effects of its actions dominates the whole system. Although the state controls directly the use of only a large part of the available resources, the effects of its decisions on the remaining part of the economic system become so great that indirectly it controls almost everything._ 292

When the prevailing wisdom in Washington focused on big government spreading the existing wealth to the favored, Reagan was planning to raise the level of wealth for all who wanted to participate in the effort. It is not difficult today to see just how different Reagan appeared to a political establishment which is once again trying to force socialism down the throats of the American people under the guise of "change". The "voodoo economics" moniker was a common criticism at the time. The Laffer Curve wasn't understood, and the affects of the Kennedy tax cuts of the early sixties were lost in the haze of the Vietnam War. Economists in, and those advising the government, didn't recognize as legitimate the theories of Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman and others who challenged the status quo. Reagan, however, had studied many of them, " _Lee Edwards, author of an early biography of Reagan, recalls being left alone in Reagan's study while then Governor Reagan went to the kitchen to prepare cocktails. Edwards began browsing Reagan's bookshelves, and was astonished to find dense works of political economy by authors such as Ludwig Von Mises and Freidrich Hayek heavily underlined and annotated in Reagan's handwriting."_ 293

Reagan presented a problem for the establishment; how to handle his brand of populism. They were able to bury him in Kansas City in 1976, but the problems he talked about didn't go away. The misery index increased significantly under Carter; one reason why it disappeared from view in the media. Reagan's "crazy ideas" for economic growth by cutting government were compounded by his understanding of how Middle America approached life. He didn't look down on them; to him they were not the great unwashed that so many establishment types believed. He understood their faith in themselves, their understanding of the world, and their faith in God. He shared many of these values himself, enabling him to bond with the people at a much deeper level than the sophisticates from the Ivy League. Reagan was able to surround himself with individuals of ability, individuals who understood that there was a way to generate wealth for a society as a whole, not just redistribute it. He found individuals who had the moral courage to stand against the prevailing wisdom, the ability to look at and accurately assess the viability of a business or a bill in Congress, judging the effect it would have on the nation. He found people who had worked in the brutal arena of business and politics, who had survived and thrived in the winnowing process to climb to the top of the ladder, and who retained their ability to converse with the common man as equals, not as masters.

Chapter Twelve

### 1977 to election 1980

Reagan didn't head back to California to sit on his rocking chair; he began the '80 campaign with the end of the '76 campaign. In the next several months Reagan began his series of weekly radio broadcasts, which he wrote himself, in many if not most cases, keeping his name in front of the public.

President Carter immediately began implementing the Democratic economic plan, and seeing the inevitable results. Inflation, which was already high under Ford increased to 7% in 1977 and then 9% in 1978. The money supply was growing rapidly and the liberal economists in the administration looked to increase it even more, claiming it did not add to inflation.

Into this situation, economists such as Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976, and Arthur Laffer, famous for his "Laffer Curve" showing the diminishing returns from higher taxation, began to get traction within an increasingly fragmented media. During the late 1970's the expansion of cable television began to impact more than just a few customers and as many as 11 million people received the service. CNN began to broadcast in 1980 as the demographics of cable television became large enough to support custom news programming.

Reagan set up an organization called "Citizens for the Republic" as a political action committee in early 1977, utilizing money he had left over from the 1976 campaign and the mailing lists of supporter generated by that campaign. Lyn Nofziger served as the executive vice-president of the organization and it included many of the former campaign executives and supporters from the campaign. On February 24, 1977 Reagan sent a letter to Richard Schweiker inviting him to join.

Dear Dick:

By now you probably know that in recent months we have been setting up a new conservative Republican political action committee known as Citizens for the Republic.

Through this committee I hope that people like you and I can work together to spread conservative Republican principles and elect conservative Republican candidates.

I am aware that there are a number of groups already in being that share these goals, but I believe there is strength in numbers and in diversity. In addition, I believe Citizens for the Republic can and will be effective in areas in which many of these groups are not involved.

Be that as it may be, the purpose of this letter is to ask you to serve during the next year on the Citizens for the Republic steering committee so that we may have the benefit of your advice and counsel. I will be honored if you will join us.

In the interest of time I have asked Lyn Nofziger to contact you early next week. Our first full-fledged Steering Committee meeting has been scheduled for the afternoon of March 10 in Los Angeles. We will let you know the exact time and place shortly. Our hope is to have quarterly meetings with each meeting being held in another part of the country. Our second meeting will be around June 1.

_I am looking forward to seeing you on March 10_ _and working with you on behalf of our party and our country._

Sincerely,

Ron

_Ronald Reagan"_ 294

Schweiker had gone back to the Senate and attempted to repair his standing during the end of 1976, and 1977. He began to focus more attention on his legislative record dealing with health care issues. In 1972 Richard had introduced his first bill on diabetes, after a constituent talked with him about the disease. Lee Ducat from Philadelphia had come into the senator's office to talk about the lack of federal funding for diabetes in general and juvenile diabetes, in particular. Lee's son, Larry, had been diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 9 in 1966. The family couldn't find any information about the disease or services for parents of diabetic children. Lee and her husband, Edwin, decided to found the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation in 1970 to raise awareness that diabetes was the third leading cause of death in the country, and help other families struggling with the disease. As part of her work for the foundation Lee called on her state's junior senator in Washington to discuss the fact that there was no research money for juvenile diabetes in the federal government's budget, while they were expending significant sums on other less dangerous diseases. Senator Schweiker was known as one of the hardest working Senators; and one who always set aside personal time for constituent service. Unfortunately for Lee, Richard had a very full schedule that day and was unable to give her more than a few minutes. Lee was upset heading home to Philadelphia on the train that night, feeling she had failed. While Lee didn't know it at the time, those few minutes were to pay dividends for people who suffered from the disease in the coming years.

Richard introduced legislation again in 1973 that created the National Commission on Diabetes and established diabetes research and training centers. The bill came to be known as the National Diabetes Mellitus Research and Education Act and became law in 1974. The national commission was charged with defining the nature and extent of diabetes, its complications, and to develop a long range plan to combat the disease. The commission held hearings and reported back to Congress in December of 1975 with a ten volume report and a five year plan that recommended the creation of a National Diabetes Advisory Board. The Senator introduced legislation to establish this board and it became law at the end of the 94th Congress in October of 1976. Schweiker was the ranking Republican senator on the senate Labor-HEW Appropriations Subcommittee, which had jurisdiction over the funding of federal health programs. As such he was able to direct funding into areas such as diabetes that had no representation previously. It was becoming evident to the entire senate that this was a cause that Schweiker held close to his heart and they deferred to him when questions about the disease came up in front of Congress.

Lee Ducat was able to increase awareness about juvenile diabetes with an interview in Parade Magazine on July 11, 1977. Richard became aware of the article and had it inserted in the Congressional Record on August 4, 1977. Lee responded with a poignant letter on August 15, 1977

Dear Senator Schweiker:

I have thanked you so many times since we first met, however for the first time words escape me. I am incapable of thanking you for the inclusion of the "tribute" to me and the word for word inclusion of the "People" article into the Congressional record. I have several cherished memories but I have never had an honor quite like this and I am overwhelmed.

_You may remember that the very first diabetes legislation was submitted into the Congressional Record August 4, 1973. How coincidental it is that the two inclusions, our "People" article and the breakdown of the $102,000,000 Appropriation to diabetes research for '78 were submitted on August 4, 1977. I remember writing to thank you following the submission of the original diabetes legislation to tell you that it was coincidental that August 4_ th _was my son Larry's birthday and what a nice birthday present you have given him. As I gaze at the date on the Congressional Record, August 4, 1977, I thought, what a wonderful partnership we have, a winning team, Senator Schweiker, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and someone very special "ABOVE" rooting and supporting the efforts of one senator, and hundreds of thousands who are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation._

I am very proud and grateful and thankful that our paths have crossed, and that I've had the very special honor of working with someone so very special.

Much love from all "your people".

Lee

Lee Ducat.

During his tenure in the Senate funding increased for research on the disease from $40 million in 1976 to $125 million in 1979. In 1979 Schweiker introduced legislation to extend the authorizations for the National Diabetes Advisory Board and the training centers, and increased the visibility of the disease by adding diabetes to the title of the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases.

Schweiker was allowed to chair the subcommittee hearings on February 26, 1979 for the bill. In his opening remarks Schweiker reviewed diabetes' effect on the country, pointing out that it is the leading cause of blindness, that the life expectancy of people with diabetes is one third less than the general population, and that the incidence of diabetes was increasing so that people born in 1979 had a one in five chance of developing the disease. He had been the author of the original diabetes legislation and had urged increased funding in the 6 years since that time, including the formation of the National Diabetes Advisory Board, so on February 26th he wanted to _"find out what has been accomplished...Has the Board functioned well?, What can we do to enhance its effectiveness?... I am hopeful that our witnesses today will examine what we have gotten for our money in terms of research breakthroughs, and what NIH has done internally to help ensure that our efforts pay off."_ 295

Federal research on health issues was one area that Schweiker continued to focus on in the period from 1976 to 1980. While his voting record points out a change from support for traditional "liberal" government programs to a more conservative "less government" stance, he was adamant in working to provide funds for health research. Today, this is still one of Schweiker's passions and he considers his work on diabetes research the highlight of his public career, a highlight he takes some comfort in, as his granddaughter has been diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes, almost thirty years after his initial legislation.

Schweiker's work in the area of diabetes funding and his concern for health care was to help him in 1981 when President-elect Reagan nominated him to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. He had come to be known as the "Patron Saint of the Pancreas" in the Senate according to journalists, and it was felt that his understanding of the health sector of the government would be a perfect fit for him at Health and Human Services.

While Richard was working to rebuild his standing in the Senate, Drew was working with his company to rebuild his income after the difficult race for governor in 1974 and the draining conflict in 1976 that resulted in neither Ford or Reagan being in the White house in 1977. Again the company focused on turning around troubled companies, merging them or selling them to extract value. Shortly after he started the business he discovered the need for a top notch lawyer, as the troubled companies had all sorts of legal issues facing them, so he brought in Bruce Eckart who had worked with Drew in the campaign. Many of the companies had governmental issues as well, whether it be with OSHA or the EPA, or any one of the numerous governmental regulatory agencies, and he brought Rick Robb, his campaign manager back to help with those issues. The company expanded into lobby work and then into venture capital, with some of Drew's acquaintances from prior years.

Drew would be working on five or six companies at any one time. The companies included Schmidt's Brewery in Philadelphia; a city institution that was loosing money. They were able to bail the company out and sell it for $16 million. Drew earned a $25,000 bonus for that deal. He was becoming financially comfortable again. In addition he still kept his hand in the political arena.

Drew was however, not the only Lewis involved in politics at the state and local level. In 1978 Drew's wife, Marilyn, threw her name into the race for Pennsylvania State Representative, and won. Marilyn would hold the position for two terms when she gave it up to spend more time with Drew in Washington, D.C., where he was a cabinet member. She compiled an excellent record of fiscally conservative voting, to the dismay of some of the big spenders in Harrisburg. Since both Drew and Marilyn were licensed private pilots she could fly their Cessna plane from either home in Montgomery County or from Washington when Drew was in the cabinet, to Harrisburg in about an hour.

In 1978 Drew was approached by Lyn Nofziger, who asked him to consider supporting Ronald Reagan. _"When Ronald Reagan met Drew Lewis in a Washington Hotel room last fall, the old actor gave a Hollywood double-take and said ruefully. "Ah, Drew Lewis. The name is familiar, unfortunately."_ 296 Obviously, Reagan intimately knew what Drew had done in 1976. Drew, along with his associate Rick Robb, met again with Mike Deaver, Reagan, and Paul Laxalt, in Laxalt's offices in Washington. _"Reagan and I talked twice," Lewis said. " I find myself comfortable with Reagan ideologically, maybe with the exception of foreign affairs. I thought Reagan was too far in front of the country in '76. Now the country's conservative mood has caught up with Reagan._

_And I've always liked the people around Reagan, fellows like John Sears and Charlie Black. Listen, we should have waxed these guys in the 1976 convention, but they were smart enough to hang in there. This time, with an early start, it's going to be interesting. I feel I'm with the winning horse."_ 297

Lewis had contact with Reagan aide Charlie Black back in the 1976 convention, where Black was in charge of counting the delegates committed to Reagan in the Pennsylvania delegation. There was tremendous pressure from the Reagan campaign and the delegates were giving conflicting answers to the head counters. Black had counted 20 votes for Reagan and Drew had it 10 votes for Reagan. " _We kept going back and forth over the numbers," Lewis, who this year is heading up Reagan's state effort, recalled the other day over lunch at the Union League. "And finally I said, 'Look Charlie. Let's round up the 10 delegates we're both claiming and ask them one-by-one who they're for. If they say Ford will you get off my back"?_

Black agreed, and off they went. "We got a lot of delegates sort of shuffling their feet and looking at the floor, because some of them had been lying to both of us," Lewis recalled.

_But when the survey was completed the two men had reconciled their tally sheets, agreeing that Reagan would get 10 votes. And two days later, he did. That moment in the 1976 convention stands as both a high and low point of Lewis' political career. On the one hand, he had kept his delegates in line for Ford- and by doing so established himself as a pol's pol, a man capable of retaining the loyalty of his troops in the intense, hand-to-hand combat of a convention floor fight. But he had done it at a cost- a temporary cost, it later developed- of his long and close friendship with Senator Richard S. Schweiker, who had been recruited by Reagan as his running mate, in part to soften Lewis and produce defections from Ford's Pennsylvania delegation_ 298

Seventeen years later, after reminiscing about the convention, Lewis was to say of Black _"We went down and figured out what the vote was. So he agreed, we had 97 of 107 votes. So that he had 10 and I had 97. And that was the end of it. I've always respected Charlie Black..."_ 299

Reagan asked Drew in 1979 if he would be willing to support him (Reagan), and Drew told him that he would, if Gerald Ford was not going to try again. Reagan then asked if he could "deliver Pennsylvania". When Drew replied that he could, Reagan is reputed to have replied _"We caught that one the last time."_ 300 Drew called former President Ford in February of 1979 and asked him if he was going to run again. Ford replied that he hadn't decided yet. Drew replied " _Well Look, You've got to tell me because if you're going to run I'm for you. And if you're not going to run, I would like to go for Ronald Reagan."_ 301 Eventually Ford responded. Drew was informed that Ford did not intend to be a candidate unless the convention in 1980 would be hopelessly deadlocked, in which case he would be available as a unity candidate. Drew didn't harbor any personal animosity against Reagan in '76. He liked and trusted Ford and had committed himself to Ford then and he stuck by that commitment. With Ford's response Drew agreed to work for Reagan's campaign. Drew had an interesting discussion with Reagan, Laxalt and the others in Washington when they asked him to join the campaign. It was apparent that they badly wanted Drew on the team. " _Laxalt looked Drew in the eye_ _and said "Look you're very welcome in this campaign. There will be no retribution whatsoever, there are enough whores in this business and Drew Lewis, you're not one of them"_ 302

When Drew agreed to work for the Reagan campaign he had to resolve how to handle his business interests and small company. Lewis and Associates was his small consulting business and his two associates would have to carry on without him. Spending time running a statewide campaign is not something you can do on weekends. Drew remembered running for governor in 1974 and while he had started out getting a day and a half off in 1973, he had to stop working in 1974 when he was formally running. This was going to be the same thing, just as intense as the stakes were in the Presidency, and his attention needed to be there and not on his business. His associates picked up the slack. Rick Robb stepped in as manager and paid Drew a small salary, as his name was still on the company, but in essence Drew took a one year leave of absence from his company to run the campaign.

In approaching Lewis we see an example of how Reagan was expanding his base during the period between 1976 and the run for the Presidency in 1980. In 1976 the Reagan campaign had viewed Drew as an eastern liberal, much as they viewed the entire Northeast, including the Mid-Atlantic States. But in Pennsylvania, Drew was considered a conservative, and to some an ultra-conservative. With Reagan's new approach he was able to include some of the more influential Republicans in the area and outflank the more moderate to liberal Republicans of the eastern establishment. On June 20, 1979 Drew Lewis was named Pennsylvania chairman for Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, and Dick Schweiker was named regional chairman for the 12 northeastern states. The Lewis and Schweiker relationship had been effectively severed at the 1976 convention, so this was a relatively awkward pairing, but the men worked through it. _"The rift that developed at the Kansas City convention between Lewis and Schweiker has taken months, even years, to heal- but apparently it has. Lewis is not anxious to endanger the relationship with the man he grew up with and whose early campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives he managed. Moreover, Lewis is said to believe that the country has become more conservative in the last three years and that Reagan is the most electable GOP candidate. An active statewide Republican fund-raiser and the 1974 GOP nominee for Governor, Lewis will send out letters this week to party stalwarts across the state soliciting their support for Reagan."_ 303 Schweiker had to deal with his feelings about Drew, and he too, was not anxious to endanger the working relationship they had to maintain to make the campaign for Reagan work. " _I've had Drew Lewis with me and against me", Schweiker said. "Believe me, I'd rather have him with me."_ 304

Paul Laxalt introduced both Drew and Dick to the press that day. _"Today it is my great pleasure to announce that two distinguished Pennsylvanians will serve in leadership positions of major importance in the Reagan for President Campaign._

One of these men is to become the Reagan for President Chairman in Pennsylvania. The other will serve as Regional Chairman of the Reagan for President Committee for the twelve northeastern states of the nation.

Recognizing as we do the great importance of Pennsylvania in the process of nominating and electing the President of the United States, we are pleased and honored to have the strong leadership and the great respect that these men bring to the efforts that we are making on behalf of Governor Reagan.

First, I am very proud to announce that the Chairman of the Reagan for President Committee in Pennsylvania is Mr. Drew Lewis......

_I am equally pleased and honored to announce that my friend and colleague in the United States Senate –a respected political ally who is again giving his wholehearted support to Governor Reagan, Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania – will serve as the Northeast Regional Chairman of the Reagan for President Committee."_ 305

In a question and answer session with the reporters after the statement, Laxalt pointed out that selecting Schweiker indicated that the Reagan campaign was going to " _make a strong push for support in the area once considered the seat of the party's moderate to liberal wing."_ 306 There was an attempt to get Governor Thornburgh to support Reagan, but he was officially neutral.

In approaching Lewis and also bringing Schweiker back on board with Reagan, the campaign was effectively splitting the opposition in the state. The majority of the elected Republicans in Pennsylvania were of a more moderate to liberal stance. Past election analysis had proven that only Republicans of this nature appeared capable of winning statewide elections, and they vigorously championed that viewpoint. Schweiker was the anomaly in this group as he was willing to look at the conservative agenda and see where there were areas that could be accommodated and still be a winning candidate. His move to the right, with Reagan, and then in the period after 1976 in the Senate, had angered the moderates and the left. Schweiker was taking a lot of flack from the columnists during the period for this apparent change of heart. The Warren Times -Observer editorialized in February 1979 about Schweiker: _Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker has announced that he will not seek a third term. Good. Until Ronald Reagan dangled the prospect of a vice-presidential nomination before him in 1976, Schweiker was an able senator, a Republican moderate who combined fiscal conservatism with real concern for individuals affected by social ills."_ 307 Apparently in the mind of the editorialist at the paper a fiscal conservative like Reagan, and now the apostate Schweiker, could not be concerned with "individuals affected by social ills". The paper continued to rail at Schweiker: _"1n 1977, Schweiker voted against the conservatives just 22 percent of the time in Congress. During the 1975-77 years the country underwent a discernable tilt toward conservative political philosophies. But unlike many national leaders who studied the issues, weighed the factors, and sincerely decided that the change was right for the country, Schweiker shifted in so patently transparent a fashion that he all but destroyed his chances at reelection. His tactic, recently emulated by another all-image, no substance politician, California Gov. Jerry Brown (on Proposition 13) tarnished what could have been an illustrious career._

_Schweiker is just 52 years old; the odds are that he will seek to continue in public life in some fashion. Pennsylvania's people have no reason to complain that they didn't get their money's worth from him as a U.S. Senator, if his entire career is put into perspective. Where he was good, Schweiker was very good: but when he was venal, Schweiker was oh, so venal."_ 308 We have seen that Schweiker did undergo an apparent change of heart in 1976 with the offer of the Vice Presidential nomination. It was also apparent that he had been increasingly uncomfortable with the big government solutions of the Great Society programs and had been increasingly offering private sector solutions, such as OIC in Philadelphia, as alternatives. To some extent the paper was right in that the nation was tending to tilt more toward the conservative ideals in the period after the 1976 elections; increasingly as a result of the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter's inept economic policies. The assumption that voting against the conservatives just 22% of the time represents a repudiation of helping the individual affected by social ills, a conjecture designed to prove that Schweiker was venal, is indicative of the limits of liberal understanding. Schweiker recalled in 1980 that he had become increasingly disenchanted with the Great Society programs of the 1960's by the time he had been offered the vice presidential nomination by Reagan in 1976. " _...he had already moved away from the liberal spectrum when approached by Sears in 1976 and failed to understand the 'political opportunist' label placed upon him at the time by the news media. Schweiker said he had 'growing concerns' about balancing the budget, inflation and 'some of the social programs I had voted for in the past'"_ 309

Reagan was attacking the liberal to moderate uniformity of Republican opinion in Pennsylvania by bringing both Drew and Dick aboard in 1979. Drew began immediately to garner support for Reagan, even before he was officially announced. While the journalists might report on the 20th of June that Drew was going to be sending out letters of support in the next few days, he had already written 1500 GOP leaders in Pennsylvania on the 18th. He noted in his letter that Ford had indicated he would not be a candidate; _"In view of President Ford's decision, I intend to support Governor Reagan because I believe his record and philosophy are in tune with what Americans want and need in a President._

Personally, I hope the next President of the United States would:

1) Return Fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government.

2) Reduce governmental control over the lives of Americans.

(America became strong not because of what government did for people, but because of what people were willing to do for themselves.)

3) Limit the excessive red tape which the bloated federal bureaucracy

is using to strangle the private sector of our society.

4) Provide a military defense which is an adequate deterrent to the Communist powers.

5 )Make the Republican Party the majority Party in America.

(I cannot understand how the opinion polls continue to show Americans agreeing with our principles and yet only 20% of them are willing to call themselves Republicans.)

_After reviewing this criteria, I came to the conclusion that Governor Reagan would be the most likely Republican candidate to accomplish these goals."_ 310

Later in the same letter in which he is detailing Governor Reagan's qualifications he makes an interesting point of particular interest to Pennsylvania Republicans; _"Governor Reagan was twice elected by an average of 800,000 votes in two statewide campaigns in spite of the fact that Democrats far outnumber Republicans. To do this it is obvious the Ronald Reagan has the ability to articulate a philosophy with which registered Democrats, particularly the blue collar workers, agree. This is a crucial component for any candidate who seeks our Party's nomination"_ 311 We see here in this quote the indication that attracting blue collar workers, a tradition-minded pro-American group that had registered and voted primarily Democrat since the time of Franklin Roosevelt, would be a key component of the Reagan campaign. With the transformation of the Democrat Party in the decades before, from Truman to McGovern, the blue collar workers found themselves increasing uncomfortable with the party. Nixon had attempted to woo them with his appeal to the "Silent Majority", but the personality of the man was just not conducive to that type of appeal. Ford had also tried, but, again they didn't respond in numbers sufficient to win the election. However, it was becoming increasingly clear that Jimmy Carter was helping the conservative Republicans recruit among the workers with his liberal economic policies, and resulting economic problems. Lewis, in making reference to this demographic group was playing to Pennsylvania Republicans, who recognized that they needed independents and Democrats to vote Republican in 1980 to win the state.

Richard Schweiker had proven in both 1968 and 1974 that a moderate to liberal Republican could attract Democrats from the blue collar workers. They would vote Republican if they felt a strong bond with the candidate or if he recognized their needs and offered empathy for their situation. In pointing out that Reagan had significant election victories in California, when that state had majority Democrat registration, Drew was saying that Reagan, as a conservative, could do it in Pennsylvania as well.

This position was not well-received by many of the elected state politicians, simply because they were the moderate to liberal Republicans who wanted someone of their own philosophy in the Presidency. There was an obvious disconnect between the northeast Republican Party and the rest of the nation. Reagan and his campaign staff understood this and began organizing from the ground up, not relying just on the "names" in the party, but the foot soldiers as well.

Drew was a critical spoke in the wheel of the campaign. During the last six months of 1979 and the first months of 1980 he was working for the campaign, not with a lot of advertisements and pronouncements, but with the hard work of day-to-day campaign building. " _For the past year, Lewis has been running a low-visibility, low-budget but highly effective insider's campaign in Pennsylvania – a campaign that has very little to do with buttons or bumper stickers or phone banks or polls or any of the other conventional trappings of a political campaign._

With characteristic single mindedness and intensity, he has set about instead to recruit the strongest conceivable slates of candidates for Reagan in each of the state's 25 congressional districts.

That process is vital because the Republican presidential primary operates under an arcane set of rules that does not allow for any indication on the ballot of the presidential preference of the delegate candidates. The name of the game, therefore, is to find delegates who are popular enough to be elected on their own or who have enough political support to be elected on the strength of a local political party organization.

So Lewis spent much of last year combing the slate for Reagan delegates among the community of elected officials and party activists – a community where Lewis has long been held in high esteem.

" _There's no question about it." Said Delaware County Commissioner Faith Whittlesey, who as been both an enemy and an ally of Lewis' over the years. "Drew is the leader of the political people in this state. It is a role, quite frankly, that the Governor has abdicated."_ 312

The Governor at the time was Richard Thornburgh. Thornburgh had held the position of U.S. Attorney for the Western district of Pennsylvania from 1969-1975 when he was appointed Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's criminal division. Thornburgh developed a reputation as an anti-racketeering prosecutor and was able to win the primary race in 1978 against Philadelphia attorney Arlen Specter. He won a hard fought campaign in the fall against Democrat Peter Flaherty (Schweiker's opponent in 1974), in which he was able to overcome a Democratic registration edge of 900,000 to win by 228,000. Thornburgh had developed a strong record of fiscal responsibility by the end of his eight years as governor, but in March of 1979 he had to deal with the Three Mile Island nuclear incident. His handling of the incident added luster to his reputation within Pennsylvania and across the nation.

In looking at the situation that Thornburgh had inherited from the Shapp administration, the plight of the state's economy was his primary mission. The economic changes that had been developing since the late 60's had intensified and needed to be addressed. The steel industry around Pittsburgh and across the state was reeling from foreign steel imports and the resulting shutdown of mills was causing significant loss of high paying union jobs in the state. The Pittsburgh metro area steel workforce dropped from 41,500 in 1979 to 19,000 in 1983, just one example of the change across the state from a heavy industrial and manufacturing base. Thornburgh was successful in his handling of the economic issues and could claim to have created over 500,000 jobs when his second term ended in 1986. The Reagan revolution came to his aid in the mid 1980's as the country as a whole got back on its feet.

With the economic difficulties Thornburgh faced, it is little wonder that he did not have time to work the political circuit and secure the loyalty of the county chairmen and local municipal leaders. Thornburgh, as Governor would have the respect and loyalty of the rank and file, as long as the local county chairman didn't have issues with him. Thornburgh would also have to deal with Drew Lewis, as the Republican Committeeman for Pennsylvania, one of the three highest Republican Party officials in the state; the others being the state party chairman and the Committeewoman for Pennsylvania; Elsie Hillman of the Pittsburgh area. It was in this convoluted and difficult arena that Drew Lewis was working for Reagan.

" _After accepting the Reagan assignment, he and Robb (Rick Robb .ed)—who managed Lewis' 1974_ _gubernatorial campaign and now works for him at Lewis & Associates, a management-consulting firm based in Plymouth Meeting—drew up a five-page plan. The intent was to recruit sure-fire winners for all of the 77 delegate seats being contested Tuesday. (Six other delegates, including Lewis himself, have been chosen by the Republican State Committee to fill out the 83 member state delegation)._

Drew had his critics and the other candidates had their campaign staff and leaders n the state; Elsie Hillman was supporting Bush, Representative Bud Shuster was supporting John Connelly. Thornburgh was officially neutral but was not a conservative, beyond his fiscal responsibilities as Governor. _"Thornburgh's 'wait and see' stand is considered wise by most Republican politicians. Many said in interviews last week that they would probably wait until next year before committing themselves to a candidate._

They cite two reasons. One is that they want to wait until the crowd of GOP contenders thins out, as it is expected to do after the primaries in February and March. There is no point, they say, in throwing support to someone who drops out before the Pennsylvania primary.

The other reason is that they want to see who the Democratic nominee is – Carter or Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D, Mass.) Some GOP officials said they would be inclined to support Reagan if Carter is the nominee, but might support Connelly if Kennedy is nominated.

" _I'm inclined toward Reagan now" one GOP County Chairman said last week, "but if it looks like Kennedy, I may change my mind."_ 314

The pressure on the county chairmen and the elected officials, who would probably be delegates to the convention, was intense and again Drew's close relationship to these people was an asset. " _Lewis tells the story of one county chairman (he wouldn't say which one) who had committed to Reagan early but appeared to be wavering._

" _He was sort of playing games with us, and so when Reagan was in his county for a dinner." Lewis recalled, "I told him, 'Governor, after the meal is over you look this guy straight in the eye and say, "Look, I'm going to be the next president of the United States and I want your support. Can I count on it?" He'll be so flabbergasted he'll give the pledge right there"._

" _Well, when the dinner was over, Reagan came up to me and sort of winked." Lewis continued. "He said, "I got the order"._ 315

The long history of Pennsylvania elections was also weighting on the Reagan campaign, the belief that only a moderate could win enough of the electorate to swing the election from the Democratic registration edge. " _One concern among some Republicans, especially those in eastern Pennsylvania, is that Reagan might be too conservative to succeed in the state. Even if he went on to win the Presidency, they say, he could lose Pennsylvania. That could influence state elections next year. The seats of the entire state House and half of those in the state Senate are up for grabs next year, as are row offices such as auditor general, treasurer, and attorney general._

_Because of this concern, Thornburgh has not ruled out the possibility of running in the primary as a favorite son, or of supporting another favorite son candidate, such as Senator H. John Heinz (R.,PA)._ 316 Thornburgh had been approached by Lewis in the early spring of 1979 when the two met at the Union League in Philadelphia. Drew had told Thornburgh that he was thinking of getting involved in the presidential race the next year and Thornburgh is reputed to have told him that was fine, as long as he didn't support Reagan.

Drew Lewis has always been viewed as a conservative in Pennsylvania, which in many ways shows just how removed the Mid-Atlantic and northeast states were from the rest of the country in terms of political philosophy. Drew was a moderate Republican who looked for a strong defense and a business-friendly federal government. His philosophy was not radically different from most Pennsylvanians, but his willingness to support Reagan was something that many of the eastern politicians just could not understand. In November of 1979 the state committee met and appointed six at-large delegates to the national convention in 1980. While these candidates were technically supposed to be neutral, in actuality they included two proponents of Reagan- Senator Schweiker and Drew Lewis, one for Bush- Elsie Hillman, and three others: Governor Thornburgh, Senator Heinz, and Lt. Governor William W. Scranton III who all claimed to be neutral. The six at large delegates were spared from being on the ballot in May. While Reagan had won over two of the at large delegates, the Governor, and Senator Heinz, were to the left of center in terms of political leanings and would not be expected to support Reagan unless it was a forgone conclusion that he was going to be the nominee. This split in the at-large delegates prefigured the issues that broke out into the open at the February 1980 state committee meeting where the successor for Senator Schweiker was to be endorsed.

When it became apparent that Reagan still had momentum, even after losing the Iowa Caucuses in January, the politicos began looking closely at the local and statewide candidates in order to protect themselves from a costly rejection by the electorate, such as they had suffered in 1964 with Goldwater. This concern contributed to a contentious state committee meeting in February of 1980, as they worked on endorsements for U. S. senator, state senators, and representatives in the general assembly.

The Pennsylvania Republican party was badly split in February of 1980. Governor Thornburgh and Senator Heinz were supporting the senatorial candidacy of state Republican Chairman Harold Haabestad of Delaware County. Several Pennsylvania Congressman objected to Haabestad and were pushing for Lewis himself to run. Arlen Specter, former District Attorney from Philadelphia who had lost two previous statewide elections, was also intending to run for the position. Specter had run in the primary for Governor against Thornburgh in 1978 and for senator against Heinz in 1976, he was not their candidate to say the least. Part of the problem was that the Republicans in Pennsylvania needed candidates with strong name recognition to help carry the entire ticket in the November election.

" _Andrew L. (Drew) Lewis Jr. who ran unsuccessfully for Pennsylvania Governor in 1974, said yesterday he would be "delighted" to run as a Republican candidate for the Senate this year._

Lewis's announcement comes at a time when an effort by Governor Thornburgh and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) to come up with a consensus candidate to avoid a primary fight has bogged down in intraparty bickering.

Thornburgh and Heinz have been promoting Harold F. (Bud) Haabestad Jr., chairman of the Republican State Committee and a Delaware County Councilman, for the seat being vacated at the end of the year by Sen. Richard S. Schweiker (R-PA).

_But a number of Republican congressmen and county chairmen oppose Haabastad, 46, former Radnor Township Commissioner and present state Republican chairman."_ 318

The political maneuvering continued throughout the weekend of the committee meeting. Heinz and Thornburgh tried to get the committee members to support Haabestad, without success. Lewis, despite the support of the 10 members of the state congressional delegation was unable to break down the resistance from Thornburgh, Heinz, and their partisans. When it became apparent that there would not be an endorsement for Senator and thus an open primary, Drew withdrew, and Arlen Specter jumped in. In an early-morning meeting that weekend, Lewis and Specter had worked out a strategy in which Specter would support Drew if he could get the endorsement. If not it would mean an open primary and then Lewis would support Specter. _"The lack of a consensus lured Lewis into the fray. But he later said he did not want to go up against the muscle of Thornburgh and Heinz in what would be an expensive primary._

" _I am definitely not running for U.S. Senate", said Lewis. "I am not opposed to an open primary, I'm just opposed to my being in it."_

Lewis also called Haabestad "a nice man, but a poor candidate" in backing Specter.

" _I'm not supporting Arlen because we made a deal, I think he's the best candidate we have." he said"_ 319 This was an interesting statement and shows how costly losing the Governor's race in 1974 had been to Lewis. He had been financially crushed, utilizing most of his own savings helping to fund his campaign in that Watergate year of 1974. Now just 5 and a half years later he had the opportunity to run for the seat in the Senate that Schweiker was vacating and he didn't want to risk his financial viability again against a primary opponent. That left the next most well-known candidate the party had, Arlen Specter with an opening that he seized.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party was not the only organization that was having difficulty in February of 1980. The Reagan campaign was experiencing a crisis in campaign leadership itself. Reagan had continued with his campaign manager from 1976: John Sears. Sears was not happy with several long-time Reagan confidants and loyalists, who were not his people. He had pushed Michael Deaver out in late 1979 and was apparently working to get rid of Ed Meese. Reagan was increasingly disturbed by the infighting in the campaign and was having second thoughts about Sears when the issues came to a head during the New Hampshire primary campaign. " _...on the Sunday before the primary- the day after Reagan's triumph at the Nashua debate- Reagan said to Casey and Meese "This is an intolerable situation. It can't go on any longer. I've decided to make a change." Reagan decided to dismiss Sears on Tuesday, the day of the New Hampshire primary, so as to be too late to make news before the vote. Sears, Black and Lake were caught unaware when Reagan summoned them on short notice to a meeting in his suite at the Holiday Inn in Manchester at 2 P.M. on primary day. Reagan handed Sears a press release: "Ronald Reagan today announced that William J. Casey has been named executive vice chairman and campaign director of his presidential campaign, replacing John Sears, who has resigned to return to his law practice."_ 320

Charlie Black and James Lake also resigned at the time. Casey took over at a time of triumph for Reagan as he had a tremendous win in New Hampshire with 50 percent of the vote to Bush's 23 percent. He also took over at a time of financial difficulties, as Reagan was burning through money at a rapid clip and would soon run into the limits imposed by the federal campaign finance laws. This compared unfavorably with Bush, who had substantial reserves; reserves he was going to put to good use in Pennsylvania that coming April. _"Casey's first act upon taking over for Sears was to fire nearly half the campaign's 310 paid staff members. The traveling party of 17 was cut down, required to double –up in hotel rooms, and fly coach. The budget for TV ads was slashed. Meanwhile, even as dozens of staff were cut from the campaign, Mike Deaver, Lyn Nofziger, and Martin Anderson were back"_ 321 Casey hadn't appeared out of thin air. He had come in through the back door as it were, introduced by the kitchen cabinet. " _I attended their meetings (Kitchen cabinet) on behalf of the Governor, and George Champion who was one of them, as the group had now broadened to be more national, and George (of Champion Paper Company) and some others were brought in from the East. George brought Bill Casey to one of the meetings... I was very impressed with Bill; he had been part of the Nixon campaign. So I invited him to dinner that night and introduced him to the Governor and that's how he got involved in the campaign. So when the Sears thing blew up, Bill was the logical choice."_ 322 It was the introduction of Casey to Reagan that actually created the Sears blow up, which had been building for quite some time. _"Bill Casey's arrival at the campaign hotel and his meeting with Reagan precipitated the blow-up by Sears. Apparently Sears viewed the introduction of Casey as an attempt on my part to seize control behind the scenes._

Just for the record, nothing could have been further from the truth. For one thing, Bill Casey was a powerful personality, just as strong and distinctive as Sears himself, and someone of much greater independent stature in the world of politics, government, and finance. Had I wanted to exert Svengali-like political control of Reagan- something of which neither I nor anyone else was capable – Bill Casey would have been an unlikely cat's-paw.

_In reality, the campaign was in deep and serious trouble, and something had to be done about it."_ 323 Reagan put back in his old team, and by April 23, the day after the Pennsylvania primary, Casey had decided he needed someone to help with management and organizational issues in the day-to-day campaign.

Through the hard work and grass roots effort of the Reagan campaign in Pennsylvania, Drew Lewis was able to tell Reagan that he had secured 53 delegates for him, out of the 83 total, a huge win for the campaign. Despite the fact Pennsylvania went for Bush in the primary, the beauty contest portion of the vote; the real winner was Reagan. Having Lewis as his Pennsylvania chairman was a key reason for Reagan's triumph with the delegates in Pennsylvania. Bush had run very well in the beauty contest voter's primary, winning 54 percent of the vote to Reagan's 46 percent. Unfortunately for Bush his primary campaign leader in Pennsylvania was Elsie Hillman, with Congressman Bill Goodling assisting, and while Hillman could bring tremendous fundraising capability, just by herself, to the campaign, the hard work of finding committed delegates was neglected. After the election she tried to convince the delegates that since Bush won the popular vote they should change their support to Bush. It didn't get any traction.

Both Rick Robb and Drew Lewis flew to California before the primary to report in. The campaign was concerned with the polls at the time and needed to be reassured about the delegate count. Reagan's campaign was short of money and they wanted Bush to spend as much as possible in Pennsylvania, as long as Reagan had the delegates. One reason for encouraging Bush to spend time and resources in Pennsylvania was that the Texas primary on May 3rd was a week and a half after the Pennsylvania primary. By making Bush spend in Pennsylvania to show some momentum to the country with a win, he was unable to focus sufficiently on Texas. Reagan was able to win in Texas, where the delegates were pledged to honor the vote, a double-win for Reagan in terms of delegates for the two elections. The Bush campaign spent close to a million dollars in the Pennsylvania primary, so that it looked as if he was the winner, while the system was cranked around against him. Reagan really appreciated the efficiency and pragmatism that Lewis had been able to achieve in Pennsylvania. He was outspent five to one in advertising dollars, lost a beauty contest, and won at the bottom line.

Within two weeks of the Pennsylvania primary Drew was brought into the inner circle and was working for the campaign at the national level. On the day after the primary Drew had a breakfast meeting with Bill Casey, chairman of the Reagan campaign, to discuss the needs of the campaign and where Drew might best fit in.

Drew responded to Bill with a letter on the 24th.

Dear Bill:

_I thought it might be well to put in writing a few of the thoughts expressed at yesterday's breakfast meeting. The bottom line of our discussion is that I will be pleased to join the Reagan for President Committee as a full-time volunteer effective May 1_ st _....Also, although I am pleased to work as a volunteer, the campaign will have to reimburse my expenses inasmuch as Marilyn and I have both reached the federal limit on contributions._

I see eye to eye with you on the problems of the campaign at present and feel very strongly that with the proper organization and strategy, combined with the obvious ability, charisma and intuitive sense of the candidate, we can win in November. My only concerns in accepting this responsibility are that you make it very clear to the present staff the role you want me to play and that the Governor and Mrs. Reagan have sufficient confidence in my ability that I will not be a discomforting influence on the campaign. Although I feel I have a sensitivity to people and their needs within an organization, I feel this campaign desperately needs direction to carry out the policies that you and the Governor feel are important. Therefore, it is my suggestion, assuming the Governor is in agreement, that you meet with the staff and make my involvement clear. I do not want to accept this assignment if it requires playing politics internally.

As far as the specific assignment is concerned, I will leave that to you. Although I recognize we need someone to coordinate our campaign with the National Committee and assure that the monies are properly spent from that end, I do not see this as a job requiring a great deal of time and feel we can find someone else capable of assuming this responsibility. This leaves two remaining areas we discussed – one, the need for direction of the road-show by someone who is politically sensitive and at the same time cognizant of the candidate's needs and two, the need for a "chief –operating-officer" reporting to you in terms of the overall campaign organization. I would be satisfied to assume either one of these roles based on where you feel the need is greatest....

_Although disappointed with the Pennsylvania results, you made the right decision in not spending additional funds. There was no way we could have matched George Bush; thus the money would have been spent in vain. We have fared well in the delegated and in the final analysis that is what this is all about."_ 324

This is a most interesting letter, telling a story just by what Drew emphasizes. It is apparent that he is concerned with the reaction by the staff to his appointment, and wants both Governor and Mrs. Reagan to be on board with the appointment. Indeed he cc'd Reagan on the letter. He does not "want to accept the assignment if it requires playing politics internally". Drew had personally known Charlie Black from his time at the 1976 nominating convention and had a lot of empathy for Charlie and campaign manager John Sears, both of whom had just been forced to resign from the campaign in February as a result of internal politics. Drew didn't want to start any more problems with the westerners in the campaign. Charlie Black had been the one from the Reagan campaign that had first contacted Drew about joining the campaign, and he facilitated the meeting with Senator Laxalt in Washington where the offer had been made.

Drew was making sure that the candidate and his wife agreed with his appointment and wanted the staff to recognize that fact. The westerners in the campaign had significant pull on the Governor. Bringing in another Easterner in a position of authority, after just having let John Sears go, was going to raise eyebrows with the day-to-day leaders. In addition, in the background was the "kitchen cabinet" working to facilitate the campaign anyway they could.

The kitchen cabinet had a significant role behind the scenes; facilitating the movements of the Governor and planning for his eventual administration. One of the members of the cabinet was Justin Dart of Dart Industries, who had four company jets available for his use, as he crossed the country and the world to inspect and manage his conglomerate. Many times those jets flew the Governor around the country to campaign events and meetings. Other members of the shadow cabinet had their own planes as well, although Holmes Tuttle used to fly with Dart occasionally. Reagan had been a white-knuckle flyer originally, but when he got used to a pilot he loosened up and enjoyed talking with him. A familiar face for him was one of Justin Dart's pilots; Phil Schultz. Phil had been flying for Dart Industries for years and flew Reagan many times before he became Governor, during his tenure in California, and up until he became the President elect; when the secret service began handling travel arrangements. Phil began to see different people being flown around the country with the Governor and Dart; people that he was starting to recognize from their names. _"There was this constant flow of traffic around the country of people. Later on I realized I had flown about all the eventual members of the cabinet."_ 325 The networking capability of this group that was called the kitchen cabinet was tremendous and while the academic intelligentsia on the east coast would deride them as just businessmen, they were extremely intelligent businessmen working in the real world. They allocated resources for their companies and experienced the feedback of the marketplace on their ideas and decisions; an arena that is without mercy in most cases.

The kitchen cabinet has been on object of distain by academics, and journalists obediently followed their lead in holding them in contempt. But is this just? " _The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence, which involves combining intellect with judgment and care in selecting relevant explanatory factors and in establishing empirical tests of any theory that emerges. Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all- the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding. Wisdom is the fulfillment of the ancient admonition, "With all your getting, get understanding." Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one's own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous."_ 326

The realities of the world have an unhappy tendency to intrude on theories that are tested in the arena of business, and those individuals that fail to understand this never climb to the pinnacle of the corporate ladder. Reagan's kitchen cabinet had individuals who had been tempered in that arena, individuals who risked their own funds and the funds of others, on their abilities and understanding of the realities of the world. Unlike the academic intellectuals who were quoted as experts in the fields of economics and just about anything else by the journalists covering the election, the kitchen cabinet had a stake in making sure things worked the first time. Intellectuals' work only involves ideas. If they don't work, they simply go back to the drawing board. In business you go bankrupt.

Reagan was to benefit from the kitchen cabinet's insights into the marketplace and Reagan's support for "voodoo economics", as campaign challenger George Bush called it, was one area that was to prove its worth in the 1980's. In the late 1970s Phil Schultz flew Justin Dart and Arthur Laffer throughout South America analyzing the various countries, their economies, and governmental policies, to determine where business investment for Dart Industries, might be placed most profitably. Laffer became famous for his "Laffer curve" which pointed to the fact that low tax rates boost economic growth. Dart, his executive assistant Bill Heyler, and Laffer, visited the countries examining the business climate and discussing their experiences in the plane as they flew to the next destination.

The kitchen cabinet was a tremendous brain trust of what worked in the real world, not in the reveries of an academic environment that had no feedback loop to test the accuracies of the various theories. All this work and analysis was being done in the background as Reagan was running for the Presidency. Ideas and people that had been proven effective in the working world, work that benefited the economy and thus the common man, not just the academic reputation of an intellectual, were being suggested for the various task forces set up by the campaign, enabling Reagan to hit the ground running with an effective team when inaugurated. This was not a new endeavor for the informal cabinet. Shortly after Reagan had won the California governorship in 1966 they had helped him assemble a list of potential appointees. " _Some of the business leaders who had initially persuaded me to run for Governor – Holmes Tuttle, Henry Salvatori, Justin Dart, Leonard Firestone, Cy Rubel, and a handful of others who became known collectively as my "Kitchen Cabinet" – scoured the business world to identify top managers and administrators and then helped me to persuade them to come to Sacramento and work for the state at a reduced salary. We brought scores of good people into the top jobs that way."_ 327 The cabinet had learned their lesson, scrambling in 1966 to fill positions in a few short weeks. After the debacle of the '76 election, the kitchen cabinet began an informal process of looking at potential members for the various task forces that would make recommendations to the President-elect. Concentrating on business leaders and conservative academics, while rejecting the intelligentsia who had promoted the great society of the 1960s and the growth of government, they focused on finding the most effective people in their fields. This did not endear them, or Reagan, to the academic establishment which needed the exposure that comes from being part of an administration to develop a public following.

Phil Schultz, the pilot who flew for Justin Dart, would eventually be a winner of the "Doolittle Award" from the Society of Experimental Test Pilots for his work with General Electric testing their new jet engines. Phil was born and raised in Worcester Township, living 150 yards from where Drew Lewis picked apples at the Sibel Orchards, and was a distant relative of Richard Schweiker.

As one of about six key advisors, Drew was flying every week to California over the late spring to work at Reagan's Los Angeles campaign headquarters, and planning the opening of the east coast office of the campaign once the national convention was over. Since Drew was spending so much time on the west coast, his associate Rick Robb, as co-chairman of the Pennsylvania campaign began to deal with the everyday issues that the Pennsylvania campaign faced.

The April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania appeared to be just about the last hurrah of the Bush campaign and Reagan was firmly placed as a front runner who appeared to have the votes at the convention. The Pennsylvania Republican State Committee had scheduled a May 17th meeting in Harrisburg to prepare for the national convention and try to get everyone together to evaluate the various candidates that had been selected by the voters in the primary. It was a time in which the Reagan campaign was trying to sooth wounded egos from the primary and to present a united front at the convention. " _Our Goal is to promote harmony," said Rick Robb, Reagan's co-chairman in Pennsylvania. "We want to include all factions – Bush people, Connelly people. We're not going to take the attitude that just because we have enough delegates, we'll simply take over the convention."_ 328 There were two major areas of discussion that would come up in front of the state committee that May. One was the naming of a new Republican State Chairman, to succeed Harold Haabestad who had resigned to unsuccessfully run for Senate, and the other was to consider who was going to be the party nominee for Vice President. While this is traditionally the perogative of the Presidential nominee, the force of opinion on him would be considerable to choose a candidate that was philosophically acceptable to the more moderate states. The state committee remembered the issue with Nixon-Agnew in 1968, only 12 years before, in which they could not get the state's voters to vote for the ticket. The history of the electorate was still weighing heavily on the committee, especially with a committed conservative as the party's Presidential nominee.

In looking at the possible vice-presidential nominees, the strongest candidate appeared to be Bush: _"Robb said Bush is rated right up there with Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker of Tennessee as vice presidential material. Nor added Robb, can Gov. Dick Thornburgh and U.S. Sens. John Heinz and Richard Schweiker be ruled out in this context, an unusual combination that places Pennsylvania "somewhere in seventh heaven" if those three continue as viable prospects for the No.2 slot"_ 329 It was those last three names that continued to bedevil the state delegates as they arrived for the national convention in Detroit on July 14th-17th. Governor Thornburgh was the chairman of the delegation. The Governor and both Heinz and Schweiker were still being mentioned as having outside chances as possible vice presidential picks.

Having worked through the late spring for the campaign, Drew was a real asset in the estimation of Reagan and his inner circle. In addition, the campaign realized they had a leadership problem that was starting to cause issues. " _During the lull between the last primaries and the Republican national convention in Detroit six weeks later, Republican Party leaders developed a case of the jitters. MANY IN GOP CHARGE REAGAN CAMPAIGN IS FALLING INTO DISARRAY, LOSING SUPPORT, read a Wall Street Journal headline in mid-June."_ 330 On May 6th Drew again discussed with Bill Casey the running of the campaign and agreed to meet on May the 16th in California.

Dear Bill:

Confirming our conversation of today, I will stay in the East through the National Committee Meeting inasmuch as I am the committeeman from Pennsylvania and a member of the rules committee and perhaps could be of value....

Although somewhat confused as to what you specifically want me to do, I will come to California and see if there is a role where I can be effective. I also want to make it very clear that I do not want you to feel that you must find something for me to do. I am happy as the Pennsylvania chairman. My business is going well. Obviously, I will give these up for some real involvement.

I feel you are correct in wanting people with broad national campaign experience; however, having spent most of my life working in troubled business situations and political campaigns, I feel the greatest need in most organizations is sound administration and coordination.

_Look forward to seeing you in California."_ 331

This letter is interesting for the last paragraph, where Drew is telling Bill Casey the crucial issue in the campaign needing to be solved. How do you politely tell the manager that the campaign has a management issue? Drew appears to have succeeded in that attempt; probably because Casey had come to the same conclusion, but was struggling for answers on solving it as the size of the campaign grew.

By the beginning of June, Drew was being mentioned for a variety of high profile posts, one of which was Chairman of the National Republican Committee. _"Drew Lewis of Pennsylvania, rising rapidly_ _in Ronald Reagan's political machine, may be in line to become Republican national chairman, replacing Bill Brock of Tennessee."_ 332 While the Chairman of the party is usually a position that is filled with a supporter of the presidential nominee, and Brock was definitely not a favorite of the conservatives surrounding Reagan, the times were unusual in 1980. _"Lewis' strongest value to Reagan – either as a top campaign advisor or in the Republican chairman's seat – will be as a nuts-and-bolts politician, who is not shy about giving Reagan forceful advice. "Ever since Sears was fired, there's been nobody around Reagan to set the overall strategy the way Hamilton Jordan does for Carter" said a Republican insider. "Reagan needs a guy both he and Nancy trust, and who'll tell them the truth even when it hurts."_ 333 Interesting quote by the "Republican insider", misplaced as it is. Reagan had people around him that told him the truth even when it hurt; people like Deaver, Anderson, and Meese were not pushover sycophants trying to ingratiate themselves with the candidate. The problem, to the "Republican insider", was they were not from the eastern political RNC establishment, so their truth was suspect. Casey had been working to get the campaign back on a strong footing, the management issues were being addressed, and talking with Drew and then bringing him into the campaign at the national level was one of the ways to deal with the problem.

Reagan was in the process of pushing the party more towards the conservative end of the spectrum from the recent position under Ford. However, he still needed the liberal/moderate wing of the Republican Party to support him in the fall election. The liberal/ moderate wing of the party was plotting to maintain control of the party in the event that Reagan lost the fall campaign. By having Brock in as Chairman of the party they felt they would be able maintain that control. Brock was actively campaigning to retain the position, and had actually been doing a relatively good job.

In light of the philosophical differences that were evident in the party, and that they would have to win an election against a sitting president, it became apparent that removing Brock would be a pyrrhic victory. Reagan was playing a strong hand here. He was not looking to just take over the Republican Party apparatus, he was playing for all the marbles. He needed the party before the election; after the election they would need him, if he won. The campaign adopted an innovative strategy. On Friday June 13th Reagan announced the appointment of Drew Lewis as Deputy Chairman and chief operating officer of the Republican National Committee. Then on June 30th Reagan appointed him to the third highest position in the campaign. _"Drew Lewis wasn't sure of his new title yesterday, but he knows that he will hold one of the top jobs in Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign. "I'll be stopping at the campaign headquarters every morning for a strategy conference and stopping in again at night." Said Lewis as he stumbled over the title of his new job -deputy campaign director for presidential support services – which was announced yesterday.... Lewis holds the third highest position in the campaign hierarchy, after campaign chairman William Casey, and William Timmons, named yesterday as the deputy director in charge of campaign operations."_ 334

Positioning Drew in both the campaign and the national Republican Party apparatus at the same time enabled him to begin bringing his management training in helping ailing companies to bear on both interest groups. Leaving Brock as the titular head of the Party, while putting Drew Lewis in as the axe man, enabled Reagan to maintain the high ground. He kept the moderate national party leaders reasonably content while moving the opposition candidate's people out of the national party apparatus and getting his own into position. Drew was able to move into the new position, but making significant changes takes a few weeks, if it is to be done efficiently. Charges in the Wall Street Journal, that the campaign was drifting appeared to be internecine warfare from losing candidate partisans attempting to hold onto their own positions. Drew promised he would not purge the national party, but told reporters that he was in a better position to make personnel changes than Brock.

The Republican National Convention was held in Detroit beginning on July 14th. It ended with Lewis in a position of tremendous influence on the campaign, but again the petty politics of individual egos had to play itself out, much as it had at the February meeting of the state committee. _"Ronald Reagan has a special friend in Pennsylvania. He is Drew Lewis, once an ardent backer of the late Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York and now a member of the Reagan_ _inner circle who played a major role in influencing Reagan to select George Bush as his running mate._

As a result, the Detroit convention appears to have boosted Lewis' stock in both camps -Reagan's and Bush's – and assured him special status as a go-between in the presidential campaign. But the convention week didn't start nearly so well for the low-keyed Lewis.

On Monday, with the vice presidential nomination the only unsettled question, Lewis urged the Keystone State's delegation to endorse Bush formally at it's caucus the next day.

_To his dismay, Lewis, who this year is heading up Reagan's campaign in Pennsylvania, ran into outright opposition from the leadership of the 83 member delegation, principally Gov. Dick Thornburgh and U.S. Sens. Richard S. Schweiker and H. John Heinz 3_ rd _. Schweiker threatened to vote "present" if the issue came to a test and Thornburgh and Heinz, according to delegation sources, hinted they might oppose the endorsement openly._

" _Lewis couldn't believe it," one source said. "Here he was, a Reagan guy, pushing Bush and these guys, who are supposed to be afraid of a right-wing takeover, were balking. These guys (Thornburgh, Schweiker and Heinz) actually thought one of them might be selected if Bush didn't get it."_ 335 Some of the leadership felt they would put themselves in a corner if someone other than Bush was selected, and make them look unreliable to the eventual candidate. Eventually they agreed to have Lewis tell Reagan that a preponderance of the delegation supported Bush, but would accept whoever he chose. This amazing turn of events eventually played itself out, but not without a few twists and turns, caused by the discussion with former President Ford on whether he would accept the vice president position, something that was extremely doubtful. _"For a time in the tumult of Wednesday night, it appeared that Thornburgh, Heinz and Schweiker had guessed correctly. Rumor swept the convention hall that former President Gerald R. Ford would be the vice presidential choice and Thornburgh, Schweiker and Heinz had played a winning hand....._

_In the end, it was Lewis who held the high cards. Ford refused, and as midnight approached, Reagan, in his 69_ th _floor suite at the Detroit Plaza, turned to his staff and asked, "Anyone know how to get in touch with Bush"?_

Lewis just happened to have his phone number.

After a quick count showed that Bush was the Reagan staff's choice, Reagan turned to Lewis and said, "Call him."

Bush was well aware of the role Lewis had played – and displayed his gratitude with a hug as he stood triumphantly on the convention podium. And Lewis spent much of the next day closeted with Bush going over campaign plans....

Although he guessed wrong on the vice presidency, Schweiker also emerges from the convention as a potential winner – with the likely offer of a top spot in a Reagan administration if he wants it.

" _Reagan is extremely high on Dick Schweiker," said a Reagan spokesman. "There's sure to be a top spot for him if that's what he wants."_ 336

Richard wasn't sure at the time if he was interested in a position in the executive branch, but kept his options open: " _I served as head of Governor Reagan's task force on health and welfare," he said, "and I suppose something in the Health or labor fields would be appropriate. But I'm not certain what I'll be doing in January."Could he turn down an offer from Reagan, who wanted him for a vice presidential running mate four years ago, if Reagan is elected now?"That would be tough," Schweiker said._ 337

The choice of Bush as the Vice Presidential nominee was providential for the Pennsylvania Republican Party, who still felt they needed a moderate on the ticket. If Reagan had picked any of the three Pennsylvanians who wanted the job the other two would have been displeased, and while Schweiker had been Reagan's choice in 1976, the fallout from that ploy had effectively ended a chance at the VP post in 1980. Lewis' willingness to move Bush forward with the delegation coincided with the desires of most swing voters. _"As in 1976, Reagan's deliberations about his running mate showed that he wanted to win more than he wanted to make points for ideological purity. The conventional wisdom of political scientists and historians is that running mates matter little except in helping to deliver their home state. With Reagan's candidacy this started to change. Reagan eschewed a "cattle call" in which prospective running mates would trudge through a media gauntlet to meet with Reagan. Instead, Richard Wirthlin quietly conducted an extensive poll to see which prospective running mates would help the ticket with swing voters. Three names emerged: Baker, Bush, and Gerald Ford. Reagan had reservations about all three. (Bush actually received the most support in an open ended question that asked who Reagan should pick as his running mate. Bush got 20 percent to Ford's 13 percent.)_ 338 Lewis was not alone in the campaign leadership in supporting Bush, both Stu Spencer and Ed Meese encouraged Reagan to consider him. Wednesday afternoon Ed Meese had met privately with the Governor to discuss the negotiations that were going on between the Reagan and the Ford camp _. "I said Governor: I don't think this is going to work. If it doesn't, I think your best bet is to go with George Bush. And he said, I've been thinking about this and I'm thinking along those same lines"_ 339 While Reagan had reservations, in the end Bush was the nominee and he recognized the part that Drew Lewis played.

Following the nominating convention, the real work of the campaign began and Drew Lewis was in the thick of it. Drew played an increasingly important role in the management and organization of the campaign, maneuvering between the actual campaign staff and the informal network of advisors that had significant influence on the candidate. In this situation Drew excelled. His background as a business specialist in returning troubled companies to economic health was appreciated and valued by the kitchen cabinet, but more than this he was a business owner himself. He worked in the same environment as the kitchen cabinet, and was not looked on as simply the hired help. He was invited to dinner with several members of the informal network of entrepreneurs that supported Reagan, something that very few politicians had ever been privileged to experience. He was accepted as one of their own, while also being able to mingle with the political staff in the campaign without seeming superior or aloof. This ability to function in both spheres of influence was critical, not only to Drew, but also to the campaign.

In many ways Drew was part of the glue, together with Meese, that pulled the spheres of influence, (cabinet and campaign, east and west) together, making the campaign that much stronger, making it a coherent whole; significantly more effective than it would have been as separate groups competing for the candidates' attention. As Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Committee he pulled the national party into the mix. One of the most difficult problems in any campaign, and especially a national campaign, is getting everyone pulling in the same direction. Lack of ego is never a problem in politics, and everyone is convinced that they know the answer to any question that arises. Getting everyone to support the overall strategy is difficult, and Drew was a master in achieving this situation.

Drew's skill in bringing ailing company's back to health, by firing non-performing individuals, bringing financial assets to bear where needed, marketing the products successfully, and knowing when to cut his losses was exceptional. He was one of the few individuals who could transfer that skill into the political arena. In many ways he was a master of human logistics for output performance. While his skill in being able to read a balance sheet was an important factor in his business success it was his social skills, working in both cultures, that were critical to success. The personal/social interaction between individuals at the management level has too often been ignored when studying the success or failure of companies or campaigns. Drew was an extremely likable individual and he was not afraid to trade on that aspect of his character. _"I think people in politics respond more to relationships with other people than they do philosophically. Now if you have a position on abortion or gun control or something like that, they can be emotional issues but, by and large, I'm convinced throughout life that people respond to people"_ 340

In dealing with many, but not all, of the failing companies that he managed to turn around, Drew recognized that most of the trouble was usually in the top management. He could pull into the company parking lot, see their Mercedes and Cadillacs, feel their presumption of power, their bragging, their resulting inability to work with and get along with people and recognize why the company was failing.

Drew was able to get beyond the educational/academic skills and look deeply into the character of an individual, valuing the intangible characteristics of a friend, colleague or acquaintance in determining where they would best fit into the matrix of the organization. Lacking a diploma from Harvard didn't automatically place an individual in a lesser status that limited interaction on either a social or business level. " _He met people easily and he would talk to anyone."_ 341

One of Drew's best friends left school in 10th grade to work in the family business. John Clemens was a close friend who went on fishing expeditions with Drew, a business colleague, church member, and confidant for most of Drew's adult life. Growing up in the Pennsylvania Dutch culture of the area, it was not unusual for many of the Mennonite's to pull their children out of school during the depression and early 1940s, to help on the farm or family business. John Clemens came from a mixed Mennonite and Schwenkfelder background and his father pulled him out of school before his eleventh grade year to drive a truck for the family business at the beginning of the Second World War. The draft brought John into the Army and he was able to get his high school diploma while in the Army. But after the war it was back into the family meat processing business. A college education was out of the question; working in the family business was John's career, one in which he excelled. Drew's daughter Karen loved horses, as did John's daughter, and the mutual meetings at the horse shows brought Drew and John into more contact than just the Sunday church service.

During the 1960s and 70s Drew and John, with their families, spent a lot of time together, and John relied on Drew for advice many times when it came to business matters. John, along with his brothers and uncles, was able to grow the family business into a large regional pork processor that supplied traditional Pennsylvania Dutch pork products like scrapple throughout the mid-Atlantic region. His Hatfield Quality Meats brand was well known there and the company was a $300 million corporation by the 1990s. John's lack of formal education was not an impediment to his friendship with Drew. The content of his character was the determining factor. John was an intelligent businessman who sometimes felt his lack of education when dealing with academics and other highly-schooled individuals, but Drew didn't let it affect the friendship. Drew realized that there were things he knew more about than John. But he also realized that John knew more than he did about other things just as, or more, important depending on the situation. The camaraderie between them points to the fact that neither felt superior, but treated the other with respect.

One day Drew was going to take another friend, Ollie Smith, out on his motor boat for a short spin. The motor on the boat wouldn't start and nothing Drew could do would get it started, frustrating him to no end. It is a common theme for many people that highly educated Harvard graduates are like hot house plants; they look good in their environment but put them outside in the weather and they don't do very well. Dealing with machinery is not something that you normally pick up in the academic world, and Drew was having difficulty. This doesn't mean that Drew was mechanically challenged. He did live on a gentleman's farm in Pennsylvania and used the tractor and other pieces of machinery, but it is an area where his neighbors and friends would tease him. Ollie Smith tells the story: _"He looked up at me and said "You don't tell Johnny Clemens I couldn't get the motor started and I won't tell him you had a hundred on the golf course today."_ 342

Drew pushed John to become involved in community affairs, to join local community boards, including the local school board, the Valley Forge Council of the Boy Scouts, the United Fund, and the Montgomery County Lands Trust, among others. When Drew was finished his term as Trustee for the Central Schwenkfelder Church, he recommended John to replace him. People in the church and local community always valued that aspect of Drew. He didn't forget his roots. He recognized good people, and he helped others when he could.

This ability to deal with people of different backgrounds and educational experiences enabled Drew to successfully maneuver in the political and business arena. Being treated as an equal by members of the kitchen cabinet, working closely with Ed Meese, Bill Casey, Mike Deaver, and the other leaders of the campaign over the summer and fall of the election year, while engaging the common campaign worker with equal candor and commitment was a key reason that Drew rapidly rose in the eyes of the Republican presidential candidate and his wife. It was also a reason that the Republican National Committee was able to interact with the Reagan campaign in such a harmonious manner. It was obvious that Drew was Reagan's man at the Committee, but Bill Brock was still the titular leader of the Party and the ability to work together was crucial in making sure the campaign was working together with the party, resulting in a greater impact on the race.

During the Presidential campaign Drew shared an apartment with Ed Meese and grew to become good friends with Ed. Drew opened up the Washington office of the campaign in Arlington, Virginia, after having worked out of the Los Angeles office for several months. _"The campaign moved to Washington the month of August to be ready_ _for a September kick-off_ . _Drew and I, and Mark Holtzman, had a three room apartment, we roomed together essentially... We had the apartment from August through January to the inauguration"_ 344 _._

Drew recognized just how much Ed, Mike Deaver, Bill Casey, and the other directors in the campaign, believed in what they were doing for Reagan, and he appreciated how they made him an integral part of the group. He realized that they were a task-oriented band that was extremely constructive and productive, complementing his detail oriented skills. It was an impressive team. " _Bill (Casey) or I would convene a meeting with the deputy directors each morning at 7:30 I believe, or 8:00 and he (Drew) would attend those and then go over to the RNC."_ 345

The Presidential Campaign had its ups and downs as they all do. They realized that Reagan was going to be Reagan and they had to adjust as well as they could. The polls initially looked good. John Anderson was running as an independent and was the darling of the intellectual elite, taking more voters from President Carter's voting bloc than from Reagan's. Unfortunately, as all politicians know, a third party candidate always fades in the stretch as the voters realize they are throwing away their vote. " _Anderson's got the Republican elitists, Jewish voters and liberal Democrats," said one Reagan thinker. "But the last two aren't going to waste their votes. They'll come home to Carter"_ 346

One of the strongest groups of supporters for the Republican candidate was evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. On June 3, 1980 James Robison sent an invitation to Governor Reagan asking him to be the keynote speaker at the end of a two day briefing on National affairs on August 22nd, sponsored by the Roundtable. The event was to be attended by 20,000 people at the then new Reunion Arena in Dallas Texas, and included Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Senator Jesse Helms, among others. The Republican National Committee viewed this as a tremendous opportunity and Bill Brock viewed it as the single most important event in attracting the Evangelical/Fundamentalist community, which was becoming an increasingly important voting bloc. The party felt this would be an excellent opportunity to highlight, in the minds of 50 million Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, Governor Reagan's basic family values. It was also an opportunity to energize this group and encourage them to register to vote. It was estimated that there were 8 million of them unregistered, and they represented a significant voting bloc that was recognized as 85% conservative. In addition, the evening proceedings were going to be presented on CBN and via satellite television to a minimum of 140 locations, and Pat Robertson was going to replay Reagan's talk on his program. Brock offered the field staff of the RNC to explain voter registration and participation to the attendees.

It was at this event that Reagan again became the fodder of media efforts to portray him as a right-wing radical, out of touch with intelligent Americans. _"On August 22, Reagan went to Dallas to appear before the Religious Roundtable's National Affairs Briefing, a gathering of 15,000 evangelicals. Appearing before this officially non-partisan but increasingly conservative and politicized group, Reagan deftly said, "I know you can't endorse me. But I want you to know that I endorse you.".... But Reagan sat uncomfortably on the dais while one preacher argued that America should be run by God fearing Christians, and another assailed the "perverts, radicals, leftists, communists, liberals, and humanists" who run the country. The worst moment came when Southern Baptist Rev. Bailey Smith said that "God Almighty does not hear the prayers of the Jew."_

_Reagan naturally disavowed any association with this kind of narrow sectarianism, but he managed to get off another gaffe at the post-conference press availability. A reporter asked Reagan if he shared the evangelicals' rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution and demand that creationism be taught in public schools. This is the kind of question a politician should duck on the grounds it has no relevance for the would-be occupant of the White House. At the very least, Reagan could have repaired to his oft-expressed view that we should get God back in the classroom by allowing school prayer, a position that was highly popular according to polls. Not Reagan. He wanted to answer straightforwardly. "I think that recent discoveries down through the years pointed out] great flaws in it," Reagan said; "creationist theory" should be taught side-by-side with evolution."_[ 348 The response made every RNC worker cringe as they speculated on the hilarity the comment would cause in newsrooms across the country and the ways it would be used against Reagan. The comment did however resonate with the intended target of evangelical Christians. Was if a gaffe, or was Reagan simply ahead of his time?

As is always the case, when you please one voting bloc, you upset another. the ability to balance the viewpoints of everyone is difficult. On September 24th Betty Heitman from the RNC sent a memo to Drew, Senator Laxalt, and Bill Casey about a problem that was arising from the support of the moral majority.

" _My office has been receiving an increasing number of calls from friends in the Jewish community as well as from some of our staunch conservative supporters who view with alarm the prominent role the "moral majority" appears to be playing in the campaign. They are afraid these people have a very strong influence on Governor Reagan and are hoping for some type of policy statement which will reassure them without alienating the "moral majority" votes. If Governor Reagan will include the term Judeo-Christian in his remarks, it will certainly be helpful."_ 349 Obviously, there was a difference between the conservative supporters of the RNC and the conservative supporters of the moral majority. Drew forwarded the memo on to Ed Meese with an FYI comment. Coordination between the two was becoming increasingly important as the campaign continued.

The late summer saw the kick-off of a campaign from the RNC called COMMITMENT '80 which was designed to increase turnout and enthusiasm from the Republican Party faithful; the volunteers that are the lifeblood of any campaign. The campaign was scheduled to expend over a million dollars turning out thousands of Republican volunteers to walk their neighborhoods and advocate for Republican candidates, hand out literature, and make sure people were going to vote. Drew worked to co-ordinate this effort with the Reagan Campaign committee, creating enthusiasm from party chairmen in all 50 states.

The RNC was generating significant revenue in 1980; more than the initial budget had predicted. The original approved budget called for receipts of $24,450,000.00 and by the end of October the RNC had raised $33,213,544.00. True to form they also spent most of it in the election effort, $31,030,555.00. The amount dedicated to the presidential campaign was budgeted at $4 Million but they had spent over $4.4 million. This left a significant amount of cash to spend on the down-ticket candidates, enabling the RNC to focus on making sure of presidential coattails in the event of a successful campaign. Nixon had been unable or unwilling to help the party in his election win in 1972 and Ford lost in 1976, so this was a critical opportunity that the Party tried not to squander. Commitment '80 was introduced to the party leaders with a letter from Governor Reagan dated August 27th, announcing the kick-off of the effort on September 6th and targeting October 4th as the day to start making literature handouts and home visits. This effort by the RNC had varied success. Several states put significant effort into the campaign and had good results. Others fumbled the kick-off and never got into the game.

Lewis and members of the RNC, along with the leaders of the Presidential campaign, were worried about an October surprise from Carter. In particular they were concerned with the hostage situation in Iran. " _Drew Lewis is one of the worriers. The Philadelphian is the Republican National Deputy Chairman. As one of the eight top Reagan strategists, he can talk about the shadow hanging over the Reagan camp._

" _If the election were held Tuesday, Reagan would win," said Lewis in an interview. "There's no doubt we're in good shape in most of the key states._

Carter needs an international incident to win the election. You can bet he'll try

something. Carter, Bob Strauss, Jody Powell and those other guys are smart. They know they need something dramatic to pull off the election."

When the Reagan people try to pinpoint the President's October Surprise, they

come up with two guesses: A release of the U.S. hostages in Iran, or a U.S. military show of power in the war-torn Persian Gulf region.

" _Some of us are betting Carter is already making a deal to get the_

hostages out," Lewis said. "The Iranians need arms and spare parts badly. It's possible the hostage deal will be like the Middle East peace treaty- we won't know how much it costs until the excitement dies down.

The president has a lot of cards to play in the Iran-Iraq war. He could

send a joint naval force, combined with European countries, to take command of the oil shipping lanes. It might be dangerous, but he could tell the American public, 'See, I saved the Western World from an oil shortage.'

Then he could vanish in the Rose Garden for the rest of the campaign."

Cynical?

" _Well, I just try to project myself into the other guy's shoes," said Lewis with a_

_quick grin. "If I were in the White House and saw all those numbers running against me, I'd advise going for a big play."_ 351

Iran had been a problem for Carter for a while, even before he turned his back on the Shah. Reagan was familiar with the situation in Iran, as were all Americans. Walter Cronkite kept signing off his news program with the number of days Americans from our embassy had been held hostage by the Khomeini regime. Reagan in his autobiography explains his appreciation of the situation, and helps to show why he resonated with the common man, and not the intelligentsia of the eastern and Washington establishment. _"I was told by officials of the Shah's government that after rioting began in the streets of Tehran in 1979, the Shah's advisors told him if they were allowed to arrest five hundred people- the most corrupt businessmen and officials in the government- the revolutionary fires could be extinguished, and they could head off the revolution._

But people in the American Embassy told the Shah to do nothing, and he didn't. Until the very end, he kept telling his staff, "The United States has always been our friend and it won't let me down now." Well, he took our advice on how to respond to the mobs and when he had to flee his country, the United States didn't even want to let him in for the medical care that he desperately needed. It was terrible treatment for a man who had been our friend and solid ally for more than thirty-five years.

Yes, there had been serious human rights abuses under the Shah. But he had done many good and progressive things for his country; he had brought it into the twentieth century, and in the years preceding his downfall, the Shah had begun to tolerate dissent to his policies and try to stamp out the corruption that was so prevalent in his country that had made it ripe for revolution.

_Our government's decision to stand by piously while he was forced from office led to the establishment of a despotic regime in Tehran that was far more evil and far more tyrannical than the one it replaced. And, as I was to learn through personal experience, it left a legacy of problems that would haunt our country for years to come._ 352

Reagan was the antithesis of the intellectual academics in Carter's administration who longed to apologize for American exceptionalism; putting intellectual values into foreign policy without regard to consequences. As a result Reagan resonated with the ordinary American. _"The election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1980 brought policies and practices directly the opposite of those favored by intellectuals... President Reagan emphasized the importance of making sure that adversary nations understood the American point of view, as when he called the Soviet Union- "an evil empire"- to the consternation of the intelligentsia"_ 353

Drew wasn't the only adviser to be worried in early October, and while the California contingent of the campaign was sure of Reagan's ability to win the contest, the next several weeks saw the race tighten. Both Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy were constantly making campaign appearances, sometimes together and sometimes not as the campaign drew to its climax. Several weeks before the election Nancy had a campaign appearance in Tulsa and was scheduled to fly back afterwards. Phil Schultz from Dart Industries was flying her on the company Lear jet and as she got to the airport the sky's opened up with a hard rain storm. Phil had the limousine pull out to the foot of the jet and met her and her assistant at the foot of the steps with an umbrella. By the time she made it into the jet she was soaked. Phil got her and her assistant into their seats, put on the little space heater in the rear of the jet and took off. After she warmed up and her clothes dried a bit, she came up to sit next to Phil and his copilot. Having flown numerous times with Phil she was relaxed in talking with him, but nervous about the campaign, as it had tightened toward the end. _"From my perspective she was a very nice lady, very personable, quiet so you didn't get to know her for a while but after you got to know her_ , _after we had flown with her a lot, she was very personable. That flight she was worried about the election and I told her, "you better start packing and making arrangements (for Washington and the White House)". The reason I was confident they were going to win was that we were flying all over the country, we did business in Seattle, New York, Florida, every state, we did business everywhere and no matter where we went everybody was: Reagan, Reagan. You could see; you didn't need a poll. I would spend eighteen to twenty days a month traveling (Flying the jet for Dart) and every restaurant, every hotel you got a good feeling about the election."_ 354 Phil might have been confident, but the campaign wasn't and neither were the pollsters for the campaign. They needed a plan to move ahead decisively towards the end of the campaign.

Reagan succeeded in forcing Carter to a debate, held one week before the election. This had been a Reagan objective since the beginning of the campaign and Carter had resisted. _"Stu Spencer said that if we kept challenging him to a debate, sufficient public pressure would eventually build up on him and he would be forced into a debate; but from our point of view, the timing of the debate was critical: The closer to election day, the more impact it would have._

When Carter finally agreed to a debate, the date was set for October 28, one week before the election, and we were delighted. The debate went well for me and may have turned on only four little words.

They popped out of my mouth after Carter claimed that I had once opposed Medicare benefits for Social Security recipients

It wasn't true and I said so:

" _There you go again..."_

_I think there was some pent-up anger in me over Carter's claims that I was a racist and warmonger. Just as he distorted my view on states' rights and arms control, he distorted it regarding Medicare, and my response just burst out of me spontaneously."_ 355

Reagan had prepared for the debate in his own way, not getting buried in facts and figures like Carter. Reagan was getting advice and information from all corners on the debate, including a four page letter from RNC Chairman Bill Brock. Whether Reagan spent much time reading it is subject to question, especially during this tumultuous period in the campaign. What the letter does prove is that Republicans were working together to elect Reagan. Even those who might have some philosophical differences with the nomine recognized how much better he would be than the current occupant of the oval office.

" _Dear Ron:_

For Carter, the purpose of this debate is clear: to continue (and from his perspective, to complete) the destruction of your reputation, a task he undertook himself with his personal attacks....

For you, the purpose of this debate should be just as clear: to put the lie once and for all to his personal attack by letting people see you as you are and discover that you are a man they can be comfortable with in the White House. The undecideds, at least, are not yet sure of this, either because of Carter's fear tactics or because they genuinely don't yet know enough about you. John Kennedy had a similar problem – not fear but unfamiliarity – and he successfully used the debates to solve it with humor, humanity and a command of the issues. He also didn't hesitate to place blame for then current problems on the incumbent administration. You can do the same.

In short – attack- not with frontal assault on the President, but do it by undermining Carter, in the same tone as your recent comment, "I can't understand why the hostages have been captive for a full year."

Remember, Jimmy Carter and his record are an embarrassment to many people.

Raise the same questions about his record that are on the minds of the American people. And without getting stalled in too many details, let it be known that you have very different policies to propose which give hope that things don't have to stay this way....

Ron, Carter is mean, petty, spiteful – and dangerous. He will say anything to win. He has attempted to demean you, impugn your motives, attack your integrity, and intelligence.

You have every right to be damn mad and I hope you are.

You won the nomination on one night in New Hampshire. You let righteous indignation flow. You can also win this election.

A sizeable portion of the American people still feel that they don't know enough about Ronald Reagan to vote for him.

Ron, they do know, at least reasonably well, your stand on the issues. What they are saying is that they don't know you –you as a human being. Do you feel, love, care, react as they would. You did in Nashua.

I am suggesting what may seem a dangerous thing – that you expose your emotion. That is a difficult step to take, knowing that if overdone, it could reinforce Carter's theme about you and that must not happen.

But damn it, the American people need to know you care enough about them and their country to fight for its highest office – and do so in a way that demonstrates character and leadership.

I would like to see you come out fighting and stay in that ring in an all-out slug fest for fifteen exhausting rounds – always pressing, always charging, always on the offensive.

You have spent your life fighting the corruption of this land and its essential values. Is there any greater corruption of our spirit than despair. What else is Jimmy Carter sowing but despair with his talk of national malaise, complex problems that are beyond our ability to solve them, the need for lowered expectations.... Democrats this year are saying problems are too big. We can't solve them. Nobody can. Republicans are saying we'd like to try and we think we can succeed. You must say the same.

This nation is desperately in trouble because of the sham and deception of political leadership. The change in government figures to show less unemployment, announcing invisible bombers that do not exist, spending money that we do not have to create inflation that we cannot afford.

I have a seventeen year old son whom I love more than life itself. It tears my gut to hear this President suggesting peace can be achieved by weakness, vacillation, and the abandonment of principle. I know better and yet, with this man in office, my son is in jeopardy.

My suggestion for the debate: attack – fight – demonstrate your concern for our nation to the depth of your conviction.

Attack the style of Carter's campaign.

Attack the substance of his record.

Demonstrate the strength of your faith in America....

Restore our hope. Replace anxiety with optimism...

You are a better man, and you are right. You are going to win.

Very truly yours,

_Bill Brock"_ 356

The letter was obviously written from the heart and it goes to the heart of some of the differences between Reagan and Carter, between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. In the debate the public was looking to see if Reagan was one of them, to see if he reacted and felt as they did. They knew Carter, they knew what he stood for, but was Reagan the change we needed, or another problem to endure?

With the race in a close heat, the debate appears to be the point at which the large majority of the undecided finally made up their mind. The massive swing to Reagan in the last two or three days before the election took the media by surprise. Reagan's pollster Wirthlin knew better: " _Wirthlin's tracking polls, based on more than 10,500 phone calls in the week after the debate, detected Reagan's numbers moving up steadily, but public polls continued to find the race still to be within the margin of error- too close to call."_ 357 The media intellectualized the answers in the debate and were looking at a different reality than the people were. As Brock pointed out, the people knew where Reagan stood on the issues, they were looking at the intangibles; does he react as we do, does he hurt like us, is he a radical like Carter and the media portray? The answers to the questions asked in the debate were not as important as the demeanor of the candidates, and Reagan won that hands down.

Capitalizing on Reagan's ability to connect with the public in the debate (even though the media and Carter's campaign thought Carter was the winner) Reagan's campaign had developed a superb strategy in handling the purse strings of the campaign. Remembering how they had nearly run out of money in the fight for the nomination before the Pennsylvania primary, they had carefully planned their expenditures this time. " _The Reagan Campaign had carefully conserved its advertising budget, and outspent Carter on media over the last week by a three to two margin"_ 358 It wasn't only the Presidential campaigns that were dropping significant funds that fall, the GOP was also spending significant sums to promote a party victory, not just a presidential one. " _The GOP decided to devote $8 million to generic ads with the simple tag line: "Vote Republican. For a change."_ 359 Having spent 4 years under Carter's inept policies it was difficult for Republicans to accept that the nation would want another term for him, and Drew Lewis was not an exception as he vigorously worked to prevent that from happening. " _I can't believe the country wants four more years of Jimmy Carter." He says bluntly.... Lewis cites the country's economic troubles and its loss of prestige around the world as other reasons why he feels the country won't re-elect Carter."_ 360

Drew was not only worried about the Presidential election, as Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive officer of the Republican National Committee he was looking for the party to make gains across the board. Holding on to seats it was defending and gaining others to change the complexion of both Washington and the states was an imperative of his job. One race was extremely important to him in Pennsylvania. Marilyn Lewis was running for re-election to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Marilyn had run for election two years before and had easily won. She was an excellent legislator who wouldn't vote for tax increases, annoying the old boy network in Harrisburg. Her district was reliably Republican, but she still campaigned hard and worked at her job. Drew might spend all week working for the national campaigns, but he was watching at home as well. " _It's tough", Lewis complained. " I come home from Washington on Sunday and the first thing she does is tell me all the places she has to go"_ 361 Turn about is fair play and after all those years of being the wife on the campaign circuit with Drew, Marilyn was a successful politician in her own right. Obviously, she had been studying hard, and would win re-election easily.

The massive victory by the Republican's in 1980 was an extremely satisfying one for the campaign team. They got to enjoy it for a few hours before transitioning into the work of building a government to take power in January. On Thursday, the 6th of November, president-elect Reagan named his transition team and a number of deputy directors, which included Drew Lewis. " _He said in an interview following Reagan's announcement that he was 'very happy' about the position and "looking forward to the transition process". "This has been a great week for the country," said Lewis, whose role in the transition between the Carter and Reagan administration has not yet been defined."_ 362 The director of the transition team would be Drew's friend Edwin Meese 3rd, who had been chief of staff on the campaign team. Other deputies included James Baker, who had originally been a Bush staffer, Richard Wirthlin, Michael Deaver, William E. Timmons, and Vern Orr. The first meeting of the transition team was scheduled for the next Wednesday, a week after the election.

The object of the transition team was to determine who to recommend to the president-elect for positions in the upcoming administration. This critical task would result in determining the character and direction of the new administration, giving clues as to how Reagan intended to move the country. Everyone expected him to turn to the hard right, to the delight of the conservatives who had been frozen out of Washington power for decades and to the chagrin and dismay of the liberal media and Washington elites. Filling management positions was Drew's forte for years in his business of aiding ailing firms, so this position was a natural for his talents and experience. The team would be screening candidates for more than 3000 open positions.

In reviewing the media articles it is striking that so many of the reporters are only questioning the members of the transition team on what position they themselves are expecting in the new administration. The focus in the articles is on the interviewee, instead of on the process and objectives of the team. The shallowness of the questions is disturbing, especially in light of the importance of the role the team had in finding quality candidates in two or three months. Finding 3000 qualified applicants is a daunting task, especially when you are looking at the very best in the country. Traditionally they have come from the party regulars, people who had integrated themselves in the process for years, those who had been turned out by the Democrats four years previously when Carter beat Ford, plus a smattering of young and upcoming newcomers. Instead we have articles from the main stream media speculating on whether Drew will be in charge of planning the inauguration. It is true that Drew would be primarily responsible for inauguration planning, that is one of the functions that the RNC is involved in as well, so it made sense for the deputy chairman of the RNC to be involved.

The campaign had been looking at this aspect of the election for a while, but realized they couldn't use significant resources for an effort to select potential appointments, when they had to win the election first. The work of developing the task forces on the various issues that the campaign had created generated a data base of highly qualified people that could be called upon to indicate interest in joining the administration. Reagan and the campaign directors realized that they would have to simultaneously, with the campaign, set up a mechanism to vet candidates for a potential Reagan administration in the event the campaign was successful. They didn't want anyone thinking about this who was working on the campaign, as that would detract from the first issue of winning. _"We forbade anyone to even think about anything after the 4_ th _of November, because we didn't want people to be competing for positions or using their energies for anything other than winning the election."_ 363 Unfortunately that didn't solve the problem of what would happen if Reagan won and had only 77 days to find over 3000 people to fill important positions in the federal government. Ed Meese had studied the problems that President Nixon had in his transition process. _"I talked with the Governor and we agreed that it was necessary to be able to handle the personnel aspects of this; because the moment you are elected you get all these recommendations from Senators and Congressman, everybody sending their resumes, and they had told me how these were stacked up in boxes in the halls of the Plaza Hotel where Nixon had his temporary campaign headquarters, before the transition"_ 364 One person who was familiar with the process was an old friend of Meese; Pendelton James. Pen had approached Ed in 1979 to help in the Reagan campaign and Ed had replied that he could best be used in "preparing a plan for the presidential personnel operation", since he had previously served as a presidential personnel staff member in the Nixon administration. Ed told Pen he _"needed a process for handling these things, not dealing with individuals, an outline of the jobs that need to be filled._  The Reagan for President Campaign office was in Arlington. They set Pen up in a basement office in Alexandria and had a very small staff. _We had a couple of people who had worked in the primary campaign in finance; raising money- Helene Van Damm and one other, and in the general there was no raising money, because you used federal funds, so we put them over there and I would meet with them at 10:00 at night or early in the morning..... We kept that totally away from the campaign, totally separate."_ 366

When the transition team was selected by Reagan after the election they had a strong foundation to work with as a result of the foresight of Ed Meese, the work of Pen James, and the assistance of the Kitchen Cabinet. In addition to this the Heritage Foundation, which had been founded in 1973, had provided a draft manuscript to the transition team of a report which would be published in 1981 called "Mandate for Leadership" detailing every major agency of the government and options for changes. Reagan gave a copy to each member of his cabinet to read and study.

While a lot of the conservatives would initially grumble about the lack of strong ideological credentials in cabinet picks like Drew Lewis and Richard Schweiker, the results were actually good for the country in more ways than one. The team that Reagan selected for his administration had a significantly positive effect on the economy and the country. The team that Reagan assembled, with the recommendations of the transition staff, met five criteria that were important in his opinion, to the effective working of the administration. " _First, commitment to the Reagan philosophy and program; second, the highest integrity and personal qualifications; third, experience and skills that fit the task; fourth, no personal agenda that would conflict with being a member of the Reagan team; and, fifth, the toughness needed to withstand the pressures and inducements of the Washington establishment, and to accomplish the changes sought by the President"_ 367

The transition team had 77 days to process the information, make recommendations to the president-elect, and move on to the next position once the individuals recommended, and who the president-elect selected, either agreed or turned the offer down. As Senator Schweiker had said previously, it is difficult to turn down the president-elect when he makes an offer. It does happen however, for a variety of reasons; loss of personal privacy as the financial background reporting requirements are rigorous, family unwillingness to move, financial inability to work at the governmental wage level and many others. The transition team concentrated on the cabinet level positions initially and then moved down from there. The kitchen cabinet of Reagan supporters from California proved invaluable in helping the transition team, much as they had helped Reagan when he became Governor in 1966.

In looking at the list of the first decisions that Reagan made for his cabinet, Richard Schweiker figured prominently. He was one of a select group, mostly close personal friends or long time acquaintances of Reagan, who Reagan had decided would have a place in his administration from the beginning. _"At the very outset, he told us of his initial decisions; Bill Smith as Attorney General, Cap Weinberger at Defense, Bill Casey at CIA, and Dick Schweiker at Health and Human Services."_ 368 It is obvious that Reagan thought very highly of Schweiker. They had found something in each other in 1976 and it wasn't just a confluence of interests in an election year.

Once the transition team had gotten Reagan's initial selections they began work on the other cabinet positions. The team would provide names to the Executive Personnel Advisory Committee, which was chaired by William French Smith who was Reagan's personal attorney and friend. _"The group's meetings were held in Bill's downtown law office, where Reagan met with us to go over the lists of prospective appointees, a lengthy and time-consuming process, but necessary. After the recommendations for each cabinet position had been winnowed to a short list, the President would discuss his final decision with a small group of us at his house."_ 369 The President elect spent considerable time on the process, but the cabinet had been selected by Christmas, and was then rolled out to the press in a series of groups. In asking the prospective cabinet secretaries about the position, Reagan would call those he knew, and invite others to an interview, or interviews, as he sought to decide about the individual's suitability for the post. " _One campaign official who had made a great impression on Reagan and who could have served in any one of a number of cabinet positions, was Drew Lewis.... Reagan was impressed with Drew's management ability, loyalty, and integrity, as shown- ironically- by his refusal to abrogate his 1976 commitment to President Ford. Because of his business background, including the successful turnaround of a defunct railroad, Drew was appointed secretary of transportation."_ 370

Actually Drew had been contacted by Pen James right after the election to verify if he would be interested in a position with the new administration. Drew had replied that he would think about it, depending on the position, and mentioned either transportation or Ambassador to China. China was a place he had always been interested in, but transportation would be a position where he had some experience. They left the conversation there and Drew talked with several of his friends about the possibility of going to Washington. He spoke with Tom McCabe, chairman of the board of Scott Paper Company in Philadelphia. Tom had been president of the company for forty years when he had retired in 1969 and stayed on the board until 1980. Tom advised him to take the job, if offered, but tell the President he was only going to take it for a couple of years. His reasoning: jobs of this level in Washington involved ten hour days, seven days a week and after a couple of years you were physically worn out.

Drew also needed to consider his financial position. He had just taken a year off work. His company had paid him a small stipend, but he had donated his time to the campaign. He had been making good money for the past six years, but he had started from scratch as he had used his liquid assets in his run for Governor in 1974. This was compounded by the fact that several of his children were in graduate school, (Wharton and Harvard Business School). Combined with the necessity to rent a place in Washington to live, he was facing bills of about $150,000 a year. As a cabinet member he would be paid $70,000 a year, leaving him in the hole about $80,000 every year he stayed, assuming he was offered a post.

Thanksgiving weekend of 1980 Drew was out in the barn at his farm in Pennsylvania when Ronald Reagan called. He was working on the thankless task of cleaning the turkey pens and as he talked with Reagan about accepting the post of Secretary of Transportation on his barn phone, his turkeys were getting out of the pen and wandering all over the yard. He got the post and lost about 30 turkeys that couldn't be rounded up after the call.

Conclusion

### Character and Culture in the Public Service

Ronald Reagan became the nation's fortieth President when he took the oath of office on January 20, 1981. His first cabinet contained a number of prominent men including former Senator Schweiker and Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. For some men the cabinet is viewed as a stepping stone. For others, it is a reward for service to the candidate. In all cases the path to the Cabinet was marked by ups and downs, and the fortuitous chance of being in the right place at the right time, with the right resume, and the right friends.

Tom McCabe of Scott Paper in Philadelphia was correct when he told Drew that the pace of work in the cabinet was brutal and that it wears a person down. Many of the individuals originally selected would leave the cabinet before the end of the first term, including Worcester's two sons. Yet, both individuals had stepped up and agreed to serve the President when called. Senator Schweiker acknowledged at the Republican National Convention in 1980, that it is difficult to turn down a president when he calls and asks you to serve with him.

Schweiker had suggested in 1979, when announcing that he would not run for re-election to a third term as Pennsylvania Senator, a desire to return to the private sector. Some of his political opponents felt this might be recognition of the popular damage to his career caused by the 1976 vice-presidential bid. In fact, Senator Schweiker was one of the most popular politicians in the state. Polls done for the Senator had his popularity with the people in such a high range that he could have been re-elected senator, or elected governor if he chose to run. Indeed, several of Richard's acquaintances commissioned a poll in October of 1977 to look at the possibility of him running for governor. The poll compared Schweiker's popularity against two potential adversaries; Richard Thornburgh and Arlen Specter. Schweiker polled a favorable rating of over 55%, compared to Specter's 38% and Thornburgh's 18%. In looking at the responses of Republicans who were asked to choose who they wanted for governor, Schweiker polled at 49%, Specter at 14% and Thornburgh at 12%. The poll asked all the respondents if they knew who Reagan had wanted as his vice-presidential running mate in 1976 and over 74% didn't know. The following question asked if they would be more likely or less likely to vote for someone who supported Ronald Reagan 29% said more likely, 19% less likely and 40% said no difference. Thus only 19% objected to supporting Reagan in the state of Pennsylvania, according to the poll. Indeed it appeared that Richard's association with Ronald Reagan was a plus with the voters. Schweiker had also considered in 1977 a run for President in 1980 _. "I certainly am thinking...of making a race (for the Presidency) in 1980 depending on what happens nationally", Schweiker said in a recent interview. And yes, he said, "I'd certainly consider running with Reagan again."_ 372 Neither of these options developed. The pressures of twenty years of public service had taken their toll, and the thought of another grinding campaign apparently helped to solidify his decision in 1979 to announce his retirement from the Senate when his term ended. His willingness to serve with Reagan was reciprocated when it came time for cabinet positions.

Schweiker was unable to convert his popularity with the voters into a secure base within the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Politics being what it is, the potential candidates for senate in 1980 were already circling when it became apparent that Richard was not going to be able to corral a significant number of votes for the Reagan/Schweiker ticket at the nominating convention in 1976. The perception of political weakness that developed from that situation practically guaranteed a primary opponent in 1980, a financially draining contest that weakens a candidate going into the fall election. The senatorial election in 1976, which brought John Heinz into office as the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, set new standards in the amount of money needed to run a statewide campaign. The decision not to run after twenty years in public service made eminent sense, even with the outcome heavily in his favor.

Reagan had selected Schweiker as one of his first four picks; individuals who the President –elect had told Ed Meese would be part of the cabinet before the transition team had even begun to get down to work. Reagan knew the caliber of these individuals and had determined that they fit the profile he wanted: commitment to the Reagan philosophy, the highest integrity and personal qualifications, experience and skills that fit the task, and toughness to withstand the pressures of the Washington establishment!

Ever since Schweiker had met Reagan in California in 1976 it was evident that they had come to many of the same conclusions. Reagan was simply a few years further on in his philosophical journey. Schweiker, Reagan had commented in 1976, was like he [Reagan] had been twenty years before. The ensuing four years had advanced Richard along the same path at an accelerated rate and once he gave his word he was committed to the team. Reagan understood that he didn't have to cover his back with Richard. He had evidence from the 1976 nominating campaign and the offer of Schweiker to withdraw at the convention in an effort to help the campaign. Richard, Claire, and their children, formed a family that held together in difficult times. Living in the fishbowl atmosphere of Washington places incredible strains on an individual's obligations to the family. Both Richard and Claire had worked together to ameliorate the strains as much as possible.

The emphasis that Richard had placed on medical research and helping those suffering from childhood diabetes, etc., during his tenure in both the House and Senate, had positioned him to be an ideal candidate for the Health and Human Services position to which he was appointed. He would have headed the Senate committee overseeing the issue had he successfully run for re-election in 1980. The Reagan landslide had ushered in a Republican Senate, against practically all prognosticators' predictions, and Schweiker was the leading Republican on that committee. It was a lost opportunity for him, one that he would probably have enjoyed immensely if he had sought the third term. He hadn't run and the cabinet position was an ideal substitute for continued government service. He had the consolation of knowing that all the hard work and hours of attendance in the Senate, the years of fighting for funding of healthcare research would benefit the nation's citizens for years to come.

Nothing in Richard's background was going to embarrass the president. He paid his taxes, loved his family, worked at his job, and lived a life of faith. He held to a high moral code, a result of his upbringing within the Christian culture of the Pennsylvania Dutch. He exhibited a life of faith not only in his own abilities, but recognized that God had a plan for his life and that he was working out his salvation as he lived. Claire has said that they both felt they were put on this earth to serve, and that Richard felt he could best serve as a member of the legislature when he ran in 1960. That life of service, the call to leave the earth a better place than when you entered it, was taking another turn in 1980 and Richard was responding to the call once again, even if his initial inclinations would have been to return to private life.

There is an old maxim attributed to the Athenian Playwright Menander that has some validity when discussing Washington D.C.; _Bad Company ruins good morals._ Not all denizens of Washington are bad company; most are not. But the problems that exist when power is concentrated in increasingly fewer hands and centralizes in a particular geographic area are endemic. The thrill and allure of power tends to corrupt and it is a rare individual who is not seduced by it. The founding fathers were all too familiar with this and attempted by means of the checks and balances in the Constitution to limit its effects. The Jeffersonian ideal of the citizen legislator and the frequent election of the congress blended together to continually bring new blood into the system and to drive out the old before it became entrenched. The years between the end of the Second World War and the inauguration of Ronald Reagan were years when the growth of the federal government accelerated. The Great Society of Lyndon Johnson had provided a great leap upward in the size of the bureaucracy. The number of career civil servants increased and the bureaucratic inertia of government programs contributed to the cycle. The individuals who were responsible to the voters, to the citizens who elected them, were increasingly outnumbered by government functionaries who would wait for the next election to respond to change when it was demanded.

Reagan reacted to this bloat in much the same way that Americans have traditionally done when viewing government overreach; by supporting limited government and competition from the free market. The importance of outsourcing functions through the private sector took on a more attractive aura and deregulation in an attempt to free industry from strangulation by unelected government functionaries began to be discussed. The increasing dissatisfaction that many Americans evidenced during the Carter years and the subsequent move toward the right of the political spectrum facilitated the election of Reagan in 1980.

The years from 1976 through 1980 had been difficult ones for the Schweikers. His agreement to run with Reagan in 1976 had damaged his standing with the liberal/moderate/progressive elements in Washington, if not with his own voting public. Schweiker focused on the duties of his Senatorial office and worked on the health care bills and funding he introduced. It was apparent when he again supported Reagan's bid in 1979 and 1980 that he had the toughness to stand up for his convictions. The tenacity he exhibited in continuing to work diligently for the people of Pennsylvania as their senator in these years testifies to his personal honor and sense of responsibility. He continued to shun the incessant party life in Washington, preferring to spend time with Claire and the children, heading to Ocean City, NJ for vacations and weekends, when he wasn't back in the district.

In contrast to the political wilderness years that Senator Schweiker spent after the 1976 election, Drew Lewis was on an upward career path. He focused on increasing his business income, while keeping in touch with the political realm. Having lost a significant portion of his net worth in the campaign for Governor he utilized his skills in repairing and returning ailing companies to financial health. When Reagan approached him in late 1978 and early 1979 to become his Pennsylvania Campaign Chairman, Lewis was in a much improved financial position enabling him to agree. He recognized that taking time away from his business would hurt his income and do little to help his business, but he was not an academic that needed the position to place on his resume. He was a successful businessman in the private sector and was making a financial sacrifice to assist Reagan in his bid for the White House.

The desire to see the country led by an individual who was concerned with opportunity for all, and not one who believed in the redistribution of everyone else's money, was a long term gain for the country and for Drew. The habit of getting up and into work before everyone else that Drew's father had demanded of him when he started at Henkels and McCoy, had stayed with him over the years. The willingness to do the work necessary to achieve the result desired, as evidenced by his relentless pursuit of delegates for the ticket in 1980, contributed to the increasing regard that Drew was held in by Reagan and the rest of the campaign staff. Nancy and Ronald Reagan had been impressed with the stand that Drew had made in 1976 at the Republican national convention, even at their expense. Reagan recognized the qualities that Drew embodied and he aggressively sought him out for his 1980 campaign for the presidency. His ability to work the finances, to get along with others, to be ruthless when the situation demanded, and the relentless work ethic combined with his common touch, all coalesced to make him an individual of great importance in the campaign.

Drew was able, through his hard work in rounding up delegates' in1979 to give a majority of the votes to Reagan from Pennsylvania. He was unhappy with the overwhelming amount of advertising money that George H.W. Bush had spent in Pennsylvania before the primary, but realized that a beauty contest is not as important as the vote. Drew's ability to look at a political situation and immediately understand the consequences and alternatives was exceptional; in fact he was considered one of the best _. "The best politician/public servant that Montgomery County has ever produced was Drew Lewis, by far. Drew has a unique ability to be able to apply the political ramifications of a governmental decision to reality... If you want to do this, these are the political calculations on what this decision will mean to you and the Republican Party."_ 373 So while he was extremely unhappy with how Bush had dumped significant advertising dollars in the Pennsylvania primary he also realistically understood just how much that helped the Reagan campaign in Texas, when their primary was held a week and a half later. Sometimes your reputation has to take a hit, in order for a greater good to be realized. Drew knew it looked bad at the polls for his candidate, but the insiders knew exactly how much he and his assistant Rick Robb had done for the Reagan campaign. What is more, Reagan himself knew what Drew had done. The success of the delegate count salved the wounds of losing the popular vote. It also provided Drew with food for thought on the need to finally determine who the vice-presidential candidate would be.

Following the Pennsylvania primary Drew was elevated into the upper ranks of the campaign. With the arrival of Bill Casey and the return of the original California contingent to the campaign, the introduction of Drew Lewis in this sphere marks an important indication of the esteem he was held in by those he worked with. He performed increasingly more important tasks, moving over to the RNC to become Deputy Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, and then to the third position in the campaign. A level of trust is necessary for movement like this, a determination that decisions made will be for the good of the candidate and the campaign, and not the individual making the decision. The integrity of the individual is paramount in situations at this level and Drew was as good as his word. _"He was absolutely dead on honest. If he made a commitment to you, it was Gold"_ 374 Reagan saw what the commitment to Ford had cost Drew in 1976, and he valued the integrity it represented.

The country had gone through an interesting and tumultuous period during the twenty years from 1960 to 1980. Indeed it appears to be a different country entirely that emerged from the Great Society upheaval of the sixties and the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Significant changes had happened in the culture and the economy of the country. " _By 1980, it was clear that the entitlement revolution had created several big losers. One was social mobility. In the 1940's, socialist William Whyte saw poverty-fighters working "to stimulate social mobility, to hold out middle-class standards and middle class rewards to lower-class people". But this goal was discarded in the 1960's and 1970's. as radicals attacked "bourgeois values" and as "rising politicization and new consciousness" among welfare recipients led many to "identify themselves as nonconformists". The result was stasis. Lyndon Johnson's economic advisors warned in 1964 that the poverty rate, in the absence of federal action, could be as high as 13 percent by 1980. After sixteen years of multibillion –dollar programs, the poverty rate at the end of that year was-13 percent"_ 375 _._ Richard Schweiker's move to the right in the period from 1976 to 1980 accurately reflects an understanding of just how much damage had been done to the country by those who were claiming to help. _"Although some leftist organizations still claim that governments must take the lead in rebuilding neighborhoods, the record of several decades shows that city wildernesses often were created by the very officials who claimed they were helping."_ 376

It was this recognition, that many of the social programs he had voted for were failing, that motivated Richard's push for Reverend Leon Sullivan's OIC during the seventies and it was this recognition that forced him out of the liberal camp at the end of that decade. The economic strength of the nation was also undergoing change as it approached the 1980's. The transformation of the economy as a result of the Second World War and America's place at the summit of world power had enabled the government to attempt the "guns and butter" strategy of Johnson during the sixties. While this led to the inflation of the seventies, it created opportunity for the entrepreneurs in the American system to develop new products and procedures to cope with the strains the government was imposing on them. Under the economic problems of the seventies was an effervescence of new ideas constantly trying to climb to the surface, to get funding, and to reach the market. Satellite communication was developed and improved. Cable television was in its infancy, preparing to take off in the eighties. The personal computer that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak developed in their garage was a harbinger of a new industry born in the seventies.

The increase in access to information that would be a result of the computer revolution, combined with the speed of communications, as exemplified by satellite communications, was combined with one other important element that changed the world: the speed of transportation. The development of the jet engine and jet planes contributed to an increase in the speed in which individuals could travel the world. The day of the ocean liner as a means of public transportation instead of a means of adventure was past; placed in jeopardy by the airplane, and consigned to its fate by the jet. While the jet plane increased the speed of travel for some individuals and of some high profit/high cost commodities that are sent by air freight, it was another innovation that helped to change the world marketplace in the late twentieth century. A more prosaic, yet important revolution in the field of logistics and cargo handling, enabled the growth of international trade to explode. Hauling goods on water is usually much less expensive and easier than going overland, and contributes to improved productivity and speed. The introduction of the Erie Canal in the early 1830's, made New York the major port and financial center on the East coast greatly improving the standard of living for everyone in the Empire State. This example of the power of water-born freight to change a region was followed in the 1960s and 70s with another innovation that significantly lowered the cost of shipping and, more importantly, the speed of shipping. The development of the shipping container and the resulting economies in labor savings and speed of offloading contributed to a significant boost in global trade. " _In the decade after the container first came into international use, in 1966, the volume of international trade in manufactured goods grew more than twice as fast as the volume of global manufacturing production, and two and a half times as fast as global economic output. Something was accelerating the growth of trade even though the economic expansion that normally stimulates trade was weak."_ 377 Within a few years of the introduction of the container, the railroads began to see the opportunities in shipping containers across the country and interlining with trucking companies to facilitate the smooth delivery of freight. Speed of delivery was again improved and cost of shipping per pound of freight decreased. As trustee of the bankrupt Reading Railroad, Drew Lewis would have been aware of the changes that were affecting the industry when selected as Secretary of Transportation in 1980.

The United States armed forces recognized the value of the container late in the Vietnam War when they built the Cam Ranh Bay port to handle the containers and alleviate the problems with delivery of supplies to a region that had little infrastructure _. "...in 1968, the first full year of container operations, one fifth of all military cargo in the Pacific was shipped in containers. The containerized share of non-petroleum cargo was closer to two-fifths."_  The waste that Senator Schweiker had deplored in the Vietnam conflict was not just in the lives of young Americans, it also had a financial component and the improvements caused by the container helped to cut some of the problems for both the troops and the accountants.

The social upheaval of the 1960's, the results of the Vietnam War, the resignation of the President, the inflation of the economy, the oil crisis, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter had all combined to find the American public in an uncertain frame of mind in 1980. The traditions of the republic were under siege and the changing economic environment had combined to encourage the voters in 1980 to change the direction of the country, in a more hopeful direction. As the economy of the country changed to meet the developments of new technologies the government continued to function as it had, under the same perceptions and assumptions it had developed in the 1960's. Change was needed and Reagan had proposed to make those changes.

America has always reached out for change. It was founded by individuals who came to build a new life, and generations of immigrants had arrived with that viewpoint. However, it is critical that change be in a positive direction, built on the foundations of what has gone before. Mistakes that have been made in the past can be changed, sometimes with great difficulty as in the case of the Civil War, but the people must be in agreement for it to be effective. When Reagan won his decisive victory in 1980 he had a mandate to aggressively look at the size and shape of the government and begin a reformation to correct the damage done by previous administrations. In making those changes he developed criteria that he felt were important to follow and he looked to his cabinet members as the individuals who would help implement that change. It was critical that those individuals exhibit the traits that would facilitate that change. The listing of those traits or characteristics: agreement with the Reagan philosophy, personal integrity and skills, knowledge of the position and mental toughness all are important markers for what Reagan was seeking. Reagan needed to be comfortable with those individuals who he would be placing so much trust in. The future of his administration, in all the little decisions that he himself would not be involved in, was in many ways in their hands. As an individual there was no way he could personally follow everything that was going to happen in the administration; a fact that he recognized. The example of Jimmy Carter trying to micromanage everything from killer rabbits to Iranian hostage rescues was an excellent reminder, if he needed one.

Ronald Reagan was able to sustain himself and move confidently forward because he recognized that it was not all about him. _He did not believe that history consists of one random event after another; rather he was firmly convinced that providence operates through the action of people. He frequently expressed his view that America's destiny, and his own, were guided by a providential hand. His critics professed to be outraged at this grotesque violation of the church-state barrier, but Lincoln believed the same thing."_ 379 The ability to put your problems before the Lord and move on enables an individual to focus on the truly important, and gain a sense of perspective that all leaders need.

Reagan firmly believed in the importance of marriage and although he was divorced his marriage to Nancy was a rock on which he could depend, a similarity with the marriages of the Schweikers and the Lewis'. The importance of the spouses in all these marriages was immense. They protected the spouses back and offered advice when needed. _"The one area in which Reagan appreciated his wife's protectiveness and trusted her intervention was on personnel matters. He relied heavily on her because he had an administrative weakness: he tended to trust people on the assumption that they were being straightforward with him and had his best interests at heart. Nancy Reagan knew this wasn't always so."_ 380 Nancy had admired Drew Lewis in 1976 even when she was bitterly disappointed by his position. She liked Marilyn Lewis and approved of bringing Drew into the campaign in 1979 and then into the administration. Likewise, the Schweikers were a team that worked closely together and kept each other grounded, while watching each other's interests. Having the integrity to honor the marriage vows and maintaining a strong marriage minimizes stress that at times become almost insurmountable in Washington.

" _Reagan was a visionary whose gaze was so firmly fixed on the future that he moved in a way that was incomprehensible to those who did not share his vision.... Reagan refused to get bogged down in the day-to-day running of the government. He understood that the federal government is such a gargantuan enterprise that if you immerse yourself in minutiae, you will soon be buried in it."_ 381 He made sure he had good people around him and he let them do their jobs. But the qualifications needed to be considered one of his people were stringent. As Ed Meese pointed out, the first criteria was to agree with Reagan's philosophy. " _Reagan's public philosophy, elaborated over two decades, was so well known that any competent person could say with a high degree of accuracy how the president would respond to a particular initiative... What Reagan seems to have discovered is that when you give subordinates full responsibility for the results they produce, they demonstrate far greater motivation and creativity than when they are merely carrying out instructions."_ 382

Reagan had enumerated his conditions for his appointees, and they follow a logical path as you proceed through them. Agree with the Reagan philosophy, have the personal integrity and knowledge skills to handle the situations they will face as head of the departments, and then have the mental toughness to withstand the pressures to conform to the political culture that the Washington establishment will focus on the appointee. Reagan came to Washington to change the culture of the country. He needed people of character; those who would make the correct decisions in the little things, the ones made when no one was looking. Individuals who had the courage to stand up and do the right thing; even if it had a negative impact on their own aspirations and desires! In both Richard Schweiker and Andrew Lewis, Jr., Reagan found those qualities.

Notes

. Dinesh D'Souza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became and Extraordinary Leader (New York: Touchstone Books, 1999), 85.

. (Schaff, HCC, 175) Quoted in Josh McDowell. Evidence for Christianity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2006) 11.

. Ecclessiastes 3:1

. Craig Shirley, Reagan's Revolution: The untold story of the Campaign that started it all (Nashville: Nelson Current, 2005), XXVI.

. Quote from Booker T. Washington

. William T. Parsons, The Pennsylvania Dutch: A Persistent Minority. (Boston: Twayne Publishers 1976), 27.

. Ibid

. Ibid, pg 23. referencing Elton, Reformation Europe, pp. 89-93

. Ibid Pg 63

. Worcester Historical Society, A History of Worcester Township (Boyertown: Boyertown Publishing Co. 1978), 471.

. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 14, 1982. pg. D.11

. Worcester History, PG. 161.

. Genealogical Record of the Schwenkfelder Families, Samuel Kriebel Brecht Ed. 1923

. Donald Benner, Interview by author , 06 July 2009.

. Ibid

. The Pennsylvania Dutch Pg. 248

. Don Benner: Interview by author, 06 July 2009

. Don Benner: Interview by author 18 July 2009

. Worcester History, p. 163-164

. Sylvia Schweiker Strasburg: Interview by author, 14 August 2009

. A History of Worcester: Worcester Historical Society 1976 Pg. 164.

. Richard Schweiker: Interview by author, 3September 2009

. Interview: Richard Schweiker, 3 September 2009

. Interview: Don Benner, 6 July 2009

. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jul 30, 1989. pg. A-1 Christine Neuberger

. American Infrastructure Company Web page

. Sylvia Schweiker Strasburg, Interview by author, 19 August 2009

. Don Benner Interview, 6 July 2009

. American Tile News April 1958 Cover page

. Don Benner Interview, 6 July 2009

. Richard S. Schweiker Interview by author 3 September 2009

. Norristown Times Herald Tuesday May 30, 1944. Challenge to Youth: Valedictory Address by Richard S. Schweiker

. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jul 30, 1989. pg. A-1 Christine Neuberger

. Norristown Times Herald Tuesday May 30, 1944. Challenge to Youth: Valedictory Address by Richard S. Schweiker

. Richard Schweiker, Interview by author, 3 September 2009

. Web page: Lion's Paw Senior Society of the Pennsylvania State University

. Don Benner, Interview by author, 6 July 2009

. Richard Schweiker, Interview by author, 3 September 2009

. The 1967 Pennsylvania Manual, Page 718.

. Bill Strasburg, Interview by author, 14 August 2009

. Williamson Free Trade School Web page: About Williamson

. Ibid.

. Interview: Sylvia Schweiker Strasburg

. Headquarters Happenings, Volume 4 #1, March, 1995 "The end of an era" (Company newsletter)

. Interview Richard Schweiker

. Notes on a 50 year Revolution Pg 26.

. At the thirty year mark: A company has grown, Pg 8 AE News #12 October 1953.

. Notes on a 50 year Revolution. Pg. 27.

. Tile Views Summer 1982: American Olean Remembers "M.A." Page 2.

. Notes. Page 32.

. Tile Views Summer'82, American Olean Remembers "M.A." Page 2

. Notes P32.

. Don Benner interview

. AE News July 1953

. Cal Hunsberger Interview

. Notes on a fifty year revolution. Page 64.

. AE News Pg.6 November 1960

. Notes Pg. 58

. Ibid pg. 70

. American Tile News. A time of Growth. October 1961 38th Anniversary issue

. American Tile News. A Time of Transition, Pg 3 January 1961.

. Richard Schweiker interview

. Ibid

. Interview Claire Schweiker

. AE news Pgs. 8-9 June 1955.

. Whitemarsh Township History, Page 3.

. Joe Barron, Company gives up claim to property along railroad bed Springfield Sun News 22 August 2003

. John B. Henkels, Jr., An American Adventure (New York: Cooper Sq Publishers,Inc 1966), 33.

. Ibid. Pg 34.

. Ibid. Pg 163.

. Oliver Smith, Interview with author, 26 September 2009

. Telegraphic Message to Ms. Irena Sandler, Norristown Area School District. May 6, 1982

. A Two Politician Family: by BARBARA GAMAREKIAN, Special to the New York Times . New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 24, 1981. pg. C.5

. Don Benner, Interview by author, 6 July 2009

. Marilyn Lewis, interview by author, 26 October 2009

. A Two Politician Family: by BARBARA GAMAREKIAN, Special to the New York Times . New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 24, 1981. pg. C.5

. MEN IN THE NEWS; EIGHT FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL TEAM; [1] CLYMER, ADAM . New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 12, 1980. pg. A.29

. Marilyn Lewis, interview by author, 26 October 2009

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

. Drew Lewis Archive Audio Tape #4 transcript 7/06/97

. An American Adventure Pg. 201.

. Ibid Pg 202.

. Frederic Bell, Notes on a 50 year revolution. (Rahway NJ: Quinn & Company) 1973

. American Tile News, September 1960 P. 4. Lansdale Historical Society

. Rosalie Smith, Interview by author, 26 September 2009

. Richard Schweiker, interview by author, 3 September 2009

. "Dick Schweiker Shows 'Em How".The Pennsylvania Republican May 1960 Page 7.

. Campaign Letter to Committee people: Schweiker Papers Penn State University (Box 23)

. Richard Schweiker interview by author 3 September 2009

. Murray Dubin, Can an unknown become Governor? The Philadelphia Inquirer April 22, 1973

. Richard Schweiker interview by author 3 September 2009

. Campaign Brochure: Schweiker Papers; Penn State University

. Campaign newsletter April 21, 1960 Page 2.

. Campaign newsletter, April 21, 1960 Page one.

. Edward J. Tyburski Montgomery Congress Race Grow Hot. Sunday Bulletin, April 17, 1960 Schweiker Papers, Penn State University

. Robert Asher: PA Republican National Committeeman, Interview by author, 27 July 2009

. Andrew L. Lewis, Letter to Union League members April 22, 1960 Schweiker Papers, Penn State.

. The Pennsylvania Republican May 1960 Page 6.

. Robert Asher, interview by author, 27 July 2009

. Ibid.

. Richard Schweiker interview by author, 3 September 2009

. The Pennsylvania Republican May 1960 issue, page 6.

. May 13, 1960 Letter to Drew Lewis, Lewis Family collection, Schwenksville, PA

. The Pennsylvania Republican May, 1960 Page 20.

. Claire Schweiker interview by author 3 September 2009

. The Pittsburgh Press September 1974 "Senator's Mate likes Politics

. 87th Congress 1st session H.R. 8290 July 20, 1961

. Congressman Richard S. Schweiker Press Release January 7, 1965

. Radio Prayer Tape 1968 Campaign for Senate Schweiker Archives, Penn State Box 34.

. Press Release Senator Richard S. Schweiker October 22, 1969.

. Press Release Senator Richard S. Schweiker October 21, 1970

. Speech to the Senate January 4, 1973 Press Release 1/04/73

. Schweiker Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments July 27, 1973

. Paul Kengor God and Ronald Reagan: a spiritual life (New York: Regan Books 2005) P. 176.

. Senator Richard S. Schweiker Speech on the floor of the Senate September 25, 1970.

. Congressman Richard S. Schweiker Press Release January 7, 1965

. Ibid.

. Richard S. Schweiker Speech September 25,1970

. Senator Richard S. Schweiker Press Release May 15, 1972

. Letter To Richard Schweiker December 28, 1961 Schweiker Archives, Penn State University

. Press Release April 15, 1962 Office of Montgomery County Republican Committee Norristown, PA

. Joint Statement of RSS and James E. Staudinger commenting on the election results 1964. Schweiker Archives, Penn State University.

. The Times Herald: Join Life's "Parade" Lewis tells Students at his Alma Mater By Margaret Gibbons. 1987

. Statement Congressman Richard S. Schweiker January 11, 1966 Schweiker Archives, Penn State University

. Inside Report: More Death Wish. By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak The Washington Post May 16, 1966.

. Richard S. Schweiker Victory speech May 17, 1966 at County Headquarters in Norristown, PA

. Robert Johnson, GOP Chief Rejects Personal Political Ambition. The Philadelphia Inquirer June 5, 1966

. Drew Lewis Acceptance speech to Montgomery County Republican Committee June 2, 1966

. Murray Dubin Can an unknown become Governor. The Philadelphia Inquirer April 22, 1973.

. Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. Letter to Hon. Richard S. Schweiker August 11, 1967 Schweiker Archives Penn State University.

. Richard S. Schweiker Letter to Drew Lewis and Frank Jenkins August 15, 1967 Schweiker Archives Penn State University.

. Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service May 19, 1967 Report on Federal and Pennsylvania Corrupt Practice Reporting Requirements. Lewis Family Collection

. Robert G. Wilder Letter to Drew Lewis April 17, 1967 Drew Lewis papers

. Drew Lewis letter to Robert Wilder April 18, 1967 Lewis Collection

. Paul Hope, Senator Clark Ponders Quitting in '68 The Washington Evening Star April 3, 1967

. Lawrence M. O'Rourke, Schweiker Opens Bid for Clark's Seat The Evening Bulletin June 9, 1967.

. Jerome S. Cahill Schweiker All Set For His Rubicon The Philadelphia Inquirer June 10, 1976

. "Schweiker interested n Senate Seat" The Scrantonian July 9, 1967

. Mason Dennison-The Pennsylvania Story. September 21, 1967 "If Scranton Doesn't Want IT, Schweiker Seen as GOP Candidate for U.S. Senate

. Speech to Beaver County Republican Fund-Raising Diner, Brodhead Hotel, Beaver Falls, PA 24 October 1967

. Audio Tape Drew Lewis Appreciation Night 1969, Lewis collection

. Audio Tape: Drew Lewis Appreciation Night, 1969. Lewis Collection

. Passing Politics by Walter Toolan The Scranton Tribune. December 23, 1967

. Speech to Snyder County Republican Women February 7, 1968

. Speech to Tioga County Republican Committee April 17, 1968

. Speech to Tioga County Republican Committee April 17, 1968

. Richard S. Schweiker: Letter to Bruce Parisella; Chairman Nixon for President. August 28, 1968 Schweiker Archives, Penn State University.

. Dick Schweiker on Gun Control September 9, 1968 Dick Schweiker for U. S. Senator Position paper. Schweiker Archives, Penn State University.

. Radio Commercial on Prayer. October 1968, Schweiker Archives, Penn State University

. Dick Schweiker and the Captive Nations. Position paper #8 September 6, 1968 Citizens for Schweiker. Schweiker Archives, Pennsylvania State University.

. Murray Dubin Can an unknown become Governor? The Philadelphia Inquirer April 22, 1973

. Public Opinion Surveys. E. John Bucci and Associates Swarthmore, Pennsylvania "The Political Picture in Pennsylvania October, 1968 Pg. 4. Schweiker Archives Penn State University

. Pottstown Mercury September 9, 1968 "It's a Hard Run But Schweiker Endures" by Joseph E. Dougherty

. Campaign correspondence September 27, 1968 Andrew L. Lewis, Jr. Family collection

. Transcript 4th Senatorial Debate between Senator Clark and Congressman Richard S. Schweiker October 20th 1968

. Richard S. Schweiker, Interview by author, 3 September 2009

. "State victory for Schweiker Gratifies Lewis", The Times Herald November 6, 1968

. Ibid.

. Drew Lewis Archive Audio Tape #4 transcript 7/06/97

. Answers.com Simplex Technologies, Inc. Web page Company History

. Audio Tape Interview Charles Donovan 1/06/98 Drew Lewis Archives

. Ibid.

. Pittsburgh Post Gazette July 1, 1969 Nixon Hosts Schweiker, 4 others Page 2.

. Philadelphia Inquirer October 6, 1974 Ewart Rouse, Watch Dick Run: He's a Maverick in the GOP Camp.

. The Evening Bulletin October 13, 1974 "Schweiker Woos Democratic Vote as GOP Maverick" By Robert E. Taylor

. The Ascent of Money, By Niall Ferguson Penguin Books 2008 Pg.59.

. Pennsylvania State Wide Study January 1974 Market Opinion Research Page 5. Schweiker Archives Pennsylvania State University

. Ibid. Page 24.

. Ibid.

. Rick Robb Interview 2-04-10

. Letter to the President. May 10, 1974 Schweiker archives. Penn State University Box 35.

. The Philadelphia Inquirer April 22, 1973 Murray Dubin "Can an unknown become Governor?

. Drew Lewis Archives. Audio Tape #4 Transcript 7/06/97

. Drew Lewis to Retain GOP Finance Post Norristown Times Herald Feb 26, 1973

. Analysis: Lewis, mystery candidate, is surfacing. Robert H. Emmers. Pennsylvania Mirror May 3, 1973

. Rick Robb, Interview February 4, 2010

. Darkhorse Lewis Seeks Winner's Circle By Matthew T. Corso Daily Intelligencer April 23, 1973

. Rick Robb Interview February 4, 2010

. Analysis: Lewis, mystery candidate, is surfacing Pennsylvania Mirror May 3, 1973

. Governor Abusing Powers, Would-Be Opponent Insists The Patriot June 5, 1973

. Penna. Cancels Probe of "Friends of Lewis' Fund-Raising Group. By Marilyn Schaefer Sunday Bulletin June 10, 1973

. Heinz Out of 1974 Race The Times Herald October 20, 1973

. GOP Power Struggle Emerging in State Wilkes-Barre Times Leader News Record January 2, 1974

. Interview Rick Robb February 4, 2010

. Drew Lewis, Candidacy announcement January 28, 1976

. Ibid.

. Richard S. Schweiker Commencement Speech Edinboro State College May 23, 1971.

. Philadelphia Inquirer October 6, 1974 "Watch Dick Run: He's a Maverick in the GOP Camp" by Ewart Rouse.

. News Release, Drew Lewis May 6, 1974 Lewis Archives.

. PA House Speaker Resigns. Bethlehem Globe-Times Jan 4 1974

. Campaign brochure: Drew Lewis for Governor, Ken Lee for Lt. Governor.

. Interview Rick Robb February 4, 2010

. Pittsburg Post-Gazette October 10, 1974 Frank M. Matthews "Scaife, Philly heir lend Lewis Money"

. The Philadelphia Inquirer October 6, 1974 Ewart Rouse "Watch Dick Run: He's a Maverick in the GOP Camp.

. Ibid.

. Schweiker victory speech November 5, 1974

. The Philadelphia Inquirer November 25, 1974 by Acel Moore "Schweiker Win Linked to Blacks"

. Ibid.

. Philadelphia Magazine January 1975 John Guinther "A Political Primer for Republicans."

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

. Alma Jacobs Interview by author 8-06-09

. Alma Jacobs Interview 8-06-09

. Drew Lewis Archives Audio Tape #4 7/06/97 Marilyn Lewis

. Interview Richard Schweiker 9-03-09

. Ibid.

. Quoted from Reagan's Revolution: The untold story of the campaign that started it all. By Craig Shirley, Page 271.

. North Penn Reporter Tuesday July 27, 1976 Page 1.

. Rick Robb Interview 2-04-10

. Alma Jacobs Interview 8-06-09

. Ibid

. Drew Lewis archives, Audio tape #4 transcript 7/06/97

. Alma Jacobs Interview 8-06-09

. As quoted in Reagan's Revolution by Craig Shirley, Page 276.

. Lewis Archives. Audio tape transcript #4 7/06/97

. Ibid

. Reagan's Revolution Pg. 345

. Ibid pg. 282

. Ibid Pg. 276

. North Penn Reporter July 27, 1976 Article: Reagan Strategists Defend Pick By Doug Willis AP

. Reagan's Revolution Pg 272.

. Alma Jacobs interview 8-06-09

. Rick Robb Interview 2-4-10

. Ibid

. Richard S. Schweiker Interview 9-03-09

. Rick Robb Interview 2-04-10

. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. Dinesh D'Souza Pg. 18

. Lewis Stays with Ford, predicts few defections. North Penn Reporter. July 27, 1976 Pg. 5.

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

. Ibid.

. When Character was King by Peggy Noonan. Page 122.

. Ibid, Pg. 124.

. Reagan's Revolution, Pg 326

. Reagan's Revolution Pg 345

. Ibid Pg 328

. Ibid

. When Character was King. Peggy Noonan Page 126

. A prophet of Innovation. Pg 455

. Ibid

. Ibid Pg 456

. Schweiker Bitter about Press and Former Allies. LA Times November 29, 1976 John H. Averill

. Ibid

. Ibid

. Ibid.

. Interview Richard S. Schweiker 9-03-09

. Notice of Call on State, August 19, 1965 Call No. 184 for Induction Period October 1965

. Student Deferment and the Selective Service College Qualification Test 1951-1967. Thomas J. Frusciano ETS Princeton, NJ 1980 Pg 55.

. IBID Pg 50

. Ibid Pg .49.

. Art Bustard Interview by Author

. Slouching toward Gomorrah Pg. 51

. Ibid.

. The Cube and the Cathedral Pg. 73

. Prophet of Innovation Pg. 482

. Intellectuals and Society By Thomas Sowell Basic Books 2009 Pg 244-145

. Ibid Page 264

. Letter from Lewis B. Hershey responding to the request. Schweiker Archives Box 38

. News Release from Dick Schweiker. November 10, 1965

. "Watch Dick Run: He's a Maverick in the GOP Camp" by Ewart Rouse. Philadelphia Inquirer October 6, 1974

. Ibid.

. Letter to Cadet Jeffrey H. Sunday, November 8, 1973: Schweiker Archives Penn State University

. Press Release September 25, 1963 Schweiker Archives, Penn State University.

. L. Mendel Rivers Letter November 10, 1965

. H.R. 5017 February 7, 1967 Pgs 9-10.

. Congressional Record- Appendix February 21, 1967

. Statement on Draft Law Extension June 20, 1967

. H.R. 11312 90th Congress 1st Session.

. Press release October 27, 1972

. The Tragedy of American Compassion. Marvin Olasky. 1992 Regnery Publishing Pg.169

. Ibid Pg. 172

. Ibid Pg. 178

. Ibid Pg. 179

. Ronald Reagan: How an ordinary Man became an Extraordinary Leader. Dinesh D'Souza. Pg. 199

. The Pennsylvania Dutch: A persistent Minority by William T. Parsons. Twayne Publishers 1976. Pg 252-253

. The Road to Serfdom F.A. Hayek, PG 106

. Ibid, Pg 77-78

. Ronald Reagan. Dinesh D'Sousa Pg. 35

. Ibid Pg 35-36

. Ibid Pg. 41

. Intellectuals and Society Page 290

. Intellectuals and Society Page 291

. Ibid Pg.44

. Ibid Pg. 52

. Ronald Reagan: An American Life Pg. 152.

. Ibid Pg. 59

. F.A. Hayek. The Road to Serfdom (1994) Pg 45

. Ibid Pg.84

. Ibid Pg 102

. Prophet of innovation Pg 455

. F.A. Hayek The Road to Serfdom Pg. 68.

. The Age of Reagan: The fall of the old liberal order 1964-1980 By Stephen F. Hayward Pg. xxii

. Letter to Richard Schweiker February 24, 1977. Schweiker archives Penn State University.

. Statement of Senator Richard S. Schweiker at Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research Hearing on Federal Diabetes Programs. February 26, 1979.

. Drew Lewis can beat' em, join 'em. By Sandy Grady Philadelphia Evening Bulletin June 21, 1979.

. Ibid.

. A pol's pol strokes and cheerleads for Reagan By Paul Taylor Philadelphia Inquirer April 20, 1980

. Andrew Lewis Papers, Transcripts of Audio Tape #20, 11/12/97

. Andrew Lewis Papers, transcripts of Audio Tape #20, 11/12/97

. Ibid

. Rick Robb Interview 2-04-10

. Lewis goes with Reagan by Paul Taylor Philadelphia Inquirer June 20, 1979

. Drew Lewis can beat' em, join' em By Sandy Grady. Philadelphia Evening Bulletin June 21, 1979

. Statement by Senator Paul Laxalt June 6, 1970

. Lewis Heads Drive By Reagan in State by Milton Jaques Pittsburg Post-Gazette June 21, 1979

. The Warren Times-Observer February 6, 1979 Schweiker: his two images.

. Ibid.

. "Schweiker says Iowa may decide strategy" by Rachelle Patterson The Boston Globe January 2, 1980

. Drew Lewis letter to Pennsylvania GOP Leaders June 18, 1979 Schweiker Archives Penn State University Box 35

. Ibid.

. A pol's pol strokes and cheerleads for Reagan. By Paul Taylor. Philadelphia Inquirer April 20, 1980

. Ibid.

. Penna. Primary: An early lineup By Thomas Ferrick Jr. Philadelphia Inquirer August 20, 1979

. A. pol's pol

. Penna Primary: An Early lineup

. Interview Rick Robb 2-04-2010

. Lewis: 'Delighted' to run for Senate By L. Stuart Ditzen and Joseph R. Zelnik The Evening Bulletin February 1, 1980

. Simple Solution to Politicking Warren Times Observer February 11, 1980

. The Age of Reagan: The fall of the Old Liberal Order 1964-1980 by Steven Hayward Three Rivers Press 2001 Pgs: 642-643

. Ibid Pg. 644

. Interview with Ed Meese April 7, 2010

. With Reagan: The Inside Story, by Regnery Press, 1992 Page 8.

. Letter to Bill Casey April 24, 1980 Lewis collection

. Phil Schultz Interview October 29, 2009

. Intellectuals and Society By Thomas Sowell Basic books, 2009 Pg 2

. An American Life, Pg. 156.

. State GOP Unity Urged For Reagan By Sherley Uhl Pittsburgh Press May 16, 1980

. Ibid

. The Age of Reagan Steven F. Hayward, Three Rivers Press 2001, Page 660.

. Letter to Bill Casey May 6, 1980 Lewis collection

. GOP Considers Lewis Potential Party Chief By Milton Jaques Pittsburgh Post Gazette June 6, 1980

. Reagan feeds hand that bit him by Sandy Grady The Philadelphia Bulletin June 11, 1980

. Reagan recruits Pa.aide Philadelphia Evening Bulletin July 1, 1980

. The Drew Lewis act; He skipped along the convention tight-rope By John J. Farmer The Phialdelphia Evening Bulletin July 20, 1980

. Ibid

. Ibid

. The Age of Reagan Pg. 661

. Interview with Ed Meese April 7, 2010

. Drew Lewis audio tape interview 11/12/97 Lewis family archives

. Rosalie Smith, Lewis family friend. Interview 9/28/09

. Interview Oliver Smith, Lewis Family friend 9/28/09

. Audio Transcript 5/28/97 Interview with John Clemens. Drew Lewis Archives

. Interview with Ed Meese April 7, 2010

. Ibid.

. Reagan Wary of Carter Bombshell by Sandy Grady The Philadelphia Bulletin September 28, 1980

. RNC Internal Memorandum To Max Hugel from Don Shea June 17, 1980 Drew Lewis Archives.

. The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Order 1964-1980 Steven F. Hayward Three Rivers Press 2001 Pg. 680-681.

. RNC Memorandum for Drew Lewis September 24, 1980 Drew Lewis archives

. RNC Cash Position Statement January 1, 1980 through October 24, 1980. Drew Lewis Papers.

. Reagan Wary of Carter Bombshell

. An American Life: Ronald Reagan The Autobiography. Simon and Schuster 1990. Page 218-219

. Intellectuals and Society By Thomas Sowell Page 258

. Philip Schultz Interview 10-24-2009

. An American Life Pg. 221

. Letter To The Honorable Ronald Reagan October 24th, 1980 Bill Brock Drew Lewis papers.

. The Age of Reagan, Pg.707- 708.

. Ibid Pg. 708.

. Ibid Pg.710

. Drew Lewis Working Hard for Gov. Reagan The Schwenksville Item. October 30, 1980

. Ibid.

. Drew Lewis joins GOP transition team. The Allentown Morning Call November 7, 1980

. Interview Ed Meese April 7, 2010.

. Ibid.

. Ibid

. Ibid

. With Reagan: The Inside Story. Regnery 1992 Pg 63.

. Ibid Pg 64.

. Ibid.

. Ibid pg 67-68

. Poll Results involving Richard S. Schweiker and Gubernatorial Race. Box 59 Schweiker Archives Pennsylvania State University

. Schweiker Rarin' to Go By Sam Smith Philadelphia Daily News September 12, 1977

. Interview Former State Representative Joe Gladeck 5-26-10 discussion with Congressman Lawrence Caughlin.

. Ibid, Joe Gladeck

. The Tragedy of American Compassion By Marvin Olasky Regnery Publishing 1992 Pg 185

. Ibid, Pg. 218

. 7 The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Marc Levinson. Princeton University Press 2006 Pg. 11.

. Ibid, Pg. 182.

. Ronald Reagan: How an ordinary man became an Extraordinary Leader Dinesh D'Sousa Touchstone 1997 P. 214

. Ibid Pg. 222.

. Ibid Pg 243

. Ibid Pg 244-245
