146. Letter From the Ambassador to the Dominican Republic (Bennett) to the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mann)1
Dear Tom,
I had planned to write you a proper letter this morning, but word came at dawn of my motherʼs death last night, and I am accordingly en route to Georgia—hence this paper will have to do.
You will recall that we have been in the midst of taking another poll as to local reactions and opinions, similar to the one done last winter. The interviewing was to be finished today, with tabulations, collations, etc. to take about six weeks—final results scheduled for early January, a little earlier if possible. The director of the field work came in to see me late yesterday, stressing that his impressions and conclusions were preliminary, but based on experience elsewhere which, as you know, has been amazingly accurate in measurements of public opinion in several Latin American countries.
First of all, the poll-takers find that Dominicans favor U.S. intervention at a rate of 6 to 1. This, by coincidence, is extremely close to the Harris poll finding American opinion 84% in favor. Garcia Godoy put it the other way ‘round two days ago when he remarked to Congressmen Roybal and Fraser2 that 85% of the Dominican people do not want the IAPF to leave—notwithstanding the noise made by the agitators and so played up by the press. The poll director found that the [Page 347] overwhelming majority want the force here through elections, and he anticipates that when that time comes, they will not want them to leave then either. Most expect the “big fight” to come later, to put this yearʼs events in the shade.
If I remember correctly, last winterʼs poll3 showed Balaguer 46%, Bosch 28%. The Director said it is his opinion on the basis of the unprocessed data that Balaguer will be shown now to be somewhat, perhaps considerably, stronger than he was before. People in general think of Balaguer as one of them, honest, stable and steady, and the man who put price controls on basic commodities. Bosch is regarded as erratic and unstable, a man who says one thing one day and something quite different the next day, a leader who “let the people down.” The director commented wryly that Trujillo would run a good race if he were back.
The polling was done first in the rest of the country, Santo Domingo city the last and just now being finished up. There was the warning that the city polling might cause some change in the above, but not to any great extent. Balaguer himself is hopeful of carrying as much as 50% of the city.
Although youth finds stimulation in the idea of revolution—not surprisingly—the revolution itself seems hardly to have penetrated beyond the city, except for some evidence of support in San Pedro de Macoris (depressed sugar town in the east). The American image as the source of all that is good, true and wise (as well as responsible for everything that happens—good or bad) seems not to have been dented at all. We are still regarded as honest, generous and well-intentioned—a generally beneficent image—but at the same time as bumbling and not very careful of the money we offer too open handedly—not sharp enough, or not caring enough in view of our “unlimited” resources, to keep the rascally Dominican politicians from making off with the money we so generously make available and preventing it from reaching the people. We are still thought of everywhere as those people who can make all things possible and who can cause the milk and honey to flow.
Food—and presumably work—is the principal concern and problem around the country. The food program is much criticized, but not the United States. Here again, the U.S. is thought of as the generous provider (although we often send food to which they are unaccustomed, donʼt want and donʼt know how to prepare), with the local officials and priests considered the villains who play favorites or steal the food and sell it. I suspect that just enough of this does go on to [Page 348] provide the basis for the widespread and exaggerated charges. Poor quality foodstuffs are not blamed on the United States, which is considered to have such high standards of quality that it would not stoop to send inferior materials—obviously it is the local handlers who have kept the best for themselves and pawned off shoddy seconds on the people.
The above tends to show the great dependence—the overdependence—which characterizes Dominican attitudes towards the United States. The trust in us is what I have seen everywhere—including this weekʼs trip with the Congressmen—and it is heartwarming and at the same time rather pathetic. The obverse of this coin is that when anything goes wrong, it is our fault because we are so all-powerful that we could have kept it from going wrong had we only wanted to. A front-page article last week in one of the newspapers sustained that “the Dominican Republic could have peace and stability if only the United States wanted it that way”! Even the far left expects us to pay for their programs, once they achieve power.
Both the political findings and the psychological attitudes largely confirm my own views. At several points in the conversation I remarked to the poll director that he was taking the briefing right out of my mouth. After all, I am now in my fifth year in this country, which means, I believe, that I have spent more of my adult life in this Republic than has Juan Bosch! I await the confirmed results of the poll with great interest.
Yours very sincerely,
- Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Dominican Republic, Vol. XIII, 11/65–1/66. Personal. An “L” on the letter indicates the President saw it.↩
- Edward R. Roybal (Democrat–California) and Donald M. Fraser (Democrat–Minnesota).↩
- Not further identified.↩
- Printed from a copy that indicates Bennett signed the letter.↩