Eisenhower as a lefty politico
An opinion piece in the NYT points us to new docs on former President Eisenhower:
LAST week the National Archives released a trove of drafts and notes that shed new light on President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address, in which he warned America about the “military-industrial complex.”
More can be found here.
On Oct. 31, 1960, another speechwriter, Ralph E. Williams, warned of a “permanent war-based industry” run by former military officials.
Also see a post from Econospeak
The following is a shortened version of Rachel Maddow’s opening monologue from her show on Wednesday on MSNBC:
For the next hour, we begin with the president of the United States addressing the nation and calling for a massive investment in this country’s infrastructure, rebuffing the idea of giant tax breaks for the richest Americans, and warning anyone who would dare touch Social Security to keep their hands off.
You want to talk about red meat for the base? Listen to some of the language the president used. “Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.” Wow.
How about this one? “Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.”
Listen to the way he goes after the right here. “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and”–and the president says–“their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
That is not what Barack Obama said last night. That is way to the left of any national Democrat at this point. That was all Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower. That was all the stuff he said when he was president.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, president when the top tax bracket for the richest people in this country was 92 percent. President Eisenhower defended that tax bracket. He said we cannot afford to reduce taxes until, quote, “the factors of income and outgo will be balanced.” Eisenhower insisting there must be a balanced budget and that taxes on the rich are the way to balance it. Dwight Eisenhower, you know, noted leftist.
The Republican Party platform of Eisenhower’s 1956 called for expansion of Social Security, broadened unemployment insurance, better health protection for all of our people. It called for voting rights–full voting civil rights for D.C. It called for expanding the minimum wage to cover more workers. It called for improved job safety for workers, equal pay for workers regardless of sex.
This is the Republican Party circa 1956. The Republican Party.
The story of modern American politics writ large is the story of your father’s and your grandfather’s Republican Party now being way to the left of today’s leftiest liberals. If Dwight Eisenhower were running for office today, he would have to run, I’m guessing as an independent, and not as some Joe Lieberman, in between the parties, independent. He’d be a Bernie Sanders independent.
In 1982, who passed the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history? That would be Ronald Reagan.
Who called for comprehensive health reform legislation during in a State of the Union address in 1974, a program that was well to the left of what either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama ultimately proposed? That would be Richard Nixon.
Eisenhower and Reagan and Nixon–they were not the liberals of their day. They were the conservatives of their own time.
But the whole of American politics has shifted so far to the right in the last 50 years that what used to be thought of as conservative, what used to be thought of as a conservative position, is now considered to be off-the-charts lefty.
I’ve been saying for decades that Ike was the last GOP president I respected.
He was a decent hard working guy from Abiline KS who kicked nazi ass and was loved by his troops for it. He championed important investments in infrastructure that revitalized smaller towns across the country. He spent his last years trying to warn us about the excessive influence of our defense industrial complex.
And he wasn’t a big fan of Nixon, nor did he mind the fallout from letting that be well known.
Ike, was a hesitant politician. He was well aware of the machinations in DC from 1945 on, being with Marshall on a lot of things. He was anti internationalist and deeply ambivalent on empire. He was a great soldier, student of history and acting having been on MacArthur’s staff.
He was not a republican, more like Grant. Korea was going on and the country did not need the kind of anti-New Deal nut cases running the republican party for empire and the rich at that time.
While Ike was in uniform he never voted in presidential elections felt he should not be opart in hiring his boss.
A principled soldier.
Yeah he was a big lefty. As McArthur’s Chief of Staff he lobbied Congress relentlessly in order to preserve defense spending during the depression when many in the FDR administration were clamoring for cuts. Of course in November of 1945 he did the exact same thing when Congress was searching for money. He was a huge believer in nuclear weapons and presided over the largest nuke build-up in U.S. history. He coined the Domino Theory, the Eishenhower Doctrine, sent troops to the middle east and advisors to Vietnam. Oh, but he wasn’t an internationalist! We won’t get into the U-2 incident, the Paris Conference, the intense support of Nationalist China, etc. I hate to tell Rachel but he wasn’t exactly Bernie Sanders.
Rachel’s monlogue is pure schtick. What’s next a recitation of the Gettysburg Address to show how out of touch today’s GOP is compared to Lincoln?
Also we now know ,thanks to ilsm, that he wasn’t a Republican either!
Well I was called an idiot on another blog for making the argument that Ike was to the left of the current president, but I feel sure that the blogmaster would not have the same comments about Rachel. I was just a little kid during Ike’s administrations, but whether he is to the right or left of the current administration, it is a lead pipe cinch that he could not be a candidate for any office as a republican today and would have been primaried in 1956 as an incumbent president. His spending on the interstae highway system alone would have gotten him impeached and I am sure a host of GOP governors would have turned down the money. Can you imagine what would happen today if the president sent troops to the South to enforce court decisions that people of color had rights?
Richard Nixon claimed that Ike was the most devious man he ever meet. MacArthur claimed that Ike could write a brilliant paper on any subject, but first you had to tell him what his opinion was. Ike deliberately starved German POW’s to death. The man had no principle, and Madow is either clueless or lying when she claims that Ike was a conservative of his time.
When Eisenhower warned us of the “military-industrial complex”, he was referring to the incoming Kennedy-Johnson administration. You know, the Kennedy that lied about the missle gap for two years and criticized Eisenhower’s administration for political motives at every opportunity. The same Kennedy who began military combat operations in Vietnam. Funny how no one brings up those facts in these articles(you know, that the 35th president follows the 34th president)….
But Eisenhower was a prophet and saw the W administration coming 50 years before his time. Yea….
Kevin: “When Eisenhower warned us of the “military-industrial complex”, he was referring to the incoming Kennedy-Johnson administration. . . .
“But Eisenhower was a prophet and saw the W administration coming 50 years before his time. Yea….”
Well, yes. The power of the Military Industrial Complex has not diminished since 1960. Eisenhower’s vision was not based upon some cockamamie notion that the Republicans were against the Military Industrial Complex. As both a President and 5 star general, he knew what was happening, and what would continue unless we heeded his warning.
“As both a President and 5 star general, he knew what was happening, and what would continue unless we heeded his warning.”
You’re right Min! He knew the nation would move backwards under Kennedy/Johnson and heavily endorsed Nixon in 1960. We have documented one of his more famous quotes about JFK: “”I will do almost anything to avoid turning my chair and country over to Kennedy.” Too bad the nation didn’t listen. We wouldn’t have lost 50,000 American lives in that needless war.
And if anyone really wants look at the tax rate for wealthy Americans under Eisenhower, use the tax forms for 1954-1961 (adjust income for those years if you have the time). The results are interesting and far different than if you just go by the often quoted “top tax rate”…..
Hey, nobody’s perfect. Nixon should know a devious man just from his own reflection. MacArthur had good cause to harbor a grudge. And who in WW II was concerned about the health and welfare of German POWs? Sounds like Ike was just a regular guy with reasonable intentions. He wasn’t too courageous on civil rights for minorities, black or hispanic.
High,
Yes, Ike was a disciplinarian as well and held together a fledgling Army in North Africa and wrung it into a killing machine. He had a tough job and did it.
MacArthur and Nixon…………………….
If they said Ike was bad I would take the opposite view.
MacArthur should have been left on Corregidor for ineptitude in dealing with the Japanese, Bataan was starved out because he had no idea about supporting his forces.
Eighth Army in June 1950 was negligently trained, and badly used because of the generalismo’s hubris and racism, no Korea could beat him.
And he was rabidly republican of the party which described the New Deal as the end of liberty.
That he pulled a flank at Inchon then over extended and got Eighth Army smashed in Dec 1950 is predicable given Bataan and Task Force Smith.
Ike knew whom to fire and how to deal with a real war against a well equipped and determined enemy.
MacArthur had Nimitz and LeMay running his flanks and his logistics.
Nixon!!!
DD Eisenhower was US Grant but he did not ruin his reputation, running the country.
In 1953, Ike said that ‘every rifle bought, every ship launched and every missile fires steals from the hungry, sick and unclothed’.
I don’t think he was worrying about the Kennedy’s in 1953.
Kevin
so you are saying that Ike really was to the left of Kennedy and Johnson.
and who would have thought that crafty word spinner was talking in code when he said “military industrial complex” he really meant Kennedy and Johnson. because, you know, the Democrats were famous for spending tax dollars on welfare. who would have suspected them of harboring plans to spend tax dollars on military industries.
but you need to check with little john about who started us in vietnam.
What’s on your mind…
and we know that FDR was always trying to cut defense. don’t we.
i would have expected a largest in history build up in nukes shortly after they were invented, won the war (arguably, folks, arguably) and deterred the Russians.
as for Lincoln and today’s GOP. you’ve got to be joking.
you need to confer with kevin. was ike right or left of you?
that’s what the post said. you aren’t making a lot of sense.
Ike had entries on all sides of the ledger. I see him as a smart guy with a lot of brass, and as president he was probably the last president who was truely able to exercise the powers of the presidency independent of his money mens advice. The carrier brown noser never having been required to whore for money becuse he had already established a reputation based upon a fine milatary carrier. He was the last full suit we have had in the oval office, who was able to call his own shots as he saw best.
My point is that Maddow is wrong about Ike being percieved as a conservitive in his time. She is attempting to depict an inacurate parrallax, she claims America has shifted to right, when in fact the body politic has drifted to the left. 1950’s America was neither ready for an African in the white house, or cornhollers in congress. Eisenhower’s America saw fit to raise its kids rather then to abort them. Maddow knows this. Lefties always call the right reactionary, no matter what concessions have already been made. Maddow is full of bad stuff.
I think that MacArthur was the better man, compared to his former chief of staff.
When the WWI vets. marched on Washington no man was more able to get on a horse and quell the rebellion with out blood being shed. Face it Eisenhower was a leaf eater compared MacArther. And because of MacArthurs personal heroics that day the revolutionary left has hated his guts. They wanted blood, but they got MacArthured.
Picture of a second if you will that had Roosevelt considered Ike the second most dangerous man in America instead of MacArthur. recall the famous picture of MacArther standing beside the vanquished Japanese emperer. No one on earth had the kind of aplomb that MacArthur did. Ikes goofy grin would have done him in. Ike was a great man, but he was always second best when ole bug out Doug was around,
heavily endorsed Nixon in 1960
DD Eisenhower absolutely hated Nixon.
If one is skeptical about magic bullets flying around Dealy plaza, then one must also consider Kennedies speach warning against secret societies that operate within government and industry. It was only after Kennedy was out of the way the the CIA could go rouge, Kennedy can not be blamed for the lose 50,000 men in Viet Nam, because it was only after Kennedy that the Milatary could manufature a crises in the Tonkin Gulf.
“who would have suspected them [JFK/Johnson] of harboring plans to spend tax dollars on military industries.”
Seriously?
JFK (1958):”Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap.”
JFK (1957): “…the nation was losing the satellite-missile race with the Soviet Union because of … complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies.”
LBJ (1960): “…the missile gap cannot be eliminated by the stroke of a pen.”
In fact, Kennedy’s 1960 campaign was run on a platform that Republicans were weak on defense. Yea, how would Ike have known about it when the Senator publicly criticized him (and lied) for years about needing more missles.
so you are saying that Ike really was to the left of Kennedy and Johnson.
Eisenhower was a Republican. He was a Republican the same way Bob Dole and John McCain are Republicans. The type of GOP member that Adlai Stevenson said was captive to big business, that he was destroying public education and not protecting the environment. Eisenhower supported and passed the Labor Act of 1959, which was heavily opposed by labor unions. He was also for right-to-work statutes, a concept that most Democrats still oppose.
So which is it? Were the Democrats lying about Eisenhower back in the 1950s OR was he a ‘righty politico’ (you know, the type promoting traditional families, supporting Nixon, opposing Kennedy, etc…)?
[for proof of the Democrats’ charges against Ike, look over their speeches and view some of their negative ads against him: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1956%5D
“who would have suspected them [JFK/Johnson] of harboring plans to spend tax dollars on military industries.”
Seriously?
JFK (1958):”Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap.”
JFK (1957): “…the nation was losing the satellite-missile race with the Soviet Union because of … complacent miscalculations, penny-pinching, budget cutbacks, incredibly confused mismanagement, and wasteful rivalries and jealousies.”
LBJ (1960): “…the missile gap cannot be eliminated by the stroke of a pen.”
In fact, Kennedy’s 1960 campaign was run on a platform that Republicans were weak on defense. Yea, how would Ike have known about it when the Senator publicly criticized him (and lied) for years about needing more missles.
so you are saying that Ike really was to the left of Kennedy and Johnson.
Eisenhower was a Republican. He was a Republican the same way Bob Dole and John McCain are Republicans. The type of GOP member that Adlai Stevenson said was captive to big business, that he was destroying public education and not protecting the environment. Eisenhower supported and passed the Labor Act of 1959, which was heavily opposed by labor unions. He was also for right-to-work statutes, a concept that most Democrats still oppose.
So which is it? Were the Democrats lying about Eisenhower back in the 1950s OR was he a ‘righty politico’ (you know, the type promoting traditional families, supporting Nixon, opposing Kennedy, etc…)?
[for proof of the Democrats’ charges against Ike, look over their speeches and view some of their negative ads against him: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1956%5D
I support spending reductions in the national security and defense operations of the Federal Government. Regardless, there is the matter of what percentage such Federal spending outlays represent in comparison to other Federal outlays each fiscal year.
President Eisenhower faced a significantly different situation with Federal spending outlays during his two terms than is evidenced today. Note the following comparison of Federal Budget outlays for national defense spending as compared to payments for individuals. Generally, Federal spending outlays have reversed positions as a percentage of GDP and percentage of outlays in comparing the period 1953-1960 to 2001-2008 as well as 2009-2016.
Federal Budget Spending as a Percentage of GDP
1953-1960
National defense spending 14.2 13.1 10.8 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.0 9.3
Payments for individuals 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.6 4.6 4.7
2001-2008
National defense spending 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.3
Payments for individuals 11.0 11.8 12.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.2 12.7
2009-2016
National defense spending 4.7 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.4
Payments for individuals 14.8 15.8 16.0 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.8
—–
Percentage of Federal Budget Total Outlays
1953-1960
National defense spending 69.4 69.5 62.4 60.2 59.3 56.8 53.2 52.2
Payments for individuals 14.4 17.8 20.9 21.5 22.2 25.4 24.7 26.2
2001-2008
National defense spending 16.4 17.3 18.7 19.9 20.0 19.7 20.2 20.7
Payments for individuals 60.6 61.7 61.7 61.0 60.3 60.0 61.9 61.2
2009-2016
National defense spending 18.8 20.1 20.1 19.8 17.9 16.7 16.0 15.2
Payments for individuals 59.5 66.1 63.1 62.8 64.9 65.5 65.5 65.7
—–
Notes:
1. National defense spending includes a small amount of grants to State and local governments and direct payments for individuals.
2. Payments for individuals includes direct payments for individuals and grants to States and local governments; includes some off-budget amounts; most of the […]
I support spending reductions in the national security and defense operations of the Federal Government. Regardless, there is the matter of what percentage such Federal spending outlays represent in comparison to other Federal outlays each fiscal year.
President Eisenhower faced a significantly different situation with Federal spending outlays during his two terms than is evidenced today. Note the following comparison of Federal Budget outlays for national defense spending as compared to payments for individuals. Generally, Federal spending outlays have reversed positions as a percentage of GDP and percentage of outlays in comparing the period 1953-1960 to 2001-2008 as well as 2009-2016.
Federal Budget Spending as a Percentage of GDP
1953-1960
National defense spending 14.2 13.1 10.8 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.0 9.3
Payments for individuals 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.6 4.6 4.7
2001-2008
National defense spending 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.3
Payments for individuals 11.0 11.8 12.1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.2 12.7
2009-2016
National defense spending 4.7 4.8 5.1 4.7 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.4
Payments for individuals 14.8 15.8 16.0 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.8
—–
Percentage of Federal Budget Total Outlays
1953-1960
National defense spending 69.4 69.5 62.4 60.2 59.3 56.8 53.2 52.2
Payments for individuals 14.4 17.8 20.9 21.5 22.2 25.4 24.7 26.2
2001-2008
National defense spending 16.4 17.3 18.7 19.9 20.0 19.7 20.2 20.7
Payments for individuals 60.6 61.7 61.7 61.0 60.3 60.0 61.9 61.2
2009-2016
National defense spending 18.8 20.1 20.1 19.8 17.9 16.7 16.0 15.2
Payments for individuals 59.5 66.1 63.1 62.8 64.9 65.5 65.5 65.7
—–
Notes:
1. National defense spending includes a small amount of grants to State and local governments and direct payments for individuals.
2. Payments for individuals includes direct payments for individuals and grants to State and local governments; includes some off-budget amounts; most of the off-budget amounts are direct payments for individuals (social security […]
kevin
you parse history differently that i do. consider my comment limited to the “military industrial complex = kennedy johnson” in ike’s secret code.
ike was indeed a conservative. so was i. i am still, but the repoublican party went for the “southern strategy” and when you dance with the devil the devil calls the tune. modern republicans are insane. they call themselves “right,” but they are off the road right.
i think (don’t know) that the missle gap was a product of the CIA. and in fact from 1957 to about the time of the 1960 election the USSR had more visible success in space than America did.
politicians often (always?) lie. They have to. their constituents demand it of them. I don’t have much against the space race. I cannot even argue that the military industrial complex was not necessary both for “defense” and for the economy. i do feel that the war in Vietnam was ill conceived and immoral. and i have no great love for democrat politicians, or for republican politicians. but i think we could both do better with more care in our “reasoning.”
for example. “I” would have suspected K – J of harboring plans etc. But it is unreasonable to think that Ike would make a political speech about the “military industrial complex” and expect the people to think “Kennedy Johnson.” No. He was talking about the M – I complex under any party.
Nobody said FDR was always trying to cut defense. Read my comment again. So your argument is that any president would have dramatically increased nuke production because, “they were just invented”? Do you think Stevenson’s foreign policy was as hawkish as Ike’s? And I am not making a lot of sense? Do you not get the joke about the Gettysburg Address and today’s GOP? It’s just as ridiculous as comparing a few quotes from Ike to today’s GOP. In terms of where I am on the political spectrum, who cares?
little john
it is not unusual for people to disagree and to have a low opinion of each other’s reasoning.
i believe you said FDR’s people were trying to cut defense. i merely pointed out that FDR was building up defense at this time, against the opposition of Republicans. times change. Stevenson was not as “hawkish” as Eisenhower, but I believe your argument was that Kennedy and Johnson were more hawkish… and i was just trying to understand how that fit into the Ike more liberal than today’s Republicans theory. You don’t seem to worry too much about following an argument. yohave more of a music video approach to understanding.
and of course i don’t get the joke about Lincoln and the GOP. Lincoln was the opposite of today’s GOP.
And once again, the whole point of the post here was that Ike was to the left of today’s GOP, so I think the “few quotes” are suggestive.
Frankly I don’t give a damn about where you are on the political spectrum, but I was hoping you would answer the question for yourself. Was Ike to the left of you? But since today’s right is insane, i should not have expected they would even understand what the questioin means.
you and kevin responded with a flurry of disconnected cartoons about Ike from which it would be impossible to form any conclusion whatsoever.
Kevin: “ We wouldn’t have lost 50,000 American lives in that needless war. “
I like Ike. 🙂 But it was Ike who got the US involved in Vietnam in the first place, in 1954. It was Ike who (along with others) prevented free elections (contrary to international law) and sent the first US military advisors to South Vietnam. Without the actions that Ike took there would have been no Vietnam War.
You need a remedial reading course. I never mentioned Johnson or JFK. What are you talking about? Talk about following an argument. Maybe you’re confusing me with Kevin.
FDR wasn’t “bulding up defense during the 30’s. You better look at the numbers for defense spending durin the 1930’s. By the way that’s when the big lefty Ike was McArtur’s chief of staff. Rememeber my original comment?
Also please define a music video approach to understanding. Are you OK?
It’s obvious you don’t get the joke. But it’s OK. The world need humorless blowhards.
If you don’t care about my politics then why are you asking…again? You characterize my comments as “cartoonish” but right before that you call the so-called”right” insane. And I am the one being cartoonish?
Ike understood M-I complex very well. Mostly it’s who wants to buy what from whom, and how this affects views. Here’s a small example of what Ike was dealing with: “In the earlier part of the decade, the Air Force estimated that the Soviet Union had a much larger bomber force than the U.S., a situation that potentially weakened U.S. nuclear deterrence. The Air Force used this argument, which was later disproven by U-2 reconnaissance flights, to lobby for a much larger bomber fleet. Similarly, the Air Force argued later in the decade that a “missile gap” had opened as the Soviets seemed to produce far more strategic nuclear missiles than the U.S. None of the other Services, nor the CIA, agreed with the Air Force. The argument was later rendered moot when intelligence generated by the CIA’s “Corona” satellite program proved that there was no such missile gap.” From http://www.dia.mil/history/ Sputnik (and a politi–err, an independent Gaither Report) stoked fears that–guess what–the opposition party jumped on. Nothing new, or old, here regardless of whether politicians lie.
llittle john
i did indeed confuse you with kevin. you sound about the same to me. by cartoonish i meant that you see the world in very vivid and out of proportion pictures without much system between them.
music videos do the same thing, only with rapid cuts and zooms and other techniques that defeat linear thought. but linear thought is what is required to solve problems. well, not always, sometimes intuition works fine. but when it doesnt, or their is a disagreement, only linear thought will help.
i don’t care about your politcs. i suggested you answer for yourself the question is ike to the left of me (that is, “you.”) that is really what the post was about. the comments from you, kevin and high wide, were just “blat” you don’t like ike. ike did this, ike was speaking in code… well fine, but address the question: on the whole are ike’s policies to the left of today’s republican party.
i think the answer is yes.
fair enough to criticize my careless reading. in fact, that’s what an argument should do.
as for the “right” today being insane. yes. no doubt about it. and that’s not even meant as an insult. it follows from a pretty good idea of exactly what insane means.
No problem. Just having some fun. Do they still have music videos?
In terms of my politics, Ike’s to the left of me on some things and to the right of me on other things. I guess my whole point is that Rachel is an entertainer in the guise of a commentator. To compare a party’s present day stance to that same party’s line of three generations ago is a fool’s errand. I’ve seen so-called conservatives use this same argument about JFK or Truman vs. Obama. Or even better how about comparing today’s Democrats vs. those of the Civil War? “Look how far the party has shifted to the left.” Whatever. It’s entertainment, not analysis. Political thought is fluid and evolves with it’s environment.
little john
a thread or two back you accused Angry Bears of adhering to “message discipline” so I think it is fair for me to confuse you with Kevin. but the truth is i was being lazy because pretty much i don’t care any more. there is no evidence here that anyone ever learns anything.
i don’t know if they still have music videos. i saw one once and it made me seasick, so i am careful to avoid even looking at the TV’s they have in pizza parlors.
i am glad you recognize that bit about being to the right sometimes and to the left sometimes. but i think Rachel’s comment was still valid. Perhaps because I was there, and an Eisenhower supporter, the shift from what “conservative” meant then to what it means now is beyond shocking. it is terrifying.
and yes Jackson Democrats, or Southern Democrats, like Lincoln Republicans are not comparable.
But we need some language to remind ourselves that the people calling themselves conservatives today are not conservative, they are radicals and the changes they are calling for make them more like the Secessionist South, or the pre revolution French aristocrats.
find a way to talk about these things without the music video effect and we might start to understand each other. but i despair.
That take on events requires ignoring much of what happened under Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ. The move from an advisory role to a combat operation was under Kennedy.
“But it is unreasonable to think that Ike would make a political speech about the “military industrial complex” and expect the people to think Kennedy Johnson.”
After reading what Eisenhower went through during his administration (through his writings and biographical accounts), it’s not only a valid conclusion, but the most accurate one. In Eisenhower we have a military expert who recognizes that the arms industry is seeking an increased influence on military policy and he is against these interests from the beginning. He cut the military budget and ensured that NASA was a civilian organization as opposed to being a branch of the military. He opposed increasing missile production.
He also recognized the man about to succeed him. JFK campaigned on the missile gap myth, said that Eisenhower lost Cuba, and promised to increase military spending. There will never be enough evidence for some who will always point out that Eisenhower never said it explicitly. On the other hand, many of us can connect the dots.
Thanks for your share! very impressive!
online pharmacy
Hmm, that?s some cool information. I would search on Google to find other relevant articles. Actually, I came across your blog on Google Blog Search. I?m going to add your RSS feed to my reader. Continue posting please!
online pharmacy
excellent articles, useful for me. keep writing and happy blogging.
nolvadex