General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIke vs Yikes!
In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- President Eisenhower; January 17, 1961
Its fair to say that President Eisenhowers farewell address to the nation serves as the best-remembered act of his two terms in office. Despite the fact that Ike was a WW 2 war hero, courted by elements of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, had fairly consistent high-approval ratings, and would be the last president to leave a budget surplus until President Clinton, his presidency has been marginalized -- except perhaps to the dwindling minority of folks alive at that time -- largely due to the very issues he spoke of in that farewell address.
Being old, and recently even more physically limited due to a rather hard fall upon the ice outside my home, Ive recently been thinking more about Ikes warning. And, because the presidential section of my library is located beside the chair Ive been inhabiting, Ive had access to some interesting information on that address. So, if by chance you are bored -- or, better yet, are experiencing difficulty in getting to sleep -- take a few minutes to read this!
There is an incorrect belief that the aging General reached his belief in the dangers of the military-industrial complex late in his presidency. Yet when one studies his 1952 campaign, the central theme in his speeches is the price of the war machine: he repeatedly spoke of how a single fighter jet robbed the public of the potential for hospitals, schools, and/or highways.
More, as a war hero/ General, and student of history, Eisenhower consciously attempted to use the model of George Washington. This included Ikes fascination with President Washingtons farewell address to the nation -- which, of course, was not an address at all, but rather a message delivered in letter form. While Eisenhower differed in his approach to some issues, most notably his focus on ties to other nations, he believed that his approach to the presidency was most like that of Washington.
Thus, after the mid-term congressional elections in his second term, Ike would begin to plan his farewell address. In the early fall of 1960, he presented Malcolm Moos with the central themes he wanted to address, with instructions to model the speech on Washingtons farewell address. In Eisenhowers presidential papers, there are actually 29 rough drafts of the speech, which allow historians and watermen on ice to study its evolution.
Two things stand out. Throughout the middle-to-end drafts, there are references to the military-industrial-congressional complex. Ike was aware of the growing influence of the combination of the military and industry on Congress, and was searching for a way to bring this to the attention of the American public. Even in those early days, Eisenhower saw that retired military leaders were being absorbed by industry, and that this dynamic was changing the nations fabric in potentially dangerous ways.
A central concern was that, in order to justify investing huge amounts of tax dollars in weapons programs, not only would it require that industry have undue influence over elected representatives, but the American public would have to be kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety. The most obvious example of the negative potential of this was, of course, found in the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy. That artificially-induced level of fear and anxiety could only serve to make the nation more prone to war -- including attacking not only other nations, but domestic proponents of peace. (McCarthyism is a closely-related topic that actually requires a separate essay exploring it in todays context.)
The final drafts, and the address itself, also contain Ikes warning on the dangerous influence of the military-industrial complex on higher public education. The removal of -congressional from the earlier description weakened that warning, in my opinion. Eisenhower was disturbed by how federal grants to colleges and universities required those in the fields of science to focus primarily upon advances in military technology. He recognized that this served the financial needs of industry, while denying potential advancements in the quality of human life.
Eisenhowers farewell address was watched by over 70 million Americans. This was shortly after the first televised presidential debate, between VP Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, viewed by a similar number of citizens, proved the power of television to influence public opinion.
About a decade-and-a-half later, after televised hearings helped remove President Nixon from power, the American public became aware of the direct influence of the military/intelligence community on the media. Not surprisingly, a large number of journalists, editors, and station managers were shown to served two master. It was obvious which master exercised more power.
In todays modern media, in which the overwhelming majority of major sources are owned by the industries Ike warned of, retired military generals and intelligence officials routinely serve as guest commentators. (Bob Woodward may be the only intelligence officer who continues to claim to be a journalist.) Many of these people do add interesting and valuable information to the coverage of incidents such as the recent violence in Paris -- just as retired police officers can add to discussions on Ferguson, etc.
Yet the very danger that President Eisenhower warned of is also ever-present: by focusing the discussion in the context of the military-intelligence-police viewpoint -- no matter how sincere and well-intended the individual may be -- the media by definition is managing the publics perception, and excluding a wide range of other interpretations of events. And the crown jewel of that, of course, was the high percentage of the American public that believed that Saddam Hussein was an active participant in 9/11.
It is unrealistic to expect that people who were so convinced of a connection that did not exist -- to the extent that they were willing, even eager, to send American youth to invade Iraq -- to be able to identify, understand, and appreciate the very real connections between the global violence and the American military-industrial-congressional industry. (To a large extent, Id add the other two branches of the federal government in there, too. Certainly, the Bush-Cheney administration represented industry over the public interest -- or military interest, as well. And the US Supreme Court not only selected Bush-Cheney, despite the actual election outcome, but it has determined that industries are citizens with constitutional rights.)
Is it possible to change the publics perception today? I think that it is. And I am convinced that President Eisenhowers farewell address holds the keys.
Peace,
H2O Man
annabanana
(52,791 posts)needs kicks!
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)I was beginning to think that this was merely the type of thing an old man lying on the ice thinks about! (grin) Heck, it took me longer to write, than I spent on the ground -- perhaps a bad sign -- but I really thought it was an interesting topic.
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)His warnings were ignored but please take mine seriously H2O Man. Be careful on that ice brother!
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)A few years back, I broke four bones falling in almost the exact same spot. (My doctor gave me a hard time for setting them myself, by wrapping them with "icy hot" tape. They didn't heal properly.Hence, I'll be calling her first thing in the morning!)
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)His son, the late Brigadeer Gen. John Eisenhower, voted for John Kerry in 2004, and his granddaughter Susan endorsed Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Ike ran on a platform in 1956 that boasted of the expansion of Social Security and the raising of benefits during his first term, and which called for changes in Taft-Hartley to protect labor unions.
Tax rates, both nominal and effective, during Eisenhower's administration were but one of many measures by which Eisenhower's policies were significantly to the left of policies currently advocated by "Third Way Democrats" today.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)Thank you for adding important information to this discussion. I really appreciate it!
Ike was pressured by hard-liners on his right -- including military and intelligence men who always were advocating extreme warfare. Certainly, he was imperfect -- his support of covert actions in Africa, the Middle East, and Central America were unethical, but a product of the times. Still, he was an honorable man, and as such, would not be a comfortable fit in today's Washington.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)to the people on the ground. This guy was the real deal and his running mate was the real fraud. Ike won in a land slide each time because of his reputation win his troops. Scary to think in today's Corporate controlled Media,Ike would be considered a Socialist left wing radical and totally unelectable.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)Ike had a number of top associates who were, for lack of a better description, absolute shitheads. Too often, he tended to trust them to be honest with him.
The pairing of Eisenhower with Nixon still puzzles me. I know that in '52, some people thought he needed to reach out to the rabid right-wing. But other than those with mob ties, even the rabid right didn't trust Nixon.
It's interesting how Ike was willing to drop Nixon that year, and actually made a serious attempt to convince Nixon to remove himself in '56.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)When I first read Ike's address years ago, I was struck not only with the truth of it, but also the forthrightness of it. I've grown up all these years watching politicians who rarely say anything outright. They speak in coded language and you have to know the codes in order to make any sense of what they're saying. Ike wasn't worried about making money giving speeches or sitting on corporate boards after his Presidency. His address comes from a genuine concern for the future of the country. It's such a rarity to see a politician who is more concerned with his service to the country than any benefits he might obtain. As a President, Eisenhower isn't studied much in history classes, but I think he's one of the great Presidents of the 20th century.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)There's evidence that, upon leaving the White House, Eisenhower attempted to institute reforms within the republican party. He even asked Nixon to assist him. He liked Goldwater as a person, for example, but was correctly concerned that Barry's positions would open the doors to others with more extreme (and violent) agendas. Looking back today, it is obvious that he was absolutely correct -- Goldwater's 1964 run would lead to Reagan in 1980. This country has really never recovered from the severe damage done during the Reagan years.
There are a number of important issues that I think Ike mishandled, and some he simply avoided. But he clearly put country first. With the exception of JFK (and possibly Carter), I'm not sure that can be said of any other president since then. (While I do like President Obama, I think he has too often provided cover for Wall Street, etc. It may be impossible, in current circumstances, for any US President to do otherwise, since Congress is clearly composed of corporate puppets and lap dogs.)
kentuck
(110,950 posts)And cuts in this military industrial complex should be in the platform of the Democratic Party.
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)I agree 100%. That money needs to be invested in creating a better society -- the health care, education, in infrastructure that Eisenhower spoke of in the 1952 campaign. And in terms of education, among other important areas, in encouraging students to explore the science needed to harness "green" energy, for the good of all of the inhabitants of this planet.
There are good democrats who will fight for this. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of democrats who -- for a variety of reasons -- advocate for the military-industrial complex. In terms of "national security" in the most literal sense, you are definitely correct.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)...they think it is the political right thing to do. Otherwise, they may be seen as weak on national defense. In short, cowards.
I hope you are recuperating from your accident?
I think that there are some who view it in the limited context as "jobs" for the area they represent. Now, that makes for a rather unappealing combination of personal qualities: cowards who lack insight or imagination. Yet, there are a heck of a lot in DC that match that description!
(Also: thanks for asking! I don't think think I broke any bones this time. And that's good. But I have agreed -- under pressure -- to inform my doctor when I take serious falls. I'll get checked out tomorrow.)
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)great ruminations. I'm old too and terrified of falls for both myself and my husband. It's that time of year now that we fear the most...
When I think back on Ike, I think how wonderful it was to have such a great man as president. Of course, he had to make his concessions and have Nixon on board as VP but hell, even Nixon looks not too awful compared to what we have the the GOP now...
For all of Nixon's failures as a human being -- ethical, moral, and character flaws that should have disqualified him from ever being elected to Congress, much less the White House -- he was superior both intellectually and ethically than 90+ % of the republicans in Washington today. He did have actual talents, which alone separates him from the current crop.
(I haven't fallen as much in the past 7 or 8 months, as I have over the past 13 years. I had my back crushed in an auto wreck -- not my fault -- and had surgeries and a couple of years of physical therapy, to get me back on my feet. I've noticed that the older I get, the more it hurts. And it can be a real drag, laying on the cold ground, hoping one of my kids either returns home or stops for a visit. On the plus side, one of my dogs kept me warm while I was laying there!)
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)of pain). You have my deepest respect and affection, dear heart...get better and come back with all guns blazing!
H2O Man
(73,333 posts)I'm not particularly brave, or anything close to it. But I suppose that, in my younger years, I learned to "separate" from physical pain while in the boxing ring. In fact, looking back, I'd say I won a fair amount of bouts because I simply outlasted the opponent! (smile) What worked as a plus for me then has become, at times, a stumbling block to accessing proper medical care. But I'm definitely calling my doctor in the morning.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And be careful on the ice!
I find it a fascinating topic, and had hoped more DUers would, too.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group
Written by Bob Adelmann
The New American; June 13, 2013
According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker and former BAH employee Edward Snowden. By the time top management at BAH learned that one of their top level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.
For years Carlyle had, according to the Post, nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries; but now the light from the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies, parent and child, bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.
And have they ever. When The Carlyle Group bought BAH back in 2008, it was totally dependent upon government contracts in the fields of information technology (IT) and systems engineering for its bread and butter. But there wasn't much butter: After two years the companys gross revenues were $5.1 billion but net profits were a minuscule $25 million, close to a rounding error on the companys financial statement. In 2012, however, BAH grossed $5.8 billion and showed earnings of $219 million, nearly a nine-fold increase in net revenues and a nice gain in value for Carlyle.
Unwittingly, the Post authors exposed the real reason for the jump in profitability: close ties and interconnected relationships between top people at Carlyle and BAH, and the agencies with which they are working. The authors quoted George Price, an equity analyst at BB&T Capital: "[Booz Allen has] got a great brand, they've focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience." (Emphasis added.)
For instance, James Clapper had a stint at BAH before becoming the current Director of National Intelligence; George Little consulted with BAH before taking a position at the Central Intelligence Agency; John McConnell, now vice chairman at BAH, was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the 90s before moving up to director of national intelligence in 2007; Todd Park began his career with BAH and now serves as the country's chief technology officer; James Woolsey, currently a senior vice president at BAH, served in the past as director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and so on.
BAH has had more than a little problem with self-dealing and conflicts of interest over the years. For instance in 2006 the European Commission asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Privacy International (PI) to investigate BAHs involvement with President George Bushs SWIFT surveillance program, which was viewed by that administration as just another tool in its so-called War on Terror. The only problem is that it was illegal, as it violated U.S., Belgian, and European privacy laws. BAH was right in the middle of it. According to the ACLU/PI report,
Though Booz Allens role is to verify that the access to the SWIFT data is not abused, its relationship with the U.S. Government calls its objectivity significantly into question. (Emphasis added.)
Among Booz Allens senior consulting staff are several former members of the intelligence community, including a former Director of the CIA and a former director of the NSA.
As noted by Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU director, Its bad enough that the [Bush] administration is trying to hold out a private company as a substitute for genuine checks and balances on its surveillance activities. But of all companies to perform audits on a secret surveillance program, it would be difficult to find one less objective and more intertwined with the U.S. government security establishment. (Emphasis added.)
CONTINUED w Links n Privatized INTEL...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15696-behind-the-curtain-booz-allen-hamilton-and-its-owner-the-carlyle-group
Democracy takes hard work. Thanks for standing up and doing it, H20 Man!