Periodically, I feel the need to drag out Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation.
Not starting at the beginning:
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.
To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
....
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
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.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
....
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Eisenhower spoke these wise words 46 years ago, and we have not paid attention. The military-industrial monster has taken on a life of its own, and it is out of control. The monster is always hungry and demanding to be fed, therefore we must have wars - whether they're called "incursions", or "spreading freedom", or "bringing democracy" to another country.
One huge difference between Eisenhower and the leadership today is that he know from experience that "war is hell".
Remarkable words indeed. And from a Republican military man. What would he think if he were alive today? I have read that his daughter is becoming disaffected with the party.
ReplyDeleteI have read that his daughter is becoming disaffected with the party.
ReplyDeleteEd, I hope that's true. It's about time. It's not the same Republican Party as in the Eisenhower days. Back then, there were more than a few Republicans who had principles and character.
Eisenhower is not peaceful in his grave about the situation today, I'm sure.
wow. I'm just young enough that I feel I missed all the great political speeches in this country. When I lived in DC I would trek down to the Lincoln memorial to read the 2nd inaugural address from time to time. I am too young to remember those in the 60s, so my first real political memory is of the watergate trial. sigh. Thanks for reminding us.
ReplyDeleteLJ, I'm pleased to oblige. These are remarkably prescient words.
ReplyDeleteAs the philosopher George Santayana said, "Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I believed that we had learned from more recent history in Vietnam, but, alas, we did not.
"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
Unfortunatly, we now have a president who seems to be more true to the axiom "Those who do not know their history are doomed not to know when they are repeating it."
ReplyDeleteThe first step to wisdom is the ability to admit, "I do not know." Instead, we have a president who thinks of himself as almost miraculously able to "see the problem" in a blink of the eye.
There are some issues amenable to that strategy, but diplomacy is not one of them. Unless you think the German Chancellor is dying for a backrub...
Tobias, wasn't that a weird moment with Angela Merkel and the shoulder massage?
ReplyDeleteOr how about "I was wrong"? Beyond the realm of possibilty, most surely.
I have thought for quite a while that there is something very wrong with Bush. He seems not quite normal. His slips of the tongue and his performance during unscripted public appearances get worse and worse.
But his gut is good. He goes from the gut. One longs for a bit of a sign of brain function, but, I suppose that is not to be.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Amen. "I was wrong" is good too, though most politicians on both sides of the aisle seem unable to say those words. Rather they divert responsibility with "Mistakes were made." Isn't the passive voice wonderful!
ReplyDeleteWhat would we do without the passive voice and "mistakes were made"? Someone, some day, might have to take responsibility.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I have heard some mental health professionals opine that Bush is a classic 'dry drunk'. He apparently started drinking heavily while still in prep school and continued for well over 20 years. He stopped drinking but did not go through AA or another program that would have involved coming to terms with the reasons for his drinking and making changes in the way he approached life. He has retained the attitudes and personality traits of the drunk: impatience, arrogance, a sense of entitlement, lack of receptivity to others, lack of accountability or reckoning with consequences, etc. (my way of describing it). In addition, having drunk so much for so long, he probably has brain damage. This is the only explanation I have heard that makes sense of his bizarre behavior.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this. There are parts of it I had not heard, notably the part about government funding taking the place of intellectual curiosity! Wow.
It may be Julie Nixon Eisenhower Ed is thinking of (Pres. Nixon's daughter who married Ike's grandson David). I read an article about her recently to that effect. I don't believe the Eisenhowers had a daughter.
(We are older than Ed so we can keep track of this ancient historical stuff.)
Mary Clara, you are right. The Eisenhowers never had a daughter. I'm sure it's Julie Eisenhower, the daughter of Nixon, that Ed was referring to. That's who I was thinking of. The generations sometimes run together for me.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the dry drunk reference before, and it sounds about right to me. He could have brain damage from all the boozing, too. Something is not right.
In the shameless past-self-promotion vein... in my former life as an actor I performed ages ago (1972) before our nearest thing to royalty: Pat Nixon and Julie Eisenhower, who sat in the presidential box at the Kennedy Center opera house in DC. The play, in its pre-Broadway run, was about another First Lady: The Last of Mrs. Lincoln, with Julie Harris in the titular role. I was Tad Lincoln, the youngest surviving son, who died towards the end of act one. In any case, after the performance, Miss Harris was whisked away by the Secret Service to meet the "royalty" and had her picture taken with them (they both towered over her). When the framed photo arrived some weeks later at the theater in NY, I happened to be present as Julie unwrapped it. She smiled and said, "This will prove to my mother that I've finally made it!"
ReplyDeleteThanks for evoking these off-topic memories, and I hope you don't mind the sharing... and glad to hear the other Julie is perhaps having a change of heart about the direction taken by the GOP -- the party of Lincoln!