Posted on 09/20/2016 11:06:55 PM PDT by TBP
Hear! Hear!
My labor Democrat parents brought me up to firmly believe that Patton had been assassinated. They were right.
The conservative opportunities that you see for Eisenhower and Nixon were largely illusory. The New Deal and FDR were still popular, and the public had not yet had the experiences of the 1960s and 70s to make them ready to question liberalism. Only then did modern conservatism accrue enough strength enough to win, and even then, the extraordinary political talent of Ronald Reagan was required.
Moreover, in the 1950s, the intellectual case for tax cuts had not yet been developed, and, without the far greater burden of Medicare and other benefit expansions, Social Security was affordable and sustainable. And not until 1974 did Jude Wanninski arrange for economist Art Laffer to meet with Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to demonstrate new economic findings by drawing the Laffer Curve to show how lower income tax rates could bring in more revenue than higher rates.
Insisting that Eisenhower as President should have arrived at such an insight in the 1950s unaided is like insisting that he could have defeated Hitler more quickly if only he had used cruise missiles and JDAMS delivered by B-2s. Sure, he could have, except that he didn't have any of them available because they had not been invented yet.
Spot-on as usual, DJ... your historical knowledge of political figures never fails to impress me.
The "Never Trump" folks do not represent Conservative values.
Dr. Russell Kirk, whom I had the privilege to know when I was in college and for quite a few years thereafter, wrote a very good book on Bob Taft.
http://www.conservativebookclub.com/book/political-principles-robert-taft
William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote that “no sensible conservative movement will proceed without the advice of Russell Kirk.”
Most notably, the Truman administration was unprepared for the Korean War. American troops arrived with inadequate weapons, equipment, and training, and US war aims were uncertain and less compelling than clear victory. In contrast, under Eisenhower, the threat of US use of nuclear bombs in Korea soon yielded an armistice. Call that inadequate, but it yielded enough security for South Korea to become a free and prosperous nation allied to and sheltering under the strength of the US.
Under Eisenhower, the National Security Council was reorganized and strengthened into a comprehensive system for coordination and advice on national security. Eisenhower's model was his staff system for running SHAEF during WW II. The current NSC system continues on that basis.
As for SAC's practice of flying B-52 nuclear bombers continuously on alert, it was not adopted until 1961 after Kennedy came into office. It was eventually dropped because of the inevitable crashes that risked losing nuclear weapons, spreading nuclear material about, or even having an accidental detonation.
For conservatives today, Eisenhower's flaws and defects loom overlarge because the modern conservative movement was in part a reaction to them. Yet without Eisenhower, the GOP would have likely have faded away to offering only token opposition to expansion of the New Deal. Even a Taft presidency would have been short-lived as he would perished from cancer before the mid-term elections and left the GOP in danger and confusion.
Many conservatives are principle driven to a fault. From the standpoint of the practical politics of winning and losing elections though, one cannot afford to ignore that the public wants help from the government and grants and special breaks when they can get them. Call it socialism and unsustainable, but Social Security and Medicare are near universally popular and have an essential role in the retirement plans of most Americans.
Blaming the modern American welfare state on inadequate opposition by Eisenhower or Nixon or Reagan or the GOPe misses the point that when people are allowed to govern themselves, they usually get what they want. And the American public wants the risks of poverty and illness in retirement mitigated by putting them on the books of the federal government. Eventually, when this becomes financially impossible, the system will be reformed.
No, Taft saw Ike as the Republican nominee and preferable to work with than Gov. Stevenson. Sandbagging him, the usual routine of many GOP Establishment figures towards Conservatives, was not an option. Taft would've extended the same courtesy to liberal Gov. Dewey, had he been President. What kind of friendship or bona fide alliance they'd have had cannot be truly evaluated simply because of the too-short period of time. More concerning is the relationship that Ike had with Majority Leader LBJ, as that was 6 years long, not 5 short months.
"As Eisenhower's letter to his brother reveals, Eisenhower saw himself as a conservative, with his advocacy of moderation being an appeal to liberals to moderate their passion for larger government."
Nevermind the jaw-dropping contradiction in terms that is, I could write a letter to my cousin telling her I see myself as a flying pterodactyl fudgesicle, but that won't make it true. Again, it is only his actions that matter, what he REALLY is.
"The conservative opportunities that you see for Eisenhower and Nixon were largely illusory. The New Deal and FDR were still popular, and the public had not yet had the experiences of the 1960s and 70s to make them ready to question liberalism."
I disagree. People and politicians had been questioning the expansion of government and heavy-handed taxation from Jump Street. The New Deal was an unheralded failure, and it took WW2 to begin to lift the country out of a prolonged depression. Even by 1953, the country still hadn't fully gotten back to pre-1929 levels. The answers to kicking off economic expansion were right there in front of them, they just refused to pursue them. Ike and Nixon were true believers in big government in their actions.
"Only then did modern conservatism accrue enough strength enough to win, and even then, the extraordinary political talent of Ronald Reagan was required."
Which wasn't necessary had they done the right thing in office. Leftist mismanagement on behalf of both parties caused a rise of Reagan. Ike's disastrous tenure that culminated in the 1958 elections, which all but wiped out the GOP as a national governing party had disastrous effects down to the state level. Similar mismanagement in California on the part of Establishment liberal RINO Gov. Goodwin Knight paved the way for the Brown family to rise to power. Had Knight and Ike been Conservatives, Pat Brown would never have risen to Attorney General and then Governor, and nevermind his son, who continues to drive the former Golden State to depths never seen. These are the repercussions of Eisenhower almost 65 years after the fact.
"Moreover, in the 1950s, the intellectual case for tax cuts had not yet been developed, and, without the far greater burden of Medicare and other benefit expansions, Social Security was affordable and sustainable. And not until 1974 did Jude Wanninski arrange for economist Art Laffer to meet with Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to demonstrate new economic findings by drawing the Laffer Curve to show how lower income tax rates could bring in more revenue than higher rates."
"Insisting that Eisenhower as President should have arrived at such an insight in the 1950s unaided is like insisting that he could have defeated Hitler more quickly if only he had used cruise missiles and JDAMS delivered by B-2s. Sure, he could have, except that he didn't have any of them available because they had not been invented yet."
Again, this was not some new idea that required the gift of clairvoyance. Harding and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (the latter of whom should've succeeded Coolidge instead of Hoover) pioneered tax cuts and cutting government in 1921. They predictably lifted the country out of the Wilson 1919-1920 Recession in short order.
Thank you.
A President Robert Taft would've been succeeded by one of the most capable individuals this country had at the time, second in my estimation only to Gen. Patton, and that being his Vice-President, Douglas MacArthur. This country would've benefitted far more from his leadership than that of Eisenhower.
Thank you for posting facts in this thread,
Taft was the right choice in that election, period.
The two of you have just set the bar for how to have a civil discussion out here.
Reasoned, logical, rational.... and courteous.
Thank you. It’s good to see it. And thanks for pinging me to it.
OOORah, my brother.
Well said.!!!!!
What, you don’t like it when we call each other poopyheaded Nazis ? ;-P
If Trump can simply restrain the Left-fascists in his own Justice Department, EPA, IRS, and other agencies long enough for Americans to regroup and get the economy back on its feet, that will be enough by itself to set the Left back for a generation.
Finally, MacArthur could easily have become a political albatross to the GOP if the Truman administration or the Joint Chiefs of Staff had leaked the true reason for his removal: MacArthur had been caught trying to provoke an expansion of war in order to attack and defeat China itself using nuclear weapons. The Joint Chiefs were appalled, and the war-weary US public would have rounded on MacArthur if this had become known at the time.
Even without such a revelation, the issue between MacArthur and Truman was known to be that MacArthur was broadly in favor of war with China, while Truman and the Joint Chiefs were against it. As Omar Bradley, the Chairman of the JCS testified before Congress: "Red China is not the powerful nation seeking to dominate the world. Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."
After the nation's highest ranking military officer publicly stated such an opinion, MacArthur's support in the GOP Congress evaporated and he went into near seclusion to write his memoirs. Although a revered military figure, MacArthur's eagerness to go to war with China had little public support. If named as Taft's running mate in 1952, MacArthur would likely have been a severe political liability.
RE Poopyhead:
No... gives poopyhead nazis a bad name.... :^)
Where Taft and Eisenhower differed was in foreign policy, with Taft tending toward isolationism and wanting to avoid overseas military commitments against the advance of communism. Taft was even a critic of NATO and the US commitment to help defend Europe. Do you approve more of Taft or Eisenhower in that respect?
Whatever your views though, modern American conservatism is anti-communist to the core. Unlike Taft, Ronald Reagan and most conservatives favored NATO and the use of American military power to resist and defeat communism. Indeed, no small part of the case for American conservatism is its role in fostering the ideas and policies that helped lead to the essentially peaceful overthrow of the USSR and the other communist regimes in Eastern Europe.
Eisenhower's conception of himself as a small government conservative is supported by the historical record. Conservatives did not fully realize it at the time, and some, like the National Review circle, were almost relentlessly disparaging, but Eisenhower as President actually believed in the Constitution and limited federal powers.
A few years ago, National Review more or less recanted in "Why Like Ike - Conservatives got Eisenhower wrong the first time around," by Kevin D. Williamson. If you want, use the private mail function here to send me your email and I will provide a PDF copy. Perhaps, like NR, you might conclude on reconsideration that you like Ike.
I absolutely believe Gen. MacArthur was to be Taft’s running mate. His popularity was overwhelming. As for his “lack of domestic political experience”, the same could be said for Eisenhower, but was more than made up for in Japan. MacArthur was effective ruler of Japan in the aftermath of WW2 and placed it on sound footing for the long term, doing a superb job in the process. Ike had no similar accomplishment with a specific nation.
I also disagree with your assessment of the public’s reaction to MacArthur. Truman’s weakness after winning WW2 was on full display. We had other enemies to pursue, and he failed to do so, which paved the way for China, North Korea, Vietnam, et al. Had MacArthur been allowed to move on China, defeat Mao and install Chiang, it would’ve completely changed the dynamics in Asia. Korea would’ve been united and free, China would never have had descended into madness and mass-murder under the Cultural Revolution. There would’ve been no support for Communist incursions in Southeast Asia. MacArthur’s response would’ve been a simple indictment of the Democrat party failing to protect America and the world from an encroaching Communist threat. Let’s see which one of those agendas would’ve played in 1952. Remember how massively unpopular Truman was in his last term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.