It took historians decades to discern that behind the scenes, Ike as President was frequently pulling the strings and accomplishing his objectives at minimal effort and political cost. Reagan used similar methods, with business magazines praising his skill at delegation, which insiders said was modeled on Eisenhower’s practices. Both Reagan and Eisenhower are now generally rated as among the country’s better and even greatest presidents."
Historians, sadly, tend to overwhelmingly lean leftward (too often a problem with academics). I could see why left-wingers would praise Eisenhower. However, the more I learned about Ike, the less I found (as a Conservative) to like, for all the reasons I cited. One thing I'd be curious to know, since Ike was still alive when Reagan won the CA Governorship in 1966 and was seriously floated for the Presidency in 1968, what his opinion was of him. I would think it probably wasn't terribly well-regarded, as he was viewed as a Goldwaterite (albeit not exactly so), and Goldwater wasn't high on Ike.
"Growing US domestic issues today. The concept of proximate cause matters. Eisenhower cannot fairly be blamed for, say, today’s high rates of illegitimacy and family breakdown, nor can it be assumed that somehow MacArthur as president would have made a difference for the better."
But since Ike paved the way for JFK/LBJ and their explosion of their big government welfare state insanity, an individual in the Presidency who opposed such policies from being implemented at a national level might've slowed down or prevented the fiasco that resulted. Alas, that was neither Ike nor Nixon.
"Trying to save China from Mao. US resources were limited to the degree that we might be able to check the Soviets from further gains in Europe, but we could not, to a virtual certainty, undo Mao’s conquest of China, and there is no possibility that we could have done both. Worse, squandering our economic and military resources trying to save China would likely have permitted a Soviet takeover in Europe."
I chalk this up more to the failings of Truman to let MacArthur actually stop the Communist menace in the Asian theater. But that opportunity was there and should've been swiftly pursued. That MacArthur was relieved of duties was the greatest disasters to befall Eastern politics, and well over a billion souls have paid the price. I also vehemently disagree, again, that we had to choose one over the other. We could deal with Europe AND Asia. After all, we did so in WW2. You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"Chiang as a ruler. During WW II, US aid was often stolen or diverted by Chiang and his circle, and military resources were usually held back for use against Mao instead of the Japanese. After the war, Chiang and his allies were soundly defeated by Mao. Chiang and the Nationalists lacked a clear and appealing political program for reform and had little appeal to the Chinese populace.
Indeed, on Taiwan, much of the native population regarded Chiang and his Nationalists as invaders, and Chiang’s rule depended on a harsh security regime. Not until after Chiang died was a modern democracy contrived on Taiwan in the 1990s.
To be sure, US support for Chiang was sabotaged by communists working in the US government, but that does not mean that the Chinese populace was ready to revolt against Mao. What MacArthur would have delivered if he had his way would have been a war with China with little prospect of success at reasonable and bearable cost -- and we would risked losing Europe to the Soviets in the meantime."
I cannot summon up any indignation against Chiang in "skimming" weaponry to use against Mao. Indeed, I'd have cheered him on. There's simply nothing that can be said to me that would convince me to the contrary that the policies ultimately pursued here were a positive. Mao should've been defeated and executed at the earliest possible time. You pursue an argument reminiscent of those who said Batista removal was justified by Castro. There's another epic-level failure of Ike's... Cuba. And that was left for an in-over-his-head junior Senator who stole the 1960 election (for which Ike also did nothing about it).
(2) The proximate cause of the expansion of the federal government in the 1960s was LBJ’s landslide election victory in 1964 against Goldwater. The large Democratic majority gave LBJ the power to override opposition within his party and from the much diminished GOP contingent.
(3) MacArthur’s war plan against China does not seem to have gone beyond taking all of Korea up to the Yalu River, nuclear bombardment of major Chinese air bases, and a naval blockade. It would have required US war mobilization and its attendant costs, risked blanketing Japan with fallout, and still would not have been enough to procure suitable terms from the Chinese.
(4) Chiang merited US support on Taiwan but his well-demonstrated defects made him implausible as a liberator of the Chinese mainland. For most of the Chinese people, he offered nothing but more of the stagnation, poverty, and brutal oppression of traditional China.