Posted on 09/20/2016 11:06:55 PM PDT by TBP
With swing-state polls reportedly driving some nervous Hillary Clinton supporters to check out housing prices in Canada, attention is turning to what many in both parties thought the impossible -- a Donald Trump presidency and what it might look like.
Though the temperament and personality hardly match, there are enough parallels between the high-energy business tycoon and Dwight D. Eisenhower to make the avuncular Ike's Oval Office tenure six decades ago a predictor of a Trump presidency's features.
The World War II hero and five-star Army general credited with winning the war in Europe wasn't rigidly ideological any more than Mr. Trump. Neither man had dipped a toe in the choppy water of U.S. politics before running for president. Both were highly successful at their chosen lines of work.
"Trump has staked out positions that do not allow him to be pigeonholed ideologically -- that makes him more akin to an Ike figure certainly," said Eric Hargan, who was Health and Human Services Department COO under President George W. Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What would an Eisenhower type do today to halt the march of progressivism? We may find out, if Mr. Hallow is right in his comparison.
Yup, Trump could do worse than emulate Eisenhower. Ike was great!
I like Ike.
I was born during Ike’s term.
Only Nixon could go to China.
Me too.
Great post, thanks!
Just those two items made Ike a great president. If Trump does nothing but build a wall, freeze the massive Muslim influx, and and end sanctuary cities, then he belongs on Mt Rushmore
Thanks for pointing out one of the most important facts of Eisenhower’s legacy.
And last year while running and challenged about his deportation of millions of illegals, Donald mentioned how Eisenhower accomplished it.
And before Donald mentioned this in the press, Freepers such as yours truly had brought up the subject of Eisenhower’s success in Operation Wetback as a counterargument to those in the press who kept harping “can’t be done, can’t be done”, like Michael Medved and so many others both conservative and liberal.
And here comes Donald saying almost verbatim what we Freepers had been discussing.
And that is one of several examples why many of us believe Donald reads or has someone read FR.
Odd article.
Either way, commence "operation wetback"
Notably, both also put the GOP on a solid enough foundation that the party could afford a clear right turn after they were out of office. Even as we conservatives prefer that Eisenhower and Nixon had been more conservative, the scope of their achievement ought not to be ignored: at critical moments, they broke the advance of liberalism and made later eras of conservative victory possible. And, most of all, they helped restore US national power and put us back on a path to victory in the Cold War.
Ike did absolutely nothing to curtail the march of leftism begun under Hoover and exploded under FDR/Truman. He swiftly pissed away a mandate to roll back the Socialist agenda and the Dems ran away with a majority beginning with the 1954 elections (and culminating with the disastrous 1958 elections) that effectively ran for the next 40 years. He was the left-leaning establishment pol that has typified the GOP leadership forever since, with a brief vacation under Reagan. In 1952, the GOP ticket should’ve been Taft-MacArthur.
If Trump ends up another Ike, another Socialist RINO, this country is finished. I want Trump to be another Warren Harding, an excellent Conservative who actually rolled back Socialist government under Wilson and created the 1920s economic success story. Historians and the left hate Harding for that and rank him as one of the worst Presidents when he is the complete opposite.
You’re kidding. These guys were not Conservatives. When faced with exposure of two+ decades of pro-Soviet/Communist infiltration of government, they hung Sen. McCarthy out to dry. Ike was happy to leave office with a enormous Dem majority and a woefully unqualified JFK as his successor, not a mark of a successful “Conservative” President. More like Dubya’s failed administration.
Earl Warren
Earl Warren
Earl Warren.
Was that a good thing?
I did not refer to either Nixon or Eisenhower as conservative Presidents. Their instincts were conservative, but they governed as moderates. No small part of their accomplishment though was to make it possible for conservatism to rise and come to power in the form of Ronald Reagan. Notably, personality and circumstances matter. It is quite possible that with GOP Congressional majorities — a luxury neither Eisenhower nor Nixon enjoyed — a Trump presidency may follow GOP conservatives in Congress on many issues. Trump’s alliance with Sen Jeff Sessions as to immigration is to me a key indication that such a dynamic will prevail if Trump wins.
Match Gane style: “I want Trump to be another (blank).”
I’ll go with Charles Martel.
Ike: Like Clinton, is considered “something” only because he WAS LUCKY enough to be POTUS during a booming economy.
I was born late in Ike’s Administration. ‘58 here
‘56 for me. I’m right smack in the middle of the baby boom.
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.