Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rockingham; fieldmarshaldj
Eisenhower was elected after twenty years of FDR and Truman. As Eisenhower well knew, FDR and Truman did not leave our national security in any deficiency. He inherited a mighty military, well equipped with the most modern of armaments and so far ahead of whatever was second that Americans KNEW they were quite secure. As an example, the B-52 bomber (a magnificent weapons system still deployed today. It was designed and began production under Truman and completed production under Eisenhower. A substantial fleet of high altitude B-52s was the backbone of the Strategic Air Command that kept a nuclear arsenal in the air full time to threaten the soviets into keeping their own nukes inactive.

Eisenhower's brand of "Modern Republicanism" was a disgrace and has haunted the GOP ever since. Modern Republicanism consists of apologizing for breathing while not being a Democrat. And, of course, existing to service the investor class at the expense of everyone else.

The final disgrace was Eisenhower's dishonest ravings warning us against "the military industrial complex." The very industries that kept us sae from the soviets became Ike's new devil figure. That was the point at which Ike became McGovern. Every leftist hack "journalist" has lived on that speech ever since as the welfare state has exploded at the expense of military innovation and expenditures.

Spare us any more Eisenhowers AND any more Nixons.

Nixon???? Kowtowing to Chairman Mao, Chou en Lai, et al., 1960 "Sellout on Fifth Avenue" to Nelson Rockefeller, Kissinger as Secretary of State, SALT treaty with the soviets, status quo on steroids, wage and price controls, devaluing the dollar, despised Reagan and actual conservatives, enshrined Luddite envirowhackoism in the federal government to harass business and landowners ever more. WHAT ACHIEVEMENTS???????

Reagan put a stop to the soviets with the threat of High Frontier. He bankrupted them. Nixon and Eisenhower had NOTHING to do with our victory in the cold war. They were conscientious objectors to the elimination of the soviets. Bush the Elder was a passive spectator when the Wall fell along with the ussr.

"Exceptionally shrewd?????" Puhleeeeeeze!

58 posted on 09/23/2016 7:00:08 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society. Rack 'em, Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
Eisenhower was elected in 1952 in large part on the strength of his promise to visit Korea, the implication being that he would bring the unpopular Korean War to a close. The larger concern was that, during the Truman administration, national security strategy seemed ill-conceived, badly explained, and poorly executed.

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.

67 posted on 09/23/2016 11:49:56 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson