I read “The Age of Eisenhower” by William Hitchcock awhile ago. I’m probably in the minority, but I was not impressed with his actions as president. WWII? Sure, I’ll give the man full credit. But as president, he (in my opinion) intervened around the globe where he should not have, and he failed to intervene in places where perhaps should have. I think he mismanaged the Cold War, and Civil Rights. I think he let the CIA get out of control and I think the Deep State was largely born while Eisenhower was president. Did he know? I’m not sure. But I got the impression that if he did know, he would have approved of it. I came away not liking Eisenhower all that much.
“Did he know?”
About the military-industrial complex? I believe he did...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh....so YOU know the facts! Good for YOU!
I agree.
Too many things that got papered over by the media during the Eisenhower administration.
Just read “American Betrayal” by Diana West.
Changed my perspective.
Foreign policy was controlled by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and CIA Director Allen Dulles.
The Deep State predates WW II.
Eisenhower’s farewell speech was brilliant—and a confession of total failure as President. It takes a big man to admit failure.
Some key excerpts from that speech:
“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 State house, 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 militaryindustrial 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.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
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.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
I am with you. Not a fan of Eisenhower, especially his treatment of Joseph McCarthy.