Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snowguy716

Dwight Eisenhower

20 posts in this topic

Here are some quotes from President Dwight Eisenhower that I believe are central to what America is and what it ought to strive to be:

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it.

Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.

I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Only Americans can hurt America.

Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free.

Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.

War settles nothing.

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It's too bad that Eisenhower's words didn't match his actions as President. His support of corrupt regimes in South & Central America that allowed American corporations to come in and exploit the people and the resources there still affects relations today. Millions of people suffered needlessly. It was these kind of actions that pushed Castro to become a communist and an ally of the Soviet Union.

His reign as President was marked by McCarthyism, discrimination, and an almost Orwellan conformist society that finally exploded in the 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^very well put, metro!

Yes Ike said some nice things. I particularly like his warning of the "military/industrial complex" during his farewell speech.

But Ike did some terrible things. His policies on foreign affairs were mostly horrible, as metro said.

Another thing many folks might not know is that it was Ike who instituted all the absurd homophobic policies in the US military. There was no mention of homosexuality in the military until Ike came on the scene.

Ike was such a social neanderthal that he didn't even know his personal assistant was a lesbian. And reportedly, she wasn't especially "straight acting" (a term I hate, but it works here-lol) He issued a directive to get rid of all the gays in the military, and she warned him she might be at the top of the list.

I couldn't agree more that he presided during the most stagnant, conformist, and hipocritical period of the 20th Century. When I see his name on lists of "great presidents" I am always astonished to think people would have that opinion of Ike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry, I did a college report on him and came to the conclusion that he is one of the US' WORST Presidents. After all, he created the Interstate Freeway System. Say hello to:

~Suburbia

~Increased Racial Tension due to suburbia (It was easier for whites to leave the city and leave poor blacks there)

~More environmental problems he created because of the construction of the freeway system

~And many other things that urban planners are now left to fix...

Because of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Charlotteman-

I agree with you whole-heartedly. It must be a Seattle thing (Im from there too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about Ike that galls me to the core was his nasty attitude and mean spiritedness.

During his presidency 1953-1961, Richard Nixon was his vice president. He treated Nixon like S#IT! And for no apparent reason, as Nixon was certainly a loyal team player. He barely let Nixon into the White House.

During the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, Ike didn't support Nixon at all. He even made a disparaging remark about Nixon to a reporter. The reporter asked "What did Nixon accomplish during your administration as Vice President?" Ike's answer "I can't think of a single thing...."

Of course I'm no fan of Nixon. Up until George W. Bush, I thought Nixon was the worst president since Grant. BUT I am quite taken aback with Ike's treatment of Nixon. Very cruel. Inexplicable.

Also Ike acted quite coldly to John Kennedy during their first meeting after Kennedy won the election. During the obligatory "tour" the outgoing pres gives the incoming pres, Ike gave JFK the cold shoulder to say the least. Kennedy remarked later that he couldn't understand why Ike was so filled with disdain for him (???) Presidents almost always kiss each others' asses so to speak:)

Ike apparently was not a people person. His character is most suspect. His presidency was awful (IMHO) People with nasty attitudes like Ike's makes it hard for subordinants to excel at their jobs. A failed presidency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, bashing Ike is FUN! lol

Another interesting tidbit about Ike is that he was apparently not the Mr. Goody Two Shoes that the era called for! According to many many people (including Harry Truman) he was having a torrid affair with a female subordinant while he was Commander-in-Chief of allied forces during WWII.

Pres. Truman claimed later on that he thought Ike was going to divorce Mamie and marry his lover (?) Kay Summersby. Mamie heard the rumours and was furious.

Years and years later Kay Summersby wrote a book claiming they indeed had an affair in the 1940s (though "non sexual")

The 1950s were so "pure" and "worthy of emulation" according to right wind ideologs---but alas Mr. All American President Ike was apparently a big fat cheater!!!!

What a hipocritical era. And Ike fit the bill perfectly. Mr. Hipocrit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, calling Ike one of the best presidents would be the last thing I would ever expect to see on UrbanPlanet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 50's were probably the most hypocritical era in U.S. history; I hope we are never doomed to repeat them. I'm ready for the next "live and let live" era to come about. I hope I'm not too old by then to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Okay.. when I wrote this thread I was talking more along the lines of economic achievements.

I gave him title of "great" because he was a Republican that believed in social security, farming supports, and was very bipartisan. He was also a military hero and was voted into office with an overwhelming majority in today's standards.

You have to look at history in the context of things. You can't say "Well, look at him from today's perspective.. he sucked." In my opinion, Ronald Reagan sucked too... but at the time he was cleaning 60% of the vote in this country.

That's why most people don't study history.. because they treat history like a timeline upon which they are looking back... asking questions like "Well, we know that installing puppet regimes in South America is bad.. WHY THE HELL DID HE DO IT?" Well, it hadn't been done before.. and this whole country, with popular support, was trying to oust communism from the world.

Dwight Eisenhower deserves a little credit for pulling the nation together. Sure, it was a conformist time.. but so were the 30s and 40s. I think the depression and the war built a sense of conformity into the nation.. a sense of "the government knows best", and they were right to do it at the time. The private sector obviously didn't know how to handle things. The conformist nature lingered into the '50s until the blow up in the '60s. You can't blame the conformity on Dwight Eisenhower because of black and white TV shows like "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver".

And yes, he was a hypocrite. Name one president that isn't. I'd venture to say Jimmy Carter... but somehow he seems to be very unpopular given that he was the only president since Herbert Hoover not to lead a bombing campaign on other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Snow, I can agree with you there.... but the freeway man... come on... thats his BIGGEST blunder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of giving his all to do the best possible job he could do as president, Ike chose to spend his days on the golf course. During his presidency Ike probably played more golf than Arnold Palmer.

Instead of attempting diplomatic solutions (a la Jimmy Carter) with problems in Latin America, Ike chose the easy way; he sent in the CIA and installed right wing tin-pan dictators.

And wasn't it Ike that cozied up to the Shah of Iran? And didn't Ike's CIA help establish the Shah's SAVAK, one of the most vicious secret police agencies outside the communist block?

Yes we are looking back on Ike's presidency with today's "norms". And looking back on it like this sure makes Ike look like a reckless extremist doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike wasn't that bad. He is partly to credit for stopping McCarthy.

The 50s were host to a monolithic, suffocating culture, but it wasn't all bad. People had a lot of respect for scientific and economic progress. The Research Triangle Park in NC was founded. The Interstate Highway System was originally a very useful system for helping smaller cities grow, and it contributed a lot to urbanism in the country at first.

Unfortunately, since the first beltway was constructed in the 60s, the Interstate has become horribly abused. It should merely be a conduit between cities, not around them.

This is coming from a post-keynesian progressive, just to put things in perspective. Everything Ike did wrong Nixon and Reagan did five times worse. But that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 50's were probably the most hypocritical era in U.S. history; I hope we are never doomed to repeat them. I'm ready for the next "live and let live" era to come about. I hope I'm not too old by then to enjoy it.

Indeed. We need another 70s. Unfortunately a darkness is descending upon this country and the days of Ike will seem like elementary school in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm looking forward to is a huge Bushie fall from grace! To anyone that takes the time to read minimally, he is already a doofus.

If the Dems win big this November, we might start seeing the real truth coming out regarding numerous Bushie atrocoties, with some investigations that have real teeth. That might usher in a new liberal era? I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

My partner believes the current conservative era began in 1976, with the election of Jimmy Carter who was a conservative Dem. Then Reagan was elected in 1980 because he was seen as even more conservative than Carter. George H.W. Bush was elected as a conservative in 1988, but was kicked out because he was seen as "out of touch", not that he was too conservative.

Then Clinton was elected in 1992, not as a liberal, but as a "new Dem" i.e. basically a Dem in Rep's clothing. Clinton "ended welfare as we know it"........sounds conservative to me.

Then of course Americans elected our current international embarassment. When Bushie's time is up in 2008, won't the conservative era be exhausted?

The last liberal era was roughly 1962-1978. Unfortunately, throughout political history, conservative eras last longer~~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner believes the current conservative era began in 1976, with the election of Jimmy Carter who was a conservative Dem. Then Reagan was elected in 1980 because he was seen as even more conservative than Carter.

No way. Carter was a populist president and unfortunately the last one that we have had. He did more for the common person than any president since and he brought peace to millions of people. His downfall was how he dealt with the Iranian hostage situation because Reagan/Bush were swept into office as conservatives, neo-cons, and the industrial military establishment villified Carter for not going to war with Iran.

As an example of this, when the 3 Mile Island nuclear complex started to meltdown, and chaos was gripping Pennsylvania and the eastern USA, Carter, a nuclear engineer, risked great personal injury and traveled to the reactor to help handle the situation. His presense, calmed down the situation and got the right resources working on the problem so that it would not become a Chernobyl. I can't imagine anybody in the current administration doing something like that. They would go and hide in bunkers instead.

If we had stuck with Carter I fully believe that we would be a much better off nation by now. We would not be dependant on middle eastern oil, and the almost 3 decades of wars the Bush adminstrations have brought on the people of the middle east are nothing but big failures that at the same time made a lot of people rich. They get away with it, by dividing the country and then getting them to fight over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You're preaching to the choir metro:)

I admire Jimmy Carter, I admire his life, his service to our country militarily, his presidency and of course his philanthropic efforts. I campaigned for him in 1980.

I campaigned strongly for Walter Mondale in 1984. With Carter or Mondale in the 80s, we would have had a much better decade, and a better today.

I get pretty upset when I hear people criticize Carter for not invading Iran in 1979. Carter was keeping quiet with CIA intelligence that Brezhnev (the leader of the Soviet Union at the time) had already moved several divisions to the Iranian border, in anticipation of Carter attacking. What was Carter to do, launch an attack on Iran and have the Great Russian Bear counterattack from the north?

And if everyone remembers, Brezhnev was a certified lunatic who had already launched several invasions of foreign countries. Why would Carter think Leonid wouldn't do it again??? He couldn't take that chance, so he used DIPLOMACY (wow-imagine that!) and took the heat for being "weak" and "not standing up to the Ayatollah".

What Carter really did was to avert WWIII.

oh and by the way, as far as Dems go, Carter is on the conservative end:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and by the way, as far as Dems go, Carter is on the conservative end:)

True about democrats that are in control of the party today. i.e. the North East liberal branch. It's going to take several more elections to get rid out the rest of them. I will predict that if the Democratic party is stupid enough to nominate Hillary as their Presidential candidate, they will lose the election. (and they would deserve to)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hillary was nominated by the Dems in 2008 I think she would carry these states:

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusettes

Rhode Island

New York

District of Columbia

Maryland

Minnesota

Hawaii

Washington

Oregon

MAYBE MAYBE California.

In other words it would be a wash-out similar to the 1988 election when Gov. Dukakis carried most of those states I listed.

Hillary is Hillary. Why doesn't she just stay in the Senate and become a powerhouse there??? I am as likely to become president as she is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eisenhower spent more time on the golf course or in the hospital, than doing the job as president. He approach the job as president like he did the job as a general in the army.

I was in my teens when he was president and I remember Eisenhower as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hillary was nominated by the Dems in 2008 I think she would carry these states:

Maine

New Hampshire

Vermont

Massachusettes

Rhode Island

New York

District of Columbia

Maryland

Minnesota

Hawaii

Washington

Oregon

MAYBE MAYBE California.

In other words it would be a wash-out similar to the 1988 election when Gov. Dukakis carried most of those states I listed.

Hillary is Hillary. Why doesn't she just stay in the Senate and become a powerhouse there??? I am as likely to become president as she is!

I think that really depends on who the GOP puts up in '08 if they put up radicals like George Allen, or Romney, Hillary has a much better chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.