by Nomad
A quote from the Eisenhower era suggests, when it comes to social programs and taxes, the Republican party has drifted a long way toward the extreme right. That is, of course, true. However, a closer look at the source of that quote tells us that the problem with the GOP began early on.
Fast and Loose with the History of the Party
Republicans have always had an extremely selective memory when it comes to the historical facts of their party. You will hear, for example, that the GOP is the "Party of Lincoln" and the Democrats were the party of slavery, without much in the way of elaboration.
The facts are very different. The main founder of the Republican Party was a radical left-wing newspaperman in New York. Horace Greeley was also an unabashed socialist and the employer of both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the future writers of the Communist Manifesto. Without this socialist, there would be no Republican party.
Remember this the next time you hear a Republican fitfully sound the alarm over the common-sense "socialism" of people like the Democratic rising star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Dwight Eisenhower is another case in point. The meme above has been making the rounds on the Internet in recent years. The idea behind the citation, I suppose, is to show the degree that the Republican party has shifted its policies- while at the same time, celebrating the achievements of its most successful and appealing presidents.
What's there not to like about Ike?
What's there not to like about Ike?
As with any meme, it is really only a particle of information, in this case, a quote. The net is filled with fake or misleading or misattributed quotes. It is always wise to search for the original source of the quote.
As far as it goes, this assessment of Eisenhower is true. When it came to things like social programs, like Social Security and the tax structure, Eisenhower had ideas that today's conservatives would call radical and extreme left. The rest of the world would call it "progressive" or perhaps "mandated."
For example, during his administration (from 1953 to 1961) the top income bracket in the United States climbed to a marginal tax rate of 91 percent.
As far as it goes, this assessment of Eisenhower is true. When it came to things like social programs, like Social Security and the tax structure, Eisenhower had ideas that today's conservatives would call radical and extreme left. The rest of the world would call it "progressive" or perhaps "mandated."
For example, during his administration (from 1953 to 1961) the top income bracket in the United States climbed to a marginal tax rate of 91 percent.
Taxes on corporate profits were two times as great as they are in 2017, and that’s before the current proposal to cut that rate to 21 percent. The tax on large estates rose to more than 70 percent. Businesses operated under a relatively high tax burden, and they employed a labor force in which one-third of the workers were unionized and bargained with executives as equals. Corporations served a diversity of stakeholders as opposed to stockholders. The result was a booming economy that benefited most Americans.Today Eisenhower seems about as benign as cotton candy. But there is more to the story than that.
Eisenhower, the Courts, and the Reshaping of the Constitution
The source for the quote comes from a letter the president wrote to his older brother, Edgar Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954. There are other interesting points found in this letter, points that bring Eisenhower much closer to the modern Republican mentality.
The correspondence- essentially a political discussion between two brothers- opens with a casual discussion of Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution.
The correspondence- essentially a political discussion between two brothers- opens with a casual discussion of Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution.
According to President Eisenhower, the Constitution is "what the Supreme Court says it is." However, he goes further when he suggests that no Supreme Court decision is the final interpretation. Previous rulings by the high court can always be superseded by more recent ones.
And he is perfectly correct.
And he is perfectly correct.
The problem lies in where that kind of thinking led the fuel-injected Republican party of Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Trump.
The Republican policy subtly shifted toward the extreme.
Controversial rulings on subjects like abortion, minority rights and other issues did not have to be accepted as the law of the land. The agenda became all about controlling the political balance on the Supreme Court.
Controversial rulings on subjects like abortion, minority rights and other issues did not have to be accepted as the law of the land. The agenda became all about controlling the political balance on the Supreme Court.
 |
Eisenhower and Nixon |
By the time Nixon- Eisenhower's vice-president- became president, court packing was more or less a political tool to win voters. he could claim Southerners “deserve representation on the Court” and that he understood "the bitter feeling of millions of Americans who live in the South."
It was, in fact, part and parcel of his charm offensive to the former Dixie-crats who refuse to accept racial equality in their party's platform. With Southern justices on the bench, there was faint hope that some aspects of the Johnson's Civil Rights legislation could be overturned.
That, of course, never happened.
Later Reagan ran for president by reviving Nixon's so-called Southern strategy. In our time, it was exactly the same appeal to intolerance and deep-seated resentment that fueled Trump's 2016 campaign.
Later Reagan ran for president by reviving Nixon's so-called Southern strategy. In our time, it was exactly the same appeal to intolerance and deep-seated resentment that fueled Trump's 2016 campaign.
As the letter suggests, Eisenhower believed that the Constitution could effectively be rewritten based on the political balance of the court. Offering the disenchanted fringe the hope to overturn unpopular high court rulings, on such issues as religious liberties and abortion, has today become a tactic used by Republicans in nearly every campaign.
The refusal to recognize the authority of the high court has led to increasing political chaos. This way of thinking has led to permanent rifts which are essentially irreparable.
"We Will Lose Everything"
Despite that accusation against him, Eisenhower's strength lies in his belief that a good government is a moderate one.
He warned that "too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions" represented a "dangerous trend." That objection was based on his experience with European fascism and Soviet Communism.
He warned that "too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions" represented a "dangerous trend." That objection was based on his experience with European fascism and Soviet Communism.
However, this attitude against centralized government later opened the door to Reagan's belief that big government- in any form- was the problem. This would become an unquestioned staple of the conservative movement. This would lead to Trumpism, an all-out assault on the duties and responsibilities of government.
In his letter, Eisenhower stated his opinions about the role of government.
But to attain any success, it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government.
And here we find the famous quote.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
And he adds this interesting but anachronistic note.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
 |
H.L. Hunt |
The multi-millionaire Hunt was also a member of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, a forerunner of the tea party movement. In other words, he had to cash to buy influence in Washington and to install his own people in positions of power.
As another source points out:
Along with two of his sons, Nelson Bunker Hunt and Lamar Hunt, he set-up a right-wing intelligence network, the International Committee for the Defence of Christian Culture.
Hunt also funded two right-wing radio shows, Facts Forum and Life Line. He used these radio stations to support the anti-communist campaign of Joseph McCarthy.
The right-wing radical Hunt was the precursor to political extremists like the Koch brothers and others. Because of his alleged courting of people like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Hunt also figures in many persuasive conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.
The "imminent danger" came as a result of the election of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh ran afoul of the West when he called for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, effectively removing the British from control.
Today, 66 years after the events Eisenhower celebrates, US relations with Iran have devolved to implementing fresh rounds of sanctions and issuing very plausible threats of military action.
This is what happens when a president puts expediency and the profits for a select group of corporations above all else. Indeed, Eisenhower's measure of success in foreign policy based on the short-term results has become something of Republican tradition.
Remember the support for the Afghan "freedom fighters" that Reagan welcomed into the Oval Office? The Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) would, after driving out the Soviet invaders, would declare its jihad on all infidels everywhere. The mistake of Reagan's expediency became clear on September 11, 2001.
Despite that, at the time of his letter, President Eisenhower seemed naively unaware that small numbers of incredibly wealthy (and incredibly stupid people) can pose a very real threat to government.
Today, this powerful cabal now appears to have taken over first the Republican and then the nation.
Today, this powerful cabal now appears to have taken over first the Republican and then the nation.
Myopic Foreign Policy
One of the most intriguing aspects to this particular letter is how Eisenhower viewed foreign policy. The question was: is there any real difference between the parties when it comes to the objectives in the Cold War era?
Not really, says Eisenhower. When it came to policy, there were no appreciable differences.
Not really, says Eisenhower. When it came to policy, there were no appreciable differences.
It is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.
In his list of items, there is a notable absence of support for democratic institutions. As a military man, it is perhaps hardly surprising. It could be plausibly written off as sound pragmatism in an ideological war with the Communist. Yet, this "might makes right" mentality would lead to foreign policy disaster we are still saddled with.
No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.
The example he cites in the letter is interesting.
A year ago last January, we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world...But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed.
 |
Mohammad Mosaddegh |
In 1953, his two-year-old government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA under the direction of President Eisenhower. Known as Operation Ajax, it had much less to do with keeping the Communists out of Iran as it did with keeping oil profits in the hands of Western oil companies.
As de-classified documents state:
As de-classified documents state:
"The military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."
This was unquestionably a repudiation of democracy. Elections were invalidated in order to install a non-democratic regime, namely the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In time, the illegitimate leadership became known for its authoritarianism, corruption, and brutality. It also taught Iranian people the corrosive idea that democratic elections were irrelevant.
Eisenhower seemed to see nothing paradoxical or hypocritical about rejecting centralized government for America while enthusiastically supporting the installation of a monarchy for Iran.
Eisenhower seemed to see nothing paradoxical or hypocritical about rejecting centralized government for America while enthusiastically supporting the installation of a monarchy for Iran.
The results: a betrayal of our ideals for the sake of expediency. It was a foreign policy that operated on deception and the use of force.
In time, this Eisenhower "success" would lead to the removal of the Shah, hostage-taking of foreign nationals, a series of international crises. It would- indirectly- result in the spread of terrorism in the region and abroad and the kind of bitterness and distrust that makes future peaceful negotiations impossible.
In time, this Eisenhower "success" would lead to the removal of the Shah, hostage-taking of foreign nationals, a series of international crises. It would- indirectly- result in the spread of terrorism in the region and abroad and the kind of bitterness and distrust that makes future peaceful negotiations impossible.
Today, 66 years after the events Eisenhower celebrates, US relations with Iran have devolved to implementing fresh rounds of sanctions and issuing very plausible threats of military action.
Remember the support for the Afghan "freedom fighters" that Reagan welcomed into the Oval Office? The Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) would, after driving out the Soviet invaders, would declare its jihad on all infidels everywhere. The mistake of Reagan's expediency became clear on September 11, 2001.
"A Group of Machiavellian Characters"
The Eisenhower letter to his brother closes with a few testy paragraphs that highlight yet another feature of the modern Republican party. The inability to tolerate criticism, either from within or from without.
In answer to the charge that Eisenhower has surrounded himself with "a group of Machiavellian characters" who are escorting him down the wrong path, the president becomes peevish.
In answer to the charge that Eisenhower has surrounded himself with "a group of Machiavellian characters" who are escorting him down the wrong path, the president becomes peevish.
You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice?
So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?
Today we have a president who is surrounded by his own cast of Machiavellian characters and unqualified corrupt advisors fit more for reality TV than at the gears of political power. There's been a pathetic parade of incompetents and villains, from Steve Bannon, to Stephen Miller, from Michael Flynn to Omarosa Manigault.
To make matters worse, Trump refuses to listen to career intelligence analysts in favor of Fox News contributors, like Sean Hannity. Any criticism inevitably leads to personal attacks on Twitter, direct from the president himself.
In this way, Trump is possibly the ideal representative of what the Republican party has become since the moderate days of Eisenhower.
To make matters worse, Trump refuses to listen to career intelligence analysts in favor of Fox News contributors, like Sean Hannity. Any criticism inevitably leads to personal attacks on Twitter, direct from the president himself.
