When Eisenhower stepped down as President in 1961, he warned the nation to keep a careful check on the "military-industrial complex" that had developed over the course of multiple wars. Even though Eisenhower believed that the United States needed to create a permanent armaments industry and a large military force, he was worried about the power the military had over the country. If the military continued to hold a large amount of influence over industry, that meant American policy would eventually be controlled by a "scientific-technological elite". The military would destroy the very ideals that it had sworn itself to protect.
American citizens were shocked at Eisenhower's warning, as he was the general who led the country to victory in World War II, and had witnessed significant points in the Cold War. They were surprised that Eisenhower was against the very organization that gave him his fame. Unfortunately, Eisenhower's warning went unheeded, due to the tensions of the Cold War. During the Laotian Civil War, President Kennedy introduced the strategy of "flexible response". The strategy called for developing an array of military weapons that could be used for any situation that may arise. This meant that Kennedy increased federal spending on conventional military forces.
Eisenhower's Farewell Address is similar to George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796. Washington brought up many important points in his Farewell Address, including American neutrality and the danger of political parties. Washington believed that political parties were willing to accomplish their goals at the detriment of the common good and the rights of the citizens. In the 1790s, the government was split into two parties: the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. Washington was concerned that the political parties would distract the government from doing its job of governing the people and even eradicate the very freedoms it was founded upon. Just like Eisenhower, he believed that "a small but artful and enterprising minority" would "put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party". However, even his warning was not enough to stop the growth of the political parties.
Washington and Eisenhower were similar in many ways. Although they were born in different centuries, both led the country to victory as generals. Both saw the rise of a new era, whether it be the birth of a nation, or the start of the Cold War. Both Washington and Eisenhower were scared of the problems that would arise if the entire nation was put under the influence of a small group of people. Although most of us would like to blame today's problems on our predecessors for not listening to the parting words of the presidents, it is hard to determine how the course of history would have changed if we had listened to them.
American citizens were shocked at Eisenhower's warning, as he was the general who led the country to victory in World War II, and had witnessed significant points in the Cold War. They were surprised that Eisenhower was against the very organization that gave him his fame. Unfortunately, Eisenhower's warning went unheeded, due to the tensions of the Cold War. During the Laotian Civil War, President Kennedy introduced the strategy of "flexible response". The strategy called for developing an array of military weapons that could be used for any situation that may arise. This meant that Kennedy increased federal spending on conventional military forces.
Eisenhower's Farewell Address is similar to George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796. Washington brought up many important points in his Farewell Address, including American neutrality and the danger of political parties. Washington believed that political parties were willing to accomplish their goals at the detriment of the common good and the rights of the citizens. In the 1790s, the government was split into two parties: the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. Washington was concerned that the political parties would distract the government from doing its job of governing the people and even eradicate the very freedoms it was founded upon. Just like Eisenhower, he believed that "a small but artful and enterprising minority" would "put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party". However, even his warning was not enough to stop the growth of the political parties.
Washington and Eisenhower were similar in many ways. Although they were born in different centuries, both led the country to victory as generals. Both saw the rise of a new era, whether it be the birth of a nation, or the start of the Cold War. Both Washington and Eisenhower were scared of the problems that would arise if the entire nation was put under the influence of a small group of people. Although most of us would like to blame today's problems on our predecessors for not listening to the parting words of the presidents, it is hard to determine how the course of history would have changed if we had listened to them.
Sources:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/17d.asp
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/washingtons-farewell-address
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-the-military-industrial-complex
http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/dwight-d-eisenhower
I like how you chose to compare two of the greatest leaders from very different time periods. They both had very similar ideas and leadership skills, such as their similar warnings in their farewell speeches. I wonder how they would interact if they were born in the same time period. There was around a hundred year period between their presidencies.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/ten-facts-about-washingtons-presidency/
I find your comparison of the two presidents to be interesting and eye-opening. I agree with your comparison, especially with the aspect of it that shows how the military industrial complex gains power and influence in politics. I wonder whether or not Eisenhower looked at Washington's speech at all to make any specific comparisons.
ReplyDeletehttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
I believe that the military-industrial complex has been both brought up and ignored simultaneously in separate parts of the American political spectrum. Even today, the debate rages over whether the United States must spend on its military more than the next 8 nations combined. Many representatives defend the complex to keep jobs and argue that we must defend not only ourselves, but the world. Others attack it and decry the American hegemony represented in our fascination and dedication to the American fascination with war.
ReplyDeleteWith limited militaries and ongoing military budget cuts in much of Europe and the treaty obligations of the United States in Asia, defenders of the military industry state that we must provide where others cannot. The industry provides many jobs and holds vast power in their lobbying abilities in Congress.
The other side denounces the military-industrial complex largely because of its relationship with the government. They state that the closeness of government with the defense industry and their lobbying ability leads to more fighting and American aggression world wide.
The fight continues over half a century later in a vastly different world from the 1960's.
In 2014, President Obama told the American people, "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." This message has, does, and will exist in American politics and it is up to each generation to define how they will react be it embracement or denouncement.
This is very interesting I like the connection between the 20th century and 18th century presidents that nobody would have connected if they were not involved in history. I think the connections are also very valid and prominant that are very interesting. I like the connection between the Farewell Address's and the specific phrases that you think connect.
ReplyDelete