11
   

Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

 
 
okie
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:17 pm
As promised, here is word for word the article written by Dwight D. Eisenhower that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, April 11, 1964. Before quoting the entire article, I have a few observations, which I will summarize in 6 points:

1. Eisenhower had both parties court him, and I think he realized joining the Democrats might have been the easiest path to the Whitehouse, but after a thorough evalution of the parties, their track record, and his personal convictions, he overwhelmingly favored the Republican beliefs and standards.
2. Eisenhower clearly believed in the importance of individuals, not groups, and the limiting of the size of government, and recognized the Republican Party clearly came the closest to that set of beliefs, to which I would say obviously still applies today as much as it ever did, and it clearly identifies Eisenhower as a solid conservative.
3. I think the article also demonstrates Eisenhower as an unsophisticated man of heartland roots that believed in common sense, not the sophistication of liberals, which he alluded to, and much of his wisdom is spoken in simple words but extremely logical and sensible.
4. I also think his experience of World War II left him with a very sour taste in his mouth for the dangers and evils of communism, big government, and any over powerful State.
5. His discussions also allude to the negative effects of the long years of Democratic rule in the United States, including the New Deal, overspending, grandiose but wasteful bureaucracies, and it even makes me wonder if his dealings with FDR for example did not leave him with any complimentary things to say about him, at least I found none.
6. There is no doubt about an honest conclusion by anyone that reads the article about how Ike would view the situation today if he were alive today, that this great American, Dwight D. Eisenhower, would be taking a very dim view of what is going on with Democrats today, and he would be encouraging people to return back toward the foundational principles of the country and to vote Republican, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I don't think anybody that reads this article honestly could reach any other conclusion as well.


Note: I am highlighting in Red the parts that affirm a conservative philosophy, as expressed by Ike. I did this rather hurriedly, so may not be perfect, but here goes:

From: April 11, 1964 Saturday Evening Post
The former president charges the present Administration with trying to dupe the public and explains why he believes the modern G.O.P. offers the nation a better future.
WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN
By DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

For some years prior to the political conventions of 1952, influential leaders of both the Republicans and Democrats strongly urged me to become a candidate for their party's presidential nomination. The Democrats long had been in power in Washington and enjoyed a decisive majority in number of registered voters. Their nomination, if offered, seemed the surest and easiest route to the presidency.
However, before I could seriously entertain the idea of entering politics after a life devoted largely to military service, I had to make up my own mind as to which party offered the conscientious citizen the best guide for political judgement in these modern times. My decision, formed over a long period of study and contemplation, explains how I apply to the problems of today the same basic principles which led to the decision in 1952.

As the 1964 political conventions approach, the American people are being deluged with news and comment on what might be called the mechanics of party politics. Pollsters report week by week the standings of potential candidates in various areas and within certain groups. Columnists analyze each contender's public "image" and his appeal - or lack of it - on the television screen. Commentators appraise the political implications of every utterance of every candidate and what it may mean to Northerners and Southerners, city people and country people, business and labor, Negroes and whites. All of this is our traditional way of getting the men and the issues before the voters.
But you, the individual citizen, should clearly realize that the coming party conventions and campaigns, as important as they are, simply emphasize the fact that in the voting booth on November 3 you will be called upon to make the most vital decision a citizen in our democracy can make. There you will help decide the future direction our national government will take. Will it be a main road which maintains and strengthens the United States as a model of the free way of life? Or will it be a route which veers toward centralized rule and loss of individual responsibility and liberty, with a consequent weakening of America's strength - moral, economic and military - at home and abroad? Helping with your vote to guide our country in the right decision is a privilege and a duty which outweighs the self-interest of any economic, regional or racial group. It is more important to the nation's welfare than the fate of any candidate - no matter how personable he may be on TV - or of any political party. What we should be deeply concerned with as the election approaches is this: What principles, what basic philosophy should guide our national government - and which of the political parties and its candidates best embodies and demonstrates that philosophy?
Now, I am a Republican. But I am not, I hope in all sincerity, a blind Republican who puts party above all else. First and foremost, I am a citizen of the United States. My basic allegiance is to those unchanging principles of self-government laid down in th founding documents of our nation. The more we see of the world and of the struggle of people for freedom and human dignity, the more clearly I understand the inspired, specific purpose of the noble phrases of those documents. It is not mere Fourth of July flag-waving to remind ourselves that "....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights," as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. And we should continually refresh our knowledge of our Constitution which, with its Bill of Rights," spells out in detail the letter and the spirit of the rights to which each of us is entitled. These principles and the continued exercise of these rights have directed the United States to its place as the most powerful, most prosperous and, above all, most free nation on the face of the earth. We want to keep it that way.
That is why I am increasingly disturbed by the steady, obvious drift of our nation toward a centralization of power of the Federal Government. And in this fact is found the primary reason why I sincerely urge all voters, no matter their present political affiliations, to take a fresh, thoughtful look at the basic Republican philosophy and Republican performance as compared to that of the Democrats. For the hard fact is that under many years of Democratic Party leadership our country has been lured into the "easy way," a path of federal expediency which, like a narcotic, may give us a false sense of well being, but in the long run is dangerous to our future, our basic rights, our moral fiber and our individual freedom.
I assure you that I am not being alarmist for partisan purposes. I do not fear that the United States faces any immediate threat of moral or financial bankruptcy or a political tyranny. However, it seems all too clear that in many significant ways we have headed away from reliance on individual common sense and toward a "Poppa knows best" federal rule. Perhaps more than many of us realize, we are now suffering the cloying effects of federal subsidies which invariably are accompanied by an overbearing federal bureaucracy that seems unchecked in both size and power. To attempt to detail, item by item, the many areas in which Democratic regimes have concentrated political, social, and economic power in Washington would require an encyclopedia, but let me offer a few representative examples:
We are headed away from sharing responsibility among local, state, and federal governments . . . toward direct, overpowering federal action in such diverse fields as education, housing, health, health, urban affairs, agriculture, transportation and power.
We are headed away from research and development widely distributed among our public and private institutions and aimed at broadening our total knowledge . . . toward gigantic "crash" federal stunts such as the race to the moon, which waste our resources, dominate our research institutions, monopolize our brainpower, and unbalance our total progress.
We are headed away from the fair sharing of the taxing power and tax revenues among local, state and federal governments . . . toward intense consolidation of the power and revenue in the hands of the relatively few politicians in Washington.
We are headed away from the known sound fiscal policies and balanced budgets . . . toward experimental and highly dangerous federal overspending which inevitably leads to inflation, deterioration of our currency and loss of world confidence in the dollar.
We are headed away from hardheaded common sense which applies our traditional principles to the solutions of our national problems, whatever they may be . . . toward flashy public relations publicity which seek to persuade us that mere labels are themselves solutions.
The results of this tide of political power to Washington are plain to be seen all around us, especially so when viewed over a generation. The process has worked with the exactitude of a mathematical equation: as citizens have turned increasingly to the Federal Government to solve their problems, they have at the same time given up some of their own responsibilities and freedom of action.
This doesn't mean that the purportedly all-wise Federal Government has solved their problems, bu the citizens have had to pay the bill just the same. Take the seemingly permanent farm problem:
For 30 years, the Federal Government under the New Deal, Fair Deal and New Frontier brands of Democratic Party rule has been trying to solve the chronic problems of agriculture's overproduction and weak prices for farm products by increasingly stict production controls, higher and higher price supports, and larger and larger subsidies. A large shard of the army of 115,000 employees in the U. S. Department of Agriculture is engaged in administering farm programs, telling growers how much they can plant and how much they can sell. The various price-support and surplus-removal programs alone have cost the taxpayers a grand total of $36.4 billion in accumulated losses of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the costs of farm subsidies of assorted kinds now are running above five billion dollars a year. The dollars spent to "adjust" agricultural production are gone, but the problem itself still is very much with us. We now are told that unless wheat growers, who last year voted against mandatory production controls, are persuaded by new sudsidies to cut their acreage voluntarily, the wheat business will face a disastrous price slump in the year ahead.
Or let us take the ingrained habit of Democratic Administrations to over-spend, to follow risky financial policies, particularly under th guise of "stimulating the economy." This process already has eroded away a basic right of every citizen: the right to have sound money, a dollar that is worth as much today as it was yesterday.
I know tht anyone who speaks up against deficit spending is accused by the "sophisticated" liberals of being more interested in money than in people. But I ask, what is more inhumane to more people than deliberately taking away the value of the money on which they must live in the future?
Let's be specific. The dollar you earned and saved 24 years ago is now worth just 45 cents. This loss is nothing we can shrug off with "Poppa knows best." It is a cruel injustice to people who worked hard all their lives who were frugal and self reliant in accumulating savings, insurance and pensions for their old age. But now the value of their retirement dollars has been cut to less than half of that when those dollars were earned, by easy-money and inflationary policies of the Government. and more of this shrinkage lies ahead, unless we elect a government with the courage and resolution to follow sound fiscal policies.
These examples demonstrate why we badly need to get back on the safe and sound main road, to halt and reverse this relentless flow of power to Washington. And now is the time to start returning to the principles of self-government and widely shared responsibility upon which the greatness of our country was built, lest history record our decline and decay in the sentence, "Here was where the United States, like Rome, went wrong - here at the peak of its power and prosperity when it forgot those ideals which made it great."
Stopping this drift does not mean turning back the clock, as power-seeking Democrats like to say. It does not mean depriving our Federal Government of the powers it needs to meet our national problems on a national scale, to provide for our national defense, or to help us to develop to the full our national opportunities.
Rather, it means taking the broad, All-American road toward progress, one which veers neither to the extreme right nor extreme left, but runs straight ahead. Such a course involves far more than mere dependence upon the Federal Government to solve our problems. Its guidelines must be more than catchily labeled panaceas - like "War on Poverty" - which usually turn out to be new channels by which even more power is siphoned into the Federal Government. The main-road approach does require careful study by the best brains our country can command of our problems and opportunities in the light of fundamental American principles at ll levels of responsibility. Such an approach means that we should continually ask ourselves, "What does common sense dictate? How can we cooperate to solve our problems and develop our opportunities fo the greatest benefit and least detriment of all citizens?"
Such is the Republican way of doing things. It is in our blood, in the mainstream of Republican philosophy. And at this time in our country's history it seems clear to me that voters need to understand and rally to this philosophy before it is too late - before the spirit and substance of the unique form of government bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers are worn away.
Frankly, it is unfortunate that the fundamentals of Republican philosophy are not as well and widely understood as they should be, particularly among people who have grown up mainly under paternalistic federal policies. Perhaps in our many years in the role of the loyal opposition, we Republicans have put so much emphasis on opposing measures and programs we believed unwise - and time has proved us right in most cases - that we hav not done justice to the party's positive aims.
Republican aims are positive. they have been positive and forward-looking since the party was formed 110 years ago to preserve the Union. Starting with the Civil War and the dedication of Abraham Lincoln to the ideal of national unity, Republican doctrines always have sought to guide our nation away from federal domination on one hand and perilous division on the other. To me the key items of political faith that should always continue to be an inspiring guide to sound political action for any thoughtful citizen are:
1. Abiding faith in the individual. To believe that the essential unit in our democracy is the individual, not any group or class, and that the preservation of our form of government depends in the final analysis on respect o the individual's rights, initiative, judgement and opportunities.
2. Limited powers of government. To believe that the people themselves should retain all powers and responsibilities not specifically delegated to the Government. As Abraham Lincoln defined it, "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. In all the people can individually do as well for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." (I quote Lincoln not only because h has been the patron saint of the Republican Party from its beginning but also because modern Democrats are trying to steal him from us to capitalize on the reverence in which America holds his name.)
3. Freedom and Equality. Born in the bitter struggle to give flesh-and-blood reality to the American doctrine that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights , the Republican party never has wavered in its belief that freedom and equality are the right of all Americans. It was the Republican Party, led by Lincoln, which freed the Negro from slavery and secured amendments to the Constitution assuring every citizen of his political rights, regardless of race. It was the Republican Party which in 1957 succeeded in getting through Congress the first civil-rights legislation since the Reconstruction era after the Civil War.
4. National Unity. Since its beginnings the Republican Party has stoutly resisted any and all forces which might divide our nation by class, region, racial ancestry or economic interest. we are not for or against any minority of any kind. We are for every individual, whatever his ethnic, social or economic background, who enjoys the priceless privilege of United States citizenship.
5. World Responsibility. The Republican party has aided the United States in meeting its global responsibilities in hte spirit of the nation's enlightened self-interest; that is, not on the basis of mere do-goodism, but for the security and welfare of our own country within the family of free nations.
Applying these concepts in government is not easy, as I know from experience. In action, this means attacking our national problems at their roots, believing that only in this way, not by poulticing symptoms, can we advance our country steadily and solidly. We Republicans have sought by balanced programs to improve the national standard of living, assure civil rights for all, provide better education for our youth, and promote a sound, forward-looking economic climate that is essential to national growth and fullest possible employment.
The Democrats claim similar goals, of course. But where we Republicans definitely part company with our political opponents is at the very foundation of our political philosophy. We Republicans approach these goals in such regard for American fundamentals that we strengthen, not weaken, the nation. We insist on applying the yardstick of our common sense to assure the proposed federal action will not cause decay of individual and local responsibility with government paternalism. There is an old saying, "The mind, like steel, stays bright through use." We believe that the American spirit of self reliance must stay bright. As I look back on the history of our country, and look ahead to its future belief in the brightness of that future, my belief in the brightness of that future is unbounded - if we have the wisdom and courage to stay on the main track. True, we have many problems, but in the main they are associated with economic and social progress; they are reminders that the development of the United States and its free way of life will always be unfinished business. New challenges and opportunities will continually lie ahead. For example:
As a Republican I believe that automation can and will be a great blessing to the individual, to our economy and our national strength if we develop it as such. It is only a new phase in the continuing industrial revolution which in the United States has evolved in a manner which means more productivity, a rapidly rising standard of living, and now, more leisure time. And by leisure I don't merely mean more spare time in which to indulge in our favorite sports and pastimes, but also valuable hours to improve ourselves, to participate more fully in community affairs, to broaden our education, and particularly to gain a deeper understanding of our country and what makes it tick. Republicans are dedicated to progress that will offer useful lives to all, including any that automation may have freed from the irksome tasks of our economy.
Related to the problem of automation is the much-discussed one of depressed areas and the poor who are not sharing as they should in our national well-being. Rapid technological progress, while it advances the nation as whole, somtimes disrupts the livelihood of people in an entire area who find themselves ill-equipped for change. Such problerms are intensely human ones, and our society must meet them squarely. But they cannot be solved by merely adding more bureaucrats to the federal payroll "to tell the people what to do." Necessary human and area adjustments cannot be brought about by painting over the symptoms with federal subsidies and doles. The problem with poverty, wherever it exists, can be cured only by going to its roots with a common sense approach, by helping people and area to develop new opportunities for themselves. That approach starts with what an individual can do on his own to improve his capabilities, to equip himself and his children for our new technological age. It continues with the community and the state in soundly planned programs to make the best use of their human and economic resources; it includes retraining of the unemployed and the education of all gifted youngsters without regard of their economic standing. The Federal Government should come in only when the creative initiative of the people, those most closely concerned with the problem, has had a chance to operate. And then the central government should assist only with knowledgeable leadership and in doing those things the people cannot do for themselves. We know that this approach works: It is the system by which this nation was built.

As a Republican I believe that it is not enough that advances in health and medicine should enable people to live longer. It is not fair that the older years of our citizens should be jeopardized by financial insecurity and disastrous medical costs. that is why I believe in Social Security - which after all, is only one form of insurance - and why my Administration extended Social Security to a large portion of the population which previously was not covered. And that is why I am convinced that any system of medical insurance of the aged should be on a broadly based, self-sustaining and voluntary basis. This need cannot be met fairly, in my judgement, by overloading the Social Security system with the multi-billion annual costs of the so-called Medicare plan, thus concentrating the whole burden on workers and employers. Adequate medical care for older citizens can be assured, in my opinion by a carefully thought-out program combining private insurance, individual contributions and government assistance to distribute the load equitably among segments of our society in accordance with their needs. The Kerr-Mills Act, with a few amendments - especially one that takes account of catastrophic illness - should meet our needs adequately.
As a Republican I believe in what has been called the "conquest of space," but which I prefer to think of a thorough exploration of a new scientific frontier to improve our living here on earth. This is an exploration we should pursue vigorously with a step-by-step program in line with our means and our needs. That was the aim or the sapce program as initially undertaken during my Administration: On the advice of eminent scientists we conceived a long-range effort, not a start, with costs to be stabilized around two billion dollars a year. That hardly could be called picayune by any reasonable standards.
But now, under the Democrats, this program has been blown up all out of proportion. With hysterical fanfare our space research has been presented as a crash effort, as a "race to the moon" between the United States and Russia which we must win at all costs. And the costs are tremendous: They now are running well over five billion dollars a year. The Government now has more than 73,000 engineers and scientists working on the nonmilitary space program, either on the federal payroll or employed under contract. This swollen program, costing more than the development of the atomic bomb, not only is contributing to an unbalanced budget; it also has diverted a disproportionate share of our brain-power and research facilities from other equally significant problems, including education and automation.
We are breezily assured that the cost and dislocation brought about by this moon race are worthwhile for the new "prestige" they will bring us. There is no way of telling how true that may be, but we can be sure of one thing: The voyage to the moon will set a new record for a trip taken on borrowed money.
As a Republican I believe that the recent cut in income-tax rates was a much needed one. Heretofore it has been required the equivalent of the American people's total earnings from January 1 to May 1 to meet their total tax lonad, local, state, and federal. Now "Freedom Day" will come a few days sooner each year. But it is also true that this reduction represents a remarkable innovation for the Democrats. In the past it has been the Republican administrations which have reduced taxes while the Democrats invariably have raised them. The tax cut we Republicans made in 1954 amounted to $7.4 billion for the first full year and was the largest dollar tax cut, to that time, in the nation's history - and it also was accompanied and justified by cuts in government spending.
It must be emphasized that a tax cut alone is only half of the equation. Without a commensurate curtailment of federal expenditures a tax reduction by itself is a cruel illusion: What is given to the taxpayer in one hand is more than taken away from the other by cheapening his money and increasing his burden of public debt.
I do not for a minute see how the Democrats can balance the budget in the foreseeable future and at the same time proceed with their announced and costly programs. My experience with federal budgets and hard fiscal evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that this Administration is headed toward more and larger deficits. The Administration's prolific gestures toward economy are at this moment little more than deft public relations and fiscal sleight of hand; only if great action programs are deeply cut or wholly eliminated will real economy be achieved.
What cannot be overlooked are the actual figures on spending and income. In 1960 the Federal Government spent $77.3 billion. The "frugal" budget for the fiscal year 1965 is estimated at $98.5 billion - a rise of $21.2 billion more a year than during the last full year of a Republican Administration. That does not appear to be real economy.
Furthermore, a budget is only an estimate. What actually determines the total spending is the amount of money obligated under various federal programs, many of which tend to exceed estimated costs. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Administration is cutting back or plans to cut back any of the costly new programs inaugurated in the last three years. the spending authority of various federal agencies for the coming fiscal year stands at $103.7 billion. As each program is to be carried out according to plan, I am positive that government outgo is going to increase more rapidly than government income. The Administration claims optimistically I believe, that federal revenue will reach $93 billion because of increased economic activity spurred by the tax cut. Even taking this figure at face value, we are faced with a deficit of $10 billion - perhaps much more. the outcome is bound to be further depreciation of the value of our money, less world confidence in the dollar, and a continued drain on our already depleted gold reserves. This adds up to experimental, risky national policy.
As a Republican I believe that the United States must present one face and one voice to the world. All of us, whatever our political party, should support the nation's global policies and goals. We all want to work toward universal peace with justice; we all want to maintain close and friendly relations with all nations which share our dedication to this purpose.
We know, too, that this is no time to lessen our efforts to make our foreign policy more effective. The Cold War heats up - although the Soviet Union speaks nicely to us when it wants something from us. The Communists purpose has not changed; they wtill believe they must destroy us or be destroyed. The Berlin Wall still stands. Communists still are killing Americans in Vietnam. Castro still is exporting subversion and terror to his democratic neighbors in Latin America.
All of this means that as a nation we must continue to stand firm in our resolve to turn back Communist aggression and to cooperate with the free world in doing so.
We must continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring quarrels betwenn nations to the conference table instead of the battlefield.
However, this does not mean that the party of the loyal opposition should forgo the right of thoughtful criticism of the operation of our foreing policy with respect to any country or any event that already has become history. It is our duty to point out where we believe foreign-policy programs have gone wrong and how we believe they can be righted, so long as our comment is informed, reasonable and seeks only the good of the United States.
Thus, it is perfectly proper and desirable for Republican leadership to comment on the lack of success of the Democratic Administration in its application of foreign policy in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Europe, and elsewhere. A number of serious shortcomings are now a matter of record, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the lack of an effective program against Castro, the failure to heed plain warnings of an explosive situation in Panama, the handling of operations in Vietnam. We Republicans should and we shall call attention to them.

And last, as an American who puts country above party, I deeply and sincerely believe that all fellow citizens, whether Republicans, Democrats or independents, owe it to themselves and their country to pause for a moment and stand back from the partisan fray to ask themselves: How can the United States get back on the right path? Which political philosophy offers us the surest guide for the future?
From a practical standpoint you first must register so you will be qualified to vote. Then you will make your decision effective by voting for the candidates representing one party or another in this fall's general election. By the time you step into the voting booth you will have heard these candidates expound their views in the give and take of a hard fought political campaign. By then you should be well acquainted with the political principles on which each candidate stands. and those principles, I hope, will determine your decision. For the administration of our Government is not a political game but a serious human business, the highest purpose of which is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
I am confident that the Republican Party will offer candidates who represent the mainstream of its philosophy - a guiding doctrine which promises not the most government but the best government. I have faith that the American people, when they knolw all the facts, will make the right decision. That is why I am a Republican and why I believe the Republicans can and will win. THE END
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 13,417 • Replies: 189

 
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:37 pm
@okie,
Today he would have been considered a RINO.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Today he would have been considered a RINO.

There is the first apologist to pop up out of the woodwork. It makes me wonder if you even read the article, because if you had read it, where did you find anything significant that is non-conservative in there? Did you read it? If so, please cite one sentence or paragraph that supports your opinion.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:29 pm
Some advice: If you want people to read this, get rid of the red highlighting. It discourages people. Most dislike the color typeface. Fixing the situation should be easy enough.
ebrown p
 
  5  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 10:46 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Today he would have been considered a RINO.


Okie would have called him a socialist.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 05:06 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Today he would have been considered a RINO.


Okie would have called him a socialist.


Another historical revisionist pops out of the woodwork. The historical revisionists have one huge problem, what is written is written.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 05:07 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Some advice: If you want people to read this, get rid of the red highlighting. It discourages people. Most dislike the color typeface. Fixing the situation should be easy enough.

It was highlighted in red to help you comprehend it, pom. Are you saying you can't read something in red, it has to be in black? Or is the red discouraging to you because you know ahead of time that you won't like what Eisenhower wrote? Maybe you are just having a hard time facing the truth of the real Dwight D. Eisenhower and what he did in fact believe?
old europe
 
  5  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 05:32 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
The historical revisionists have one huge problem, what is written is written.

That has never been a problem for you, though.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 06:05 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:
That has never been a problem for you, though.

What are you referring to, the debate about Hitler, that you persist in thinking you can't be wrong even though history says otherwise? I can read the Nazi 25 points, but you seem to have a problem with that, you flunk the test of comprehending that they are overwhelmingly leftist, old europe, and you apparently even live in Germany.

Yes, what is written is written, you cannot wipe the slate clean in regard to Dwight D. Eisenhower, that he was not in fact a solid conservative, a great man and a great Ameican, thanks to him and other people like him the leftist tyrants in Europe were defeated. Nor can you wipe the slate clean in regard to the tyrants of the World War II era such as Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, or any of the other leftists in history, the record is clear and it is enduring, what is written is written, old europe.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:21 am
@okie,
I was just coming alive in the mid fifties and I recall all my "Eisemhower lore" coming from my dad, who as a career army , Didnt like Eisenhoqwer's decisions during the war. (My dad was in the PAcific and he was critical of Ike.
Eisemhower was elected entirely on his foreign policy stance. WQe were fighting the Korean War and I was told that AMerican GOP and the electorate had no isead about Ikes domestic agenda.

Did he dismantle the "New Deal" NO, instead he strengthened it.
He, as a long time Federal EMployee, came up with the biggest make work program ever, THE FEDERAL INTERSTATE HIWAY SYSTEM. This was, of course born out of his fevered opinion that "being able to move war materiel and evacuate cities" was a good preparation for war (wasnt Eisenhower a full supporter of the magical armor power that school desks presented to a nuclear blast?).
It is no conjecture that He extended and strengthened the Social Security program , He was constantly critical of an unregulated Industry, and, even tough he was a firm supporter of "sepoarate but equal" he let the Brown v Board of Ed just fester along and result in the civil rights movement of the next decade.

Being considered a RINO, by his GOP colleagues would, only be a logical extension of the facts of history, not some piece that cobbles together what he may have espoused as he tried to be an elder statesman . To my mind, Eisenhower was actually more like Clinton than Ronald Reagan.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:34 am
@farmerman,
Whats this bullshit about Hitler commanding A "leftist" regime. ?
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:32 am
@okie,
I am saying that red typeface is difficult to read.


Besides, you have demonstrated time and time again that you lack perception and a strong reading ability. Your highlighting can not be trusted.

Finally, you highlighted paragraph upon paragraph. Not all that you highlighted can be of such importance.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:33 am
@old europe,
Thank you for pointing this out. No one is more revisionist than okie.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:35 am
@farmerman,
That's a prime example of okie's revisionism that old europe is trying to get okie to accept. Some of the posters here are truly unique.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:44 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Whats this bullshit about Hitler commanding A "leftist" regime. ?
He was a socialist, as was Mussolini, on a life-long basis. Thay were both actively ANTI-capitalist,
ANTI-Individualist. Thay said so LOUDLY.
Hitler grew up in poverty.
HIs S.A. "Stormtroopers" were taken from unemployed German low classes.
He named it the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.

What more do u WANT ??

The only distinction was where TITLE to property technically resided.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:51 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Yes, what is written is written, you cannot wipe the slate clean in regard to Dwight D. Eisenhower,
that he was not in fact a solid conservative
This is true; he described himself as "middle of the road".





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:53 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
That's a prime example of okie's revisionism that old europe is trying to get okie to accept.


Some of the posters here are truly unique.
EVERY poster here is truely unique; especially u.





David
okie
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Being considered a RINO, by his GOP colleagues would, only be a logical extension of the facts of history, not some piece that cobbles together what he may have espoused as he tried to be an elder statesman . To my mind, Eisenhower was actually more like Clinton than Ronald Reagan.


It is apparent that you probably did not read the article that I posted here, written by Ike. I simply do not see how on earth you can come up with such an analysis based upon what Eishower himself wrote about his political beliefs and philosophy. I tried to help the people here by highlighting in red that which is solidly conservative. He talked repeatedly about his belief in the individual vs that of government, and his fear that we were drifting toward more and bigger government instead of allowing the power of the individual come to the forefront. If anything, the article is a virtual slam dunk in regard to proving that Eisenhower was not even close to being some kind of liberal. It is true he talked about middle of the road, but it is obvious his perception of middle of the road was the safe course, a course that had been established by the Founders of the country, which was a solidly conservative course or road.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Whats this bullshit about Hitler commanding A "leftist" regime. ?
He was a socialist, as was Mussolini, on a life-long basis. Thay were both actively ANTI-capitalist,
ANTI-Individualist. Thay said so LOUDLY.
Hitler grew up in poverty.
HIs S.A. "Stormtroopers" were taken from unemployed German low classes.
He named it the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.

What more do u WANT ??

The only distinction was where TITLE to property technically resided.

David, I think I got into trouble with the intellectual crowd here, such as old europe and Walter Hinteler, when I started the thread:
"What Produces Ruthless Dictators"
http://able2know.org/topic/66117-1
wherein I suggested almost all of them, including Hitler, were leftists, and proceeded to provide evidence of the same. They could not abide the fact that some hick from Oklahoma could also read history and make some simple observations of fact that might go against the intelligentsia of leftist professors and historians. I persist to this day in pointing out what is written is written, such as the Nazi 25 points, and its leftist agenda. The point of posting the information was to point out the common denominators and the red flags of history so that some of us now can hope to recognize the red flags and try to avoid some of the same mistakes made before.

By the way, one of the best articles about Hitler in my opinion is this one:
Hitler was a Socialist, by John Ray
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Actually, many of the founders of the NAzi party dis;liked the term "Socialim" in their title. The Book by Brian Girvin of 20th centruy right wing states links Nazism and Mussolinis Facsisti. I reality, I view these parties as an example of
"The enemy of my enemy...". Both were anti liberal, anti communist and prosupercapitalism. However, as STernhall states, implies, the extreme racism of Nazism was even a higher priority than anti communism.

Quote:
Nazism (National Socialism, Germany)
Main articles: Nazism and National Socialism

Flag of the German Nazi PartyThe National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi Party) ruled Germany from 1933 until 1945. The party was originally formed as the German Workers' Party under the leadership of Anton Drexler, and espoused a combination of racialist völkisch nationalism and socialism that rejected the conditions imposed on Germany after World War I. The party accused international capitalism of being Jewish-dominated, and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War I.[273] To ease concerns among potential middle-class nationalist supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to all German citizens who were deemed part of the Aryan race.[273]

Drexler's insistence on the inclusion of the term "socialist" in the party's name had caused tension amongst members of the party including then-member Adolf Hitler, who preferred that the party be named the "Social Revolutionary Party", until Rudolf Jung persuaded him to support the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party".[274] Drexler was ousted from the leadership in 1921 by Hitler, who secured himself the position of undisputed and permanent leader of the party.

Hitler admired Benito Mussolini and the Italian Fascists, and after Mussolini's successful March on Rome in 1922, presented the Nazis as a German version of Italian Fascism.[275][276] Hitler endorsed Italian Fascism, saying that "with the victory of fascism in Italy the Italian people has triumphed [over] Jewry" and appraised Mussolini as "the brilliant statesman".[277] Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's chief propagandist, credited Italian Fascism with starting a conflict against liberal democracy, saying:

The march on Rome was a signal, a sign of storm for liberal-democracy. It is the first attempt to destroy the world of the liberal-democratic spirit[...] which started in 1789 with the storm on the Bastille and conquered one country after another in violent revolutionary upheavals, to let... the nations go under in Marxism, democracy, anarchy and class warfare...[278]

Following the Italians' example, the Nazis attempted a "March on Berlin" to topple the Weimar Republic, which they characterised as "Marxist".[278]

Days after Mussolini rose to power in October 1922, the major British national newspaper The Times referred to Hitler as Mussolini's promising pupil in Germany.[277] A month after Mussolini had risen to power, amid claims by the Nazis that they were equivalent to the Italian fascists, Hitler's popularity in Germany began to grow, and large crowds began to attend Nazi rallies. The newspaper Berlin Lokal-Anzeiger featured a front page article about Hitler, saying "There are a lot of people who believe him to be the German Mussolini".[275]


Adolf Hitler, German Nazi leaderIn private, Mussolini expressed dislike of Hitler and the Nazis, seeing them as mere imitators of Italian Fascism. When Mussolini met with the Italian Consul in Munich prior to the Nazis' failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, he stated that the Nazis were "buffoons".[279] However by 1928, the Italian Fascist government recognized the utility of the Nazis and began to financially subsidize the Nazi party.[280]

Hitler remained impressed by Mussolini and Fascist Italy for many years in spite of resentments towards Italy by other Nazis. During the period of positive outlook towards Fascist Italy, Hitler became an Italophile.[281] Hitler like Mussolini profoundly admired Ancient Rome, and repeatedly mentioned it in Mein Kampf as being a model for Germany.[282] In particular, Hitler admired ancient Rome's authoritarian culture, imperialism, town planning, and architecture, which were incorporated by the Nazis.[283] Hitler considered the ancient Romans to have been a master race.[283]

In an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler declared that he held no antagonism towards Italy for having waged war against Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I, saying that it was only in Italy became at war with Germany because of Germany's alliance with Austria Hungary which Italy had territorial claims on.[284] Hitler declared his sympathy to the Italians for desiring to regain Italian-populated lands held by Austria-Hungary, claiming it was naturally in Italians' national interest to wage war to regain those lands.[284]

Hitler made controversial concessions to gain Fascist Italy's approval and alliance, such as abandoning territorial claims on the Tyrol region of Italy that had a dense population of hundreds of thousands of Germans.[281] In Mein Kampf Hitler declared that it was not in Germany's interest to have war with Italy over South Tyrol.[277]

The Nazis gained political power in Germany's government through a democratic election in 1932. Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany following the 1933 election, subsequently putting into place the Enabling Act of 1933, which effectively gave him the power of a dictator, except over the German Roman Catholic Church, which was under the Vatican. The Nazis announced a national rebirth, in the form of the Third Reich, nicknamed the Thousand Year Empire, promoted as a successor to the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire.

Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type of generic fascism,[285] some scholars, including Gilbert Allardyce, Zeev Sternhell, Karl Dietrich Bracher and A.F.K. Organski, argue that Nazism is not fascism " either because it is different in character or because they believe fascism cannot be generically defined.[286][287][288] Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race, religion, and ethnicity, especially exhibited as antisemitism. Roger Griffin, a leading exponent of the generic fascism theory, wrote:

It might well be claimed that Nazism and Italian fascism were separate species within the same genus, without any implicit assumption that the two species ought to be well-nigh identical. Ernst Nolte has stated that the differences could be easily reconciled by employing a term such as 'radical fascism' for Nazism. ... The establishment of fundamental generic characteristics linking Nazism to movements in other parts of Europe allows further consideration on a comparative basis of the reasons why such movements were able to become a real political danger and gain power in Italy and Germany, whereas in other European countries they remained an unpleasant, but transitory irritant...[289]

Sternhell views Nazism as separate from fascism:

Fascism can in no way be identified with Nazism. Undoubtedly the two ideologies, the two movements, and the two regimes had common characteristics. They often ran parallel to one another or overlapped, but they differed on one fundamental point: the criterion of German national socialism was biological determination. The basis of Nazism was a racism in its most extreme sense, and the fight against Jews, against 'inferior' races, played a more preponderant role in it than the struggle against communism.[290]
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/14/2019 at 06:08:20