Eisenhowers warning about extremist movements should be as memorable in history as his caution about the military-industrial complex

Eisenhower's warning about extremist movements should be as memorable in history as his caution about the "military-industrial complex"

The following ran on 9-3 in the New York Times:

In this summer of town hall disruptions and birth-certificate controversies, a summer when it seemed as if the Republican Party had been captured by its extremist wing, it is worth recalling a now-obscure letter from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Although Eisenhower is commonly remembered for a farewell address that raised concerns about the “military-industrial complex,” his letter offers an equally important — and relevant — warning: to beware the danger posed by those seeking freedom from the “mental stress and burden” of democracy.

The story began in 1958, when Eisenhower received a letter from Robert Biggs, a terminally ill World War II veteran. Biggs told the president that he “felt from your recent speeches the feeling of hedging and a little uncertainty.” He added, “We wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.”

Eisenhower could have discarded Biggs’s note or sent a canned response. But he didn’t. He composed a thoughtful reply. After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.

“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower wrote on Feb. 10, 1959. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”

Eisenhower also recommended a short book — “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer, a self-educated itinerant longshoreman who earned the nickname “the stevedore philosopher.” “Faith in a holy cause,” Hoffer wrote, “is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.”

Though Eisenhower was criticized for lacking an intellectual framework or even an interest in ideas, he was drawn to Hoffer’s insights. He explained to Biggs that Hoffer “points out that dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems — freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning these tremendous complex and difficult questions.” The authoritarian follower, Eisenhower suggested, desired nothing more than insulation from the pressures of a free society.

Alluding to Senator McCarthy and his allies, Eisenhower pointed out that cold war fears were distorted and exploited for political advantage. “It is difficult indeed to maintain a reasoned and accurately informed understanding of our defense situation on the part of our citizenry when many prominent officials, possessing no standing or expertness as they themselves claim it, attempt to further their own ideas or interests by resorting to statements more distinguished by stridency than by accuracy.”

It is worth noting, of course, that these Cold War exaggerations weren’t just a Republican specialty: John F. Kennedy was making a supposed “missile gap” between the United States and the Soviet Union a key element of his presidential campaign.

In closing his letter, Eisenhower praised Biggs for his “fortitude in pondering these problems despite your deep personal adversity.” Perhaps it was the president’s sense of solidarity with a fellow soldier that prompted him to respond to Biggs with such care; and perhaps it was his experience as supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe that taught him that the rise of extreme movements and authoritarianism could take root anywhere — even in a democracy.

 

4 Responses to “Ike’s Warning About The Radical Right”

  1. Mike_Franklin says:

    Eisenhower being a centrist… and in times much like today when partisan extremism was glorified from both far ends of the political spectrum, was noted to say: “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.”

    John Kennedy, slightly less centered than his predecessor, said, “Extreme opposites resemble the other.”

    Indeed. They do resemble each other quite a lot… something you may want to consider as you so happily engage your own opposites in equally extreme fashion.

    Eisenhower and Kennedy both knew the dangers of extremism, from either tilt. They also knew that for extremism to succeed, there must be two equally opposed ends, both just as polarizing as the other. The people will then have no place in the middle to meet and the division of the spoils, our nation, will be theirs.

    To this end, the house is finally divided.

    The only question is, why?

  2. DrBlizzardo says:

    Mike_Franklin wrote: “They also knew that for extremism to succeed, there must be two equally opposed ends, both just as polarizing as the other.”

    This sounds very pretty but, in our heart of hearts, do we really know this to be true? Actually, I suspect it’s one of those generalizations that, upon more close scrutiny, is found to be reliably false…like much of the recent Conservative dogma (which is precisely why I no longer count myself as a conservative).

    There are lunatics on the left today, to be sure…but they are nothing like the roiling cauldron of hate, intolerance and ignorance that informs the bulk of the conservative movement at present.

    Or the past. Look back again, at the Clinton Presidency–they brought impeachment hearings against a President who, for all he may have had an ethical lapse and be a world class asshole, was found innocent of any wrongdoing in general, or criminal wrongdoing in particular–by the very prosecutors who brought the charges. Yet the hate, the attacks, the vitriol continued unabated.

    Compare that to the presidency of Mr. Bush where, despite numerous proven instances of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, not to mention criminal mismanagement and neglect of the country’s welfare, did not even result in censure, let alone impeachment–there were no “foaming-at-the-mouth”, “fire-eating” true believers on the left to force the issue. More’s the pity; one hopes the War Crimes tribunal in The Hague will not be so shy.

    The same could be said of the criminality of the Regan administration.

    So…I find your premise unsatisfying as a model for recent American political history–it is even less so when seen in the light of other American, European, historical or recent, power shifts to extremism (Margaret Thatcher is one handy example leaping immediately to mind).

    To your credit, your premise does nicely model power shifts such as the Cuban revolution and such figures from Ernesto Guevara to Simon Bolivar to José Doroteo Arango Arámbula (Pancho Villa).

  3. rjvg50 says:

    We have a binary system of voting institutionalized by GERRYMANDERING. In time urbanization will decrease the trend but the lasting imprint will not go away for a very long time.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.