Did you like President Eisenhower? (WWII, war, greatest, influence)

[Jamerschris]

Responsible for our Highways today. a great man who served our country... how did you like him overall? as presdient... I was not born in the 1950's but for some reason I admire him.

[noetsi]

As a liberal I disagree with his views on labor, civil rights, and active government. He was the last of the "traditional" presidents who saw the office as only having a limited role domestically. Since him presidents, including republicans, have taken a very active role there.

[John Walmsley]

President Eisenhower showed great insight and wisdom during his time in office. Eisenhower wasn't quick to commit men and women to battle needlessly as have some of his successors of both parties. I doubt that he would have involved us in the Vietnam War. In my opinion, his farewell address contained important truisms and warnings about the dangers of the industrial-military complex and the unwarranted influence in government that we have failed to heed. For his humanity, fiscal responsibility and good judgment, I would place him in the top ten of all presidents.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by John Walmsley

President Eisenhower showed great insight and wisdom during his time in office. Eisenhower wasn't quick to commit men and women to battle needlessly as have some of his successors of both parties. I doubt that he would have involved us in the Vietnam War. In my opinion, his farewell address contained important truisms and warnings about the dangers of the industrial-military complex and the unwarranted influence in government that we have failed to heed. For his humanity, fiscal responsibility and good judgment, I would place him in the top ten of all presidents.

President Eisenhower laid the foundation for America's involvment in Vietnam in that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was the force behind the Five Power Talks that lead to the partition of Vietnam into North and South. Vietnam was where they drew the line against "Communist" expansion. They thwarted the Vietminh (Ho was its leader) from taking all of Vietnam to independence after they broke French power in Indochina. Eisenhower's administration engineered the assumption of power in South Vietnam by Diem and blocked the scheduled 1958 vote on whether the South should join the North in a Unity government. Eisenhower sent the us military forces to South Vietnam under the guise of trainers and advisors for the US military mission. Later Presidents like JFK increased this mission because it was precieved that Eisenhower's level of enguagement was ineffective.

[jtur88]

I was a teenager and college student during the Eisenhower years, and I supported Stevenson in both elections. Eisenhower and Stevenson were probably the two smartest and best educated intellectuals who ever ran against each other in an election since Jefferson and Adams.

In retrospect, I think Eisenhower performed as well as could be expected for his times, and I doubt that any president since would have done any better. He was caught up in the post-war Red Menace sweep, but so was the nation that elected him. He had a personal sense of what war is like, and an understanding of why it should not be needlessly undertaken, and who would profit from it if it were.

There are people who say his brother Milton was a more competent man and would have been a better president.

[noetsi]

As is often the case whether you are liberal or conservative define how you view a president. Eisenhower did commit resources to Vietnam during both the French phase and after they left. He supported Diem in rejecting the 1954 Geneva accord - and possibly in his attacks on nationalist/communist which made the war inevitiable. Whether he would have commited US troops in number as it became obvious the country would fall in 65 I don't know. His Vice President (Nixon) did support the war until the late sixties at least.

I think Eisenhower's caution about wars and understanding of the limits of government action were sound - but he went to far in failing to understand that there were some roles, such as medicare and fighting Jim Crow that it was neccessary in. I doubt his policies would have been acceptable to the boomers who prefered action - including in Republican presidents. Reagan and even the two Bush's were very different presidents than Eisenhower.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by noetsi

As a liberal I disagree with his views on labor, civil rights, and active government. He was the last of the "traditional" presidents who saw the office as only having a limited role domestically. Since him presidents, including republicans, have taken a very active role there.

It would be more accurate to say he had no interest in civil rights and little interest in domestic issues in general. He was most interested in foreign policy and very hands-on when it came to foreign policy, but delegated the making of domestic policy to his Cabinet and to a bipartisan coalition of moderates in Congress. His Cabinet spanned the ideological gamut - from liberal Attorney General Brownell to far-right wacko Secretary of Agriculture Benson - but were generally corporate moderates. "Country club Republicanism" as they used to call it. Ike's Administration was more concerned with leaving the New Deal programs as is rather than rolling them back, whereas the Dems wanted to expand them further (which would happen in the '60s)

His disinterest in domestic policy and exclusive interest in foreign policy (somewhat reminiscent of George H.W. Bush) is considered one of his weaknesses, along with his failure to denounce Joseph McCarthy until McCarthy was already politically disgraced. Re: McCarthy, Ike wasn't really interested that much, certainly hated communists, and was willing to tolerate McCarthy as long as McCarthy's investigations benefited the GOP. His historical reputation also suffers from overseeing a period of peace (except for the Korean War at the beginning of his administration, which he wound down) and prosperity (except for the "Depression of 1958", the first postwar recession, very mild by comparison with our current crisis but at the time a very, very big deal which led to a Dem landslide in the midterms and most state elections in that year.) Presidents who preside over peace and prosperity generally aren't rated as highly as those who lead America in times of wars and great crises. (The only exception being Teddy Roosevelt but that was because of his intellectual and physical vitality and exceptional energy.)

As for the last "traditional president" of the type you're talking about, Gerald Ford might also qualify. I suspect if Howard Baker had won the 1980 GOP nomination instead of Reagan, Baker (who was Reagan's most prominent rival for the nomination) probably would have also governed in this manner.

Interesting that Ike's name is so rarely invoked by current Republicans, who often seem to forget about GOP icons prior to Reagan. Lincoln's far back enough in time and revered enough that he's brought up, but Ike (and TR) are generally not brought up by the current GOP. The only prominent Republicans who've invoked Ike in recent years to my knowledge have been John McCain - in some of his 2008 campaign speeches before Palin got on board and the campaign turned nasty - and Charlie Crist (I know he's not a Republican anymore), who cited Ike as his political hero. (Guess it's OK for Crist to admit liking a man in uniform as long as said man is a dead president ) Otherwise the GOP pretends he never existed. Probably because he doesn't fit in with the party's Southernization (TR wouldn't ; too New York and too liberal).

[noetsi]

I think the reason Eisenhower is not brought up much by present Republicans is that he was a very different type of conservative. He was cautious and avoided radical changes, modern American conservatives are not - as Reagan said, "we are the revolution now." They are not traditional conservatives in that they believe in radical change (commonly through government action) and they have an intense dislike of moderates. They very much agree with Goldwater that "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." While their goals are fundamentally different than post-1960 liberals, their basic rejection of compromise and commitment to radical, immediate change is not. That sets them aside from Eisenhower.

The fifties were signficantly less prosperous for most than the sixties. For example, poverty stood at nearly 20 percent in 1960, it was about 11 percent in 73. Median wages grew far faster in the sixties. The Eisenhower prosperty missed much of the country, notably minorities. And economic growth was slow in his second term generally, which is one reason Nixon lost the election in 1960.

I don't know if Ford did little because of his philosophy or because his presidency was crippled by Watergate and the 74 election. But its an interesting thought that he might have been a throwback to the views of Eisenhower. I think Bob Dole would have been had he won.

Many interpretations of Eisenhower stress that he was philisophically opposed to active government, not simply that he was disinterested in domestic policy. As far as McCarthy goes, Eisenhower clearly disliked him from the first, his famous comment is that he would not get down into the gutter with him, but he was cautious in attacking him initially. After McCarthy started to refer to the treason of the Eisenhower administration, as he had to Truman, things changed. While the common interpretation is that the US army, moderates and liberals brought him down, others suggest Eisenhower and the CIA (operation mockingbird) played a key role instead.

[markg91359]

Eisenhower was a great President and this comes from someone who is a democrat.

His position as commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II was enough experience in and of itself to justify electing him President. In this capacity, he had to perform a real high/wire act. He had to keep the British happy. He had to keep the Americans happy. He probably learned more in this position about foreign policy than the brightest diplomats in our Department of State. He would have borne the responsibility had the D-Day Invasion failed. Its only fair he receive the credit because it succeeded. He was even spoken well of by Russian Premier Nikita Khruschev.

Perhaps, the greatest criticism of Eisenhower as President is that he could have been more dynamic and could have accomplished more in office if he had taken a more aggressive approach. This may well be true, but it ignores a central fact. After fighting World War II and after having lived through the Great Depression most Americans truly wanted a period of peace and prosperity where they could simply focus on enjoying their own lives. Eisenhower keenly understood this.

Nevertheless, there were distinct accomplishments during his Presidency.

1. We began a space program that culminated in 1969 with a lunar landing;
2. We embarked on the construction of interstate highways. Some suggest America would have been better to focus on mass transit instead. This simply was not practical. Like it or not, America is the land of the automobile and the interstate highway system has served our country well.
3. He took the first steps towards civil rights for African Americans. He sent in federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school desegregation ordered by the courts. He also appointed Justice Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous opinion in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, ending school segregation.
4. He may have set the Vietnam conflict in motion for America, but at the time he was smart enough to avoid sending troops to buttress the hopeless position that the French found themselves in. He refused to intervene when French forces were surrounded and than beaten at Dien Bien Phu.
5. The Korean War ended during the early part of his administration.
6. The economy grew by leaps and bounds during his tenure in office.
7. He warned our nation, as he departed office about the growing power of the "military industrial complex". What Eisenhower was trying to say was that the relationship between defense contractors and politicians was simply too close for the country's own good.

He is an underrated President. He is definitely one of the ten greatest men who served in the oval office.

[noetsi]

1. We began a space program that culminated in 1969 with a lunar landing;

He did very little and most of what he did was limited to ICBM's. The program was at a minimal level when JFK took over.

2. We embarked on the construction of interstate highways. Some suggest America would have been better to focus on mass transit instead. This simply was not practical. Like it or not, America is the land of the automobile and the interstate highway system has served our country well.

It was entirely practical to invest what he did in the roads into the rail system. He made a choice at a point when the automobile was far less part of our national consious than latter. Still this was better than no investment at all, although it created serve energy issues later.

3. He took the first steps towards civil rights for African Americans. He sent in federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school desegregation ordered by the courts. He also appointed Justice Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court who wrote the unanimous opinion in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, ending school segregation.

He did as little as he possibly could. The Little Rock decision was tied to his view that it would hurt US image abroad, during a period of decolonization, if he did nothing. It was his sole signficant effort in civil rights and had nothing at all to do with civil rights per se. He appointed Warren at a point where he was considered a strong conservative - he had for example supported removal of Japanese citizens in WWII. He later called the appointment "my greatest mistake." What Warren became was the exact opposite of what Eisenhower expected.

4. He may have set the Vietnam conflict in motion for America, but at the time he was smart enough to avoid sending troops to buttress the hopeless position that the French found themselves in. He refused to intervene when French forces were surrounded and than beaten at Dien Bien Phu.

In fact he sent an air force team to Vietnam to prepare to support the droping of a nuclear weapon here. The mission was not carried out because the fortress fell before the mission could occur. He was not forced to chose between sending US troops and losing Vietnam. LBJ was. No one knows what Eisenhower would have done.

5. The Korean War ended during the early part of his administration.

What did that have to do with him.

6. The economy grew by leaps and bounds during his tenure in office.

Because the US was the only major economy not destroyed by the Second World War. Even so progress was slow for much of the public, particularly in his second term. It grew much faster, and for a much higher percentage of the population after 1960. Look for example at poverty trends over time.

7. He warned our nation, as he departed office about the growing power of the "military industrial complex". What Eisenhower was trying to say was that the relationship between defense contractors and politicians was simply too close for the country's own good.

For which he deserves true credit.