History Collection: Dwight D. Eisenhower- 'Quotes On Politics, War, and Freedom'

Source:History Collections- President Dwight E. Eisenhower, on extremism. 

“Dwight D. Eisenhower (”Ike”) was one of the most prominent American presidents and US Army Generals. In this video, you can find his thoughts about warfare, American politics and goverment.”

From History Collection

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “If you want total security go to prison, where you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom.” President Eisenhower, talking about the value of freedom, freedom of choice, personal autonomy, etc, the tools that every person every free society uses to manage their own affairs.

Source:Words On Images- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, on the value of freedom 

The only thing that is free about a free society is the freedom for individuals to make their own decisions. Everything else about a free society comes with choices, investments, even costs. To be able to do things and make your own decisions, you have to earn that by doing other things. Like getting and education, and good job that allows you to able to take care of yourself.

And those really aren’t costs either, but more like investments because you get a lot of education and a good job that you’re good at other than money and a good job which is knowledge that you can use in your future which either helps you at work or in other places, but with everything that you do in life.

And in any society wether it’s a free society or an authoritarian society or even let’s say a social democratic society where the national government attempts to eliminate as much economic risk as possible, but falls short of nationalizing the economy there’s going to be some risk there.

A good education is so important so the people have as much knowledge and quality information as possible to be able to make their own good decisions and investments. But even life in prison ( not that I know from personal experience ) comes with real risks and those risks generally having to do with one’s physical security. Even non-violent offenders have to deal with the risk that one of their fellow inmates might actually hurt them or worst at some point.

And in any authoritarian society where both economic and personal risk is eliminated or that’s what the government tries to create, there is a risk that the state might pick you up, because they see you as some threat to the regime. Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia are great examples of that. So in no society and no form of life comes without personal risk. The question is how do you manage it and what decisions you make with your own life.

For me is the best form of life is a free life where people are able to make their own personal and economic decisions themselves, but are then held accountable for their own decision making for good and bad. And allow for everyone to get themselves the best education that they can so they can make the best lives for themselves as possible. As well as encourage people to get a good education, good job, earn a good living. So you have as many free people as possible in society. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

Conservable Economist: Timothy Taylor- 'President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the Opportunity Cost of War'

Source:Harpers Magazine- Then U.S. Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower, leading his men in World War II in Europe.

"During the last weeks of the year, as people gather with family and with friends old and new, there is always a hope that that next year, or maybe the year after, will bring joy and peace. In that spirit, here is the famous passage from a speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower called "The Chance for Peace," which was delivered to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953." 

From Timothy Taylor 

"President Eisenhower spoke to the nation in a farewell address. The address, sometimes referred to as the "Military Industrial Complex Speech", is considered by some to be one of the most significant speeches of the Eisenhower presidency...  

Source:Mox News-  President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas

From Mox News

General and then later President Dwight Eisenhower, represents at least one major lesson that Neoconservatives never learned which are the limits of American military power and the limits to what America can do by ourselves militarily. 

President Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell presidential address, made the term Military Industrial Complex famous when he said that he was worried about the growing military industrial complex in the United States. This

Ike was not some Far-Left dovish pacifist, whose always opposed to American use of force. But a World War II general, who commanded Allied Forces during World War II in Europe. Every dollar that is spent on defense that is not needed., is money that is not spent on other priorities, or money that Americans can't spend for themselves.

Dwight Eisenhower, was not just a strong anti-Communist, but he led the battle against Nazism in World War II and led the battle for America during the Cold War against the Communists as President during the 1950s. But being against communism and being in favor of an unlimited national security state and unlimited national defense, are two different things. 

Conservatives, are anti-Communists, but put limits on what ever the American military can do. Neoconservatives, I'm sure are anti-Communists as well, but don't out any limits on military spending, or the national security state, even if that means infringing on civil liberties to protect the state. Which is how we got the Patriot Act in 2001-02. A true fiscal Conservative, could never believe in a neoconservative foreign and national security policy. Because it is too expensive and puts civil liberties at risk.

But that is all before you get to waste in spending money on defense that you don't need to spend on things that you don't need, or already have plenty of. Because that is money you might have to put on the national debt and keep your deficit up as a result, or taxes up as a result, as well as money that could be better spent on real defense priorities. Or money put into infrastructure, or research, or cut taxes. 

So having a defense budget that is too big not only comes with costs to your financial outlook as a government and a country, but it can hurt you economically as well. Money that otherwise could have been invested in the economy, or to pay down you deficit and debt. And Dwight Eisenhower knew these things more than sixty-years ago. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The National Interest: Tom Nichols: 'No Other Choice: Why President Harry Truman Dropped The Atomic Bomb on Japan'

Source:The National Interest- the atomic bomb being dropped on Japan, in 1945.

"Truman and his advisers made the only decision they could have made; indeed, considered in the context of World War II, it wasn’t really much of a decision at all." 

From The National Interest 

"President Harry S. Truman reads prepared speech after dropping of atomic bomb on Hiroshima Japan during World War 2. US President Harry S. Truman delivers a speech following the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan during World War 2. President of the United States Harry S. Truman seated at desk in cabin of a ship underway in the Atlantic Ocean. He reads prepared speech on the atomic bomb. He states that an American aircraft dropped one bomb on Hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. The Japanese began the war from air at Pearl Harbor. He states about the Armed forces and the production of the atomic bombs in the United States. US is now prepared to completely destroy every productive enterprise of Japan. US is prepared to destroy Japanese docks,factories and communications to make war. He states that US have spent more than two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history and have won. This is due to the greatest achievement of organized science in history. Location: Atlantic Ocean. Date: August 6, 1945." 

Source:Critical Past- President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) talking about dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, in 1945.

From Critical Past

I mostly agree with Tom Nichols about President Truman and the atomic bomb being dropped on Japan. The only thing I would differ on is that President Truman had no good choice: continue the war and risk losing another hundred-thousand American soldiers in the Pacific, or drop the bomb in Japan and kill at least a million innocent Japanese who were guilty of nothing other than living in Japan during World War II. 

But the old cliche war is hell has never been more true than during this war. When you're the head of state in your country during wartime, your loyalty is to your own country. And that even means leading a war and ordering missions that can kill a lot of innocent people on the other side. Without the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan, how and when does that war end?

Japan, wasn't interested in preserving their own people. If anything America showed more mercy to the Japanese people than their own government. We didn't use the Japanese as targets and human shields. Japan, was only interested in saving their dictatorial regime. Not surrendering and risk being thrown out. 

It didn't matter to the Japanese Empire how many of their people had to die to preserve their regime. Not that different with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the current Islamic State in Iran. So what President Truman and his National Security Council was left with was how to end a war against a country that refuses to surrender and stop fighting.

President Harry Truman, was President of the United States. And because of that was responsible for the lives and national security of the American people. Which included German-Americans as well as Japanese-Americans back then and today. 

America, fought both Germany and Japan back then. And had the Japanese Government been more interested in preserving the lives of their own people than their regime, the atomic bomb is never dropped. Because the war would've been over a long time before the bomb. Because Japan would've figured out the obvious: they were beat and losing thousands of their own people everyday and would've just lost more the longer the war went on. And that they couldn't beat the United States. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress.

Taylor F.: 'Eisenhower Address on Little Rock Integration Problem'

Source:Taylor F.- Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) President of the United States (1953-61)

Source:The Daily Times

"This is for educational and personal purposes.

Executive Order -  - Little Rock 1957 - - Dwight D. Eisenhower" 

From Taylor F. 

Dwight Eisenhower, America’s first civil rights president. Not Lyndon Johnson who was our third, after Jack Kennedy who got involved in it strongly late in his presidency. But President Eisenhower was our first because he took on segregation from the executive level before the 1960s and when the civil rights movement became strong. 

By taking on civil rights at the federal and executive level, President Eisenhower immediately gave credibility to the movement. Especially by being in favor of it and against school desegregation, by essentially saying that: 

“African-Americans have the same right to a quality education as Caucasian-Americans. And that government can’t force African-American kids to go to poor schools. When Caucasians are going to good public schools”.

Market Ex: President Dwight Eisenhower- On the American Safety Net

Source:Market Ex- Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Texas) President of the United States (1953-61)

Source:The Daily Times 

“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. 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.” 

From Market Ex 

Dwight Eisenhower certainly wasn’t a Tea Party Republican economically or anything else. Whatever a Tea Party Republican is supposed to be, because there are many types.

But Ike was not a classical conservative economic libertarian Tea Party Republican. Not a Rand Paul Conservative Libertarian, which is what I’m getting at. But more like a Newt Gingrich Republican at least when it came to economic policy or what they use to call in Canada a Progressive Conservative.

Progressive Conservatives believe in the basic safety net for people who needed it, including the New Deal. But someone who also believed in freedom when it came to economics as well as personal freedom.

A Progressive Republican (not an Oxymoron) is someone who didn’t want a big welfare state for America. Someone who believed that Americans should have the freedom to be able to do as much for themselves as possible.

Progressive Republicans believe the safety net are for those people who needed it. Ike certainly wasn’t a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist (which are very common in Europe) but someone who believed in using conservative principles to accomplish progressive goals. That you needed both freedom and a safety net for the country to be as strong as possible economically.

President Dwight Eisenhower: 'Farewell Address & Warning For America (1961)'

Source:C-SPAN- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Democrat, Texas) 1961 farewell address.

Source:The Daily Times 

"President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation January 17, 1961" 

From Some Odd Stuff 

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer.

Ike didn’t believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to.

And that the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that “we have all the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something.” What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.

Old TV History: President Dwight Eisenhower- WRC-TV 1958: Oldest Known Color TV Broadcast

Source: Old TV History-

Source:Old TV History

There were already color movies in the 1950s and very good color movies. Like North by Northwest to use as an example, but color TV really didn't have much of an impact at all until the late 1960s or so. Which is why this press conference by President Dwight Eisenhower is such a big deal. Because millions of Americans were getting to see something they never saw before most likely in 1958 and something that wouldn't become common in TV until the early 1970s.

Economic Policy Journal:Michael Rozeff: The Real Reason Harry Truman Backed a Jewish State

Source:Economic Policy Journal

If you are going to say that President Harry Truman who is not only one of our best presidents, but perhaps our most honest president recognized the Jewish State of Israel for political considerations and the Jewish-American vote, then you need to back that up because that is a serious charge.

Jews were being murdered, genocide even in Europe mainly by the Nazi Germans. That is the main reason why the Jewish State of Israel was created and if President Truman was thinking "this could help me with the Jewish-American vote", so be it because the man is a politician after all and all politicians weigh those considerations. But it doesn't mean they make decisions simply based on if it can help them politically.

I kinda like the other idea that was considered apparently by President Truman about a united Federal Republic that could include both Palestinian-Arabs and Jews. Where there would be a United Federal Republic that would include what is the State of Israel and the Commonwealth of Palestine today. Palestine is not a independent nation right now, but they aren't a province or state inside of Israel. They are somewhat independent inside of Israel without the full benefits of being an independent nation. But under this Federal Republic there would be a Jewish state and a Palestinian state inside of this Republic.

Under that type of system maybe Israeli's and Palestinians aren't fighting each other today except for the radical terrorists like Hamas. But instead living somewhat peacefully inside of this greater country with both states having autonomy over their own domestic affairs.

Huffington Post: Richard Eskow- 'Was This the Social Contract’s Comeback Year?'

Source:Crooks & Liars- U.S. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Democrat, Maryland)

"What a difference a year makes. Last year at this time, a president and a party who had just won an election with progressive rhetoric were quickly pivoting toward a “Grand Bargain” which would cut Social Security and Medicare. Leaders in both parties were obsessed with deficits, and there was “bipartisan” consensus that these “entitlements” needed to be cut. The only questions left to debate were when they would be cut, and by how much. To resist these moves was to be dismissed as “unserious” and “extreme” — in Washington, in newsprint, and on the airwaves.

Today the forces of corporate consensus are on the defensive. It’s considered politically reckless to get too far out front on the subject of benefit cuts. Some of the think tanks who advocated Austerity Lite one year ago are focused now on inequality. And, as the leaders of Third Way learned recently, the same rhetoric which earned nods of approval all across Washington this time last year can get you slapped down today."  

From the Huffington Post 

"A promotional video produced by the US government to highlight the projects and programs of the Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression." 

Source:All Histories- a film about the New Deal.

From All Histories

When it comes to things like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare Insurance, Medicare. Public Housing, Food Assistance (to use several examples) I prefer the term safety net or a public social insurance system or PSIS. Which are insurances that people who need them can collect when, well they need them. But if you able to take care or yourself and you have what is called economic freedom that is the ability to pay your own bills and be self-sufficient in life with money left over to spend in things you want, then that is essentially the American dream.

Then that is exactly what you and this is how a safety net or PSIS would be different from what is called in Europe especially in Scandinavia a welfare state. Where there are all sorts of public programs funded through taxes (not free for the people) there to take care of people. 

I as a Liberal Democrat do not want to have to live off of government or anyone else if I’m able to take care of myself. That would be just one example that would separate me from a Democratic Socialist or a Social Democrat. Someone who bases their political philosophy on what government can do for people when it comes to economics.

If you want to use the term social contract, fine I’ll go along with that. But what I’m really in favor of when it comes to American capitalism is individual economic power. Again which is another way of saying economic freedom. And what I would like to see in this country and perhaps even go back to is an economic power system that is there for all Americans to be able to take advantage of to create their own economic freedom.

And this is where government plays its biggest role along with regulating predatory behavior. And this comes from making quality education and job training available for everyone universally to everyone K-adulthood if needed. So as many Americans as possible have that individual economic power or people power to be able to take care of themselves. And live a good life however they define that for themselves without having to use public assistance or private charity. In order to pay their own way and bills.

If you are talking about having a federal government so big especially as it relates to economic policy that it is designed to meet a lot if not most of people’s economic needs, you are no longer talking about a safety net or a social insurance system, but a welfare state. A socialist superstate big government at about as big as it can without nationalizing the entire economy and outlawing private property all together. And that is not what I’m in favor of. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

History Channel: 39- President Jimmy Carter & The Late 1970s

Source:History Channel- President James E. Carter (Democrat, Georgia) 1977-81.

Source:The Daily Times

“From The History Channel Series, “The Presidents”.

Copyright held by The History Channel – for educational use only!”

From Coach Strusky 

This might be putting it simplistically, but Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the late 1970s might be able to be summed up in what was dubbed as his malaise speech. Even though it was a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Despite President Carter’s brilliant ability to examine issues and problems, this speech however you want to define it, sounded like a lecture on what was wrong with the American people.

Seeming to blame the problems that the country was facing on themselves. That what the center of our problems, the reason for our economic problems was materialism that we wanted too much. Instead of the fact that it’s not that the country wanted too much. But the fact that a lot of middle class Americans and low-income people were fighting just to survive, to make ends meet. Which was very difficult because of the high unemployment, high interest rates, high inflation and the energy shortage.

The bad economy was the center of America’s problems and that was bad enough. And then throw in the foreign policy issues of late 1978 into 1979 and 1980, with the Monarchy in Iran collapsing in early 79, the Iran hostage crisis of November, 1979, where Americans at our Embassy in Tehran were taken hostage and held for fourteen months, with Russia invading Afghanistan in 1980. It was a lot on any President’s plate, even for a President as intelligent as Jimmy Carter.

I’ve said this before, but Jimmy Carter as President had a brilliant ability to examine issues for what they were for and understand them. But lacked the ability to figure out how to solve the problems. The economic crisis on 1978-90 and the malaise speech is a perfect example of this. He knew what the issues of the bad economy of that era were, but didn’t have a prescription to fix the problems.

He saw the economic crisis as something to do with the budget deficit. Even though compared with GDP the deficit was very small back then. Thanks to President Nixon, Ford and yes Carter limiting federal spending. The main issues with the economic crisis had to with high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation. And the way to solve economic problems is putting people back to work, even if that means running a short-term deficit. Or increasing the deficit, because once you establish solid job growth, you get the economy running again and you can address whatever budget deficit you had run up.

President Carter not only miss-diagnosed the economic crisis from a policy point of view, but from a political point of view. Because with a decent economy, President Carter gets reelected. I believe even with the hostage crisis, because President Carter actually scored decent ratings for the way he handled that situation. That election still would’ve been close I believe. But if he handled the economy properly, President Carter gets reelected and Ronald Reagan perhaps never becomes President of the United States.