(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Eisenhower Rejected Obstruction By “Stupid” [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2023-09-24

In his September 19, 2023, New York Times column, Paul Krugman referenced a letter written by President Dwight Eisenhower to his older brother Ed, a conservative lawyer and businessman, in 1954. Krugman used the letter to illustrate the way the Republican Party had deteriorated from a conservative party committed to good governance to a party of obstruction that rallies its voting base through appeals to anger and bigotry. Krugman criticized old-guard conservative Republicans for creating and using a MAGA Frankenstein’s monster to achieve a pro-business anti-union low tax agenda, a monster that they no longer can control.

Currently, the extreme rightwing of the rightwing Republican Congressional caucus is blocking its own party leadership’s effort to negotiate with the Democratic Party majority in the Senate and President Biden to prevent a government shutdown after September 30. A funding bill must be passed for the federal government to continue to function.

In the letter, President “Ike” Eisenhower, a Republican, supported the way the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, had transformed the role of government in the United States. He argued that “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.” Ike recognized that some conservatives still hoped to dismantle the New Deal, but “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Ed had written the President opposing New Deal reforms that the Eisenhower administration kept in place. Ike responded, “it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it” and he called for “moderation” and a “rule of reason.” Eisenhower defended social service programs against critics who labeled them “give away programs,” arguing “They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity.”

As a teacher and historian, I always liked other Eisenhower actions and statements. Eisenhower deployed troops to enforce a court ordered desegregation of the Little Rock, Arkansas high schools, creatively used the national defense power of the federal government to build a modern highway system, forced American allies to return the Suez Canal to Egypt, employed the threat of Sputnik to provide federal funding for public schools, and warned against the power of the military-industrial complex. Despite his underlying conservatism, Eisenhower as President modeled “moderation” and a “rule of reason.” In fact, “moderation” and “reason” should be the definition of conservatism.

The entire letter from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, online at the Teaching American History website, is included here. It is a valuable primary source document for teaching the history of the United States in the post-World War 2 era and for understanding the current political impasse generated by MAGA Republicans in Congress that is crippling the federal government.

Letter from President Dwight David Eisenhower to Edgar Newton Eisenhower

November 8, 1954

Dear Ed:

I think that such answer as I can give to your letter of November first will be arranged in reverse order–at least I shall comment first on your final paragraph.

You keep harping on the Constitution; I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Consequently no powers are exercised by the Federal government except where such exercise is approved by the Supreme Court (lawyers) of the land.1

I admit that the Supreme Court has in the past made certain decisions in this general field that have been astonishing to me. A recent case in point was the decision in the Phillips case. Others, and older ones, involved “interstate commerce.” But until some future Supreme Court decision denies the right and responsibility of the Federal government to do certain things, you cannot possibly remove them from the political activities of the Federal government.

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this – in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything – even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. 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.

To say, therefore, that in some instances the policies of this Administration have not been radically changed from those of the last is perfectly true. Both Administrations levied taxes, both maintained military establishments, customs officials, and so on.

But in all governmental fields of action a combination of purpose, procedure and objectives must be considered if you are to get a true evaluation of the relative merits.

You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.

No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.

A year ago last January we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world. You may have forgotten this. Lots of people have. But there has been no greater threat that has in recent years overhung the free world. That threat has been largely, if not totally, removed. I could name at least a half dozen other spots of the same character.

This being true, how can anyone be so unaware of what is happening as to say that this Administration has conducted foreign affairs under the same policies as did the former Administration? As a matter of fact, if you will press any individual who brings to you all these strictures and comments, I venture that your experience will be the same as mine. That experience is that these individuals have no idea of what the “foreign policy” of the previous Administration was and what the present one is. They have heard certain slogans, such as “give away programs.” They have no slightest idea as to what has been the effect of these programs in sustaining American security and prosperity. Moreover, they have no idea whatsoever as to comparative size of them now as compared to even two or three years ago.

You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of “controls,” presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, “run away” inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.

You also talk about “bad political advice” I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be–although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting “bad” advice; why don’t you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?

I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated–then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.

Finally, I must assure you again that I am delighted to get your own honest criticisms, particularly if you will only take the trouble to lay down the facts on which you reach what seem to me to be some remarkable conclusions. But the mere repetition of aphorisms and political slogans and newspaper headlines leaves me cold. I am sorry you are not going to be at Abilene.6 It would be easier to tell you these things than to write them–except that by this method I hope to make you do a little thinking rather than devote yourself just to the winning of a noisy argument.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/9/24/2195175/-Eisenhower-Rejected-Obstruction-By-Stupid

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/