Eisenhower and the Republican Party

[The Dude]

I've just been looking into the presidential terms of Dwight. D. Eisenhower and while I'm certainly no scholar on the man, it seems to me like he had some qualities that are sorely lacking in today's Republican party. This is of course just my perception as an outsider and it could be wrong, but if I look at Republicans today I see for the most part a bunch of rabid evangelicals that seem to outnumber, and at the very least out-speak, the old core of the party.

What would Eisenhower have thought of today's Republican party? I mean, his wikipedia article mentions that historians rank him among the top ten US presidents and I'm sure that's for good reason. I do know he said a few wise things regarding the military-industrial complex in his last presidential speech and it seems like today's Republicans are intent on acting in opposition against those words.

I'm not trying to make any sort of politically motivated point here, I'm simply trying to understand him in contrast to today's Republicans. I'm sure the forum's resident Republicans can help me out.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The party started to take a more ''radical'' and ''Christian conservative'' approach back in the 70's. When guys like Goldwater fell in favor of Reagan-likes.

[Sphere]

As Claudius says, Eisenhower was in the Republican party when its stronghold was still east coast industry and the South was solid Democrat/Dixicrat. (in 1952 Ike did not win a single southern state). Republicans did not rely on the Christian vote and indeed Ike was in his own way a champion of civil rights which I think he doesn't get enough credit for.

Though Ike ran his campaign on Truman and the Dem's not being tough enough with the Reds, he actually ran more of a dove administration. He embraced containment, rejected the use of "limited" nuclear war, and wouldn't put up with European colonialism (see Suez Crisis).

[Dr. Croccer]

From what I know, the modern Republican and Democratic parties are far-cries of what they were in the past. Many pre-Reagan Republican presidents were progressive and relatively doveist. Figures like Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln opposed laissez-faire capitalism. Whilst the Democrats were intially pro-slavery/segregation and Libertarian, focused on the South.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The modern Dems and Reps were not at all like what they are today.

But it's fair to say that the biggest shift happened in the 80's and it happened to the Republicans.

They went from economically moderate and championing civil rights from a Libertarian point of view to very Orthodox and very conservative.

[Mr. Scott]

The modern Dems and Reps were not at all like what they are today.

But it's fair to say that the biggest shift happened in the 80's and it happened to the Republicans.

They went from economically moderate and championing civil rights from a Libertarian point of view to very Orthodox and very conservative.

And yet... the 60's and 70's were times of stagnant growth and the 80's and 90's were times of wonderful growth.

[Dr. Croccer]

And yet... the 60's and 70's were times of stagnant growth and the 80's and 90's were times of wonderful growth.

And debt.

[The Dude]

So if Eisenhower would run for office today as a Republican, how well would he do? Would his message still appeal to current republicans? Because he seems like a guy I would've voted for.

And yet... the 60's and 70's were times of stagnant growth and the 80's and 90's were times of wonderful growth.

Followed by a time of massive collapse, so GG.

[Mr. Scott]

And debt.

Yes, the debt increased, but so did the economy. The stagnation ended during the reagan years and reagan was able to achieve his aims.

By creating such a high deficit anyone trying to pass a social program bill was shot down. So he succeeded in curbing the wellfare state.

He brought the Soviet Union into an arms race that it couldn't afford and help bring down its collapse.

The US economy began improving again once the wellfare plane was shot down.

[Claudius Gothicus]

And yet... the 60's and 70's were times of stagnant growth and the 80's and 90's were times of wonderful growth.

Reagan and Bush didn't actually do nothing to fix the debt. In fact their massive military expending coulda been much better used in others areas that coulda very well improved American society instead of expending it on the Industrial Military Complex.

[Sphere]

And for a little perspective, under Eisenhower the top tax bracket rate was 90%. Today there is a huge fuss over increasing it from 35% to 40%.

[The Dude]

Where are Phier and Oldgamer and the like? I was sort of hoping they'd show up and offer a republican perspective on Eisenhower as president. That's pretty much what I made this thread for.

[Cougar109]

1964, the year the party of Lincoln and true American conservatism died.

[VALIS]

Even Reagan would be unelectable in todays Republican party.

He raised taxes 11 times
Granted amnesty for illegal immigrants
Made deals with terrorist state Iran to get back hostages
Was soft when dealing with attacks against Americans in middle east. (ie Lebanon attacks)

He'd be kicked out and called a RINO in todays insane and extremist right-wing GOP.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd agree that with many things, we've swung way too far to the right.

If you talk about letting tax cuts expire, where the taxes were already far lower than they were under Ronald Reagan, the darling of the Conservative movement and their hero, and then we cut taxes further than that for a decade, all of a sudden letting the tax cuts expire is a horrible economy-destroying maneuver.

It seems to me the economy ran much better historically, and under much much more "oppressive" taxes.

On other things, we are swinging more towards liberalism, with social issues. Gay rights are moving forward, there's talk of legalizing and regulating marijuana, we're moving towards a more centralized and government funded healthcare system.

It could be argued that the country is moving right, and left, at the same time. And, the extremes of both sides are gaining popularity. More so with the right-wing extremists like Angle and Palin. Left-wing extremism isn't really happening as much, because it's not like PETA is a significant force, its usually pretty laughable.

That said, liberal Democrats are what remained after the conservative democrats were replaced by tea party/republicans. So both parties are pulling to the less moderate wings. This is going to lead to gridlock and even worse partisanship than before, and its not good at all for our country.

Suppose the Dems stay in the minority in the house and the republicans stay in the minority in the senate, and they're all less moderate and less compromising, and all they do is threaten to stop all legislation and throw a tantrum if they don't get their way.

Is this really a good thing for the country? Or for our politics?

Some on the right are happy with the idea of the government shutting down, and simply stopping any and all action by the government. Forgive me, but the government is a pretty expensive thing that a lot of people rely on, and we're still going to have to pay for it whether we use it or not. Why don't we use it for good instead of evil for a change?

[Thorn777]

I have another little theory adding to the debacle.

I think during the Bush Jr years somewhat still reasonable rightwing people had to bend their minds so hard to like all the scheisse they got served by that weird administration during the 9-11/Iraq/patriot-act/deficit-spending during booming world-economy/waterboarding/open&shameless-nepotism era, that they got used to bending their minds a bit to much.

You know...to explain that culture of irrational lunatism and nonacceptance of reasonable counter-argumentation, today somehow having some sort of large scale value in US public debate. May it be for a large part political strategy.

Dangerous stuff. May god forbid a Palin in the whitehouse one day.

[Admiral Piett]

Actually there's a fairly good program that came on Fox called "The Right All Along" which documents the resurrection of conservatism and the Republican Party after the New Deal Democrats of the 40s and early 50s.

Eisenhower's nomination was actually balked at by many Republicans at the time because they felt he was simply riding his own popularity with the opposition to the Dems' platform but did not readily accept many of the GOP's own platforms. As a result, he was accused of being wishy-washy and indecisive politically. However his legacy would prove that he was a strong leader that kept the increasingly polarized elements together.

Roll forward to 1960. The GOP is divided. Senator Barry Goldwater was by then a well established and charismatic conservative figure. He stirred up a resurgence called the conservative coalition. Goldwater himself called Eisenhower's administration as a 'dime-store New Deal'. Goldwater became synonymous with the Southern and Midwestern Republicans and opposition to Goldwater was none other than Nelson Rockefeller who represented the New England and Pacific Coast Republicans, who tended to be more liberal. Goldwater even said in '61 that "sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea." Goldwater was also a bitter political rival of Vice President Richard Nixon, calling him "The most dishonest man I've ever met" and that he was a blight on the Republican Party. It was Barry Goldwater's candidacy that actually inspired Ronald Reagan to switch from Democrat to Republican, having become disillusioned with Democrats and was swept by Goldwater's conservative coalition. Reagan would run for Governor of California just four years after on the Republican ticket.

When Kennedy was shot, Goldwater was actually very publicly grief stricken and was sad that Kennedy would not be his opponent in '64. It was this and the GOP's lack of unity that actually had him cast doubts on accepting a nomination in '64. He hated Lyndon Johnson and noted that Johnson would use every 'dirty trick in the book'. Goldwater then very narrowly won a bitter primary streetfight against liberal Republican Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller. Johnson in the 64 campaign would accuse Goldwater of being a militant reactionist and so anti-communist that he would risk nuclear war. Johnson iput out TV ads of nuclear warheads going off with children playing in fields, insinuating Goldwater was a nut. Funny, considering Johnson's first acts as President the very day Kennedy was shot was to expand the policy of containment in Vietnam and in other nations across the globe. But the ads proved effective and the Republicans lost a resounding defeat to Democrats in '64.

Goldwater returned to the Senate in '68 and flowered the conservative resurgency. He was key Senator in opposing Nixon and during the Watergate scandal, was the leading GOP lawmaker to publicly call for Nixon's resignation or face impeachment. When Reagan won in 80, it was seen as the achievement of Goldwater's legacy. However, as the Reagan administration went on, he found himself in perplexing disagreement with the GOP's course. Goldwater publicly opposed the growing Christian right lobby, seeing issues like abortion as being a matter of private discourse and not meant to be regulated by the government. He was also opposed to legislation banning gay marriage, seeing it as government regulation of civil behavior. His libertarian views became increasingly isolated in the New Right of the 80s. He voted every single time to uphold legal abortion in his state, despite getting some support from the religious lobby. In 1981, he made a speech condemning the bullying of religious political action committees on lawmakers and vowed to fight them every step of the way. Goldwater became disillusioned with Reagan himself in 1983 over Reagan's foreign policy blunders, most especially with Reagan's relationship with South America and Nicaraguan intervention.

In '86, he lamented that of the 7 Presidents he worked with, Eisenhower was the best of all them in character.

When Goldwater retired in '87, he called on his own state's governor to resign and stated that the GOP had been 'taken over by a bunch of kooks'. In 1994, he told the Washington Post, "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."

Goldwater becomes a hilarious voice of reason while the Party spins completely out of control towards the so-called 'Moral Majority' in the last years of his life.

Check out these wiki articles on both Goldwater and Rockefeller as being the last voices of a sane Republican Party and what the GOP really used to be all about. Back then, the GOP had dignified leaders with class, open to reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller


It is ironic that though the GOP had become split under Eisenhower's insistent moderation between the two, most major conservative leaders look back on Eisenhower as being probably the best modern conservative President we ever had. People now that look back on Reagan with keen admiration, imo, don't take into account that many in the GOP back then became disillusioned by the increasing polarization under Reagan with contradicting domestic and foreign policies. Though very different from each other in their views and goals, the Republicans I look up to the most - Rockefeller, Goldwater, and Ron Paul - all had unity in their dissatisfaction under Reagan and alienation under a new socially conservative oriented GOP.

[The Dude]

That was some very interesting stuff, FF. Have a rep. Very much covers what I was curious about.

[Admiral Piett]

Your very welcome, Dude. Have a white russian on me.

I'm very disappointed because I could easily see myself being a Republican back in the 50s and 60s. But it all just went to in the late 60s and mid 70s. I think the Democrats also lost their soul and starting buying into statist, big government agendas as well. I don't know exactly what has led American politics into a more authoritarian form of lawmaking.

[The Dude]

See that's exactly how I feel. Though obviously I'm not American, but yeah. I'm disappointed in the absense of some of the forum's key Republicans, because I want to hear their rationale justifying the gap between oldschool Republicans and post-Reagan Republicans.

If there isn't any, then what is contemporary Republicanism if not just a populist movement designed to deceive and goad the masses into collective rage? Should I take their silence to mean they don't have an answer and don't want to admit to the obvious?