Monday, August 2, 2010

A Lesson To Consider For Today



Rational Nation has on prior occasion posted video and comments referencing President Eisenhower's farewell speech to the nation in 1961. His warnings with respect to the growing "Military Industrial Complex", as he coined it, have largely went unheeded. 
Today we continue to influenced by the power of the military, the industries supporting the war machine, and a governemnt that continues on with interventionst foreign policy. The responsibility for this rests with both major political parties. But remember, it was the conservatives of Eisenhower's day, individuals like Barry Goldwater and others than understood the dangers of which Eisenhower cautioned.
Perhaps, if we can return this nation to a true conservative Libertarian philosophy, we will have the opportunity to stabilize our ship. It won't be easy taming the beast. But our best shoot at doing so is a return to conservative principals of fiscal responsibility and limited government. This includes rethinking our military presence worldwide and focusing on actual national defense rather than being the world's policeman.
The following is taken from "The Thirty Five Greatest Speeches in History" by Brett and Kate McKay.
The 1950′s were a time of ever increasing military spending, as the United States sought to fight communism abroad and prevent it at home. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office, more than half of the federal budget was allocated for defense purposes. Eisenhower, former General of the Army, was certainly not opposed to the use of military power to keep the peace. Still, he saw fit to use his “Farewell Address” to warn the nation of the dangers posed by the “military-industrial complex,” referring to the relationship between the armed forces, the government, and the suppliers of war materials. Eisenhower was wary of the large role defense spending played in the economy, and understood the political and corporate corruption that could result if the public was not vigilant in checking it.
Worthy Excerpt:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Read full text of speech here.
Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel.

12 comments:

  1. I know this is simplistic thinking, but that's about as much as I'm capable of so here goes: Sometimes I wonder if the reason the torch didn't get passed from Ike's generation as it should have is because too many conservative young men either went to Vietnam and got killed or got out of high school and went to work. Too many of the liberals went to college to escape the draft, ended up with college degrees (and drug-damaged brains) and are now running the country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Way too simplistic...

    Gorges you forgot conservatives like Dick Cheney and George Bush.....

    John Kerry a liberal served...

    Oh, and Ronnie Reagan loved building the military....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ronald Reagan built the militry for one primary purpose... To crush the Soviet Union by outspending them in the arms race.

    He succeeded.

    The question follows... was that victory worth the expense to the nation.

    Some believe it quite likely the USSR would have collapsed anyway do to the state controlled economy.

    Another lesson for the progresive collectivist in America to consider.

    As to Kerry... Won't even go their.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >rather than being the world's policeman.

    Or suing states that try to protect their borders.

    >the reason the torch didn't get passed from Ike's generation

    Gorges, I think you're on the right track, but it started even before WWII, with conservatives busy in constructive, honorable work, and "liberals" trying desperately to find a way to avoid it.

    >the USSR would have collapsed anyway

    I think that it's certain that it would have collapsed, but the problem is how much longer it would have taken, and therefore how much more of the world it would have destroyed. The main problem with the focus on the Soviets is that we let the Islamofascists run free and create the mess that is the Middle East today. (Not that they hadn't been slaughtering and enslaving each other for centuries, of course, but it could have been shut down more effectively decades ago.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even though more republicans are invested in defense contracts democrats have Uber rich. No wonder they have "White Guilt"


    In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared with Republican investments of $577,500.

    You know how we never hear about Clinton and Obama giving Halliburton no bid contracts?
    Good thing we have other sources of information besides the liberal media.
    That FOX and talk radio spreading all those lies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

    "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

    Eisenhower

    Modern Conservatism would drum Ike out of the Party...

    ReplyDelete
  7. >Modern Conservatism would drum Ike out of the Party...

    Why? He stated fundamental views held by most conservatives. In the first statement he says we should be generous on a private, individual level, and leave other people's money alone. In the second, he makes it clear that it's the people, not the government, that create wealth.

    Pretty simple, if you at least have basic reading comprehension skills.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And this is why Gay Marriage is legal in every state. No wait. Modern Conservatism views homosexuals as... I don't know why don't you tell me Bastiatarian?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, Spong_e, not surprisingly, you're conflating discrete issues. Marriage, by definition, is unrelated to any type of formal or legal union between individuals of the same sex, so there is no such thing as "gay marriage." If two individuals of the same sex want to formalize some type of union, that's their issue. However, they're not "married."

    Gay adults in every state are as free to marry as normal adults. However, they're not free to decide that a word means something that it does not never, never has, and never will mean.

    It doesn't matter how passionately I want to call a potato an apple. It will never be an apple. In the same way, a formalized union between two individuals of the same sex will never be a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bastiatarian just because you hate gay people doesn't mean you get to change the definition of marriage. Your blinkered ignorance may have been applauded in Byzantium of the Middle Ages but has no place in the modern world.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gene - Blinkered ignorance?? Ahh, I got it. You are really talking about yourself.

    Nowhere does Bastatarian state ot imply hate for Gays.

    Further words designate consepts. Marriage is defined as a union between man and a women.

    Bastiatarian is right. A is A. A is not B. If you like create a distinct definative word to define and signify gay unions. End of didcussion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How about moving back to the topic point made here? It had nothing to do with Gay unions.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.