What did President Eisenhower, have in mind when he gave his farewell address and to warned the people about guarding against the Military-Industrial-Complex.
For context, the President was saying this in 1961 within the depths of the Cold War.
"We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method ..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals. He continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex." "we recognize the imperative need for this development ... the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist ... 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."
Upon delivering such an open speech to warn the public about the Military-Industrial-complex, we can assume, with some certainty, that the President, himself a Five-Star General had spent his time in office attempting to push against it.
We could say that, in part, Eisenhower might have seen that spending in this field rising, causing inflation and national debt to spike.
Plus, he might have been referring to the lobbying of the industry and politicians who played along for kick backs and future positions.
One thing that does interest me most in all of this, is wondering whether Presidents really have any real hold on 'the levers of power' or whether the general perception of them, and their abilities, is really an illusion?
Whatever Eisenhower's reasons, it really does stand out as a notable speech by any serving president.
If Bitcoin were widely adopted, it sure would shake many things up.
I'm sure he had in mind exactly what we're seeing today. A largely unaccountable industry that profits from war and chaos around the world, with enormous influence on the public spending, and thus perpetuating the cycle of war and violence.
One thing that does interest me most in all of this, is wondering whether Presidents really have any real hold on 'the levers of power' or whether the general perception of them, and their abilities, is really an illusion?
As an individual, the President is very powerful. He has more access to levers of power than any other single individual. But even they cannot easily stand up against the entrenched interests of entire industries with many many people in their pocket.
reply
It must feel like a real slap in the face for some. It might be worse for those who aren't prepared, aren't already 'supported' by business - but 100% worse for people with a big ego.
reply
Look around you and you'll see what he meant.
I guess it's harder when you live inside the military-industrial-complex, but still, what Eisenhower warned about came true tenfold.
reply
If this interests you, you should read War Is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler.
reply
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
~ Smedley D. Butler,
reply
Now that sounds like quite a read! Thanks for a the recommendation.
reply
If firefighting were a for-profit industry, there would be a lot more fires.
Making and selling weapons internationally is like that. The temptation to incite conflicts so you can sell to both parties is extreme.
reply
If you've set your neighbor's yards on fire, your yard looks really great.
But this idea can turn on you and bite you on your ass.
reply
For many years I have wondered how much presidents actually have. My gut tells me they are mostly actors/presenters more than actual in control. It is hard for me to believe they actually hold the power we are led to believe. There are so many people responsible for their position that it seems far more logic to me to think they are simply functionaries and public figureheads. The real power is more unseen. That might sound crazy to many but what truly sounds crazy to me is believing the current president is actually "running" the USA.
reply
I was going to say that I'm sure they're not actors... then I remembered former Hollywood actor Reagan.
I'd imagine that even serious, career politicians, with no acting experience, get more than a little crestfallen when they see how they're just a cog in the machine instead of being the driver.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that no-one can ever be the sole driver - however much they'd like.
I'd imagine that all of the power-mad dictators of the world get a little crazier when they realize this...
Life in a regular job is not possible to do alone. Were social animals and everything is interconnected. Figurehead, actor or President there's too many plates to spin on your own.
How's that old joke go?
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans.
Woody Allen
reply
One thing that does interest me most in all of this, is wondering whether Presidents really have any real hold on 'the levers of power' or whether the general perception of them, and their abilities, is really an illusion?
To answer your question, no, they really don't. Congress is the branch that holds real power of law in the United States. The President has more of a leadership power, acting as a face to rally around. Their only true power is in the ability to make informal agreements with other heads of state.
reply
A few in Congress would have been in Ike's mind when he delivered his final speech.
His final speech seemed to be an attempt to change things from the bottom up by educating the citizenry.
I like Ike.
reply