I sure hope so. even Obama was pushing a round about cut to SS benefits with the "Chained CPI" (which didn't fly). Ike (who could not have imagined imagined the power hate radio and Internet in the US) said:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, y…
I sure hope so. even Obama was pushing a round about cut to SS benefits with the "Chained CPI" (which didn't fly). Ike (who could not have imagined imagined the power hate radio and Internet in the US) said:
“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 that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
In today’s climate he would be a center-left Democrat. It seems to me he was the last really decent Republican politician, certainly President. (My parents and some of my friends’ parents were very decent, honorable people who were Republicans, but not politicians.)
👍 Agree about Ike. He was the first president I was “aware” of as a kid—tho’ only in the way a kid is aware of politics. I came to understand, as the Republicans who replaced him in office, that he mostly stood apart from and “above” them. Some years ago I remarked to a friend that he was the last Republican president I admired.
Because he put down fascism? The Interstate highway system had strategic defense implication, as well as economic benefits. High taxation of the richest? Well fair is fair.
From a letter from President Eisenhower to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, November, 8 1954 with more context:
"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."
Eisenhower was conservative with a small "c" but clearly in the country before party camp. Nixon was more of an opportunist, and though most hold Reagan in much higher regard than Nixon, I think Reagan was worse. It wasn't really "government" that Reagan was attacking (his party has used every trick in the book to dominate government since) but rather the of, by and for the people version of it.
I think it is hard to believe Eisenhower was a Republican insofar as what we call Republican today is really nothing of the sort. MAGA openly rejects the Republic and clamors for some form of dictator. That would sound alarmist if Trump had not flirted with promising to be one, and points to current dictators (even North Korea's Kim) as models of good governance; to say nothing of Project 2025. His claim of not having to vote after the coming election is ominous however you interpret it.
I certainly agree with you that Reagan in pure political terms was far worse than Nixon. NIxon's principle problem was getting caught for his own paranoia in Watergate. Reagan took the country down a very dark path which has led us to today.
And i think Eisenhower would almost never be what is now considered to be a Republican.
And I keep harping on this, but it's a big issue, Nixon, as corrupt as he proved to be (from early on in his career) was far more receptive, even active for environmental protection, while Reagan was hostile to it, as has been a "Republican" trait since.
Correction - they are now Texas oil billionaires, their numbers are not negligible and they are not stupid. Ike lived in a more sane time, although he might argue the point.
They had to point out to Dr. Evil in "Goldmember" that a million dollars is not what it used to be, but also for decades more and more of the total ownerhip and politcal influence of America has run to the 1%, exactly what "Reaganomics" was designed to deliver.
The Eisenhower era was both both more and less sane, but what HCR calls "the Liberal Consensus" was certainly saner than virtual civil war. Economic equity and opportunity were in some ways more reasonable, but social equity (and with it, economic injustices) more stratified for minorities (including gays) and women. Far less w*ke.
Wasn't it Everett Dirksen who said a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. It was in junk bond idiocy days, so it might have been millions back then. A million dollars is not what it used to be. Explains a lot. The rich are feeling poorer and need to compensate. . Ha
I sure hope so. even Obama was pushing a round about cut to SS benefits with the "Chained CPI" (which didn't fly). Ike (who could not have imagined imagined the power hate radio and Internet in the US) said:
“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 that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Wow that is a great quote from Eisenhower. Hard to believe that guy was a republican.
In today’s climate he would be a center-left Democrat. It seems to me he was the last really decent Republican politician, certainly President. (My parents and some of my friends’ parents were very decent, honorable people who were Republicans, but not politicians.)
👍 Agree about Ike. He was the first president I was “aware” of as a kid—tho’ only in the way a kid is aware of politics. I came to understand, as the Republicans who replaced him in office, that he mostly stood apart from and “above” them. Some years ago I remarked to a friend that he was the last Republican president I admired.
Because he put down fascism? The Interstate highway system had strategic defense implication, as well as economic benefits. High taxation of the richest? Well fair is fair.
I still remember "I like Ike".
Signs in Texas called him a commie, back in the 60’s. It was rare then.
From a letter from President Eisenhower to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, November, 8 1954 with more context:
"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."
Eisenhower was conservative with a small "c" but clearly in the country before party camp. Nixon was more of an opportunist, and though most hold Reagan in much higher regard than Nixon, I think Reagan was worse. It wasn't really "government" that Reagan was attacking (his party has used every trick in the book to dominate government since) but rather the of, by and for the people version of it.
I think it is hard to believe Eisenhower was a Republican insofar as what we call Republican today is really nothing of the sort. MAGA openly rejects the Republic and clamors for some form of dictator. That would sound alarmist if Trump had not flirted with promising to be one, and points to current dictators (even North Korea's Kim) as models of good governance; to say nothing of Project 2025. His claim of not having to vote after the coming election is ominous however you interpret it.
I certainly agree with you that Reagan in pure political terms was far worse than Nixon. NIxon's principle problem was getting caught for his own paranoia in Watergate. Reagan took the country down a very dark path which has led us to today.
And i think Eisenhower would almost never be what is now considered to be a Republican.
Or Lincoln.
And I keep harping on this, but it's a big issue, Nixon, as corrupt as he proved to be (from early on in his career) was far more receptive, even active for environmental protection, while Reagan was hostile to it, as has been a "Republican" trait since.
Correction - they are now Texas oil billionaires, their numbers are not negligible and they are not stupid. Ike lived in a more sane time, although he might argue the point.
They had to point out to Dr. Evil in "Goldmember" that a million dollars is not what it used to be, but also for decades more and more of the total ownerhip and politcal influence of America has run to the 1%, exactly what "Reaganomics" was designed to deliver.
The Eisenhower era was both both more and less sane, but what HCR calls "the Liberal Consensus" was certainly saner than virtual civil war. Economic equity and opportunity were in some ways more reasonable, but social equity (and with it, economic injustices) more stratified for minorities (including gays) and women. Far less w*ke.
Wasn't it Everett Dirksen who said a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. It was in junk bond idiocy days, so it might have been millions back then. A million dollars is not what it used to be. Explains a lot. The rich are feeling poorer and need to compensate. . Ha