WILLIAM GALSTON JANUARY 20, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

As preparation for President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, I’ve reread two noted presidential speeches delivered days apart, half a century ago. I need not dwell on JFK’s inaugural; many of us know its stirring cadences by heart. Its cardinal virtue is courage; its mood, audacity; its ambition, not just global but galactic. It is a young man’s speech, self-consciously so.
Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address is the surprise. It is remembered, of course, for its warning against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence ... by the military-industrial complex.” But the real point of the speech is moral. Eisenhower cautions against “any failure traceable to arrogance.” He highlights the perennial temptation to believe that “some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.” Meeting the challenge of a hostile ideology calls for, “not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle.”
We are required, Eisenhower insists, to think not just of ourselves, but of posterity. In words even more relevant today than 50 years ago, he declares that “we—you and I, and our government—must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”
The foundation stone of Eisenhower’s farewell address is the necessity of preserving balance in all things—“balance between the public and private economy; balance between cost and hoped for advantage; balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the moment. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.”
Consistent with this theme is Eisenhower’s celebration of bipartisanship. “Our people,” he says, “expect their president and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.” Fortunately, he continues, their expectations have not been disappointed: In his eight presidential years, “the Congress and the administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward.”
The tone of Eisenhower’s speech is pacific throughout. Rather than a summons to greatness, it is a warning against hubris. If the cardinal virtue of JFK’s speech is courage, that of Eisenhower’s is prudence. Courage finds its natural home in war; prudence is a virtue for all seasons. In many ways we are a better country than we were 50 years ago. Nonetheless, I cannot help wondering whether, in the process of becoming better, we have lost, first our balance, then our way. In a moment of exasperation, the president I served once complained that we’re all Eisenhower Republicans now. We could do worse.
William Galston is a former policy advisor to Bill Clinton and current senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
6 comments
Ike certainly had his good points, but Ike worship is a tedious substitute for thought. It was the easy-going, bipartisan Ike who engineered the coup in Iran that installed the Shah, which in retrospect appears not to have been such a good idea. Ike was also the driving force behind what became as the Bay of Pigs, a disaster from the get-go, which JFK only made worse. Out of office, Ike told nervous Nellie LBJ over and over again that we "had to win" in Vietnam, and Lyndon never had the nerve to ask Ike why, in 1954, he was willing to let the communists take over the whole country. Ike had a personal prestige that no current politician could dream of matching, and he could face down the military like no politician in modern history. Urging other politicians to be like Ike ignores the fact that they aren't Ike: they didn't invade Europe and defeat Hitler.
- AlanVann
January 20, 2011 at 8:18am
Good comment, Alan, but you hold Ike too much responsible for the Mossadegh ouster: while the 1953 'coup' (alternately, an ouster of a prime-minister who had become an extraconstitutional authoritarian) certainly seems like a disaster in retrospect, Ike did not consider us the primary mover in that matter, as indeed we weren't.
- Curran1
January 20, 2011 at 11:39am
What you miss is authentic conservatism, which is well articulated in the Eisenhower quotations above. Despite what the current GOP think and say, the national Republican party is no longer a conservative party. Eisenhower was probably warning against liberal overreach on racial and social justice in 1961, but his remarks are as appropriate for today's radical right wing: tea partiers, libertarians, and the Bush administration's neocons.
- stanalama
January 20, 2011 at 12:03pm
Ike was a mixed bag. For example, he may have been only partly responsible for overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran, but he was wholly responsible for bringing down Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, ushering in a spate of military dictatorships. On the other hand, he sponsored the visionary interstate highway program and kept us out of Vietnam in 1954. His Farewell speech stands as a solid piece of wisdom.
- JackR
January 20, 2011 at 6:07pm
"In many ways we are a better country than we were 50 years ago." In many ways? I suppose so, it you object to segregation, red- baiting, and sexism. "[L]ost . . . our way"? I'm as nostalgic as anybody (one of my favorite movies is Breakfast at Tiffanys), but the 1950s? Galston, being a young man, has no idea what he is talking about. But I do appreciate that youthful ignorance of the past.
- rayward
January 20, 2011 at 8:23pm
I remember Eisenhower's presidency. It was during that time that I became aware of politiics and though I preferred Stevenson in the two campaigns I always respected Eisenhower and he remains for me the gold standard for an enlightened and humane Republicanism. I even thought the other day how in an earlier age Obama could have been a Republican and in the Eisenhower sense he might be seen now as the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
- paskunac
January 23, 2011 at 7:53am