Returning the Republican Party to Eisenhower

 

Recently, one of our members mentioned that it was imperative to return the GOP away from its current path and urged a return, not just to the principles of Reaganism, but also to fall further back to the days of Dwight Eisenhower. The University of California-Santa Barbara runs an online archive of political documents pertaining to the history of the American executive called the American Presidency Project. It is an invaluable resource for primary research and it includes the national party platforms for most election years dating back to the 1840 Democratic platform under Martin Van Buren.

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear! From out of the past come the thundering hoofbeats of the great horse Tricky Dick! Ike Eisenhower rides again!

Perusing the party platforms from 1952 and 1956 is an interesting exercise. There are things in there that are just too anachronistic to pay much attention to. Sections of both years are devoted to improving the post office. (From 1952: We pledge a more efficient and frequent mail delivery service. By 1956, there were 7 full paragraphs devoted to how much Ike had improved mail delivery.)

In 1952 they were none too pleased with the last 20 years of Democrats:

We charge that they have arrogantly deprived our citizens of precious liberties by seizing powers never granted.

We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism.

We charge that they have disrupted internal tranquillity by fostering class strife for venal political purposes.

We charge that they have choked opportunity and hampered progress by unnecessary and crushing taxation.

They claim prosperity but the appearance of economic health is created by war expenditures, waste and extravagance, planned emergencies, and war crises. They have debauched our money by cutting in half the purchasing power of our dollar.

We charge that they have weakened local self-government which is the cornerstone of the freedom of men.

We charge that they have shielded traitors to the Nation in high places, and that they have created enemies abroad where we should have friends.

We charge that they have violated our liberties by turning loose upon the country a swarm of arrogant bureaucrats and their agents who meddle intolerably in the lives and occupations of our citizens.

We charge that there has been corruption in high places, and that examples of dishonesty and dishonor have shamed the moral standards of the American people.

By 1956 they were damned pleased with themselves. “Our many economic and social advances of the past four years are the result of our faithful adherence to our 1952 pledge to reverse a 20-year Democratic philosophy calling for more and more power in Washington.” And then they went on to list how much more government that they had created. Such as the creating the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, creating a flood insurance agency, subsidized rents, expanded Social Security, paying farmers not to grow food through the Soil Bank Program, and, of course, lots of benefits for government employees.

We will vigorously promote, as we have in the past, a non-political career service under the merit system which will attract and retain able servants of the people. Many gains in this field, notably pay increases and a host of new benefits, have been achieved in their behalf in less than four years.

The Republican Party will continue to fight for eagerly desired new advances for Government employees, and realistic reappraisement and adjustment of benefits for our retired civil service personnel.

Nothing makes you want to vote Republican more than the knowledge that they’re taking care of each other in DC. Well, that and the pledges for an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, and a hardy endorsement of the United Nations.

In foreign affairs the 1956 GOP pledged Israel’s security and reinforcing the Palestinian mission to the UN. (Well, that worked, right?) Furthermore, the Republicans “…continue to oppose the seating of Communist China in the United Nations, thus upholding international morality.” The VP they re-nominated in the year of 1956 would completely destroy that notion as president in 1971.

And then there’s this on trade: “Barriers which impede international trade and the flow of capital should be reduced on a gradual, selective and reciprocal basis, with full recognition of the necessity to safeguard domestic enterprises, agriculture and labor against unfair import competition. We proudly point out that the Republican Party was primarily responsible for initiating the escape clause and peril point provisions of law to make effective the necessary safeguards for American agriculture, labor and business.” (Emphasis mine.)

There’s lot more. From balanced budgets to a return of the Gold Standard. It’s all pure gold.

Published in History
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    EJHill: Returning the Republican Party to Eisenhower

    A good start…perhaps a stepping stone to get back to the Party of Coolidge?

    • #1
  2. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

    — Calvin Coolidge

    • #2
  3. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

    Mike,

    That’s it exactly. They’re not progressive but regressive. They can’t handle the enlightenment values of the Declaration so they concoct a pseudo-medievalism out of a pseudo-scientific ideology. The Founding Fathers are a breath of fresh air in comparison.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #3
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Did they call the Democrats “Nazis?!?”

    • #4
  5. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Did they call the Democrats “Nazis?!?”

    There was a time when the idea that the Democrats and the national socialists shared similar goals was not yet controversial.

    • #5
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    President Franklin Roosevelt expressed admiration for the Italian leader, and sent him cordial letters. In June 1933, Roosevelt praised Mussolini in a letter to an American envoy: “… I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.” In another letter a few weeks later, the President wrote: “I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with the admirable Italian gentleman.”

     

    • #6
  7. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    I love the Ricochet Army of Davids.

    • #7
  8. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Did they call the Democrats “Nazis?!?”

    There was a time when the idea that the Democrats and the national socialists shared similar goals was not yet controversial.

    The reference at the time was understood as more pre-war Mussolini, I believe. As @percival pointed out.

     

    • #8
  9. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    …They’re not progressive but regressive. They can’t handle the enlightenment values of the Declaration so they concoct a pseudo-medievalism out of a pseudo-scientific ideology. The Founding Fathers are a breath of fresh air in comparison.

    Now hang on. You are too hard on the medieval world (which gave us the magna carta, for instance) and too generous with the left.

    The ideas of equality and all men being endowed with rights are rooted in the revelation of the Old Testament, the insights of ancient Greek philosophy and the precepts ancient Roman law, all of which were then further developed in Christianity. 

    It would be truer to say, imo, that progressivism is evil fruit of the aspect of the enlightenment that severed itself from those spiritual roots and ran amok.

    • #9
  10. Phil Turmel Inactive
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Did they call the Democrats “Nazis?!?”

    There was a time when the idea that the Democrats and the national socialists shared similar goals was not yet controversial.

    Godwin’s Law hadn’t been formulated yet.  I’m of the opinion that it was deliberately formulated to hide the origins of the Nazi party (the American progressive movement, via Mussolini).  And hide the continuing similarities of methods and motives.

    • #10
  11. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    I have heard that Ike had Democrat leanings at one time. (I can’t document that.) So did Reagan. So did Trump. Could it be that ex-democrats make the best Republican presidents?

    • #11
  12. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    My whole take away is that things haven’t changed all that much. The GOP talks limiting spending and small government and they expand both anyway. 

    They talked about “international morality” and eventually stabbed Taiwan in the back and cozied up to Mao. 

    But for all the free traders in the party it seems that Eisenhower’s GOP was more like Trump’s than they would be comfortably admitting. Push free trade but recognize your right and duty to protect your own people when others don’t play fair.

    • #12
  13. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    JoelB: I have heard that Ike had Democrat leanings at one time.

    Between the end of the war and announcing his political ambitions Ike was NATO commander and then president of Columbia University. During that time both parties made runs at him. Truman even offered to run as his VP if he chose the Democrats in 1948.

    • #13
  14. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    katievs (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    …They’re not progressive but regressive. They can’t handle the enlightenment values of the Declaration so they concoct a pseudo-medievalism out of a pseudo-scientific ideology. The Founding Fathers are a breath of fresh air in comparison.

    Now hang on. You are too hard on the medieval world (which gave us the magna carta, for instance) and too generous with the left.

    The ideas of equality and all men being endowed with rights are rooted in the revelation of the Old Testament, the insights of ancient Greek philosophy and the precepts ancient Roman law, all of which were then further developed in Christianity.

    It would be truer to say, imo, that progressivism is evil fruit of the aspect of the enlightenment that severed itself from those spiritual roots and ran amok.

    Kati,

    I used the word pseudo-medievalism. I am describing their motivation not their actual results. Yes, in some rather acute cases their results are much worse than anything that happened in the middle ages. In addition, although the roots go all the way back, the enlightenment is the moment that the idea is fully expressed in pure practical political form. The Declaration is the prime example of such. If you don’t really believe in the dignity or the autonomy of the individual then the enlightenment presents an acute problem for you. You must find very elaborate justifications for denying dignity and autonomy to mankind.

    The Progressives were just the people to do it too.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #14
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    katievs (View Comment):
    Now hang on. You are too hard on the medieval world (which gave us the magna carta, for instance) and too generous with the left.

    Now you hang on, Katie. The Magna Carta was a bunch of semi-privileged rascals prying a few more (needed) privileges out of an even more privileged sovereign.

    However, every journey begins with a first step.

    • #15
  16. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    ….the enlightenment is the moment that the idea is fully expressed in pure practical political form. The Declaration is the prime example of such. If you don’t really believe in the dignity or the autonomy of the individual then the enlightenment presents an acute problem for you. You must find very elaborate justifications for denying dignity and autonomy to mankind.

    Don’t forget, the enlightenment also gave us Rousseau’s “general will” and the murderous French Revolution. It’s the historical and philosophical starting point of leftism.

    I agree with you entirely that a recognition of the dignity and autonomy of the individual are the foundation of justice. I also agree that that “doctrine” is well captured in the Declaration of Independence, which owed a debt to the enlightenment. I just think it owed a bigger debt to older and deeper sources, and those sources provide the only coherent intellectual framework for its sustenance.

    • #16
  17. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    Percival (View Comment):

    katievs (View Comment):
    Now hang on. You are too hard on the medieval world (which gave us the magna carta, for instance) and too generous with the left.

    Now you hang on, Katie. The Magna Carta was a bunch of semi-privileged rascals prying a few more (needed) privileges out of an even more privileged sovereign.

    However, every journey begins with a first step.

    Yes, that’s it. It was the beginning.

    • #17
  18. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    How did I get from The 1956 RNC platform to Magna Carta and the Enlightenment? Did Ike invade Runnymede? 

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How did I get from The 1956 RNC platform to Magna Carta and the Enlightenment? Did Ike invade Runnymede?

    Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
    You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
    Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
    But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!
    I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle.
    We will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

    Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Order of the Day, 2 June 1944

    He started it!

    • #19
  20. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    katievs (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    ….the enlightenment is the moment that the idea is fully expressed in pure practical political form. The Declaration is the prime example of such. If you don’t really believe in the dignity or the autonomy of the individual then the enlightenment presents an acute problem for you. You must find very elaborate justifications for denying dignity and autonomy to mankind.

    Don’t forget, the enlightenment also gave us Rousseau’s “general will” and the murderous French Revolution. It’s the historical and philosophical starting point of leftism.

    I agree with you entirely that a recognition of the dignity and autonomy of the individual are the foundation of justice. I also agree that that “doctrine” is well captured in the Declaration of Independence, which owed a debt to the enlightenment. I just think it owed a bigger debt to older and deeper sources, and those sources provide the only coherent intellectual framework for their sustenance.

    Kati,

    Of course, the enlightenment owed a debt to older and deeper sources but one must perceive a moment of historical change or History will be of almost no interest or use. We can certainly recognize the differences of enlightenment philosophy that got it wrong and that which got it right. I think Rousseau got it wrong and Locke got it right. Even more starkly evident to me is the fact that Hegel got it wrong and Kant got it right. Of course, the old weak exposition and bland wrote teaching just scooped up Locke and Rousseau then taught them together so you could get the answers right on the multiple choice test. Similarly, the old “German Idealist” idea would slop both Kant and Hegel together in an indistinguishable hash. I’ve read many advanced works by very bright people who first use a Kantian concept then a Hegelian concept and then back and forth without the slightest thought that this just isn’t doing justice to Justice. 

    Recognizing a system of thought that holds individual dignity and autonomy paramount vs. a system that only pays lip service but is fundamentally flawed producing the opposite outcome is of the highest importance. Thus, when the same old wine is hidden in new bottles you can recognize the troublemakers immediately. Now we have the most elaborate camouflage hiding the illiberal postulates designed to trick us into thinking them otherwise. They scream that they are being oppressed while they oppress. They scream that they are being silenced while they silence.

    I would suggest something to you. Think of the enlightenment as a tactical high ground that we should hold. If we hold it we put the other side at a disadvantage. If on the other hand, we yield this valuable high ground then we give the other side an unearned advantage which they most certainly will employ against us.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #20
  21. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Of course, the enlightenment owed a debt to older and deeper sources but one must perceive a moment of historical change or History will be of almost no interest or use.

    Yes, granted. 

    We can certainly recognize the differences of enlightenment philosophy that got it wrong and that which got it right. I think Rousseau got it wrong and Locke got it right.

    Agreed. 

    Even more starkly evident to me is the fact that Hegel got it wrong and Kant got it right.

    Agreed there too, at least partly. I think Kant was right in recognizing the dignity of the person and the importance of autonomy. His epistemological idealism was badly off, though, imo. And Hegel wasn’t all wrong.

    Recognizing a system of thought that holds individual dignity and autonomy paramount vs. a system that only pays lip service but is fundamentally flawed producing the opposite outcome is of the highest importance.

    Yes.

    They scream that they are being oppressed while they oppress. They scream that they are being silenced while they silence.

    Yes. It’s maddening.

    I would suggest something to you. Think of the enlightenment as a tactical high ground that we should hold. If we hold it we put the other side at a disadvantage. If on the other hand, we yield this valuable high ground then we give the other side an unearned advantage which they most certainly will employ against us.

    Here, I don’t know. I’m for holding “whatever is true” and ceding whatever isn’t. I’ll take the valid insights of the enlightenment, and gladly. But I hate when it’s worshipped as if it’s the beginning of the civil society and the source of liberty and all that, especially in freeing us from religion.

     

    • #21
  22. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    Sorry for hijacking your thread, EJ.

    I like Ike’s plank a lot.

    • #22
  23. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    katievs (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Of course, the enlightenment owed a debt to older and deeper sources but one must perceive a moment of historical change or History will be of almost no interest or use.

    Yes, granted.

    We can certainly recognize the differences of enlightenment philosophy that got it wrong and that which got it right. I think Rousseau got it wrong and Locke got it right.

    Agreed.

    Even more starkly evident to me is the fact that Hegel got it wrong and Kant got it right.

    Agreed there too, at least partly. I think Kant was right in recognizing the dignity of the person and the importance of autonomy. His epistemological idealism was badly off, though, imo. And Hegel wasn’t all wrong.

    Recognizing a system of thought that holds individual dignity and autonomy paramount vs. a system that only pays lip service but is fundamentally flawed producing the opposite outcome is of the highest importance.

    Yes.

    They scream that they are being oppressed while they oppress. They scream that they are being silenced while they silence.

    Yes. It’s maddening.

    I would suggest something to you. Think of the enlightenment as a tactical high ground that we should hold. If we hold it we put the other side at a disadvantage. If on the other hand, we yield this valuable high ground then we give the other side an unearned advantage which they most certainly will employ against us.

    Here, I don’t know. I’m for holding “whatever is true” and ceding whatever isn’t. I’ll take the valid insights of the enlightenment, and gladly. But I hate when it’s worshipped as if it’s the beginning of the civil society and the source of liberty and all that, especially in freeing us from religion.

     

    Kati,

    Are we hijacking? Well, once in a while a little hijacking isn’t so bad. BTW, the word “tactical” tells you that I’m not worshiping the enlightenment. However, to ignore the enlightenment entirely leaves us open to an easy attack.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #23
  24. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Barry Goldwater took the Eisenhower Republican platform seriously. Back to the future!

    • #24
  25. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    I’ve been Al Haig-ed.

    • #25
  26. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    EJHill (View Comment):

    I’ve been Al Haig-ed.

    I was trying to be good; I really was.

    Katie provoked me.

    • #26
  27. katievs Inactive
    katievs
    @katievs

    Ok, partly as penance, and partly because I mean it, let me say that I can hardly even imagine language like this on a Republican platform today:

    We charge that they have arrogantly deprived our citizens of precious liberties by seizing powers never granted.

    We charge that they work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism.

    We charge that they have disrupted internal tranquillity by fostering class strife for venal political purposes.

    We charge that they have choked opportunity and hampered progress by unnecessary and crushing taxation.

    • #27
  28. Jeffery Shepherd Inactive
    Jeffery Shepherd
    @JefferyShepherd

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

    Mike,

    That’s it exactly. They’re not progressive but regressive. They can’t handle the enlightenment values of the Declaration so they concoct a pseudo-medievalism out of a pseudo-scientific ideology. The Founding Fathers are a breath of fresh air in comparison.

    Regards,

    Jim

    This is interesting – where Coolidge is quoted as saying their ideas “are not more modern, but moe ancient…” is exactly the one of the many fine points Goldberg makes in his book “Suicide…”  I see that idea more and more in writing these days.  I was semi aware of the idea but not really attuned to it until I read (audible actually) Suicide.

    • #28
  29. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    America has had awesome institutions. Institutions are hard. Ideas are easy. Conservatives have been all about ideas (the easy part) and have disdained institutions. As a result the institutions are in the hands of the Left and the conservative movement keeps coming up with impractical ideas having little or nothing to do with institutions or how people actually live their lives.

    Ike (and his brother) was a person of institutions – the military and the university system. He wasn’t some theoretician and is it any wonder he stood in stark contrast to Buckley.

    • #29
  30. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    EJHill (View Comment):

    JoelB: I have heard that Ike had Democrat leanings at one time.

    Between the end of the war and announcing his political ambitions Ike was NATO commander and then president of Columbia University. During that time both parties made runs at him. Truman even offered to run as his VP if he chose the Democrats in 1948.

    Wow. I’ve never heard that. Truman offered to be his VP?

    What an endorsement of Eisenhower.

    That is an astounding piece of history.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.