50th Anniversary of Ike's Farewell Address Monday Jan. 17th

[Selene]

Farewell Address (January 17, 1961)

Dwight David Eisenhower

Eisenhower again calls for peace, but, acknowledging that new crises arise, cautions the United States to maintain balance in its relations. He also also warns against the rising power of the military-industrial complex that could threaten the democratic process.

This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3361 <<<the audio of the speech is in here, I cannot figure how to inbed it in the thread.

Transcript

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people 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.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, 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. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology--global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called 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--with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research--these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs-balance between the private and the public 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 future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

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.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system--ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, 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.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war--as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years--I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So--in this my last good night to you as your President--I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I--my fellow citizens--need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

That was a day when everything was black and white, even the television.

Adam

Edited January 14, 2011 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

I turned 21 when Bush the Elder was president, so I can, perhaps, understand the nostalgia for the time. But for the man?

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

What a useful idiot.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

Ted:

The 1961 semantic was quite different. This is old school Presidential rhetoric.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I turned 21 when Bush the Elder was president, so I can, perhaps, understand the nostalgia for the time. But for the man?

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

What a useful idiot.

Not an idiot, rather a product of his culture and upbringing. Even so his warning about the Military-Industrial Complex showed a good understanding of the world and a good working intelligence. Eisenhower was far, far from an idiot.

That "useful idiot" managed a military effort which among other things assured that I did not end up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 15, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I turned 21 when Bush the Elder was president, so I can, perhaps, understand the nostalgia for the time. But for the man?

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

What a useful idiot.

Not an idiot, rather a product of his culture and upbringing. Even so his warning about the Military-Industrial Complex showed a good understanding of the world and a good working intelligence. Eisenhower was far, far from an idiot.

That "useful idiot" managed a military effort which among other things assured that I did not end up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you the unique exception, Bob, or are your ideas too determined by your Jewish blood rather than your own individual effort at reasoning?

And what marvelous military campaign exactly did Eisenhower win while in office? I missed where I criticized him as a general.

That speech could have been given by Woodrow Wilson.

In fact, I am sure it was.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[BaalChatzaf]

And what marvelous military campaign exactly did Eisenhower win while in office? I missed where I criticized him as a general.

He managed the efforts of George Patton and Bernard Montgomery sufficiently well (and that was a war scenario) that the Allies won over Germany. Eisenhower was a manager, not a tactician or strategist. The right man, in the right place at the right time. War is as much political as it is military.

Oh, before I forget, he unleashed the attack on Normandy June 6, 1944 in spite of a dicey weather forecast. That took some courage. If Ike had delayed the Normandy invasion till the next full moon, it would have almost certainly failed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

That speech could have been given by Woodrow Wilson.

In fact, I am sure it was.

Ted:

Is this hyperbole? If not, explain to me how a warning about a military industrial complex is Wilsonian?

Or, his warning about the how "public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Or, a government contract becoming a "virtual substitute for intellectual curiosity."

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

I believe his brother Milton was responsible for some of the speech including "the military-industrial complex."

As a general he was an excellent politician. There was serious justification for his broad-front strategy in Europe, but none whatsoever for the way he squeezed the bulge in The Battle of the Bulge instead of snipping it off. But kudos for giving Patton the 3rd Army. (It's hard to comprehend, but Omar Bradley had more troops under his operational command than any American ever, over a million.)

After spending 13 nights with him in 1965 after his Augusta heart attack, I can say he was a decent and affable man. He also had a will of iron just beneath the surface. He did one truly great and courageous thing when he okayed the invasion of Normandy trusting his chief meteorologist. He was a true leader.

--Brant

Edited January 15, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you the unique exception, Bob, or are your ideas too determined by your Jewish blood rather than your own individual effort at reasoning?

And what marvelous military campaign exactly did Eisenhower win while in office? I missed where I criticized him as a general.

That speech could have been given by Woodrow Wilson.

In fact, I am sure it was.

1. It is the height of stupidity (and ingratitude) not to recognize a good turn or good fortune from someone else's action.

2. I ask you: Did Wilson give such a speech. Did Wilson really and truly question the institutions that put him in power? I think not.

And even if Wilson could have and should have given such a speech, would he not be right for doing so.

You have a very peculiar attitude if I may say so. Kind of snotty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 15, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[william.scherk]

It is the height of stupidity (and ingratitude) not to recognize a good turn or good fortune from someone else's action.

2. I ask you: Did Wilson give such a speech. Did Wilson really and truly question the institutions that put him in power? I think not.

And even if Wilson could have and should have given such a speech, would he not be right for doing so.

Bob, Ted doesn't respond to questions with he is in 'a mood.'

I think he had three points -- the first was that valourizing Eisenhower's speech (apart from his warning about the dangers of the power of a large military-industrial complex) is silly and that Ted is not. Neither Eisenhower nor Wilson 'got it' but Ted does, even though he doesn't give speeches.

The second point I think is that Eisenhower was a 'useful idiot.' Ted leaves out the implied part of the phrase -- i.e., useful idiot for which large ugly group -- so we don't know who fooled Eisenhower into doing their bidding, or to which ugly ideology Eisenhower gave support unwittingly.

The third point is that few but Ted 'grasp' the essentials of all issues and so are silly and dumb and off-base and generally uninformed. Everyone. Witness his bitchiness over the Cowculus thread. Everyone but Ted was wrong, you see. Fools. Ingrates.

We all get exasperated with fools, of course, but most of us don't have our guts in knots over it, and we do try to explain why we think this or that word or action or policy or pronouncement is foolish.

Ted is taller, more beautiful, more blessed with brains, more wise, more informed, more engaged, more -- well, more anything and everything. And it tires him to point out other people's mistakes, to expend the time, to have to explain himself. And the lack of fit between his natural superiority in almost everything and the world of we ugly stupid drones, well, it hurts. It twists up his guts. It gives him cramps.

Of course I could have all this completely wrong, or mostly wrong and Ted just has cramps. Cramps make you cranky.

I like Ted. I just can't figure out what has turned him into such a humourless bitchy wretch lately . . . he's even given up his blog.

I think he is in pain.