President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)... Eisenhower [affirmed the need for but] warned against the [influence of] establishment of a "military-industrial complex." [how much more imposition of wokeducation should be]

National archives ^ | 1961 | Dwight Eisenhower [

[daniel1212]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . 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. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . 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.

[Full] 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.

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.

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 at 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 action 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.

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 peace time, 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 State 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 over shadowed 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.

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.

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 difference, 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.

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 somethings 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 inspiration:

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.

[daniel1212]

While typically invoked as an argument against military might, instead President Dwight D. Eisenhower' affirmed the necessity of it in the modern world but warned of the danger of

a government contract becoming "virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers...

"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."

How much more the inculcation of Leftist ideology (from Hell) by its army, transitioning the military into a product reflecting its perversity.

Which has as its capstone of damnation not only paying for troops and their family members to travel for abortions but the promotion of the abomination of homosexual unions and its relations, which are overall deleterious to individuals and the nation, thereby essentially saluting the flag of Sodom, as of United States of Sodom:

March 30, 2023: (Navy) 'International Transgender Day of Visibility' offers a chance to support freedom of expression, association

(https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/SavedNewsModule/Article/3343199/international-transgender-day-of-visibility-offers-a-chance-to-support-freedom/)

(Air Force proudly recognizes and celebrates generations of LGBTQI+ service)

The above image is tragically actually from the military, a Air Force Facebook post: "RADfertility November 11, 2021 · As we celebrate #VeteransDay, it is our honor to introduce you to Tech Sergeant Bryanna Dahl, her wife, Lauren and their amazing RAD baby Bennett! 🇺🇸 Currently stationed at the Dover Air Force Base, Sgt. Dahl just celebrated 7 years wearing this uniform! We had the privilege of helping their family grow and following their journey to Bennett also known as “Bennie.” On this day, we share our endless gratitude to those who serve and have served our country along with the supportive families behind them. Thank you for fighting for our freedoms – we thank you yesterday, today and forever #ThankYou #DoverAFB #RADfamily" - https://www.facebook.com/RADfertility/photos/a.146746165350896/7215339618491480/?type=3

[Openurmind]

Thank you. It is the true evil we face now.

[Hulka]

He also warned against academia and its threat to research. He pointed out academia would focus on what they considered what the government should demand. At least the “military industrial speech cautioned that it isn’t evil or bad, as long as the people kept a watchful eye. Why no one talks about academia and how they push the government to their favored subject. His notes are an interesting read.

[rbg81]

There is now also a Social-Welfare-NGO complex that is arguably a lot worse. But Eisenhower probably didn’t see that coming.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[PGR88]

In sum Eisenhower warned about a huge bloated Fed.gov that took over control of the economy and society, with an elite, corrupt, praetorian guard at the top.

He was correct 1000%

[leaning conservative]

Bkmk/Eisenhower

[Robert DeLong]

This is an example of what Ike was speaking about

[Jim W N]

He missed the point that Reagan hit a few years later: the warning should have been, and still is, against the Unconstitutional Portion of the Federal Government which is the greatest threat to our lives, wellbeing, and liberties (and has now become totalitarian - poised to take us down).

[Rust Buster]

Eisenhower: “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.”

This is a call to the citizenry by Thomas Jefferson’s formula:

(in Thomas Jefferson’s words:) “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.”

thus to un-do the 4th branch of government - namely, the enlightened citizenry - would naturally include a corrupted school system

[Retain Mike]

Here is a source to keep track of the deterioration of federal government. When Eisenhower left office, the total budget was $98 billion, with defense at $49 billion and payments to individuals at $28 billion. Now the budget is estimated at $5.1 trillion, with defense at $785 billion and payments to individuals at $3.6 trillion.

Federal Budget Historical Tables (OMB) Table 6.1

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Ftrumpwhitehouse.archives.gov%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F02%2Fhist06z1_fy21.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

[TakebackGOP]

Fox News and National Review promote it.

[Wuli]

Eisenhower. perpetually misguided by the academic establishment he was part of (President, Columbia University 1948-52) as well as his participation on the Council On Foreign Relations, he failed to warn the nation about the higher education industrial complex - far more sinister in my view than any military industrial complex.

[daniel1212]

Here is a source to keep track of the deterioration of federal government. When Eisenhower left office, the total budget was $98 billion, with defense at $49 billion and payments to individuals at $28 billion. Now the budget is estimated at $5.1 trillion, with defense at $785 billion and payments to individuals at $3.6 trillion. Federal Budget Historical Tables (OMB) Table 6.1

But can you find the outlay for social services from 1961 versus today?

Meanwhile, when procurement costs are taken into consideration (how much it cost for training and materials in respective countries relative to what they spend), then despite having far less to defend, the US military budget in 2019 was not larger than the next eleven countries. Rather it was smaller than the next three.

Air & Space Forces Magazine ^ | 15 Feb 2023 | John A. Tirpak China’s reported spending is also significantly less than its actual spending, because it does not count many expenditures, such as certain kinds of research and development, space, and civil/military investments as being defense-related. The country’s self-reported defense spending was $242.4 billion in 2022, but the IISS estimates its actual military outlays were closer to $360 billion. Those numbers still don’t take into account the fact that China spends far less on pay and amenities for its troops than other countries, with more of its funds going toward procuring hardware and conducting research and development. At $766.6 billion, the U.S. still outspent the next 10 countries combined on military accounts, but its relatively lavish spending on pay and amenities and its higher costs of goods, relative to command economies like China’s, accounts for some of that imbalance. Russia’s military spending in 2022 was self-reported at $87.9 billion, but the IISS said its true spending is likely well more than double that figure, at $192 billion, and again, its spending on pay and benefits for its mostly-conscript forces is well below that of other countries.

Old post:

If you account for differences in reporting structure, purchasing power, and labor costs, you find that China’s 2017 defense budget provided 87 percent of the purchasing power of American’s 2017 defense budget.  This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that the United States spends more on its military than the next 12 countries combined or that China lags annual U.S. military spending by close to $400 billion. Those misleading comparisons are based on simply converting Beijing’s reported defense budget from yuan to dollars by applying a market exchange rate. That produces a distorted picture. - https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-spending-larger-it-looks

Even Politio cites research by LTSG, a defense consultancy, that

Research into Chinese defense investments since 2000 reveals that, compared with the United States, China has prioritized purchasing weapons and equipment over spending on personnel salaries or on operations and maintenance. As a result, the U.S. military is on track to be outgunned — potentially in quantity and quality of armaments — by the end of President Joe Biden’s first term. The lack of data on Chinese defense spending reflects the notorious unreliability of official releases from Beijing. Annual People’s Republic of China Finance Ministry announcements of the defense budget diverge from Defense Ministry disclosures, and have historically omitted cost categories that other countries include, such as weapons imports.

To address this challenge, LTSG research group conducted a multiyear, open-source effort to estimate Chinese defense spending since 2000 by service across different categories such as personnel, operations and maintenance, and procurement...For procurement, U.S. dollar estimates were converted to renminbi. The results showed consistent annual inflation-adjusted growth of roughly 10 percent for the past 20 years..If, as projected, by 2024 the PLA’s annual procurement value exceeds that of the U.S. military, then by about 2030 the United States will no longer boast the world’s most advanced fighting force in total inventory value.

- https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-china-watcher/2021/05/27/china-could-soon-outgun-the-us-493014

And besides procurement costs,

The official defense budget does not account for all of China’s military-related activities. For example, many defense-related outlays fall directly under the Central Military Commission (CMC), China’s highest military authority, chaired by Xi Jinping. For instance, the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a paramilitary force charged with maintaining internal security and supporting the military in times of war, is under the command of the CMC but not included in the budget. The Chinese Coast Guard, which plays a key role in asserting China’s maritime claims and was placed under the control of the PAP in 2018, is likewise excluded from the official budget.

According to SIPRI, China’s military spending far exceeds that of its neighbors and was greater than the combined expenditure of India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in 2019. Cross-national comparisons are insightful, but accounting for variations in prices is difficult. For example, the current annual pay for an entry-level active-duty U.S. soldier (about $39,600) would likely cover the cost of several PLA soldiers due to price differences. When adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s 2019 defense expenditure rises by well over $100 billion. - https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-chinas-2021-defense-budget

[daniel1212]

(in Thomas Jefferson’s words:) “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.”

• ...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From a letter Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia).ion of the Militia of Massachusetts,” October 11, 1798)

Many more, by the grace of God.

[RoosterRedux]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

Marxists know this full-well. This is why they indoctrinated kids in colleges and universities to disbelieve in objective morality (and, for that matter, objective reality).

Marxists understood that the best way to get rid of the U.S. Constitution and government is not to make a military assault but to destroy the morality and religion of its people.

And the Marxists are within inches of declaring "Mission Accomplished."

[Paal Gulli]

Ike also told JFK to stay the hell out of Vietnam because it was a tar baby.

One of the problems with the American political system is that the higher up the foodchain you climb, the more people you become indebted to for supporting and/or not scuttling your rise. Which means success and compromise of principle are inextricably intertwined.

Which I would conjecture is why the two most remarkable US Presidents in my lifetime got elected POTUS without ever before having run for political office. Ike and Trump45/47 both got to the White House indebted to nobody and nothing but the American people.

[daniel1212]

Marxists know this full-well. This is why they indoctrinated kids in colleges and universities to disbelieve in objective morality (and, for that matter, objective reality). Marxists understood that the best way to get rid of the U.S. Constitution and government is not to make a military assault but to destroy the morality and religion of its people. And the Marxists are within inches of declaring "Mission Accomplished."

Yes, and my poor attempt at explaining The Big Picture: who is really running the show in the culture war, and its nature and trajectory

[daniel1212]

More on procurement costs:

Because relative prices differ across countries, a dollar spent on non-traded goods and services can go a lot further in some countries than in others. This is known as the Penn effect or the Balassa-Samuelson effect, and reflects the fact that the market exchange rate only arbitrages the price of traded goods, so international relative prices of non-traded goods can differ widely from the exchange rate.

The same applies to military spending. Soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), for example, receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel (The Economist 2021). Thus, the PLA’s salary budget, if converted to US dollars at the market exchange rate, would pay for far fewer US army personnel than what it actually pays for in China.2

In response to this, international comparisons of military spending are sometimes made using GDP-purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates. These, however, are designed to compare average prices, not military costs; they could overstate military spending since procurement doesn’t necessarily depend on local labour costs (Gilboy and Heginbotham 2012, Frankel 2014).

The alternative views and exchange rate concepts have long been a source of frustration for defence planners, particularly with the enormous variations they imply for China, which has been as much as 200% (Crane 2005).

In fact, neither GDP-PPP exchange rates nor market exchange rates provide the ‘correct’ ratio for converting spending across two countries into real values. The appropriate exchange rate is one that tells us the relative price or unit cost of defence services across countries – that is, a ‘military-PPP’ exchange rate. ...

Hence, in real terms, the US military budget in 2019 is not larger than the next eleven countries. Rather it is smaller than the next three and similar to the spending of China and Russia combined. - https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debating-defence-budgets-why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters