Dwight House
Did Eisenhower's background help him make better decisions in military matters? Let's consider all aspects like organizing, procurement of weapons to actual operations. Would he have a more realistic view of what would have happened in operations like bay of pigs?
I was under the impression he was, but I've also seen posts where Eisenhower's VP was Adlai Stevenson II instead.
Why don't we see Ike on the screen more often? Well, Eisenhower is perceived as a "transitional" and "boring" figure. His administration is prone to being "forgotten" in its position (1953-1961) between the huge accomplishments, personalities, and tragedies of FDR-Truman and Kennedy-Johnson. Part of this "cultural dementia" might also be related to ideological impact. Eisenhower was a "New Deal Republican" who did little to upset the domestic apple cart of social programs, believing that centrist moderation was the GOP's path forward after 20 years of Democratic control. Of course, he did not win those arguments in the long-term. This perceived ambiguity of influence can make it difficult to use Ike for digestibly thematic purposes.
From 1961 to 2017, Eisenhower was the most recent US president who was not a "professional politician," i.e. who took office without having held any previous elected positions. He was the ultimate coalition-builder, keeping the British, French, Russians, and Americans united and efficient during World War II. The general-turned-president was seemingly "above the fray," pure and objective. This, combined with Ike's personal life (addressed below), may be why the writers have Sarah Paulson-as-Mamie say, "One year in office, and you still can't lie to save your life." Ike was just the kind of levelheaded dealmaker you would want representing humanity before destructive invaders. If even Ike potentially "fails" to stop the aliens from snatching innocent people, the show's analogy would be: American government is insurmountably corrupt, and therefore incapable of handling the problems of a rapidly developing society. The "institutional taint" always overcomes the personality, let alone the substance.
Under this idea, Eisenhower finds surprising symmetry with our most recent "outsider" president. Eisenhower's qualified and empathetic brand of "outsider" leadership still results in brutal outcomes for non-elites. Eisenhower is typically remembered for the admonition in his Farewell Address to beware "the military-industrial complex." This could be contextualized by the potentially exploitative nature of collaboration or visitation between the humans and aliens. Neal McDonough's performance as Ike is characteristically fantastic. Taut jaws, deep breaths, and concerned eyes abound, as they should. It doesn't hurt that he bears a legitimate resemblance to his subject.
I am impressed by the integration of Eisenhower's character and l
... keep reading on reddit β‘
It doesnβt make sense the he would support the MIC then go on to warn about it.
Louis-Victor Baillot, the oldest surviving combatant from Waterloo. Baillot was born in Percey in Burgundy on 7 April 1793, a little over two months after Louis XVI was taken to the guillotine. He died, aged 104, on 3 February 1898. Dwight Eisenhower was born October 14, 1890
...what do you think was their first reaction to that discovery and what real life atrocities did they commit to keep it secret?
Conspiracy theorists, it's your time to shine.
what my brain is saying : SO MANY BITCHES WANNA BE MY BABY
Chomsky often talks about Eisenhower being the βlast conservative president,β that conservatism doesnβt really exist anymore. All thatβs left in the modern GOP is pro-business, far right extremism.
Can anyone provide more context into this? I understand Republicans as a majority only became opposed to abortion, created the Evangelical bloc of voters, and became totally opposed to unions and the New Deal in the seventies, with roots in Nixonβs and Goldwaterβs political careers. And Rockefeller Republicans were wiped out by both. But how common were support for New Deal, union, secularity, and other (to us) ostensibly liberal political phenomena among self described conservatives until the 1970s? How radically different are todayβs βconservativesβ from the bad apples of the past, who justified slavery and the Confederacy with βstateβs rightsβ, a notion modern rightists invoke today?
