Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Triumph of Mediocrity
Ayn Rand (perhaps quoting Nathaniel Branden) created the phrase "muscle mystic" to define the mentality that identifies physical objects with human intelligence: if you seize a steel mill, you gain production. That mentality permeates our common culture. Just one example is:"If Hitler had waited six weeks, he could have conquered Britain." In fact, in truth, German lost World War II the day that Hitler took power. In fact, World War II was unwinnable to the Axis. The Allies, being liberal democracies were destined to win. It was only a matter of time.
[I thought that this came up in the "Celestial Navigation" discussion, but repeated searches failed to reveal a link. In that discussion, I asserted that President Eisenhower did not bring political power with him, but, instead, depended on Nixon to have the connections. A reply challenged me to read the biography Eisenhower: A Life by Paul Johnson. I did.]
For the best of Eisenhower, see his two speeches, "The Guild Hall Address" and "The Chance for Peace." These were combined into one pamphlet and distributed in the 1952 Presidential campaign.
**The Guild Hall Speech (June 12, 1945).
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/e...
"The Chance for Peace" (April 16, 1953).
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/a...
My summary judgment is that Eisenhower was the model of a modern major general. He was middle of the road, the perfect technician without personal flamboyance. That flaw condemned Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. George Patton. Eisenhower was above (or perhaps below) self-aggrandizement. I say "below" because the Johnson biography makes it clear that within the military - as in any other institution - those who advertise themselves rise to the top. But. But. There is always a "But." Think of Custer, Napoleon, Caesar.
On a data processing project for a military department, working as the committee's technical writer,I served with half a dozen Myer-Briggs NTs: field marshals and brainiacs. These were senior department heads. Everyone had the Big Picture, and, of course, The Right Approach. Eisenhower was not like that. Patton was. MacArthur was. Eisenhower was the middle-of-the-rode, exceptionally average leader who had no strong personality.
As successful as that was, it came with a price. While he condemned the Germans for their detention centers and concentration camps, he continually supported the Russians. He was seemingly unaware of their equivalent (if not worse) atrocities.
On the domestic front, although he did federalize the Arkansas National Guard at once taking it away from Gov. Orval Faubus and ordering it to enforce the Constitution, he found that "distasteful." He felt the same way about sending the 101st Airborne in to Little Rock. He did his duty. He was not enthusiastic about it. Patton would have been. Heck, Patton, MacArthur, Zhokov, Napoleon, and Caesar would have been. Either you are passionate about your values, or you are not. Eisenhower was not. He was not driven by passions. He was methodical, practiced, and deliberate.
Ayn Rand supported Adlai Stevenson. She voted for Eisenhower (apparently), but later, in her essays, she endorsed the intellectual approach to social problems that was embodied in the Stevenson kind of liberal.
[I thought that this came up in the "Celestial Navigation" discussion, but repeated searches failed to reveal a link. In that discussion, I asserted that President Eisenhower did not bring political power with him, but, instead, depended on Nixon to have the connections. A reply challenged me to read the biography Eisenhower: A Life by Paul Johnson. I did.]
For the best of Eisenhower, see his two speeches, "The Guild Hall Address" and "The Chance for Peace." These were combined into one pamphlet and distributed in the 1952 Presidential campaign.
**The Guild Hall Speech (June 12, 1945).
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/e...
"The Chance for Peace" (April 16, 1953).
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/a...
My summary judgment is that Eisenhower was the model of a modern major general. He was middle of the road, the perfect technician without personal flamboyance. That flaw condemned Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. George Patton. Eisenhower was above (or perhaps below) self-aggrandizement. I say "below" because the Johnson biography makes it clear that within the military - as in any other institution - those who advertise themselves rise to the top. But. But. There is always a "But." Think of Custer, Napoleon, Caesar.
On a data processing project for a military department, working as the committee's technical writer,I served with half a dozen Myer-Briggs NTs: field marshals and brainiacs. These were senior department heads. Everyone had the Big Picture, and, of course, The Right Approach. Eisenhower was not like that. Patton was. MacArthur was. Eisenhower was the middle-of-the-rode, exceptionally average leader who had no strong personality.
As successful as that was, it came with a price. While he condemned the Germans for their detention centers and concentration camps, he continually supported the Russians. He was seemingly unaware of their equivalent (if not worse) atrocities.
On the domestic front, although he did federalize the Arkansas National Guard at once taking it away from Gov. Orval Faubus and ordering it to enforce the Constitution, he found that "distasteful." He felt the same way about sending the 101st Airborne in to Little Rock. He did his duty. He was not enthusiastic about it. Patton would have been. Heck, Patton, MacArthur, Zhokov, Napoleon, and Caesar would have been. Either you are passionate about your values, or you are not. Eisenhower was not. He was not driven by passions. He was methodical, practiced, and deliberate.
Ayn Rand supported Adlai Stevenson. She voted for Eisenhower (apparently), but later, in her essays, she endorsed the intellectual approach to social problems that was embodied in the Stevenson kind of liberal.
Add Comment
All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read
- 1Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 12 months agoInteresting...although he was our pres when I was a little tike, never learned much about him...everyone seemed to be pleased with him as pres, I remember.| Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
