October 30, 2013--Garrison State

I've been reading about President Eisenhower--a more interesting and complex man than popularly remembered. He was not just an overachiever--supreme commander of allied forces during the Second World War or the bumbling political amateur who in 1952, mainly through his open smile, was elected to the first of two terms as president.

He may have seemed more interested in playing bridge than governing and may have appeared to be more focused on his putting than foreign affairs, but that is a self-deprecating image he carefully cultivated. He famously said to an aide just before a critical press conference, "Don't worry, I'll confuse them." And he did!

By pretending to be less than he in fact was, he enhanced his power to steer the country through perilous times. Recall, he served during the height of the Cold War when there was the real possibility that America and the Soviets would become involved in a civilization-ending nuclear war.

He is best known and most highly regarded by liberals for his farewell address in which he warned about the spreading power of the "military-industrial complex." But there is more in that speech, largely overlooked, that offers additional lessons for our own time--Eisenhower's concern that in our fear of an atomic attack by the Soviets we would become what he called a "garrison state"; and in so becoming, run the danger of losing basic civil liberties and irrevocably altering the democratic character of our country.

At the time, policymakers and the public had little reliable information about the nature of the Soviet threat and this uncertainty added to the fear citizens felt. This fear, among some, turned into paranoia, Red-baiting witch-hunts, and calls for unbridled military spending to meet the unknown and therefore menacing nature of Soviet military power.

Eisenhower was concerned that fear-driven loose talk about the nature of Soviet intentions could in itself be dangerous to U.S. security. He felt that Soviet capacity for war was being overstated by self-interested military leaders and demagogues such as Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

Additionally, he contended, there was a high price to pay for exaggerating Soviet motivations. That paying too much attention to the alleged military potential of the Soviet Union would turn the United States into a state armed beyond our needs; deeply in debt because of all the military spending; with the economy, as a result, dominated by the arms race. And, because of the fear of external, and more significant, purported internal enemies, we were in danger of seeing our civil liberties eroded.


As, during the Red scare, they were.


From his farewell address, in Eisenhower's words—

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 statehouse, 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.

We would do well today to heed these words. 

We are becoming a national security state in which most of our resources are being diverted to defense spending. Fearing terrorism--as Americans in the 50s feared communism and Soviet threats--the public is passive as we spend most of our national treasure on weapon systems we do not in fact need; run up massive debts to pay for them; and, most distressing, overwhelmed by fear, seem complacent when an every-expanding government tramples on constitutional rights to privacy and free expression.