If you read Dwight D. Eisenhower’s brief acceptance speech at the 1952 Republican National Convention, you’ll notice something remarkable. At no point does Eisenhower express a single principle of the Republican Party. He says that he will work to promote the ‘principles and aims of our party’, but he doesn’t say what those principles are. He makes the following observation about the Truman presidency (which was then bogged down in the Korean War):
Our aims—the aims of this Republican crusade—are clear: to sweep from office an administration which has fastened on every one of us the wastefulness, the arrogance and corruption in high places, the heavy burdens and anxieties which are the bitter fruit of a party too long in power.
Much more than this, it is our aim to give to our country a program of progressive policies drawn from our finest Republican traditions; to unite us wherever we have been divided; to strengthen freedom wherever among any group is has been weakened; to build a sure foundation for sound prosperity for all here at home and for a just and sure peace throughout our world.
Ike makes no further criticisms of the Democratic Party, or their policies. He never directly mentions the war. His mandate is vague:
Ladies and Gentlemen, you have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow Americans to lead a great crusade—for Freedom in America and Freedom in the world.
But ‘freedom’ is not defined. Whatever motivated rank-and-file Republicans of the time (opposition to the New Deal, alleged communist infiltration, etc.) was glossed or ignored in favor of a promise of ‘progressive policies drawn from our finest Republican traditions.’
It’s no surprise that Adlai Stevenson could say the following in his 1956 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.
I will have to confess that the Republican administration has performed a minor miracle — after twenty years of incessant damnation of the New Deal they not only haven’t repealed it but they have swallowed it, or most
of it, and it looks as though they could keep it down at least until after the election.I suppose we should be thankful that they have caught up with the New Deal at last, but what have they done to take advantage of the great
opportunities of these times — a generation after the New Deal?
The Republicans finally won a presidential election in 1952, but they didn’t do it by appealing to their base and they didn’t govern to please their base.
And does this whining from Adlai sound familiar?
Basically Ike could have run for either party and won big. And the Dems did try to recruit him as well.
IIRC …I don’t think Ike was interested at all in rolling back The New Deal … what was Ike’s signature accomplishment besides getting the Iranians to hate us(due to our coup against Mohammad Mossadegh)?
I forgot to add … what was the composition of Congress during Ike’s eight years in office? Pretty heavily Democratic .. wasn’t it?
Ike swept Republicans into power in the House for 1953-54. It was their only time in power between 1930-1994. But it only lasted for one Congress.
His signature accomplishments? Ending the Korean War, building the interstate highway system, developing the modern military-industrial complex he warned us about, overseeing a period of good economic growth (until 1958) and peace (like Clinton), making incremental gains in civil rights, and honing his golf game.
As was the custom among military officers, Ike never even registered to vote until the 1952 election. It was long considered poor form as an officer to publicly take a political stand on anything.
As Burt Lancaster in Seven Days in May and Ollie North showed, there is a good reason for that.
No one knew his private views, whether he leaned to the GOP or Democrats until he accepted a run for the GOP
Ike ran on a platform of competence. The Truman White House was chaotic to say the least and Congress was full of scandals. Then there was the quagmire in Korea.
Ike was a pragmatic and intuitive leader and without much ideology. He probably looked at both teams as to which would give him the better chance to do what needs to get done — firstly building the machine, diplomatically and physically, that would fight the Cold War.
And America wanted that. They figured the guy who could organize D Day and get Montgomery and Patton to get along (to a point) could competently lead the nation. And I think most American care far more about competence than ideology.
It took a lot of leadership to keep Montgomery and Patton from fighting a duel!
I don’t know why I forgot the Highway Interstate System .. silly me .. it is something I know all too well .. but had a brain cramp I guess
Ike wouldn’t get anywhere in today’s GOP. All the qualities that made him admirable wouldn’t be respected by today’s GOP