I was born in 1969 and I never dedicated any time to studying the 1950’s in detail, but I am pretty familiar with the shortcomings of the Eisenhower administration. If I had to summarize the biggest problem it would be the influence of the Dulles Brothers: John Foster at the State Department and Allen at Langley running an out of control Central Intelligence Agency.
Still, as more time passes and I get a little older, my estimation of Eisenhower as a president keeps going up. Based on my upbringing and my basic outlook on issues, I’m sure I would have been “Madly for Adlai” in both 1952 and 1956. I probably would have been wrong. Our country was better off, I think, having Eisenhower in charge in the 1950’s. He tamed the worst instincts of the right and created a kind of middle ground consensus that served us well domestically. I even think the Civil Rights Era went more smoothly than it would have with Stevenson in the White House, for a variety of reasons including Stevenson’s racial attitudes and the nature of the Democratic Party at the time.
Unfortunately, there is no one of Eisenhower’s stature, either on the home front or the world stage, who can tame the Republican Party today. Instead, we are subjected to a McCarthyite like Ted Cruz calling the president an “unmitigated socialist” without fear of contradiction from anyone in his party who matters.
Now that I can see how the right reacts to Al Gore talking about global warming or Barack Obama adopting a Heritage Foundation/Mitt Romney health care plan, I can really begin to appreciate what didn’t happen in the 1950’s precisely because a Republican moderate was in charge.
I don’t even need to discuss the merits of the socialist charge. The problem is that I don’t really need to discuss the merits of anything the Republicans have to say. There’s no point. These things aren’t offered in the spirit of debate.
