If someone is described as an "Eisenhower Republican" what does that mean?

aka "Installment #11 of Inform the Canuck".

those republicans stood for:

The goverment is supposed to

fix the roads
defend the country
don't spend much money
stay out of the people's business and wallets

a modern center-left democrat?

:evilgrin:

Listening to him speak, he almost sounded like a socialist, talking about the military-industrial complex and what was necessary for the good of the people... I mean, I didn't agree with everything he did, but damn! Why can't we have more sane Republicans like that?

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html
John Anderson, National Unity Party, 1980

he was from my area of northern illinois and he was well respected thru out illinois by both parties. ike would be more right of center--kinda like hillary

which meant keeping blacks and women in their respective places.

Eisenhower Repugs were basically decent human beings but they loathed change, even necessary change.

Sometimes they were right about things, but much of the time they were wrong.

However, one could deal with them and expect them to be honest about it.

a discussion with them (usually)

He sent the troops to Little Rock to start desegregation.....

It was Democrat Orval Faubus who was resistant to change and tried to keep blacks "in their place".

Isolationist, fiscally tight, can see a common good out there for starters. They are a dying breed.

IIRC, the main reason he ran as a Republican is because he was scared to death that the Pukes would nominate an Isolationist who would pull out of the UN, rendering it as useless as the Leauge of Nations. He was a Moderate politically, running as a Republican was about saving the UN.

spend money wisely on infrastructure, not corporate subsidies. Build roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals. Oppose war profiteering, and don't encourage war.

fundamentalism or imperialism.

Eisenhower was actually a true Independent who basically flipped a coin and ran as a Republican. But there was no real shame attached to the GOP party at that point, excapt for the aberrant stylings of Joe McCarthy. Real shame didn't happen till Nixon and his Southern Strategy politics of divisiveness,

like today's Republican. Whether or not you may agree with them on a particular issue, you could expect rational and civilized behavior from them.

I'm reading a biography of Charles M. Schultz, and he described himself as a "unapologetic Eisenhower Republican".

I'd hate to learn one of my favourite people is akin to the neocon scum.

used to be normal people once.

I always thought that they were the types that you could discuss an issue with and then come up with a meeting of the minds with some sort of solution that people could work out.

Nothing like the bomb throwers we have today.

In particular, I'd start with Eisenhower's farewell address.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

...In fact it's on the Canadian Forces ROTP History/PolitSci recommended reading list, if you can believe it.

But I wondered if his farewell remarks were typical of his entire presidency, or if they were the political version of a death-bead confessional.

delivered in April 1953. Here's a sample:

"Every gun that's made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It's spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

Can anyone imagine any repuke uttering these words today?

I would have posted it if I had a link handy in my bookmarks, but I didn't and I was preoccupied with something else to hunt it down.
Here's one now: https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=23495

I think it serves to underscore The Magistrates post.

Opposed two elements in the Republican Party of his day.

He opposed the isolationists, represented by Sen. Taft of Ohio, popularly known at the time as "Mr. Republican" for his stature in the Party. This wing was so firm in its old-line views it was even somewhat reluctant to engage in the Cold War, as this required foreign entanglements and commitments beyond the shores of the U.S. itself, though it was firmly hostile to Communism.

He opposed the claque pressing for immediate war with the Soviet Union, and their propagandas of Soviet predominance in strategic weapons, typified best by Gen. LeMay, then chief of the Strategic Air Command. Ideologues of this claque included Phylis Schlafly, and are the real ancestors of the modern Reppublican Party.

Gen. Eisenhower came from a generation of resolutely a-political regular officers, many of whom took that ideal so seriously they refrained even from voting. Most of these men were, naturally enough, authoritarian and traditionalist in their personal views. His commitment to upholding the status quo included acceptance of New Deal measures, as these were already decades old and part of the national fabric. His personal views on racial questions were the normal genteel racism of the time, but he was willing to use force to uphold court decisions expanding civil rights. In economic matters he ceded policy to the usual suspects from business circles, with he result that his adminitration was plagued by several recessions.

His great contribution to the country, and the world, was keeping a rein on the war claque: it seems quite likely to me any other political figure in the U.S. at that time would have been stampeded into a nuclear war with the Soviets while we still had a decisive advantage in numver war-heads and efficiency of delivery systems. These things, while sufficient to ensure the Soviets would have been far more badly damaged, would not have sufficed to prevent the deaths of many millions in the U.S., had the event come to pass.

Always a pleasure, albeit a rare one, to receive a reply from you, sir.

Glad to be of service; perhaps you can explain Canadian political life to me someday; my ventures up north were pleasant, but very full of beer....

As far as I can tell, instead of raiding the coffers, waging war on every freakin' body, and alienating the planet within a fixed timeframe, ie four years, it appears that the objective of Canadian politics is to remain in power as long as possible without actually changing anything, and landing a lucrative book deal/lecture circuit gig if and when you're ever done.

These are dark days for Eisenhower Republicans.

This quiet ex-general from the heart of America had the United States leading the world on a healing path after WWII, building a higher civilization.

In the spirit of the People to People organization he fostered, we reached out to underdeveloped nations with educational and monitary aid, helping them catch up. Back then, nearly all Americans believed that people who have a decent level of living aren't likely to war against each other.

Under Ike's leadership, the U.N., Marshal Plan, USAID, UNESCO, World Food Bank and many other peaceful innovations thrived. Through the U.S. Aid for International Development (AID) programs, business and industry were brought together to help countries modernize and build their economies.

Agricultural businesses and the U.S. land grant universities joined together to found agricultural research, teaching and development institutions around the globe. The Green Revolution� emerged from this and food shortages were virtually eliminated. Only politics, greed and poor distribution of the products of the world's farmers stand in the way of feeding everyone.

At home, as among the temperamental generals in World War II, this gentle, behind-the-scenes worker, got some of the best minds of the nation working together to achieve common goals. They launched a network of Interstate Highways that brought prosperity wherever these beautiful roadways went. They expanded and improved national parks, forests, and monuments that brought pleasure to all who would use them and created new professions for those who would dedicate their lives to preserving them.

Historians are just beginning to discover the unheralded intellect of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His colleagues even balanced the budget!

What irony, Republicans allowing a mediocre-minded scion of the Walker/Bush dynasty to take over the party and run our government in favor of a small clique of robber barons, disgracing our nation--and democracy itself--in the eyes of the world. �
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v128/__show_article/_a000128-000166.htm

as these were already decades old and part of the national fabric'

the status quo is more and more like us.

i like Ike.
dp

Not the crazy people running the insane asylum today.

But I actually miss my father's republican party. The old man is probably spinning in his grave right now.

Communist at heart?

Seems unimaginable these days, doesn't it?

Might as well call them Whigs. Eisenhower republicans are no more. They died with Kennedy.

on edit: I believe Republicans are now called Mayberry Machiavelli's; if I'm not mistaken. That term was actually coined by one of Bush's ex-staff members.

that slayed me...