I started political life as an Eisenhower Republican. I was in the 5th grade, and one of our assignments was to study the presidential election of 1952 and choose a candidate to vote for. Eisenhower was the Republican. Stevenson was the Democrat. My parents liked Ike, so I liked Ike, too. Others in my class also aligned with their parents—understandable given our age. It is only in retrospect I can see and understand how those early influences began shaping my political philosophy. Eisenhower is remembered primarily for initiating the Interstate Highway System and for warning us against the Military-Industrial Complex. What’s often forgotten in our memories of Ike is that he was also an early advocate for Civil Rights. He was the one who proposed The Civil Rights Act of 1957.
In those days, the political “left” and political “right” weren’t that far apart. Not all the differences between the Republicans and Democrats of that time are easy to understand. Those of us in the States were worried about the threat of Communism and Joe (“Have you no decency”) McCarthy. Before the Presidency, Eisenhower had been a professional soldier and wanted a strong military. What he opposed was the growing cronyism between the military and industry. Part of his desire for an Interstate Highway System was to help ensure the means of transporting military equipment and troops in times of need. On leaving office, his last wish for Americans was for peace and justice. His worst mistake as President might have been Richard Nixon.
It’s only been recently that I have recognized that the central aspects of my political philosophy were shaped by the political discussions I heard as a 5th grader. The assignment in that class definitely influenced my ongoing interest in politics. I wasn’t old enough to vote in 1960, but I liked President Kennedy. In 1964, I voted for Lyndon Johnson, primarily because I saw him as the lesser of two evils. Barry Goldwater, his opponent, was too conservative even for most Republicans at the time. As President, Johnson did some good things, especially in the realm of Civil Rights. He was, however, a master of cronyism, which has increasingly become a hallmark of politics. If Eisenhower were still around to comment on it, he would be warning us not only about the military-industial complex, but also about money in politics, especially from Big Banks, Big Pharma, and Big Ag.
American humorist Will Rogers once said, “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a democrat.” Over the years, Republicans have learned two important lessons: (a) stick together and (b) stay “on message.” As the famous linguist George Lakoff has said, the Republicans have been much better at framing debates than the Democrats have been. Democrats have been too disorganized to frame a message and stick to it. The consistent message, especially when the language is well-crafted, is what people remember—and what influences them. As George Orwell pointed out in a number of publications, “doublespeak” can be used to distort the perception of reality.
One of the messages that has been repeated for a long time now is that Democrats expand the government, increase governmental spending, and increase national indebtedness, while Republicans do the opposite. Messaging aside, it “ain’t necessarily so.” President Ronald Reagan did, in fact, lower taxes, but he also increased the size of the federal government and increased our national debt. Statistical evidence on a year-by-year basis is available here and here. Simply check the years presidents served, and look to see how big the government was and what our national debt was at the time.
One of the other things that has happened along the way is that “center” is no longer perceived in the same way. My political philosophy has not changed much over the years, but when I first began being politically active, I was perceived as “center-right,” and I’m now perceived as a relative progressive—pretty far to the left. Here’s a chart that illustrates what has happened. Click on the “Animate chart” button, and note the way the midlines for Democrats and Republicans change over time:
The most recent Congress earned a “do-nothing” reputation because of neither side was willing to make the kinds of compromises that would have been required. It would be helpful, for example, if members of both parties would agree to look at the historical data for taxes and the prosperity of most Americans. In spite of the improving economy at this point, we still have a lot of people out of work, and our infrastructure—including water and sewer systems, electrical delivery systems, Internet (the U.S. is nowhere close to Number One), transportation systems (including both highways and rail systems)—is badly in need of repairs, replacement, and innovation.
It would also help if we took an honest look at the relative costs and benefits of relying on fossil fuels for most of our energy, including the costs of cleaning up the environment. My guess is that we’d discover that “cheap” fossil fuels aren’t so cheap.
We currently have an excellent example of what happens when Republican economic policies are instituted at the state level. Under Governor Sam Brownback and other Republicans, Kansas instituted new tax policies favoring the rich based on the theory that tax cuts would usher in a new age of economic prosperity. It hasn’t worked that way. The state is broke and has been ordered by the court to find a new way to fund its school system. This certainly isn’t what President Eisenhower had in mind.
I still think of myself as an “Eisenhower Republican,” but I find myself agreeing with most of what Senator Bernie Sanders has said about the progressive agenda. I am in favor of a democracy where one person has one vote and elections can’t be bought by those who contribute the most money. I would be very glad to see increased employment and repair of our infrastructure. I think Ike would agree.
