I Liked Ike

Vol.2 No. 87 March 28, 2008

The Bogus Economist
I liked Ike


There's good news and bad news. The bad news is more people lost their homes so far this year than at any comparable period in the last twelve years. The good news is Exxon-Mobil made over forty billion dollars in 2007, the highest yearly profit for any corporation in United States history. Whether or not you're cheering depends on how you view the opinions of a famous Republican president.

Last year, the papers were full of the hot debate in the House of Representatives about whether to turn off the ten-billion-plus-dollars-a-year spigot in taxpayer-financed tax breaks for Exxon and other energy companies. Some argued that this would be grossly unfair to Exxon shareholders and could put a crimp in our nation's oil supply. Others pointed out making Exxon a target would be alarming since our generous government provides over a hundred billion dollars in corporate tax breaks and if it fenced off one section of the trough, it would be a threat to the other diners.

While we were able to listen to the hard-driving, albeit short-lived, campaign of John Edwards, we heard the theme: “Why is the government in the business of wet-nursing corporations when millions of individuals are in deep trouble?” That's an interesting question.

In choosing between government and free-market solutions, Republican candidates, to a man, invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan to justify the opinion that the government is not the answer, but the problem. These people favor the “invisible hand” of the market to make things right. Conspicuously absent are the words of another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower: “As we peer into society's future," he said, “we must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

I voted for Mr. Eisenhower in 1952, largely in support of ideas like these. I wore an “I Like Ike” button. This was the guy who was offered the nomination for President by both parties. He was the general who led allied troops to victory in World War II. Sixty-three years later, we might still want to pay attention.

Would Ike would be cheering the news about Exxon? I suspect, in normal circumstances, he would. Good Republicans cheer successful companies as they cheer successful people. Whether he would cheer so loudly if he knew Exxon's profits were due in no small part to the taxes of people who could be losing their homes is another question. Although businesses were a lot smaller in his day, Eisenhower knew the dangers of allowing either commerce or the military to assume too much of a role in America's future. In his most famous speech, he called this danger “the military-industrial complex.”

Today, the role of government versus private industry is more in the front of our presidential campaign than ever. It might be a good idea to examine the thoughts of a man who had the support of everybody from General Motors to the guy fixing bicycles: “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

Putting our requirements and desires in order isn't an easy job. For instance, everyone agrees that private companies are generally more efficient than government agencies, mostly because private companies can pick whom they serve while government agencies can't. How do we want to choose?

As an example, we're getting to the point where we're going to have to make some tough decisions on health care, mostly about who gets what. There will be considerable argument about costs, especially considering the War on Terror. Well, General Eisenhower had something to say about our priorities, too: “Every gun that is 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.”

Was Ike a “liberal?” Try this one: “In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?” Sounds like common sense to me.

But maybe what he said about the basis on which we should pick our leaders is my favorite: “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.”

I liked Ike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: To all those who follow this column, I regret telling you this is my last one for the News-Times. Thank you for the more than 150 letters and e-mails and for your encouragement and support. It's been fun and I'll miss it.
Dick Brandlon
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2008