is a phrase we all have heard from Eisenhower's "farewell" address. But while we are all aware of the existence of his warning, we are largely ignorant of the larger context in which he made this expression.
Since there was a reference to the speech in another diary a bit earlier this evening, to which I had posted a comment very similar to this diary, and since I had one diary left to my daily quota, I thought I would take the liberty of reposting a slightly reworked version of that comment, below the fold, in order to perhaps give it a bit more visibility.
The entire text of the speech can be read
here
The relevant text occurs in section IV of the speech, and it is quite worthwhile to read the entire section, so I have posted it below. I have chosen to emphasize certain parts by placing them in bold. I will offer a few comments of my own after the blockquote. (NOTE: what may seem to be typos where words run together are exactly as they appear in the source: other than adding the bold, I have merely cut and pasted).
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Eisenhower in the speech acknowledges the necessity in (for him) modern times of having an ongoing industrial base developing weaponry and the like. Thus his warnings about the military industrial complex (M-I-C) should not be read as opposition to such an establishment. He does want us alert to possible consequences, so that we can prevent the erosion of basic liberties, or over-domination of public policy. He warns about the seductive nature of the government contract, and how it can limit free inquiry -- surely this is as great a risk as is the domination of public policy by corporate interest from the M-I-C.
Remember -- Eisnehower warns us, and this is worth repeating, so I will simply put it into bold as I repeat it, Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The entire speech is worth reading. Unlike the current leadership of this nation, Eisenhower knew something of war. A 1915 graduate of West Point (the so-called class of the generals), he had prior to the Second World War also served as a top aide to MacArthur, and thus also knew something of the dangers of commanders and leaders who were surrounded by those who only told them what they wanted to hear.
The wisdom of Eisenhower (for all his flaws as a president) and how superior he was to our present leadership can clearly be seen in two paragraphs from section II of the speech, before the better known material which I have quoted above. I will end this diary without further words of my own, but offering only those words from Eisenhower. And I invite your comments in response.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.