When was the last time a Republican Presidential candidate warned the American public against the danger of the military? It hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I'm 48. To actually hear a Republican President warn the American people against the danger that the military poses to a democracy, one has to go search the archives and read, or watch now on youtube, President Eisenhower's Farewell Address given in 1961. As far as I can tell, he is the last Republican President to warn the American people that the growth of the American military posed a threat to our democracy. Here's what he said:
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...
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 statehouse, 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 military-industrial 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.
Eisenhower
To listen to a conversative Republican President warn his country against the dangers of the military is shocking in today's political climate. No creent US Presidential candidate would dare speak against the United States military in today's political environment. Instead, they all affirm how supportive they are of the United States military. Why? Why not speak against it? That's an important question we must answer. The answer to that question and why candidates can no longer speak out against the military shows a serious change in the United States political environment, and the answer should scare you.
What happened between 1961 and now? When did the Republican Presidents stop signing great civil rights documents like the Emancipation Proclamation? When did they stop warning the American people about the danger of the military? When did the Republican Party replace conservative fascist fighting generals like Eisenhower with men like Romney who never fought in a war and are elected based on their ability to run a corporation?
Something has obviously changed within the Republican party. If the definition of a "conservative" Republican Presidential candidate no longer includes a war hero President like Eisenhower, who led America's "Greatest Generation" in an all out war against Nazi tyranny, then the Republicans have changed from conservative, but to what? The only thing more "right wing" than a "conservative" like Eisenhower is something much more extreme, like a fascist. The Republican party has now morphed into the very problem President Eisenhower warned and fought against. They have become a fascist party supporting the rise of the "military industrial complex" attacking anyone who opposes it as unpatriotic and attacking the very civil liberties of its own citizens in an undeclared never ending "war on terror" being fought in the United States with warrantless searches, wiretapping, and suspension of habeas corpus.
During World War II, when Americans were fighting not one but two fascist states, of Italy and Germany, the the people of the United States were worried about the rise of fascism in our own country. Then Vice President Wallace was asked what is a fascist, how many fascists were in the United States, and how dangerous were they. Here is a link to Wallace and his remarks:
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"
Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Wallace Remarks
There is a noted change in the Republican party between then and now. In 1961, they elected Presidents like President Eisenhower and now nominate Presidential candidates like Romney based on their "business experience." Comparing Eisenhower and Romney is like comparing night and day. Isn't it some kind of philosophical oxymoron that the Republican businessmen don't want the government interferring in business yet want a man to lead the country that has business experience? Maybe, they need men like Eisenhower, who never led a business, whose only experience was leading the business of his country, which is the protection of civil liberties here and abroad. The Republican party has gone from electing fascist fighting conservative generals to men, with no military experience, who are elected based on business credentials. By our own dictionary definition of fascism, the Republicans have gone from "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." The Republicans have gone from freedom to fascism.
In 1961, it was more than President Eisenhower saying "farewell", it was the Republican party saying farewell too. On that night, the Republican party of old, made up on the Greatest Generation, had done its service to the country, spilled its blood, led men into battle fighting fascism and liberating the enslaved peoples from it. On that night, they said "Farewell" to the country, and left us, and their own party, a warning, to beware of the rise of the military. The warning has not been heeded.
The last President who fought against this military industrial complex was a democrat, President Clinton. He downsized the military significantly. What was the result? The biggest economic and political boom the United States has experienced since WWII. We had budget surpluses, the dollar was king, and we were the political and economic envy of the world. What do we have now? The largest military the world has ever known, the largest budget deficits the world has ever known, sinceless casualties fighting wars which will never end, and the largest security apparatus ever created to fight an unending war against terrorism both here and abroad, but if you speak against it, you won't get elected.
Where are the Republicans like Eisenhower when we need them?