iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Toby Barlow

Toby Barlow

Posted: September 6, 2010 10:45 AM

The Tea Party's Worst Nightmare: Ike

What's Your Reaction:

We know what Glenn and Sarah hate. We know what all the Tea Party candidates hate. They hate taxes. They hate Big Government. They want to see our great nation once again standing on top of the world. You know, like it was in the 1950s, when the magnificent United States of A Plus was the height of our economic power, when we ruled the world, before the Kennedys and the Johnsons, the Clintons and the Obamas came along and just screwed everything up. Back when Republicans had control of the House, the Senate and, best of all, the White House. Those were the golden years.

It wasn't just anyone in the White House then -- it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who won the big one for us. The man who was elected and reelected in landslides, with Richard Nixon standing right by his side. Man, it was awesome to be an American back then, and it was exceptionally awesome to be a Republican.

Except not by Tea Party standards. By Tea Party standards, Dwight D. was probably the most evil, awful, terrible creation Joe Stalin could have possibly hoped for, far worse than Osama Obama could ever be. By their measure, Dwight was a freaking twisted, bald demonic nightmare.

Putting aside the fact that he named Earl Warren to the Supreme Court and put Harry Blackmun on the Federal Bench (how could he have known what absolute pansy liberals they would turn out to be?) forgetting that Ike warned us about dangers of the military industrial complex (um, he wasn't talking about Haliburton, was he?) there are much clearer and more dangerous signs of what this Red agent was up to.

First, there was civil rights -- that Bleeding Heart Ike actually sent armed forces into Arkansas to make sure that black students could enroll in Little Rock Central High School. Imagine the apoplectic hue and cry that would strike the airwaves if Obama did something similar.

It just gets worse. The biggest piece of legislation Ike passed, The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, was big government at its absolute worst. An enormous public works project that was paid for by, yes, you guessed it, lots and lots of new taxes, gas and diesel taxes mostly. When Obama launches his proposed program for 50 billion in infrastructure spending this week, you can bet nobody on the right will mention its similarity to Ike's idea, which at the time was the largest public works project in American history, costing the equivalent of $197 billion today.

But it gets even more terrifying. Having a lock on the legislative and executive branches of the government should have been an orgiastic tax cutting field day for Republicans. The leaders of the House and Senate sure hoped so -- after all, thanks to FDR and Truman, the highest tax rate at the time was an unbelievably high 91%. But that Red Menace Ike completely blocked their play. To quote our Communist Pinko Commander in Chief Eisenhower at the time, "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, [and] reduce income until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced."

It's worth repeating: The top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans was 91%. Right now, it's 35%. That's right. Somehow the country still managed to function and prosper, but the rich just happened to pay 56% more in taxes than they do today. They still golfed, drove around in shiny automobiles and ate caviar in fancy dining cars, but they paid a lot more back to society. Instead of fleeing en masse to Cuba they stayed in Connecticut and sent their kids to boarding schools and private colleges. America rewarded them by becoming a stronger nation, allowing the wealthy in turn to become even wealthier. America rocked.

We have been trained to believe that taxation is the worst ill that can strike a society, and yet for decades our nation prospered while asking those who profited from our strength to give significantly more. Ike understood this and protected our nation's prosperity.

So we can go on listening to Glenn and Rush and Sarah fume and rant and whine. They probably won't pipe down. Rupert Murdoch will continue to personally profit from their tirades and people with no sense of history will shout along with their chosen leaders, while fire stations lose funding and bridges collapse. But it's worth remembering that the president who led us through one of the greatest sustained periods of prosperity since World War II, and ironically the man who helped us win World War II in the first place, didn't see the things working the way The Tea Party does. He saw things differently and because of his vision and his discipline, America was stronger, richer and more powerful.

I think we should all start wearing "I like Ike" buttons. It might just be the way that we can again find some middle ground between moderate republicans and democrats. It would be a nice way to symbolize our belief that politics can offer more that simply obstructionist hysteria. It would be a simple political statement that says we can stand together and build a government that actually works. I hope too that someone will ask the Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Rand Paul what they think about Dwight. I'm sure the answer will be illuminating.


 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barkingstar
08:37 AM on 10/01/2010
It's true Ike wasn't today's "Republican" but he was NOT today's (or yesterday's) "Democrat" either; he was very cold towards civil rights- he opposed Truman's integration of the military- the only reason he sent troops into Little Rock was because Little Rock High School flagrantly refused to obey a ruling from the highest court in the nation; Ike also called his appointment of Earl Warren "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." That said Ike was a moderate compared to seething red-baiting whiners like Nixon & McCarthy.
07:15 AM on 09/08/2010
"I hope too that someone will ask the Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle, Joe Miller and Rand Paul what they think about Dwight. I'm sure the answer will be illuminating."

Oh yes, and here's how the exchange would go:

They're unread, so the first answer will be "Who?"

They're opportunists, learning that Ike was the Republican general who won WWII, their next answer will be "One of our greatest presidents!"

Seeing the rest of his big-government credentials, they'll shift to "We want our country back!" because, at root, they are nihilists.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:36 AM on 09/08/2010
The mantra of the extreme right is that they hate "big Government", and want freedom. They fail to actually state what the problem is though.

In the case of Big Government - what do they mean by big Government. Big Military? Thats something they tend to love. Government funded education? That has only positive impacts that I can see. Government funding of medicine? That just means greater availability of healthcare - more consistent quality of healthcare - healthcare according to people's needs.

None of these actually have a philosophical downside, apart from the farcical argument that there is no freedom of choice in Government health care. That's an untrue statement, and in any case, it is hard to argue that there is freedom of choice in a vastly over-priced and underserviced private system. Perhaps the richest 1% have all the choice they need, and they always will. For others choice is an illusion because you don't have the money to pay for it.

Freedom, one of the other great catch cries of the right - is not helped by small Government - unless freedom really means freedom to not get a decent education, freedom from decent healthcare, and freedom from the opportunity to improve one's economic circumstances.
10:59 AM on 09/07/2010
WOW! what a ignorant "hate" filed article .. the left v right is still alive a kicking. In the mean time, the orginal tea party movement (not the one hi-jacked by the neo cons) is still fighting to end all wars, balance the budget, stop the criminal theft of trillions by Wall St bankers and reduce the cost of health care.

in the mean time artricles like this simply perpetuate the left v right paradigm and we all suffer under a war mongering corporate controlled government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeWebster
Always happy.
02:38 AM on 09/08/2010
Why was the tea party so concerned with blocking public healthcare if they wanted to reduce the cost of healthcare?

How do we recognise the difference between the original tea party and the neo-cons version. Which one goes to rallies with pictures of Obama as a witch doctor?
01:11 AM on 09/07/2010
Hey Toby, pretty illuminating article you wrote here. When I was a Democrat one of my favorite presidents was Dwight Eisenhower for pretty much all the reasons you mentioned above. Ike showed us that the federal government shouldn't be afraid of flexing its muscle when states try to intervene in a way that would limit the civil rights of people (eg. sending troops down to Little Rock). Tea partiers criticize the government with a hollow "you're the problem," without knowing what exactly the problem is or how the government caused it. I actually wrote an article on my blog (www.rkcastillo.com) about it. I understand the anger is real and that part of it stems from a feeling of disconnect from politicians, but they would do better to make their suggestions more concrete (eg. a balanced federal budget; commission to identify waste; etc).
12:33 AM on 09/07/2010
I think your article is fundementally flawed. Your assuming the Tea Party is comprised of Republicans. This is not true. I beleive Republicans have gravitated towards the Tea Party, as many have been awoken to the fiscal problem when are in, how we got here, what it means, and what do we need to do to correct the problem.

The Tea Party was formed around a core group of people representing limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, a return to a non-fiat money standard, elimination of the income tax and the Federal Reserve, a live and let live social policy- with an absolute protection of civil liberties, and a dismantiling of the power structure in Washington, both the leadership and the buracrecy. Many of these people were awoken by Ron Paul during the 08 presidential campaign. This group doesnt have a name, but Limbaugh refers to them as deragatorly as "Paul-lites".

I dont believe this group would have much in common with many of the Tea Partiers at Glen Becks rally. Many at the rally were really the Republican right wing religous fundementalist trying to wrap the flag around God. To a "Paul-lite" this smells of fascism, something which would be abhorent to them.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Toby Barlow
12:42 AM on 09/07/2010
According to The New York Times poll, the Tea Party is Republican: "The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
01:16 AM on 09/07/2010
I understand where your coming from, what I am saying is dont miss the big picture. The Tea party is really an anomaly, for a movement that doesnt have a name, but is most visible face is Ron Paul.

The Tea Party, may of may not survive. It may become a Republican dominated entity, morphing into part of the power structure. If it does it will fizzle and become irrelevant. However, the true movement that allow the Tea Party a life, is still very much there. They arent Republicans or Democrats. They are coming after the power structure, with a copy of the constitution in hand.

I do also appreciate Huffington posting the majority of my comment. Although it went well over the number limit, I appreciate them giving it a fair airing. If you were the person who allowed it, I appreciate you doing so.
01:20 AM on 09/07/2010
I take that back. You posted my entire comment for which I am very grateful.
12:33 AM on 09/07/2010
A Paul-lite would not be an enthusiastic supporter of Palin.

Nor would they believe Haliburton should received no-bid contracts. They have a general negative regard for war profiteers, and believe contracts bring confusion to the conflict. A "Paul-lite" doesnt beleive in the Iraq, or Afganistan wars, doesnt believe in nation building, or sustained foreign engagments. A "Paul-lite" beleives in a strong national defence, not for premption, but for self-defense. A "Paul-lite" believes Congress should declare war, we should know the reason, we should fight it, win it, and get out.

The Tea Party may very well morph into something radical, and partisian. If it does the "Paul-lites" will have nothing to do with them, but the "Paul-lites" will remain where they always have, unnamed, the agenda the same, and growing in numbers all the time. This is the group of people that will truly bring change to the nation.
12:32 AM on 09/07/2010
There is nothing radical about their agenda. Instead they start with a very simple principle. Follow the document from which we were formed- follow The Constitution. What they believe is radical, is what is going on today. They want to throw the radicals out of power and bring back into power the principals of - low taxation, personal responsibility, a restrained foreign policy, limited central government, and a protection of civil liberties.

A "Paul-lite" would have a problem with Ike's tax rate on the rich if it was 91% or if it was 1%- they dont believe in the income tax.
12:31 AM on 09/07/2010
A "Paul-lite" would say they would rather a tax be levied, rather than government borrowing the money to pay for its needs as it would expose the true cost of what the tax was far, so the taxpayer could make a more informed decision as to wether or not the tax is worth it. It would also greatly restrict governments ability to expand. In order to expand, they would have to cut an existing program to get the needed money, or would need to raise taxes risking the wrath of the voter.

A "Paul-lite" would have less of a problem with Ike's road building project as they think infastructure is a legitimate role of government.
12:30 AM on 09/07/2010
They just want government to be able to pay for it before they do it. Which, as you point out they did manly with "use" taxes, on those which would benefit from the roads, trucks (diesel tax) and motorist(fuel tax). A "Paul-lite" doesnt have much of a problem with this. They may question the need for the tax to be funneled to Washington for distribution, would eliminate that bureautic cost, and let the states handle their own road buiding, on their own time frame.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Toby Barlow
12:44 AM on 09/07/2010
That's a fine system, though Ike would undoubtedly point out that by following your system you probably would not have gotten the Interstate Highway System built in anything resembling a cohesive or organized fashion.
01:03 AM on 09/07/2010
Thanks for the reply. Its not the Federal government that builds the roads. Its mainly private contractors hired by the states, paid with money authorized by the federal government. Why add this layer? All it does is drain resources that could go into the infastructure. I have alot of confidence in two states and contractors being wise enough to come up with a cohesive building plan without the Federal government checking their homework. I am sure you have been on plenty of state roads, they pretty much all look the same.
12:28 AM on 09/07/2010
What Obama is requesting for the 50 billion in infrastructure spending, is a little bit different, mainly because were BROKE. And they just passed a stimulous package for infastructure in the $1,000,000,000,000 range. A trillion $1000.00 dollar bills(federal reserve notes) stack on top of one another would reach 67 miles high. Space starts at 25 miles. There are approx 3 million people in the United States. Everytime the government borrows/spends 1 billion dollars(not counting the interest), it cost $3 dollars to every man, woman, and child in America. Whether they are 1 hour old, or 100 years old. So $1 trillion means $3000 to every American. Obviously not all pay taxes so that burden is shared by a smaller group thus raising the burden on them. On the back end it causes inflation, which devalues our money, causing our purchasing power to go down, causing us to pay more for less, another tax on the backend. Ike's roads werent built like this.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Toby Barlow
12:46 AM on 09/07/2010
Thanks for letting us know how high the pile would be. And no, Ike's roads may not have been built like this, but Ike's war was won like this.
02:05 AM on 09/07/2010
I'm not sure if I agree that Ike's war was won thru selling treasuries to China and the Federal Reserve, which is where most of the stimulous money came. No in Ike's war the treasuries were sold to farmers/widowers in the good old USA. Take a look at the inflation charts from the founding of the country until today. Compare 1941-45 with 2007-2010. Compare 2007-2010, with any other period in the history of this country (combined). I gurantee you it will drop your jaw.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-10-inflation

Your right something very interesting happened after 1945, and Ike warned about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE

The only reason it can happen is due to fiat money. If you watch the 1st link, when he says about what Nixon did, he means Nixon closed the gold window.

Who knows maybe someday you will become a "Paul-lite" and Rush can laugh at you also. If you look at the inflation charts, you might also agree, Rush's days of laughing are coming to a close quickly.
12:27 AM on 09/07/2010
A "Paul-lite" has no more regard for Bush as he does for Obama, they consider them one in the same. Part of the systematic power structure, manipulating the system for their own agendas. This includes, politictions, major media, and banking forces. Not a conspiracy, rather a systemic breakdown which must be corrected. With freedom, fairness and openess being brought back to government, the media, and the markets.

The "Paul-lites" are quietly thru education rather than demonstration making this happen. A "Paul-lite" prefers to make change not headlines.

The Tea Party may fizzle out it wont matter, the "Paul-lites" arent going anywhere. Don't get to distracted by The Tea Party. If you do, you might miss whats happening right under your -sniff,sniff-- nose.
02:13 PM on 09/06/2010
Let's face it, to Sarah Palin, Reagan was the first president of the United States. All the rest just made the way for him.
coloradodreaming
proud to differ
12:07 PM on 09/06/2010
You wait and see after 3 trillion for the war that wasn't necessary the party of NO will fight 50 billion for infrastructure. They will throw their usual fit about the deficit and the bill will go down in failure. Anyone driving on Pres. Ike's roads has had to notice how many have returned to being bumpy cow paths. We have without a doubt the worst set of priorities. We would rather use taxpayers dollars to advance other countries than our own. If your Senator or Rep. fights this program I hope you finally get off your duff and fight them.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HLL
My little dog — a heartbeat at my feet ^..^
11:56 AM on 09/06/2010
"I think that people want peace so much
that one of these days,
government had better get out of their way
and let them have it."

~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5-Star General