On January 17, 1961, the 34th president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the nation. Having served as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II, Eisenhower was chastened by the horrors of war. In the wake of World War II, he participated in, and witnessed the burgeoning Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. His experience in life had given him a perspective that was somewhat torn. On the one hand he seemed to have a vision of a ‘good society’. One where the modernist ideals of America became realized. On the other hand he maintained a position of American readiness for war and conflict.
For many who have looked back on Eisenhower’s farewell address over the decades, it has proven to be prophetic - and the view from 2024 looks no different. Maybe it was Eisenhower’s experience surveying the broad trajectories of battle that gave him the ability to see the broad trajectory of American society.
Regardless, when Eisenhower’s speech is reflected upon, one can find threads that touch upon the cultural, political, and even metaphysical situation America finds itself in today. In Eisenhower’s time, political rhetoric had a power and influence that has faded in modern times. In our digitally primed, short attention spanned information space, longer form political speech has limited purchase. A mind shaped by digital media is not a mind primed to consume or contemplate long form political arguments or discourse. Yet due to the prophetic nature of Eisenhower’s farewell address, it’s useful to look back in a way that deconstructs its insight.
The speech begins with a reminder of how far American politics has fallen in terms of intra party comity - and respect for democratic norms. His opening remarks seem almost from a different country compared to America’s current political climate:
My fellow Americans,
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment; the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis, when long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point - have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period - and finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have on most vital issues, cooperated well - to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
In the next section, Eisenhower would describe the historical position of the United States - its past and possible future. It is here where the 34th president would begin to describe the tension between material gain or ‘progress’; versus higher ideals and values. It’s almost like he knew the existential question that would be facing the generation coming of age in the next decade (the 1960’s):
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength; but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Eisenhower then begins to frame the burgeoning Cold War conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in almost good versus evil terms. He refers to the modernist ideals and religious tradition of the US as sources of strength. And he portrays a grand moral narrative about the impact America is striving to have on the world:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people, and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, (and) absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology; global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis; but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle - with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Eisenhower saw the Cold War with the Soviet Union as existential and generational. Yet while he saw the conflict as deservedly ‘all consuming’, he also recognized the dangers of a society consumed with conflict, competition, and never ending capitalistic development. He seemed to be wrestling with what he saw as America’s responsibilities as a new super power, and the kind of good society he wanted America to become. He could see the beginning of government power, corporate power, and the nature of capitalism combining into something that threw the country out of balance. A situation where the public good became secondary to powerful interests:
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 action of the moment, and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well - in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise - I mention two only.
It is at this point in the speech that Eisenhower begins to illustrate the vision that would be so prophetic. He describes how in the wake of World War II the US began to sustain a military industry that was unprecedented in its history. The dichotomy that Eisenhower was struggling with can also begin to be seen clearly. His belief in the need for a strong military defense; yet his concern that its mechanisms could eventually harm the nation:
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 State 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.
Eisenhower’s most famous warning would come next:
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.
Sadly, Eisenhower’s worst fears about the ‘military industrial complex’ have come true. In 2022, the United States spent $877 billion on defense, while the second closest country (China) spent $292 billion. Individuals move through a revolving door between military, government, defense contractor, and lobbyist positions. This is the very heart of the military industrial complex; the nexus where military spending becomes a self sustaining entity regardless of need or purpose.
Defense contractors spread their production of military hardware across multiple states, and congressional districts. This wise move makes the cutting of military spending more difficult. For a piece of military hardware that affects the political fortunes of multiple congressional members is much harder to cancel than one that affects a single Senator or member of Congress.
The tension and introspection that Eisenhower expressed in his rhetoric is gone from the discourse surrounding military spending. Expanding US military expenditures and US military involvement around the world is just accepted and normalized. As of this writing, the US is spending billions to fund wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and in preparation for a future war with China. The merit of either of these expenditures can be debated; yet it’s clear that just as Eisenhower feared, war for the United States has become a self-sustaining, profitable industry. As American political scientist Chalmers Johnson said in the 2005 film ‘Why We Fight’, ‘when war becomes profitable, we're going to see more of it’.
Eisenhower’s concern about what he saw happening to America’s political system and society could be boiled down to a simple axiom: The pursuit of profit, above all else, eventually erodes the virtue and moral foundations of a society. The military industrial complex isn’t the only ‘complex’ that has gripped American society. One could describe a ‘pharmaceutical industrial complex’, a ‘healthcare industrial complex’, a ‘food manufacturing industrial complex’, a ‘prison industrial complex’, a ‘higher education industrial complex’, a ‘campaign finance industrial complex’ and a ‘financial industry industrial complex’. All of these can be boiled down to the simple dichotomy Eisenhower was spelling out in his speech: the balance between unfettered capitalism and public virtue.
A society that sought public virtue would be one that prioritized healthcare, education, and the general well being of its citizens. It would also be a society that as Eisenhower mentioned, would defend itself, but would seek peace and stability around the world. A society that develops a self sustaining industry that needs war in order to survive is probably a society that has drifted astray. In our current situation, war is a marketplace, while peace isn’t profitable.
Eisenhower stated that only an ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ could make sure to prevent the ‘unwarranted influence’ of the military industrial complex. I would argue this sentiment applies to all the complexes listed previously as well. Yet one of the poisonous effects of the various complexes that have taken control of American society is the degrading of civic virtue. Apathy, anger, or political blindness now inhabit the minds of the American polity. Americans have either given up on changing things for the better, succumbed to their rage in wild populism, or blindly support the two major political parties that perpetuate the very complexes they know are wrong.
The decline of an ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ didn’t begin with the digital revolution or the invention of the smartphone; but a case could be made that these two developments solidified it. Ironically, Eisenhower’s second warning in his farewell address had to do with the increasing power and influence of unchecked technological development. He even warned that public policy could become the captive of a ‘scientific-technological elite’.
This prophetic warning captures our current situation where Google and Meta
(Facebook) have outsized influence over the very nature of our everyday lives. A situation where our private information has become monetized; and our digital lives can be monitored via cooperation between government and corporate power. And as of this writing, rapid advancements in artificial intelligence are moving into military applications, and private industry. The situation surrounding artificial intelligence is exactly the type of situation Eisenhower warned about. One where technology, government, and corporate power merge to push technological advancement without consideration of the public good:
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 scientific-technological 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.
Again, Eisenhower is painting a general picture of a society that risks becoming consumed by industry, growth, and material progress - the byproducts of unfettered capitalism. Now nearing the end of his farewell address, Eisenhower begins to strike a more philosophical tone. One that illustrates what American society could aim towards if it recognizes the pitfalls that lay ahead. Eisenhower also makes a plain warning about the importance of older generations pondering future generations before they act. This warning illuminates what many younger generations have come to feel in America today. The notion that older generations have ruined the environment, and hoarded the material wealth of the country:
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we, you, and I - and our government 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.
The current state of American democracy gives sobering weight to the last line of this section. There is no room in the discourse of modern day America for lofty ideals, or political comity. Yet in Eisenhower’s time, despite all the turmoil the country was going to face in the 1960’s, there was still ‘hope’. There was still a conception of a good society (and a good world) to aim towards:
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war - as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years; I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
Eisenhower ends with a grand vision. One that is rooted in religion, and universal themes; both of which have little purchase in today’s political rhetoric or general discourse. Yet I think it would be hard to argue that Eisenhower’s vision of a good society, and a peaceful world were off base. Eisenhower’s conception of what the country, and the world could be was why he warned about the dangers he saw ahead:
So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration.
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
Sadly, over sixty years later, Eisenhower’s hopes for America and the world seem unreachable. And since his warnings went unheeded, we can now say they were nothing short of prophecy.