Archive for April, 2009

Eisenhower’s “Farewell Address”

Questions for understanding:

1. What does Eisenhower rate as the main purposes of American government?

2. What domestic power does Eisenhower warn about, and why?

3. How does the American system of government attempt to hold that power in check?

From Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

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.

II.

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.

III.

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, 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 is 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 the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

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.

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.

IV.

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 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.

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.

V.

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.

VI.

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 differences, 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.

VII.

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 some things 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 aspiration:

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.

What you should do and when

1. The terms check is on Tuesday.

2. The outlines are the last required assignment. You are to do outlines, not terms. 

3. The final test over the last couple of chapters will be after prom. More on this later.

Chapter 41 terms

Terms for chapter 41

DUE TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

William J. Clinton, Brady Bill, Ross Perot,
Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle, Carol Moseley-Braun
Bob Dole, “Contract With America,” Reform Party
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Branch Davidians
“don’t ask, don’t tell,” budget surpluses, Oklahoma City bombing
“new Democrat, Democratic Leadership Council, “balanced ticket,”
Monica Lewinksi, impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors”
Persian Gulf War, Hopwood v. Texas, Proposition 209,
WTO, GATT, free trade, “unfunded mandates,”
“globalization,” Somalia, Haiti,
Rwanda, ethnic cleansing, Balkan crisis
Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, Kosovo
Kenneth Starr, NAFTA, John McCain
“patients’ bill of rights,” George W. Bush, Green Party,
Ralph Nader, chads, Richard Cheney,
Bush v. Gore (see election of 2000), “compassionate conservatism,” Osama bin Laden
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, “red state,” “blue state,”
USA Patriot Act, Al Qaeda, habeas corpus,
“axis of evil,” WMD, “nation-building”
Saddam Hussein, No Child Left Behind, John Kerry, Taliban, Guantanamo

Important dates review

This is due on Tuesday, April 28.

AP Significant dates review
Tell what happened on each date and why it was significant in US history. There may be more than one event per year. Also think about when eras (revolution, salutary neglect, etc.) started and ended.
1492—

1620-

1763-

1776

1789

1800

1803

1814

1848

1861-1865

1877

1914- 1919

1929

1941

1945

1960

1964

1968

1973

1989

1994

A video help for your FRQ assignment, and about that…

Curse you, firewall!!!! I will try to post it from home, so here is the same clip from a different address:

It’s from Rebel Without a Cause.

Remember, FRQ is due on Tuesday. Bring a draft with you to class on Monday!!!!!

The historical verdict on Ford’s pardon of Nixon

From CBS news.com

(CBS) Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon for potential Watergate-related charges was slammed in the press and cost Ford dearly in polls. It may even have been the reason he lost the White House to Jimmy Carter in 1976.

But CBS News historian and political analyst Douglas Brinkley says history has changed the way the pardon and, as a result, Ford himself, are viewed.

“About when he turned 90,” Brinkley told The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm Tuesday, “(Ford) started inviting historians to Rancho Mirage (Calif.), people like myself. Bob Woodward started saying the pardon was a good thing. Richard Reeves, a journalist who was his fiercest critic, started saying the pardon was a good thing. And Ted Kennedy said it was a good thing. There became this sort of overwhelming feeling of liberals that this conservative Midwesterner had done the right thing in pardoning Nixon. That’s when the revisionism kicked off, and now we’re seeing the kind of second phase of it.”

Brinkley says Ford was “the furthest thing from a legacy monger. His view was, history didn’t owe him anything. He was a man who loved his country, did his job, pardoned Nixon, got us out of Vietnam, did a few other important things along the way. … Now, in death, people are recognizing how unusual he was. I think part of the reason we’re embracing him is we’ve become such a polarized society. Democrats and Republicans are fighting so much. And, here’s a centrist, we’re kind of honoring this smart, Midwest centrist.”

But when Ford left office, the pardon was overwhelmingly unpopular, and he was viewed as the only president ever to have lost a war, Vietnam.

“I think it bothered him,” Brinkley said. “It bothered him enough that he wanted to get back in the game after he left the White House in 1977. From ’77 to ’80, he kept eyeing the presidency. He kept thinking, ‘Maybe I’ll go for it again.’ And, in fact, at the Republican convention in Detroit in 1980, he was talked about as the vice president for Ronald Reagan.”

Henry Kissinger was one of those selected to eulogize Ford. Kissinger was secretary of state and national security adviser when Ford moved into the Oval Office, and Ford stripped Kissinger of the latter title.

“The word super-sized ego you see a lot by (Kissinger’s) name,” Brinkley observed, “and also brilliance. But Gerald Ford told me he generally liked Henry. He also knew he didn’t have to always listen to his advice, so he used him efficiently. He was really the foreign policy guru of the Ford years, but Gerald Ford was clearly the commander in chief.

“I’m told when Henry Kissinger got the call, that he was asked to eulogize, he broke down crying. There are Nixon/Kissinger tapes coming out, and Kissinger doesn’t look good in those tapes, but his relationship with President Ford is clean and positive. Kissinger loved Jerry Ford.”

MC practice 10

Was not posted in order since I was experiencing technical problems with wordpress. It will be posted tomorrow so you can have the questions for study purposes!