TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

Presidential Farewell Addresses Leave Historical Perspective

ADVERTISEMENT

By JOHN REINIERS

In My Own Words

Published: July 19, 2008

The parting comments of presidents are of value because they tend to be the most nonpartisan of all their speeches. Their thoughts are an attempt to impart wisdom gained from experience. The most valuable farewell addresses then, would be those given by a president held in reasonably high regard.
It is difficult not to cherry-pick through these speeches to highlight those observations that agree with your politics. The addresses selected – George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan – had content that was all over the ballpark. This makes sense. A president has a multitude of responsibilities. So I had a lot of material to pick from.
Washington was a warrior president. Unlike Eisenhower, he was fighting to create a country. Ike, as a general, was trying to save one. (As well as the rest of mankind.) This accounts for Washington writing, "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you ...The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism ... carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole ..."
This accounts for Washington's concern over sectional antagonism and his negative attitude about political parties. (He published his address on Sept. 17, 1796. So it "went public" in the middle of a divisive campaign. Ike's and Reagan's were delivered on TV – after the new president was elected.) Washington was also worried about political parties "that now and then answer popular ends ... it is a spirit not to be encouraged." (Populism, a traditional weapon used by Democrats, European socialists, Venezuela's Chavez, Bolivia's Morales, etc.)
He expressed concern over "the invidious wiles of foreign influence," and counseled against "permanent alliances" and to "keep ... a ...defensive posture," so we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." We need to remember that at that time Europeans were forever at war, and France and Britain were still empire-building in North America – our backyard.
Washington was convinced that "religion and morality are indispensable supports ... to political prosperity." And to those who question his piety, he said, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."
We didn't pay much attention to Washington. Sectional animosity caused the Civil War; we adopted a two-party system in the 19th century; and finally entered into permanent military alliances at the end of World War II.
Eisenhower's farewell address juxtaposed against Washington's is interesting because "General" Washington was committed to the notion that the most important role of a president is to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It makes sense. As Mohamed was to Islam; Washington was to America. They were warriors and the genesis of a cause – one religious, the other political. Ike, on the other hand, like Colin Powell, was a political general, but knew the business of warfare. Ike was heard to say in the oval office, "God help this country, when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do." (Obama, take note.) This is the major reason why I would have supported Powell – and will be disappointed when he endorses Obama.
Since the traditional liberal/dovish media and various university cognoscenti filter everything we see, read or hear, Eisenhower's farewell address gets the most play because they delight in his now often quoted, "We must guard against ... unwarranted influence ... by the military-industrial complex ..." But if you read his address, it reminds one of President Harry Truman's lament about his staff of economists, whose advice was always conditioned with, "On the one hand this ... On the other hand that ..." Truman was always on the look-out for a one-handed economist.
So, on the one hand Ike starts his address with a warning that America's peacekeeping goals are "persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world ... A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty ..." Furthermore Ike realized "America had no armaments industry" before World War II, so that war and the Soviet nuclear threat "compelled the U.S. to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions ..." And as everyone knows, it was the prodigious production of war material by the dreaded "military-industrial complex" that eventually overwhelmed the Axis powers.
"On the other hand" – his concern about that "military-industrial complex." Most commentators ignore an earlier draft of the address which read, "military-industrial-congressional complex." Ike was undoubtedly aware of the many legislators who had defense contractors in their districts, the jobs they created, and those lawmakers who were joined at the hip with contractor lobbyists. Since Ike started his address describing his relationship with Congress as "intimate," and expressing his "gratitude" for their having "cooperated well to serve the national good," he could hardly throw them under the bus later on in the speech. So he deleted "congressional."
And Ike, exhibiting religiosity, told us "to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach ... peace ... that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings."
Reagan's January 1989 address is interesting in that it was more conversational and contemporary in style. It is my favorite for one telling bit of wisdom: "If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are." Reagan was referring to the Pilgrims, Jimmy Doolittle, Omaha Beach; the need for "more attention to American history and ... civic ritual," and for parents to teach kids "what it means to be an American." Why the concern? His fear of "an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in the erosion of the American spirit."
My immigrant father knew more about American history than our average high school graduate. As well as the inspirational stuff, we need to understand our many failures – slavery, the Civil War, racial discrimination, riots, women's suffrage, economic cycles worsened by ethical lapse and greed over the decades and the emergence of the "more government programs" everyman, who also is often integrity challenged. (It seems we are a nation of crooks.) We need to remember all this, too.
While the list and the learning curve are probably endless, we have thus far used all these failures as building blocks for a better America. The good news is these presidents – when signing off – were amazingly optimistic about our future
They were in agreement with Winston Churchill who said, "The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty."
"If", as Reagan said, "We don't forget what we did."

John Reiniers, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT