Guest Commentary By JOHN EISENHOWER
THE Presidential election to be held this coming
Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to
the future of our nation. The outcome will
determine whether this country will continue on
the same path it has followed for the last 3½
years or whether it will return to a set of core
domestic and foreign policy values that have been
at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make
cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the
past. Experts tell us that we tend to
vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained
loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that
luxury in the election of 2004. There are times
when we must break with the past, and I believe
this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a
Republican. For 50 years, through the election of
2000, I was. With the current administration's
decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I
changed my voter registration to independent, and
barring some utterly unforeseen development, I
intend to vote for the Democratic Presidentia candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one
with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the
word "Republican" has always been synonymous with
the word "responsibility," which has meant
limiting our governmental obligations to those we
can afford in human and financial terms. Today's
whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does
not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign
affairs. That has meant respect for others.
America, though recognized as the leader of the
community of nations, has always acted as a part
of it, not as a maverick separate from that
community and at times insulting towards it.
Leadership involves setting a direction and
building consensus, not viewing other countries as
practically devoid of significance. Recent
developments indicate that the current Republican
Party leadership has confused confident leadership
with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President
George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through
the United Nations before employing military force
to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through
negotiation he arranged for the action to be
financed by all the industrialized nations, not
justthe United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President
George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations
mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an
entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our
precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the
basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight
terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone
overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960,
President Eisenhower told the Republican
convention, "If ever we put any other value above
(our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of
today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy
emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included
balancing the budget whenever the state of the
economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower
administration accomplished that difficult task
three times during its eight years in office. It
did not attain that remarkable achievement by
cutting taxes for the rich.
Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the
party accepted them as a necessary means of keep
the nation's financial structure sound. The
Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the
middle class and small business. Today's
Republican leadership, while not solely
accountable for the loss of American jobs,
encourages it with its tax code and heads us in
the direction of a society of very rich and very
poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my
trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous,
sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
dangers associated with the widening
socio-economic gap in this country.
I will vote for him enthusiastically. I celebrate,
along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone,
Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting
for a ticket merely because it carries the label
of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, served on the White House staff
between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower
administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his
father in writing "The White House Years," his
Presidential memoirs. He served as American
ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is
the author of nine books, largely on military
subjects.
Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to
the future of our nation. The outcome will
determine whether this country will continue on
the same path it has followed for the last 3½
years or whether it will return to a set of core
domestic and foreign policy values that have been
at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make
cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the
past. Experts tell us that we tend to
vote as our parents did or as we "always have." We remained
loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that
luxury in the election of 2004. There are times
when we must break with the past, and I believe
this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a
Republican. For 50 years, through the election of
2000, I was. With the current administration's
decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I
changed my voter registration to independent, and
barring some utterly unforeseen development, I
intend to vote for the Democratic Presidentia candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today's "Republican" Party is one
with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the
word "Republican" has always been synonymous with
the word "responsibility," which has meant
limiting our governmental obligations to those we
can afford in human and financial terms. Today's
whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does
not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign
affairs. That has meant respect for others.
America, though recognized as the leader of the
community of nations, has always acted as a part
of it, not as a maverick separate from that
community and at times insulting towards it.
Leadership involves setting a direction and
building consensus, not viewing other countries as
practically devoid of significance. Recent
developments indicate that the current Republican
Party leadership has confused confident leadership
with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President
George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through
the United Nations before employing military force
to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through
negotiation he arranged for the action to be
financed by all the industrialized nations, not
justthe United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President
George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations
mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an
entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our
precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the
basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight
terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone
overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960,
President Eisenhower told the Republican
convention, "If ever we put any other value above
(our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both." I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of
today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy
emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included
balancing the budget whenever the state of the
economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower
administration accomplished that difficult task
three times during its eight years in office. It
did not attain that remarkable achievement by
cutting taxes for the rich.
Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the
party accepted them as a necessary means of keep
the nation's financial structure sound. The
Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the
middle class and small business. Today's
Republican leadership, while not solely
accountable for the loss of American jobs,
encourages it with its tax code and heads us in
the direction of a society of very rich and very
poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my
trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous,
sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the
dangers associated with the widening
socio-economic gap in this country.
I will vote for him enthusiastically. I celebrate,
along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone,
Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting
for a ticket merely because it carries the label
of the party of one's parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, served on the White House staff
between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower
administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his
father in writing "The White House Years," his
Presidential memoirs. He served as American
ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is
the author of nine books, largely on military
subjects.