The Military-Industrial Complex and the Scientific-Technological Elite
I just listened to and read President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address. I'd wanted to do so for a while, ever since I'd heard it was a warning against the (and a coining of the term) 'military-industrial complex' that he had seen grow under his watch as general and president.
It is a good speech. I like it. I pretty much only have positive associations and assessments of Eisenhower. Can anyone point to common criticisms of him? I'd like to have a well-rounded view rather than just sit with a sort of hero-worship picture if it's not accurate.
There was an interesting aspect of the speech, though, that surprised me. The military-industrial complex was just one of two potential 'threats' he warned of in the future. The other one might be termed the "scientific-technological elite" in parallel with the term the "military-industrial complex":
"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."
History seems to have shown that this was (or at least, has been) a non-issue, but it's interesting to think about. I suspect some conservatives (particularly those who deny the concept of global warming) might agree feel we should be more worried about it.
What's the difference between the two groups, though? Federal spending on arms and research were and are both vast. Why do we perceive (and I'm inclined to think it's true) problematic trends of influence in one but not the other? Maybe it's because there's not really an increased profit margin in getting more grants where there is in getting more contracts? There certain is an increased prestige margin, though. But if the money cannot be taken out by scientists or institutions as profits, it can't be as easily used to influence politics. Also, there's less of a traditional connection between politics and academics than politics and business.
It is a good speech. I like it. I pretty much only have positive associations and assessments of Eisenhower. Can anyone point to common criticisms of him? I'd like to have a well-rounded view rather than just sit with a sort of hero-worship picture if it's not accurate.
There was an interesting aspect of the speech, though, that surprised me. The military-industrial complex was just one of two potential 'threats' he warned of in the future. The other one might be termed the "scientific-technological elite" in parallel with the term the "military-industrial complex":
"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."
History seems to have shown that this was (or at least, has been) a non-issue, but it's interesting to think about. I suspect some conservatives (particularly those who deny the concept of global warming) might agree feel we should be more worried about it.
What's the difference between the two groups, though? Federal spending on arms and research were and are both vast. Why do we perceive (and I'm inclined to think it's true) problematic trends of influence in one but not the other? Maybe it's because there's not really an increased profit margin in getting more grants where there is in getting more contracts? There certain is an increased prestige margin, though. But if the money cannot be taken out by scientists or institutions as profits, it can't be as easily used to influence politics. Also, there's less of a traditional connection between politics and academics than politics and business.