He would fall short in any conservative or libertarian litmus test.
But he got us through the minefield of the 1950s with a minimum number of KIAs.
We could have sunk back into the New Deal but didn't. We instead prospered.
That prosperity was the product of a post-World War II baby boom, the invention of television and all sorts of home appliances. New Deal programs like Social Security continued unabated, along with the 90% marginal tax rates with which it was associated. The Food Stamp Program was approved under Eisenhower (it wasn't actually implemented until Kennedy, but it was Eisenhower who signed the program into law in 1959).We could have had some devastating or endless military adventure but didn't. He wouldn't be pressured into adventures.
Does Vietnam ring a bell? Eisenhower got us into that.We could have had some devastating racial conflicts but didn't. He took measured steps to deal with what arose.
Those racial conflicts were brought upon by Eisenhower's own appointees on the Court. Instead of addressing that the schools weren't treating segregated schools equally as required under Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court took up Brown v. Topeka and mandated forced "diversity."Gee, so much 'didn't happen' stuff made the 1950s so dull.
Other than the appointment of Earl Warren and William Brennan, which set the stage for some of the most destructive court rulings from the Supreme Court in its history.I think the overriding fact is that nothing non-leftists have done has worked.
Any political realignment needs to include electing to office honest people.On that we both agree. The problem is, the two candidates running are the least honest ones of the bunch.
Eisenhower is a perfect example of why Donald Trump should NOT be elected President. His supporters constantly harp on SCOTUS as the reason, as we all know Hillary will push it back to the days of Warren—but it was Eisenhower, a non-political Republican, who appointed Warren.
