My wife and I recently visited the Eisenhower National Historic Site in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on a beautiful September day. The setting is spectacular, and the house is a real time capsule filled with familiar-to-us furnishings from the 1950s and '60s. The accompanying exhibits catalog Ike's career, which encompassed roles as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and chief architect of D-Day during World War II, president of Columbia University, the first Supreme Commander of NATO, and 34th president of the United States.
Dwight D. Eisenhower is one of our more under-rated presidents. A partial list of his accomplishments is absolutely awe-inspiring. He began the interstate highway system and ended the Korean War. He also established the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; raised the minimum hourly wage to a $1; signed the Civil Rights Act, the first such legislation in 82 years; sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of Central High School; established NASA in response to Russia's launching of the Sputnik satellite; signed legislation welcoming Alaska and Hawaii into the Union, and warned of the danger of the growing military-industrial complex.
With today's hyperpartisanship in Washington and a "do nothing"/"just say no" Congress, I can't imagine a future administration racking up such a list of achievements. I also can't imagine a modern-day Republican president championing the likes of HEW, raising the minimum wage, battling racial prejudice in the South, or railing against dangerously high levels of military spending. This only goes to show how far the Grand Old Party has drifted from its original moorings into the turbulent waters of the extreme right.
I was especially intrigued when I learned why Eisenhower chose to run as a Republican in 1952. As a war hero, he was avidly being courted by Democrats and Republicans for the presidency. He chose to head the Republican ticket not because of ideology, but because he feared the party might become extinct. The country had just experienced 20 years of Democratic administrations, and Eisenhower appreciated the necessity of having a strong two-party system. He worried that if a Democrat was elected again, it would mean the end of the Republican Party, so he agreed to carry its standard. His rich resume proved no match for the Democrat's professorial Adlai Stevenson, and history has shown that the country has been better for it.
There's an obvious parallel between 1952 and 2016. Though we are only finishing eight years of a Democratic administration, it is very possible that we are looking at another four or eight years of a Democrat sitting in the White House. The country's changing demographics favor this outcome, as does the Republican Party's refusal to moderate its stance on immigration, Muslims, LGBT concerns, the minimum wage, reproductive rights, gun control, and tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the safety net for the middle class and poor.
We don't have one-party government now, considering the Senate and House are controlled by Republicans. However, they might lose their plurality in November if Donald Trump's name at the top of the ballot causes weak voter turnout and impacts down-ballot candidates. This would be a mixed blessing for the country.
A Hillary Clinton win and a Democratic House and Senate would get the country off the dime and moving again. There would be an opportunity to reform Obamacare or replace it with a single-payer system. We'd also address the huge backlog of court cases by getting most if not all of the longstanding federal judicial vacancies filled that Congress has blocked. There's a big one on the Supreme Court, 11 on the Circuit Court, and 82 on district courts. And just as Bill Clinton gave us welfare reform, I see an opportunity for entitlement restructuring. If Nixon can go to China, then Hillary can reform Social Security and Medicare.
That's all well and good, but the country still needs a strong Republican Party to counter liberal excesses. If Republicans go down to defeat in November, they will have to reinvent themselves by going back to the kind of core principles and programs Eisenhower championed. It won't be easy, especially given the chokehold that right-wing media have on their base, but it will be absolutely necessary. The country works best in a tug-of-war, yin-yang mode and in a political climate where compromise isn't a dirty word.
Frank Batavick writes from Westminster. His column appears Fridays. Email him at fjbatavick@gmail.com.
