In light of The New York Times' revelations about the objectivity of military analysts working for the news nets, we turn to President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, delivered three days before he left the White House.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Eisenhower was, of course, no liberal pantywaist, but given the manly bluster of the right these days, he'd be far out to the left of where the Republican Party thinks we ought to be. There seems no awareness on the right these days that the confluence of military and industrial interests pose a challenge to our republic. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
The television news nets -- cable and broadcast -- appear to have not really cared that the analysts they were putting on the air had, in some cases, a vested financial interest in the war they were "objectively" analyzing. The nets want the ratings, the administration wants the votes, the analysts want the lobbying fees they were getting from the defense industry, the defense industry wants the revenue, and the military -- which sees the world a particular way -- gets to do what it wants to do, too. Everybody wins -- except, of course, for the country, which is gradually being ground down.
Which is what Eisenhower warned us would happen, except for the media part, which is just an added bonus.
Comments