Scan barcode
A review by gregbrown
The Age of Eisenhower: America and the World in the 1950s by William I. Hitchcock
4.5
Well-written, lucid look at the Eisenhower presidency.
Hitchcock does a superb job of explaining and contextualizing the key episodes in Eisenhower's presidency, even setting the stage with a gloss on his earlier career. Of the books I've read, this seems like it nails his weird psyche the best, though a little more generous than I would be.
All presidents have somewhat of an ego, but Eisenhower's was titanic, convinced he was the only person who could save the US. Dude was really convinced that Truman or Stevenson was going to drive the country into irredeemable socialism, by doing something like universal healthcare or a robust welfare state. Instead, Eisenhower wanted a permanent mobilization of industry to support the military, turning the US into a war state rather than pursuing peacetime disarmament and risk letting the communists win.
He got a reputation for moderation because rather than cut taxes, he was maniacally committed to a balanced budget, deeply suspicious of financial obligations that would ruin future generations. However, he was borderline cavalier about military obligations that committed the US to involvement in the European, Asian, and Middle Eastern spheres for future presidencies—arguably a much bigger (and undoubtedly a much deadlier) impact than issuing a few billion dollars in extra treasury bonds each year. It does make you pine for the post-war consensus of 90% marginal-rate taxes for the rich, though.
It's a testament to Hitchcock's skill and even-handed writing that he's actually very pro-Eisenhower while pointing out his faults. He's honest about the legacy of letting the CIA run rampant in the third world, and fairly notes missed opportunities. The extent of his editorializing is at the very beginning at the end, but he lays out all the evidence in between so you can come to your own conclusions. Unlike some books, I disagreed with the author's conclusions but still enjoyed the hell out of it.
Hitchcock does a superb job of explaining and contextualizing the key episodes in Eisenhower's presidency, even setting the stage with a gloss on his earlier career. Of the books I've read, this seems like it nails his weird psyche the best, though a little more generous than I would be.
All presidents have somewhat of an ego, but Eisenhower's was titanic, convinced he was the only person who could save the US. Dude was really convinced that Truman or Stevenson was going to drive the country into irredeemable socialism, by doing something like universal healthcare or a robust welfare state. Instead, Eisenhower wanted a permanent mobilization of industry to support the military, turning the US into a war state rather than pursuing peacetime disarmament and risk letting the communists win.
He got a reputation for moderation because rather than cut taxes, he was maniacally committed to a balanced budget, deeply suspicious of financial obligations that would ruin future generations. However, he was borderline cavalier about military obligations that committed the US to involvement in the European, Asian, and Middle Eastern spheres for future presidencies—arguably a much bigger (and undoubtedly a much deadlier) impact than issuing a few billion dollars in extra treasury bonds each year. It does make you pine for the post-war consensus of 90% marginal-rate taxes for the rich, though.
It's a testament to Hitchcock's skill and even-handed writing that he's actually very pro-Eisenhower while pointing out his faults. He's honest about the legacy of letting the CIA run rampant in the third world, and fairly notes missed opportunities. The extent of his editorializing is at the very beginning at the end, but he lays out all the evidence in between so you can come to your own conclusions. Unlike some books, I disagreed with the author's conclusions but still enjoyed the hell out of it.