With regard to President Eisenhower, here were two reasons I decided to read his farewell address. The first was simply that I never had done so, and it’s relatively famous. The second had to do with its most famous component, the military-industrial complex. It had begun striking a chord for me recently, and I wanted to know more. Here’s the complete relevant passage from the speech:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
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 military[-]industrial 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.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
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.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Perhaps Eisenhower further pursued this theme in other publications, but I will be bold and claim a certain consonance with some of my thoughts without further research (and if I earn the reputation of being lazy, it is not without warrant). Specifically, I believe his warning has to do with a consistent theme I find myself sounding on this blog: the problems incurred by importing the methods and processes of one societal sector into another. While I’ve gone on at great length here on the subject (for which I excuse by saying I was thinking out loud), I can summarize easily enough. Clearly, Eisenhower is warning that the military-industrial complex, or armaments corporations, may seek undue influence over the policy of the United States. Why? The first reason is no great secret: the prospect of profits in the offing.
But, not so clearly, but implicit, is the confusion of the methods and processes of the armaments corporations with governmental processes. “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes,” Eisenhower says, and it’s clear that a democratic process is his main concern. Shall corporate profits take precedence over democratic processes? Shall the corporation take over a duty of government, bringing its self-interest into play in a function which demands disinterest?
Eisenhower is calling for keeping the rifts between the sectors as clean and well-defined as possible, because he recognizes the incompatibility between corporate and governmental priorities. And that, in general, has been my assertion and my reason for caution amidst all the calls for privatizing this and privatizing that: the methods and processes optimized for one sector, so successfully, may be catastrophic for another.
And, clearly, President Eisenhower understood this and warned us.
And, just as clearly, the lesson is not so well understood.
