Since YA! liberals want to claim Eisenhower as one of their own, does that indicate increasing support for what he addressed during 1953-54 and what he saw as the country’s most pressing issue during his first term?
Among the first orders of business for the General who responded to groundswell popular support for a run to the Presidency was putting the brave servicemen who served under his leadership back to work. That meant supporting American citizen workers first and honoring his conservative base by addressing the illegal immigration problem of that period more aggressively than earlier deportation/repatriation programs instituted under Presidents Hoover or Truman.
Together with former West Point classmate Joseph Swing, who was himself a decorated Army Air Corps General during WWII, the decisive leaders addressed illegal immigration in a proactive manner not seen since the mid-50’s. Eisenhower took the office of Commander In Chief in January, 1953, and policy initiatives were promptly formed to apply immigration laws according to the Constitution and Court rulings since the 14th Amendment was ratified. During 1953-1954, the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics published annually by the DHS indicated 1,975,170 illegal aliens were repatriated south of the border back into Mexico. With elevated immigration enforcement activity continuing into early 1955, another quarter of a million illegal aliens were returned to their native country. What’s sometimes overlooked with the verifiable numbers of illegals deported was the more sketchy voluntary exodus believed to have approached around 7 to 10 illegal aliens for each apprehended migrant who returned on their own to avoid forced removal. That appears to have been the basis for estimates that go far beyond the two-and-a-quarter million recorded removals by CBP under the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). President Eisenhower’s wildly successful Operation W_tback (with an “e”) campaign has been credited by some sources as having removed upwards of 10 million illegals, where movement south of the border included a mass exodus of Mexican aliens who fled to control their own destiny.
It’s become popular with many on the left to suggest Eisenhower would today be considered a liberal and their views and Eisenhower’s are aligned in ways some argue approach those of current liberals and progressives. I’ll share a linked question for the latest effort at positing claims from the left that rather enviously appear to believe the highly regarded General and 34th President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, would today be a Democrat.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aiu1M...
Since President Eisenhower and his Republican colleagues were responsible for forming civil rights legislation that they championed and worked to pass from 1957 onward, perhaps that’s where some confusion has come from. The vicious opposition from then Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson and the likes of former KKK member Senator Byrd effectively blocked passage of the former General’s prized civil rights legislation, which was considered among the most stinging defeats of Eisenhower’s Presidency. It was hardly coincidental that Martin Luther King was a staunch conservative and vocal supporter of the Republican Party throughout his otherwise apolitical ascendancy. Just a few years later, in true liberal fashion, Lyndon Johnson was President when the civil rights legislation he vigorously opposed in the Senate reappeared and was addressed once more under his Democratic Administration. When the Civil Rights Act was signed into law in 1964, Johnson famously boasted “Now we’ll have them ni_gers voting Democrat for the next 200 years,” according to biographers who served with and worked for the liberal President from Texas following Kennedy’s assassination.
Since one of Eisenhower’s most successful initiatives on behalf of the American people was the successful repatriation program that became known as Operation W_tback, and we’re now regularly told the left believes his political leanings mirror their own, is this the first sign of shared, widespread agreement the American public has been seeking in regard to immigration adherence to Constitutional law? After 1955, the ensuing decade never again reached an annual removal rate of even 100,000 illegals, because analysis of records and the success of Eisenhower’s program protecting the American public reportedly slowed illegal migration by 95% for a period of unprecedented prosperity here in the U.S.
Can we get there again today? If the Q’s and A’s on YA! can be believed, it sounds like many on the left are coming on board to address this critical issue for restoring opportunities for American workers. Is this Eisenhower’s legacy for bold leadership on behalf of the American people and our crippled economy?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.htm...
Update:http://bigtimeconservative.com/?p=2593
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles...
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-nationa...
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Like the question you linked, I've also seen repeated posts from the left suggesting Eisenhower would be a Democrat under the current political spectrum, which today encompasses a range from decidedly socialist, progressive left, to a resurgent conservative right. While it would be easy to say they're clueless, more likely is that this fits Kupelian's explanation of strategic liberal deception in his book, "The Marketing of Evil." Progressives believe Eisenhower was a popular enough leader and effective commander in his roles leading the allied forces in Europe, then, while serving as our 34th President, to feel linking his name with liberal ideology could serve the Party well. Of course, they couldn't be more wrong, and Operation W**back is among the best examples of how Eisenhower, like most true conservatives, was a rule of law advocate who saw value in protecting the American public and millions of servicemen who served honorably under his command.
Looking at Presidents since the Second World War, Eisenhower appears to have been among the most effective and, probably, least criticized for his Administration's policies and choices, which contributed to historic levels of growth and prosperity. There would have been no talk of Camelot under the succeeding Kennedy Administration without the prosperity and positive turn for the American public under Eisenhower's leadership. Occasionally, a few of the gifted contributors here on YA! show insight and a facility to translate historical perspective into legitimate comparisons with our current political climate using recognizable, clearly supported claims. More often, especially from the left, the clumsy attempts at comparison aren't just deceptive with an ignorance that might appear forgivable in children, they're carefully crafted and strategically manufactured.
What may have been overlooked by others who read answers to the question suggesting Eisenhower would probably be a Democrat today, were a couple of answers which explained John F. Kennedy's moderate political views that would be seen as unacceptably conservative by today's far-left-leaning, socialist loving Democrats. Aside from his well-publicized personal extramarital activities, Kennedy's commitment to supporting the military he served, protective nature toward the American public at the height of the cold war, and recognition of U.S. sovereignty have little in common with the Democrats who’ve been elected to public office in recent decades. So the question asked about the country's highly regarded 34th President might more appropriately be framed by asking what happened to the Democratic Party that no longer believes in what their storied 35th President did, if only for a short time ahead of his assassination. Perhaps, he'd be considered a DINO, today. More likely, he'd be unelectable as a Democrat and unwilling to represent a Party that has progressively been taken over by political interests he opposed during military service while commanding PT-109, or in office while serving as a President whose determination to protect the public interest included resisting communism and socialism.
The point is well taken that Eisenhower showed strong evidence of leadership that was fully committed to protecting Americans and growing the world's leading economy in the process. His concern for, and commitment to, American workers was shown in a bold assault, likely born of trained military instincts, on illegal migration, which had spiked during World War II and at the outset of the Korean conflict. Returning a few hundred thousand to maybe several million Mexicans back to their homeland was hardly seen as insurmountable to the former General who moved upwards of nine million men in critically short periods of time with precision overseas.
That liberals appreciate the popularity and widespread public approval for Eisenhower’s accomplishments is understandable. Whether they understand his first major initiative for restoring the American economy may be another thing. While the evidence is less than convincing, maybe increasing numbers on the left really are awakening to the need for enforcing immigration laws and sealing the U.S. border along Mexico. A modernized version of Operation W**back would obviously go a long ways to restoring our suffering economy and could drop unemployment to historic levels reminiscent of Eisenhower's Americans first economy. Is that what the left is really saying with their suggestion that the former General and President is one they admire and wish were one of their own?
The truth is that unless the democrats can claim Eisenhower as their own they do not have much wiggle room to argue their platform but they have to be careful when doing so because Eisenhower did start Operation W**back to get the illegals out of the country. Illegals that were brought into the county by Harry Truman because we needed the workers due to the impact of the wars.
It was Eisenhower that started (rather re-started) the Civil Rights Act that was passed in 1875 by the republicans and then declared unconstitutional by a then liberal Supreme Court. In some respects I agree with what the court said "You can not legislate the way people think"
As Eisenhower was trying to get this legislation passed there were Senators that were blocking the legislation, guys like Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr as well as Lyndon B. Johnson.
Ironically when this act came up again Johnson was the president and he saw something that had blinded him previously and that was the knowledge that if he could get the Civil Rights Act passed he would secure the votes of the blacks. In fact LBJ was heard to say "If I can get this bill passed, I will have those ni***rs voting for democrats for the next two hundred years"
(damn, the more I read of your question, the more I seem to be parroting what you have said LOL)
Don't take my statement regarding Truman bringing in the immigrants to harshly, at the time it was the right thing to do for the country. Eisenhower was equally right in rounding them up and shipping them back. They served the need and now we had American men coming back from the war in Korea and he wanted to make certain that there were jobs to be had.
It is very clear that without the liberals trying to latch on to Ike, they have very little to hang their hats on. They have tried to hang it on Bill Clinton and his successes. The problem with that is that the things that made the Clinton era a relatively good time is due to legislation signed into law by George H. W. Bush that freed up the part of the Internet known as DARPA that led to business opportunities on what is now the Internet. Yes libbies this is the Al Gore legislation but it happened on Bush Sr. watch.
All of the Clinton surpluses came when republicans controlled congress and while there was an increase to the national debt with republicans, it was about half as much as when democrats controlled congress, If Clinton had one thing going for him it was his willingness to work with the other side.
I like "Ike" 1st Ike would people back to work, kick out illegals, starting with the Muslims, then the drug cartel gangs then the workers until every American was put back to work.
Did you know Ike had a civil rights bill that was shelved aka cap and balance by the democratic senate leader LBJ.
Ike would hate this communist liberalism and said so at the time when he said the country was starting to act like communist. That is one of his big reason for running for president.
Maybe Patton was right after all.