I feel like I’m all wrapped up in a warm blanket of nostalgia today, dreaming of the time when Ike was the president and I was the stickball champion of Chatham Street. Strangely, the nostalgia is being triggered by my inability to come to grips with the madness that has swept over America in the twenty-first century
I grew up in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the post-war era. The Axis forces had been defeated after four grueling years of war. American soldiers, sailors, and Marines were coming back home. They were ready to put their guns away and rebuild their lives. That deep desire was reflected in films like the classic western “Shane.” It/s story of a gunfighter named Shane. Like the Americans who served in World War II, he is ready to settle down and put his gun away. The film begins with Shane coming upon a Wyoming homesteader named Joe Starrett, his wife Marian, and their young son Joey It doesn’t take long for Shane to find the life of the homesteaders attractive. The Starretts offer Shane a job on their homestead and the story proceeds from there. This essay begins with brief YouTube video of that encounter.
Shane is a truly classic film. It’s been dubbed a “Cold War parable” by many film critics. Over the years, when my wife and I have hosted international students, Shane has been required viewing. Before we start watching, I try my best to explain that if they want to understand how American men from my generation thought, they need to watch Shane’s story unfold. It’s pitch perfect.
Around the same time Shane playing in America’s theatres, another conflict arose. The Free World’s leaders called it a “police action,” somehow believing that sidestepping the use of the word “war” to describe the conflict would be acceptable to America. They were wrong. In 1952, General Dwight Eisenhower, the man who had been the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces that had defeated the Nazis in Europe, ran for the Presidency of the United States, promising to get us out of the so called “police action.” About a month before the election, he spoke in Detroit and said, “A soldier all my life, I have enlisted in the greatest cause of my life, the cause of peace. I do not believe it is a presumption to call the effort of all who have enlisted with me a crusade.”
Eisenhower won the election handily, proof that America was ready for change. Once he took the oath of office, he was true to his promise. He was inaugurated on January 20th, 1953. Six months later, on July 27th, the Korean Armistice was signed, ending the conflict.
Eisenhower served as President for eight peaceful, prosperous years. An interstate highway system was built. NASA was established. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed.
On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower made a brief televised farewell to the American people. While it was brief, it has become known as a very powerful, prophetic warning about what he termed “the military-industrial complex.”
“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.”
Eisenhower’s televised farewell speech was a harbinger of things to come. The 1960 Presidential campaign featured a televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The post-debate analysis held that Kennedy had won. The reason for that consensus was television. Most of those who had listened to the debate on the radio believed that Nixon had won. Those watching the debate on television believed that Kennedy had won.
What would account for the disparity? Those who listened on the radio could not see either candidate. Those who watched on television not only heard the candidates but also saw them as they debated. It’s been said that appearances can be deceiving. Based on the Kennedy-Nixon debate, it may also be said that appearances can be enlightening. During the debate, Kennedy seemed calm and composed. He was handsome and his Irish charm shined through the cameras into the homes of Americans who would be deciding who to vote for. Nixon, on the other hand seemed nervous, almost out of place. As the debate went on beads of perspiration began to trickle down his forehead. It was far from an ideal look.
The persuasive power of television also came to America when television networks hired news anchors based on their ability, calm manner, and, most importantly, their perceived trustworthiness. In those days, Americans saw the news presented by men like Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Howard K Smith, Walter Cronkite, or John Cameron Swayze. When they spoke, America watched, listened, and trusted what they were seeing and hearing.
That was over a half a century ago. The story today is far different. Our mass media is overloaded with on-air personalities whose pretty faces mask the agendas they are pushing. The public no longer trusts them. Since the days of Huntley and Brinkley we’ve had to invent new terms for what we’re viewing, terms like fake news, disinformation, etc. It’s so bad that it has become close parroting the language or George Orwell’s “1984.” It makes me wonder if it won’t be long till we see media personalities with names like Winston Smith and “Newspeak” cleverly crafted prevent those watching from being able to think at all.
I could go into more detail, but I don’t feel I need to. We all know what’s going on. You know it. I know it.
There’s a part of me that longs for the bygone days, the days when trust was the coin of the realm. We need more “muckrakers” like Lincoln Steffens and Ida Tarbell to root out corruption. We need more journalists like Gareth Jones who refuse to be puppets of politicians and their agendas. We need to stop rushing headlong into disaster. We need to go Back!