Waiting For Eisenhower

Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot,” is seen by most as a tragicomedy about the meaningless of life but humanity’s will to live in spite of this, as the tramps on a bench and visitors quarrel and contemplate various subjects. At end, the tramps are still sitting on their bench, filling space with words but not their lives with substance.

That seems to characterize most of our current discussions about who is to be elected president in 2008.

David Broder, ever a chronicler of Washington’s words, describes a poll in which by 3-1 the security of the U.S. should be our primary goal rather than enlarging democracy abroad.:

What people really want is a way of looking at the world – and understanding America’s part in it – a narrative that would replace the rejected Bush scenario….[quoting William Galston of the centrist-liberal Brookings Institution] “People are looking for a candidate who suggests a way to defend our essential interests while regaining some of our lost esteem.”

Who is up to the task?

The description of Americans’ yearnings is on target. What isn’t is the reality of the yearning. It seems a throwback to our feelings about the – in fond memory, but less so in fact -- halcyon 1950’s days of President Eisenhower.

Although the U.S. and its interests and allies were far less secure than fond memories, the United States is no longer fairly safe behind the distance of oceans, nor overwhelming nuclear forces and seeming willingness to use them, nor economically secure behind the singular dominance of international commerce, nor even part of an international or domestic elite consensus on the superiority of Western civilization, nor is there anyone of Eisenhower’s proven global experience and stature.

Nor is there a candidate whose public and private dealings are either above reproach or allowed to appear so by a muckraking press or political opponents’ exposure. An Associated Press-IPSOs poll “says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.” Eisenhower’s affair during WWII, remember, wasn’t revealed till well after his presidency.

Another stark difference between then and now is that our media and political elites weren’t determined to reveal U.S. secret programs, including the low cost upending of petty despots deemed a threat to our interests or international stability. Imagine Venezuela’s Chavez being deposed by the C.I.A. today?

In short, we are not able to return to the 1950’s – even if they were as wonderful as childish memories.

Indeed, what’s most striking about our yearnings is that they are almost childish. We yearn for security with little price, exertion or self-responsibility from ourselves.

Not only is our defense budget as a proportion of our economy a fraction of during the 1950’s, not to mention the 1980’s, but our direct participation in defense is buffered by a superb but burdened volunteer force, and most continue to ignore the ability and willingness of terrorist fanatics to strike right here.

Amidst this, there’s no one among our prospective candidates, or only passingly and without emphasis or conviction, willing to stress the need to pay the prices, exert ourselves, and take personal self-responsibility for the needs and self-restraint.

If we’re to enjoy even a slight resemblance to the 1950’s or come closer to our yearnings, it will take leadership not evident and our maturity as a people, nation and civilization, also not evident.

Otherwise, calculating pols reading polls will continue to just pander to unrealistic yearnings, while real threats are ignored till crashing down on our bench. Words and idle musings are not enough.