The latest issue of The American Conservative has arrived in my mailbox, and I’m honored to have an essay included in a cover symposium observing the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Farewell Address,” which he delivered on January 17, 1961. The speech includes Eisenhower’s famous warning against the “military-industrial” complex; my own contribution reflects on Eisenhower’s warnings against the rise of a “scientistic” mentality (indeed, the famous phrase was winnowed down from its original iteration as “the military-industrial-scientific complex.” Also discarded was the phrase “the military-industrial-congressional complex” – either of which would have been accurate fears to warn against). I use the occasion to reflect on America’s dual legacy regarding its views on science – with its dominant tradition tending to embrace the Baconian legacy of science providing for “the relief of the human estate,” but also recognizing the existence of a “second voice” that has been a critical witness to the costs and abuses of the scientific enterprise and its fetish for “progress” at any price.

The symposium includes really fine essays by Robert Schlesinger (who offers a background about the speech, and from whom I learned of these various iterations); Michael Desch (who takes issue with Eisenhower’s warning and instead lays the blame of American militarism on the Left); Lew Rockwell (who indicts Eisenhower’s deep complicity in supporting the very complex he criticized – including his support for the interstate highway system); and FPR’s own Bill Kauffman, who recalls Eisenhower’s anti-war Jayhawk roots.

I can’t think of a publication in America that would run such a symposium, all really smart reflections on Eisenhower’s underappreciated speech, but all very different in their sentiments and concerns. Credit and praise goes to TAC’s superb editor, Daniel McCarthy. If you’re not a subscriber, you should be.

Local Culture
Local Culture
Local Culture
Local Culture


  1. Thank you Patick for pointing out TAC has a new editor. I just purchased a new subscription, actually re-newed, on account of the information in your article. I let my subscription run out in early 2009 after the former “Obamacon” editor McConnell voiced his intention of voting for our future president in a late 2008 issue. In response to an email I sent, the earnest request from Ms. Hopkins to reconsider was unpersuasive.

    I am looking foward to the latest issue of TAC under the editorship of the “un-Obamacon” Mr. McCarthy.

  2. Incredible — only a few days ago I had a conversation with someone about this speech, and made the remark that I would love to hear someone more insightful than myself reflect on it today. Ask, and ye shall receive!

    I’m having trouble recalling whether The American Conservative is typically available at newsstands. Should I expect to find one with a little searching, or is it better to request/purchase the issue online?

  3. Funny thing about this comment is that everyone forgets the historical context. Eisenhower may not have liked a military-industrial complex, but his solution wasn’t exactly a rethinking of America’s strategic posture. Rather, he used covert action and built up America’s nuclear deterrent. The 1950s were the “golden age” of US covert action (Iran, Guatemala, Cuba if Ike got his way); why have a large army when the CIA could accomplish things with very few people? Likewise, he used the procurement of new and improved nuclear weapons to justify cutting the size of the military. In a funny way, Ike was trying to use technology to square the circle of how a republic can continue to exist with a large standing military. Obviously, he was ridiculously naive, but it would be nice to have people asking those questions today.

Comments are closed.