Americans expecting a hero's farewell speech—the kind that General Douglas MacArthur gave at West Point one year later—were surprised by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's final address from the Oval Office on January 17, 1961, which lasted a mere 10 minutes. It would take a man of his military standing and experience—he led America and her allies to victory as supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe in World War II—to deliver what would become known as the military-industrial complex speech.
But Eisenhower, who'd just completed two terms leading the world's largest economy, military force and military budget, didn't just set his sights on the Pentagon. He issued similar warnings, and expressed similar worries, about two other segments of our economy where large corporate interests and big government contracts converged: science and technology.
Much has been written about Eisenhower's fear of the military-industrial complex but little about the latter. Indeed, little to nothing has been written about Eisenhower's prophetic warning about government capture by our scientific and technological elites, an issue that would propel President Donald Trump to victory and begin a top-to-bottom review of government waste, fraud and abuse. And a review of the contracting and procurement process itself, with the advent of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Trump and led by one of the world's greatest technology, data and engineering minds: Elon Musk.
Ike started his short farewell speech with some broad and positive strokes:
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.
But it didn't take long for Eisenhower to set up the broader theme of his speech, which was his sensible fear of ever-growing federal bureaucracies, especially those designed to solve our nation's ills or crises.
In meeting them...there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research—these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
Eisenhower was just getting started, and his words that follow resonate more today than they did six decades ago.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped-for advantage, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
Eisenhower, no peacenik, then began the better-known part of his speech aimed at our military spending and preparedness—and the ever-growing scale of both.
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 statehouse, 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.
Then came the part of the speech few Americans today know anything about—but should. Ike turned his attention to the revolution occurring in America's scientific and technology sectors.
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.
And then came Eisenhower's prophetic warning about American public policy being held hostage by America's scientific and technology elites.
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.
Few called into question Eisenhower's national defense bona fides as he called for a national dialogue and review of our nation's defense spending. Critics hell-bent on passing off Ike's concerns as endangering our national defense would have seen their remarks fall on deaf ears.
Many media critics are attacking the upside-down review of America's biggest and smallest federal bureaucracies by Musk and his band of data and engineering geeks, but they are precisely the kinds of people predisposed to find such waste, fraud, abuse and regulatory and government capture. And government corruption too.
Indeed, Musk and his team are doing the very job America's press should have been doing over the past 50 years: uncovering government waste, fraud, abuse and regulatory capture. Rather than serve the public, as the Fourth Estate should, many in the media have become defenders of the state and its vast and complex powers.
The fact is, Americans on the left, right and in between should be cheering on the work DOGE is doing on our behalf. Our nation's companies and families do the very same work each and every day in boardrooms and at kitchen tables alike. We routinely analyze our allocation of resources, figuring out how best to trim our costs, adjust budgets and renegotiate contracts with vendors and contractors we do business with. Or drop them altogether.
In the coming weeks and months, Americans should ignore the critics screaming the loudest about how Musk and his team are destroying the fabric of our government. Many of them have the most to lose, from funding sources to raw political power.
It's "We the People" who have the most to gain from Trump's efforts with DOGE. And our government institutions too.
)
English (US) ·