How Newt Gingrich Saved the Military Industrial Complex

[davidswanson]

The idea of economic conversion, of retooling and retraining pieces of the military industrial complex to build what other wealthy nations have (infrastructure, energy, education, etc.) converged with the end of the Cold War two decades back. It was time for a peace dividend as well as a little sanity in public spending. Among the cosponsors of a bill to begin economic conversion in the late 1980s was a guy by the name of Leon Panetta.

Standing in the way was Congressman Newt Gingrich (Republican, Lockheed Martin).

As Mary Beth Sullivan recounts ( http://MIC50.org ),

"On the first day of the opening of the 101st Congress, Speaker [Jim] Wright convened a meeting of members who had proposed economic conversion legislation, and their aids. The purpose was to ensure that all proposals be joined into one, and that this legislation be given priority. To dramatize the importance of this bill, it would be given number H.R. 101."

Seymour Melman, a leading proponent of the bill recounts what happened:

"Supporters of such an initiative did not reckon with the enormous power of those opposed to any such move toward economic conversion. In the weeks that followed, these vested interests waged a concerted and aggressive campaign in Congress and the national media to bring down Jim Wright over allegations of financial misconduct."

"The allegations," Sullivan writes, "had little substance, but Newt Gingrich, representing a headquarters district of Lockheed Martin, led the Republican attack. Sadly, they won. According to Melman, 'Their media campaign drowned out any further discussion of economic conversion … A historic opportunity had been destroyed."

The military industrial complex survived and thrived and is growing even to this moment with plans to grow on into the foreseeable future, even as we're falsely told it's being cut back. Our nation trails others in the areas of education, health, retirement security, life expectancy, infant mortality, environmental sustainability, poverty, and -- in so far as anyone has measured it -- happiness. Instead we have a military that costs as much as the rest of the world's put together, and much of the rest of the world's is purchased from our weapons makers. We have aircraft carriers, bombs, missiles, helicopters, bases, drones, and billionaires to make up for our crappy schools and lousy trains.

While I understand how exciting Newt Gingrich's sex life may be, there may be other things he has to answer for as well.

[villager]

1. "...even as we're falsely told it's being cut back"

i.e., it continues to metastasize with the complicity of Democrats as well. Alas.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

2. Complicity, that began during WWII, in the middle the Democratic Party's most powerful era.

Over the holidays, I was thumbing through a book one of my guests was reading and the title of chapter on this subject caught my eye. I read the entire chapter and it was the most insightful explanations of how the MIC and the federal government developed what was essentially a joint venture.

Industrial production jumped from a trickle to full production and everyone was so busy focusing on the war before them, that they were not watching what was going on behind them. Eisenhower was in charge of the military strategy and had a major influence on the industrial decisions regarding military hardware. I was astounded as I was reading that on a number of occasions, he had to battle these guys, after they influenced Congress to alter his decisions. He complained at one point that he was spending more time fighting the MIC, than the Nazis.

He continued having disagreements with them when he became President. Having fought the MIC from both the military and civilian sides, Eisenhower knew more than anyone, how serious a threat they were.

I know this is a Democratic site, but I came to the conclusion that Eisenhower was far more concerned about what was in the nation's interest, than many on the other side of the isle. And I now hold him in the highest regard.

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.

[villager]

3. Well, he certainly warned us in his exit speech. Yet his cabinet picks (Dulles Brothers, anyone?)

...helped cement the MIC's grip on America, to its woe up to the present moment...

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

5. Eisenhower had to acquiesce to the reality of politics as Allied Commander; so he wasn't naive,

but upon making the transition from military "CEO" to government CEO, he was perturbed by the degree of consideration that political concerns, had on policy decisions. He was not accustomed to sitting at a conference table that was muddled with irrelevancies, and it was difficult for him to adapt to this method of planning.

The reality of politics, affects a misadjusted focus that blurs the view of everyone involved. And it would be irrational to think that it did not affect Eisenhower.

In no way am I suggesting that Republicans were guided by Boy Scout like principles; but they simply did not possess the level of power that Democrats wielded during that period. I shudder to consider the range of disastrous possibilities cast by the thought of inverting that equation.

Still, the more I learn about Eisenhower, suggests that he sought to implement policies independent of influence of the two political parties. Likewise, as Allied Commander, he was essentially an empathic man of peace, fighting a war for the purpose of implementing peace.

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. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.[/]

[mojowork_n]

4. So what was the name of the book? the author?

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

6. I have dispatched an email for the purpose of responding to your query.

Edited: MIC was replaced with the acronym, MICC: Military Industrial Congressional Complex.