Remembering the last Non Politician President of the United States: Gral Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear readers,

Non politicians can be very interesting national leaders since they have non ideological minds, so they are by definition non partisan ones. This means to have several times more brain plasticity to accept new ideas and to deal with any type of people.

They prefer practical solutions of very complicate problems, than intricate theoretical schemes, so they can easily taste new methods or approaches if it is necessary. In that sense they are ideal leaders to coordinate very diverse teams to move on extremely difficult projects, as well as from crisis.

They are skilled to put together antagonist parts to work for common goals, and to remain open to all the possibilities so they can refine plans under changing conditions and succeed breaking old paradigms.

History has showed that in general these kind of leaders that suddenly arrived to power without really coming from the conventional political background in many cases are great Leaders in time of necessary change, they have the ability to find and walk through paths that a conventional politician probably never would take, since also he never should be able to see.

Figures like Catherine the 2nd of Russia, Queen Victoria of England, Sun Yat-sen , Nelson Mandela, Lecht Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Corazon Aquino, Violeta Chamorro, and even George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Simon Bolivar or the Pope John XXIII are counted among these strange enigmatic leaders that became head of government or State of incredible unexpected success with almost none previous political expertise.

In the case of America we still remember General Dwight Eisenhower who had a terrific performance as Commander in Chief of all allies troops in Europe during World War II and suddenly became Republican Nominee and President in 1953.

His Presidency marked a time of great development of civil works along the country, his are the most impressive National Highways ever built, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the establishment of strong science education via the National Defense Education Act, and encouraged peaceful use of nuclear power via amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.

It was under his command that it was founded the American Space program and the NASA, as well as the introduction of the civil rights agenda in public schools.

Internationally he gained respect for the way he was able to settle down Korea war and also actively help to conclude through diplomatic means the Suez canal war. His agenda for middle east was brilliant, without involving the country actively in Israel issues he was able to get the confidence and friendship of many Arab nations in a determinant moment of the cold war. On the domestic front, he covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking executive privilege

www.whitehouse.gov...

United States never before or even after have had so extraordinary nice macroeconomic indicators and strongest leadership position in the world than the ones that correspond to the two Eisenhower terms ( 1954-1961), it was a time of economic and social progress still remembered with Nostalgia by the few elders that are still alive and recall it.

In his January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower expressed his concerns about the dangers of massive military spending, particularly deficit spending and government contracts to private military manufacturers, and coined the term "military–industrial complex'. If subsequent administrations would observed and respected his recommendations probably our economy might be not absolutely broken under the weight of many basically useless wars.

Please read:

www.youtube.com...

The thread is open to discuss the benefits of to have non Political figures leading key periods of History and help nations to move on and create a new momentum toward full development.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

I hop yore not comparing trump to Eisenhower. The mighty Trump , who has not only 0 political or law and legal experience, never served in the military, not a philanthropist, not an activist, or has done anything substantial for society, avoided paying taxes and is still being audited by the irs.

But he is what's best for Americans right now. What i never thought this last sentence is something anyone would utter..

a reply to: odzeandennz

Hi, I was not really expecting that the first reply was going to arrive in a so sensitive approach.

Now if the question is that the No politicians that arrived suddenly to power all had a so impressive resume looklike Eisenhower, the answer is of course No.

Two of the figures of the list were even in Jail before to Jump into leadership of their nations: Walesa and Mandela. Two other were widows of public figures but with no political experience: Chamorro and Aquino.

Thanks for the comment,

The Angel of Lightness

There is much to be learned from DDE.
Sadly, most people today refuse to pick up a book and learn from past great leaders of America.

Back in the early 60s, I received a reel to reel tape player / recorder one year, as a present on my birthday. It was from a veteran who had worked on the Manhattan Project / Trinity Project. On the player, when I received it, was a copy of Eisenhower's farewell address. The man told me I probably wouldn't understand the full meaning at the time, but to keep it as eventually I would. After the disastrous outcome of U.S. military operations in south-east Asia, I did.

Human beings in general, refuse to learn from their own history. I fear greatly that the only thing that will teach young people today is another major militarily conflict. 151 years have passed since the last military operations on American soil, I hope it will be another 150 years personally. If the average American citizen was aware of what was taking place, I mean as in the last 24 Hrs., they would be horrified. All I can say at present, is be prepared and not be shocked or surprised by anything that takes place over the next 64 days.

God bless the United States of America

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

Dear faltsbush71,

The farewell speech of President Eisenhower was a vision of future, a rare flash of inspiration that once in a million comes to the mind of a great man in a position of power in which God let him know the reality of what is happening in that moment and what it was going to occur after it.

I think that speech belongs not to the History of Politics but to the one of Prophetic experience into modern History, together with the Secrecy or Secret societies speech of John F Kennedy and the Crisis of Confidence or Malaise Speech of Jimmy Carter.

They practically resume all together the troubles and problems that characterize the so deep crisis we have at present in America and how they become the conundrums that we have now.

Thanks for your reply,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

How can you validate the claim of

Non politicians can be very interesting national leaders since they have non ideological minds, so they are by definition non partisan ones. This means to have several times more brain plasticity to accept new ideas and to deal with any type of people.

?

You can be very idealogical about many things without being a politician, I'm really not sure why you would think otherwise.

a reply to: uncommitted

The answer is very simple: When you are not a politician but a leader you can embrace certain practical results of a body of ideas to solve a situation, but that does not mean you are married with the entire ideological framework they come from.

When you are the militant of a political party you don't have the same liberty, since your entire career depends on that affiliation. You are in the hands of the ideological leaders of that organization, they are the one that decide for you what it is right and what it is Not.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: uncommitted

The answer is very simple: When you are not a politician but a leader you can embrace certain practical results of a body of ideas to solve a situation, but that does not mean you are married with the entire ideological framework they come from.

When you are the militant of a political party you don't have the same liberty, since your entire career depends on that affiliation. You are in the hands of the ideological leaders of that organization, they are the one that decide for you what it is right and what it is Not.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

I don't agree with your comments above, but it still doesn't make any more sense of what you originally wrote. I have many strong ideals, I'm sure you do too. I'm not a politician and I'm sure you aren't either. QED, your statement in the OP is incorrect - there is no debate about it.

a reply to: uncommitted

Everybody has his or her own values and principles code that is perfectioned along life, from experience and knowledge, but that does not mean that you must enroll yourself entirely in a political ideology.

When a person divides its ticket in an election voting for different party candidates for state congress, federal congress, governor and President is not renouncing to his or her principles, it is just showing how ecleptic his points of view about government they are.

A person can be Liberal in certain aspects, but conservative in others and even socialist or libertarian in others.

When somebody marry a person of other church or religion or allow a son or daughter to do so also is showing he or she does not belong to a militant ideology, not that is lacking of principles or ideals.

Non politician leaders have their own personal values and principles.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

But Ronald Reagan was an actor...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Briefly, and many still remember that he did a lot of politics expurgating Hollywood of communists in his job in the Actors union.

He changed career after he was banned by many studios for his political extremism. Then he became full time politician.

He was governor of California since more than a decade before to be President, at that time he was fully dedicated to politics.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

He also switched political affiliations when he went into office at the insistence of his wife (who was the conservative influence on him).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, Ronald Reagan changed political preferences and also affiliation not following suggestion of his wife, as a matter of fact he destroyed his own marriage by doing so.

When Reagan moved from the Democratic party to the Republican party it was the time of Macartism and he was marry with Jane Whyman, who didn't like at all the new ideas of her husband.

Please check:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, why to insist to mention Ronald Reagan in this thread? He was clearly a politician since many years before to arrive to power, in spite that he was also a frustrated move star at some point.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness